>Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 16:59:14 -0500 >From: John Slater <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Coloquio Cervantes >X-Originating-IP: 68.22.243.94 >To: "A. Robert Lauer" <[log in to unmask]> >User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1 >Original-recipient: rfc822;[log in to unmask] > >Dear Robert, Kurt, and Contributors to the Coloquio Cervantes, > >I’ve greatly enjoyed the discussion thus far. I would like to communicate my >thanks to you all. > >In reading over the replies to the third and fourth asuntos críticos, I >thought >of Francisco Valles de Covarrubias, protomédico to Philip II. For Valles, >theories of ocular physiology could be reduced to a central debate: “O bien el >cuerpo que se ve nos envía por sí mismo algo que se introduce en la facultad >visiva que reside en nosotros, o bien espera a que alguna fuerza sensitiva >llegue desde nosotros” (Controversiae 48v-49f). Accordingly, I think we might >divide our interpretative strategies into two camps: one that focuses on the >action of perception, the source of allegorical and psychological readings of >the episodes; and the other that deals with the nature of the perceived >object, >the quid sit of a windmill, a giant, sheep, and so on. It strikes me that >these >two interpretative strategies are not incompatible. > >For those interested specifically in giants, Valles’ Sacra Philosophia >offers an >interesting embriological explanation of how they might be conceived by humans >in his discussion of the building of the Tower of Babel. > >My thanks again to all the contributors and especially to Robert and Kurt. > >Sincerely, >John Slater > >-- >John Slater >Visiting Assistant Professor >Indiana University >Department of Spanish & Portuguese >1020 E. Kirkwood >Bloomington, IN 47405-7103 >(812) 855-5552