This concluding chapter is framed by the reflection presented in the second chapter on what was usually not read by French and British merchants in the Levant and in India before 1750. I reiterate what has already been shown methodologically in some earlier, distinct contributions and what is empirically confirmed by the findings presented here: that foreign merchants and company servants between about 1600 and 1750 mostly lived at a close distance from their non-European environment and that at the same time they maintained a distant proximity to their home countries by keeping in touch with their literature and news as well as possible. It was, therefore, an interrelated double form of living abroad. Despite its broadly “European” character, this “Europeanness” abroad, due to the small size and the precise selection of the libraries, which were always also “tools” of their owners and served more than just the purposes of leisure and pleasure, was itself more plural and dispersed in very different cultural, epistemic, and media environments than one might think until 1750.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Conclusion: Close Distance, Distant Closeness

  • Cornel Zwierlein

摘要

This concluding chapter is framed by the reflection presented in the second chapter on what was usually not read by French and British merchants in the Levant and in India before 1750. I reiterate what has already been shown methodologically in some earlier, distinct contributions and what is empirically confirmed by the findings presented here: that foreign merchants and company servants between about 1600 and 1750 mostly lived at a close distance from their non-European environment and that at the same time they maintained a distant proximity to their home countries by keeping in touch with their literature and news as well as possible. It was, therefore, an interrelated double form of living abroad. Despite its broadly “European” character, this “Europeanness” abroad, due to the small size and the precise selection of the libraries, which were always also “tools” of their owners and served more than just the purposes of leisure and pleasure, was itself more plural and dispersed in very different cultural, epistemic, and media environments than one might think until 1750.