Dispersing the Devil’s Stench: Shifting Perceptions of Sulfuric Miasma in Early Modern English Literatures

Andrew Kettler
{"title":"Dispersing the Devil’s Stench: Shifting Perceptions of Sulfuric Miasma in Early Modern English Literatures","authors":"Andrew Kettler","doi":"10.1353/pan.2024.a916698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: From approximately 1500 to 1650, English references to sulfur’s stench focused on sensory indications of hell, demons, and wickedness in worldly environments. Thereafter, most English references to the pungent rock turned proportionately to technics, medicine, and progress. The increasing presence of sulfuric miasma within secularizing applications for fumigations, gunpowder, and industry led to a limiting of the role of sulfur as a signifier of hell within English environments. Due to economic incentives, supernatural discourses on brimstone atmospheres faced semantic dispersion, as sulfur took on a growing number of connotations instead of remaining a significant environmental signifier of the scent of the devil and his toadies. These shifting literary associations for sulfur exemplify the fluctuating powers of the market, religious voices, biopolitical networks, and the state to define what is matter out of place , or what can be considered too environmentally toxic for economic consumption. Revising the prominence of synchronic work in Early Modern Studies that critiques the dis-enchantment thesis, and redeploying theory from Douglas, Jameson, Greenblatt, Eagleton, and Rancière, this essay highlights connections between the History of Ideas, Environmental Studies, and literary criticism through asserting that the sheer abundance of sulfuric substances in the environment, caused by increased uses for the rock in the coal-fired furnaces of the 18th century, added to a literary dislodgment of mystical definitions of sulfur’s smell as signifying evil. As the Industrial Revolution stuffed chimneys with additional sulfur compounds, material encounters with brimstone became common. Continuously taught that sulfur meant profit and purity, reformed English noses found less sin in the smell of acrid sulfur smoke. This analysis portrays that within literatures that included associations to sulfur, the impending Anthropocene was tested, greenwashed, and approved by the masses of the disenchanting English public sphere.","PeriodicalId":516166,"journal":{"name":"Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","volume":"6 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/pan.2024.a916698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: From approximately 1500 to 1650, English references to sulfur’s stench focused on sensory indications of hell, demons, and wickedness in worldly environments. Thereafter, most English references to the pungent rock turned proportionately to technics, medicine, and progress. The increasing presence of sulfuric miasma within secularizing applications for fumigations, gunpowder, and industry led to a limiting of the role of sulfur as a signifier of hell within English environments. Due to economic incentives, supernatural discourses on brimstone atmospheres faced semantic dispersion, as sulfur took on a growing number of connotations instead of remaining a significant environmental signifier of the scent of the devil and his toadies. These shifting literary associations for sulfur exemplify the fluctuating powers of the market, religious voices, biopolitical networks, and the state to define what is matter out of place , or what can be considered too environmentally toxic for economic consumption. Revising the prominence of synchronic work in Early Modern Studies that critiques the dis-enchantment thesis, and redeploying theory from Douglas, Jameson, Greenblatt, Eagleton, and Rancière, this essay highlights connections between the History of Ideas, Environmental Studies, and literary criticism through asserting that the sheer abundance of sulfuric substances in the environment, caused by increased uses for the rock in the coal-fired furnaces of the 18th century, added to a literary dislodgment of mystical definitions of sulfur’s smell as signifying evil. As the Industrial Revolution stuffed chimneys with additional sulfur compounds, material encounters with brimstone became common. Continuously taught that sulfur meant profit and purity, reformed English noses found less sin in the smell of acrid sulfur smoke. This analysis portrays that within literatures that included associations to sulfur, the impending Anthropocene was tested, greenwashed, and approved by the masses of the disenchanting English public sphere.
驱散恶魔的恶臭:早期现代英国文学中对硫磺瘴气的认识转变
摘要:大约从 1500 年到 1650 年,英国人对硫磺恶臭的描述主要集中在对地狱、恶魔和世俗环境中邪恶的感官暗示上。此后,大多数英国人在提到硫磺这种刺激性岩石时,都会相应地提到技术、医学和进步。在熏蒸、火药和工业的世俗化应用中,硫磺瘴气的存在越来越多,这导致硫磺在英国环境中作为地狱象征的作用受到了限制。由于经济利益的驱使,关于硫磺氛围的超自然论述面临着语义分散的问题,硫磺被赋予了越来越多的内涵,而不再是恶魔及其随从气味的重要环境标志。硫磺在文学上的这些变化体现了市场、宗教声音、生物政治网络和国家在界定什么是不合时宜的物质,或者什么是对经济消费而言过于有害的环境时,所具有的起伏不定的力量。本文修正了早期现代研究中批判 "失迷论 "的同步研究成果,并重新部署了道格拉斯、詹姆逊、格林布拉特、伊格尔顿和朗西埃的理论,强调了思想史、环境研究和文学批评之间的联系、本文强调了思想史、环境研究和文学批评之间的联系,认为环境中硫磺物质的大量存在,是由于 18 世纪燃煤炉中对硫磺的使用量增加所致,这使得文学作品不再将硫磺的气味神秘地定义为邪恶的象征。随着工业革命的发展,烟囱里塞满了更多的硫磺化合物,人们在物质上与硫磺的接触变得越来越普遍。英国人一直被灌输硫磺意味着利益和纯洁的思想,改革后的英国人发现,刺鼻的硫磺烟味中没有那么多罪恶。本分析报告描绘了在与硫有关的文学作品中,即将到来的 "人类世 "接受了检验、绿化,并得到了失宠的英国公共领域大众的认可。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信