{"title":"Addison and the Victorians","authors":"B. Young","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198814030.003.0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The masculine world of Addison’s eighteenth-century ‘republic of letters’ was mirrored by that inhabited by Victorian ‘Men of Letters’, and hence much of the lively interest taken in him by nineteenth-century cultural commentators and makers of (and historians of) public opinion. The agnostic manliness of such men as Leslie Stephen and W. J. Courthope informed the way they wrote about Addison, whose Christianity they tended to slight and who was described by them as ‘delicate’. Macaulay had been more admiring of Addison as a Christian gentleman, while Thackeray praised him as an English humorist. Pope and Swift continued to enjoy an ascendancy in eighteenth-century English literary history, with Addison and Steele appreciated more for having been ‘characteristic’ of their age than as acting in any way as intellectually innovative figures. Matthew Arnold was notably critical of Addison, whom he found provincial and narrow. Both Addison and his Victorian critics were subjected to feminist criticism by Virginia Woolf, who happened to be Stephen’s daughter, but she in her turn slighted the most significant early Victorian study of Addison, the life written by the Unitarian Lucy Aikin. The ‘long nineteenth century’ in the English literary history of the eighteenth century is thus bookended by studies of Addison by women, and it is time that justice was paid to Aikin’s pioneering and still valuable study, submerged as it has been by readers of Macaulay’s essay on Addison, which was ostensibly a review of Aikin’s exercise in literary biography.","PeriodicalId":251014,"journal":{"name":"Joseph Addison","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Joseph Addison","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814030.003.0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The masculine world of Addison’s eighteenth-century ‘republic of letters’ was mirrored by that inhabited by Victorian ‘Men of Letters’, and hence much of the lively interest taken in him by nineteenth-century cultural commentators and makers of (and historians of) public opinion. The agnostic manliness of such men as Leslie Stephen and W. J. Courthope informed the way they wrote about Addison, whose Christianity they tended to slight and who was described by them as ‘delicate’. Macaulay had been more admiring of Addison as a Christian gentleman, while Thackeray praised him as an English humorist. Pope and Swift continued to enjoy an ascendancy in eighteenth-century English literary history, with Addison and Steele appreciated more for having been ‘characteristic’ of their age than as acting in any way as intellectually innovative figures. Matthew Arnold was notably critical of Addison, whom he found provincial and narrow. Both Addison and his Victorian critics were subjected to feminist criticism by Virginia Woolf, who happened to be Stephen’s daughter, but she in her turn slighted the most significant early Victorian study of Addison, the life written by the Unitarian Lucy Aikin. The ‘long nineteenth century’ in the English literary history of the eighteenth century is thus bookended by studies of Addison by women, and it is time that justice was paid to Aikin’s pioneering and still valuable study, submerged as it has been by readers of Macaulay’s essay on Addison, which was ostensibly a review of Aikin’s exercise in literary biography.
艾迪生笔下18世纪“文坛”的男性世界与维多利亚时代“文人”的世界相呼应,因此,19世纪的文化评论家和公众舆论的制造者(以及历史学家)对他产生了浓厚的兴趣。莱斯利·斯蒂芬(Leslie Stephen)和w·j·库索普(W. J. courtope)等人的不可知论男子气概影响了他们对艾迪生的描写,他们倾向于轻视艾迪生的基督教信仰,并将其描述为“微妙的”。麦考利更欣赏艾迪生是一位基督教绅士,而萨克雷则称赞他是一位英国幽默家。蒲柏和斯威夫特在18世纪的英国文学史上继续享有优势地位,而艾迪生和斯蒂尔更受欢迎的是他们作为那个时代的“特色”,而不是以任何方式作为智力创新的人物。马修·阿诺德(Matthew Arnold)尤其批评艾迪生,认为他既守旧又狭隘。艾迪生和他在维多利亚时代的批评者都受到了弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫的女权主义批评,而伍尔夫恰好是斯蒂芬的女儿,但她却忽视了维多利亚时代早期对艾迪生最重要的研究,即一神论者露西·艾金所写的生活。因此,十八世纪英国文学史上“漫长的十九世纪”被女性对艾迪生的研究所终结,现在是时候为艾金的开创性和仍然有价值的研究付出正义了,因为它被Macaulay关于艾迪生的文章的读者所淹没,这篇文章表面上是对艾金在文学传记中的实践的回顾。