R.P.A. – Rationalist Press Association

—

THE RATIONALIST PRESS ASSOCIATION – R.P.A.

—

The Rationalist Press Association – R.P.A. is an organisation founded, at the end of the 19th century, out of Britain’s humanist, secularist, rationalist, and freethought movements, following the radical activism of Thomas Paine (1737-1809), William Godwin (1756-1836), Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797), Richard Carlile (1790-1843), Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891), Charles Watts (1836-1906), George Jacob Holyoake (1817-1906), and others.
—

—

It has been organised by a first group of militants – George Jacob Holyoake (1817-1906), Frederick James Gould (1855-1938), Joseph McCabe (1867-1955), Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner (1858-1935), &c. – gathered around the publisher Charles Albert Watts (1858-1946) and his printworks (CA Watts & Company Limited at Johnson’s Court, just off Fleet street, London).
—
Initially created as a Propagandist Press Committee (1890, July), shortly afterwards (1893) renamed Rationalist Press Committee, it assumed (1899) its entire associative intents and configuration, and got a long-lasting designation as Rationalist Press Association. In 2002 its name has been simplified to Rationalist Association.
—
The original purpose of the Rationalist Press Association was the publishing of books, pamphlets, &c. considered too anti-religious or excessively liberal to be handled by mainstream publishers and booksellers. Its Thinker’s Library series involved the publication of 140 titles between 1929 and 1951.

—

first siege of RPA, at Johnson’s Court, 17.
(drawn by H. Cutner)

—

expanded headquarters of RPA, at Johnson’s Court
(drawn by H. Cutner)

—

—

Our Association [Rationalist Press Association – R.P.A.] has good reason to congratulate itself on what it has accomplished in the past, in providing antidotes against superstition; but it must not relax its efforts. Never was the organized activity of Rationalists needed more than to-day. Old superstitions and impostures under new specious names are raising their heads; and people who are far from being orthodox seem inclined to suspect the authority of Reason as a dogma which the poor Victorians rather overdid. We may be sure that Reason will win in the long run, but meanwhile, to secure her victory, it is up to us to propagate our one fundamental article of faith – faith in Reason – and to combat as vigorously as ever the hydra of superstition which has so many and such curious heads.

[John Bagnell Bury – 1919]
—

—

—
Such an Association [the Rationalist Press Association – R.P.A.] must comprise a very great variety of opinions and a great many different complexions of thought, because people, when each follows his own reason, come to different conclusions […]. If it should come to pass that this Association assumed some special or philosophical complexion, there would be no room in it for any one like myself […]. This Society, not withstanding all differences of opinions among the members, has held together.

[John Bagnell Bury – 1923]
—

—

ARTICLES OF J.B. BURY IN

—

John B. BURY – THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY – in The R.P.A. Annual and Ethical Review, 1915, pp.3-7

John B. BURY – CLEOPATRA NOSE – in The R.P.A. Annual and Ethical Review, 1916, pp.16-23

John B. BURY – THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY ON ROMAN CRIMINAL LAW – in The R.P.A. Annual and Ethical Review, 1918, pp.19-24

John B. BURY – FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND CENSORSHIP – in The R.P.A. Annual and Ethical Review, 1919, pp.16-19

John B. BURY – PLAYING FOR SAFETY – in The R.P.A. Annual, 1920, pp.13-19

John B. BURY – THEISM – in: The R.P.A. Annual, 1921, pp.16-18

John B. BURY – BAYLE ON ORIGINAL SIN – in The R.P.A. Annual, 1923, pp.29-32

John B. BURY – THE TRIAL OF SOCRATES – in The R.P.A. Annual, 1926, pp.17-26

—

ARTICLES OF J.B. BURY IN

—

John B. BURY – Mr. BELLOC ON ANTI-CATHOLIC HISTORY – in The Literary Guide, 1915, January, p.8; February, pp.25-26; March, pp.41-43. ⊕

—

Certain features of our “progress” may be urged as presumptions in its favour [a movement in a desirable direction], but there are always offsets, and it has always been easy to make out a case that, from the point of view of increasing happiness, the tendencies of our progressive civilisation are far from desirable. In short, it cannot be proved that the unknown destination towards which man is advancing is desirable. The movement may be Progress, or it may be in an undesirable direction and therefore not Progress.

—

John B. Bury (1861-1927)