Hannibal Hamlin wrote:
> At the risk of
> committing an intentional fallacy, how far is it reasonable to expect
> that Spenser went in constructing the numerological puzzles? How far
> can a reader be reasonably expected to go in rooting them out? It
> reminds me of the numerology of Renaissance motets (Josquin et al. --
> some compositions use patterns embodying the golden mean, or the
> dimensions of Solomon's Temple, etc.), but music is much closer to
> mathematics anyway, and the general take on such patterns (I think) is
> that they are there not for the human listener (for who could possible
> hear proportional ratios??) but for God.
1. Intentio auctoris may or may not be a fallacy, but it's something
that the old commentators always try to provide. Old = ancient to
Renaissance.
2. I was skeptical about some of this until I read Derek Attridge's book
on quantitative meter in vernacular verse. The first part of the book
reconstructs how Greek and Latin meter were taught, and shows that the
primary method for deriving vowel quantities was "by position." As a
result, when these kids read classical poetry, they were always
counting. Counting, counting, counting. Numerology, even of the most
minute and trivial sort, is a natural development of this habit.
Granted, some of the games seem petty, and as Thomas Aquinas says of
allegory in the Bible, you wouldn't want to use them as a basis for
"doctrine." But that they played the games does not surprise me anymore.
3. On poetry and music: one of the reasons for resurrecting quantitative
meter was to bring poetry closer to music.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Wilson-Okamura http://virgil.org [log in to unmask]
English Department Virgil reception, discussion, documents, &c
East Carolina University Sparsa et neglecta coegi. -- Claude Fauchet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|