 | |
| Joseph Addison |
The essays were originally published daily, like a mini-newspaper (a single big folded sheet, with some advertisements--see image below). They were so popular, however, that after their original publication they were collected and the complete series sold in book form, throughout the C18 and well into the C19 (they were also excerpted, anthologized, emulated, and pirated.)
The version you're looking at is one of these collected editions, from 1799, which I chose mostly because it's fairly readable (none of those funny s's-that-look-like-f's). The complete citation: Joseph Addison and Richard Steele, The Spectator, with Illustrative Notes [...] ed. Robert Bisset (London: Cawthorn, 1799).
In Spectator No.1, Joseph Addison and Richard Steele (the authors of the paper) set up the persona of Mr. Spectator, the voice of the 600-some Spectator essays that they wrote. While they both drew on their own opinions and experiences in crafting this character, in no way he is an autobiographical stand-in for either of them.
Just how seriously do you think we are meant to take this character? Is he more like an eighteenth-century Jon Stewart or an eighteenth-century Stephen Colbert?
Cite some text (from any of the three essays assigned) to support your claims.
Deadline: Monday (2/21), start of class.
16 comments:
Writing with a sparkling spirit; I love it.
Addison and Steele’s Spectator exhibits an abundance of confidence while portraying himself as someone who can guide his readers’ intellectual development. In “Spectator No. 10,” he reveals his intention to bring “philosophy out of closets and libraries, schools and colleges, to dwell I clubs and assemblies, at tea-tables and in coffee-houses” (45). By comparing himself to Socrates, Spectator wants to provide his middleclass readership, which he estimates to be around 60,000 people, with instruction for avoiding the “vice and folly, into which the age is fallen” (45). His writings are intended to shape readers’ views and dictate their conversations with others.
Yet the confidence conveyed in essay No.10 seems odd when compared to the characterization of Spectator given in essay No.1. When we are first introduced to Spectator, he claims to “have acted in all the parts of [his] life as a looker on” (4). It is strange that a person who hopes to distinguish his readers from “the thoughtless herd of their ignorant and inattentive brethren” (44) would also dislike being “talked to, and being stared at” (5). The Spectator’s introversion and complacency with being an observer in intellectual circles is starkly contrasted with his pompous claim of elevating the knowledge of his readers, especially women and the “fraternity of Spectators.” As a result, I think we are not supposed to interpret what Spectator says literally. Rather, we should look for inconsistencies and ironies in his writing.
The Spectator’s exaggerated claims create a persona that seems more like Stephen Colbert than Jon Stewart. Both Colbert and Spectator are brash and absolute in their claims. In the same way Colbert instructs members of Colbert Nation about what they should think and read, Spectator offers “sound and wholesome sentiments” (46) that his readers can rely on in daily conversation. Colbert Report segments like “The Word” serve a similar function as “Spectator No. 1” by highlighting the inconsistencies and hypocrisies that Colbert’s persona endorses.
Although Stewart can also be satiric, his persona is not as ironic as Colbert’s often is. Stewart is usually more explicit in his satire and is not as exaggerated as Colbert’s or Spectator’s character.
To be completely honest, I'm not familiar enough with Colbert or Stewart to be able to comment directly on how the Spectator compares to either of them, but I from the impressions I have of those t.v personae, I believe the spectator falls in the slightly more serious end of the spectrum, although in a similar category. The spectator is satirical, and yet knowledgeable. Much in the way that Stewart, Colbert and even shows like South Park can be viewed on multiple registers, so to can the Spectator be read on multiple registers.
The spectator acknowledges this fact when he lists the various audiences to which his pamphlets will appeal. He cites the knowledgeable and educated, the "fraternity of Spectators" (men like himself, who observe but rarely act), the "needy persons [who] do not know what to talk of til about twelve o'clock in the morning" for then they already know everything about the day and can discuss it reasonably, and, most surprisingly women, both the silly and the rational. In this sense his pamphlets can be read multiple different ways by sheer fact of their being read by multiple different audiences.
The practice of these different registers is seen in his pamphlet No. 69 when the Spectator discusses trade. He says, "without any of the benefits and advantages of commerce, what a barren and uncomfortable spot of earth falls to our share" and for this reason "there are not more useful members in a commonwealth than merchants. They knit mankind together [...]distribute the gifts of nature, find work for the poor, add wealth to the rich, and magnificence to the great" (No. 69,p 186-7). These comments can be taken at face value and quoted as gospel by the needy individuals with no ideas of their own. They can enlighten the feminine mind whose usual occupation is to find new needles or thread or cloth for their sewing (now they may question where their fine silks come from), and they can be given their full satirical weight by those willing to dig deeper into the comments. Is this commerce really so benevolent as it seems. Certainly, it brings great rewards, but what kind of jobs are the poor really getting, and how dependent then is Britain on the good will of its trading partners?
In this sense I think, as members of the "educated" audience, we are meant to both be amused by the Spectator but also to dig deeper and take his commentary more seriously, while at the same time reading it critically and not taking everything at face value. In No. 1 the Spectator introduces his method of mixing morality and wit in order to both entertain and educate. Some audiences may only read the wit, they may only see the pamphlets as amusing commentaries on society, but the Spectator is counting on his more enlightened audiences to pick up on the subtleties of the wit and the full import of the morality.
I don’t know Jon Stewart’s humor very well, but I love Stephen Colbert and although I originally read The Spectator’s essays seriously, I can detect the same sort of Colbert humor in a second reading. In essay 1, the Spectator denounces violence between disagreeing parties using the example of Tories and Whigs; “[I] am resolved to observe an exact neutrality between the Whigs and Tories, unless I shall be forced to declare myself by the hostilities of either side” (4). Originally, the spectator claims his neutrality, but then immediately refutes it if he encounters danger. Basically, he doesn’t strongly back his decisions. Like Colbert, he makes adamant illogical claims in a convincing manner.
A common syntax the spectator uses is the repetition of compliment-complaint. Here the complaints are more of gentle digs at unappealing habits of the reader (much as Colbert mocks his own persona). An example is after the spectator addresses women as a member of his audience in essay 69. Here I demonstrate with the spectator’s initial words and my add-ins: “In the mean while, I hope these gentle readers [compliment], who have so much time on their hands [complaint], will not grudge throwing away a quarter of an hour in a day on this Paper [compliment], since they may do it without any hindrance to business [complaint]” (4). The second compliment nods to the habit of nicety and dedication to intelligent readings, the rest are fairly self-explanatory. The spectator hides his mocking of his readers and they may not notice his sarcasm hidden between his compliments.
I find the idea of "twenty readers to every Paper" hard to believe as a "modest computation" (p. 44), but Wikipedia says that contemporary scholars think it is reasonable because the readership tended to be patrons in subscribing coffee houses. Spectator 1 and 10, with its rather eccentric biography and its apparently exaggerated claim to readership had me thinking that it was a strongly satirical work - along the lines of Colbert & Stewart.
However reading Spectator 69 suggested to me that the light-hearted and satirical tone highlighted by Dema, RJB and katiebug is not all there is to it. If its readership were largely drawn from the rising middle class then it is quite realistic for it to have described the wonderous effects of trade and "traffic" without any irony at all. After all, its readers are likely to have been involved in "an accession of other estates as valuable as the lands themselves." (188) I'm not aware of ethical consumerism being a consideration in the early 1700s, so I suspect that Spectator 69 is a more of a straight up celebration of trade than the more amusing Spectator 1 and 10.
This essay seems to me to be much more like Jon Stewart when he puts on the face of someone who is only half mocking the subject he is talking about. For example, the Spectator says, "Trade, without enlarging the British territories, has given us a kind of additional empire. It has multiplied the ..." From there out to the end, the Spectator has made a not-altogether false statement about what Adam Smith would call "gains from trade". But as soon as that passage were done, Jon Stewart would deliver his proverbial "BUT, ladies and gentlemen - my fellow Americans - we do not live in a time where we can be so self-interested." And then he'd make a joke that would smack of SNL's "Really!?!" segment.
It seems to me that this essay, taken in the context of when it was written, served the purpose of being a slightly romanticized version of the truth. However, I should think that it was not politically apropos to then boom slander the Crown's trading community and policies. It is precisely this premise that The Daily Show is built upon, but in 18th century Britain I don't think the second half of the song could be played, as it were.
I'd like to think that this series of essays is more satirical than anything for a few reasons: 1. Satire, in my opinion, is one of the best ways to get a message across in society. Sure, people might get it confused with more serious tones (just look at how many news stories written by "The Onion" have been taken seriously), but satire can entertain and inform at the same time and keep a person's interest longer than straight information can.
2. I also hope these papers are on the satirical side because if not, the author betrays his own "observer, non-participant" view by clearly identifying himself as British. In essay No. 69, the author references all of the different exports that come out of various parts of the world: "...calls the vineyards of France our gardens, the spice-islands our hotbeds, the Persians our silk weavers, and the Chinese our potters." After reading this quote, I'd prefer to think that the author was satirically highlighting the anglo-centric thinking of his time and how it could be construed as biased. Either that, or it was a side effect of the times he lived in and that he was just holding onto the same attitude as so many other Europeans.
From reading these three pieces the thing that most stood out to me is that Mr. Spectator seems to have a high opinion of himself, whether that is because he is actually arrogant or genuinely wishes to help those around him is still unknown. Mr. Spectator is a very good name for him, he has a "reputation of a very sullen youth, but was always a favorite of [his] school-master"(2). From this one quote one of the most important things that stands out is the fact that he is intelligent, but is also incredibly shy and maybe even a little socially awkward. Mr. Spectator is "resolved to observe an exact neutrality between the Whigs and Tories, unless I shall be forced to declare myself by the hostilities of either side”(4). Mr. Spectator does not like it when he was has to choose between one or the other and only does so when he is pressured. This is possibly another reason for which he wishes to hide in the shadows instead of state who he is and speak directly. He feels insecured while in public and with nothing to hide himself with. While he may not have complete confidence in himself, he seem to really believe in his writing even going to the extreme of claiming that "there are none to whom [his] paper[s] will be more useful, than to the female world(46)." He believes that his paper have enough power taht they will actually help half the population for sure. From this I can predict that this piece, that he does truly mean to have a real serious paper. Since he actually has a goal to change people's mind.
I have never took interest in listening to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, I have only heard of the two individuals. From my read, I would think that the author wants to be taken seriously. As Dema highlighted from Specttor 10, the author wants this reading to be done by specific families and/ or groups of individuals. The author directly makes almost a comparison to how Socrates knowledge was distributed, he/she wants their information to be looked at and read by individuals just as much as his was. Again, not sure how comedic Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert is, but this seems to be someone who has high regards to the information that they are relying. But then Im not sure what to think, in the same section, the author says in regards to women, "The toilet is their great scene of business, and the right adjusting of their hair the principal employment of their lives."(46) From this, which is a bit of a unfair stereotype of women, I can sense a bit of a arrogant or almost disrespectful understanding of what women do. In that sense, if he is observing the world, then the author may seem less serious.
I am about to sound incredibly pathetic and uncultured, however I really do not have time to watch television nor keep up with Colbert or Stewart. So that part of the question I pathetically cannot answer since I would literally have no idea what I'd be talking about.
I think although he wants to be taken seriously and seems to have a bit of an ego, Mr. Spectator realizes that the choice is always up to the reader. In Spectator 10, he even states exactly that- "I shall not be so vain as to think that where the Spectator appears, the other public prints will vanish; but shall leave it to my reader's consideration, whether it is not much better to be let into the knowledge of one's self, than to hear what passes in Muscovy or Poland; and to amuse ourselves with such writings as tend to the wearing out of ignorance, passion, and prejudice, than such as naturally conduce to inflame hatreds, and make enmities irreconcilable" (2).
I don't really watch John Stewart and occasionally I watch Colbert, who by the way, is quite funny. But yes, I don't really know both enough to draw any conclusions about whether or not Addison and Steele are like them.
While reading The Spectator, I couldn't help but notice the casual tone used throughout the essays. It makes sense though because if the writers do want to educate the common person, it is easier to do so through a more casual way of speaking. Also, I didn't see any "big words" that a well-educated philosopher would know, thus making the essays a lot easier to read.
As Dema pointed out, I also found it interesting with the sharp contrast between the idea of "The Spectator" and the writers' confidence. The writer describes himself to be a "silent man" (I think?). But I suppose, that may be the whole point to writing The Spectator, to bring the "philosophy out of closet and libraries, schools, and colleges, to dwell in clubs and assemblies, at tea-tables and in coffe-houses" (45). The common man is most likely a "Spectator" too. In public, they may not have the confidence or knowledge to talk about philosophical ideas with others. They observe others with the knowledge or those who are confident enough to speak out loud. But by reading the Spectator, they would get that sense of confidence that they would lack, and at the same time learn about philosophy and whatever other subjects that the writers intended to write about. I guess in a way, the Spectator encourages those individuals to challenge their introverted natures.
But that's just my guess. I'm still trying to understand more about the what the purpose of the Spectator essays are...
After reading the Spectator, I feel as though Mr. Spectator holds himself in high regard. This seems to parallel with Stephen Colbert more than Jon Stuart because much of Colbert's show is him giving himself a pat on the back (whether it's in a joking or serious manner).
However, its difficult to see whether or not Mr. Spectator has the same sarcasm that Colbert, or Stuart for that matter, poses during their shows. Something that does seem to remind me of Colbert is when Mr. Spectator talks about his youth during the 1st chapter. "I threw away my rattle before I was two months old, and would not make use of my coral until they had taken away the bells from it."
I could easily picture Stephen Colbert saying this in a segment of his show to talk about how mature he was at a young age.
I believe he is similar to Stephen Colbert because of the persona he tries to create. He makes claims about things in an outright manner to raise questions and get people to want to argue or enjoy his outrageous claims. I do not think we are meant to take him so seriously as much as that of an entertainer. His ideas may have some pretty heavy meaning and cause uprising amongst certain believers, but he does it in good-spirited fun in my opinion.
Post a Comment