I found More’s Village
Politics to be both a unique and refreshing selection amongst the other dense
readings we have done so far. Other writers such as Paine, Godwin, and
Burke addressed the intellectuals and the upper-class. More however writes through the
eyes of the commoners. More
reminds us that the French Revolution was not only a subject being talked about
in London but in the villages of the countryside. Through two peasants, More shares her opinions of the French
Revolution. Jack speaks More’s opinions
while Jack demonstrates how easily people chose to believe in the goodness of
the French Revolution. Although I
rather like Village Politics, we
ought to be careful in reading More.
Though Village Politics seems
unassuming and humble, it is actually full of large-scale declarations about
the French Revolution. Like Burke
and his “letter”, More engrains her views within a style other than direct
statements—a conversation. On the
surface More’s writing seems casual and light because it is a conversation, but
in fact the conversation-style of Village
Politics is its most powerful tool.
I appreciate this post’s acknowledgement of the vast rhetorical power held by Hannah More’s “Village Politics.” More uses Jack, a village commoner, to express grandiose conservative political ideals concerning the harms of revolution on societal order. While this approach does help More appeal to middle and lower class citizens through providing them a sense of association with the characters and their views, the work’s strongest effects are not limited to English commoners. To members of Parliament and the social elite, “Village Politics” probably communicated a sense of simplicity of the revolutionary issues at hand that could not be found in the works of Paine or Burke. In fact, I suspect that reading the words as a component of dialogue between two commoners worked persuasively on the minds of the elite in that it proposed a straightforwardness that they had yet to receive from other rhetoricians of the day. If two commoners could come to the conclusion that countrywide revolution will end in hardship and chaos, why couldn’t the brightest minds in England realize the same? Putting powerful conservative statements in the mouths of common Englishmen helped More reach members of all classes—some through their similarity to Jack and Tom and others through questions of why they seem to know so much.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you, the rhetorical strategy of placing ideology within the context of simple conversation seems to be a very successful technique. I think this is, yes, because they are relatable and provide examples for ideal government figures, but also due to sheer accessibility. Writers like Godwin, Burke or Paine, while certainly interesting, were also pretty dense. More is easier to read, plain and simple, not just in her conversational style, but also in her spare content.
ReplyDelete