Ülevaade: 22. köide - viktoriaanlased

Ülevaade: 22. köide - viktoriaanlased

Aastal 1887 saadeti valitsusinspektorid uurima Londoni East Endi kurikuulsa 15 aakri suuruse slummi Old Nicholi kohutavaid-sageli surmavaid-elutingimusi. Muu hulgas leidsid nad, et mädanenud 100-aastased majad olid pealinnas nende puuduvate slumlordide jaoks ühed tulutoovamad kinnistud. Kuningriigi eakaaslased, kohalikud poliitikud, kirikumehed ja juristid said nendest surmapüünistest kasumit kuni 150 protsenti aastas. Varsti sai Vana Nichol avalikkuse tähelepanu keskpunktiks. Ajakirjanikud, vaimulikud, heategevustöötajad jt mõistsid selle 6000 elanikku purjusoleku ja kuritegevuse eest hukka. Lahendus sellele „probleemile” peitus internatsioonilaagrites, ütles mõned, või sunniviisiline väljaränne - isegi poliitika, mille eesmärk oli tõuaretuse vältimine. Üheksateistkümnenda sajandi viimasele viieteistkümnele aastale keskendunud filmi „The Blackest Streets” tegevus toimub Londoni ajaloo rahutul perioodil, mil õhus oli väga palju revolutsiooni - kui töötus, põllumajanduslangus ja koguduse abi leevendamine pakkusid kommunistidele kasvulava. ja anarhistid. Auhinnatud itaalia poisi autor Sarah Wise uurib statistika tegelikku elu-puidutöölisi, kalasuitsetajaid, tänavapuupidajaid ja palju muud. Ta kaevab Vana Nicholi ajaloo varemetest, paljastades sotsiaalsed ja poliitilised tingimused, mis lõid ja säilitasid selle musta augu, mis asus impeeriumi südames.


Lehe valikud

„Kui Suurbritannia tõepoolest laineid valitses, oli heal kuninganna Bessi ajal” selline hinnang hilise viktoriaanliku ajastu juhtiva satiiriku WS Gilberti kohta. (Ta pani need sõnad kuningriigi eakaaslase suhu koomilises ooperis „Iolanthe”, mille ta kirjutas koos Arthur Sullivaniga 1882. aastal.)

Gilberti isand Mountararat sai valesti aru. Mereväe ekspluateerimine Elizabeth I ajastul romantiseeritakse regulaarselt ja nende tähtsus on ülepaisutatud.

16. sajandi lõpupoole Inglismaa, kuigi selle tähtsus kasvas võimsa, kavala ja halastamatu monarhi ajal, jäi Euroopa areenil natuke osalejaks.

Suurbritannia mereväge ei hakatud avamerel avalikult proovile panema Trafalgari ja Jüütimaa lahingute vahel.

Suurbritannia valitses laineid tõesti kogu Gilberti eluaja jooksul. Ta elas aastatel 1836–1911, Victoria ja tema järglase Edward VII valitsemisajal.

Suurbritannia mereväge ei hakatud avamerel avalikult proovile panema admiral Horatio Lord Nelsoni kuulsa 1805. aasta Trafalgari võidu ja 1916. aasta Esimese maailmasõja Jüütimaa lahingu vahel.

Victoria ajastul oli Suurbritannia maailma võimsaim riik. Kuigi mitte alati pingutuseta, suutis ta säilitada maailmakorra, mis ohustas harva Suurbritannia laiemaid strateegilisi huve.

Ühtne Euroopa konflikt, mida võitles Victoria valitsemisajal - Krimmi sõda aastatel 1854–1856 - oli märgatavalt vastuolus 18. sajandiga, mille jooksul osalesid britid vähemalt viies suures sõjas, millest ükski ei kestnud vähem kui seitse aastat.

Viktoriaanlased uskusid, et rahu on pikaajalise heaolu vajalik eeltingimus.


Tom Mole, Mida viktoriaanlased romantikast tegid: materiaalsed esemed, kultuuritavad ja vastuvõtu ajalugu. Princeton ja Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2017. Lk. 317. 45 dollarit. ISBN 9781400887897.

Tom Mole'i ​​jahmatavalt originaalses uues raamatus küsitakse, mida viktoriaanlased romantikast tegid. Mole pakub oma raamatut protestiks domineerimise vastu kriitilistes uurimustes selle kohta, mida ta nimetab „täpseks historitsismiks” - arusaamale, et kirjandusteost mõistetakse kõige paremini selle koostamise või avaldamise hetkel. Kuid ta ei ole romantiliste järelmõjude esimene õpilane. See on küsimuse agressiivselt materialistlik raamistik, mis näitab olulist erinevust selle ja varasemate romantikute retseptsiooni uuringute vahel XIX sajandil. Mole ei ole huvitatud romantiliste luuletajate mõju jälgimisest nende järeltulijate tööle ega nende kriitilise varanduse kapriiside jälgimisest. Teda huvitab hoopis see, kuidas romantikuid Viktoria ajastu kultuuritavadesse kohandati. Teda ei huvita see, kuidas Walter Scott mõjutas viktoriaanliku romaani arengut, vaid see, kuidas teda mälestati suurejoonelises Edinburghi monumendis ja kuidas seda monumenti ei reprodutseeritud mitte ainult gravüüridel, vaid ka postkaartidel ja sigarettide kaartidel.

Mole jätkab uurimist neljas valdkonnas, millest vaid viimasele on varem tähelepanu pööratud. Ta uurib romantilisi luuletajate viktoriaanlikke illustreeritud väljaandeid, viktoriaanlikku jõupingutust kandidaate ristiusustada sama ebatõenäoliseks nagu Byron ja Shelley, kes esinevad üllatavalt sageli viktoriaanlike evangeeliumide jutlustes, viktoriaanlaste püstitatud romantiliste luuletajate füüsilisi monumente ja romantilised luuletajad viktoriaanlikes antoloogiates. Viktoriaanlikke antoloogiaid on varemgi käsitletud, kuid Mole kogu köidet iseloomustava teadusliku energia imelisel väljapanekul on uurinud neist 210 avaldatud aastatel 1822–1900. Tema raamat avab uue teadusvälja ja jätab suure osa sellest paratamatult harimata. Ta vaatab nelja valdkonda ja teised soovitavad kohe ise: viited romantikutele Kuningliku Akadeemia maalidel, kommertsreklaamides jne. See on raamat, mis saavutab palju ja see ajendab veelgi.

Mul on mõned väikesed hoiatused. Mole oletab, et viktoriaanlasi ja romantikuid lahutas põlvkondade vahe, millele Viktorialased reageerisid, lisades romantilisi luuletajaid Victoria -aegsetesse tehnoloogiatesse, näiteks näiteks Wordsworthi luuletuste valgustamiseks mõeldud fotokogu. Mole sõnul säilitasid romantikud oma kultuurilise elujõu ainult "parandamise" teel. Kuid Shelley ja Keats, isegi Jane Austen, olid oma elus vähe tuntud ja said kultuuriliselt silmapaistvaks alles viktoriaanlikul perioodil ning Blake oli vaevalt tuntud kuni Gilchristi 1863. aasta elulooraamatuni. Mole arvab, et nende kaasaegsed kohtasid romantikuid nende avaldatud köidetes ja see võib olla tõsi Scott ja Byron, kuid mitte paljude teiste kohta. Kui Byron küsis James Kennedylt, kas ta on Shelleyt lugenud, tunnistas Kennedy, et pole kunagi ühtegi tema kirjutist näinud, kuid on kohanud mõningaid väljavõtteid Kvartali ülevaade. Üks Jane Austeni tegelastest märgib, et Wordsworthil oli luule „tõeline hing”, kuid sellest oleks jultunud järeldada, et Austen oli kunagi käes hoidnud Wordsworthi luuletuste köite. Enamikku töödest, mida me nüüd romantiliseks peame, ei kohanud viktoriaanlased lihtsalt mingil muul kujul. Sellega olid kokku puutunud romantikute kaasaegsed.

Oma viktoriaanlike antoloogiate analüüsis kasutab Mole kvantitatiivset metoodikat, et seada kahtluse alla „eeskujulik” meetod, mida kirjanduskriitikud tavaliselt kasutavad, kuid ülejäänud raamatus on Mutt selle eeskujuliku meetodi ekstravagantne eksponent. hoiab kahtluse all. Ta lisab Byroni ja Hemansi illustreeritud väljaannetesse arutelu esikülje ja tiitellehe vahelistest suhetest, sageli eraldab need kaks lehte siidpaberit. Esiküljel on portree, sageli uusklassikaline, monumaliseerinud autori, tiitellehel aga vinjett, mis äratab autori elava kohaloleku. Kaks lehte töötavad koos, et rahuldada kahte vastuolulist nõuet, mille viktoriaanlikud lugejad mineviku kirjandusest esitasid. Arutelu näitab Mooli kõige säravamana ja põhineb kolmel köitel, millest kaks on samast sarjast. Kui Mole töötab kvantitatiivselt, tundub arutelu seevastu mõnevõrra püsivana. Viktoria ajast pärit antoloogide tavad osutuvad peaaegu täpselt selliseks, nagu alati oletati. See on midagi kergendavat, kui Mole naaseb vahuveini eeskujuliku meetodi juurde, mis näitab kahekümne esimesel sajandil toimuvat heastamisprotsessi. Taksod olümpiamängude lõpetamise tseremoonial olid kaetud fragmentaarsete ja vaevalt dešifreeritavate tsitaatidega filmidest „Ozymandias” ja „Ta kõnnib ilus nagu öö” ning Byroni lüürika andis teksti ka grafitikunstniku Arofishi libisevale jalakäijale, kes oli šabloonitud erinevatel Londoni hoonetel väljaspool staadion. Mida viktoriaanlased romantikast tegid on suur saavutus.


High Minds: Victorians and the Birth of Modern Britain, autor Simon Heffer - ülevaade

Siin on midagi väga viktoriaanlikku Simon Hefferi viktoriaanlaste raamatu kohta. Ligi 900 leheküljega õhkub sellest enesekindlust oma mammutülesande suhtes, milleks on selgitada, kuidas moodne Suurbritannia tekkis 19. sajandi keskel. Kõrged meeled on Bruneli poolt samaväärselt vööga sillaks ja seal on lendavad tugipostid, mis annaksid Ruskinile põnevust. Hefferi hääl on kogu aeg nõtke koolmeistri hääl, kes üritab fakte sisendada siiliklassi, kes eelistaks taskuid korjata. Kõige viktoriaanlikum on aga tema suhtumine oma minevikuehitusse, mis jääb alati valusalt tõsiseks.

Fookus Kõrged meeled on ajavahemik 1840–1880, mil Suurbritannia muutis end maalilisest, tuikavast ja barbaarsest kohast demokraatlikuks, tsiviliseeritud riigiks, kus on meelitavalt võimalik märgata meie oma aja algust. Perioodi alguses on koolera-, masina- ja kaheksa-aastased miinid-an Oliver Twist lootusetuse ja määrdunud nina maastik. Lõpuks, kui Gladstone alustab oma teist võimuaega, on raekojaid, haiglaid, abielunaisi, kellel on oma vara ja täis kõht.

Võiksite seda ümberkujundamist igasugustel viisidel arvestada, kuid Heffer on otsustanud järgida Thomas Carlyle'i eeskuju, kellest ta kirjutas peaaegu 20 aastat tagasi eluloo. Carlyle uskus kuulsalt, et "maailma ajalugu on vaid suurte meeste elulugu", ja Heffer korraldab oma jutustuse paljude suurte viktoriaanlaste intellektuaalse ja poliitilise karjääri ümber, sealhulgas Peel, Gladstone, Carlyle, Shaftsbury, prints Albert ja kõik, Thomas ja Matthew Arnold.

Tõepoolest, ta teeb julge valiku, kasutades oma proloogi teemaks Rugby reformiva õppealajuhatajat Thomas Arnoldit. Arnold (allpool) pole selline mees, keda võiksite oodata lugejaile, kes alustab üldist lugejat. Esiteks suri ta 1842. aastal, kui kuninganna oli oma valitsemisajast alles viis aastat. Teise jaoks peab tema asjatundlikkus-mõistlikult heal järjel olevate poegade harimine-olema kui mitte just vähemuse huvides, siis mitte rahvahulgast. Kuid kiiresti saab selgeks, et Heffer näeb Arnoldit kui 20. sajandil Suurbritanniat üle ujutanud järjestikuste viktoriaanliku lainetuse sümboolset ohvrit, kukutades kangelasi ja hävitades mainet. Ja nüüd sõidab Heffer appi nagu rüütel Walter Scotti ühest feodaalsest fantaasiast, et teha õigeid eksimusi ja taastada moraalne kord.

Esimene ja suurim löök maandus Arnoldi lõugavale lõuale 1918. aastal, kui Lytton Strachey valis ta üheks oma "väljapaistvaks viktoriaanlaseks" ja hakkas seejärel tema suurust vähendama (sõna otseses mõttes - Strachey nõudis tõenditeta, et suurmehe jalad olid tema keha jaoks liiga lühike). Arnoldi kurnav tõsiasi, soov muuta elu värisevaks võitluseks hea ja kurja vahel, isegi kui ta 46 -aastaselt suri angiini, muutus kuidagi naljakaks, kui sõeluti läbi Strachey vaimukuse. Järelikult lonkas hea arst läbi 20. sajandi kui kõige kohutavam puur, mis ilmus ekraanil Tom Browni kooliajad relvastatud moraalsete homiiliate varuga, mis toimetati pühapäevahommikuse kabeli ajal õitsevas basso profundos.

Heffer selgitab Strachey tegelaskuju mõrva seoses Bloomsburyite pahameelega, et teda kiusatakse tema enda avalikus koolis, ja asub seejärel asuma Rugby koolijuhi õigete proportsioonide taastamisele. Eelkõige pani ta terve põlvkonna privilegeeritud noori mehi mõistma, et neil on moraalne kohustus töötada teiste heaks. Kui eliit-eliidid jätkasid end oma moraalses räpasuses ringi keerutamas, koolitati alam-aluseid rugblasi tõsiseks, heldeks ja vajadusel ennastohverdavaks eluks. Just see moraalne energia, mis hajus Arnoldi kaitsjate kaudu järgmisse põlvkonda, muutis varajase viktoriaanliku teravate küünarnukkide eetose sajandi keskpaigaks, milleks oli suurepärane avalik teenistus.

Selle teise põlvkonna arnoldlaste seas ei püüdnud keegi tõsisemalt evangeeliumi levitada rohkem kui arsti enda poeg. Sisse Kultuur ja anarhia, Matthew Arnold kutsus rahvast üles võtma omaks klassikalise tsivilisatsiooni "magusust ja valgust", et pehmendada selle teise isa ja poja topeltteo, James ja John Stuart Milli toorest utilitarismi. Millsisse jäetud Arnold hoiatas, et Suurbritannia muudetakse uimastite arvuga tühermaaks, kus väärilised pedandid askeldavad, püüdes luua suurimale hulgale suurimat õnne, ilma et neil oleks aimugi imestusest ja rõõmust. Võiksite seadust muuta, inimestele hääle anda, isegi töölisklassidele hariduse anda, kuid kõik, mis te lõpuks kokku jõudsite, oli kõle raekoja eetos, kus kõik arvasid sama. Arnoldil oli selle kohta sõna - filistinism - ja ta arvas, et see ilmselt on Manchesteri aktsendiga.

Siiani Carlylean. Huvitavam, sest ootamatum, on tähelepanu, mida Heffer pöörab neile viktoriaanlastele, kes ei ole päris kõrgete mõtete või kangelastega. Nagu hiljutine Arnold, arvestab Heffer oma ametiaja lõpu aruannete üle, lisades kommentaare ja vaadates klassitellimust üle, et kajastada tõesemat paremusjärjestust. Näiteks ajaloolane JA Froude, keda praegu keegi ei loe, valmistas „ühe 19. sajandi suure teose” ja väärib Macaulay ees. Arthur Hugh Clough oleks võinud olla kandidaat, kuid ajas asjad segamini, olles enda jaoks liiga närviline. Siis on neid viktoriaanlasi, kes ei kavatse kunagi majakapteniks saada, kuid mängisid sellegipoolest tugevat osa Suurbritannia modernsusele üleminekul. Sellesse kategooriasse kuuluvad George Gilbert Scott (St Pancras Midland Grandi hotelli ja välisministeeriumi arhitekt), Henry Cole (igaüks, kes mõtles jõulukaardi välja Penny Posti võsukesena) ja Robert Lowe (Gladstone'i albiino kodusekretär põhikooliõpetajatele kehtestati tulemustega maksmine).


Queers, erotomaanid ja viktoriaanlased

Iga ajaloolane, kes analüüsib ajaloolist romaani, tundub kindlasti pisut pedantne, võttes labida vanasõnalise suflee juurde, kuid siin see läheb. Mõõdistama hakata oleks muidugi rumal Sõrmesepp "tõeliste" ajalooallikate vastu, sest minu ülesanne ei ole siin nõuda, et see oleks "autentsem", rohkem nagu Ian Gibsoni esitletud tegelikud ajaloolised aruanded jms, vaid uurida põhjuseid, miks teatavad mineviku lood ja teised pole esiplaanile tõusnud. Peamine põhjus, miks motiivid Sõrmesepp Ma arvan, et need on nii tuttavad ja püsivad, et professionaalse ajaloolase kõigi faktide uurimise eest võlgneb meie vaade viktoriaanlikule minevikule palju rohkem selle kirjanduslikule pärandile kui mis tahes õpitud joonealusele märkusele.

Seda näitab asjaolu, et Sõrmesepp oli osa neo-viktoriaanliku ilukirjanduse lainest, mis tekkis 1990ndatel ja hõlmab Michel Faberi Karmiinpunane kroonleht ja valge (2002) ja Watersi ülejäänud kaks viktoriaanlikku romaani Sametist kallutamine (1999) ja Afiinsus (2002), kuigi ta on sellest ajast alates liikunud 1940. aastatesse (Öine Vahtkondja Väike võõras). Neid raamatuid iseloomustab omamoodi pastišš - nad ei püüa varjata oma allikmaterjali (Dickens, Mayhew, sensatsiooniromaan, ühiskondlik uurimine, akadeemiline kirjanduskriitika), vaid hooplevad oma väljamõeldisega ja kannavad seda uhkelt aumärgina , omamoodi kummardus proua Braddonile jt. See hoiak-mida näitab nende pealkirju moodustav usutav, kuid väljamõeldud släng-on katse pigem asustada kui ületada oma allikaid, teha viktoriaanlikku ilukirjandust nii ustavalt kui võimalik, kuid sisaldada ka selliseid palasid, mida ei saanud öelda ega kujutada aega, lisades sellega kaasaegset tundlikkust. Halvasti tehtud, nagu ka BBC hiljutises Faberi romaani muganduses, võib tulemus tunduda gooti klišeede kogumina, mis on lõppenud: meeleheitel keskklassi naine, kes on kodust lämmatatud - kontrollige kurja kodanlikku paterfamiliat, kes hoiab salajast prostituuti/ajab topeltelu - check mad naine pööningul või peagi sinna piiratud - kontrollige hullumeelseid arste, kes hakkavad tegema hullumeelse naise suhtes kohutavaid protseduure - kontrollige seksuaalselt allasurutud evangeelseid moraalseid silmakirjatsejaid - kontrollige doppelgangersi pimedat, kõledat maja riigis, kellegagi teeseldakse röövitud kirju udud kontrollima, kontrollima, kontrollima. Mõte ei ole eitada, et need asjad juhtusid või eksisteerisid 19. sajandil, vaid pigem uurida, miks just need troopid ja lood, mitte teised, on osutunud nii uskumatult vastupidavaks. Miks on vaja, et viktoriaanid oleksid need kohutavad silmakirjatsejad, keda need romaanid ette kujutavad? Miks me nõuame, et need asjad oleksid „viktoriaanliku” igavene märk?

Sõrmesepp saab alguse Londonis linnaosas asuvast varaste koopast. Sue Trinder, orv, kelle ema oli tema arvates mõrva pärast üles riputatud, on näpasepp - taskuvargas. Ta elab beebipõllumehe ja oma väikese jõugu matriarhaalse valitseja proua Sucksby majas. Sue töötab meister Richard Rivers (tuntud kui "härrasmees") skeemis, et petta pärija Maud Lilly pärandist. Ta peab minema oma naise teenijana Maudi sobivasse süngesse majja riigis, et võita tema usaldus ja tegutseda saatjana, samal ajal kui Rivers, kes õpetab Maud joonistama, võrgutab ja viib minema. Olles temaga abiellunud, ütleb Rivers, et viib seejärel Maudi varjupaika ja varastab tema raha, andes Suele oma osa. Maud pole siiski tavaline pärija. Tema onu Christopher Lilly on obsessiivne erootika koguja ja võtab Maudi tööle oma assistendina. Ta loeb iga päev tema raamatukogust raamatuid, et ta saaks koostada seksuaalaktide ja perverssuste ammendava bibliograafia. Vandenõu teeb keeruliseks asjaolu, et Sue ja Maud armuvad aeglaselt, kuid see ei takista Sue'l oma osa Gentlemaniga sõlmitud tehingust täitmast. See loo osa on räägitud Sue vaatenurgast ja meile tundub, et me teame seda lugu koos kõigi selle gooti troopikatega, kuid Sõrmesepp on see, et see seab sensatsioonilukirjanduse teemad välja peamiselt viisina, kuidas lugeja mingisugusesse valeturvalisusse uinutada. Me teame seda lugu ja seda peategelast, nagu me arvame, nii nagu Sue on enda suhtes nii kindel ja kindel, mis toimub. Oleme Sue vaatenurgast nii süvenenud, nii tuttavad, et äkiline demonstratsioon, et kõik pole see, mis tundub, on veelgi tõhusam.

Kui Sue ja Gentleman jõuavad hullumajja, kuhu Maud hauda haaratakse, võetakse sulguriks Sue, mitte aga Maud. Tuleb välja, et kogu skeemi on unistanud proua Sucksby koos patuga Sue, mitte Maudiga. Ta on seda teinud, sest tema tõeline tütar on Maud, mitte Sue. Seitseteist aastat tagasi aitas proua Sucksby daamil nimega Marianne Lilly sünnitada abieluväline tütar. Surev Marianne heidab meeleheitesse saatust, mis ootab tema tütart - et ta saaks oma pere tagasi ja jääks igaveseks õrnuse lõksu. Ta teeb proua Sucksbyga diili - nad vahetavad beebid. Nii saadab proua Sucksby oma tütre Maudi elama koos Lillydega maal elavat luksuslikku elu, samas kui Marianne'i tütar (Sue) jääb linnaosasse. Et nõuda Lilly varandust, mis saabub Suele õigel ajal, kui tema tegelik isik välja selgitatakse, peab proua Sucksby oma tütre (Maud) tagasi nõudma ja ta krundile sisse kutsuma ning saatma Sue (tegeliku) pärija) hullumajja. Sue on lukus, kuid pääseb tänu sensatsiooniromaani ooterežiimile, ebatõenäolisele kokkusattumusele. Ta naaseb linnaosasse ja astub vastamisi proua Sucksby, Maudi ja Gentlemaniga. Käib rüselus ja härrasmees on surmavalt pussitatud, pole selge, kelle poolt - Maud või proua Sucksby -, kuid matriarh tunnistab oma süüd, et päästa tütar, kelleks ta on armastanud, ta arreteeritakse ja riputatakse üles. Sue saab lõpuks tõe teada, kuid hämmastavalt andestavas meeleolus naaseb Maudi juurde (kes nüüd hõivab riigis laguneva maja). Nad kuulutavad teineteisele armastust ja pühenduvad tulevikule, mis elab sama pornograafia kirjutamisest, mille Maud oli terve oma elu ette lugenud.

Ma ei taha väita, et Waters on ajaloolaste vang, veel vähem, et nad, nagu proua Sucksby, peituvad iga jutustamispöörde taha. Siiski on huvitav, kuidas akadeemiline ajalugu on aidanud kaasa sellele konkreetsele viktoriaanlikule nägemusele. Armastus Sue ja Maudi vahel on näide. Kuigi Watersit kirjutatakse mõnikord laisalt kui "lesbiromaanide" kirjutajat, tugineb tema looming avaldamata truudusele teatud ajaloolistele eeldustele, mis kuuluvad Alan Sinfieldi "kummaliseks hetkeks" - ideele, et 1990ndatel ja hiljem seksuaalse identiteedi püsivus ja selle ajalugu olid järsku küsimärgi all. See pööre peegeldas Michel Foucault keskset rolli meie ettekujutuses kaasaegsest ajaloost, eriti tema seisukohta, et seksuaalse identiteedi piirid-väidetav homo- ja hetero-kindlus-olid suhteliselt hiljutine 19. sajandi leiutis. Enne seda pidi järeldus olema, et enne identiteeti pidi olema periood, mis oli paradoksaalselt vähem piiratud kui praegune. Kui Foucault ’õigsusele või muule kõrvale heita, on selge, et viktoriaanlik ajastu mängib Watersi romaanides seda rolli - minevik kui paradoksaalse vabaduse koht. Teine märgatav mõju on historiograafia, mis on inspireeritud Lillian Fadermani põhjalikust lesbismiajaloost alates renessansist, Meeste armastuse edasiandmine. (1) Tema ja need, kes järgnesid talle nagu Sharon Marcus, väitsid, et kuna arvati, et viktoriaanlikel naistel pole aktiivset ja sõltumatut seksuaalsust, oli lesbi idee paljuski oma olemuselt ebatõenäoline (kuigi seda ideed on kriitiliselt kontrollitud) Martha Vicinus oma 2004. aasta raamatus Intiimsed sõbrad (2)). Pärast Foucault ’jutustust pakkus Faderman välja, et see tähendas, et viktoriaanliku naise homosotsiaalses maailmas oli võimalik samasooliste armastus areneda ilma, et see kunagi patoloogiat (või tõepoolest mis tahes silti) ligi meelitaks. Maudi ja Sue armastus üksteise vastu järgib seda mustrit, selle olulise erinevusega, et nad ei ole süütud, nagu Fadermani jutu järgi võis see olla. Nad ei tea aga midagi nii toorest kui seksuaalne identiteet ja nende armastus areneb loomulikult igapäevasest lähedusest, näiteks voodi jagamisest. „Ainult et me oleme nii kaua koos, sellises eraldatuses”, ütleb Maud ja vaevalt end petab: „Me oleme kohustatud olema intiimsed” (lk 252). Selle vabadusega kaasneb omaloomingu vorm, sest kui pole mingit mustrit, mida järgida, tuleb see välja mõelda. Ka see on üks kummalise ajaloo ja teooria troopikatest, mille põhimõte on kummutada arusaamad identiteedist. Tõepoolest, Sue ja Maudi kiindumuse määramatus, asjaolu, et sellel pole nime, on romaanis registreeritud sõna "queer" tungiva kasutamisega kõigis selle vormides, et kirjeldada kummalisi ja tundmatuid olekuid - inimesed liiguvad "veidralt" ", küsige" veidraid küsimusi ", tundke veidraid tundeid, samal ajal kui veidraid asju juhtub.

Need kummalised eeldused ähvardavad teha kahte asja: esiteks võivad nad panna meid anakronistlikult projitseerima 20. sajandi lõpu enese leiutamise harjumuse minevikku ja muutma need, kes näivad seda tegevat, meie ajaloo objektiks. Teiseks võib see lubada meil kujutada selliseid tegelasi nagu Sue ja Maud kuidagi väljaspool ajalugu ja diskursust, asustades selle asemel peaaegu puhta enese loomise maailma. Sue esialgu enesekindel jutustus ja nutikas viis lukkude ja rahakottidega ning põlgus Maudi tõeliste teenijate vastu, kes on kinni jäänud teenistus- ja hierarhiamaailma, kui ta elab elu ilma peremeesteta (lk 38). lihtsalt selline lugu. Kuid romaani ümberpööramised häirisid neid lohutavaid võimalusi ja võimalikke liialdusi nutikalt - Sue ja Maud pole oma lugude all. Nad on ju allutatud ajaloole - kuigi raamatu lõpuks näivad nad sellest taas põgenevat.

Kui romaani kaksiktegelased on leiutised mitmel viisil, siis Maudi onu põhineb teadlikult, kui väga lõdvalt, tegelikul isikul - erootika bibliograafil Henry Spencer Ashbeel, tuntud ka kui Pisanus Fraxi, kelle elu kroonikaks on Ian Gibsoni elulugu. Kontrast Maudi onu - gootist pärit kuju - ja obsessiivse kataloogija Ashbee vahel räägib meile palju sellest, mida me viktoriaanlikest lugudest soovime. Ashbee oli Hounslow püssirohuvabriku juhataja poeg, kes sõlmis hea abielu jõuka kaupmehe tütrega ja liitus perefirmaga. Tema ulatuslikud ärireisid Euroopas ja Ameerikas võimaldasid tal jätkata oma bibliomaniaalset kutset: koguda raamatuid, sealhulgas hulgaliselt erootikat ja pornograafiat. Selle töö tulemusena valmis kaks tohutut bibliograafiat - Indeks Librorum Prohibitorum (1877), erootikarekord ja tavapärasemad Centuria Librorum Absconditorum (1879), esimene töötas suure hulga haruldaste ja erootiliste tekstide kogumikust, mis toodi peamiselt tema tööreisidele. Gibson spekuleerib ka, et Ashbee'i andekus ammendavaks teeb temast tõenäolise kandidaadi anonüümse 11-köitelise pornograafilise puuraugu autoriks. Minu salajane elu (u.1888–95).

Gibson esitab Ashbee'i klassikalise näite Victoria -aegse kahekordse elu kohta. Ta pidas endale auväärset kodu Bloomsburys, samal ajal asudes mõne miili kaugusel asuvasse kontorisse Gray’s Inn, et seal oma raamatuid säilitada ja erootikaalast bibliograafiat koostada. Tal võis olla ka ebaseaduslik tütar, kes oli tema tahte peamine kasusaaja. Ta suhtles teiste bibliofiilide ja raamatumüüjatega, sealhulgas suurte müügikirjanduse asjatundjate Richard Monckton Milnesi ja Richard Burtoniga, kes mõlemad kuulusid Cannibal Clubi, mitteametlikku ühiskonda, mis oli pühendunud pornograafia tarbimisele ja kureerimisele. Gibsoni jaoks on Ashbee elu esmapilgul usutav tõend selle kohta, et ta varjas mingisugust salajast väärastumist, olgu see siis „eroomania”, armastus lõbutsemise vastu või liigne masturbatsioon. Seetõttu püüab Gibson Ashbee'i rännakuid erootiliste külalistena esitada, märkides, et ta imetleb Hispaania tantsutüdrukuid või India prouasid, ning näeb oma harjumust märkida oma päevikusse riste kui võimalikku masturbeerimise salajast rekordit. Selles suhtes püüab Gibson kõvasti leida Ashbee'i kui Steven Marcuse Teised viktoriaanid (3), raamat, mida ta kasutab oma territooriumi peamise juhendina. Marcus väitis kuulsalt, et pornograafia oli sümptomaatiline ühiskonnale, kes arvas üha enam seksist kui eraldiseisvast ja eraldiseisvast teadmiste valdkonnast, ning et seetõttu oli pornograafia kasulik ametlike moraalsete hoiakute peegelpildina.

Gibsoni ja meie jaoks on meeletult, Ashbee päevikud ei sisalda midagi tema isiklikest motiividest. Selle asemel tuleb ta välja nagu peen, raevukas ja obsessiiv. Reisidel on teda pimestanud tuimad ameeriklased, ta vihkab araablasi, taunib prantslaste ebaviisakust (iseloomulikult ebaõnnestudes, Rouenis olles, midagi öelda Proua Bovary), ja see kujutab endast katoliku vastase toori pilti. Kodumaal võõrandavad kodanlikud paterfamiliad oma tundlikku poega, kunsti- ja käsitööpioneeri ning homoseksuaalset Charlesit, eriti karistades teda karmilt paadisõitja ja kontorisse flanellide kandmise eest. Kõigi Gibsoni jõupingutuste eest näidata, et Ashbee varjab mõnda põnevat saladust või paljastab sundi, satub ta sageli ebakultuurse ja kitsalt keskklassi, tema vaimustust erootikast ajendab veidi rohkem kui kogujamaania - vajadus loetleda ja hankida kõik näide sellest, mida ta tahtis. Seda omadust näitab Ashbee hilisem töö - sama obsessiivne ja töömahukas katse omada iga illustratsiooni Don Quijote. Just see katse kataloogida kõike, mis muudab Ashbee üksi usutavaks lõputu autoriks Minu salajane elu.

Ashbee teeb huvitavaks mitte see, kas ta oli pornograafilise meistriteose salajane autor, vaid lihtsalt tema üsna igapäevane soov koostada ja koguda - just see teeb temast tüüpilise kaasaegse seksuaalse uurija. Sellise obsessiivse inimese jaoks nagu Ashbee, oli pornograafia ideaalne kõnepruuk. See on kaasaegne ja tööstuslik, igav ja korduv, loendamise, kõigi nõutavate toimingute, kehaosade, positsioonide ja perverssuste loetlemise ja märkimisega. Isegi ta möönis, et tema ettevõtmine kaldus nii ja et suur osa sellest, mida ta luges, oli „igav ja rumal”. Selles suhtes on Ashbee üleminek kuju vanemast liberaalsest erootilise hariduse kultuurist - omamoodi kirjandus ars erootika kuhu kogunesid väikesed eliitmeeste rühmad, et tähistada oma priapismi ja uurida naisorganismi - kaasaegsema teadusliku ambitsiooni ja klassifikatsiooni poole. Seetõttu ei ole juhus, et tema looming sai hilisema seksoloogia ja ajaloo aluseks ning et temaga konsulteerisid varajased seksuoloogid nagu Iwan Bloch, kuna ta jagas nende eesmärki entsüklopeedilist koostamist. Ashbee elu on ka väärtuslik parandus gooti kujunditele Sõrmesepp. Erinevalt härra Lillyst ja vaatamata sellele, et Gray's Innis on eraldi kontorid, ei sulgenud Ashbee end gootihunnikusse, vaid elas maailmas ja kuidagi ei oleks ta saanud koguda sellist mahuka erootikat, kui ta oli sellisel moel ja ilma ulatuslikud Euroopa lingid (kuigi romaanis on härra Lillyl mõned kahtlased Holywelli tänava elanikud, kes teda selles aitavad). Nagu Lynda Nead ja teised on püüdnud näidata, ei olnud pornograafia probleem Viktoria-aegse Suurbritannia keskel mitte selles, et see oli peidetud, vaid selles, et see oli liiga avalik ja tänu odava trükise levikule liigagi kättesaadav.

Selles mõttes võiks labidaga näpuga juhtida tähelepanu sellele, et paljud troopid, millele uusviktoriaanlik romaan ja selle televisiooniversioonid uue elu andsid, näevad tegelikult pisut kulunud välja. Tunnistan, et ütlesin, et püüan sellist võrdlust vältida, kuid seda tuleb teha, kui ainult anda väljavaade viktoriaanliku nägemuse dikteeriva ilukirjanduse jõule. For instance, the idea that sane women were routinely incarcerated in asylums for harmless moral infractions owes more to the sensation novel than the historical record, and derives its popularity from a few scare stories associated with the women’s movement that were later employed in books like Elaine Showalter’s The Female Malady.(4) One of the most notorious of these cases was that of Edith Lanchester, who was confined by her family in 1895 for taking up with a railwayman, and therefore seems to fit the Victorian pattern, but who was in fact released four days later as the result of public outrage. While not disputing that it happened in isolated cases, historians like Andrew Scull have questioned whether women (sane or otherwise) suffered from the ‘great confinement’ that Showalter outlines any more than men did. Similarly, although women were thought prone to hysteria that might be linked to their reproductive system, and were threatened with hair-raising surgical treatments, these were rarely if ever carried out, and, in any case, horrific medical procedures and ideas were hardly confined to the treatment of women. It is therefore surprising that tropes like the looming mad-house and the sinister mad-doctor have died so hard.

The continuing passion for the neo-Victorian, and for its familiar stories and characters, represents our unending compulsion to find the secret heart of Victorianism. Their surreptitious ways and inexplicit desires encourage the idea that our crinolined forebears are hiding something vital that will in the end be known, that in spite of their evasions, we can ‘really know’ what they are about. Just like the hidden library at the heart of the old, dark house where Mr Lilly transcribes his bibliography, or the revelations of Mrs Sucksby, we imagine that this secret is there, and that when we find it we will know all. But as Gibson shows, Ashbee, like many other Victorians, is not really hiding anything in the depths of his psyche – his only passion is the will to know, or to list. In spite of that there is still a steady demand for sensation, and for the imagined certainty that is ours alone.


‘The Secret Life of the Savoy’ Review: A Victorian Confection

The Savoy Hotel in 1905.

In 1889 the impresario Richard D’Oyly Carte opened a hotel the likes of which had never been seen. The Savoy was the ultimate in elegance and style, the antithesis of Victorian stuffiness. D’Oyly Carte, the backer of Gilbert & Sullivan’s comic operas, built it in London with profits from “The Pirates of Penzance” and “The Mikado.” There were 400 guest rooms, a cocktail bar, private baths with hot and cold running water, electric light, and two grand elevators he called “ascending rooms.” There was even outdoor dining on a terrace by the Thames (Monet and Whistler painted the view across the river from their rooms).

In her lively “Secret Life of the Savoy,” Olivia Williams, the author of “Gin Glorious Gin” (2014), has unearthed a wealth of fascinating details about three generations of the eccentric, secretive D’Oyly Carte family, owners the hotel for nearly a century. Richard, the patriarch, knew how to create a sense of belonging and excitement for his guests, a cosmopolitan group that included aristocrats, royalty, bankers, and stars of the theater and opera. Even unchaperoned women were admitted (except those of “doubtful reputation and uncertain revenue”), and formal evening dress was de rigueur.

Ms. Williams writes that Richard understood what newly rich middle-class Victorians wanted because he was one himself. His glamorous last name belied a humble background. He began life in poverty, living with his parents in the decrepit Soho townhouse where Thomas De Quincey wrote “Confessions of an English Opium-Eater.” But soon the family’s fortunes blossomed with the success of his father’s musical-instrument business. Richard became a talent agent and entrepreneur, going into partnership with dramatist William Gilbert and composer Arthur Sullivan, with whom he produced 13 operas.

In 1881 Richard made headlines when he opened the Savoy Theatre, the first building lighted entirely by electricity. The audience cheered when the lights went on. One newspaper reporter, however, complained that they gave a “ghastly look” to those “plastered dames” attempting to conceal the “ravages of time.” The opera was “Patience,” a satire on the aesthetic movement whose main character was based on one of Richard’s clients, Oscar Wilde.

To promote the touring company of “Patience,” Richard sent Wilde on a lecture tour of America. Ms. Williams writes that the author delighted his audiences. When he described the pictures of Botticelli, Wilde recalled, “the name seemed to them like a new drink.” Upon his return he moved into the Savoy with his lover Lord Alfred Douglas, and before long the hotel was faced with its first major scandal. In 1895, Wilde was convicted of “gross indecency” for bringing “rent boys” to his room to drink champagne and dine on turtle soup.


Britain at the Turn of the 20th Century Was Dealing With a Lot, Badly

Kui ostate meie saidi kaudu sõltumatult arvustatud raamatu, teenime sidusettevõtte vahendustasu.

THE AGE OF DECADENCE
A History of Britain, 1880 to 1914
By Simon Heffer

“What fools we were,” King George V told his prime minister, Ramsay MacDonald, in 1930, looking back to the era before World War I. In the context of the wartime catastrophe his generation had delivered, the king may have had a point. That was the time of Rudyard Kipling’s “long recessional” and A. E. Housman’s “land of lost content.” Arthur Balfour, prime minister from 1902 to 1905, lamented “some process of social degeneration” that “may conveniently be distinguished by the name of ‘decadence.’” Joseph Chamberlain, the most charismatic politician of the late-Victorian age, put it more pithily. “The Weary Titan,” he said in 1902, “staggers under the too vast orb of its fate.”

For many Americans today, perhaps fearing late-stage decadence and their own Weary Titan, this story may strike close to home. For in Simon Heffer’s telling, the history of Britain from 1880 to 1914 is one in which “a nation so recently not just great, but the greatest power the world had ever known, sustained in its greatness by a rule of law and parliamentary democracy, had begun its decay.”

“The Age of Decadence” is a successor volume to the same author’s well-regarded “High Minds: The Victorians and the Birth of Modern Britain” (2013), which charted Britain’s rise to “greatness” in the earlier part of the 19th century. Heffer picks up here with Gladstone taking over the premiership from his great rival, Disraeli, in 1880, then guides us through the high-Victorian era into the 20th century with the accession of King Edward VII in 1901. He ends in 1914 with Britain facing an unhappy choice between a European war with Germany and a civil war in Ireland. He wisely does not include the origins of the world war substantively in this volume (his book on this topic has just been published in Britain). In such a way he avoids the teleological danger of making everything in Britain about the war as the country hurtles toward some kind of inevitable abyss. In fact, until the last moment, even after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Ireland seemed the more important priority for Britain.

There are many pleasures to be had in this fine book, not the least of which is the vivacity of Heffer’s prose. A columnist for The Sunday Telegraph as well as a historian, he writes elegantly but punchily, combining seriousness with welcome flashes of waspishness that stop things from getting stuffy. Pointing, for example, to the socially entitled Virginia Woolf’s sneering at a fellow novelist, the shopkeeper’s son Arnold Bennett, Heffer notes that her put-downs “had him written off for much of the 20th century by generations of university lecturers and critics, who confused snobbery with literary criticism.” That, as they say, is a twofer.

Heffer has little interest in debates among historians on the period, but unlike many general surveys of this kind, he does not rely just on secondary literature and makes excellent use of wide-ranging archival research. That approach gives the book a fresh perspective, although not necessarily a new one. What is striking about “The Age of Decadence” is that it brings us full circle to the view the late Victorians and Edwardians so often had of themselves and it echoes George Dangerfield’s seminal 1935 book “The Strange Death of Liberal England,” which evocatively depicted how “by the end of 1913 Liberal England was reduced to ashes.” In Heffer’s telling it is perhaps less ashes to ashes than an overripe piece of fruit rotting and putrefying in front of our eyes.

”The Age of Decadence” is a masterpiece of pacing. After an amiable perambulation with the last of the Victorians, we build to a frantic cliff-top scramble as the Edwardians lose their grip on events and themselves. The book culminates in three powerful chapters on the suffragists, industrial unrest and the threat of civil war in Ireland. By the final pages, Heffer has skillfully conjured a country in chaos and heading over the edge. The prime minister, Herbert Henry Asquith, had “rarely felt more hopeless” and by July 1914 believed the United Kingdom had reached “an impasse, with unspeakable consequences.” The Lord Mayor of Liverpool told the Earl of Derby he feared “a revolution is in progress.” In the circumstances, a war with Germany looked to many like the easy option.

Heffer has no hesitation in pointing the finger of blame at the complacent, “swaggering” late-Victorian and Edwardian elites who ran the show in these four decades. From 1880 “until the apocalypse came in 1914,” he writes reprovingly, “there was among the upper and upper-middle classes a resting on laurels a decision, literal and metaphorical, to live off dividends rather than work that little bit harder and improve more.” The end result: “Britain was diminished” and “British power was in decline.”

Heffer warns us against “the pornography of nostalgia,” but still, there are other ways to see the Edwardians. Perhaps this period was not one of Thomas Hardy’s times “when all went well,” but the Edwardians certainly meet Arnold Bennett’s criterion of being “identified with the great cause of cheering us all up.” Everything was brighter, faster, more fashionable. With the growth of cinemas, gramophones, telephones and the first 100-miles-per-hour trains for trips to the seaside, Edwardians for the most part had more fun than those stern Victorians. Thanks to advances in medicine and nutrition, people in Britain lived longer (unless they found themselves in the wartime trenches). And everyday life also improved. If this was an era of revolt, it was also one of radical reform, with a long reach into all areas of society from cradle to grave. The daily existence of the working classes on whose backs much of the wealth of the previous century had been built was enhanced immeasurably by a battery of social, industrial and educational legislation. Liberal reform culminated in the comprehensive 1911 National Insurance Act — one of the most important pieces of legislation of the 20th century and one that remains a foundation of the British welfare state and National Health Service.

Regarding decline as a world power, everything is relative. Twentieth-century Britain overcame rival empires, fought and won two cataclysmic wars and twice reconstructed the world order in its own image. The British retreated from empire once its corrupting decadence became manifest. Historians of other empires might ask whether the Edwardians were any more degenerate than the French of the Third Republic, or imperial Germans, Russians, Ottomans, Iranians and Chinese. Certainly Britain was eclipsed by the United States but arguably there was not much the Edwardians could have done about the rise of a vast, resource-rich continental power that unlike its other rivals was reasonably well governed. Today Britain remains one of the half-dozen richest countries in the world with a cultural and political impact that far exceeds its size. Much of its good fortune is rooted in the legacy of those Edwardians who, as H. G. Wells put it, saw “The Shape of Things to Come.”

So perhaps in the end the dutiful King George V only had it half right. For while they were often foolish, the Edwardians were no fools.


A Corporeal History of the 19th Century

Kui ostate meie saidi kaudu sõltumatult arvustatud raamatu, teenime sidusettevõtte vahendustasu.

VICTORIANS UNDONE
Tales of the Flesh in the Age of Decorum
By Kathryn Hughes
Illustreeritud. 414 pp. Johns Hopkins University Press. $29.95.

The average biographer peers into a Great Man’s mind. Kathryn Hughes’s “Victorians Undone: Tales of the Flesh in the Age of Decorum,” in contrast, narrates the lives of five body parts: the stomach of one of Queen Victoria’s ladies-in-waiting, “suspected of expecting” Charles Darwin’s unfashionable beard, which turns out to provide a key to his theory of sexual selection George Eliot’s right hand, larger than her left thanks to a youth spent milking cows the “bee-stung” lips of Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s mistress and the dismembered corpse of a working-class girl onto whose severed foot a late-19th-century shoemaker stumbled in a Hampshire hop garden.

While microhistorians have long zoomed in on individual case studies, Hughes pinpoints her subjects even more narrowly. Her method is laparoscopic, sectioning off bits of bodies as ruthlessly as did the Hampshire murderer. Her ultimate question, though, is a broad one: How did the Victorians understand the interplay between mind and body?

Consider Darwin’s beard — or, more precisely, beards, since Darwin’s progress through decades and hemispheres was marked by growing, grooming and shaving off a series of different styles. Mustachioed hipsters may be happy to learn that facial hair spent the first half of the 19th century as the marker of rabble-rousers, artists and derelicts. It was only when Crimean War veterans set the fashion that experts began recommending beards to ward off frostbite, sunburn and air pollution, not to mention mumps and toothache. A beard could also hide a man’s unmanly expressions of emotion.

Darwin himself supplemented his erstwhile comb-over late in life, after realizing that a morning shave exacerbated his eczema. And beardedness continues to flatter him in the 21st century. In 2000, Darwin replaced Dickens on 10-pound notes — one reason, Hughes reveals, was that the naturalist’s extravagant whorls of hair are harder to forge than the “door knocker” the weak-chinned Dickens grew after the rise of photography made it impossible for him to avoid being depicted in profile. (Until recently, when Darwin was himself replaced by Jane Austen, if you’d taken a tenner out of your wallet you’d have seen the hirsute naturalist looking uncannily like an ape.) Struggling to explain where beards fit into his theory of sexual selection, Darwin posited that because facial hair is lighter than the hair on men’s heads, “our male apelike progenitors acquired their beards as an ornament to charm or excite the opposite sex” — the equivalent of a peacock’s tail.

From Civil War re-enactments to paleo diets, today’s subcultures often try to recreate the bodies of bygone eras but rather than celebrating Victorian heads and hands and waistlines, Hughes rubs our noses in their strangeness. She interweaves the Victorians’ writings about body image with their nonverbal habits — whether they groomed themselves or paid a barber for a shave, what muscles they used to lift a pail or squeeze an udder.

Don’t let the title fool you: This is not a book about sex. Rarely lustful or repressed, these Victorians were more often embarrassed, uncomfortable, self-conscious or vain. Hughes’s blow-by-blow accounts of bowel movements, menstruation, menopause, pores and salivary glands shouldn’t be mistaken for celebrity gossip or scatological humor — though it takes guts, so to speak, to depict courtiers fat-shaming one another and guesstimating who had missed a period. Instead, her focus on the body topples great figures from their pedestals. We hear less about the words that emerged from Victoria’s mouth than about her failure to zip her lips while chewing nothing about the visionary images sparked by Coleridge’s opium addiction, but plenty about his resulting constipation. Made rather than given, these bodies tell an engrossing story about the culture that fashioned them.


History in Focus

Although by far the oldest and most numerous ethnic minority in Britain, the Irish have received relatively little attention within British social history or indeed the sociology of migration, race and ethnicity. The literary disciplines have for too long been the focus point of Irish Studies and it seems the historical importance of this large, mobile, ethnic and (on the whole) religiously distinct group has been somewhat neglected. At this time, the field is developing with new researchers becoming interested in this moderately "invisible" group. The Irish in Victorian Britain has been addressed in two previous volumes, and now this new book of essays, by Roger Swift and Sheridan Gilley. Their first collection of essays entitled The Irish in Victorian City (1985) presented an eclectic collection of what was then a relatively new subject area having only been covered substantially in the post-war period by one monograph from J. A. Jackson (who in many ways set the template for this field of study) and two local studies from London and Leeds. That book provided a classic overview of the subject by M. A.G. Tuathaigh before moving into what became familiar themes within the subject. Inherent within the historiography was the view that the Irish community in Britain as subaltern subjects, problematised, criminalised, suffering from various forms of discrimination and delineated as mainly poor Catholic males. That book discussed issues of integration and assimilation, political engagement with working class politics and the media, anti-Irish violence and the use of the "Orange Card" for electoral advantage by the Conservative and Unionist Party in local elections - a historical tendency that is as relevant today within as it was in the 1850s and 60s especially if we consider the refugee status of those Irish fleeing the privations of the Great Famine. Another important strand of that first volume was the significance of the Catholic Church to the migrant Irish community a significant theme as the Church was itself undergoing a period of post-Reformation renewal that was supported and enriched by the expansion of its Irish born congregations. That first volume also included a number of localised studies on Bristol, York, Edinburgh and a comparative exposition of communal violence in Glasgow and Liverpool. The second Swift and Gilley volume entitled The Irish in Britain, 1815-1939 (1989) expanded the field of study and revised a number of the post-Jackson positions, while developing further the themes of settlement, segregation, integration, politics and political literary texts, as well as Irish migrants influences upon the labour-market and crime. The volume included one particular provincial essay on the town of Stafford.

Now the third Swift and Gilley volume expands this theme of local specificity in the migrant Irish experience, situating the emigrants within their regional economic, political and social contexts. Thus the volume underlines the heterogeneity of the Irish migrant experience and begins to pull away from the post-Jackson historical focus into areas and fields that are under researched. All three volumes include useful bibliographies.

Overall the new volume is a useful exposition of new research in the area that has been bolstered by recent monographs by scholars such as Paul Leary, Frank Neal and Donald MacRaild. A useful introduction by the editors is followed by Paul O'Leary's contribution an essay focused upon the mainly hostile reaction that Irish Great Famine migrants received in Wales. He emphasises the importance a strong sense of regional identity and the specific economic and political context in determining this reaction. O'Leary suggests that the regional study might be more useful that the historiographical micro-study of towns and cities that have dominated the field so far. An example of this new emphasis on the smaller Irish community and the importance of local context is presented by Louise Miskell's interesting account of the Irish in Cambourne Cornwall between 1861 and 1882. Her research challenges some of the historiographical assumptions stemming from the analysis of larger communities that concentrate on the poor, low-skilled, urban dwelling Irish. Miskell argues that the anti-Irish riot of 1882 was determined by the local context in peripheral Cornish society rather than a generic anti-Irishness. She also points briefly to the effect of local contexts in shaping residential patterns and challenges the idea of the 'Irish area' as a construction based as much upon local memory as ethnic clustering. She also points out the fact that the Irish were spread throughout the local economy and not just concentrated in the low-skill labouring sector. As such she presents important evidence of the heterogeneity of Irish experience in nineteenth century Britain as well as the salience of memory and the constructive discursive nature of ethno-geography in It's demotic and official resonances.

No regional study of the Irish in Britain would be complete without surveying London. Apart from one monograph published in the late 1970s by Lynn Hollen Lees, there has been little published work, so Jacqueline Turton's examination of the poor Irish in London utilising the work of Henry Mayhew's investigations for the Hommikune kroonika is long over due. The essay is a useful exposition of Mayhew's early form of methodologically problematic sociological oral history. The piece presents information on routes taken to London from Ireland , settlement, work and social conditions, crime, associational cultures and intolerance. There is much of interest within the essay, although a little weak on the role of prejudice and anti-Irishness, there are some interesting passages and conclusions.

Britain's second city has also been cruelly neglected in published studies. Carl Chinn's somewhat eclectic but worthy essay covers the Irish in early Victorian Birmingham. Empirically focused, his detailed analysis of the 1851 census covers the usual preoccupations of the economic and social historiography general demography and residence patterns, economic engagement of the migrant, the importance of kinship networks etc.. Although Chinn uses the idea of the "Irish community" somewhat loosely, this essay is the first to focus on the important industrial centre of Birmingham and as such is a welcome addition to the field that has so far been somewhat eclipsed by work on the North of Britain. Frank Neal's contributes another even more empirically detailed "work in progress" on Irish settlement in the North East and North West of England. Using his personal database of over 35000 records of the Irish born and their children, he also focuses on the 1851 census to extract a wealth of detail of the lives of Irish migrants in this area. Again the local economic context is fore-grounded in its influence upon settlement and work patterns. The wealth of information, statistics and tables will be of great use to historians and as his work progresses will undoubtedly become a valuable historical resource. Another detailed census study on Stafford is provided by John Herson who has been conducting research into the Irish population of this small town for some time, revealing another aspect of the settled Irish communities of the nineteenth century. Herson has extracted a large amount of detailed information much based upon following individual families. The chapter is especially useful for its inclusion of Protestant Irish. He is able for instance to show that Protestant Irish migrants were more skilled and therefore more affluent than their Catholic countrymen being overwhelmingly represented in skilled manual or managerial and professional employment. Along with Chinn, the reintroduction of the family network as important is another welcome divergence from the traditional historiography and a great deal of work awaits similar studies elsewhere.

Another strand within all three books is the important role played by the Catholic Church in relation to the majority of Irish migrants. Marie McClelland's contribution examines the role of the Church in providing education for Irish migrants in Hull and in particular the importance of Catholic Nuns. Her description of the history of Catholic education in the town maps the problems and successes of the Catholic institutions in establishing a reliable education for Catholic's in the face of some hostility from the local educational institutions and others. The focus of a secular role within the Church's functions was obviously important in the establishment and integration of the Irish Catholic community. Frank Boyce - somewhat at odds with the book's title - takes a look at the Irish Catholic community within the Liverpool docklands from the 19th century, concentrating to some extent on its disappearance from the 1950s to the present day. Utilising archival and oral sources he describes the community now lost and the importance the parish was in cementing group identity. This is a useful and sensitive narrative of the community and one senses almost a note of regret at its passing or rather transformation from a religious into a secular "community centre" focused society.

The political strand of the historiography is covered in three essays, one by John Belchem - ostensibly about the Liverpool Irish middle classes but more focused on the political engagement of the group. Belchem has done much work on the associational culture of the Irish ethnic enclave in Liverpool and declares a mission to rescue the community from "historical caricature and stigma". This essay builds upon his previous work, essentially engaging with the role of the middle class Irish in building an Irish nationalism as well as recording some of the ethnic entrepreneurs of the city. Belchem is quite correct to point out the overemphasis on poor Catholic migrants within the historiography, there was a notable middle-class Irish element in nineteenth century Britain that is only just coming to light as researchers begin to ask relevant questions. The neglect of the Irish middle classes is connected to the prejudices surrounding the Irish in Britain. Arguably within the British national discourse, the memory of the Irish is still that of an unskilled poor labourer with a drink problem and predisposed to violence. These prejudices have subliminally affected research agendas in the past. A second political essay is provided by John Hutchinson and Alan O'Day who examine the political tensions between the generations of Irish nationalists and "new" upwardly mobile section of middle class migrant more willing to form a new identity for Irishness based upon sport, literature and language in London of the 1890s. Also, Gerard Moran provides an interesting examination of Irish nationalist politics in Lancashire by examining the Brotherhood of Saint Patrick, "the first organisation after the Famine to organise the Irish into a movement focusing on Irish problems, not confining itself exclusively to political issues". This is an important area as the organisational networks of the Irish Diaspora have again been under researched. All of these essays in their own way add to the empirical knowledge that is the raw material of historical research and understanding, operating within a conventional social and economic historiography.

However, Mary Hickman in an important essay within the book argues for an alternative historiography for the Irish in Britain. Her inherently structuralist thesis disputes the segregationist/assimillationist model that characterises much of the literature, pointing out that the discourse focuses on the group itself and its relative "successes" or "failures" in relation to the host state/society without problematising the role that the receiving society poses to the migrant. Her critique censures the "inherent empiricism" of most historiography that produces a systematic exceptionalism from the sources, professional knowledge of which becomes a "substitute for thought". Hickman calls for a new approach that systematises the various factors of "race" ethnicity, class, religion, politics etc. to provide a new analysis of how Irish experiences in Britain were configured in relation to these factors. She is very critical of the assimilation model arguing that it disengages migrants from the structural factors such as class and access to employment, undervalues the role of "race" and ethnicity in determining class position and ignores the role the Irish played in the construction of a cross-class racist British nationalism. The role of the state is also transparent in much of the historiography according to Hickman, the particular articulation of which structures the institutional and cultural context of the receiving society. For Hickman, the Irish in Britain arrived at a crucial time of the British state's nation building project, a project that was concerned with constructing an idea of an homogenised and centralised state and culture. Irish Catholic peasants became within this context the defining "Other" from which a cross class "national-racial unit" was constructed, That is to say Englishness/Britishness. This unit was defined by Protestantism and the inculcation of "respectability", or in other words bourgeois values, into the working classes. Thus the new nineteenth century institutions of police, education, mass media etc. were involved in a nation building project part of which was the construction of a new political subject and thereby the state reconstructed its self and its hegemony. The Irish were problematised within this project and for Hickman the focus of attention for historians should be upon this historical context rather than the relative success or otherwise of Irish migrants integration strategies which has been the legacy of the current historiography. Hickman's thesis presents new challenges to historians in this area and opens up a potentially rich seam of a more cross disciplinary approach utilising some of the concepts and methodologies of sociology, cultural studies and law among others.

The construction of British and Irish national identities were crucial at this point in history, as was the need to shore up what was to become the ascendant economic and political configuration of Britain and elsewhere. Liberal democracy has told many stories about itself within the nation building project of Britain and one has been the idea of assimilation as positive acculturation rather than a negative ethnic suicide. One story that is lacking is how the Irish helped to define who was and was not Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Manx and British. Lynda Colley's work in this area significantly skirts the role of the Irish and at best is a neglect of the facts. The role of continental and colonial people's was important, but if we are to focus on the role of religion on British identity then the Irish need to be taken seriously as the internal and external "Other" to British nationalism. In light of long term anti-Catholicism, medium term political and anti-colonial agitation at home and abroad as well as medium to short term tensions created by mass migration of impoverished peasants in the Great Famine period, the role of the Irish as a political, religious, ethnic and class antithesis to the bourgeois, freeborn, colonial Protestant Englishman becomes clear.

In conclusion, this new collection opens up some new areas for research within the established historiography with some strands emigrating away from the subaltern slant and numbers game. The shift towards the regional and small scale studies as well as middle class and family networks are to be welcomed as a rich source for future empirical work. The political and religious strands are still under researched and the essays included are important as are the mapping of Irish communities as yet untouched by study or published work. In the light of all the empirical work available and to be done, the introduction of a more theoretical element to the field is a welcome challenge. This said however, the book on the whole sticks closely to received wisdom and scarcely tries to challenge or push historiographical boundaries too far. When compared to other works such as Patrick O'Sullivan's diasporically and cross disciplinarian collections The Irish in the New Communities (6 volumes 1992) or Donald MacRaild's Culture, Conflict and Migration: The Irish in Victorian Cumbria (1998) and his excellent Irish Immigrants in Modern Britain, 1750-1922 (1999), this new volume feels a little too content with the received wisdoms of the field. This can suggest - incorrectly - that the past two decades of study on Irish migration and settlement in Britain has moved relatively little.

One stimulating area of research has been opened up by Hickman, however. As the oldest, most prolific and culturally integrated of migrants to the British isles in the modern period, the Irish communities and the reactions they provoked and coaxed from their resident neighbours and vice versa has much to tell us about issues of identity formation, ethnic and religious prejudice as well as nation building, the invention of traditions of ethnic memory and imagined communities at an important time in Britain's history. Many of the patterns of prejudice that the Irish experienced in nineteenth century Britain are remarkably consistent with modern expressions of racism and intolerance towards immigrants. Arguably, the notions of Irish and British are meaningless with out each other. Thus the study of this group in this period should be at the centre rather than the periphery of British history.


Victorian Period: Early & Late

The Period is often divided into two parts: the early Victorian Period (ending around 1870) and the late Victorian Period.

Writers associated with the early period are: Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–1892), Robert Browning (1812–1889), Elizabeth Barrett Browning (1806–1861), Emily Bronte (1818–1848), Matthew Arnold (1822–1888), Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828–1882), Christina Rossetti (1830–1894), George Eliot (1819–1880), Anthony Trollope (1815–1882) and Charles Dickens (1812–1870).

Writers associated with the late Victorian Period include George Meredith (1828–1909), Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844–1889), Oscar Wilde (1856–1900), Thomas Hardy (1840–1928), Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936), A.E. Housman (1859–1936), and Robert Louis Stevenson (1850–1894).

While Tennyson and Browning represented pillars in Victorian poetry, Dickens and Eliot contributed to the development of the English novel. Perhaps the most quintessentially Victorian poetic works of the period are: Tennyson's "In Memorium" (1850), which mourns the loss of his friend. Henry James describes Eliot's "Middlemarch" (1872) as "organized, molded, balanced composition, gratifying the reader with the sense of design and construction."

It was a time of change, a time of great upheaval, but also a time of GREAT literature!


Vaata videot: La Era Victoriana