Introduction: Queen Anne's Bounty
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notes Introduction: Queen Anne’s Bounty 1. For the twentieth-century tradition, see Sheila Biddle, Bolingbroke and Harley (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974); David Green, Queen Anne (London: William Collins, 1970); Geoffrey A. Holmes, British Politics in the Age of Anne (London: St Martin’s Press, 1967); and G. M. Trevelyan, England under Queen Anne, 3 vols (London: Longman, 1934). 2. Edward Gregg, Queen Anne (London: Routledge, 1980); R. O. Bucholz, The Augustan Court: Queen Anne and the Decline of Court Culture (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993). See also Rachel J. Weil, Political Passions: Gender, the Family and Political Argument in England, 1680–1714 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), ch. 7; and Carol Barash, English Women’s Poetry, 1649–1714: Politics, Community and Linguistic Authority (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. 216–36. 3. Christopher Hibbert, The Marlboroughs: John and Sarah Churchill, 1650–1744 (London: Viking, 2001), pp. 90–1; Toni Bowers, The Politics of Motherhood: British Writing and Culture, 1680–1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 87–8. 4. Gregg, Queen Anne, p. 400. 5. James I, Basilikon Doron,inThe Political Works of James I, ed. Charles Howard McIlwain (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1918), p. 5. 6. Jeff Weintraub, ‘The Theory and Politics of the Public/Private Distinction’, in Public and Private in Thought and Practice: Perspectives on a Grand Dichotomy, ed. Jeff Weintraub and Krishan Kumar (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), p. 5. 7. Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989). This work was first published in German as Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit in 1962, but was not translated into English until 1989. 8. As Michael Warner has argued, the original German, ‘öffentlichkeit’, sug- gests something more like a quality of ‘openness’ or ‘publicness’. Publics and Counterpublics (New York: Zone Books, 2002), p. 47. 9. Jürgen Habermas, ‘The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article’, New German Critique 1, no. 3 (Autumn 1974): 51. 10. Joan DeJean, Ancients against Moderns: Culture Wars and the Making of a Fin De Siècle (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), p. 37. 11. Habermas, Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 56. 12. Michael Warner, ‘The Mass Public and the Mass Subject’, in The Phantom Public Sphere, ed. Bruce Robbins (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), p. 239. See also Warner, Publics and Counterpublics; and Warner, The Letters of the Republic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990). 154 Notes 155 13. Joan Landes, Women and the Public Sphere in the Age of the French Revolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988), p. 7. See also DeJean, Ancients against Moderns; Marie Fleming, ‘Women and the “Public Use of Reason”’, in Feminists Read Habermas: Gendering the Subject of Discourse, ed. Johanna Meehan, Thinking Gender (New York: Routledge, 1995); Nancy Fraser, ‘Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy’, in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992). 14. See, for example, the figure of Miss Faction in the Spectator no. 81 (11 June 1711). Dagmar Friest provides a genealogy of the gendering of opinion in Governed by Opinion: Politics, Religion and the Dynamics of Communication in Stuart London, 1637–1645 (London: I. B. Tauris, 1997); while Hans Joachim Neubaurer does the same for rumour in The Rumour: A Cultural History (London: Free Association Books, 1999). 15. Sarah Maza, Private Lives, Public Affairs: The Causes Célèbres of Prerevolutionary France (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), p. 209. 16. Those engaged in this critical project include Alexandra Halasz who chal- lenges the notion that the public sphere expresses a rational consensus through an examination of late sixteenth century pamphlets in The Market- place of Print: Pamphlets and Public Spaces in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Joan DeJean, who argues that the public sphere was a seventeenth century French phenomenon in Ancients against Moderns; and most recently David Zaret, who suggests that the public sphere emerged in and around the civil war in Origins of Democratic Culture: Print- ing, Petitions and the Public Sphere in Early Modern England (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000). Other studies include: Paula McDowell, The Women of Grub Street: Press, Politics, and Gender in the London Literary Marketplace, 1678–1730 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998); Freist, Gov- erned by Opinion; Kathleen Wilson, The Sense of the People: Politics, Culture and Imperialism in England, 1715–1785 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 17. Brian Cowan, ‘What Was Masculine About the Public Sphere? Gender and the Coffeehouse Milieu in Post-Restoration England’, History Workshop Journal, no. 51 (Spring 2001): 127–8. David Zaret makes a similar point and describes ‘unmasking the ideological façade of the public sphere’ as ‘a popular academic pastime’. Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture, p. 33. 18. Michael McKeon, The Secret History of Domesticity: Public, Private, and the Division of Knowledge (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), pp. xix, 323–4. 19. Warner, Publics and Counterpublics, p. 67. 20. Zaret, Origins of Democratic Culture, pp. 13–14, ch. 7. 21. Warner, Letters of the Republic, pp. 34–70. A good illustration of this is provided by readers’ reaction to printed works that used the script font devised by Ichabod Dawks. In The Tatler, Steele characterized Dawks’s newsletter as an uncomfortable hybrid: ‘His Style is a Dialect between the Familiarity of Talking and Writing, and his Letter such that you cannot dis- tinguish whether Print or Manuscript.’ Tatler, no. 178 (30 May 1710), in The Tatler, ed. Donald F. Bond (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), vol. 2, p. 471. 156 Notes 22. Warner, Publics and Counterpublics, p. 123. 23. Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communica- tions and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe, 2 vols (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). Marshall McLuhan argues similarly that each technology of communication has an immanent logic that alters human perception in The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962); while Walter J. Ong adopts a comparable model of print technology, but offers a nostalgic account of the oral and manuscript culture it replaced in Orality and Literacy: The Technologising of the Word (London: Methuen, 1982). 24. Eisenstein, Printing Press as an Agent of Change, vol. 1, p. 117. Eisenstein identifies the features of print culture as the compilation, preservation, dissemination, standardisation, and reinforcement of knowledge. 25. Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). See also the debate between Johns and Eisenstein in the AHA Forum, ‘How Revolutionary was the Print Revolution?’, in the American Historical Review 107.1 (Feb 2002): 84–128. Michael Warner offers a compelling critique of the technological deter- minism of standard accounts of print culture in Letters of the Republic, pp. 1–33. 26. Roger Chartier, The Cultural Uses of Print in Early Modern France (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987); and Chartier, ‘Texts, Printing, Readings’, in The New Cultural History, ed. Lynn Hunt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). 27. Chartier, ‘Texts, Printing, Readings’; and Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven F. Rendall (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984). Recent critical work on scribal culture has also been impor- tant for redefining the role of the reader. The work of Margaret Ezell, Harold Love, and Arthur Marotti respectively has established that scribal and print publication co-existed as equally significant forms of public discourse until well into the eighteenth century, and demonstrated how changes in read- ership altered the meaning of the text. See Margaret J. M. Ezell, Social Authorship and the Advent of Print (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999); Harold Love, Scribal Publication in Seventeenth Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993); Arthur Marotti, Manuscript, Print and the English Renaissance Lyric (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995); and the collection of essays edited by Arthur F. Marotti and Michael D. Bristol, Print, Manuscript, and Performance: The Changing Relations of the Media in Early Modern England (Columbus: Ohio University Press, 2000). 28. Kevin Sharpe, Reading Revolutions: The Politics of Reading in Early Modern England (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000); Kevin Sharpe and Steven N. Zwicker, ‘Introduction: Discovering the Renaissance Reader’ in Reading, Society and Politics in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 1–40; Steven N. Zwicker, ‘The Constitution of Opinion and the Pacification of Reading,’ in Reading, Society and Politics in Early Modern England, ed. Kevin Sharpe and Steven N. Zwicker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Steven N. Zwicker, ‘Reading the Margins: Politics and the Habits of Appropriation’, in Refiguring Revolutions: Aesthet-