“我们收到了天朝的快件”:19世纪《潘趣》杂志中来自中国的突发新闻

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
J. Sample
{"title":"“我们收到了天朝的快件”:19世纪《潘趣》杂志中来自中国的突发新闻","authors":"J. Sample","doi":"10.1080/08905495.2023.2198161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 22 August 1841, The Sunday Times called out The Times for calling out The Morning Chronicle for publishing fake news. The Sunday Times noted that The Times had not only also published the same news that The Morning Chronicle had published, but that The Times did so in two different sections of the same paper, once in a “City-article,” where the news was identified “as ‘a hoax’ and, as such, ‘believed everywhere’” and again in a section with news from Paris where it was “the prominent feature” and reported “as if it were gospel” (“The Times and the Herald,” 1841). The news was about an imperial edict issued by the Emperor of China banning the export of tea and rhubarb. The news was published in The Times a day after The Spectator had been careful to question “the authenticity of the intelligence” (“Postscript,” 1841), and, in fact, The Times had also speculated that the story may have been planted “for the sake of immediate return” in the Parisian press by “Mincing-lane,” which was the center of the tea and spice trade, a suggestion that led The Sunday Times to quip that The Times was “skilled in the mystery of concocting news for special purposes” (“The Times and the Herald,” 1841). The Sunday Times, notably, also pointed out that The Times had first reported the ban on 3 August 1841 and was, therefore, a potential source for the original story published in The Morning Chronicle. On 28 August 1841, one week after The Sunday Times called out The Times, Punch, or The London Charivari also reported on “the last order of the government, prohibiting the exportation of tea and rhubarb” in “Important News from China. Arrival of the Overland Mail!” (74), the firstever article about China to appear in the periodical (74). Unlike The Times, The Sunday Times, The Morning Chronicle, and The Spectator, Punch sourced the news about the export ban to “expresses” that came directly “from the Celestial Empire” by way of Punch’s “own private electro-galvanic communication” (74). Punch further asserted that this “rapid means of transmission” carried “dispatches so fast that” the writers for Punch “generally get them before they are written” (74). Reports about the export ban appeared in newspapers throughout August of 1841 and provided Punch with the perfect opportunity to play the foil. Not only did the news involve an empire with which the British Empire was at war, but the story also displayed an absurdist wit that aroused uncertainties associated with the presence of China in the lives of the British: what was British culture in the nineteenth century without things","PeriodicalId":43278,"journal":{"name":"Nineteenth-Century Contexts-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":"45 1","pages":"165 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“We have received expresses from the Celestial Empire”: breaking news from China in nineteenth-century Punch\",\"authors\":\"J. Sample\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08905495.2023.2198161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"On 22 August 1841, The Sunday Times called out The Times for calling out The Morning Chronicle for publishing fake news. The Sunday Times noted that The Times had not only also published the same news that The Morning Chronicle had published, but that The Times did so in two different sections of the same paper, once in a “City-article,” where the news was identified “as ‘a hoax’ and, as such, ‘believed everywhere’” and again in a section with news from Paris where it was “the prominent feature” and reported “as if it were gospel” (“The Times and the Herald,” 1841). The news was about an imperial edict issued by the Emperor of China banning the export of tea and rhubarb. The news was published in The Times a day after The Spectator had been careful to question “the authenticity of the intelligence” (“Postscript,” 1841), and, in fact, The Times had also speculated that the story may have been planted “for the sake of immediate return” in the Parisian press by “Mincing-lane,” which was the center of the tea and spice trade, a suggestion that led The Sunday Times to quip that The Times was “skilled in the mystery of concocting news for special purposes” (“The Times and the Herald,” 1841). The Sunday Times, notably, also pointed out that The Times had first reported the ban on 3 August 1841 and was, therefore, a potential source for the original story published in The Morning Chronicle. On 28 August 1841, one week after The Sunday Times called out The Times, Punch, or The London Charivari also reported on “the last order of the government, prohibiting the exportation of tea and rhubarb” in “Important News from China. Arrival of the Overland Mail!” (74), the firstever article about China to appear in the periodical (74). Unlike The Times, The Sunday Times, The Morning Chronicle, and The Spectator, Punch sourced the news about the export ban to “expresses” that came directly “from the Celestial Empire” by way of Punch’s “own private electro-galvanic communication” (74). Punch further asserted that this “rapid means of transmission” carried “dispatches so fast that” the writers for Punch “generally get them before they are written” (74). Reports about the export ban appeared in newspapers throughout August of 1841 and provided Punch with the perfect opportunity to play the foil. Not only did the news involve an empire with which the British Empire was at war, but the story also displayed an absurdist wit that aroused uncertainties associated with the presence of China in the lives of the British: what was British culture in the nineteenth century without things\",\"PeriodicalId\":43278,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nineteenth-Century Contexts-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"165 - 179\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nineteenth-Century Contexts-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08905495.2023.2198161\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nineteenth-Century Contexts-An Interdisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08905495.2023.2198161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1841年8月22日,《星期日泰晤士报》呼吁《泰晤士报》谴责《晨报》发布假新闻。《星期日泰晤士报》指出,《纽约时报》不仅还发表了同样的消息,早晨纪事报》已经出版,但《纽约时报》在两种不同部分的同一篇论文中,一次“商业”的消息被确认”作为“恶作剧”和,因此,认为无处不在”,在一段新闻从巴黎“突出特征”,报道“好像是福音”(《泰晤士报》和《先驱报》,“1841)。这个消息是关于中国皇帝颁布的禁止出口茶叶和大黄的诏书。在《旁观者》小心翼翼地质疑“情报的真实性”(《后记》,1841年)的第二天,《泰晤士报》发表了这则消息。事实上,《泰晤士报》也曾猜测,这个故事可能是“明宁巷”(Mincing-lane)在巴黎媒体上“为了立即得到回应”而栽赃的。这里是茶叶和香料贸易的中心,这让《星期日泰晤士报》(the Sunday Times)打趣说,时报“擅长为特殊目的炮制神秘的新闻”(《泰晤士报与先驱报》,1841年)。值得注意的是,《星期日泰晤士报》也指出,《星期日泰晤士报》在1841年8月3日首次报道了这项禁令,因此,《晨报》最初发表的报道可能是该报的消息来源。1841年8月28日,也就是《星期日泰晤士报》刊出《泰晤士报》、《Punch》、《伦敦Charivari》一周后,《中国重要新闻》也报道了“政府的最后命令,禁止出口茶叶和大黄”。陆路邮件到达!(74),这是该期刊上第一篇关于中国的文章。与《泰晤士报》、《星期日泰晤士报》、《晨报》和《旁观者》不同的是,Punch将出口禁令的消息直接从“天朝”“快递”中获取,通过Punch“自己的私人电流通讯”(74)。Punch进一步断言,这种“快速的传播方式”传送“消息如此之快,以至于”Punch的作者“通常在写出来之前就得到了消息”(74)。关于出口禁令的报道出现在整个1841年8月的报纸上,为潘趣提供了发挥陪衬作用的绝佳机会。这个新闻不仅涉及一个与大英帝国处于战争状态的帝国,而且还展示了一种荒诞的机智,引起了与中国在英国人生活中的存在有关的不确定性:19世纪没有东西的英国文化是什么
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“We have received expresses from the Celestial Empire”: breaking news from China in nineteenth-century Punch
On 22 August 1841, The Sunday Times called out The Times for calling out The Morning Chronicle for publishing fake news. The Sunday Times noted that The Times had not only also published the same news that The Morning Chronicle had published, but that The Times did so in two different sections of the same paper, once in a “City-article,” where the news was identified “as ‘a hoax’ and, as such, ‘believed everywhere’” and again in a section with news from Paris where it was “the prominent feature” and reported “as if it were gospel” (“The Times and the Herald,” 1841). The news was about an imperial edict issued by the Emperor of China banning the export of tea and rhubarb. The news was published in The Times a day after The Spectator had been careful to question “the authenticity of the intelligence” (“Postscript,” 1841), and, in fact, The Times had also speculated that the story may have been planted “for the sake of immediate return” in the Parisian press by “Mincing-lane,” which was the center of the tea and spice trade, a suggestion that led The Sunday Times to quip that The Times was “skilled in the mystery of concocting news for special purposes” (“The Times and the Herald,” 1841). The Sunday Times, notably, also pointed out that The Times had first reported the ban on 3 August 1841 and was, therefore, a potential source for the original story published in The Morning Chronicle. On 28 August 1841, one week after The Sunday Times called out The Times, Punch, or The London Charivari also reported on “the last order of the government, prohibiting the exportation of tea and rhubarb” in “Important News from China. Arrival of the Overland Mail!” (74), the firstever article about China to appear in the periodical (74). Unlike The Times, The Sunday Times, The Morning Chronicle, and The Spectator, Punch sourced the news about the export ban to “expresses” that came directly “from the Celestial Empire” by way of Punch’s “own private electro-galvanic communication” (74). Punch further asserted that this “rapid means of transmission” carried “dispatches so fast that” the writers for Punch “generally get them before they are written” (74). Reports about the export ban appeared in newspapers throughout August of 1841 and provided Punch with the perfect opportunity to play the foil. Not only did the news involve an empire with which the British Empire was at war, but the story also displayed an absurdist wit that aroused uncertainties associated with the presence of China in the lives of the British: what was British culture in the nineteenth century without things
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Nineteenth-Century Contexts is committed to interdisciplinary recuperations of “new” nineteenth centuries and their relation to contemporary geopolitical developments. The journal challenges traditional modes of categorizing the nineteenth century by forging innovative contextualizations across a wide spectrum of nineteenth century experience and the critical disciplines that examine it. Articles not only integrate theories and methods of various fields of inquiry — art, history, musicology, anthropology, literary criticism, religious studies, social history, economics, popular culture studies, and the history of science, among others.
×
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