Year: 2000
Type: article
Abstract: It is the thesis of this book that early Stuart culture is diacritically obsessed with the Stoics and Epicureans, apart from and in relation to one another; that the Stoics and Epicureans afford early Stuart readers and writers with the most impressive yet vexatious answers to many of their most urgent political and religious questions; and that given the complexity with which the philosophies have been transmitted, the cultural brokers of early Stuart England are forced to wrestle with the paradox by which the friendly philosophy becomes the enemy, and the enemy the friend" (pp.2-3).Reid Barbour pursues this thesis throughout this book, exploring outcroppings of Epicurean and Stoic themes in mostly literary works.He emphasizes the ethical and political aspects of these two Hellenistic philosophies in the realms of high politics and religion.Epicureanism and Stoicism have been entwined throughout their history, in part because of their juxtaposition in Cicero's De Fato and De Divinatione.In the Renaissance and early modern period, they continued to be discussed in relation to each other.Both philosophies were materialistic, and both needed extensive modification to be acceptable to a Christian audience.Epicureanism denied the role of the gods in human affairs and emphasized unpredictable chance as a primary causal agent in the world.Stoicism could be understood as providential, but the Stoic emphasis on Fate and extreme determinism was problematic for theologies that were based on notions of free will, both human and divine.Both philosophies were fundamentally concerned with the question of how to lead the good life.Epicureanism advocated a hedonism based on the calculus of pleasure and pain.Stoicism recommended submitting to inexorable Fate.For both philosophies, tranquility was the product of the good life.Moral and political philosophy was a key concern to seventeenth-century English writers, who lived in a society rent by religious and political strife.They frequently struggled with these issues in discourse with the ancient schools of philosophy, as Barbour amply shows with reference to the writings of such figures as Francis Bacon, Robert Burton, John Milton, and Lucy Hutchinson.There are several problems with English Epicures and Stoics.Nowhere does the book contain a clear presentation of the major tenets of Epicureanism or Stoicism.Some important aspects of these philosophies are overlooked, such as Epicurean political philosophy, which Lisa Sarasohn has recently shown to be a major influence on the political philosophies of Hobbes and Locke.Thus, Barbour tries to draw an analogy between atomism and political theories of sovereignty, but never mentions the fact that both Lucretius and Gassendi wrote explicitly and extensively on political theory.Natural philosophy was an important locus for early modern discussions about Epicureanism and Stoicism.Many writers sought to replace Scholastic Aristotelianism with a new, complete philosophy.In an age deeply affected by Renaissance humanism, they sought ancient models for their new philosophy.
Source: Renaissance and Reformation
Authors: Reid Barbour (book author), Margaret J. Osler (review author)
Language: English
Subfield: Classics
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: bronze
OpenAlex ID: W629129602