This new edition of the bestselling Orthodoxy & Heterodoxy is fully revised and significantly expanded. Major new features include a full chapter on Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movements, an expanded epilogue, and a new appendix ("How and Why I Became an Orthodox Christian"). More detail and more religions and movements have been included, and the book is now addressed broadly to both Orthodox and non-Orthodox, making it even more sharable than before.

It is too often assumed that religious heterodoxy before the Enlightenment led inexorably to intellectual secularisation. Challenging that assumption, this book expands the scope of the enquiry, hitherto concentrated on the relation between heterodoxy and natural philosophy, to include political thought, moral philosophy and the writing of history. Individual chapters are devoted to Grotius, the Dutch Remonstrants and Socinianism, to Hobbes, Robert Boyle, Robert Hooke, Dutch Collegiants and English Unitarians, Giambattista Vico, Conyers Middleton, and David Hume. In their opening essay the editors argue that the critical problems for both Protestants and Catholics arose from destabilising the relation between the spheres of Nature and Revelation, and the adoption of an increasingly historical approach both to natural religion and to the Scriptual basis of Revelation. Contributors include: Hans Blom, Justin Champion, Jonathan Israel, Martin Mulsow, Enrico Nuzzo, William Poole, Sami-Juhani Savonius, Richard Serjeantson, and Brian Young.

Ten international academics explore heterodoxy dissent challenging the beliefs and meanings of the established norm in late Imperial China. In this process, they trace the origins of the cultural and intellectual protests to aspects of Daoism and Buddhism in the Ming (1368-1644) and Qing (1644-1911)

A carping critic of heterodoxy cut to size is a response by H.P. Blavatsky to certain attacks by G.W. Foote, exposing his bigotry and “innocent” aberrations. Intellectually, Mr. Foote is on a far lower plane than Mrs. Besant. A noble heart like Mrs. Besant’s listens to no voice, save that of the inner voice of Truth — that of man’s divine nature, to which Mr. Foote is deaf and blind. Since Mr. Foote dares not ventilate his senseless rage upon Mrs. Besant, he turns round and, like a coward, slanders another woman because he hopes to have nothing to fear from her. A noble example of Freethought, indeed! He is a poor imitator of all those Dissenters and Sectarians of the unctuously hypocritical type. They, at least, have the merit of original invention, while he only repeats what he hears others say, and even that he must, of necessity, mix up and confuse! His work is that of an accomplished charlatan. While Mr. Foote regards the ethics of Theosophy as detestable, Theosophists regard the teachings of Materialism as despicable. Materialism, with all its arrogance, can hardly claim possession of the last word of science, its negative views being simply the result of the collective experiences of sceptics in every age. The doctrine of reincarnation, flippantly called metempsychosis, is as old as the world. Our materialistic critic seems quite innocent of the distinction between theoretical and practical altruism but proud to claim kinship with the gorilla. He is a very brutal but not skilful fencer, and his arguments are as blunt as the fencer’s foils which hit but hurt not. Mr. Foote shows himself absurdly ignorant of the subjects of his insane attacks. It is, however, Freethought alone that he injures by such language, Theosophy being too invulnerable to be wounded by such poor logic as seems to be at his disposal. In his philological achievements, Mazzini Wheeler, the other apostle of Freethought, seems unable to recognize one Buddhist name from another, quoting and repeating parrot-like information culled from Schlagintweit and Sarat Chandra.

Dante and Heterodoxy: The Temptations of 13th Century Radical Thought, edited and with an introduction by Maria Luisa Ardizzone, collects several studies devoted to discussing Dante’s work in the light of the intellectual debate that developed in thirteenth century Europe after the entrance of new Aristotelian learning and the diffusion of Greek-Arabic thought, in particular the Latin translations of works by Ibn Rushd (Averroes). What takes form in the various articles is the emerging of an interest in the philosophical and scientific contents of Dante’s opus. Heterodoxy in this volume is thus linked to, but not always coincident with, what medieval scholars such as Ferdinand Van Steenberghen or Alain De Libera term “radical Aristotelianism” or “Integral Aristotelianism”. The word “temptations”, as its meaning clearly shows, delineates not an organic link with heterodox or radical ideas, but rather an intermittent inclination to include or evaluate themes related to these ideas. “Temptations” implies a search, an interrogation that consists of the doubts and uncertainties of a poet strongly involved in the intellectual debate of his time and culture, and for whom philosophy and theology are not fields of opposition but different modes of inquiry.

The chapters constituting this book are different in subject and method, striking testimony to the range of Paulson’s interests and the versatility of his critical powers. In his prolific career he has produced extensive analysis of art, poetry, fiction, and aesthetics produced in England between 1650 and 1830. Paulson’s unique contribution has to do with his understanding of “seeing” and “reading” as closely related enterprises, and “popular” forms in art and literature as intimately connected—connections illustrated by literary critics and art historians here. Every essay shares some of the concerns and methods that characterize Paulson’s wonderfully idiosyncratic thought—except for the final essay, an attempt systematically to analyze Paulson’s critical principles and methods. Recurrent themes are a concern with satire in the eighteenth century; a connection between verbal and visual reading; an insistence on the importance of individual artistic choices to the history of culture; an attention to the aims and motives of individual makers of art; and a sensitivity to the crucial links between high and low art. This volume offers rich explorations of a range of subjects: Swift’s relationship to Congreve; Zoffany’s condemnation of Gillray and Hogarth, and broader implications for the role of art in public discourse; the presentation of mourning in the work of the Welsh artist and writer Edward Pugh; G. M. Woodward’s “Coffee-House Characters,” representing a turn from satire on morals towards satire on manners; Adam Smith’s evolving aesthetic program; Samuel Richardson’s notions of social reading. The discussions represent a variety of exemplifications of the Paulsonesque, showing a concern with satiric representation in mixed media, with different forms of heterodoxy and iconoclasm, and with the values of producers of popular and polite culture in this period.

The separation of science and religion in modern secular culture can easily obscure the fact that in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe ideas about nature were intimately related to ideas about God. Readers of this book will find fresh and exciting accounts of a phenomenon common to both science and religion: deviation from orthodox belief. How is heterodoxy to be measured? How might the scientific heterodoxy of particular thinkers impinge on their religious views? Would heterodoxy in religion create a predisposition towards heterodoxy in science? Might there be a homology between heterodox views in both domains? Such major protagonists as Galileo and Newton are re-examined together with less familiar figures in order to bring out the extraordinary richness of scientific and religious thought in the pre-modern world.