Call for Papers: Women and Curiosity in Early Modern England
Call for Papers: Women and Curiosity in Early Modern
England
*Women and Curiosity in Early Modern England University
Paris Ouest Nanterre (Quarto, CREA370) and University Sorbonne Nouvelle —
Paris 3 (Épistémè, PRISMES EA4398)
21-22 June 2013 *
The multiplication of cabinets of curiosities and the
obsession with novelty are evidence of the development of a “culture of
curiosity†in the early
modern period. In Europe, the telescope, which soon became the instrument of
curiosity, epitomized man’s desire to see beyond the pillars of Hercules. The
physico-theological dimension of natural philosophy at the time led to
considering curiosity as a wish to know God by reading the Book of Nature and
unravelling its mysteries. In his article on “Curiosity, Forbidden Knowledge
and the Reformation in Early Modern England†(/Isis/, 2001, 265-90), Peter Harrison argues that there was a
“rehabilitation of curiosity†in the early modern period.
While curiosity had long been considered as an intellectual vice, associated
with hybris and the original sin, and described by Augustine as “lust of the
eyesâ€, it became a virtue in
the 17^th century. One of the main reasons for this transformation was the
continued efforts of natural philosophers to demonstrate that curiosity was
morally acceptable in order to legitimize their scientific endeavour. Thus
Francis Bacon and his followers insisted on the code of conduct of natural
philosophers, the usefulness of the knowledge they were seeking and the
discrepancy between their own research and occult sciences. All of them
championed the “good curiosityâ€
of the natural philosophers who followed the Baconian programme, as opposed to
the “bad curiosity†of men and women interested in
magic, and in trivial and superficial matters.
If there was indeed a “rehabilitation of curiosity†in the early modern period, did it
have any impact on women’s
desire for knowledge? The emergence of women philosophers at the time (Margaret
Cavendish, Anne Conway, Lady Ranelagh, Elisabeth of Bohemia, Catherine of
Sweden, Damaris Masham, Catherine Trotter, etc.) may indicate that their
curiosity was now considered as legitimate and morally acceptable – or at
least that it was tolerated. Yet it has been suggested that the new status of
curiosity in the early modern period led instead to an even stronger distrust
for women, who were both prone to curiosity and curiosities themselves. A.
Capodivacca thus argues that the legitimization of curiosity came with a
“degendering†or “virilization†of this faculty (/Curiosity and
the Trials of the Imagination in Early Modern Italy/, PhD, Berkeley, 2007, p.
7), and therefore entailed a redefinition of good and bad curiosity along
gender lines. Similarly, Neil Kenny states that in early modern Europe,“much
male curiosity had become goodâ€
and as a result “a much
larger proportion of bad curiosity was now female†(/The Uses of Curiosity in Early Modern France and Germany/,
2004, p. 385). The June 2013 conference on “Women and Curiosityâ€
aims at assessing the impact of the alledged “rehabilitation of curiosity†on women in the early modern
period, by analysing discourses on women as enquirers and objects of curiosity.
Iconographic and fictional representations of curious women and female curiosity
might also give an insight into the relations between women and curiosity in
the early modern period (for example, Cesare Ripa’s allegory of curiosity as
“a huge, wild-haired, winged womanâ€
in /Iconologia/ (1593), or representations of emblematic curious women such as
Eve, Dinah, Pandora, etc.). The origins of these discourses and
representations, as well as their premises, might also be investigated:
to what extent did the condemnation of women’s
curiosity reveal a fear of disorder and transgression? Did it betray male
anxiety about female sexuality or about the mystery of birth? Was it justified
by medical interpretations of curiosity, such as a specific humoural condition?
Women’s own conception of curiosity / curiosities in
the early modern period might also be of interest, especially as it is rarely
studied.
The conference on “Women and Curiosity†will thus give us the opportunity
to focus on what women themselves wrote about curiosity in their treatises,
fictional works, translations, and correspondences. For instance, Queen
Elizabeth I’s relation to curiosity, which was necessarily different from
that of ordinary women, was revealed in several of her translations, in
particular in her English version of Plutarch’s “De curiositate†(based on Erasmus’ Latin translation) and her Latin
version of Bernardino Ochino’s
“Che cosa è Cristoâ€; she also criticised theological and political curiosity in
a 1585 address to the clergy, explicitly referring to Puritan preachers (/Elizabeth
I:
Translations, 1592-98/, eds. J. Mueller & J. Scodel,
2009). In her book /The World’s Olio/ (1655), Margaret Cavendish gives a
description of the ideal commonwealth, the ruler of which should “have none
of those they call their cabinets, which is a room filled with all useless
curiosities, which seems Effeminate, and is so Expensive […] almost to the
impoverishing of a Kingdomeâ€.
Cavendish adds that it might be more useful to fill the room with books, which
are “more famous curiosities†(p. 207). The works of Aphra
Behn (who, incidentally, was a spy for King Charles II) can also be seen as a
testimony on women’s relation to curiosity at the time: while the story
related in /Oroonoko /(1688) takes place in an exotic environment teeming with
curiosities, /The History of the Nun/ (1689) presents curiosity as being
natural to women (“naturally […] Maids are curious and vainâ€, p. 58). Did women writers
consider curiosity as intrinsically female? How did they react to male
discourses on women as enquirers and objects of curiosity? What representations
of curiosity did they give in their texts?
Papers should not exceed 25 minutes and will be given
preferably in English. Please send your proposal (a 500-word abstract with a
title) as well as a biographical note to Sandrine Parageau (sparageau@hotmail.com
or sandrine.parageau@u-paris10.fr)
and Line Cottegnies
before *January 31, 2013*.