William Hogarth and Richard Steele

IF 0.1 3区文学 0 LITERATURE

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY LIFE Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI:10.1215/00982601-9664410

Ronald Paulson, A. Marshall

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract:William Hogarth and Richard Steele were in many ways part of the same intellectual and religiopolitical milieu, one that also links them both to the radical Whig cleric Benjamin Hoadly. Modern scholars have almost always connected Steele to Joseph Addison, emphasizing Steele's morals-and-manners journalism—but this is not a fair representation of his output. Identifying the connections between Steele and Hogarth allows us to appreciate each man's more radical proclivities. Hogarth transforms Steele's populism into something still more radical, emphasizing religion, and to do so he exploits the greater flexibility, ambiguity, and complexity of the graphic mode. An examination of Steele and Hoadly, among other things, permits us to situate more precisely the "sacred parody" of Hogarth's major works on a grid of such terms as Radical Dissenter, Hoadlian Low Church-man, Deist, Enlightenment gentleman, and witty blasphemer.

查看原文本刊更多论文

威廉·贺加斯和理查德·斯蒂尔

摘要:威廉·霍加斯和理查德·斯蒂尔在很多方面都是同一个知识分子和宗教政治环境的一部分，这也将他们与激进的辉格党牧师本杰明·霍德利联系在一起。现代学者几乎总是把斯蒂尔和约瑟夫·艾迪生联系在一起，强调斯蒂尔的道德和礼仪新闻——但这并不是他作品的公平代表。确定斯蒂尔和贺加斯之间的联系，可以让我们欣赏到两人更激进的倾向。霍加斯将斯蒂尔的民粹主义转变为更激进的东西，强调宗教，为此，他利用了图形模式更大的灵活性、模糊性和复杂性。通过对斯蒂尔和霍德利的考察，我们可以更准确地将贺加斯主要作品的“神圣恶搞”定位在激进的异见者、霍德利低教会人士、自然神论者、启蒙运动绅士和机智的亵渎者等术语的网络上。

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

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY LIFE LITERATURE-

CiteScore

0.20

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Committed to interdisciplinary exchange, Eighteenth-Century Life addresses all aspects of European and world culture during the long eighteenth century, 1660–1815. The most wide-ranging journal of eighteenth-century studies, it also encourages diverse methodologies—from close reading to cultural studies—and it always welcomes suggestions for review essays, special issues, and innovative approaches. Among Eighteenth-Century Life’s noteworthy regular features are its film forums, its review essays, its book-length special issues, and the longest and most eclectic lists of books received of any journal in the field.