We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This view of the relationship between philosophy and history has been remarkably enduring. It flourished in the early-modern period, as I show in the case of Spinoza; but it also retained an influence within analytical philosophy, as some of Russell’s early work illustrates. I propose that contemporary advocates of the Separation Thesis remain motivated by the exclusive image of philosophy embodied in the Classical Conception, and the concomitant desire for a transcendent form of knowledge. As long as this is so, the relationship between history and philosophy will remain uneasy.
The period between 1780 and 1830 might be characterized by an often unselfconscious and unresolved, even haphazard, dialogue between seriality, periodicity and the volume format, a dialogue that can, historically, be given shape through the wider growth and democratization of print culture in the period. Both Jon Klancher and Marilyn Butler, two of the most important cultural historians to have considered late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century periodicals, have developed sophisticated models for their history that suggest a complex dialogue between the construction of a precise implied readership for each magazine and a broader address to the 'general' or 'national' reader. This chapter emphasizes the central role both scholars give periodicals as agents of cultural change at this time. In short, women's magazines, like many other periodicals, abandoned the late eighteenth-century attempt to construct an egalitarian community of writers and readers and instead began to construct a role devoted to the ideological project of a newly proselytizing middle class.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.