dunnettreader + tolerance + popular_culture   2

BRENT S. SIROTA -- THE OCCASIONAL CONFORMITY CONTROVERSY, MODERATION, AND THE ANGLICAN CRITIQUE OF MODERNITY, 1700–1714 (2014) | The Historical Journal, 57, pp 81-105 - Cambridge Journals Online - Abstract
BRENT S. SIROTA - North Carolina State University -- The occasional conformity controversy during the reign of Queen Anne has traditionally been understood as a straightforward symptom of the early eighteenth-century ‘rage of party’. For all the pious rhetoric concerning toleration and the church in danger, the controversy is considered a partisan squabble for short-term political gain. This traditional interpretation has, however, never been able to account for two features of the controversy: first, the focus on ‘moderation’ as a unique characteristic of post-Revolutionary English society; and second, the prominence of the Anglican nonjurors in the debate. This article revisits the occasional conformity controversy with an eye toward explaining these two related features. In doing so, it will argue that the occasional conformity controversy comprised a referendum on the Revolution settlement in church and state. Nonjurors lit upon the practice of occasional conformity as emblematic of the broader malady of moderation afflicting post-Revolutionary England. From their opposition to occasional conformity, the nonjurors, and soon the broader Anglican high-church movement, developed a comprehensive critique of religious modernity that would inform the entire framework of debate in the early English Enlightenment. -* I thank James Vaughn, Steve Pincus, Bill Bulman, Robert Ingram, and the participants in the ‘God and the Enlightenment’ conference at Ohio University in October 2012 for their generous engagement with earlier drafts of this article. Thanks also to Phil Withington and the anonymous reviewers for their assistance in shaping this article into its final form.
article  paywall  find  18thC  British_history  British_politics  1700s  1710s  occasional_conformity  nonjurors  High_Church  Church_of_England  religious_history  church_history  religious_culture  religion-established  politics-and-religion  political_press  pamphlets  political_participation  tolerance  latitudinarian  secularization  atheism_panic  partisanship  Tories  Whigs  dissenters  Whig_Junto  moderation  modernity  Enlightenment  Queen_Anne  Harley  Bolingbroke  comprehension-church  Convocation  church-in-danger  sermons  religious_lit  cultural_critique  Atterbury  popular_politics  popular_culture  Revolution_Principles  Glorious_Revolution  EF-add 
august 2014 by dunnettreader
Katrina Navickas, review - Ian Haywood, John Seed,eds., The Gordon Riots: Politics, Culture and Insurrection in Late Eighteenth-Century Britain (2012) | IHR Reviews in History
Reviewer: Dr Katrina Navickas, University of Hertfordshire -- Ian Haywood and John Seed’s volume of essays fills a significant gap in the historiography of popular protest in the 18th century. There has been little in-depth research into the Gordon Riots since George Rude’s influential analyses in the 1960s. This lack of new research seems even more anomalous given the recent revival of interest in the politics of riot in the 18th century. So why has it taken until now? One reason is because the Gordon riots have always been an awkward topic. They do not fit into the classic narrative of landmark events in Whig/radical/Marxist/labour history. The power of the crowd during the American Revolution is generally presumed to be for the good, for progress and democracy, and not for reaction and religious hatred. Scholars on the left have shared an assumption – and indeed sometimes a desire to believe – that violent anti-Catholicism was a feature of the turmoils of the 17th century, not the tolerant Augustan and Enlightened Britain of the late 18th century. Rudé and E. P. Thompson offered a more nuanced view of the ‘faces in the crowd’, showing how the riots ‘had a political logic rooted in popular economic and social grievances’. A couple of decades ago, Nicholas Rogers and Kathleen Wilson further unpicked the socio-economic factors contributing to the events of June 1780. Nevertheless, the riots have been generally regarded as an anomaly in the national story of progress. - still expensive and not kindle-available
books  reviews  historiography  revisionism  18thC  British_history  British_politics  London  social_history  politics-and-religion  Gordon_Riots  riots  popular_politics  popular_culture  public_disorder  lower_orders  criminal_justice  crowds  anti-Catholic  popery  Test_and_Corporation_Acts  religious_culture  moral_economy  protests  tolerance  Catholic_emancipation  Catholics-England  EF-add 
june 2014 by dunnettreader

Copy this bookmark:



description:


tags: