Shirley Sharon-Zisser wrote:
> I believe in risks as much as in the real thing, and believe dreams are
> part of the real thing; I'm presently editing a volume on rhetoric and
> dream in the Renaissance. What do you think were the reasons for the high
> occurrence of the concern with dream in texts of the period, including
> Spenser's *Rvines of Time* and *Rvines of Rome*?
I too would be very interested in taking advantage of Peter Zenner's
expertise in this area.
I think we're beginning to talk of what Ficino called "divine frenzy". That
which in SC is "a certaine enthousiasmos". Something we have all
(hopefully) experienced. Something which is perfectly natural - and
certainly necessary for poets.
But from the time of Ficino, through to the early 17th century, "divine
frenzy" was turned into what passed as an exact science. Something to be
switched on and off at will. (For example see E.K.s glosse on "sence
bereaue").
This side of Ficino is too often played down by modern scholars - and Ficino
remains well-respected. Not so Cornelius Agrippa - with whom Marlowe, for
instance, was quite familiar. Cornelius was explicit about what Ficino
actually did. We know that music, images, poetry, (not to mention
fumigations and coloured lights) all have an effect - that's why we do them.
Bring them all together and the effects can be great. Add to that a
willing, and intellectually prepared, subject and the effects could be even
greater.
If one could induce an almost perpetual state of "divine frenzy" then where
lies the borderline of reality? Try to imagine being thrown back to London
in 1579. Look around you. Would you choose reality?
Andy
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|