Political Godmother: Nackey Scripps Loeb and the Newspaper that Shook the Republican Party

IF 0.1 4区 历史学 Q3 HISTORY
M. Birkner
{"title":"Political Godmother: Nackey Scripps Loeb and the Newspaper that Shook the Republican Party","authors":"M. Birkner","doi":"10.1162/tneq_r_00912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Course of God’s Providence is framed as history but is likely to be most useful to scholars of religion and those interested in the doctrine of Providence. The author situates the central arguments within scholarly conversations about theology and secularism rather than the history of medicine, epidemics, reproductive health, or intersections between medicine and religion broadly conceived. Likewise, the analysis centers on ideas but not the historical contexts framing them. I kept wondering about the events taking place in eighteenthcentury America, Germany, and England as these texts about providence were written. I also would have loved to learn more about the yellow fever epidemic in the chapter on benevolent responses to the outbreak in Philadelphia. Readers unfamiliar with the history of medicine might find it useful to have a fuller discussion of the medical theories that underwrote the narratives of health in the book’s initial chapters. Whether by virtue of disciplinary norms or by design, the focus of this book is not historical events and lives; it is theology. Perhaps as a result of this focus and the author’s background in religious studies, the book at times overstates the originality of its historical claims. One example is when the author refers to accounts of suffering and death in the letters of Molly and Eli Forbes as an “overlooked story” since historians of early modern medicine “often focus on epidemics” (56). Far from overlooked, stories of everyday illness comprise an entire subfield on the history of the patient. One book cannot do everything, of course, and Koch’s deep focus on Providence provides a thought-provoking path for future scholarship on the fascinating intersections between religion, health, and medicine.","PeriodicalId":44619,"journal":{"name":"NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY-A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF NEW ENGLAND LIFE AND LETTERS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY-A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF NEW ENGLAND LIFE AND LETTERS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/tneq_r_00912","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Course of God’s Providence is framed as history but is likely to be most useful to scholars of religion and those interested in the doctrine of Providence. The author situates the central arguments within scholarly conversations about theology and secularism rather than the history of medicine, epidemics, reproductive health, or intersections between medicine and religion broadly conceived. Likewise, the analysis centers on ideas but not the historical contexts framing them. I kept wondering about the events taking place in eighteenthcentury America, Germany, and England as these texts about providence were written. I also would have loved to learn more about the yellow fever epidemic in the chapter on benevolent responses to the outbreak in Philadelphia. Readers unfamiliar with the history of medicine might find it useful to have a fuller discussion of the medical theories that underwrote the narratives of health in the book’s initial chapters. Whether by virtue of disciplinary norms or by design, the focus of this book is not historical events and lives; it is theology. Perhaps as a result of this focus and the author’s background in religious studies, the book at times overstates the originality of its historical claims. One example is when the author refers to accounts of suffering and death in the letters of Molly and Eli Forbes as an “overlooked story” since historians of early modern medicine “often focus on epidemics” (56). Far from overlooked, stories of everyday illness comprise an entire subfield on the history of the patient. One book cannot do everything, of course, and Koch’s deep focus on Providence provides a thought-provoking path for future scholarship on the fascinating intersections between religion, health, and medicine.
政治教母:Nackey Scripps Loeb和抨击共和党的报纸
上帝的天意历程被视为历史,但可能对宗教学者和对天意学说感兴趣的人最有用。作者将核心论点置于关于神学和世俗主义的学术对话中,而不是医学史、流行病、生殖健康或医学与宗教之间的交叉点。同样,分析的重点是思想,而不是构成思想的历史背景。当这些关于天意的文本被写出来的时候,我一直在想八世纪美国、德国和英国发生的事情。我也很想在费城疫情慈善应对章节中了解更多关于黄热病疫情的信息。不熟悉医学史的读者可能会发现,在书的最初几章中,更全面地讨论支撑健康叙事的医学理论是有用的。无论是出于学科规范还是出于设计,本书的重点都不是历史事件和生活;这是神学。也许是由于这种关注和作者的宗教研究背景,这本书有时夸大了其历史主张的独创性。一个例子是,作者将Molly和Eli Forbes的信中对痛苦和死亡的描述称为“被忽视的故事”,因为早期现代医学历史学家“经常关注流行病”(56)。日常疾病的故事构成了患者历史的整个子领域,这一点不容忽视。当然,一本书不可能无所不能,科赫对普罗维登斯的深入关注为未来研究宗教、健康和医学之间迷人的交叉点提供了一条发人深省的道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
50.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Contributions cover a range of time periods, from before European colonization to the present, and any subject germane to New England’s history—for example, the region’s diverse literary and cultural heritage, its political philosophies, race relations, labor struggles, religious contro- versies, and the organization of family life. The journal also treats the migration of New England ideas, people, and institutions to other parts of the United States and the world. In addition to major essays, features include memoranda and edited documents, reconsiderations of traditional texts and interpretations, essay reviews, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信