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