Editors: Sabrina Ebbersmeyer, Sarah Hutton
E-Book ISBN: 978-3-030-71527-4
„This book showcases Elisabeth of Bohemia, Princess Palatine (1618-1680), one of the foremost female minds of the 17th century. Best known today for her important correspondence with the philosopher René Descartes, Elisabeth was famous in her own time for her learning, philosophical acumen, and mathematical brilliance. She was also well-connected in the seventeenth-century intellectual circles. Elisabeth’s status as a woman philosopher is emblematic of both the possibilities and limitations of women’s participation in the republic of letters and of their subsequent fate in history. Few sources containing her own views survive, and until recently there has been no work on Elisabeth as a thinker in her own right. This volume brings together an international team of scholars to discuss her work from a cross-disciplinary perspective on the occasion of her fourth centenary. It is the first collection of essays to examine a range of her interests and to discuss them in relation to her historical context. The studies presented here discuss her educational background, her friendships and contacts, her interest in politics, religion, and astronomy, as well as her views on politics, her moral philosophy and her engagement with Cartesianism. The volume will appeal to historians of philosophy, historians of political thought, philosophers, feminists and seventeenth-century historians.”
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Sabrina Ebbersmeyer, Sarah Hutton
Pages 1-13
„Elisabeth of Bohemia, Princess Palatine (1618–1680) was famous in her own time for her learning, her philosophical acumen and her mathematical brilliance. Her wide-ranging interests extended to religion, science, politics and philosophy, and she was well-connected with seventeenth-century intellectual circles. But she has since suffered the fate of so many brilliant women of the past.”
I. Elisabeth’s Intellectual World
Elisabeth of Bohemia’s Aristrocratic Upbringing and Education at the Prinsenhof, Rapenhof 4-10, c. 1627/8-32
Nadine Akkermann
Pages 17-31
„This chapter is a note on the education of Elisabeth, Princess Palatine, and as such presents what information there is regarding the instructors, curriculum and atmosphere she would have experienced at the so-called Prinsenhof, the school-cum-court of the Palatine princes and princesses that was located in Leiden, a mere three-hour journey from their parents and the court-in-exile in The Hague. While the limited sources allow only for mere glimpses of the education Elisabeth received, they do reveal new information, such as the texts she is likely to have read between the ages of ten and fourteen and the discovery that her first engagement with philosophy was most likely with either François du Ban or Daniel Berckringer rather than René Descartes. It also underlines the importance of her mother, Elizabeth Stuart, sometime Queen of Bohemia, in determining how Elisabeth would experience and benefit from this education, as her children enjoyed privileges that she was denied as a child, not least the companionship of siblings and a relatively ungendered education, particularly when it came to learning the classical languages.”
Mirjam de Baar
Pages 33-49
„The friendship between Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618–1680) and Anna Maria van Schurman (1607–1678) started in the early 1630s and continued for more than forty years. That their friendship lasted so long is really a matter for some surprise, if we consider that Elisabeth clearly developed an intellectual interest in Descartes’s new thinking and Anna Maria van Schurman adhered to the Aristotelian-Christian tradition and the scholastics. This paper seeks to address the following questions: How and when did the first contact between the young Elisabeth and her female mentor come about? What purpose, in their view, did study serve for women? And what linked them still, or again, when their paths crossed once more in the 1670s, Elisabeth then being the abbess of the Lutheran Frauenstift in Herford and Anna Maria van Schurman a member of the religious community of the Labadists founded by the radical Pietist Jean de Labadie? The paper provides new insights on the early years of their friendship as it argues that the first letter from Anna Maria van Schurman to Elisabeth in the Opuscula, d.d. 7 September 1639, was probably wrongly dated. A closer examination of the context shows that it is much more plausible that the date should be 7 September 1633.”
Elisabeth of Bohemia and the Sciences: The Case of Astronomy
Sabrina Ebbersmeyer
Pages 51-70
„The purpose of this paper is to highlight an aspect of Elisabeth’s intellectual life that has received little scholarly attention so far, namely Elisabeth’s involvement with the sciences of her day. Firstly, this paper provides a survey of Elisabeth’s interest in and engagement with various scientific disciplines, such as mathematics, medicine, natural philosophy, and microscopy, drawing on her letter exchange with Descartes and several other intellectuals as well as additional documents, such as dedications of scientific works to Elisabeth. Secondly, this paper investigates Elisabeth’s involvement with one particular scientific discipline, namely astronomy. Analyzing Elisabeth’s letter exchange with Andreas Colvius (1594–1671) and Constantijn Huygens (1596–1687) and additional letters and testimonies, I show that Elisabeth played an active part in at least three current debates in astronomy, namely concerning (i) the discoveries of the satellites of Jupiter, (ii) the emerging maps of the moon, and (iii) the invention of the new telescopes. Based on the evidence provided in this paper, it is argued that Elisabeth’s intellectual biography should be broadened. It is not sufficient to perceive her only as a critic of Descartes’ philosophy, as this characterization does not accommodate her scientific commitments, but rather as a multitalented intellectual.”
Princess Elisabeth and Anne Conway (1631-1679): The Interconnected Circles of Two Philosophical Women
Sarah Hutton
Pages 71-86
„Princess Elisabeth and Anne Conway were contemporaries whose lives present many striking parallels. From their early interest in Descartes’ philosophy to their encounter with Van Helmont and the Quakers in their maturity, both were brought into contact with the same sets of ideas and forms of spirituality at similar points in their lives. Despite their common interest in philosophy, and their many mutual acquaintances, it is difficult to ascertain what either knew about the other, and whether either knew anything about the other’s philosophy. This paper reviews the evidence for connections between them and their knowledge of one another. After outlining the parallels in their personal circumstances and the sources for their knowledge of each other, I discuss key intermediaries: Henry More, the Hartlib Circle, Francis Mercury van Helmont and the Quaker leaders Robert Barclay and George Keith. Although they were certainly aware of one another, the answer to the question of whether there was any philosophical inter-change between them remains especially elusive.”
II. Elisabeth’s Political Thought and Its Context
A Persistent Princess: How Elisabeth of Bohemia Constructed Her Personal Politics
Carol Pal
Pages 89-107
„This essay presents Elisabeth of Bohemia’s intellectual trajectory as a completely consistent lifelong investigation. Elisabeth’s intellectual work has generally been parsed in a way that construes the years of her philosophical correspondence with Descartes, from 1643 to 1649, as the apex of her thinking life, after which her scholarly investigations were gradually subsumed into a morass of family quarrels and questionable forays into religion. This essay argues instead that throughout her thinking life, Elisabeth was always seeking to extract the strongest, brightest, clearest essences from all the branches of knowing that crossed her path—philosophical, scientific, mathematical, and religious—in order to answer one central question: How best to rule? By putting together what can be gleaned from a number of underutilized sources, a clearer picture emerges. It is the picture of a relentless, persistent, and eternally unsatisfied intellect, seeking for the answer she could never find, and which perhaps could never exist—a way to have her philosophical forays and Calvinist commitments work together to produce a clear pathway to truly ruling well.”
Gianni Paganini
Pages 109-126
„While most scholars who have discussed the letters of Elisabeth and Descartes exchanged in 1646 on the subject of the Prince focused on Descartes, whether he was Machiavellian or not, I shall deal here more in depth with the position of Elisabeth. I shall address then four main points: the so-called “methodological” question raised by Descartes about the Princeand quickly dismissed by Elisabeth; the issue of political realism, that is one of the great themes of Machiavelli’s thought; the problem of the “good man,” namely whether and how the natural law can bind in a “wicked” world; Elisabeth’s focus on the passions against Descartes’s political and providential mereology. Finally, I shall try to draw some more general conclusions as regards the place of Elisabeth in the broader context of seventeenth century political philosophy, especially in regard to Hobbes.”
Princess Elisabeth and the Challenges of Philosophizing
Lisa Shapiro
Pages 127-141
„This paper explores Elisabeth’s remark that ruling and studying each demands an entire person, with the aim of understanding why she might think ruling and intellectual pursuits like philosophy are incompatible with one another. While Elisabeth identifies several barriers to philosophizing, she does not suggest that time constraints are an impediment to both philosophizing and ruling. Situating Elisabeth with respect to Plato, Machiavelli, and Aristotle suggests that she holds there are many similarities between governing and philosophizing. The methodology and skill set of a ruler and a philosopher are very similar; both need to organize their thoughts, consider an array of possible alternatives, gather background information, and be decisive; both take virtue, truth, and justice as their ends, and they are driven by a central concern for something other than themselves. Though both can be moved to high emotions by external forces, they can cultivate the self-awareness that can serve in modulating those emotions in a variety of ways. However, a difference lies in the ways in which the objects of their decisions are constrained in time. This difference in turn disposes each to different emotions. Insofar as their lives are tightly integrated, a ruler and a philosopher would have different affective profiles and organize their lives around different principles. In virtue of these differences, a ruler and a philosopher would indeed need to be two entire persons.”
III. Elisabeth`s Philosophical Thought in her Exchange with Descartes
The Soul’s Extension: Elisabeth’s Solution to Descartes’s Mind–Body Problem
Lilli Alanen
Pages 145- 161
„This paper examines and reflects on Princess Elisabeth’s of Bohemia exchange with Descartes concerning the notorious difficulties of his doctrine of human nature as a union of two independent and mutually exclusive substances mind and body. The aim is to situate her questions in the context of the debate Descartes’s doctrine spurred among his contemporaries and to show the philosophical interest of her own contribution to the understanding of and clarification of the issues confronting Descartes.”
Elisabeth on Free Will, Preordination, Philosophical Doubt
Martina Reuter
Pages 163-176
„Elisabeth is widely known as a critic of René Descartes’ account of mind–body interaction and scholarly interpretations of her view on the will most often pose the question about the freedom of the will in relation to bodily impulses such as the passions. This chapter takes a different perspective and focuses on the problem of the compatibility of free will and providence, as it is discussed in a sequence of six letters that Elisabeth and Descartes wrote between September 1645 and January 1646. The chapter focuses on this specific metaphysical problem in order to ask what Elisabeth’s remarks on the topic can tell about her general philosophical method as well as about her particular philosophical worries. The chapter divides into three parts. The first part discusses Elisabeth’s initial philosophical interest in the question of free will and providence, and recounts the arguments presented by her and Descartes. The second part discusses the philosophical foundation for Descartes’ position and Elisabeth’s criticism of this position. The final part compares Elisabeth’s criticism of Descartes’ account of the compatibility of free will and providence with her criticism of his account of mind–body interaction, which she develops in her three first letters to him, written in 1643. It is argued that at the core of both criticisms we find Elisabeth’s search for answers based on reason and a dissatisfaction with Descartes’ reliance on the incomprehensible nature of God as a basis for some of his philosophical arguments.”
Is Our Happiness up to Us? Elisabeth of Bohemia on the Limits of Internalism
Dominik Perler
Pages 177-192
„This paper examines Elisabeth of Bohemia’s critique of Descartes’ internalist conception of happiness. According to this conception, we can all become happy because we can all make full use of our rational faculties and constantly follow our best judgments. Happiness is nothing but an “internal satisfaction” that arises when we act in accordance with these judgments. Elisabeth challenges this conception by pointing out that it is far too optimistic and that it neglects what is external to our own mind. Quite often, we cannot make full use of our rational faculties (i) because we are in the grip of passions and diseases or (ii) because we are under time pressure and can neither make the best decisions nor foresee their consequences. The paper focuses on these two objections, arguing that Elisabeth replaces Descartes’ internalist conception of happiness with a more complex conception that takes both internal and external factors into account. On her view, not only the right use of our rational faculties but also the right conditions for using them are required for obtaining happiness. In defending this view, Elisabeth presents an alternative to Descartes’ position and should therefore be seen as an original thinker engaging in a philosophical debate.”
The Feminine Body in the Correspondence Between Descartes and Elisabeth
Marie-Frédérique Pellegrin
Pages 193-204
„The correspondence between Descartes and Elisabeth contains the analysis of different female bodies: that of Elisabeth, that of Descartes’ mother, and that of the pregnant woman. The study of their appearances shows that the idea of a weak sex is not Cartesian. For Elisabeth, the idea has a certain validity at first (I refuse to see it as merely a rhetorical device), but the exercise of philosophy, her discussions with Descartes as a doctor of both the soul and the body, allow the patient Elisabeth to recover all her strength. She becomes the symbolic incarnation not of the new philosophy but of an essential thesis of that philosophy according to which scholars are not the true sages. Behind the description of a body and a sensitive and sometimes sick soul, the correspondence also, and above all, allows to see the expression of a very powerful faculty of reasoning.”
What Is Elisabeth’s Cartesianism?
Denis Kambouchner
Pages 205-214
„The aim of this paper is twofold: to clarify the nature of Elisabeth’s adherence to Cartesian philosophy; to discover whether, on the question of the interaction between the mind and the body, Elisabeth’s objections really caused Descartes difficulty. On the first point, one should acknowledge that Elisabeth considers Cartesian philosophy less as an unquestionable doctrine than as a superior form of the culture of reason. On the second, the main difficulty concerns the “power of the soul to move the body.” But this power consists neither in the direct use of a mechanically defined force, nor in the exercise of a mysterious formal causation. All the power of the soul over the body relates to the natural or acquired correlation between certain thoughts and certain impressions in the brain. But Descartes, in his reply to Elisabeth in the spring of 1643, does not wish to develop these views immediately. He is not exactly embarrassed: he defers his explanations.”
You cannot copy content of this page