Mapping North–South Cross-Currents: Toward a Translational Approach to British Romantic Literature and Culture

Reviewed by: The Politics of Motherhood: British Writing and Culture 1680–1760, and: Children, Parents, and the Rise of the Novel, and: Disciplines of Virtue: Girls’ Culture in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries Jennifer Thorn Toni Bowers. The Politics of Motherhood: British Writing and Culture 1680–1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Pp. 262. $54.95. T. G. A. Nelson. Children, Parents, and the Rise of the Novel. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1995. Pp. 252. $37.50. Lynne Vallone. Disciplines of Virtue: Girls’ Culture in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Pp. 230. $25.00. Since Lawrence Stone’s The Family, Sex, and Marriage, 1500–1800, eighteenth-century family history has burgeoned as a field, with many of the assertions most closely [End Page 145] associated with Stone—such as the claims that the long eighteenth century saw the advent of the companionate marriage, affective individualism, sentimental motherhood, and reverence for childhood—receiving corroboration and contestation alike by historians of diverse specializations, such as Christopher Brooks, Lenore Davidoff, Jack Goody, Catherine Hall, Ralph Houlbrooke, Martin Ingram, Peter Laslett, Alan Macfarlane, Ferdinand Mount, Linda Pollock, Keith Wrightson, and E. A. Wrigley. Recent decades have also seen a boom in treatments of the metaphoric comparison of familial to state governance; here the best examples may be the work of Americanists Jay Fliegelman and Mary Beth Norton. In different ways, the three books under review here revisit and reconfigure this still unsettled historical terrain; together, they provide evidence of the vitality with which assertions of change and continuity in familial representations and practices are at present being debated. “Augustan discourse was preoccupied with motherhood” (14): Toni Bowers’ The Politics of Motherhood admirably succeeds in demonstrating the force and range implied by this representative statement. Bowers examines in turn three thematic clusters in which representations of motherhood were central in the contestation and codification of authority: Queen Anne; “unnaturally” cruel and neglecting mothers; and emergent ideals of domesticity, epitomized for Bowers by part 2 of Pamela. In the section “Royal motherhood: Queen Anne and the politics of maternal representation,” Bowers draws upon diverse sources to argue persuasively for a telling irony: “Anne’s considerable popularity was largely due to the fact that unlike any monarch before her, she was defined in terms of what she shared with her subjects: she was a model for women insofar as she was ordinary” (44)—an ordinariness that late in her reign contributed to her devaluation as merely pious and entirely removed from the martial feats by which English national power was consolidated and maintained. Bowers tracks the history of the cultivation—by Anne herself and by political and literary writers—of an understanding of her queenly power as essentially maternal through the births and deaths of her numerous children and through the rise of Marlborough as ambiguously both supporter and rival; she considers too the cultural and political changes that differentiated Augustan England from the earlier climate in which Elizabeth had wielded so cannily her own potentially reproductive royal body. Bowers opens the second section of Politics of Motherhood with a description of several particularly vivid examples of the many sermons, pamphlets, and fictions that dramatize “coldhearted, cruel, avaricious, cowardly, fraudulent, and lascivious” mothers, in which context she skillfully places Moll Flanders and Roxana, reading both as exposés of “the myth that mothers are fully and individually responsible for choices made in constraining and even coercive social situations, choices so overdetermined as to be inevitable” (113). Bowers juxtaposes these readings, which demonstrate the ways that material circumstances assure maternal restriction and even failure, with the vision of “successful, autonomous motherhood” that she finds in Haywood’s The Rash Resolve and The Force of Nature. It is in this section, precise in its readings and urgent in its conclusions, that Bowers most fully realizes her declared hope that her project of “historicizing motherhood” could be used “to construct future motherhood that does not necessarily entail abjection, withdrawal, or passivity” (24). The final section of the book attends closely to Pamela and Clarissa and the critical discussions that surround them. Especially interesting here are Bowers’s contextualization of the breastfeeding debate in...

<i>The Oxford History of Literary Translation in English. Vol. 4: 1790–1900</i>. Edited by <i>Peter France</i> and <i> Kenneth Haynes</i>. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Pp. xvi+595.

The Evasion of Literary History

This guide accompanies the following article: ‘I mak Bould to Wrigt’: First‐person Narratives in the History of Poverty in England, c. 1750–1900, History Compass 9/5 (2011): 365–373, DOI: 10.1111/j.1478‐0542.2011.00774.x Author’s Introduction Histories of the experience of poverty are hampered in the period before widespread literacy, owing to the infrequency with which the words of the poor could be inscribed privately and the mediated qualities of public or third‐party recordings (for example, where testimony was given by the poor in their capacity as defendants in criminal trials). Yet comprehension of the gradations of material poverty, and the social allegiances or divisions that it inspired, are vital to our understanding of nineteenth‐century society and can reveal some surprising disjunctions in what we think we know. Jane Humphries’ recent research on autobiographies recalling child labour, for instance, presses for a refocusing of our attention on the role of children in the industrial revolution. Therefore, a programme of work which considers the perceptions and experiences of poverty by drawing on first‐person testimonies can provide detailed insight into lived experience, and has the potential to destabilise our assumptions about the mass of ordinary working people. Author Recommends J. Burnett, D. Vincent and D. Mayall (eds.), The Autobiography of the Working Class. An Annotated Critical Bibliography (New York: New York University Press, 1984–1989), 3 volumes. A calendar of over 3000 working‐class autobiographies with an excellent index. Not all of the autobiographies listed have been published. R. Gagnier, Subjectivities. A History of Self‐Representation in Britain, 1832–1920 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). A pioneering and interdisciplinary work about autobiography. J. Humphries, Childhood and Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). A recent work which deploys working‐class autobiographies as both qualitative and quantitative sources to reconfigure our understanding of children’s collective contribution to the industrial revolution. S. King, Poverty and Welfare in England 1700–1850 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000). A textbook coverage of the transition from the old poor law to the new. P. Sharpe (eds.), Chronicling Poverty. The Voices and Strategies of the English Poor, 1640–1840 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997). The published papers of a conference held in London in January 1995, drawing together some authors central to the debate about the use of narratives to analyse the experience of poverty (particularly pauper letters). K. D. M. Snell, Annals of the Labouring Poor. Social Change and Agrarian England, 1660–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). A wide‐ranging book that considers a startling variety of testimonies including settlement examinations and fictional accounts of poverty. T. Sokoll (ed.), Essex Pauper Letters, 1731–1837 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001). An edited collection of the raw material, with useful introductory essays about how to scrutinise this genre. D. Vincent, Bread, Knowledge and Freedom. A Study of Nineteenth‐Century Working‐Class Autobiography (London: Methuen, 1981). An early attempt to make use of the calendaring of working‐class autobiographies, with a particular focus on the history of working‐class family life and experiences of education. Online Materials The Workhouse http://www.workhouses.org/ An excellent website providing information about the Poor Law, pictures of workhouses and extracts of sources relating to workhouse life. Charles Booth Online Archive http://www.lse.ac.uk/booth/ Includes original documents from his survey of London poverty 1886–1903. Syllabus for a course on English poverty, from the final decade of the eighteenth century to the first decade of the twentieth : published first‐person narratives from observers of the poor which may be mined to provide a focus for discussion include: C. Booth, Life and Labour of the People in London (1902). M. Higgs, Glimpse into the Abyss (1906). J. London, People of the Abyss (1903) [full text online at http://www.jacklondons.net/writings/PeopleOfTheAbyss/toc.html ] H. Mayhew, London Labour and the London Poor (1851–1862) volume 1 [full text online at Google books]. B. S. Rowntree, Poverty. A Study of Town Life (1901) [full text available via Google books], chapter 4. Texts written by the poor can be identified in Burnett et al. (referenced above). Topics for Lecture and Discussion Week I: Contexts and Methodologies: From Social History to Cultural History, and Back Again? Journal of Social History 37:1 (2003) [special edition considering the relationship between social and cultural histories]. Week II: Statutory Change: Out With the Old Poor Law, in With the New Suggested primary focus: C. Shaw, When I was a Child (1903), chapters 13 and 14 [which, at the time of writing, is being made available full‐text online at http://www.thepotteries.org/focus/011.htm ] OR J. Greenwood, ‘A Night in a Workhouse’, Pall Mall Gazette (1866), 12 January onwards [full text online at <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink

THE MELANCHOLY NATIVE AMERICAN MAY HAVE GAINED CULTURAL ASCENDANCY in England through the popularity of American writers like James Fenimore Cooper and William Cullen Bryant, but the sorrows of the appealed to the nineteenth-century British subject for reasons different from those for which the mourning attracted Americans. The appropriation of Native American land by the American government and the possible Celtic origins of the Native American tribes are two themes that surface in the Gentleman's Magazine and other British periodicals of the 1810s and 1820s. (1) These themes in combination reveal the British public's identification with the Native American as the victim of American imperialism and the public's association of the Celt, the original British person, with Native Americans. This identification with suffering occurred as Britain mourned for the American colonies lost in the American Revolution and again in the War of 1812. What Nancy Moore Goslee describes as the violent expropriation of Indian territory was now the fault not of the British colonists but of the Americans, who were also responsible for the territorial losses of the British. (2) The loss of empire installed a compensatory imperialist fantasy in British culture. In the first three decades of the nineteenth century, the cult of the Native American grew as William Wordsworth, Amelia Opie, Felicia Hemans, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, and others wrote poems and plays featuring the tragic Indian. (3) All of these British writers portrayed the colonized as mourning over a lost relative, tribe, or homeland, or over imminent personal demise. In tracing a resemblance between the and British losses of American lands, British writers legitimated the British imperial right of possession by portraying white Americans as the robbers of innocent Indians and Britons alike. Yet British artists not only appropriated the image of the sorrowing to justify British empire, but also marketed this figure for money and prestige. The mourning serves British imperialism and exemplifies a widespread romantic economic melancholia. Here seen in British cultural production, the displacement of mourning through ambivalent identification with an impoverished object is symptomatic of melancholia. Well-known to nineteenth-century British culture, the theories of melancholia developed by early modern medical thinkers like Robert Burton were eventually given a psychological structure by Sigmund Freud. (4) Freud describes the cause of melancholia as the subject's refusal of the loss of a beloved object. Unlike the melancholic, the subject who successfully mourns the lost object prolongs the existence of the object while testing the reality of that object's absence. Finding the object irretrievable, the subject severs his attachment in order to preserve himself. But instead of gradually weakening his attachment to this lost object, the melancholic subject refuses to let go of the object. Faced with loss, the melancholic subject refuses it by identifying himself with the lost object. This identification is painful because are never brought to full closure; identifications are inevitably failed identifications, as Diana Fuss observes. (5) The subject thus emerges through his melancholic refusal of his own incompleteness: desire sustains subjective identity while testifying to its impossibility. Like Fuss's melancholic subject, Britain defined itself through its melancholic identification with a surrogate object that was outside the nation and yet belonged inside it due to the nation's attachment to it. (6) When romantic artists offered up the surrogate object of the image, melancholy Britain's imperial loss was transformed into a symbolic gain for commodity culture. British commodity culture formed around a commodity economy produced by capitalism. …

Performing Translation in Contemporary Anglo-American Drama Jenny Spencer (bio) There can be no operative notion of universality that does not assume the risks of translation. —Judith Butler1 MILTON: English is my only language, alas. —Tony Kushner2 Both translation studies and performance studies have prospered as significant interdisciplinary fields by providing powerful, conceptual lenses with which to construct new knowledge in the humanities and social sciences. In addition to the question, "What happens if we look at these phenomena as a performance?" contemporary critics have begun to ask, "What happens if we consider these phenomena a translation?"3 Both disciplines claim genealogies going back to the Greeks, have suffered secondary status in relation to the sources they provide with an "afterlife,"4 and depend upon practitioners who may or may not do theory. But the fields' current configurations can be traced to the impact of poststructuralist theories of language, identity, and power [End Page 389] associated with cultural studies more generally since the 1970s. As one might expect when scholars working on widely different material are reading the same theorists, conceptual metaphors resonate differently depending on their provenance as well as their use. For example, Judith Butler's concept of "gender performativity" was taken up by feminist theatre scholars in ways that led to Butler's own disclaimers about just how much agency was implied in this term.5 A similar issue has arisen around the widespread appropriation of the term "translation" in work having little to do with the actual translation of written or spoken words from one language to another. Postcolonial critic Homi Bhabha, for example, uses translation in its most figurative sense to describe and analyze the effects of Third World migrancy in primarily Western multicultural locations.6 Indeed, the very productivity associated with performance and translation as metaphors, and the speed with which they are taken up in both popular and critical discourse, tends to undermine their specific theoretical utility. Such an argument is familiar: if any behavior can be viewed as performance and any communicative act can be viewed as translation, then knowledge produced within particular disciplinary frameworks may seem imperiled, especially to those most committed to the fields being raided, whether translators or theatre practitioners. Is it possible to deploy translation as a trope without diminishing the value of the concept as it derives from specific linguistic practices? And is it useful to do so? Certainly 9/11 and the misguided foreign-policy initiatives that have ensued highlight the problem and urgency of adequate cultural translation along with the need for actual translators. War is not simply the continuation of policy by other means but, as Emily Apter has so appropriately noted, "the continuation of extreme mistranslation or disagreement by other means."7 Current geopolitical conflicts have thrust us, willingly or not, into what Apter calls "the translation zone" (undoubtedly alluding to Mary Louise Pratt's "contact zone"), a highly hazardous arena where mistranslation has deadly consequences. While this is not a new dilemma, theorists like Butler have recently taken up the relationship among cultural understanding, translation, and ethical action with renewed interest. Even before 9/11, Butler was turning to a concept of "cultural translation" as the most generative approach to political ethics, noting in Conversations on the Left with Slavoj Žižek and Ernesto Laclau that "the very concept of universality compels an understanding of culture as a relation of exchange and a task of translation."8 In answer to whether the critiques of ideology, strategic essentialism, or false universals can themselves produce an effective progressive politics—a question also asked by post-Brechtian political playwrights—Butler advances a "counter-imperialistic concept of translation," one that does not presume linguistic or cognitive commonness nor an [End Page 390] ultimate fusion of perspectives.9 Apter suggests that for Butler, "the form of universality is translation itself—albeit performative, alive to the syntactic stagings of linguistic difference."10 In her most recent work, Butler's use of cultural translation seems especially indebted to Bhabha's The Location of Culture, in particular, "How Newness Enters the World: Postmodern Space, Postcolonial Times and the Trials of Cultural Translation," a chapter that develops Walter...

Reviewed by: Brokering Culture in Britain’s Empire and the Historical Novel by Matthew Carey Salyer Ruth M. McAdams (bio) Matthew Carey Salyer, Brokering Culture in Britain’s Empire and the Historical Novel (New York: Lexington Books, 2020), pp. xii + 227, $95/£73 hardcover. Matthew Carey Salyer’s Brokering Culture in Britain’s Empire and the Historical Novel traces connections between nineteenth-century British and American historical novels and eighteenth-century imperial figures who mediated and brokered value between the metropole and the periphery. These imperial interlocutors were a motley crew of individuals excluded from or resistant to the Whig account of historical progress, including “High Tories, Catholics, (‘crypto-’) Jacobites, and other malcontents . . . displaced, whether directly or indirectly, by Britain’s eighteenth-century nation-building—whose peripheral status in the dominant national narrative meant that the terms of their ‘Britishness’ were more fraught at ‘home’ and more easily renegotiated abroad” (3). Salyer argues that the stories of these eighteenth-century imperial agents or “factors,” and the various texts they produced in their negotiations for power, influenced the development of the historical novel in the nineteenth century (4). In this way, he contests Georg Lukács’s influential understanding of the genre as forged by the mass experiences of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, pointing instead to earlier contexts. This argument, promised in the introduction, best encapsulates the claims made in the first three chapters. Each traces the way that eighteenth-century imperial contexts or events in Scotland, Ireland, and North America reverberate in early nineteenth-century historical novels. Chapter 1 observes striking parallels between the early life of the fictional protagonist of Walter Scott’s Waverley (1814) and that of Edmund Burke, who was raised in a Jacobite milieu in the west of Ireland. Salyer charts prismatic connections among the 1745 uprising, Jacobite literary culture more broadly, Burke’s writing, and Scott’s novel. The second chapter reads Charles Brockden Brown’s Edgar Huntly (1799) alongside the famous mid-eighteenth-century Irish case of James Annesley, who claimed that his baron father had sold him into indentured servitude in North America. Chapter 3 analyzes James Fenimore Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales (1823–41) in the context of the quasi-legal concept of locum tenens, meaning a person who holds the place or substitutes for another. From the fourth chapter onward, the relationship between the individual chapters and the book’s overall argument becomes more gestural. Additional synthetic commentary, cross-references, or explanatory sign-posting would have been valuable. One subtle thread relates to metaphors of imperial community. Chapter 4 suggests that Frederick Marryat’s The [End Page 383] Phantom Ship (1839) figures the ship’s multi-ethnic community as a microcosm of the empire, though the chapter also discusses the novel’s refraction of the Lower Canada Rebellion (1837–38). The fifth chapter explores two real-life, failed attempts to bolster modern claims for power by drawing upon historical myths: Emperor Téwodros II of Ethiopia’s use of the “Prester John” myth in diplomatic negotiations, and the North American adventurer William Augustus Bowles’s use of the Madoc myth in efforts to establish a sovereign British–Native American state on the Gulf Coast. Readers of Victorian Periodicals Review might be drawn to chapter 6, which focuses on Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine. Salyer argues that Blackwood’s conceived of the collaborative, polyphonic nature of periodical writing as a metaphor for heterogeneous inherited traditions that resist the dominant metropolitan worldview. He suggests briefly that the magazine’s model of “Greater Britain” may have accorded with the way that the “service classes” conceived of their place in the empire (168). The seventh chapter, the coda, analyzes Rudyard Kipling’s “The Man Who Would Be King” (1888) as anachronistic historical fiction that refigures the political adventurism of young British men in central Asia in the 1830s through the 1850s. The book’s relative disengagement with the racist violence of British imperialism is troubling. Salyer might reasonably observe that his analysis concerns a particular kind of misfit British man (always a man) whose perceived exclusion from dominant historical narratives led him to find personal and professional fulfillment in the empire, resulting in a...

<i>Reading the Ruins: Modernism, Bombsites and British Culture</i>. Leo Mellor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Pp. vii+245.

The nineteenth century was a time when British culture, although increasingly insular in many ways, was also increasingly aware of a wide spread of world literature. New “discoveries” included writing from Germany, Northern and Eastern Europe, medieval Spain and the countries of the East. An important part in this exploration was played by the thriving new periodical literature, which found space both for translations of foreign works and for long reviews that often contained substantial translated passages. This field has yet to be fully explored; the present article focuses on two very different Edinburgh periodicals which occupied a central position in British literary culture, the Edinburgh Review and Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. An analysis of the content of these journals over two five-year periods during the first half of the century brings out the different approaches of an established review and a newly founded magazine, showing among other things Blackwood's interest in a great variety of foreign writing, ancient and modern, (above all from Germany) and in the process of translation, while the Edinburgh Review tends to concentrate on recent French culture.

Reviewed by: Queen Boudica and Historical Culture in Britain: An Image of Truth by Martha Vandrei Arianne Chernock (bio) Queen Boudica and Historical Culture in Britain: An Image of Truth, by Martha Vandrei; pp. xi + 233. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2018, £60.00, $74.00. Victorianists are probably familiar with Queen Boudica. That is because Boudica—the leader of the ancient Iceni tribe who staged a bloody rebellion against the Romans in AD 61 in retaliation for the enslavement of her family and rape of her two daughters—figured prominently in nineteenth-century British life. Victorian children committed William Cowper's Boadicea: An Ode (1782) to memory, while archaeological enthusiasts surveyed Hampstead Heath searching for Boudica's remains. In 1898, Thomas Thornycroft's imposing statue of Boudica was erected at the end of Westminster Bridge, within a stone's throw of Parliament—surely a sign of Boudica's primacy of place in Victorian culture. For a nation headed by a female sovereign and committed to imperial expansion, the draw was obvious. Boudica provided a useable past. Or so the story goes. Martha Vandrei wants to shake up this narrative. In her ambitious if at times unwieldy Queen Boudica and Historical Culture in Britain: An Image of Truth, Vandrei situates Boudica in the broader sweep of history and insists that the Victorian fascination with the ancient queen was nothing new. Yes, Boudica provided a convenient predecessor to Queen Victoria; Victorians on occasion referred to Boudica as Victoria I. And yes, she anchored Britons' late-nineteenth-century imperial ambitions. But Britons had long been intrigued by Boudica, "one of the first named figures in British history" (83). Since the Elizabethan period, Vandrei shows, they had been [End Page 324] playing out Boudica's life on both the page and stage, to different ends and with different purposes. Continuity, rather than rupture, drives Vandrei's account. Building on some of the themes introduced by Jodi Mikalachki in her The Legacy of Boadicea: Gender and Nation in Early Modern England (1998), Vandrei proposes that we use Boudica as a lens through which to view how Britons across the centuries have wrestled with and attempted to project meaning onto their past. In this sense, Vandrei is as much concerned with Boudica in particular as with the rise of so-called historical culture in Britain. By looking at the ways in which various writers, poets, playwrights, sculptors, and artists engaged with Boudica over time, Vandrei contends, we learn much about the formation of the historical discipline. It is here that the subtitle for Vandrei's book—"an image of truth"—becomes crucially important. Boudica, Vandrei argues, played a key role in helping Britons determine what distinguished history (with its claims to truth and authenticity, and emphasis on evidence) from other forms of knowledge. These are weighty themes, and Vandrei grounds them by homing in on specific moments: the dynamic relationship between dramatic performances and prose histories of Boudica in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the politicization of Boudica's story in the wake of the Glorious Revolution, Boudica and the nineteenth-century search for "brave female hero[es]" through which to interpret and legitimate Queen Victoria's reign, and Boudica's place in early cinema (115). Along the way, Vandrei makes some surprising—and welcome—interventions. We learn, for example, that Britons were producing so-called serious history long before the rise of an alleged history market in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We also discover that these histories were being produced in all sorts of locations and that critics and audiences, as well as authors, helped to shape the meanings attached to Boudica's story. We also develop a greater appreciation for the role of theater in the rise of the field of history. In the process, Vandrei also provides a nuanced assessment of Victorians' own complex relationship with Boudica. She shows that Victorians were not always enthusiastic in their embrace of Boudica and that the queen's connection to Victorian imperialism could be quite strained. During the Indian Uprisng of 1857, for example, Britons struggled to determine if Boudica should be invoked on the side of the colonial ruler or the...

Teaching &amp; Learning Guide for: Englishness and The Victorians

‘The conviviality of the narrative premise’ is Steven Earnshaw’s felicitous phrase for the theme that suffuses this book. It is ‘a crawl through the drinking places of English literary history,’ in the company of Chaucer, Langland, Shakespeare, Dekker, Jonson, Pepys, Ned Ward (author of The London Spy), Goldsmith, Gray, Fielding, Cowper, Crabbe, Dickens, Eliot (G.), Hardy, Eliot (T. S.), Coppard, Hampson, Hamilton, Orwell and Amis (M.). It also ‘attempts to weave a pattern out of the strands of “pub”, English literature and England’. It is a labour of love, the product of years of hoarded references and inspired cups and we must be grateful. It will become a standard resort for literary scholars seeking quotable material on pubs (Piers Plowman ‘pissed a pottel in a pater-noster while’), and for anyone who likes to savour ‘the pub moment’ through the medium of print.

Previous article FreeNotes on ContributorsNotes on ContributorsPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreBrooke Abounader is a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto. She studies the role of representational inaccuracy in scientific modeling.Anna Akasoy, British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the Oriental Institute at Oxford, specializes in the intellectual and cultural history of the medieval Muslim West, contacts between the Islamic world and other cultures, and the role of Islamic history and culture in modern political debates in Western Europe.Garland E. Allen is Professor of Biology at Washington University in St. Louis. He has a special interest in the history of genetics (and eugenics), evolution, and embryology and their interactions in the first half of the twentieth century.Casper Andersen is an assistant professor at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. His main area of research is history of science, technology, and empires. His publications include the monograph British Engineers and Africa, 1875–1914 (2011), and he is coediting the forthcoming five-volume collection British Governance and Administration in Africa, 1880–1940 (2013).Warwick Anderson is Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and Professor in the Department of History and the Centre for Values, Ethics, and the Law in Medicine at the University of Sydney. He is the author of The Collectors of Lost Souls: Turning Kuru Scientists into Whitemen (Johns Hopkins, 2008) and coeditor of Unconscious Dominions: Psychoanalysis, Colonial Trauma, and Postcolonial Sovereignties (Duke, 2011). His current research explores the global history of scientific investigations of race mixing in the twentieth century.Peder Anker is an associate professor at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study and in the Environmental Studies Program at New York University. His works include Imperial Ecology: Environmental Order in the British Empire, 1895–1945 (Harvard University Press, 2001), and From Bauhaus to Eco-House: A History of Ecological Design (Louisiana State University Press, 2010). See www.pederanker.com.Ross Bassett is Associate Professor of History at North Carolina State University. He is working on a history of Indians who studied at MIT.Jakob Bek-Thomsen has a postdoctoral position at the Department of Culture and Society, Aarhus University. He has recently finished his Ph.D. dissertation, entitled “Nicolaus Steno and the Making of an Early Modern Career: Nature, Knowledge, and Networks at the Court of the Medici, 1657–1672.” He is currently working on the emergence of finance and its connections with natural philosophy and religion in the early modern period.Jim Bennett is Director of the Museum of the History of Science in Oxford. His research interests lie in the history of instruments, of practical mathematics, and of astronomy.Marvin Bolt, Director of the Webster Institute at the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, is authoring the Adler's Optical Instruments catalogue. He served on the editorial team of the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, studies the Herschel family, and researches the history of the telescope, early seventeenth-century examples in particular.Christian Bonah is Professor for the History of Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Strasbourg and a member of the Institut Universitaire de France. He has worked on comparative history of medical education, the history of medicaments, and the history of human experimentation. Recent work includes research on risk perception and management in drug scandals as well as studies on medical films.Sonja Brentjes is currently a researcher in a “project of excellence” sponsored by the Junta of Andalusia at the Department of Philosophy, Logic, and History of Science of the University of Seville. She publishes on three major topics: Arabic and Persian versions of Euclid's Elements, the mathematical sciences at madrasas in Islamic societies before 1700, and cross-cultural exchange of knowledge in the medieval and early modern Mediterranean.Thomas Broman is Professor and Chair of the Department of History of Science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research interests include eighteenth-century science and medicine, and he is currently writing a survey of science in the Enlightenment.Massimo Bucciantini is Professor of History of Science at the University of Siena. He is coeditor, with Michele Camerota, of Galilaeana: Journal of Galileo Studies. His publications include Galileo e Keplero (Einaudi, 2003; Les Belles Lettres, 2008), Italo Calvino e la scienza (Donzelli, 2007), and Auschwitz Experiment (Einaudi, 2011).Andrew J. Butrica, a former Chercheur Associé at the Centre de Recherches en Histoire des Sciences et Techniques in Paris, has published extensively on space history and has earned the Leopold Prize of the Organization of American Historians and the Robinson Prize of the National Council on Public History.Stefano Caroti is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Parma. His research interests include late medieval philosophy, particularly late scholastic debates on natural philosophy at the University of Paris.Chu Pingyi is a Research Fellow at the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan. He has published widely on appropriations of Jesuit science and natural philosophy by their Chinese readers in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century China.J. T. H. Connor is John Clinch Professor of Medical Humanities and History of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University, Newfoundland, Canada. He is currently coeditor of the McGill-Queen's University Press History of Health, Medicine, and Society series. His latest book, a collection of essays coedited with Stephan Curtis entitled Medicine in the Remote and Rural North, 1800–2000, was published in 2011 by Pickering & Chatto in the Studies for the Society for the Social History of Medicine series.Scott DeGregorio is Associate Professor of English Literature at the University of Michigan–Dearborn. He specializes in Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Latin literature, with a special focus on the Bible and its interpretation. He has published widely on the writings of Bede, most recently editing The Cambridge Companion to Bede.Michael Dettelbach has published widely on Alexander von Humboldt and is generally interested in science and culture in the revolutionary and Romantic eras. He directs Corporate and Foundation Relations at Boston University.Nadja Durbach is Associate Professor of History at the University of Utah. She is the author of Bodily Matters: The Anti-Vaccination Movement in England and Spectacle of Deformity: Freak Shows and Modern British Culture. She is now working on a book about beef, citizenship, and identity in modern Britain.David Edgerton is the Hans Rausing Professor, Centre for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine, Imperial College London. His most recent book is Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources, and Experts in the Second World War (London: Allen Lane, 2011; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).Paula Findlen is Ubaldo Pierotti Professor of Italian History at Stanford University. Her publications include Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy (California, 1994), and she has a long-standing interest in the relations between knowledge and faith in the age of Galileo.Maurice A. Finocchiaro is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. His latest books are The Essential Galileo (Hackett, 2008) and Defending Copernicus and Galileo: Critical Reasoning in the Two Affairs (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 280) (Springer, 2010). He is now working on the Routledge Guidebook to Galileo's Dialogue.Mike Fortun is an associate professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the author of Promising Genomics: Iceland and deCODE Genetics in a World of Speculation (University of California Press, 2008).Stephen Gaukroger is Professor of History of Philosophy and History of Science at the University of Sydney and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen. Among his recent publications are The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1210 to 1685 (Oxford University Press, 2005), and The Collapse of Mechanism and the Rise of Sensibility: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1680 to 1760 (Oxford University Press, 2010). He is now at work on the third volume in this series: The Naturalization of the Human and the Humanization of Nature: Science and the Shaping of Modernity, 1750 to 1825.Thomas F. Glick is Professor of History at Boston University. His two research fields are medieval technology (irrigation systems, water mills) and modern science (Darwin, Freud, and Einstein).Susana Gómez is Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. She is a specialist in seventeenth-century Italian science, with particular interests in atomism and experimental science. Much of her current work concerns issues about the representation of nature in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.Frederick Gregory is Emeritus Professor of History of Science at the University of Florida. His research has dealt with the history of science and religion and with German science in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He is currently engaged in writing a biography of the nineteenth-century Moravian physicist-philosopher Jakob Friedrich Fries.David E. Hahm is Professor Emeritus of Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University. He is the author of The Origins of Stoic Cosmology and articles on Greek and Roman intellectual and cultural history, especially Hellenistic philosophy and historiography.Minghui Hu served as an Andrew Mellon Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Chicago from 2003 to 2005. He joined the Department of History at the University of California, Santa Cruz, in 2005 and is now completing his book manuscript Cosmopolitan Confucians: The Passage to Modern Chinese Thought.Jeffrey Allan Johnson, Professor of History at Villanova University, has published mainly on the social and institutional history of chemical science and technology in modern Germany. Recently he was guest editor for Ambix, 2011, 58(2), a special issue on “Chemistry in the Aftermath of World Wars.”Jessica Keating is a Solmsen Fellow in the Institute for Research in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. She is writing a book entitled The Machinations of German Court Culture: Early Modern Automata.Peter C. Kjærgaard is Professor of Evolutionary Studies at Aarhus University. He has published widely in the history of modern science, including books on Wittgenstein and the sciences, the history of universities, and the history of science in Denmark. His current research focuses on the history and popular understanding of human evolution.David Knight has taught history of science at Durham University in England since 1964 and is a past President of the British Society for the History of Science. He published The Making of Modern Science in 2009 (Polity) and is writing a book on the Scientific Revolution.Bernard Lightman is Professor of Humanities at York University, where he is Director of the Institute for Science and Technology Studies. He is also the Editor of the History of Science Society's flagship journal, Isis. His most recent publications include Victorian Popularizers of Science, Evolutionary Naturalism in Victorian Britain, and Science in the Marketplace (coedited with Aileen Fyfe). He is also general editor of a monograph series titled “Science and Culture in the Nineteenth Century” published by Pickering & Chatto. He is currently working on a biography of John Tyndall and is one of the editors of the John Tyndall Correspondence Project, an international collaborative effort to obtain, digitalize, transcribe, and publish all surviving letters to and from Tyndall.Pamela O. Long is a historian of late medieval/early modern history of science and technology. She is the coeditor and coauthor of The Book of Michael of Rhodes: A Fifteenth-Century Maritime Manuscript (MIT Press, 2009). Her books include Artisan/Practitioners and the Rise of the New Sciences, 1400–1600 (Oregon State University Press, 2011). She is at work on a history of engineering and knowledge in late sixteenth-century Rome.Morris Low is an associate professor of Japanese history at the University of Queensland, where he is Acting Head of the School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies. He coedited a special issue of Historia Scientiarum (2011, 21[1]), and his recent books include Japan on Display (2006).Christine MacLeod is Professor Emerita of History at the University of Bristol. She is the author of Heroes of Invention: Technology, Liberalism, and British Identity, 1750–1914 (Cambridge University Press, 2007), and Inventing the Industrial Revolution: The English Patent System, 1660–1800 (Cambridge University Press, 1988).Paolo Mancosu is Professor and Chair of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His main areas of interest are mathematical logic and history and philosophy of mathematics and logic. His current work is focused on the philosophy of mathematical practice. He has been a Guggenheim Fellow (2008) and a member of the Institute for Advanced Study (2009).Hannah Marcus is a doctoral student studying history and the history of science at Stanford University. She is interested in the relationship between intellectual and religious culture in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Italy.David Meskill is an assistant professor of history at Dowling College on Long Island. His book Optimizing the German Workforce: Labor Administration from Bismarck to the Economic Miracle was published by Berghahn Books in 2010.John Pickstone is Wellcome Research Professor in the University of Manchester Centre for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine. His publications include Ways of Knowing: A New History of Science, Technology, and Medicine (Manchester University Press, 2000) and The Modern Biological and Earth Sciences, Volume 6 of the Cambridge History of Science (edited with Peter Bowler) (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Matthias Rieger is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Sociology, Leibniz University, Hannover, and the author of Helmholtz Musicus: Die Objektivierung der Musik im 19. Jahrhundert durch Helmholtz' Lehre von den Tonempfindungen (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006).Joy Rohde is Assistant Professor of History at Trinity University in San Antonio. Her research focuses on Cold War social science and politics. She is completing a book, under contract with Cornell University Press, titled The Social Scientists' War: Knowledge, Statecraft, and Democracy in the Era of Containment.William G. Rothstein is Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. He is the author of several books on American medical history, most recently Public Health and the Risk Factor (2003).Lisa T. Sarasohn is Professor of History at Oregon State University. Her latest publication is The Natural Philosophy of Margaret Cavendish: Reason and Fancy during the Scientific Revolution (Johns Hopkins, 2010). She is working on a cultural history of insects in early modern England.Arne Schirrmacher teaches history of science at the Humboldt University in Berlin and is currently on leave at the University of California, Berkeley. His research concerns the history of the modern mathematical sciences, in particular quantum theory, the history of scientific socialization within student groups in Germany since 1850, and science communication in twentieth-century Europe.Petra G. Schmidl specialized in premodern astronomy in Islamic societies. Since 2009, she has worked as a research assistant at the University of Bonn. With Eva Orthmann and Mo˙hammad Karīmī Zanjānī A˙sl, she is investigating the Dustūr al-Munajjimīn as a source for the history of the Ismāʿīliyya and their astronomical and astrological concepts.Charlotte Schubert is Professor of Ancient History at the University of Leipzig. Her publications include Anacharsis der Weise: Nomade, Skythe, Grieche (2010), Der hippokratische Eid (2005), Hippokrates (coedited, 2006), and Frauenmedizin in der Antike (coedited, 1999).Vera Schwach is a historian and senior researcher at the Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research, and Higher Education (NIFU). She has published analyses in science policy and has written extensively on the history of marine science, especially on fisheries biology and the management of sea fisheries in the Nordic countries and in Europe.Jonathan Seitz is an assistant teaching professor of history at Drexel University. He is particularly interested in vernacular ideas about nature and the supernatural in early modern Europe. His book, Witchcraft and Inquisition in Early Modern Venice, was published in 2011 by Cambridge University Press.Helaine Selin is Science Librarian and Faculty Associate in the School of Natural Sciences at Hampshire College. Her work includes editing The Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures (Springer, 2008) and the series Science Across Cultures. Happiness Across Cultures is due out in Spring 2012.Efram Sera-Shriar received his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science from the University of Leeds. He is now working as a research associate on the John Tyndall Correspondence Project, organized by Montana State University and York University in Toronto.Asif A. Siddiqi is an associate professor of history at Fordham University. His most recent book is The Red Rockets' Glare: Spaceflight and the Soviet Imagination, 1857–1957 (Cambridge University Press, 2010). He is now writing a book on the effects of the Stalinist purges on Soviet science and technology.Mark G. Spencer is Associate Professor of History at Brock University. His book, David Hume and Eighteenth-Century America (University of Rochester Press, 2005), was issued in a paperback edition in 2010. He is also current President of the Eighteenth-Century Scottish Studies Society.Matthew Stanley is an associate professor at New York University's Gallatin School of Individualized Study, where he teaches and researches the history and philosophy of science. He is the author of Practical Mystic: Religion, Science, and A. S. Eddington (Chicago, 2007), and he is now completing a manuscript on the history of science and religion in the Victorian period.John Steele is Associate Professor of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies at Brown University. His recent publications include A Brief Introduction to Astronomy in the Middle East (Saqi Books, 2008) and Ancient Astronomical Observations and the Study of the Moon's Motion (1691–1757) (Springer, 2012). He is currently working on an edition and commentary of a newly discovered astrological compendium from Babylon.Larry Stewart is Professor of History at the University of Saskatchewan. He is editing a book on the uses of humans in experiment and writing a study of experiment in the Enlightenment and the first industrial revolution.Bert Theunissen is Professor of the History of Science at the Institute for History and Foundations of Science, affiliated with the Descartes Centre for the History of the Sciences and the Humanities at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. His current work focuses on the history of animal breeding, particularly on the interactions between scientific and practical workers in livestock breeding in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For his publications see http://www.descartescentre.com.Carsten Timmermann is a lecturer at the Centre for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine at the University of Manchester. His research and teaching focus on issues in the history of modern medicine and biology, including chronic disease, cancer research, and pharmaceuticals.The Rev. Jeffrey P. von Arx, S.J., became the eighth President of Fairfield University in 2004. A historian by discipline, he is the author of numerous articles as well as the books Progress and Pessimism: Religion, Politics, and History in Late Nineteenth-Century Britain (Harvard University Press, 1985) and Varieties of Ultramontanism (Catholic University Press, 1998). He is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.Michael Worboys is Director of the Centre for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine and the Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine at the University of Manchester. He specializes in the history of infectious diseases as well as the application of research in clinical practices. He has recently started new work on dog breeding, feeding, training, and welfare from the mid-nineteenth century to the present. His publications include Mad Dogs and Englishmen: Rabies in Britain, 1830–2000 (with Neil Pemberton), and Spreading Germs: Disease Theories and Medical Practice in Britain, 1865–1900. Previous article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 103, Number 2June 2012 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/666369 © 2012 by The History of Science Society. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Author's Introduction The articles in this cluster deal with aspects of an enormously rich and complex historical problem: the role of print and other media in political communication in Britain, from the Tudor period through the nineteenth century. They might be employed together in a course covering this large subject; but equally they lend themselves to separate use in other kinds of courses, dealing with problems ranging from conventional political history to the role of literacy in early modern society, the nature of early modern public culture or the rise of more open and ‘democratic’ forms of politics. Rather than trying to tailor this guide to a single course design I have tried to suggest a range of possibilities. The full cluster is made up of the following articles: 1. Mark Knights , ‘History and Literature in the Age of Defoe and Swift’, History Compass , 3/1 (2005), DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2005.00131.x . URL http://www.blackwell‐compass.com/subject/history/article_view?article_id=hico_articles_bsl131 . 2. Joad Raymond , ‘Seventeenth‐Century Print Culture’, History Compass , 2/1 (2004), DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2005.00131.x . URL http://www.blackwell‐compass.com/subject/history/article_view?article_id=hico_articles_bsl123 . 3. Mark Hampton , ‘Newspapers in Victorian Britain’, History Compass , 2/1 (2004), DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00101.x . URL http://www.blackwellcompass.com/subject/history/article_view?article_id=hico_articles_bsl101 . 4. Jason Peacey , ‘Print and Public Politics in Seventeenth‐Century England’, History Compass , 5/1 (2007), 85–111, DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2006.00369.x . URL http://www.blackwell‐compass.com/subject/history/article_view?article_id=hico_articles_bpl369 . 5. Alastair Bellany , ‘Railing Rhymes Revisited: Libels, Scandals, and Early Stuart Politics’, History Compass , 5/4 (2007), DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00439.x . URL http://www.blackwell‐compass.com/subject/history/article_view?article_id=hico_articles_bpl439 . 6. Brian Cowan , ‘Publicity and Privacy in the History of the British Coffeehouse’, History Compass , 5/4 (2007), DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00440.x . URL http://www.blackwell‐compass.com/subject/history/article_view?article_id=hico_articles_bpl440 . 7. Andrew Walkling , ‘Politics and Theatrical Culture in Restoration England’, History Compass , DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2007.00453.x . URL http://www.blackwell‐compass.com/subject/history/article_view?article_id=hico_articles_bpl453 . 8. Joseph Black , ‘The Marprelate Tracts (1588–89) and the Public Sphere’, History Compass , (forthcoming). Author Recommends The relevant secondary literature is enormous but the following are suggested as surveys or preliminary guides to particular topics. 1. Jurgen Habermas , The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society , trans. Lawrence Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1989). A translation of Habermas's deeply controversial but highly influential theoretical study, first published in German in 1965. An extensive literature exists debating Habermas's theories and their usefulness to historical investigations. 2. Alastair Bellany , The Politics of Court Scandal in Early Modern England: News, Culture and the Overbury Affair, 1603–1660 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). A study of how the involvement of high‐ranking courtiers in a murder became the subject of a famous scandal, through the ways in which it was reported and discussed in print and especially manuscript sources. 3. Brian Cowan , The Social Life of Coffee: The Emergence of the British Coffeehouse (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005). A wide ranging survey of the development of coffeehouses and their role as centres of social interaction and political discussion. 4. Adam Fox , Oral and Literate Culture in England, 1500–1700 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000). A ma

REBECCA RICHARDSON “Sent Here For Her Health”: Accounting for Sanditon $ Economies Z ADY DENHAM, ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL INVESTORS IN THE SEASIDE TOWN ./ofJane Austen’s Sanditon, fantasizes about marrying off her nephew, Sir Edward, to an heiress: “Now, if we could get a young heiress to be sent here for her health—(and if she was ordered to drink asses’ milk I could supply her)—and as soon as she got well, have her fall in love with Sir Edward!”1 Lady Denham comically reveals her acquisitiveness, measuring Sanditon’s visitors by their incomes and conflating her desire for a rich niece-in-law with her interest in selling her asses’ milk. But it is also unset­ tling that Lady Denham’s fantasy of a marriage plot requires a young woman that is both rich and sick: while it may seem like good will to wish someone riches or a seaside vacation, wishing illnesses upon her is a differ­ ent matter. Whereas Austen’s marriage plots are always attentive to the socio-economic context of—and its confluence with—romantic desire, Sanditon is newly aggressive in applying the logic ofthe marketplace. In this essay, I argue that Sanditon draws on the rhetoric of political economy to explore how such economic logic breaks down when it is applied to the social interactions ofthe characters—and particularly when these characters are sick or injured. Most critical work on how economic thinking pervades the novel’s so­ cial world has concentrated on the marriage plot and the discourse ofsexu­ ality. As Ruth Perry has argued, “economic and sexual motives” were inti­ mately linked across eighteenth-century discourses, as writers attempted “to grapple with this confusion and to parse the relation between property and sexual exchange, to establish what could and could not be commodi­ fied.”2 In Austen’s work, this concern with the economics of marriage is i. Jane Austen, Lady Susan, The Watsons, and Sanditon (New York: Penguin, 2003), 189. Hereafter cited parenthetically by page number. 2. Perry, Novel Relations: The Transformation of Kinship in English Literature and Culture 1748-1818 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 242. SiR, 56 (Summer 2017) 203 204 REBECCA RICHARDSON dealt with in the plot as well as through the style. Mark Schorer has ob­ served how Austen’s prose is “remarkable in the persistency with which the buried, or dead metaphors . . . imply one consistent set of values,” those “of commerce and property, of the counting house and the inherited es­ tate.” In Schorer’s argument, this style is especially important to the marriage plot, as “the basic situation in all the novels arises from the eco­ nomics of marriage.”3 What is exaggerated in Sanditon is the pervasiveness of economic concerns, which not only inform the plot’s romantic maneuverings—such as Sir Edward’s realization that he can only afford to seduce Clara into “the quietest sort of ruin and disgrace” (192)—but also the most mundane ofconversations—such as where to buy vegetables. As a result, words like “business” and “speculation” recur with a jarring fre­ quency in Sanditon.4 Austen’s use of this discourse taps into the Romantic era’s fascination with political economy in order to satirize it. As much recent criticism elucidates—including Perry’s above-mentioned Novel Relations, Mary Poovey’s Genres of the Credit Economy, Philip Connell’s Romanticism, Eco­ nomics and the Question of “Culture, ” Deidre Lynch’s The Economy of Charac­ ter, and Catherine Gallagher’s The Body Economic—the discourses of politi­ cal economy and literature emerged and developed in tandem across the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. As Poovey argues, what “economic writing and Literary writing share, both historically and theoretically, is an engagement with the problematic of representation.”5 Austen’s last work, the uncompleted novel Sanditon, is, by all critical accounts, particularly in­ terested in representation—in the fantastical tales concocted by hypochon­ driacs about their health, the testimonial narration ofadvertising, the stories rented out from the circulating library that seep into daily life, and the gossip that travels within and beyond the small town of Sanditon.6 In this 3. Schorer, “The Humiliation of Emma Woodhouse, an Essay,” The Literary...