The Problem of “Stoic Fate” Or whether Herbert of Cherbury was a Lipsian2

Author: Adam Smrcz
Year of publication: 2016
Source: Show
Pages: 177-193
DOI Address: https://doi.org/10.15804/kie.2016.02.13
PDF: kie/112/kie11213.pdf

In this paper I explore what the term “stoic fate” was supposed to mean in Edward Herbert of Cherbury’s De Veritate. Famously, the ancient stoics had divergent views regarding this question, hence early modern reconstructions of the concept could be based on different sources (and, consequently, could have different significations). My aim is to prove that the Herbertian sense follows that of Justus Lipsius. Keeping in mind that Herbert’s epistemology involved soteriological considerations as well, all this can not be regarded as a mere philological nuance, since although scholars tend to focus solely on the epistemological content of the work the whole project outlined in the De Veritate is grounded on the distinction between fate and providence.

REFERENCES:

  • Calvin J. (1559). Institutio Religionis Christianae libri quatuor, [The Institution of Christian Religion] Geneve, 64.
  • Herbert baron de Cherbury, E. (1639). De la Vérité, en tant qu’elle est distincte de la Révélation, du Vray­Semblable, du Possible et du Faux. [On Truth, in the sense that it differs from Relevation, the Probable, the Possible and the Erroneous] trans: Marin Mersenne, Paris.
  • Herbert of Cherbury, E. (1966). De Veritate. [On Truth], Stuttgard.
  • Lord Herbert of Cherbury, E. (1937). De Veritate. trans: Meyrick H. Carré, Bristol.
  • Descartes R. (2008). Meditations on First Philosophy with Selections from the Objections and Replies, trans: Michael Moriarty, New York.
  • Gassendi P. Ad Librum D. Edoardi Herberti Angli De Veritate Epistola [Letter To the Englishman’s, Edward Herbert’s Book on Truth], in: Petri Gassendi Opuscula Philosophica Tomus Tertius, Florence. 377 384.
  • Grzeliński A. (2016). Locke’s Reading of Herbert’s De Veritate and His Critique of Common Notions, “Kultura i Edukacja” 2 (112). 199.
  • Kortholt Ch. (1701). De Tribus Impostoribus Magnis [The Three Great Impostors], Hamburg. 6 7.
  • Lipsius J. (1584). De Constantia libri duo [On Constance], Antwerp. Lipsius J. 1610. Physiologia Stoicorum libri tres [Three Books concerning the Physiology of the Stoics], Antwerp.
  • Lipsius J. (1616), Iusti Lipsi Epistolarum selectarum chilias [A selection of Justus Lipsius’s letters]. Lyon. 589 90.
  • Miller J. (2001). Innate Ideas in Stoicism and Grotius, ”Grotiana” 22. 157 175.
  • Riley P. (1992). Introduction. Nicholas Malebranche. Treatise on Nature and Grace, Patrick Riley ed. New York. 1 105.
  • Schneewind J. (1998). The Invention of Autonomy. Cambridge. 176 184.
  • Sellars J. (2014) Stoic Fate in Justus Lipsius’s De Constantia and Physiologia Stoicorum. ”Journal of the History of Philosophy”, 52. 653 674.
  • Serjeantson R., W. (2001). Herbert of Cherbury before Deism: The Early Reception of the De veritate, ”The Seventeenth Century” 16. 217 238.

Edward Herbert of Cherbury Justus Lipsius neo­stoicism divine providence stoic fate

Message to:

 

 

© 2017 Adam Marszałek Publishing House. All rights reserved.

Projekt i wykonanie Pollyart