And to piggy-back on Carol's note, I would add to the mix Walter Ong's nicely critical Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue, together with Paolo Rossi's Logic and the Art of Memory (which puts Ramus in the philosophical context of Renaissance debates about language), and Kees Meerhoff's fine interrogation of the old story about Ramus, rhetoric and dialectic (cf. W. S. Howell's badly out-of-date book)in "Logic and Eloquence: A Ramusian Revolution?," Argumentation 5 (1991): 357-74. See too Meerhoff's Entre Logigue et Litterature (Paradigme, 2001). Temple's commentary on Sidney's Defence (splendidly edited by John Webster) supplies good evidence about how a contemporary Ramist read (and misread) Sidney's poetics. What it suggests, in turn, about Sidney's writing or reading practices is a topic about which it would be well to speculate, cautiously.
Rob Stillman
-----Original Message-----
From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carol Kaske
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Question About Spenser's University Education
Also Gabriel Harvey's role as an informal educator of his younger friend
must be taken into account. Thanks to Virginia Stern, Lisa Jardine, and
others, we know a lot about what Gabriel Harvey knew and considered
interesting. I seem to recall that Harvey was interested in Ramus, who
represented an educational innovation at the time, so Slpenser might
have jumped on this band-wagon. On the Ramusian revolution, see Wilbur
Samuel Howell's book (old) and Jardi
ne's work (fairly recent).
Carol
On 2/22/2011 1:35 AM, Valery Rees wrote:
> For his extra-curricular interests in Cambridge you might like to look
> at my article in Spenser Studies 24 (2009) 'Ficinian Ideas in the Poetry
> of Edmund Spenser', especially its Appendix: 'Availability of the Works
> of Ficino and Plato and their Place in the Cambridge Curriculum'.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Valery Rees
>
|