Author:
Feerick Jean E.,Nardizzi Vin
Reference28 articles.
1. See Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. Arthur Stephen McGrade (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). We adhere to Hooker’s formulation in using the noun “man” to designate all humanity. Further citations of Hooker will be included parenthetically in the text and refer to the page numbers of this edition.
2. For an account of the theological foundations of man’s ascendancy in this period, see Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500–1800 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 17–50. At the close of this discussion, Thomas observes, “the uncompromisingly aggressive view of man’s place in the natural world… was by no means representative of all opinion in early modem England” (50). Hooker’s reckoning of man’s place in the cosmos suggests that even in theological discourses man’s absolute dominion over creation is not guaranteed. Our aim in this collection is to survey the range of these other “opinions” in English letters.
3. For references to “swerving” in association with angels—defined by their inability to swerve—see Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, 58 and 60. See also Jonathan Goldberg’s discussion of the swerving motion of atoms as the condition of human existence in Lucretius. As he notes, “In Lucretian physics, atoms would stay on a straight path, each atom following its own, and in so doing there would be nothing but atoms and the void, nothing we would call life if only because ‘we’ wouldn’t exist at all, nor would there be words in the world. But the atoms swerve, and swerving they touch, come into conjunction, and part, and these aleatory meetings are where life meets life”; see Goldberg, The Seeds of Things: Theorizing Sexuality and Materiality in Renaissance Representations (New York: Fordham University Press, 2009), 46.
4. For a reading that suggestively connects Hooker’s sense of ordered nature to matters of human desire and gender, see Laurie Shannon, “Nature’s Bias: Renaissance Homonormativity and Elizabethan Comic Likeness,” Modern Philology 98.2 (2000): 183–210. We place more emphasis on man’s potential for swerving from the “straight” line towards perfection than Shannon does (192 and 210).
5. For a discussion of man’s negative exceptionalism on the basis of his nakedness, see Laurie Shannon, “Poor, Bare, Forked: Animal Sovereignty, Human Negative Exceptionalism, and the Natural History of King Lear,” Shakespeare Quarterly 60.2 (2009): 168–96.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献