Oh well. By now anachronism is my middle name. All I meant was that it was
possible to believe in "daimons" as either good guy spirits or neutral spirits
or something that might guide Socrates and so forth without equating them with
altogether bad guy demons like those in Milton's Pandemonium. Whether a demon
stinks of brimstone or not must, I think, matter. Ask Faustus. Or Paracelsus.
As for bodies, I find myself utter neutral and not a little confused on this
matter. I have no opinion of my own on the matter of the materiality of
demons. Milton thinks angels are material and I suppose he thought fallen ones
material too. I can merely report what I read in some early modern discussions
of Saul's demon and the relevance of their puzzlement to the real issue
involved: the legitimacy of music in church. One old and common way to argue
for having music (beyond maybe some psalms sung in unison) was to cite David's
effect on Saul. The anti-music party dismissed this evidence by saying that
David's music wasn't what expelled the demon but rather the expulsion was
caused by a) David's goodness or b) maybe the words or c) God's own miracle. I
have an essay on Donne and David and Orpheus and Saul coming out one of these
days in the John Donne Journal that gets into this, but in the meantime see
Thomas Wright on the passions, "John Case" (or, rather, anon.) the author of
the *Praise of Music*, George Wither, and *David Persecuted* by Malvezzi (whom
I hope I am spelling right). In sum: it seems to me that demons would need
bodies to do all sorts of things but a number of my Renaissance (and Medieval)
authorities say no.
Could I add a personal request? My e-mail, and I can't believe I'm
utterly alone in this, doesn't give the names of those who post messages. If I
am alone it is doubtless my fault (or a demon in the system with only bits and
bytes of a body), but it would be wonderful if those who post messages were to
sign them, and with a full name. I know three Andrews in Spenser studies, for
example. Thanks, Anne Prescott
>===== Original Message From Sidney-Spenser Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]> =====
>All ---
>
>Genevieve Guenther has already responded well to this from Anne Prescott, but
I
>think more might be said.
>
>What is the basis for saying that demons don't have bodies? Along with
angels,
>I believe, they were thought to be clothed not with fleshy matter, but with
>aetherial bodies. Think of Donne's 'Air and Angels.' D. P. Walker years ago
>did extensive work on this subject, in tandem with his study of the effects
of
>music on the soul, and even on the body's health. Perhaps Carol Kaske can
>clear up some of the confusion here.
>
>Anne's distinction between 'Ficino's daimons' and 'real demons' may be
>anachronistic, although I grant that the Bible and Ficino carried different
>kinds of authority in Spenser's day and age. What Spenser 'believed,' and
what
>he found not necessarily true but potentially useful, are matters to be
>pondered interminably; I tried to address the possibilities in 'Spenser's
>Supreme Fiction.
>
>Would someone (or several) better qualified than I care to address the status
>of demons and the like in Tasso's poetry?
>
>Here's to further travel in the garden of forking paths!
>
>Jon Quitslund (Geo. Washington U.)
>> A scientific explanation of how demons affect the psyche might seem to be
>> extraneous (if they exist they don't need to work simply naturally) if we
>> define "scientific" as more or less like modern science. But in my work on
>> David in the Renaissance I keep running across a real fascination with the
>> medical (and hence scientific, sort of) implications of demonic possession.
>> The problem, I gather, was whether demons, who don't have bodies, can
respond
>> to music and how. I guess what I'm trying to say is that before science and
>> superstition went their more or less separate ways there was what one could
>> call a "science" of demonology: there were rules for demons and they
couldnt'
>> do just anything they liked. Hence (pseudo)scientific theories about demons
>> and witches, for example. I wish I knew if Spenser literally believed in
>> demons--not Ficino's daimons but real demons. They are there in the Bible,
so
>> maybe he did. Anne Prescott.
>>
>> >===== Original Message From Sidney-Spenser Discussion List
>> <[log in to unmask]> =====
>> >All --
>> >
>> >I'm still pondering many points in the lively discussion (I guess wet
dreams
>> >really get us where we live), wondering if I have anything to contribute.
I
>> do
>> >have an immediate response to the idea that demons, as they appear in FQ,
>> >are 'supernatural': for Spenser, I think not, given the traditions of
thought
>> >and definitions of 'nature' on which he drew. 'Preternatural,' I suppose,
>> and
>> >mind-boggling, but one of Spenser's aims as a poet, in my view, was to
expand
>> >and enliven his readers' the epiphenomenal within the phenomenal world.
His
>> >poem features demons (or daimons) from above and from below, all to be
>> >understood as manifestations of the 'spirit' side of Nature. Think of
Nature
>> >in the Cantos: a boundary figure, representing the nature of Nature and
>> >associating it with divinity. Think of the Graces on Mt. Acidale:
suspected
>> by
>> >clueless Calidore of being demons, and so they are in a sense: not
>> >ontologically separate from the sprites that Archimago calls up, in his
>> >misappropriation of Venerean energies.
>> >> Certainly, anyone postulating the existence of demons could also
>> >> postulate their influence upon the human mind. A scientific explanation
>> for
>> >> how, exactly, a demon might affect changes in a human's psyche seems
>> >> extraneous...especially for a 16th century writer. Demonic influence,
by
>> >> definition, is supernatural...preternatural.
>> >>
>> >> MRS
>>
>> anne prescott
>> english, barnard college
anne prescott
english, barnard college
|