Kraye Jill
The Warburg Institute, University of London, School of Advanced Study; Woburn Square, London WC1H 0AB.
Early Sci Med. 2012;17(1-2):230-53. doi: 10.1163/157338212x631855.
This paper examines the reception of the Stoic theory of the passions in the early modern period, highlighting various differences between the way notions such as (see symbol in text) (complete freedom from passions) and(see symbol in text) (pre-passions) were handled and interpreted by Continental and English authors. Both groups were concerned about the compatibility of Stoicism with Christianity, but came to opposing conclusions; and while the Continental scholars drew primarily on ancient philosophical texts, the English ones relied, in addition, on experience and observation, developing a natural history of the passions.
本文考察了早期现代时期斯多葛派情感理论的接受情况，着重强调了大陆派和英国作者在处理和解释诸如（文本中见符号）（完全摆脱情感）和（文本中见符号）（前情感）等概念时存在的各种差异。两组人都关注斯多葛主义与基督教的兼容性，但得出了相反的结论；而且，大陆派学者主要借鉴古代哲学文本，而英国学者除此之外还依赖经验和观察，发展出了一部情感的自然史。
