{"title":"艾萨克·卡苏邦、安德烈亚斯·尤达蒙-乔恩斯、约翰·普里多与名誉受损:一场(不完全)学术争论","authors":"M. Vince","doi":"10.1163/24055069-00403004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Isaac Casaubon’s open letter to Fronton du Duc (1611) was the most eagerly anticipated contribution to James I’s controversy with the Jesuits. It provoked a vitriolic response from Andreas Eudaemon-Joannes, who insinuated that Casaubon’s father had been hanged. As this paper demonstrates, it is due to Casaubon’s successful rhetoric that he is often believed to have been outraged only by Eudaemon-Joannes’ slanderous treatment of his father, but not by the Jesuit’s attacks on Casaubon’s scholarly competence and moral integrity. Even as he protested that these ridiculous accusations do not merit a reply, Casaubon did in fact publish three slanderous responses, and further undermined Eudaemon-Joannes and the Jesuits in his private correspondence. This paper contributes to the revision of Mark Pattison’s depiction of Casaubon’s ‘English’ years, and his turn to theology, as a failure. By tracing the genesis of a short passage in Casaubon’s Exercitationes, it reassesses treatises by Eudaemon-Joannes, Prideaux and Casaubon in the light of Casaubon’s recently published correspondence. A comparison of the rhetorical strategies of these authors demonstrates that they shared a culture of polemic that did not shy away from slanderous and vulgar imagery.","PeriodicalId":37173,"journal":{"name":"Erudition and the Republic of Letters","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/24055069-00403004","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Isaac Casaubon, Andreas Eudaemon-Joannes, John Prideaux, and Tarnished Reputations: A (not Entirely) Scholarly Controversy\",\"authors\":\"M. Vince\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/24055069-00403004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Isaac Casaubon’s open letter to Fronton du Duc (1611) was the most eagerly anticipated contribution to James I’s controversy with the Jesuits. It provoked a vitriolic response from Andreas Eudaemon-Joannes, who insinuated that Casaubon’s father had been hanged. As this paper demonstrates, it is due to Casaubon’s successful rhetoric that he is often believed to have been outraged only by Eudaemon-Joannes’ slanderous treatment of his father, but not by the Jesuit’s attacks on Casaubon’s scholarly competence and moral integrity. Even as he protested that these ridiculous accusations do not merit a reply, Casaubon did in fact publish three slanderous responses, and further undermined Eudaemon-Joannes and the Jesuits in his private correspondence. This paper contributes to the revision of Mark Pattison’s depiction of Casaubon’s ‘English’ years, and his turn to theology, as a failure. By tracing the genesis of a short passage in Casaubon’s Exercitationes, it reassesses treatises by Eudaemon-Joannes, Prideaux and Casaubon in the light of Casaubon’s recently published correspondence. A comparison of the rhetorical strategies of these authors demonstrates that they shared a culture of polemic that did not shy away from slanderous and vulgar imagery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37173,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Erudition and the Republic of Letters\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/24055069-00403004\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Erudition and the Republic of Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/24055069-00403004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Erudition and the Republic of Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/24055069-00403004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Isaac Casaubon给Fronton du Duc的公开信(1611年)是詹姆斯一世与耶稣会士争论中最受期待的贡献。这引起了安德烈亚斯·尤达蒙·乔安妮的尖刻回应,她暗示卡苏本的父亲已经被绞死。正如本文所表明的那样,正是由于卡苏本的成功言辞,人们通常认为他只对尤达·乔安妮对他父亲的诽谤感到愤怒,而不是对耶稣会攻击卡苏本学术能力和道德操守感到愤怒。尽管Casaubon抗议这些荒谬的指控不值得回应,但事实上,他确实发表了三篇诽谤性的回应,并在他的私人信件中进一步破坏了Eudaemon Joannes和耶稣会士。本文有助于修正马克·帕蒂森对卡苏本“英语”时代的描述,以及他转向神学的失败。通过追溯《卡苏邦的练习》中一段短文的起源,它根据卡苏邦最近发表的信件重新评估了尤达蒙·乔安妮、普里多和卡苏邦等人的论文。对这些作者的修辞策略进行比较表明,他们共享一种不回避诽谤和粗俗意象的论战文化。
Isaac Casaubon, Andreas Eudaemon-Joannes, John Prideaux, and Tarnished Reputations: A (not Entirely) Scholarly Controversy
Isaac Casaubon’s open letter to Fronton du Duc (1611) was the most eagerly anticipated contribution to James I’s controversy with the Jesuits. It provoked a vitriolic response from Andreas Eudaemon-Joannes, who insinuated that Casaubon’s father had been hanged. As this paper demonstrates, it is due to Casaubon’s successful rhetoric that he is often believed to have been outraged only by Eudaemon-Joannes’ slanderous treatment of his father, but not by the Jesuit’s attacks on Casaubon’s scholarly competence and moral integrity. Even as he protested that these ridiculous accusations do not merit a reply, Casaubon did in fact publish three slanderous responses, and further undermined Eudaemon-Joannes and the Jesuits in his private correspondence. This paper contributes to the revision of Mark Pattison’s depiction of Casaubon’s ‘English’ years, and his turn to theology, as a failure. By tracing the genesis of a short passage in Casaubon’s Exercitationes, it reassesses treatises by Eudaemon-Joannes, Prideaux and Casaubon in the light of Casaubon’s recently published correspondence. A comparison of the rhetorical strategies of these authors demonstrates that they shared a culture of polemic that did not shy away from slanderous and vulgar imagery.