Erring from Good Huswifry? The Author as Witness in Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye
Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye differ in the extent to which their scientific ideas and social positions allowed them to translate their view of the embodied observer into a steady textual image that was consistent with their methodological and epistemological ideas. However, they are united in a...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Renaissance and Reformation 2014-04, Vol.37 (2), p.81-114 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 114 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 81 |
| container_title | Renaissance and Reformation |
| container_volume | 37 |
| creator | Clairhout, Isabelle |
| description | Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye differ in the extent to which their scientific ideas and social positions allowed them to translate their view of the embodied observer into a steady textual image that was consistent with their methodological and epistemological ideas. However, they are united in a rhetoric of opposition that accommodates their defence against accusations that females had no authority in these matters due to inferior physical and mental qualities (although Cavendish’s defence is far from unequivocal). Moreover, both took on the role of a spokesperson for a member of their family and, again, their interpretation of that role is affected by their scientific views. This article will examine the similarities and differences of their authorial self-fashioning in the context of what was far from homogeneous early modern scientific authorship. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.33137/rr.v37i2.21811 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>erudit_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1565701496</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><eruid>1090715ar</eruid><jstor_id>43446539</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1090715ar</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-fe377fbfc1f4c019bef801a8a32a987286d0e945a9a3be3aad360e65c1efeccd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkMFLwzAUxoMoOKdnT2LAc2fSlzbNScaYmzDxUtFbyNpky3DtfGkn---tq4inB-_7fd97fIRcczYC4CDvEUd7kD4exTzj_IQM4lhBJEGKUzJgDEQkYvV-Ti5C2DDGBON8QPIpoq9W1GG9pbO6Lum8DV_e4eGB5mtLx22zrpGaQN98U9kQqK_os8GVQdvQidnbqvRhTU1V_qwPNMeDvSRnznwEe_U7h-T1cZpP5tHiZfY0GS-iAnjSRM6ClG7pCu5EwbhaWpcxbjIDsVGZjLO0ZFaJxCgDSwvGlJAymyYFt84WRQlDctfn7rD-bG1o9KZusepOap6kiWRcqLSj7nuqwDoEtE7v0G-7XzVn-lidRtTH6vSxus5x0zs2oanxDxcgRJqA6vTbXrfYlr75l6eY5IlB-AZNFHbf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1565701496</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Erring from Good Huswifry? The Author as Witness in Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Clairhout, Isabelle</creator><creatorcontrib>Clairhout, Isabelle</creatorcontrib><description>Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye differ in the extent to which their scientific ideas and social positions allowed them to translate their view of the embodied observer into a steady textual image that was consistent with their methodological and epistemological ideas. However, they are united in a rhetoric of opposition that accommodates their defence against accusations that females had no authority in these matters due to inferior physical and mental qualities (although Cavendish’s defence is far from unequivocal). Moreover, both took on the role of a spokesperson for a member of their family and, again, their interpretation of that role is affected by their scientific views. This article will examine the similarities and differences of their authorial self-fashioning in the context of what was far from homogeneous early modern scientific authorship.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0034-429X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2293-7374</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.33137/rr.v37i2.21811</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Iter Press</publisher><subject>Authors ; Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1623-1673) ; Chemicals ; Comparative analysis ; Empirical knowledge ; Empiricism ; Epistemology ; Medical cures ; Medical practice ; Natural philosophy ; Physicians ; Poetry ; Rhetoric ; Skepticism ; Trye, Mary ; Writers</subject><ispartof>Renaissance and Reformation, 2014-04, Vol.37 (2), p.81-114</ispartof><rights>2014Canadian Society for Renaissance Studies / Société canadienne d'études de la Renaissance; Pacific Northwest Renaissance Society; Toronto Renaissance and Reformation Colloquium; Victoria University Centre for Renaissance and Reformation Studies</rights><rights>Canadian Society for Renaissance Studies / Société canadienne d'études de la Renaissance</rights><rights>Copyright University of Guelph, Department of French studies Spring 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-fe377fbfc1f4c019bef801a8a32a987286d0e945a9a3be3aad360e65c1efeccd3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43446539$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43446539$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Clairhout, Isabelle</creatorcontrib><title>Erring from Good Huswifry? The Author as Witness in Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye</title><title>Renaissance and Reformation</title><description>Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye differ in the extent to which their scientific ideas and social positions allowed them to translate their view of the embodied observer into a steady textual image that was consistent with their methodological and epistemological ideas. However, they are united in a rhetoric of opposition that accommodates their defence against accusations that females had no authority in these matters due to inferior physical and mental qualities (although Cavendish’s defence is far from unequivocal). Moreover, both took on the role of a spokesperson for a member of their family and, again, their interpretation of that role is affected by their scientific views. This article will examine the similarities and differences of their authorial self-fashioning in the context of what was far from homogeneous early modern scientific authorship.</description><subject>Authors</subject><subject>Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1623-1673)</subject><subject>Chemicals</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Empirical knowledge</subject><subject>Empiricism</subject><subject>Epistemology</subject><subject>Medical cures</subject><subject>Medical practice</subject><subject>Natural philosophy</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Poetry</subject><subject>Rhetoric</subject><subject>Skepticism</subject><subject>Trye, Mary</subject><subject>Writers</subject><issn>0034-429X</issn><issn>2293-7374</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpNkMFLwzAUxoMoOKdnT2LAc2fSlzbNScaYmzDxUtFbyNpky3DtfGkn---tq4inB-_7fd97fIRcczYC4CDvEUd7kD4exTzj_IQM4lhBJEGKUzJgDEQkYvV-Ti5C2DDGBON8QPIpoq9W1GG9pbO6Lum8DV_e4eGB5mtLx22zrpGaQN98U9kQqK_os8GVQdvQidnbqvRhTU1V_qwPNMeDvSRnznwEe_U7h-T1cZpP5tHiZfY0GS-iAnjSRM6ClG7pCu5EwbhaWpcxbjIDsVGZjLO0ZFaJxCgDSwvGlJAymyYFt84WRQlDctfn7rD-bG1o9KZusepOap6kiWRcqLSj7nuqwDoEtE7v0G-7XzVn-lidRtTH6vSxus5x0zs2oanxDxcgRJqA6vTbXrfYlr75l6eY5IlB-AZNFHbf</recordid><startdate>20140401</startdate><enddate>20140401</enddate><creator>Clairhout, Isabelle</creator><general>Iter Press</general><general>Canadian Society for Renaissance Studies / Société canadienne d'études de la Renaissance, Pacific Northwest Renaissance Society, Toronto Renaissance and Reformation Colloquium and Victoria University Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies</general><general>University of Guelph, Department of French studies</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140401</creationdate><title>Erring from Good Huswifry? The Author as Witness in Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye</title><author>Clairhout, Isabelle</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c315t-fe377fbfc1f4c019bef801a8a32a987286d0e945a9a3be3aad360e65c1efeccd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Authors</topic><topic>Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1623-1673)</topic><topic>Chemicals</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Empirical knowledge</topic><topic>Empiricism</topic><topic>Epistemology</topic><topic>Medical cures</topic><topic>Medical practice</topic><topic>Natural philosophy</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Poetry</topic><topic>Rhetoric</topic><topic>Skepticism</topic><topic>Trye, Mary</topic><topic>Writers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Clairhout, Isabelle</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Renaissance and Reformation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Clairhout, Isabelle</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Erring from Good Huswifry? The Author as Witness in Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye</atitle><jtitle>Renaissance and Reformation</jtitle><date>2014-04-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>81</spage><epage>114</epage><pages>81-114</pages><issn>0034-429X</issn><eissn>2293-7374</eissn><abstract>Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye differ in the extent to which their scientific ideas and social positions allowed them to translate their view of the embodied observer into a steady textual image that was consistent with their methodological and epistemological ideas. However, they are united in a rhetoric of opposition that accommodates their defence against accusations that females had no authority in these matters due to inferior physical and mental qualities (although Cavendish’s defence is far from unequivocal). Moreover, both took on the role of a spokesperson for a member of their family and, again, their interpretation of that role is affected by their scientific views. This article will examine the similarities and differences of their authorial self-fashioning in the context of what was far from homogeneous early modern scientific authorship.</abstract><pub>Iter Press</pub><doi>10.33137/rr.v37i2.21811</doi><tpages>34</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0034-429X |
| ispartof | Renaissance and Reformation, 2014-04, Vol.37 (2), p.81-114 |
| issn | 0034-429X 2293-7374 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1565701496 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | Authors Cavendish, Margaret, Duchess of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1623-1673) Chemicals Comparative analysis Empirical knowledge Empiricism Epistemology Medical cures Medical practice Natural philosophy Physicians Poetry Rhetoric Skepticism Trye, Mary Writers |
| title | Erring from Good Huswifry? The Author as Witness in Margaret Cavendish and Mary Trye |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T12%3A07%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-erudit_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Erring%20from%20Good%20Huswifry?%20The%20Author%20as%20Witness%20in%20Margaret%20Cavendish%20and%20Mary%20Trye&rft.jtitle=Renaissance%20and%20Reformation&rft.au=Clairhout,%20Isabelle&rft.date=2014-04-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=81&rft.epage=114&rft.pages=81-114&rft.issn=0034-429X&rft.eissn=2293-7374&rft_id=info:doi/10.33137/rr.v37i2.21811&rft_dat=%3Cerudit_proqu%3E1090715ar%3C/erudit_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1565701496&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_eruid=1090715ar&rft_jstor_id=43446539&rfr_iscdi=true |