Margaret Cavendish Reads Josuah Sylvester: Epicurus, Atheism, and Atomic Skepticism in Poems, and Fancies

IF 0.6 2区 文学 0 LITERATURE, BRITISH ISLES
J. Begley
{"title":"Margaret Cavendish Reads Josuah Sylvester: Epicurus, Atheism, and Atomic Skepticism in Poems, and Fancies","authors":"J. Begley","doi":"10.1086/726100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scholars have often situated the atomic ideas in Margaret Cavendish’s Poems, and Fancies (1653) in relation to Lucy Hutchinson’s contemporaneous manuscript translation of the Roman poet Lucretius’ epic, De rerum natura, which articulates the principles of the ancient Greek atomist Epicurus. On the whole, these works have been read as expressions of the radical, materialistic impulses of both authors. Yet whereas at least some have taken Hutchinson’s denunciation of Lucretius’ “wicked pernitious doctrines” seriously, Cavendish is widely assumed to have embraced them. This essay begins by arguing that Cavendish was never a committed atomist. It suggests, instead, that her aim in Poems, and Fancies was to give atomism a fair hearing upon reading Josuah Sylvester’s Devine Weekes and Workes (1605), which entertained other ancient natural philosophies but rejected Epicureanism out of hand. I then turn to Cavendish’s appraisal of Epicurean ethics. In contrast to Sylvester, who linked Epicureanism with debauchery, Cavendish, I argue, sided with Pierre Gassendi’s more positive depiction of Epicurean ethics as compatible with Christianity. I conclude that the views found in Poems, and Fancies were far less philosophically and theologically heterodox than is usually supposed, and, indeed, that they were in many ways more orthodox than those of Hutchinson. [J.B.]","PeriodicalId":44199,"journal":{"name":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","volume":"53 1","pages":"376 - 400"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ENGLISH LITERARY RENAISSANCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/726100","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE, BRITISH ISLES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Scholars have often situated the atomic ideas in Margaret Cavendish’s Poems, and Fancies (1653) in relation to Lucy Hutchinson’s contemporaneous manuscript translation of the Roman poet Lucretius’ epic, De rerum natura, which articulates the principles of the ancient Greek atomist Epicurus. On the whole, these works have been read as expressions of the radical, materialistic impulses of both authors. Yet whereas at least some have taken Hutchinson’s denunciation of Lucretius’ “wicked pernitious doctrines” seriously, Cavendish is widely assumed to have embraced them. This essay begins by arguing that Cavendish was never a committed atomist. It suggests, instead, that her aim in Poems, and Fancies was to give atomism a fair hearing upon reading Josuah Sylvester’s Devine Weekes and Workes (1605), which entertained other ancient natural philosophies but rejected Epicureanism out of hand. I then turn to Cavendish’s appraisal of Epicurean ethics. In contrast to Sylvester, who linked Epicureanism with debauchery, Cavendish, I argue, sided with Pierre Gassendi’s more positive depiction of Epicurean ethics as compatible with Christianity. I conclude that the views found in Poems, and Fancies were far less philosophically and theologically heterodox than is usually supposed, and, indeed, that they were in many ways more orthodox than those of Hutchinson. [J.B.]
Margaret Cavendish阅读Josuah Sylvester:诗歌和幻想中的伊壁鸠鲁、无神论和原子怀疑主义
学者们经常将玛格丽特·卡文迪许(Margaret Cavendish)的《诗歌与幻想》(1653)中的原子思想与露西·哈钦森(Lucy Hutchinson)同期翻译的罗马诗人卢克莱修(Lucretius)史诗《自然》(De rerum natura)的手稿联系起来,后者阐述了古希腊原子主义者伊壁鸠鲁(Epicurus)的原则。总的来说,这些作品被解读为两位作者激进、物质主义冲动的表达。然而,尽管至少有一些人认真对待哈钦森对卢克莱修“邪恶邪恶学说”的谴责,但人们普遍认为卡文迪许接受了这些学说。这篇文章一开始就认为卡文迪许从来都不是一个坚定的原子论者。相反,这表明她在《诗与幻想》中的目的是在阅读乔舒亚·西尔维斯特的《魔鬼的工作》(1605)时,给原子论一个公平的听证会,该书接受了其他古代自然哲学,但立即拒绝了伊壁鸠鲁主义。然后我转向卡文迪许对伊壁鸠鲁伦理学的评价。西尔维斯特将伊壁鸠鲁主义与放荡联系在一起,我认为,卡文迪什站在皮埃尔·加森迪一边,他更积极地描述了伊壁鸠里亚伦理与基督教兼容。我得出的结论是,《诗与幻想》中的观点在哲学和神学上远没有人们通常认为的那么异端,事实上,它们在很多方面都比哈钦森的观点更正统。[J.B.]
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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: English Literary Renaissance is a journal devoted to current criticism and scholarship of Tudor and early Stuart English literature, 1485-1665, including Shakespeare, Spenser, Donne, and Milton. It is unique in featuring the publication of rare texts and newly discovered manuscripts of the period and current annotated bibliographies of work in the field. It is illustrated with contemporary woodcuts and engravings of Renaissance England and Europe.
×
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