托马斯·克里奇《卢克莱修》中的新科学与鉴赏家读者

IF 0.4 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS MODERN PHILOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1086/723113
T. Vozar
{"title":"托马斯·克里奇《卢克莱修》中的新科学与鉴赏家读者","authors":"T. Vozar","doi":"10.1086/723113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thomas Creech’s 1682 translation of Lucretius, the first complete English version printed, earned its author praise from the likes of Aphra Behn, John Evelyn, and Nahum Tate. Creech’s work has recently attracted renewed attention from scholars of Lucretius’s reception, who have situated his translation within the context of Restoration intellectual culture. This article argues that Creech’s Lucretius cannot be understood without reference to the new science of the seventeenth century, particularly the experimentalism of Robert Boyle, which forms a more important context to the conception and reception of the translation than has previously been supposed. The first section following the introduction assembles information about Creech’s institutional context in the late 1670s and early 1680s, with a focus on the scientific interests that preoccupied his contemporaries at Wadham College, Oxford, and the Oxford Philosophical Society. The next section examines the Lucretius translation itself and the appended notes, demonstrating Creech’s close engagement with the Boyle-Hobbes controversy on the existence of vacua. The final section concludes that Creech addressed his translation especially to readers among the “virtuosi,” the fellows and fellow travelers of the Royal Society, and perhaps even more specifically to Boyle himself. Creech’s Lucretius is thus shown to offer an illuminating case study of the intersections of literature, classical scholarship, and science in Restoration England.","PeriodicalId":45201,"journal":{"name":"MODERN PHILOLOGY","volume":"120 1","pages":"356 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The New Science and the Virtuoso Reader in Thomas Creech’s Lucretius\",\"authors\":\"T. Vozar\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/723113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Thomas Creech’s 1682 translation of Lucretius, the first complete English version printed, earned its author praise from the likes of Aphra Behn, John Evelyn, and Nahum Tate. Creech’s work has recently attracted renewed attention from scholars of Lucretius’s reception, who have situated his translation within the context of Restoration intellectual culture. This article argues that Creech’s Lucretius cannot be understood without reference to the new science of the seventeenth century, particularly the experimentalism of Robert Boyle, which forms a more important context to the conception and reception of the translation than has previously been supposed. The first section following the introduction assembles information about Creech’s institutional context in the late 1670s and early 1680s, with a focus on the scientific interests that preoccupied his contemporaries at Wadham College, Oxford, and the Oxford Philosophical Society. The next section examines the Lucretius translation itself and the appended notes, demonstrating Creech’s close engagement with the Boyle-Hobbes controversy on the existence of vacua. The final section concludes that Creech addressed his translation especially to readers among the “virtuosi,” the fellows and fellow travelers of the Royal Society, and perhaps even more specifically to Boyle himself. Creech’s Lucretius is thus shown to offer an illuminating case study of the intersections of literature, classical scholarship, and science in Restoration England.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MODERN PHILOLOGY\",\"volume\":\"120 1\",\"pages\":\"356 - 377\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MODERN PHILOLOGY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/723113\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MODERN PHILOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/723113","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

托马斯·克里奇1682年翻译的《卢克莱修》是第一部完整的英文版,获得了阿芙拉·贝恩、约翰·伊夫林和纳胡姆·泰特等人的赞誉。克里奇的作品最近引起了卢克莱修接受学者的重新关注,他们将他的翻译置于复辟知识文化的背景下。本文认为,要理解克里奇的《卢克莱修》,离不开17世纪的新科学,特别是罗伯特·波义耳的实验主义,这对翻译的概念和接受构成了比以前想象的更重要的背景。引言之后的第一部分收集了1670年代末和1680年代初克里奇的制度背景信息,重点关注他同时代人在牛津大学瓦德姆学院和牛津哲学学会所关注的科学兴趣。下一节将考察卢克莱修的译本本身和附加的注释,展示克里奇与波伊尔-霍布斯关于真空存在的争论的密切接触。最后一节的结论是,克里奇的翻译是专门针对“鉴赏家”读者的,他们是皇家学会的研究员和同行,甚至可能更具体地说是针对波义耳本人。因此,克里奇的《卢克莱修》为英国复辟时期文学、古典学术和科学的交叉提供了一个有启发性的案例研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The New Science and the Virtuoso Reader in Thomas Creech’s Lucretius
Thomas Creech’s 1682 translation of Lucretius, the first complete English version printed, earned its author praise from the likes of Aphra Behn, John Evelyn, and Nahum Tate. Creech’s work has recently attracted renewed attention from scholars of Lucretius’s reception, who have situated his translation within the context of Restoration intellectual culture. This article argues that Creech’s Lucretius cannot be understood without reference to the new science of the seventeenth century, particularly the experimentalism of Robert Boyle, which forms a more important context to the conception and reception of the translation than has previously been supposed. The first section following the introduction assembles information about Creech’s institutional context in the late 1670s and early 1680s, with a focus on the scientific interests that preoccupied his contemporaries at Wadham College, Oxford, and the Oxford Philosophical Society. The next section examines the Lucretius translation itself and the appended notes, demonstrating Creech’s close engagement with the Boyle-Hobbes controversy on the existence of vacua. The final section concludes that Creech addressed his translation especially to readers among the “virtuosi,” the fellows and fellow travelers of the Royal Society, and perhaps even more specifically to Boyle himself. Creech’s Lucretius is thus shown to offer an illuminating case study of the intersections of literature, classical scholarship, and science in Restoration England.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
MODERN PHILOLOGY
MODERN PHILOLOGY Multiple-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Founded in 1903, Modern Philology sets the standard for literary scholarship, history, and criticism. In addition to innovative and scholarly articles (in English) on literature in all modern world languages, MP also publishes insightful book reviews of recent books as well as review articles and research on archival documents. Editor Richard Strier is happy to announce that we now welcome contributions on literature in non-European languages and contributions that productively compare texts or traditions from European and non-European literatures. In general, we expect contributions to be written in (or translated into) English, and we expect quotations from non-English languages to be translated into English as well as reproduced in the original.
期刊最新文献
:Black Shakespeare: Reading and Misreading Race :Pain, Penance, and Protest: Peine Forte et Dure in Medieval England :The Politics of Speech in Later Twentieth-Century Poetry: Local Tongues in Heaney, Brooks, Harrison, and Clifton :Melville, Beauty, and American Literary Studies: An Aesthetics in All Things :Heroic Awe: The Sublime and the Remaking of Renaissance Epic
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1