Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/51531
|
| Title: | 科學的卡萊爾：《衣服哲學》中的科學、物質、與科學家
The scientific carlyle: Science, matter, and scientists in sartor resartus |
| Authors: | 張惠慈
Chang, Heui Tsz |
| Contributors: | 陳超明
Chen, Chao Ming
張惠慈
Chang, Heui Tsz |
| Keywords: | 卡萊爾
衣服哲學
科學
宗教
家科學
物質
Carlyle, Thomas
Sartor Resartus
science
religion
scientist
matter |
| Date: | 2009 |
| Issue Date: | 2011-10-11 16:46:18 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究有兩目的：第一，打破卡萊爾為智者預言家，與《衣服哲學》為美學整體之迷思；第二，重探卡萊爾在《衣服哲學》中呈現科學∕宗教與物質∕精神二元對立之迷思。
在傳統的研究中，卡萊爾一向代表智者預言家，反對科學與物質；而《衣服哲學》則代表美學整體，忠實地傳達卡萊爾的宗教與精神哲學。然而在過去的研究中，有兩個迷思逐漸固化，而需再次檢驗。首先，卡萊爾為預言哲學家之說誤將卡萊爾視為超越主義之起源，而美學整體之說則誤認《衣服哲學》為一完整美學領域，內涵特定中心與主旨。其次，過去學者一致認同的科學∕宗教與物質∕精神二元敵對之說，也令人質疑，因為根據在二十一世紀初之科學宗教歷史的新研究，直至十九世紀末，包括卡萊爾在創作其《衣服哲學》期間（1830-31），科學與宗教之間並非互有惡意的敵對關係，而是複雜而互惠的交互關係。
本論文包括四個章節，第一章旨在重探卡萊爾具有「作者神格」及《衣服哲學》內含美學整體之說，試圖破除卡萊爾為意義與文類創造者之迷思，以及質疑《衣服哲學》能忠實呈現其「作者父親」之智慧賢能，並代表現代聖經之假說。以傅科之考古的歷史學研究為基礎，本研究將呈現《衣服哲學》為一論述博物館，陳列英國於1820與1830年間，關於科學物質方面的思想，並探討交錯於此觀念下各類論述的演變、交錯、與興衰。
第二章則探討卡萊爾在「科學火炬」中所內涵的宗教意義。透過二十一世紀科學宗教歷史的新研究，以科學宗教的互為生產關係為基礎，本研究發現科學之於卡萊爾並非宗教信仰之破壞者，反而是服務宗教的神聖工具，其「火炬」功能，不僅能挖掘外在的物質世界，也能深掘內在的精神宇宙。《衣服哲學》於是並非旨於批判「科學火炬」，而在宣揚其教化功能，宣導科學的善用，並期以科學之火達到復興心靈及內在改革之目的。卡萊爾的真正批判標的，於是並非「科學火炬」本身，而是「科學火炬」的所處之境，也就是，世人的心靈因受實用主義與機械主義的支配，而造成對科學火炬之誤用。
根據卡萊爾同時期的自然神學，以精神∕物質及可見∕不可見之間互為生產的相互關係為基礎，第三章旨於重新檢驗卡萊爾的「自然超自然主義」。物質之於卡萊爾，實非無用而該摒棄之物，而是開啟精神之門的必要之鑰，因為精神與物質實為神的一體兩面，互惠與相互對應。實體之物，與無形之精神則同等重要。卡萊爾於是從未呼籲停用物質，拋棄衣物，他實則建議讀者應當張開其內心之眼，穿越物質之限制，真實看達上帝之真理。由外至裡，由實體至無形，此認知，才是真正對於神的「一體兩面」的完整認識。
第四章，根據卡萊爾的個人經驗、1820與1830年間科學家一職的發展、以及威維爾的科學與科學家哲學，本研究將重新定義戴歐吉尼斯‧托服思卓空為一早期理想科學家的原型，也就是孤獨地在黑暗中流浪與沈思的智者。此科學之智者一方面道德與精神崇高，一方面又篤信哲學與宗教；他對於科學的致力研究，旨在對抗機械主義與實用主義對當代文化精神的鯨吞蠶食。「戴歐吉尼斯‧托服思卓空」之名，於是不應簡單地只代表著「生於上帝之魔鬼污糞」。透過對於當代的理想科學家形象之探討，此名所深含之隱喻於是展現：上帝之真理，深藏於自然物質世界之所有情境，甚至是任何不起眼之角落；只有透過沈思的智者科學家，深悟其宗教的使命，才有辦法開啟上帝之真理。
卡萊爾於《衣服哲學》中以嘲諷口吻所批評之對象，並非科學與物質，而是卡萊爾對世人的失望，因為世人不再相信看不見的內在精神事物，反而任由其腦、心、與手受控於機械主義與實用主義。卡萊爾於是期待改革，期許沈思的科學哲人手持神聖的科學火炬，引領世人進行改革，復興傳統的信仰、道德、與精神。透過文本與社會文化的互文閱讀，本論文於是呈現，收藏在《衣服哲學》論述博物館之內，關於宗教∕科學、精神∕物質、與哲學人∕科學人等思想之交會、矛盾、相融、及衍生。
There are two purposes of this study. First, to dispel the myth that regards Thomas Carlyle as a sage or prophet and Sartor as an aesthetic unity, and, second, to debunk the myth that assumes a conflict between science and religion, matter and spirit, as well as between philosophers and scientists in Thomas Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus.
Carlyle was traditionally supposed to be a “sage-prophet” who rejects science and matter, and Sartor was regarded as an aesthetic unity to transmit the Carlylean philosophy of religion and spirit. The two myths have been consolidated in many social, cultural, and literary studies and need reexamination.
This dissertation comprises four chapters. The first chapter deals with the demystification of Carlyle as an “Author-God” to generate new meanings and create a new genre. It also questions Sartor as an “aesthetic unity” to reflect the author’s sagacity and to stand for a modern bible. To be interpreted through Michael Foucault’s archaeological study, Sartor will be demonstrated as a discursive museum to exhibit the transitions and vicissitudes of thoughts in reference to science, matter, and scientists.
Chapter Two treats the religious significance of Carlyle’s “Torch of Science.” Through the theory of a mutually productive relationship between science and religion, this chapter will reveal the sacredness in the “Torch of Science.” Not a destroyer of faith, the “Torch of Science” serves as a religious vehicle to explore the exterior/material world and the interior/spiritual universe. Instead of criticizing the “Torch,” Carlyle encourages the proper use of science and expects spiritual reform from the “Torch.” The main target of Carlyle’s prod thus is not the “Torch of Science” per se but its status quo, i.e., the abuse of science dominated by utilitarianism and mechanism.
In Chapter Three, based on his contemporary natural theology, the philosophy of “Natural Supernaturalism” will be analyzed as Carlyle’s belief in the mutually productive interrelations between spirit and matter as well as the visible and invisible. Never thinking matter as “litter,” Carlyle deems the spiritual and the material as two sides of wholeness, corresponding to and supporting each other. Never questioning man’s use of matter, Carlyle advises his reader to open their inner eye with faith, to penetrate the material form with fantasy, and to see God’s truth in the “whole.”
In Chapter Four, with the references to Carlyle’s personal experiences, “science” as a vocation in the 1820s and 1830s, and the philosophy of science and the scientist advocated by William Whewell, “Diogenes Teufelsdrockh” will be reanalyzed and reinterpreted as an ideal proto-scientist wandering and pondering solitarily in the dark. Moral, spiritual, religious, and philosophical, the scientific thinker purports to defeat the furtive invasions of mechanism and utilitarianism. Not simply “God-born Devil’s dung,” “Diogenes Teufelsdrockh” encapsulates the gist of Carlyle’s clothes philosophy: a wise speculative scientist searching for the truth of God hidden in every corner of the natural world.
Instead of criticizing science and matter, Carlyle in fact laments that man no longer trusts the invisible and the interior but has all his head, heart, and hand contaminated by mechanism and utilitarianism. For spiritual and moral reform, Carlyle places his hope on the scientist holding a Torch. Through the intertextual reading of Sartor, this study shows the interplay, conflict, conciliation, and evolution of the thoughts in reference to Carlyle’s contemporary concepts of science and religion, matter and spirit, as well as scientists and philosophers. |
| Reference: | Works Cited:
Abrams, M. H. Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in Romantic
Literature. New York: Norton, 1971.
Allen, Graham. Intertextuality. London: Routledge, 2000.
Almond, Gabriel A, et al. “Introduction.” Progress and Its Discontent. Eds. Gabriel A. Almond et al. Berkeley: California UP, 1977. 1-15.
-----. Progress and Its Discontent. Eds. Gabriel A. Almond et al. Berkeley: California UP, 1977.
Altholz, Josef L. “Warfare of Conscience with Theology.” The Victorian Web: Literature, History, & Culture in the Age of Victoria. 15 August 2001. 5 July 2007. <http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/landow/victorian/religion/altholz/
a2.html>
Altick, Richard D. “Progress?” Victorian People and Ideas: A Companion for the Modern Reader of Victorian Literature. New York: Norton, 1973.
Annan, Noel. “Science, Religion, and the Critical Mind.” Backgrounds to Victorian Literature. Ed. Richard A. Levine. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing, 1967. 95-119.
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader. Ed. David Lodge. London: Longman, 1991. 166-72.
Becher, Harvey W. “William Whewell’s Odyssey: From Mathematics to Moral Philosophy.” William Whewell: A Composite Portrait. Eds. Menachem Fisch and Simon Schaffer. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. 1-29.
Bowler, P. J. The Invention of Progress: The Victorians and the Past. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989.
-----. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley: California UP, 2003.
Briggs, Asa. “Religion and Science.” Backgrounds to Victorian Literature. Ed. Richard A. Levine. San Francisco: Chandler, 1967. 83-94.
Brooke, John Hedley. “Natural Theology.” Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002. 162-218.
-----. Science and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.
Brookes, Gerry H. The Rhetorical form of Carlyle’s ‘Sartor Resartus.’ Berkeley: California UP, 1972.
Buckley, Jerome Hamilton. The Victorian Temper: A Study in Literary Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981.
Burchell, S. C. Age of Progress. New York: Time, 1966.
Burgen, Arnold, et al, eds. The Idea of Progress. New York: de Gruyter, 1997.
Bury, J. B. The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into Its Origin and Growth. New York:
Dover, 1955.
Caldwell, Janis McLarren. Literature and Medicine in Nineteenth-Century Britain: From Shelley to George Eliot. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2004.
Cantor, Geoffrey N. “Between Rationalism and Romanticism: Whewell’s Historiography of the Inductive Sciences.” William Whewell: A Composite Portrait. Eds. Menachem Fisch and Simon Schaffer. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. 67-86.
Campbell, Ian. “Thomas Carlyle.” Dictionary of Literary Biography, Volume 55:Victorian Prose Writers Before 1867. Ed. William B. Thesing. Literary Resource Center. 1987. 1 July 2007. <http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/
LitRC?vrsn=3&OP=contains&locID=nccu&srchtp=athr&ca=1&c=2&ste=6&tab=1&tbst=arp&ai=U13602455&n=10&docNum=H1200006627&ST=carlyle+thomas&bConts=16303>
Chapple, J.A.V. Science and Literature in the Nineteenth Century. London: Macmillan, 1986.
Clubbe, John, and Jerome Meckier, eds. Victorian Perspectives: Six Essays. London: Macmillan, 1989.
-----. “Introduction.” Victorian Perspectives: Six Essays. Ed. John Clubbe and Jerome Meckier. London: Macmillan, 1989. ix-xiii.
Collini, Stefan. “From ‘Non-Fiction Prose’ to ‘Cultural criticism’: Genre and
Disciplinarity in Victorian Studies.” Rethinking Victorian Culture. Eds. Juliet John and Alice Jenkins. London: Macmillan, 2000. 13-28.
Cosslett, Tess. The ‘Scientific Movement’ and Victorian Literature. Sussex: Harvester, 1982.
-----. Science and Religion in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
Carlyle, Thomas. Sartor Resartus. On Hero and Hero Worship. Ed. W. H. Hudson. London: J. M. Dent & Sons LTD, 1956.
-----. Reminiscences (1888). Ed. K. J. Fielding and Ian Campbell. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.
-----. “Characteristics” (1831). A Carlyle Reader: Selections from the Writings of Thomas Carlyle. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 67-103
-----. “Signs of the Times” (1829). The Collected Works of Thomas Carlyle. London: Chapman and Hall, 1858. 98-118.
-----. A Carlyle Reader: Selections from the Writings of Thomas Carlyle. Ed. G. B. Tennyson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
Chandler, Alice. A Dream of Order: The Medieval Ideal in the Nineteenth-Century English Literature. Lincoln: Nebraska UP, 1970.
Colton, Joel. “Foreword.” Progress and Its Discontent. Eds. Gabriel A. Almond et al. Berkeley: California UP, 1977. ix-xii.
Danaher, Geoff, Tony Schirato, and Jen Webb. Understanding Foucault. London: Sage, 2000.
Dean, Mitchell. Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology. London: Routledge, 1994.
Dreyfus, Hubert L., and Paul Ranibnow. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton: Harvester, 1982.
Eckermann, Johann Peter. “1823.” Conversations with Goethe (1836-48). Trans. John Oxenford (1906). Digital Production by Harrison Ainsworth 2006. 26 June 2009. <http://www.hxa.name/books/ecog/Eckermann-
ConversationsOfGoethe-1823.html>
Emig, Rainer. “Eccentricity Begins at Home: Carlyle’s Centrality in Victorian Thought.” Textual Practice, 17.2 (2003): 379-390.
Ferngren, Gray B. “Introduction.” Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002. ix-xiv.
-----, ed. Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 2002.
Fisch, Menachem. William Whewell Philosopher of Science. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.
Fisch, Menachem, and Simon Schaffer, eds. William Whewell: A Composite Portrait. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.
Fisch, Menachem, and Simon Schaffer. “Preface (1988).” William Whewell: A Composite Portrait. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. v-xi.
Fletcher, Robert Huntington. “Chapter XI. Period IX. The Victorian Period. About 1830 to 1901.” A History of English Literature (1918). About.com: Classic Literature. New York Times Company. 2009. 12 June 2009. <http://classiclit.
about.com/library/bl-etexts/rfletcher/bl-rfletcher-history-11-carlyle.htm>
Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader.
Trans. and ed. David Lodge. London: Longman, (1969) 1991. 196-210.
-----. Archaeology of Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge, (1972) 1991.
-----. “Neitzsche, Genealogy, History.” (1977) The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon, 1984. 76-99.
Frye, Northrop. “The Problem of Spiritual Authority in the Nineteenth Century.” Backgrounds to Victorian Literature. Ed. Richard A. Levine. San Francisco: Chandler, 1967. 120-36.
Guald, Colin. Ships Resource Center: for Science Teachers Using Sociology, History
and Philosophy of Science. 20 June 2007. 9 September 2008. <http://www1.
umn.edu/ships/updates/wilbrfrz.htm>
Gilmour, Robin. The Victorian Period: The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature, 1830-1890. London: Longman, 1993.
Harrold, Charles Frederick. Carlyle and German Thought: 1819-1834. New Haven: Yale UP, 1978.
-----. “Introductory Survey: Major Aspects of the Victorian Period.” English Prose of the Victorian Era. New York: Oxford UP, 1968. xiii-lxxx.
Holloway, John. The Victorian Sages: Studies in Argument. London: Macmillan, (1953) 1965.
Houghton, Walter E. The Victorian Frame of Mind 1830-1870. New Haven: Yale UP, 1978.
Irvine, William. Apes Angels and Victorians; The Story of Darwin, Huxley and Evolution. New York: Time Incorporated, 1955.
Jessop, Ralph. Carlyle and Scottish Thought. London: Macmillan, 1997.
John, Juliet, and Alice Jenkins eds. Rethinking Victorian Culture. London: Macmillan, 2000.
Knight, David. The Age of Science: The Scientific World-View in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986.
Landow, George. Elegant Jeremiahs: the Sage from Carlyle to Mailer. Ithaca: Cornel UP, 1986.
-----. “Elegant Jeremiahs: The Genre of the Victorian Sage.” Victorian Perspectives: Six Essays. Eds. John Clubbe and Jerome Meckier. London: Macmillan, 1989. 21-41.
LaValley, Albert J. Carlyle and the Idea of the Modern: Studies in Carlyle’s Prophetic
Literature and its Relation to Blake, Neitzsche, Marx, and Others. New Haven, Yale UP, 1968.
Levine, George. “Defining Knowledge: An Introduction.” Victorian Science in Context. Ed. Bernard Lightman. Chicago and London: Chicago UP, 1997. 15-23.
-----. The Boundaries of Fiction: Carlyle, Macaulay, Newman. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1968.
-----. “Carlyle, Descartes, and Objectivity.” Raritan: A Quarterly Review 17.1 (1997):45-58 EBSCOhost. 5 Jun. 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/>
Levine, George, and Lionel Madden, eds. The Art of Victorian Prose. New York: Oxford UP, 1968.
Lodge, David, ed. Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader. London: Longman, 1991.
Lightman, Bernard. “Introduction.” Victorian Science in Context. Ed. Bernard Lightman. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1997. 1-12.
Livingstone, D. N. Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
McGrath, Alister E. Science & Religion: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999.
-----. The Foundations of Dialogue in Science & Religion. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998.
Meadows, Jack. The Victorian Scientist: The Growth of a Profession. London: British Library, 2004.
Neff, Emery. Carlyle and Mill: An Introduction to Victorian Thought. New York: Octagon Books, 1974 (c. 1926).
-----. Carlyle. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1932.
New American Bible. New York: Catholic Book, 1986.
Olson, Richard G. Science and Religion, 1450-1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2004.
Paradis, James G. “Satire and Science in Victorian Culture.” Victorian Science in Context. Ed. Bernard Lightman. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1997. 143-75.
Paley, William. “Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802). Chapters 1-3.” Science and Religion in the Nineteenth Century. Ed. Tess Cosslett. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
Peterson, Linda H. “Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus: The Necessity of Reconstruction.” Victorian Autobiography: The Tradition of Self-Interpretation. New Haven: Yale UP, 1986. 31-59.
Platinga, Alvin. “Religion and Science.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 20 Feb. 2007. 5 July 2007. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/>
Polkinghorne, John C. Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding. Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation, 2006.
Ross, Sidney. Nineteenth-Century Attitudes: Men of Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1991.
Ruse, Michael. “Introduction.” Of the Plurality of World. By William Whewell. Ed. Michael Ruse. Chicago: Chicago UP, 2001. 1-31.
Russell, Colin A. “The Conflict of Science and Religion.” Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002. 3-12.
-----. Science and Social Change 1700-1900. London: Macmillan, 1983.
Sambrook, James. The Eighteenth Century: The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature 1700-1789. London: Longman, 1986.
Sapin, Steve. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1996.
Schenker, Mark John. “Historical Transcendentalism in the Works of Carlyle, Newman, and Browning.” Diss. Cambridge U, 1988.
“Science.” Oxford English Dictionary (OED). 2008. 6 June 2006. <http://dictionary.
oed.com.ezproxy.lib.nccu.edu.tw:8090/cgi/entry/50215796?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=science&first=1&max_to_show=10>
Shelston, Alan. Thomas Carlyle: Selected Writings. New York: Penguin, 1986.
Sorel, Georges. The Illusions of Progress. Trans. John Stanley and Charlotte Stanley. Berkeley: California UP, 1969.
Suffin, N. W. Science, Religion and Education in Britain, 1804-1904. Kilmore, Australia: Lowden, 1973.
Tambiah, Stanley Jeyaraja. Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996.
Taylor, Charles Alan. “A Rhetorical Ecology of Science.” Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation. Madison: Wisconsin UP, 1996. 3-20.
Tennyson, G. B. Sartor Called Resartus: The Genesis, Structure, and Style of Thomas Carlyle’s First Major Work. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1965.
-----. “Introduction.” A Carlyle Reader. Ed. G. B. Tennyson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. xiii-xlv.
-----, ed. A Carlyle Reader. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
Timko, Michael. Carlyle and Tennyson. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1988.
Turner, Frank Miller. Between Science and Religion: The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England. New Haven: Yale UP, 1974.
Tuveson, Ernest Lee. Millennium and Utopia: A Study in the Background of the Idea of Progress. Berkeley: California UP, 1949.
Uberoi, J. P. S. The Other Mind of Europe: Goethe as a Scientist. Delhi: Oxford UP, 1984.
Uglow, Nathan. “Jane Welsh Carlyle.” The Literary Encyclopedia. 28 October 2000. 5 October 2009. <http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID
=744>
University of Cambridge. Darwin Correspondence Project. 2007. 19 July 2007. <http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html>
Von Helmholtz, Hermann. Science and Culture: Popular and Philosophical Essays. Ed. David Cahan. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1995.
Waring, Walter. “Thomas Carlyle.” Twayne’s English Authors Series Online. New York: G. K. Hall & Co., 1999. 2 June 2007. <http://galenet.galegroup.com/
servlet/LitRC?vrsn=3&OP=contains&locID=nccu&srchtp=athr&ca=1&c=1&ste=16&stab=512&tab=2&tbst=arp&ai=U13602455&n=10&docNum=H1472000565&ST=carlyle+thomas&bConts=16303>
Welch, Claude. “Dispelling Some Myths about the Split between Theology and Science in the Nineteenth Century.” Religion & Science: History, Method,
Dialogue. Ed. W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman. New York: Routledge, 1996. 29-40.
Willy, Basil. The Eighteenth Century Background: Studies in the Idea of Nature in the Thought of the Period. London: Routledge, 1940.
Williams, Raymond. Culture and Society: Coleridge to Orwell. London: Hogarth,
(1958) 1987.
-----. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford UP, 1976.
Wilson, David B. “The Historiography of Science and Religion.” Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002. 13-29.
-----. “Victorian Science and Religion.” History of Science 15 (1977): 52-67.
White, Andrew Dickson. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. 2 vols. Bristol: Thoemmes, 1997.
Whitman, Walter. “Specimen Days. 222: Death of Thomas Carlyle.” Prose Works. 1892. Bartleby.com: Great Books Online. 2009. 12 June 2009. <http://bartleby.
com/229/1222.html>
Yeo, Richard. Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge, and Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
-----. Science in the Public Sphere: Natural Knowledge in British Culture 1800-1860. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2001.
-----. “Scientific Method and the Image of Science 1831-1891.” Science in the Public Sphere: Natural Knowledge in British Culture 1800-1860. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2001. 65-88.
-----. “William Whewell, Natural Theology and the Philosophy of Science in Mid Nineteenth Century Britain.” Science in the Public Sphere: Natural Knowledge in British Culture 1800-1860. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2001. 493-516.
-----. “The Principle of Plentitude and Natural Theology in Nineteenth-Century Britain.” Science in the Public Sphere: Natural Knowledge in British Culture 1800-1860. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2001. 263-82.
-----. “Scientific Method and the Rhetofic of Science in Britain, 1830-1917.” Science in the Public Sphere: Natural Knowledge in British Culture 1800-1860. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2001. 259-97.
Young, Robert. Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985. |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
90551501
98 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0905515011 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [英國語文學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 51501102.pdf | 1107Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1818 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
