DOCSLIB.ORG

'I Only Got One Little Peep': George Iii's Family and Satirical Prints

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'I Only Got One Little Peep': George Iii's Family and Satirical Prints Podcast transcript 'I ONLY GOT ONE LITTLE PEEP': GEORGE III'S FAMILY AND SATIRICAL PRINTS Hello and welcome to a podcast from Royal Collection Trust. Today's lecture at The Queen’s Gallery, Buckingham Palace is given by Kate Heard, Senior Curator of Prints and Drawings at Royal Collection Trust. In this lecture we will hear Kate examine the complex relationship between George III, his family and the satirists who made a living poking fun at the establishment. Other talks and lectures within our events programme can be found using our What's on guide on our website. High Spirits: The Comic Art of Thomas Rowlandson has proved a wonderful chance to put on display some of the finest prints and drawings by Thomas Rowlandson in the Royal Collection. Today, I would like to talk a little bit about the works by Rowlandson in the Collection before focusing on one of the central themes of the exhibition – the royal collecting of satirical prints during the reigns of George III and George IV. Why did the monarchs who were so often the butt of the caricaturists' jokes form such an important and comprehensive collection of the very works that ridiculed them? Thomas Rowlandson was born in London in 1757. The son of a bankrupt textile merchant, he was brought up by his aunt and uncle, wealthy silk weavers. Rowlandson's life would prove every bit as dramatic as his works, of which he could have been, and sometimes was, a subject. His proficiency as an artist was clear from an early stage and he was sent to the Royal Academy, where his studies were sponsored by his aunt. At the Academy, he clearly excelled at sculpture, for which he was awarded a silver medal in 1777. He had travelled to Paris a few years earlier to study with the respected French sculptor Jean-Baptiste Pigalle. <Footer addr ess> Rowlandson was not to become a sculptor, despite his early promise. His first exhibited work at the Academy was a (now lost) drawing of Delilah visiting Sampson in prison, and he was to continue exhibiting drawings over the next few years. These works were not satirical, but evidence of his work at the time shows that he had the key skills for a good satirical artist – the ability to capture a likeness, and a quick and light touch with his pen. This drawing of his fellow students at work was made in 1776. It is typical of his work at this time, and also shows that Rowlandson had an ability to convey humour in the most conventional of scenes. And so, when Rowlandson left the Academy in 1778, he found work as a designer and etcher of satirical prints. How he became involved with the print trade is unclear, but it may have been through his tutor John Hamilton Mortimer, himself a satirical printmaker. Early prints include Italian Affectation, a satire of the Italian opera singer Gaspare Pacchierotti and a companion, which was published in 1780. At the age of twenty-six, Rowlandson began to work with the publisher who would make him one of the best-known satirical printmakers of the age. This was William Humphrey, a printseller and publisher based in Old Bond Street, and the brother of Hannah Humphrey, James Gillray's patron. The project which appears to have brought Rowlandson and Humphrey together is a series of prints on the Election of 1784. This was one of the high points of the long-running rivalry between the Whig Charles James Fox and the Tory, William Pitt, who were vying for control of government. During the course of the election campaign, Rowlandson produced numerous prints for Humphrey capturing the canvassing on the part of the candidates for the hotly-contested Westminster borough, and particularly enjoying the reputedly scandalous conduct of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, who campaigned for Fox, and Albinia, Countess of Buckinghamshire, who campaigned for Pitt. Rowlandson was one of the most prolific satirists who produced prints on the Westminster election, and his reputation began to rise as a result. By 1793, the publisher Samuel William Fores was using the fact that his shop stocked 'all Rowlandson's works' as a key selling point for his business. Rowlandson's numerous political prints prompt the question of his own political allegiances – in fact, it seems that, like most contemporary satirical printmakers, his work did not favour one party, and his personal views are not known. In early 1784, he produced both The Champion of the People, which supported Fox, and The Covent Garden Nightmare, which attacked Fox. We know that he was paid on occasion to produce propaganda – such as The Contrast of 1792, which was circulated in bulk around the country in an attempt to prevent the spread of Revolutionary ideas from France. As a political satirist, Rowlandson needed to work fast to keep up with current affairs, as what was topical one day would be out of date a few days later. He worked at a prodigious rate – in 1809 he produced 27 satires on the scandalous affair of the Duke of York and Mrs Mary Ann Clark in just 44 days. But this was not the entirety of his output: at the same time as he was producing political prints, he was making social satires – humorous illustrations of everyday life, which had a much longer shelf-life. And he also produced thousands of drawings, many of them for sale to collectors for framing and hanging, or for pasting into albums. Many of these are topographical scenes, not intended to be comical but nonetheless showing Rowlandson's lightness of touch and humorous outlook on life. Two of his most important drawings are in the Royal Collection and are featured in the exhibition. Showing military reviews, they were purchased by the Prince of Wales already framed for hanging at one of his residences. Much of Rowlandson's frenetic activity must have been due to his financial situation. Supported by his aunt after his father's bankruptcy, he inherited her modest fortune in 1789, which he promptly drank and gambled away as part of a fast set of artists and actors. By 1799, he was living in dismal lodgings, and on the verge of penury. It was at this point that the fashionable London publisher Rudolph Ackermann stepped forward to offer Rowlandson work as a book illustrator. For Ackermann, Rowlandson was a well-respected, fashionable illustrator, whose work on books would add to their appeal. For Rowlandson, Ackermann offered an additional source of income. When Rowlandson died, on 21 April 1827, his days of poverty were clearly past. He left a large collection of prints and drawings by himself and by others, which was sold by the auctioneer Samuel Leigh Sotheby in 1828. His entire estate, which came to £2985 17s 11d after all payments had been deducted, was left to Elizabeth Winter, who had lived with him for at least twenty years and who was sometimes referred to as 'Mrs Rowlandson' although they do not appear to have been married. Thomas Rowlandson left behind him a vast output of thousands of prints and drawings, numerous illustrated books, and a legacy of humorous illustration which would prove perennially popular in the succeeding years. Among the most enthusiastic collectors of his and other satirists' works were George III and his family. But they were often also the butt of cruel satirical prints. Why did they form such a large and important collection? For the rest of this lecture, I would like to look at the royal family as collectors of satirical prints, by Rowlandson and by other artists, to try to discover something of their interests and concerns. Satirical representations of the royal family ranged from the gentle to the vicious. At the soft end of the scale were such works as The Prince’s Bow which mocked the extravagant bow the Prince of Wales gave at the trial of Warren Hastings, a copy of which the Prince himself purchased in 1790. And we know that he purchased a print of Rowlandson’s Money Lenders, the earliest comment on his increasing debts, a month after its publication in November 1784. Such satires were probably even seen as flattering by a young buck who was enjoying making his mark as a leader of London fashionable society. His debts did not worry him, and at least every one had noticed the bow. Others members of the family were also the target of gently humorous barbs: in Taking Physick or the News of Shooting the King of Sweden, Gillray has great fun imagining the king and the queen disturbed on the toilet by William Pitt, who brings news of a royal assassination. The humour lies in the transposing of the enthroned couple to these less regal seats (albeit still with a coat of arms behind them), and also in the capturing of the King’s famous use of 'what what' in conversation: ‘What! Shot? What what what! Shot! Shot! shot!’ he exclaims in horror. Gillray famously criticised the King's ability to appreciate art in his A Connoisseur examining a Cooper of 1792. Said to be Gillray's riposte to a slight by the King, who had dismissed some of the artist's drawings, the print shows a myopic George III examining a miniature by the light of a candle. It is no coincidence that the miniature depicts Oliver Cromwell. Despite this slur on the royal ability to appreciate art, Fanny Burney records a wonderful example of George III enjoying a satirical print in March 1788, when she and some friends were looking at Henry Bunbury’s Propagation of a Lie over tea 'This I had produced here a month ago, to show to our tea-party, and just as it was in the hands of Colonel Welbred, His Majesty entered the room; and, after looking at it a little while, with much entertainment, he took it away to show it to the Queen and Princesses.' The astonishing thing is that the King should not have enjoyed the Propagation of a Lie at all as it is thought to refer to the illicit and illegal marriage of the Prince of Wales to Maria Fitzherbert.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Caricature: the Loaded Drawing
    Caricature: The Loaded Drawing The taste of the day leans entirely to caricature. We have lost our relish for the simple beauties of nature. We are no longer satisfied with propriety and neatness, we must have something grotesque and disproportioned, cumbrous with ornament and gigantic in its dimensions Morning Chronicles 1 1, August, 1796 Exaggeration in visual expression is found in nearly all cultures and throughout most historical periods. What this paper will discuss is the use of caricature to communicate satirical/humorous content in visual genres of Western Europe and specifically 18th Century England by highlighting the work of James Gillray. Caricature of Libyan leader Caricature is a form of visual exaggeration/distortion Muammar Gaddafi held by that generally pertains to the human face and/or figure drawn protestors on 2. 27. 2011. Source: NY Times online for humorous, critical or vindictive motives. As the title suggests, a particular facial part is exaggerated to catch the viewers’ attention and relate that quality to underlying aspects of the personality – hence a caricature is a portrait that is loaded with meaning rather than mere description. The centuries old premise to this interpretation is that outward appearances belie personality traits. A second interpretation of caricature - and the one this paper focuses on - combines the transformative aspects of caricature rendering techniques with satire to produce graphic images that provoke meaning in political, social and moral arenas. A verbal cousin to visual caricature is satire. Satirizing the human condition is as universal as exaggeration, and while found in early Greco- Roman art and literature wanes through the medieval period.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's Defeat in the American Revolution: Four British Cartoons, 1782
    MAKING THE REVOLUTION: AMERICA, 1763-1791 PRIMARY SOURCE COLLECTION __BRITAIN’S DEFEAT IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: FOUR BRITISH CARTOONS, 1782__ * The rattlesnake as a symbol of the American colonies originated with Benjamin Franklin’s Join or Die cartoon of 1754, which he printed above his newspaper essay urging unity among the colonies for defense against the French and Indians on the frontier. So in 1782, as Britain was reeling from defeat and maneuvering through treaty negotiations with the U.S. and its allies, English cartoonists relished portraying the U.S. as a vengeful and menacing rattlesnake. Europeans had long been fascinated by accounts of the rattlesnake’s threat and prowesswhich translated into “deceitful foe”and yet the cartoonists’ awe of the coiled muscular reptile is evident. The United States was a power to contend with, period, and the standard symbol of an Indian princess for America was no longer apt. Rarely printed in newspapers at the time, political cartoons were usually published by printmakers as large etchingsthe four in this selection average 9 x 13½ inches. They were called satires or caricatures; the term cartoon was not commonly applied to such illustrations until the mid 1800s. What impressions do the cartoonists give of the U.S. and Britain in these satires? How do they characterize the nations’ new The American Rattle Snake, London, 12 April 1782 relationship in 1782? How do they The British Lion engaging Four Powers, London, 14 June 1782 acknowledge that the U.S. is, in- deed, a nation among nations? The American Rattlesnake presenting Monsieur Franklin’s cartoon in his Philadelphia Paradice Lost [sic], London, 10 May 1782 his Ally a Dish of Frogs, London, 8 November 1782 Gazette, 9 May 1754 * ® Copyright © National Humanities Center, 2010/2013.
    [Show full text]
  • The King Falls Into the Hands Ofcaricature
    Originalveröffentlichung in: Kremers, Anorthe ; Reich, Elisabeth (Hrsgg.): Loyal subversion? Caricatures from the Personal Union between England and Hanover (1714-1837), Göttingen 2014, S. 11-34 Werner Busch The King Falls into the Hands of Caricature. Hanoverians in England Durch die Hinrichtung Karls I. auf Veranlassung Cromwells im Jahr 1649 wurde das Gottesgnadentum des Konigs ein erstes Mai in Frage gestellt. Als nach dem Tod von Queen Anne 1714 die Hannoveraner auf den englischen Thron kamen, galten diese den Englandern als Fremdlinge. 1760 wurde mit Georg III. zudem ein psychisch labiler, spater geisteskranker Konig Regent. Als 1792 der franzdsische Konig Ludwig XVI. inhaftiert und spater hingerichtet wurde, musste das Konigtum generell um seinen Fortbestand fiirchten. In dieser Situation bemdchtigte sich die englische Karikatur endgilltig auch der koniglichen Person. Wie es schrittweise dazu kam und welche Rolle diesfilr das konig- liche Portrat gespielt hat, wird in diesem Beitragzu zeigen sein. If I were to ask you how you would define the genre of caricature, then you would perhaps answer, after brief reflection that Caricature is basically a drawing reproduced in newspapers or magazines that comments ironically on political or social events in narrative form and both satirises the protagonists shown there by exaggerating their features and body shapes on the one hand and by reducing them at the same time to a few typical characteristics on the other hand characterising them unmistakably. Perhaps you would then add that the few typical characteristics of well-known peo­ ple become binding stereotypes in the course of time and as such are sufficient to let the person become instantly recognisable.
    [Show full text]
  • Satirical Epitaph for King George III After the Defeat of Britain
    MAKING THE REVOLUTION: AMERICA, 1763-1791 PRIMARY SOURCE COLLECTION * This 1782 broadsidea satirical “epitaph” for King George III after Britain’s defeat in the Revolutionwas published by the noted Philadelphia printer, Francis Bailey. As official printer for Congress and Pennsylvania during the war, Bailey had published many official documents including the Declaration of Independence. His press poured forth annual almanacs, editions of the New Testament, a newspaper The Freeman’s Journal, and a monthly magazine entitled The United States Magazine. Known as a fervent Patriot (and later anti-Federalist), Bailey may have penned this scathing and provocative condemnation of George III and Parliament. It’s quite a piece: in one page it encapsulates the history of the Revolutionary period, voices the Patriots’ utter contempt for British leadership, and celebrates in verbal fireworks and graphic flourish the triumph of the “thirteen glorious republics.” [See annotated text on the following pages.] * ® Copyright © National Humanities Center, 2013. AMERICA IN CLASS : americainclass.org/. Broadside (40 x. 29 cm.) reproduced by permission of the Library Company of Philadelphia. Complete image credits at americainclass.org/sources/makingrevolution/imagecredits.htm. EPITAPH __Broadside published by Francis Bailey, printer, Philadelphia, 1782; 40 x 29 cm. (15.7 x 11.4 in.) __ __TEXT OF EPITAPH__ __ANNOTATIONS__ INDIGNANT Reader, Library of Congress Whoever thou art, more especially an AMERICA N, Lift up thine eyes, be thankful, rejoice, and behold! On a level with former Tyrants, Knock’d down and tumbled in the dust like his equestrian statue at New-York. Relinquished, utterly rejected, and deposited, French depiction of the destruction of the statue of King George III in New York City, July 9, 1776; 177-, detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Emma and “The Children in Brunswick Square” : U
    y y Emma and “the children in Brunswick Square” : u : LAURIE KAPLAN Laurie Kaplan, Professor of English and Academic Director of George Washington University’s England Center, has published essays on Jane Austen, Tom Stoppard, Paul Scott, and women writers of the First World War. She is a former editor of Persuasions . “‘To give up one’s child! ’” I C O J A ’ Emma , on the evening of Miss Taylor’s marriage to Mr. Weston, when Emma and her father are feeling abandoned and bereft, Mr. Knightley arrives at Hartfield “directly from their mutual con - nections in London . to say that all were well in Brunswick-square” (9). 1 A contemporary reviewer of Emma “commended” Austen in The Champion for her choice of John and Isabella Knightleys’ neighborhood : “ when we are occa - sionally transported to London, our authoress has the originality to waive Grosvenor or Berkeley-squares, and set us down in humble Brunswick- square ” ( qtd. in Cronin and McMillan 534). While Austen’s syntax empha - sizes “Brunswick-square,” critics have commented upon the airy neighb orhood where Mr. Knightley’s brother and Emma’s sister live only in the broader con - text of London. Yet, Austen repeats Brunswick Square so many times (eleven, in fact) that the square functions as an iconic (perhaps ironic) motif . But how does this notch in a corner of Bloomsbury resonate in the context of a novel that seems to focus more specifically on Hartfield and Highbury? What is Brunswick Square to Emma , and what is Emma to Brunswick Square? The recurring reference to Brunswick Square may be one of the reasons Jane Austen was reluctant to dedicate her novel to the Prince Regent.
    [Show full text]
  • Sarah Siddons and Mary Robinson
    Please do not remove this page Working Mothers on the Romantic Stage: Sarah Siddons and Mary Robinson Ledoux, Ellen Malenas https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/discovery/delivery/01RUT_INST:ResearchRepository/12643459340004646?l#13643538220004646 Ledoux, E. M. (2014). Working Mothers on the Romantic Stage: Sarah Siddons and Mary Robinson. In Stage Mothers: Women, Work, and the Theater, 1660-1830 (pp. 79–101). Rowman & Littlefield. https://doi.org/10.7282/T38G8PKB This work is protected by copyright. You are free to use this resource, with proper attribution, for research and educational purposes. Other uses, such as reproduction or publication, may require the permission of the copyright holder. Downloaded On 2021/09/28 21:58:31 -0400 Working Mothers on the Romantic Stage Sarah Siddons and Mary Robinson Ellen Malenas Ledoux 1 March 2013 A smooth black band drawn over an impossibly white neck, a luminous bust barely concealed under fashionable dishabillé, powdered locks set off by a black hat profuse with feathers--these focal points, and many others, are common to two of the Romantic-era’s most famous celebrity portraits: Sir Joshua Reynolds’s “Mrs. Mary Robinson” (1782) and Thomas Gainsborough’s “Sarah Siddons” (1785). (See figure 1.) Despite both drawing on modish iconography in their choice of composition, pose, and costume, Reynolds and Gainsborough manage to create disparate tones. Siddons awes as a noble matron, whereas Robinson oozes sexuality with a “come hither” stare. The paintings’ contrasting tones reflect and promulgate the popular perceptions of these two Romantic-era actresses from the playhouse and the media. In the early 1780s Siddons was routinely referred to as a “queen” or a “goddess,” whereas Robinson was unceremoniously maligned by her detractors as a “whore.”1 Current scholarship on Siddons and Robinson devotes considerable attention to how these women’s semi-private sexual lives had major influence over their respective characterizations.
    [Show full text]
  • British Humour Satirical Prints of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries
    British Humour Satirical Prints of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries Comics and caricatures were born in eighteenth-century Europe. While the Enlightenment8 gave rise to a culture of criticism, the bolder art of ridicule can be credited to innovative artists responding to great social changes of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This exhibition focuses on three generations of British satirists pioneering this new form: William Hogarth, James Gillray and Thomas Rowlandson, and George Cruikshank. Hogarth, the “grandfather of the political cartoon,” lampooned the mores and behaviors of the ruling class, but no class, station, or profession was above his reproach. Following his example, Gillray and Rowlandson became thorns in the sides of aristocratic and public leaders by styling a new form of caricature with exaggerated features and proportions. Cruikshank, from a family of satirists, was able to imitate the style of Gillray so closely that Gillray’s publisher, Hannah Humphrey, hired him to complete projects the older artist left unfinished, and he was hailed in his lifetime as a “Modern Hogarth.” But comedy is serious business, because it speaks truth to power. These artists were at turns threatened, bullied, and bribed; they became part of the very debates they depicted and derided. Each succeeded because they created and then fulfilled the demands of a highly engaged citizenry, which is part of any democratic society valuing freedom of debate and expression. Modern counterparts, from editorial cartoons to The Daily Show, continue their tradition. William Hogarth (British, 1697–1764) The complete series Marriage à la Mode, 1745 Etching and engraving on paper Prints made by Gérard Jean-Baptiste Scotin II Gift of Museum Associates (2008.16.1-6) Hogarth’s Marriage à la Mode was his first series of satirical images that focused on elite British society.
    [Show full text]
  • Grosvenor Prints Catalogue
    Grosvenor Prints Tel: 020 7836 1979 19 Shelton Street [email protected] Covent Garden www.grosvenorprints.com London WC2H 9JN Catalogue 110 Item 50. ` Cover: Detail of item 179 Back: Detail of Item 288 Registered in England No. 305630 Registered Office: 2, Castle Business Village, Station Road, Hampton, Middlesex. TW12 2BX. Rainbrook Ltd. Directors: N.C. Talbot. T.D.M. Rainment. C.E. Ellis. E&OE VAT No. 217 6907 49 1. [A country lane] A full length female figure, etched by Eugene Gaujean P.S. Munn. 1810. (1850-1900) after a design for a tapestry by Sir Edward Lithograph. Sheet 235 x 365mm (9¼ x Coley Burne-Jones (1833-98) for William Morris. PSA 14¼")watermarked 'J Whatman 1808'. Ink smear. £90 275 signed proof. Early lithograph, depicting a lane winding through Stock: 56456 fields and trees. Paul Sandby Munn (1773-1845), named after his godfather, Paul Sandby, who gave him his first instructions in watercolour painting. He first exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1798 and was a frequent contributor of topographical drawings to that and other exhibtions. Stock: 56472 2. [A water mill] P.S. Munn. [n.d., c.1810.] Lithograph. Sheet 235 x 365mm (9¼ x 14¼"), watermarked 'J Whatman 1808'. Creases £140 Early pen lithograph, depicting a delapidated cottage with a mill wheel. Paul Sandby Munn (1773-1845), named after his godfather, Paul Sandby, who gave him his first instructions in watercolour painting. He first exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1798 and was a frequent contributor of topographical drawings to that and other exhibtions.
    [Show full text]
  • James Gillray's Representation of King George Iii in Monstrous Craws at a New Coalition Feast (1787)
    SEAT OF POWER, SITE OF SATIRE: JAMES GILLRAY'S REPRESENTATION OF KING GEORGE III IN MONSTROUS CRAWS AT A NEW COALITION FEAST (1787) By LORA REMPEL B.A., University of British Columbia, 1989 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Fine Arts) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May 1992 ©Copyright Lora Rempel, 1992 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. (Signature) Department of FINE ARTS The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date MAY 25. 1992 DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Two features that were viewed by Britons as distinguishing their nation from other Western countries in late-eighteenth century were its Constitutional Monarchy and the comparative freedoms enjoyed by the press. Graphic political satire lies at the juncture of these two features. This thesis examines the dual role that graphic caricatures of King George III played as satirical commentary and as political critique on the unique political stage of "out-of-doors" politics in the 1780s.
    [Show full text]
  • House of Lords Library: Gillray Collection
    Library: Special Collections House of Lords Library: Gillray Collection The House of Lords Library Gillray collection was acquired in 1899 as a bequest from Sir William Augustus Fraser (1826–1898). The collection consists of eleven folio volumes, retaining Fraser’s fine bindings: half red morocco with elaborate gold tooling on the spines. Ownership bookplates on the verso of the front boards show Fraser’s coat of arms and some of the prints bear his “cinquefoil in sunburst” collector’s mark. The volumes are made up of leaves of blue paper, on to which the prints are pasted. Perhaps surprisingly, given the age of the paper and adhesive, there is no evident damage to the prints. Due to the prints being stored within volumes, light damage has been minimised and the colour is still very vibrant. The collection includes a few caricatures by other artists (such as Thomas Rowlandson) but the majority are by Gillray. It is possible that the prints by other artists were mistakenly attributed to Gillray by Fraser. Where Fraser lacked a particular print he pasted a marker at the relevant chronological point in the volume, noting the work he still sought. These markers have been retained in the collection and are listed in the Catalogue. The collection includes some early states of prints, such as Britania in French Stays and a few prints that are not held in the British Museum’s extensive collection. For example, Grattan Addresses the Mob is listed in Dorothy George’s Catalogue as part of the House of Lords Library’s collection only.1 Volume I includes a mezzotint portrait of the author by Charles Turner, and two manuscript letters written by Gillray; one undated and addressed to the artist Benjamin West; the other dated 1797 and addressed to the publisher John Wright.
    [Show full text]
  • Vaccines: a Hot Topic Once Again
    FEATURE Vaccines: A Hot Topic Once Again Larry Lynam, DSc1 and Melory Johnson, VN2/ 1Principal, The Lynam Group, LLC, Coral Springs, FL; 2Principal, MJ Medcom, LLC, Boca Raton, FL ABSTRACT movement has become more effective than ever. Even with our Since Edward Jenner’s day, there has been a steady improve- miraculous strides toward eliminating diseases that once dev- ment in vaccine science, including numerous advances in pro- astated entire populations, we find ourselves, yet again, face- duction, quality, efficacy, and safety. Vaccines have long been to-face with misinformed “anti-vaxxer” propaganda. regarded as one of the most significant contributions to public Presently, Ebola is spreading in the Democratic Republic health since clean water. Yet, for as long as there have been of the Congo (DRC), where, for the first time since its discov- vaccines, there has been an anti-vaccination movement. The ery in 1976, a vaccine is available. Despite this momentous 18th century “anti-vaxxers” posed arguments eerily similar to breakthrough, we find vaccine implementation hindered and those raised today. Twenty-first century anti-vaxxers repeat the distribution delayed by geographic challenges, financial short- same antiquated and discredited sentiments as did those in comings, political obstacles, and—worse still—by warring fac- Jenner’s day, only with updated scare-tactics and more embel- tions, disinformation campaigns, and anti-vaxxers. Failure to lished “truths.” Although their claims are scientifically illogi- contain this currently
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Aesthetic Intersections
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Aesthetic Intersections: Portraiture and British Women’s Life Writing in the Long Eighteenth Century A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English by Flavia Ruzi September 2017 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Adriana Craciun, Chairperson Dr. George Haggerty Dr. Malcolm Baker Copyright by Flavia Ruzi 2017 ii The Dissertation of Flavia Ruzi is approved: Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside iii Acknowledgments This dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance and support of my committee, who have stood relentlessly beside me through every step of the process. I am immensely grateful to Adriana Craciun for her continued faith in my project and in my capacity to meet her ambitious expectations. She has made me a better writer and a more sophisticated thinker. I would also like to express my gratitude to Malcolm Baker, who has patiently born with my literary propensities through my examination of art historical materials. His dedicated guidance has enabled me to discuss such materials in each chapter with the art historical rigor they deserve. The interdisciplinary impetus of my project would not have been possible without him. And I would like to thank George Haggerty, who has been there for me since the first day of my graduate career and continues to inspire me with his unabating love for eighteenth- century literature. The reading group he organized for me and my friend, Rebecca Addicks-Salerno, was instrumental in the evolution of my project. Our invaluable conversations ensured that my dissertation was not a lonely and isolated process but the product of an eighteenth-century-salon-like culture of enjoyable intellectual exchange.
    [Show full text]