Physical puritanism and religious dissent: the case of John Young (1820-1904), Sunderland chemist and druggist and Methodist lay preacher.

M. Clement
{"title":"Physical puritanism and religious dissent: the case of John Young (1820-1904), Sunderland chemist and druggist and Methodist lay preacher.","authors":"M. Clement","doi":"10.1093/SHM/11.2.197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"Physical puritanism\", the name given to the popular medical reform movements of early Victorian Britain by the Edinburgh academic Samuel Brown, nicely evokes their links with religious dissent. While historians have examined the formal organization, leadership, and membership of several of these movements, we know very little about the ways of thinking of their ordinary adherents. The diary of John Young (1820-1904), a Sunderland chemist and druggist and local preacher of the Wesleyan Methodist Association, affords unrivalled insights into the mind of one \"physical puritan\". In particular, Young's reading of the Edinburgh physician and phrenologist Andrew Combe's influential work Principles of Physiology (1834) can be examined in detail. Virginia Smith has argued that such advice books are valuable in providing access to lay ideas about health. Their readership, however, has not been studied. This article offers a case study which calls into question Smith's assertion that the new utilitarian popular physiology of the 1830s and 1840s was valued principally for the physical benefits offered by its therapies, so distinguishing it from its more spiritually-oriented eighteenth-century antecedents. I argue that the natural theology which marks Combe's work was important in helping dissenters like Young to appropriate new ideas (in particular ideas derived from the popular science of phrenology) not only to promote physical health, but also to assist in attaining spiritual goals. For some of their readers, Combe and Wesley were not so far apart.","PeriodicalId":68213,"journal":{"name":"医疗社会史研究","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"医疗社会史研究","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/SHM/11.2.197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

"Physical puritanism", the name given to the popular medical reform movements of early Victorian Britain by the Edinburgh academic Samuel Brown, nicely evokes their links with religious dissent. While historians have examined the formal organization, leadership, and membership of several of these movements, we know very little about the ways of thinking of their ordinary adherents. The diary of John Young (1820-1904), a Sunderland chemist and druggist and local preacher of the Wesleyan Methodist Association, affords unrivalled insights into the mind of one "physical puritan". In particular, Young's reading of the Edinburgh physician and phrenologist Andrew Combe's influential work Principles of Physiology (1834) can be examined in detail. Virginia Smith has argued that such advice books are valuable in providing access to lay ideas about health. Their readership, however, has not been studied. This article offers a case study which calls into question Smith's assertion that the new utilitarian popular physiology of the 1830s and 1840s was valued principally for the physical benefits offered by its therapies, so distinguishing it from its more spiritually-oriented eighteenth-century antecedents. I argue that the natural theology which marks Combe's work was important in helping dissenters like Young to appropriate new ideas (in particular ideas derived from the popular science of phrenology) not only to promote physical health, but also to assist in attaining spiritual goals. For some of their readers, Combe and Wesley were not so far apart.
物理清教主义和宗教异议:约翰·杨(1820-1904)的案例,桑德兰化学家、药剂师和卫理公会的世俗传教士。
爱丁堡学者塞缪尔•布朗(Samuel Brown)给维多利亚时代早期英国流行的医疗改革运动起了一个“身体清教主义”(Physical puritanism)的名字,很好地唤起了他们与宗教异见的联系。虽然历史学家已经研究了其中几个运动的正式组织、领导和成员,但我们对这些运动的普通追随者的思维方式知之甚少。约翰·杨(John Young, 1820-1904)是桑德兰的一位化学家和药剂师,也是卫斯理卫理公会(Wesleyan Methodist Association)的当地传教士。他的日记提供了对一位“身体清教徒”心灵的无与伦比的洞见。特别是,杨阅读了爱丁堡医生和颅相学家安德鲁·库姆(Andrew Combe)的影响深远的著作《生理学原理》(Principles of Physiology, 1834)。弗吉尼亚·史密斯(Virginia Smith)认为,这些建议类书籍在提供有关健康的非专业观点方面很有价值。然而,他们的读者群还没有被研究过。本文提供了一个案例研究,对史密斯的断言提出质疑,即19世纪30年代和40年代的新功利主义流行生理学主要是因为其疗法提供的身体益处而受到重视,从而将其与更以精神为导向的18世纪前辈区分开来。我认为,标志着库姆作品的自然神学对于帮助像杨这样的持不同政见者接受新思想(特别是来自颅相学的流行科学的思想)不仅促进身体健康,而且有助于实现精神目标非常重要。对于他们的一些读者来说,库姆和韦斯利并没有太大的区别。
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
0.00%
发文量
140
×
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