Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Angel of Death: The Story of Smallpox by Gareth Williams (review)

Angel of Death: The Story of Smallpox by Gareth Williams (review) quential discussion of the former giving citizens the courage to debate the latter. This supposed scenario of customers reading and discussing the Spectator in a coffeehouse allowed readers to debate and form judgments, deployed later in relation to politics. There are reasons to find this narrative factitious and unconvincing, and Mr. Morrissey shows why Habermas's argument fails to give a good account of the emergence of literary criticism. But while The Constitution of Literature is clearly critical of the public sphere argument, it relies so heavily on Habermas's account that it grants it a status it does not need or deserve. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, thus, is not a reliable or thorough guide to the politics of writing in the eighteenth century. It is a tendentious philosophical argument--a debate--but it is not an authority about what actually happened in eighteenth-century England. In addition, Mr. Morrissey insists on describing the extension of the reading public in this period, and the discussions on print culture in periodicals like the Spectator, and in institutions like the coffeehouse, as a contribution to a process of democratization or ``democratic access.'' As a term, ``democracy'' is interesting, but it was not http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats

Angel of Death: The Story of Smallpox by Gareth Williams (review)

The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats , Volume 45 (2)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/the-scriblerian-and-the-kit-cats/angel-of-death-the-story-of-smallpox-by-gareth-williams-review-EYo7DdXI2C
Publisher
The Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats
Copyright
Copyright © Roy S. Wolper, W. B. Gerard, and Derek Taylor
ISSN
2165-0624
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

quential discussion of the former giving citizens the courage to debate the latter. This supposed scenario of customers reading and discussing the Spectator in a coffeehouse allowed readers to debate and form judgments, deployed later in relation to politics. There are reasons to find this narrative factitious and unconvincing, and Mr. Morrissey shows why Habermas's argument fails to give a good account of the emergence of literary criticism. But while The Constitution of Literature is clearly critical of the public sphere argument, it relies so heavily on Habermas's account that it grants it a status it does not need or deserve. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, thus, is not a reliable or thorough guide to the politics of writing in the eighteenth century. It is a tendentious philosophical argument--a debate--but it is not an authority about what actually happened in eighteenth-century England. In addition, Mr. Morrissey insists on describing the extension of the reading public in this period, and the discussions on print culture in periodicals like the Spectator, and in institutions like the coffeehouse, as a contribution to a process of democratization or ``democratic access.'' As a term, ``democracy'' is interesting, but it was not

Journal

The Scriblerian and the Kit-CatsThe Scriblerian and the Kit-Cats

There are no references for this article.