“热情和冷静的判断”:廉价仓库和英国慈善机构,1794-1800

M. Webber
{"title":"“热情和冷静的判断”:廉价仓库和英国慈善机构,1794-1800","authors":"M. Webber","doi":"10.18357/TAR0120103261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1794, English philanthropist Hannah More spearheaded a venture to produce short tracts promoting morality and religion among readers ―the Cheap Repository. The predominant historiographical approach has been to examine the interaction of the Repository with the popular print marketplace. Historians such as Susan Pedersen emphasize that the tracts were intended to supplant subversive forms of popular literature, such as Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man , chapbooks, and broadsides. They argue that the Cheap Repository was an attempt at “top-down” reformation; elite writers sought to suppress the turbulence and political participation of the poor. This paper takes an alternate approach. The tracts are charitable texts which addressed middling and gentry readers as much as (or even more than) they did the poor. The Repository did not isolate labouring people and their print culture as the sole threats to the stability of England, nor did it engage solely in “top-down” moralizing. This essay shows how the Repository lays blame on the charitable practices of state poor relief and rich beneficiaries ―as well as the poor― for encouraging immorality and unrest. The Cheap Repository seeks to reform the meaning and practice of charity amongst all members of English society.","PeriodicalId":143772,"journal":{"name":"The Arbutus Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1969-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Warm zeal and cool judgement”: The cheap repository and English charity, 1794-1800\",\"authors\":\"M. Webber\",\"doi\":\"10.18357/TAR0120103261\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 1794, English philanthropist Hannah More spearheaded a venture to produce short tracts promoting morality and religion among readers ―the Cheap Repository. The predominant historiographical approach has been to examine the interaction of the Repository with the popular print marketplace. Historians such as Susan Pedersen emphasize that the tracts were intended to supplant subversive forms of popular literature, such as Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man , chapbooks, and broadsides. They argue that the Cheap Repository was an attempt at “top-down” reformation; elite writers sought to suppress the turbulence and political participation of the poor. This paper takes an alternate approach. The tracts are charitable texts which addressed middling and gentry readers as much as (or even more than) they did the poor. The Repository did not isolate labouring people and their print culture as the sole threats to the stability of England, nor did it engage solely in “top-down” moralizing. This essay shows how the Repository lays blame on the charitable practices of state poor relief and rich beneficiaries ―as well as the poor― for encouraging immorality and unrest. The Cheap Repository seeks to reform the meaning and practice of charity amongst all members of English society.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143772,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Arbutus Review\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1969-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Arbutus Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18357/TAR0120103261\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Arbutus Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18357/TAR0120103261","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1794年,英国慈善家汉娜·莫尔(Hannah More)发起了一项冒险活动,在读者中制作宣传道德和宗教的小册子——《廉价书库》(Cheap Repository)。主要的史学方法是研究库与流行印刷市场的相互作用。苏珊·彼得森(Susan Pedersen)等历史学家强调,这些小册子旨在取代颠覆性的通俗文学形式,如托马斯·潘恩(Thomas Paine)的《人权》(Rights of Man)、小册子和海报。他们认为廉价存储库是一种“自上而下”改革的尝试;精英作家试图压制动荡和穷人的政治参与。本文采用了另一种方法。这些小册子是慈善文本,针对中产阶级和绅士的读者与穷人一样多(甚至更多)。《书库》并没有孤立劳动人民和他们的印刷文化,认为这是对英国稳定的唯一威胁,它也没有只从事“自上而下”的道德说教。这篇文章展示了《储存库》是如何指责国家救济穷人和富人受益人以及穷人的慈善行为鼓励不道德和动荡的。“廉价仓库”试图在英国社会的所有成员中改革慈善的意义和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Warm zeal and cool judgement”: The cheap repository and English charity, 1794-1800
In 1794, English philanthropist Hannah More spearheaded a venture to produce short tracts promoting morality and religion among readers ―the Cheap Repository. The predominant historiographical approach has been to examine the interaction of the Repository with the popular print marketplace. Historians such as Susan Pedersen emphasize that the tracts were intended to supplant subversive forms of popular literature, such as Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man , chapbooks, and broadsides. They argue that the Cheap Repository was an attempt at “top-down” reformation; elite writers sought to suppress the turbulence and political participation of the poor. This paper takes an alternate approach. The tracts are charitable texts which addressed middling and gentry readers as much as (or even more than) they did the poor. The Repository did not isolate labouring people and their print culture as the sole threats to the stability of England, nor did it engage solely in “top-down” moralizing. This essay shows how the Repository lays blame on the charitable practices of state poor relief and rich beneficiaries ―as well as the poor― for encouraging immorality and unrest. The Cheap Repository seeks to reform the meaning and practice of charity amongst all members of English society.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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