“Deep Dark Truthful Mirror”—The Logic of Petrus Ramus and the Tragedy of Samson Agonistes

IF 0.1 N/A MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES Explorations in Renaissance Culture Pub Date : 2022-09-30 DOI:10.1163/23526963-04802004
Elizabeth Skerpan-Wheeler
{"title":"“Deep Dark Truthful Mirror”—The Logic of Petrus Ramus and the Tragedy of Samson Agonistes","authors":"Elizabeth Skerpan-Wheeler","doi":"10.1163/23526963-04802004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The sixteenth-century educational reformer Petrus Ramus was known for disrupting the traditional relationship between logic and rhetoric. He removed the first two of the traditional five canons of rhetoric—invention and arrangement—and assigned them to logic. Thus, to Ramus, invention became not a means of finding arguments but rather a process of uncovering truth and finding a means of inquiry into the essence of a subject. This intervention affected educators, scientists, playwrights, and poets, most notably John Milton, whose own version of Ramus’s logic was published only a year after Paradise Regained and Samson Agonistes. This chronological association suggests the possibility of a connection between Milton’s understanding of invention and the distinctive nature of the tragedy of Samson. Such a connection suggests that the tragedy represents a process of invention that goes wrong, and that the apparent victory of the Danites leads to the spiritual destruction of their hero.","PeriodicalId":55910,"journal":{"name":"Explorations in Renaissance Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Explorations in Renaissance Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/23526963-04802004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The sixteenth-century educational reformer Petrus Ramus was known for disrupting the traditional relationship between logic and rhetoric. He removed the first two of the traditional five canons of rhetoric—invention and arrangement—and assigned them to logic. Thus, to Ramus, invention became not a means of finding arguments but rather a process of uncovering truth and finding a means of inquiry into the essence of a subject. This intervention affected educators, scientists, playwrights, and poets, most notably John Milton, whose own version of Ramus’s logic was published only a year after Paradise Regained and Samson Agonistes. This chronological association suggests the possibility of a connection between Milton’s understanding of invention and the distinctive nature of the tragedy of Samson. Such a connection suggests that the tragedy represents a process of invention that goes wrong, and that the apparent victory of the Danites leads to the spiritual destruction of their hero.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“深暗真镜”——彼得鲁斯·拉莫斯的逻辑与参孙的悲剧
十六世纪的教育改革家Petrus Ramus以打破逻辑和修辞之间的传统关系而闻名。他去掉了传统修辞学五大准则中的前两个——发明和安排——并将其分配给逻辑。因此,对Ramus来说,发明并不是一种寻找论据的手段,而是一个揭示真相和寻找探究主题本质的手段的过程。这种干预影响了教育工作者、科学家、剧作家和诗人,最著名的是约翰·米尔顿,他自己版本的拉姆逻辑在《天堂复活》和《萨姆森·阿戈尼斯特》之后仅一年就出版了。这种按时间顺序排列的关系表明,米尔顿对发明的理解与萨姆森悲剧的独特性质之间可能存在联系。这种联系表明,这场悲剧代表了一个错误的发明过程,达尼特人的明显胜利导致了他们英雄的精神毁灭。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Explorations in Renaissance Culture
Explorations in Renaissance Culture MEDIEVAL & RENAISSANCE STUDIES-
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Rehabilitating Reputation in Early Modern Venice: Pietro Zen as Repainter of History in Mamluk Damascus The Steadfast Loyalty of Mary, Countess of Shrewsbury, ‘the Only Contriver of Bedlam Opposition’: The SCRC Hunter Lecture, 2023 Fields Award 2022 From the Editor—Call for Papers and Fiftieth Anniversary of Explorations Popular Participation in Renaissance Siena’s Romanitas Program
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1