You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 44.200.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Blablubbs‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 16:45, 10 February 2025.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪AntiCompositeNumber‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: Visit the FAQ if you are affected .
- Start of block: 13:55, 18 August 2022
- Expiry of block: 13:55, 18 March 2025
Your current IP address is 44.200.254.7. The blocked range is 44.200.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((Short description|Theories based on the teachings of Petrus Ramus))
((Use dmy dates|date=December 2019))
((more citations needed|date=March 2018))
((17th-century scholasticism))
'''Ramism''' was a collection of theories on [[rhetoric]], [[logic]], and [[pedagogy]] based on the teachings of [[Petrus Ramus]], a French academic, philosopher, and [[Huguenot]] convert, who was murdered during the [[St. Bartholomew's Day massacre]] in August 1572.<ref name=EB1911>((Cite EB1911 |wstitle=Ramus, Petrus |volume=22 |page=881))</ref>

According to British historian [[Jonathan Israel]]:

<blockquote>"[Ramism], despite its crudity, enjoyed vast popularity in late sixteenth-century Europe, and at the outset of the seventeenth, providing as it did a method of systematizing all branches of knowledge, emphasizing the relevance of theory to practical applications [...]"<ref>[[Jonathan Israel|Israel, Jonathan]] (1995). ''The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness and Fall 1477–1806'' (1995), p. 582.</ref></blockquote>

==Development==

Ramus was a cleric and [[Philosophy|professor of philosophy]] who gained notoriety first by his criticism of [[Aristotle]] and then by conversion to [[Protestantism]]. He was killed in the [[St. Bartholomew's Day massacre|St Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572]], and a biography by Banosius (Théophile de Banos) appeared by 1576.<ref>With the posthumous ''Commentariorum de religione Christiana libri quatuor, nunquam antea editi'' (Frankfort, 1576); http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.vii.xxxiv.htm.</ref> His status as [[Huguenot]] [[martyr]] certainly had something to do with the early dissemination of his ideas.<ref>((in lang|fr)) Kees Meerhoff, ''Rhétorique et poétique au XVIe siècle en France: Du Bellay, Ramus et les autres'' (1986), p. 317.</ref> His ideas had influence in some (but not all) parts of Protestant [[Europe]], strong in [[Germany]] and the [[Netherlands]], and on [[Puritan]] and [[Calvinist]] [[Theology|theologians]] of [[England]], [[Scotland]], and in the [[Thirteen Colonies|American colonies]] of [[New England]], via Puritan colonists on the ''[[Mayflower]]''.<ref>Robert Mandrou, ''From Humanism to Science 1480–1700'' (1978 translation), p. 177.</ref>

He had little effect however on mainstream [[Switzerland|Swiss]] Calvinists, and was largely ignored in [[Catholic Church|Catholic]] countries.<ref>''Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy'' (1988), pp. 51–52.</ref> The progress of Ramism in the half-century from roughly 1575 to 1625 was closely related to, and mediated by, [[Higher education|university education]]: the religious factor came in through the different reception in Protestant and Catholic universities, all over Europe.<ref>[[Bryan S. Turner (sociologist)|Bryan S. Turner]], ''Max Weber: Critical Responses'' (1999), p. 198.</ref> 

Outside France, for example, there was the 1574 English translation by the Scot Roland MacIlmaine of the [[University of St Andrews]].<ref name="yba.llgc.org.uk">[https://biography.wales/article/s-PERR-HEN-1560 LLGC.org.uk]</ref><ref>[[William Kneale]] and Martha Kneale, ''The Development of Logic'' (1962), p. 302.</ref> Ramus's works and influence then appeared in the logical textbooks of the [[Scotland|Scottish]] universities, and equally he had followers in England.<ref name=EB1911/>

Audomarus Talaeus ([[Omer Talon]]) was one early French disciple and writer on Ramism.<ref>[http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaGenText/tei/DicHist4.xml;chunk.id=dv4-06 Virginia.edu]</ref> The work of Ramus gained early international attention, with [[Roger Ascham]] corresponding about him with [[Johann Sturm]], teacher of Ramus and collaborator with Ascham; Ascham supported his stance on [[Joachim Perion]], one early opponent, but also expressed some reservations. Later Ascham found Ramus' lack of respect for [[Cicero]], rather than extreme proponents, just unacceptable.<ref>Lawrence V. Ryan, ''Roger Ascham'' (1963), pp. 147–8, p. 269.</ref>

As late as 1626, [[Francis Burgersdyk]] divides the logicians of his day into the Aristotelians, the Ramists and the Semi-Ramists.<ref name=EB1911/><ref>Michael Losonsky, ''Language and Logic'', in Donald Rutherford (editor), ''The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Philosophy'' (2006), p. 170.</ref><ref>William Kneale and Martha Kneale, ''The Development of Logic'' (1962), p. 305.</ref> These last endeavoured, like [[Rudolph Goclenius]] of [[Marburg]] and [[Amandus Polanus]] of [[Basel]], to mediate between the contending parties.<ref name=EB1911/> Ramism was closely linked to systematic [[Calvinism]], but the hybrid [[Philippo-Ramism]] (which is where the Semi-Ramists fit in) arose as a blend of Ramus with the logic of [[Philipp Melanchthon]].<ref>Michael Losonsky, ''Language and Logic'', in Donald Rutherford (editor), ''The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Philosophy'' (2006), p. 178.</ref>

==Opposition==
Ramism, while in fashion, met with considerable hostility. The [[Jesuits]] were completely opposed.<ref>Marc Fumaroli, ''Renaissance Rhetoric: The Jesuit Case'', in John W. O'Malley, [[Gauvin Alexander Bailey]], Steven Harris, T. Frank Kennedy (editors), ''The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts, 1540–1773'' (1999), p. 91.</ref> The Calvinist Aristotelian [[Theodore Beza]] was also a strong opponent of Ramism.<ref>Charles B. Schmitt, [[Quentin Skinner]] (editors), ''The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy'' (1990), p. 52.</ref> Similarly the leading Lutheran Aristotelian philosopher [[Jakob Schegk]] resolutely rejected Ramus and opposed his visit to [[Tübingen]].<ref>*Howard Hotson, ''Commonplace Learning: Ramism and its German Ramifications, 1543–1630'' (2007) pp. 22, 102.</ref> In [[Heidelberg]] the efforts of [[Giulio Pace]] to teach Ramist dialectic to Polish private students were forbidden.<ref>[[Howard Hotson]], ''Commonplace Learning: Ramism and its German ramifications'', ''1543–1630'' (2007), p. 24; [https://books.google.com/books?id=hWs_9bDishYC&pg=PA24 Google Books].</ref>

Where universities were open to Ramist teaching, there still could be dislike and negative reactions, stemming from the perceived personality of Ramus (arrogant, a natural polemicist), or of that of his supporters (young men in a hurry). There was tacit adoption of some of the techniques such as the epitome, without acceptance of the whole package of reform including junking Aristotle in favour of the new textbooks, and making Ramus an authoritative figure. [[John Rainolds]] at Oxford was an example of an older academic torn by the issue; his follower [[Richard Hooker]] was firmly against "Ramystry".<ref>Mordechai Feingold, pp. 289–293 in Nicholas Tyacke (editor), ''The History of the University of Oxford: Volume IV: Seventeenth-Century Oxford'' (1984).</ref>

[[Gerhard Johann Vossius]] at [[Leiden]] wrote massive works on classical rhetoric and opposed Ramism. He defended and enriched the Aristotelian tradition for the seventeenth century.<ref>George Alexander Kennedy, ''Classical Rhetoric & Its Christian & Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times'' (1999), p. 254.</ref> He was a representative Dutch opponent; Ramism did not take permanent hold in the universities of the Netherlands, and once [[William Ames]] had died, it declined.<ref>Willem Frijhoff, Marijke Spies, ''Dutch Culture in a European Perspective'' (2004), p. 287.</ref>

Mid-century, Ramism was still under attack, from Cartesians such as [[Johannes Clauberg]], who defended Aristotle against Ramus.<ref>Edward Craig, ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (1998), p. 380.</ref>

==Placing Ramism==
[[Frances Yates]] proposed a subtle relationship of Ramism to the legacy of [[Lullism]], the [[art of memory]], and Renaissance [[hermetism]]. She considers that Ramism drew on Lullism, but is more superficial; was opposed to the classical art of memory; and moved in an opposite direction to the occult (reducing rather than increasing the role of images).<ref>[[Frances Yates]], ''The Art of Memory'' (1992 edition), pp. 234–5.</ref> He "abandoned imagery and the creative imagination".<ref>Peter French, ''John Dee'' (1972), p. 148.</ref> [[Mary Carruthers]] referred back to [[Albertus Magnus]] and [[Thomas Aquinas]]:

<blockquote>"It is one of those ironies of history that Peter Ramus, who, in the sixteenth century, thought he was reacting against [[Aristotelianism]] by taking ''[[memoria]]'' from rhetoric and making it part of dialectic, was essentially remaking a move made 300 years before by two [[Dominican Order|Dominican]] professors who were attempting to reshape memorial study in conformity with Aristotle."<ref>Carruthers, Mary (1990). ''The Book of Memory. A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture'' (1990), p. 153.</ref></blockquote>

An alternative to this aspect of Ramism, as belated and diminishing, is the discussion initiated by [[Walter Ong]] of Ramus in relation to several evolutionary steps. Ong's position, on the importance of Ramus as historical figure and [[Renaissance Humanism|humanist]], has been summed up as ''the center of controversies about method (both in teaching and in scientific discovery) and about rhetoric and logic and their role in communication''.<ref>Peter Sharratt, ''Peter Ramus, Walter Ong, and the Tradition of Humanistic Learning'', Oral Tradition, 2/1 (1987) pp. 172–87, at p. 173; [http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/2i/12_sharratt.pdf PDF].</ref>

The best known of Ong's theses is Ramus the post-[[Johannes Gutenberg|Gutenberg]] writer, in other words the calibration of the indexing and schematics involved in Ramism to the transition away from written manuscripts, and the spoken word.<ref>Jack Goody, ''The Domestication of the Savage Mind'' (1977), p. 71.</ref> Extensive charts were instead used, drawing on the resources of typography, to organise material, from left to right across a printed page, particularly in theological treatises.<ref>Gordon Campbell, ''The Source of Bunyan's Mapp of Salvation'', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 44, (1981), pp. 240–241.</ref> The cultural impact of Ramism depended on the nexus of printing (trees regularly laid out with [[curly bracket|braces]]) and rhetoric, forceful and persuasive at least to some [[Protestants]]; and it had partly been anticipated in cataloguing and indexing knowledge and its encyclopedism by [[Conrad Gesner]].<ref>Mario Carpo, ''Architecture in the Age of Printing: Orality, Writing, Typography, and Printed Images in the History of Architectural Theory'' (2001 translation), p. 110.</ref> The term ''Ramean tree'' became standard in logic books, applying to the classical [[Porphyrian tree]], or any [[binary tree]], without clear distinction between the underlying structure and the way of displaying it; now scholars use the clearer term ''Ramist epitome'' to signify the structure. Ong argued that, a chart being a visual aid and logic having come down to charts, the role of voice and [[dialogue]] is placed squarely and rigidly in the domain of rhetoric, and in a lower position.<ref>James Crosswhite, ''The Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument'' (1996), p. 235.</ref>

Two other theses of Ong on Ramism are: the end of ''copia'' or profuseness for its own sake in writing, making Ramus an opponent of the [[Erasmus]] of ''[[Copia: Foundations of the Abundant Style]]''; and the beginning of the later [[Cartesianism|Cartesian]] emphasis on clarity. Ong, though, consistently argues that Ramus is thin, insubstantial as a scholar, a beneficiary of fashion supported by the new medium of printing, as well as a transitional figure.<ref>Alan Richardson, Ellen Spolsky, ''The Work of Fiction: Cognition, Culture, and Complexity'' (2004), p. 121.</ref>

These ideas, from the 1950s and 1960s onwards, have been reconsidered. [[Brian Vickers (academic)|Brian Vickers]] summed up the view a generation or so later: dismissive of Yates, he notes that bracketed tables existed in older manuscripts, and states that Ong's emphases are found unconvincing. Further, ''methodus'', the Ramists' major slogan, was specific to [[figures of speech]], deriving from [[Hermogenes of Tarsus]] via [[George of Trebizond]]. And the particular moves used by Ramus in the reconfiguration of rhetoric were in no sense innovative by themselves.<ref>[[Brian Vickers (academic)|Brian Vickers]], ''In Defence of Rhetoric'' (1988), note p. 65, and pp. 475–7.</ref> [[Lisa Jardine]] agrees with Ong that he was not a first-rank innovator, more of a successful textbook writer adapting earlier insights centred on [[topics-logic]], but insists on his importance and influence in ''humanistic logic''. She takes the Ramean tree to be a "voguish" pedagogic advance.<ref>[[Lisa Jardine]], ''Humanistic Logic'', p. 184–6, in Charles B. Schmitt, Quentin Skinner (editors), ''The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy'' (1990), p. 52.</ref>

It has been said that:

<blockquote>Puritans believed the maps proved well suited to rationalize and order the Christian view of revealed truth and the language and knowledge of the [[new learning]], specifically the scientific and philosophical paradigms arising out of the Renaissance.<ref>Douglas McKnight, ''Schooling, the Puritan Imperative, and the Molding of an American National Identity: Education's "errand Into the Wilderness"'' (2003), p. 53.</ref></blockquote>

==Disciplines and demarcations==
Donald R. Kelley writes of the "new learning" (''nova doctrina'') or opposition in Paris to traditional [[scholasticism]] as a "trivial revolution", i.e. growing out of specialist teachers of the ''[[trivium (education)|trivium]]''. He argues that:

<blockquote>The aim was a fundamental change of priorities, the transformation of hierarchy of disciplines into a 'circle' of learning, an 'encyclopedia' embracing human culture in all of its richness and concreteness and organized for persuasive transmission to society as a whole. This was the rationale of the Ramist method, which accordingly emphasized mnemonics and pedagogical technique at the expense of discovery and the advancement of learning.<ref>Donald R. Kelley, ''The Beginning of Ideology: Consciousness and society in the French Reformation'' (1981), p. 141.</ref></blockquote>

The need for demarcation was seen in "redundancies and overlapping categories".<ref>[[Quentin Skinner]], ''Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes'' (1996), p. 59.</ref>

This was taken to the lengths where it could be mocked in the ''[[Port-Royal Logic]]'' (1662). There, the authors claimed that "everything that is useful to logic belongs to it", with a swipe at the "torments" the Ramists put themselves through.<ref>Jill Vance Burojker (translator and editor), ''Logic or the Art of Thinking'' by [[Antoine Arnauld]] and [[Pierre Nicole]] (1996), p. 12.</ref>

The method of demarcation was applied within the ''trivium'', made up of [[grammar]], [[logic]] (for which Ramists usually preferred a traditional name, ''dialectic''), and [[rhetoric]]. Logic falls, according to Ramus, into two parts: invention (treating of the notion and definition) and judgment (comprising the judgment proper, syllogism and method).<ref name=EB1911/> In this he was influenced by [[Rodolphus Agricola]].<ref>((Citation | url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ramus/ |title=Petreus ramus)). of Philosophy)]</ref> What Ramus does here in fact redefines rhetoric. There is a new configuration, with logic and rhetoric each having two parts: rhetoric was to cover ''elocutio'' (mainly figures of speech) and ''pronuntiatio'' (oratorical delivery). In general, Ramism liked to deal with [[binary tree]]s as method for organising knowledge.<ref>Michael Losonsky, ''Language and Logic'', in Donald Rutherford (editor), ''The Cambridge Companion to Early Modern Philosophy'' (2006), p. 176.</ref>

Rhetoric, traditionally, had had five parts, of which ''inventio'' (invention) was the first. Two others were ''dispositio'' (arrangement) and ''memoria'' (memory). Ramus proposed transferring those back to the realm of ''dialectic'' (logic); and merging them under a new heading, renaming them as ''iudicium'' (judgment).<ref>Paolo Rossi, ''Logic and the Art of Memory'' (2000 translation), pp. 99–102.</ref> This was the final effect: as an intermediate ''memoria'' was left with rhetoric.((citation needed|date=March 2018))

==Laws and method==
In the end the art of memory was diminished in Ramism, displaced by an idea of "method": better mental organisation would be more methodical, and mnemonic techniques drop away. This was a step in the direction of [[Descartes]]. The construction of disciplines, for Ramus, was subject to some laws, his ''methodus''. There were three, with clear origins in Aristotle, and his ''[[Posterior Analytics]]''.((citation needed|date=March 2018))

They comprised the ''lex veritatis'' (French ''du tout'', law of truth), ''lex justitiae'' (''par soi'', law of justice), and ''lex sapientiae'' (''universalité'', or law of wisdom). The third was in the terms of Ramus "universel premièrement", or to make the universal the first instance. The "wisdom" is therefore to start with the universal, and set up a ramifying binary tree by subdivision.<ref>[http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/ramus/ UVA.nl]</ref><ref>Denis Hollier, R. Howard Bloch, ''A New History of French Literature'' (1994), pp. 281–2.</ref>

As Ramism evolved, these characteristic binary trees, set up rigidly, were treated differently in various fields. In theology, for example, this procedure was turned on its head, since the search for God, the universal, would appear as the goal rather than the starting point.<ref>Brian Cummings, ''The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and Grace'' (2007), p. 258.</ref>

[[Émile Bréhier]] wrote that after Ramus, "order" as a criterion of the methodical had become commonplace; Descartes needed only to supply to method the idea of relation, exemplified by the idea of a [[mathematical sequence]] based on a [[functional relationship]] of an element to its successor.<ref>[[Émile Bréhier]], ''The History of Philosophy: The Seventeenth Century'' (1966 translation), p. 54.</ref> Therefore, for Cartesians, the Ramist insights were quite easily absorbed.((citation needed|date=March 2018))

For the [[Baconian method]], on the other hand, the rigidity of Ramist distinctions was a serious criticism. [[Francis Bacon]], a Cambridge graduate, was early aware of Ramism, but the near-equation of ''dispositio'' with method was unsatisfactory, for Baconians, because arrangement of material was seen to be inadequate for research. The ''[[Novum Organum]]'' implied in its title a further reform of Aristotle, and its aphorism viii of Book I made this exact point.<ref>Brian Vickers, ''Francis Bacon: The Major Works'' (2002), p. 342.</ref>

==At Cambridge==
A Ramist tradition took root in [[Christ's College, Cambridge]] in the 1570s, when [[Laurence Chaderton]] became the leading Ramist, and [[Gabriel Harvey]] lectured on the rhetoric of Ramus.<ref>[[Joan Simon]], ''Education and Society in Tudor England'' (1979), p. 319.</ref><ref name="Brian Cummings 2007 p. 255">Brian Cummings, ''The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and Grace'' (2007), p. 255.</ref> [[Marshall McLuhan]]'s dissertation on [[Thomas Nashe]] (via the [[classical trivium]]), who was involved in a high-profile literary quarrel with Harvey, was shaped by his interest in aligning Harvey with dialectic and the plain style (logic in the sense of Ramus), and Nashe with the full resources of Elizabethan rhetoric.<ref>[http://www.chass.toronto.edu/mcluhan-studies/v1_iss1/1_1art6.htm Toronto.edu]((dead link|date=April 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes ))</ref> After Chaderton, there was a succession of important theologians using Ramist logic, including [[William Perkins (Puritan)|William Perkins]],<ref>[[Andrew Pyle (philosopher)|Andrew Pyle]] (editor), ''Dictionary of Seventeenth Century British Philosophers'' (2000), article on Perkins, pp. 650.</ref> and [[William Ames]] (Amesius),<ref>[[Andrew Pyle (philosopher)|Andrew Pyle]] (editor), ''Dictionary of Seventeenth Century British Philosophers'' (2000), article on Ames, pp. 21–2.</ref> who made Ramist dialectic integral to his approach.((citation needed|date=March 2018))

[[William Temple (scholar)|William Temple]] annotated a 1584 reprint of the ''Dialectics'' in Cambridge.<ref>''Concise Dictionary of National Biography''</ref> Known as an advocate of Ramism, and involved in controversy with [[Everard Digby (scholar)|Everard Digby]] of Oxford,<ref>Nancy S. Struever, ''Theory as Practice: Ethical Inquiry in the Renaissance'' (1992), p. 135.</ref> he became secretary to [[Sir Philip Sidney]] about a year later, in 1585.<ref>[http://www.bartleby.com/214/1407.html Bartleby.com]</ref> Temple was with Sidney when he died in 1586, and wrote a Latin Ramist commentary on ''[[An Apology for Poetry]]''.<ref>Roger Howell, ''Sir Philip Sidney: The Shepherd Knight'' (1698), p. 113.</ref> Sidney himself is supposed to have learned Ramist theory from [[John Dee]], and was the dedicatee of the biography by Banosius, but was not in any strict sense a Ramist.<ref>Peter French, ''John Dee'' (1972), p. 143.</ref>

This Ramist school was influential:
((cquote|The Ramist system was introduced into Cambridge University by Sir William Temple, in 1580, and contributed to the growth of [[Cambridge Platonism]]. It became the basis of Congregational apologetics. The Cambridge Puritans were represented by [[Alexander Richardson (Puritan)|Alexander Richardson]], [[George Downame]], [[Anthony Wotton]], and especially by William Ames, whose writings became the favorite philosophy texts of early New England. In 1672, the same year in which Ames's edition of Ramus's Dialectics with Commentary appeared, Milton published his Institutions of the Art of Logic Based on the Method of Peter Ramus. Other Puritan divines who popularized the Ramist philosophy and [[Covenant Theology]] were William Perkins, [[John Preston (clergyman)|John Preston]], and [[Thomas Hooker]].<ref>Herbert W. Schneider, ''A History of American Philosophy'' (1946), p. 6.</ref>))

[[Christopher Marlowe]] encountered Ramist thought as a student at Cambridge (B.A. in 1584), and made Peter Ramus a character in ''[[The Massacre at Paris]]''. He also cited Ramus in ''[[Doctor Faustus (play)|Dr. Faustus]]'': ''Bene disserere est finis logices'' is a line given to Faustus, who states it is from [[Aristotle]], when it is from the ''Dialecticae'' of Ramus.<ref>((Citation | url = http://extra.shu.ac.uk/emls/si-16/duxfdrfs.htm |title=Doctor Faustus and the Failure to Unify |publisher = SHU | place = [[United Kingdom|UK]])).</ref><ref>Robert A. Logan. ''Shakespeare's Marlowe: The Influence of Christopher Marlowe on Shakespeare's Artistry'' (2007), p. 208.</ref>

There is a short treatise by [[John Milton]], who was a student at Christ's from 1625, published two years before his death, called ''Artis Logicae Plenior Institutio ad Petri Rami Methodum concinnata''.<ref name=EB1911/><ref>Milton's ''Logic'' has been translated by Walter J. Ong and Charles J. Ermatinger in [[Yale University|Yale's]] ''Complete Prose Works of John Milton'' (1982, 8: 206–408), with an introduction by Ong (144–205).</ref> It was one of the last commentaries on Ramist logic.<ref>William Bridges Hunter, ''A Milton Encyclopedia'' (1978), article ''Logic and Rhetoric'', p. 33.</ref> Although composed in the 1640s, it was not published until 1672. Milton, whose first tutor at Christ's [[William Chappell (bishop)|William Chappell]] used Ramist method,<ref>((ODNBweb|id=5129|title=Chappell, William|first=Alan|last=Ford))</ref> can take little enough credit for the content. Most of the text proper is adapted from the 1572 edition of Ramus's logic; most of the commentary is adapted from [[George Downham]]'s ''Commentarii in P. Rami Dialecticam'' (1601)<ref>Elizabeth Skerpan-Wheeler, "John Milton (9 December 1608–8? November 1674)," ''British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500–1660, Second Series'', volume 281 in the ''[[Dictionary of Literary Biography]]'' series, Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2003, pp. 188–200 at 195</ref>—Downham, also affiliated with Christ's, was a professor of logic at Cambridge.<ref>((ODNBweb|id=7977|first=Kenneth|last=Gibson|title=Downham, George))</ref> The biography of Ramus is a cut-down version of that of [[Johann Thomas Freigius]] (1543–83).<ref>((ODNBweb|id=18800|title=Milton, John|first=Gordon|last=Campbell))</ref>

==At Herborn==
[[Herborn Academy]] in Germany was founded in 1584, as a Protestant university, and initially was associated with a group of Reformed theologians who developed [[covenant theology]]. It was also a centre of Ramism, and in particular of its encyclopedic form. In turn, it was the birthplace of [[pansophism]].<ref>Leroy E. Loemker, ''Leibniz and the Herborn Encyclopedists'', Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Jul.–Sep., 1961), pp. 323–338.</ref> [[Heinrich Alsted]] taught there, and [[John Amos Comenius]] studied with him.((citation needed|date=March 2018))

Ramism was built into the curriculum, with the professors required to give Ramist treatments of the ''trivium''. [[Johannes Piscator]] anticipated the foundation in writing introductory Ramist texts, [[Johannes Althusius]] and [[Lazarus Schöner]] likewise wrote respectively on social science topics and mathematics, and Piscator later produced a Ramist theology text.<ref>((Cite web |url=http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/textcol/HAMILTO1.html |title=UIUC.edu |access-date=10 November 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081013083842/http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/textcol/HAMILTO1.html |archive-date=13 October 2008 |url-status=dead  ))</ref>

==In literature==
Brian Vickers argues that the Ramist influence did add something to rhetoric: it concentrated more on the remaining aspect of ''elocutio'' or effective use of language, and emphasised the role of vernacular European languages (rather than Latin). The outcome was that rhetoric was applied in literature.<ref>Brian Vickers, ''In Defence of Rhetoric'' (1988), p. 206.</ref>

In 1588 [[Abraham Fraunce]], a protégé of Philip Sidney, published ''Arcadian Rhetorike'', a Ramist-style rhetoric book cut down largely to a discussion of figures of speech (in prose and verse), and referring by its title to Sidney's ''[[Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia|Arcadia]]''. It was based on a translation of Talon's ''Rhetoricae'', and was a companion to ''The Lawiers Logike'' of 1585, an adapted translation of the ''Dialecticae'' of Ramus. Through it, Sidney's usage of figures was disseminated as the Ramist "Arcadian rhetoric" of standard English literary components and ornaments, before the source ''Arcadia'' had been published. It quickly lent itself to floridity of style. [[William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr.|William Wimsatt]] and [[Cleanth Brooks]] consider that the Ramist reform at least created a tension between the ornamented and the plain style (of preachers and scientific scholars), into the seventeenth century, and contributed to the emergence of the latter.<ref>[[William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr.|William Wimsatt]] and [[Cleanth Brooks]], ''Literary Criticism: A Short History'' (1957), pp. 224–6.</ref> With the previous work of [[Dudley Fenner]] (1584), and the later book of [[Charles Butler (beekeeper)|Charles Butler]] (1598), Ramist rhetoric in Elizabethan England accepts the reduction to ''elocutio'' and ''pronuntiatio'', puts all the emphasis on the former, and reduces its scope to the [[Trope (literature)|trope]].<ref>[[Quentin Skinner]], ''Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes'' (1996), p. 62.</ref>

[[Geoffrey Hill]] classified [[Robert Burton (scholar)|Robert Burton]]'s ''[[Anatomy of Melancholy]]'' (1621) as a "post-Ramist [[anatomy (genre)|anatomy]]". It is a work (he says against Ong) of a rooted scholar with a "method" but turning Ramism back on itself.<ref>[[Geoffrey Hill]], ''Collected Critical Writings'' (2008), editor Kenneth Haynes, p. 298 and p. 332.</ref>

Samuel Taylor Coleridge combined Aristotelian logic with the Holy Trinity to create his "cinque spotted spider making its way upstream by fits & starts," his logical system based on Ramist logic (thesis, antithesis, synthesis, mesothesis, exothesis).<ref>Biographia Literaria, Chapter XIII.
</ref>

==Ramists==

===Danish===
* [[Andreas Krag]]<ref>W. J. Ong, ''Ramus, Method and the Decay of Dialogue'', Cambridge, MA: [[Harvard University Press]], 1958, p. 305</ref>

===Dutch===
* [[Jacobus Arminius]]<ref>((Cite EB1911 |wstitle=Arminius, Jacobus |volume=2 |pages=576–577))</ref>
* [[Isaac Beeckman]], [[Rudolf Snellius]], [[Willebrord Snellius]]<ref>Willem Frijhoff, Marijke Spies, ''Dutch Culture in a European Perspective'' (2004), p. 313.</ref>
* [[Justus Lipsius]], wrote his ''Politicorum sive Civilis doctrinae'' on a strict Ramist scheme.<ref>((Citation | url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justus-lipsius/ |title=Justus Lipsius)).</ref>

===Scottish===
* Roland MacIlmaine<ref>*T. A. Goeglein, "Roland MacIlmaine (fl. 1574)," ''British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500–1660, Second Series'', volume 281 in the Dictionary of Literary Biography series, Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2003, pp. 173–177</ref> (University of St Andrews) published ((Citation | title = The Logike of the Moste Excellent Philosopher P. Ramus, Martyr)), and a Latin edition of this work in 1574.<ref>Neil Rhodes, 'From Rhetoric to Composition' in ''The Scottish Invention of English Literature'', ed. Robert Crawford, p. 25.</ref>
* [[James Martin (philosopher)|James Martin]] has been classified as a Ramist he was a writer against Aristotle, but the classification is disputed.<ref>((ODNBweb|id=18187|title=Martin, James|first=Jill|last=Kraye))</ref>
* [[Andrew Melville]]<ref>((cite EB1911 |wstitle=Melville, Andrew |volume=18 |pages=101–102))</ref>

===English===
* [[William Ames]] (1576–1633)
* [[John Barton (c. 1605-1675)]]<ref>K. R. Narveson, "John Barton (circa 1610–1675)," ''British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500–1660, First Series'', volume 236 in the ''Dictionary of Literary Biography'' series, Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2001, pp. 40–46</ref><ref>((ODNBweb|id=74234|title=Barton, John|last=Malone|first=Edward A.))</ref>
* [[Nathaniel Baxter]]<ref>Kees Meerhoff, ''Bartholomew Keckerman and the Anti-Ramist Tradition'', in Christoph Strohm, Joseph S. Freedman, H. J. Selderhuis (editors), ''Späthumanismus und reformierte Konfession: Theologie, Jurisprudenz und Philosophie in Heidelberg an der Wende zum 17. Jahrhundert'' (2006), p. 191.</ref>
* [[Charles Butler (beekeeper)|Charles Butler]]<ref>Victor W. Cook, "Charles Butler (circa 1560–29 March 1647)," ''British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500–1660, First Series'', volume 236 in the Dictionary of Literary Biography series, Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2001, pp. 81–90</ref>
* [[George Downame]]<ref name=Toons>((Citation | url = http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/History/hypercal1.htm | title = History | publisher = Anglican books revitalized | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090226001003/http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/History/hypercal1.htm | archive-date = 26 February 2009 | df = dmy-all )).</ref>
* [[Dudley Fenner]]<ref>Stephen Collins, "Dudley Fenner (1558?–1587)," ''British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500–1660, First Series'', volume 236 in the Dictionary of Literary Biography series, Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2001, pp. 117–125</ref>
* [[Henry Finch (died 1625)|Henry Finch]], jurist, attempted in ''Nomotexnia'' to arrange [[common law]] along Ramist lines<ref>C. W. Brooks. ''Lawyers, Litigation, and English Society Since 1450'' (1998), p. 207.</ref>
* [[William Gouge]]<ref name = Hill>[[Christopher Hill (historian)|Christopher Hill]], ''Intellectual Origins of the English Revolution'' (1965), p. 308.</ref>
* [[Thomas Granger (clergyman)|Thomas Granger]]<ref name="Brian Cummings 2007 p. 255"/><ref>Shawn Smith, "Thomas Granger (March 1578 – June 1627)," ''British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500–1660, Second Series'', volume 281 in the Dictionary of Literary Biography series, Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2003, pp. 105–117</ref><ref>((ODNBweb|id=66966|title=Granger, Thomas|last=Morgan|first=John))</ref>
* [[William Perkins (Puritan)|William Perkins]] (1558–1602)
* [[John Rainolds]]<ref name = Hill />
* [[Alexander Richardson (Puritan)|Alexander Richardson]]<ref name = Toons/><ref>((ODNBweb|id=66371|title=Richardson, Alexander|last=Hall|first=Roland))</ref>
* [[John Udall (Puritan)|John Udall]]<ref>((Citation | url = http://journal.oraltradition.org/files/articles/2i/13_rechtien.pdf | title = Rechtien | journal = Oral Tradition)).</ref>

===French===
* [[Guy de Brues]]<ref>[[Richard H. Popkin]], ''The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza'' (1979), p. 32.</ref>
* [[Pierre Gassendi]] in writing on logic.<ref>((Citation | url = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/gassendi/ |title=Pierre Gassendi)).</ref>

===German===
* [[Johann Heinrich Alsted]], "the culmination of the Ramist tradition", but also a critic of naive Ramism<ref>Howard Hotson, ''Johann Heinrich Alsted, 1588–1638: Between Renaissance, Reformation, and Universal Reform'' (2000), p. 10.</ref>
* [[Johannes Althusius]] organised his ''Politics'' in accordance with Ramist logic
* [[Bartholomäus Keckermann]], constructed a modified Ramist logic.<ref>Graeme Murdock, ''Calvinism on the Frontier, 1600–1660: International Calvinism and the Reformed Church in Hungary and Transylvania'' (2000), p. 86.</ref>
* [[Johannes Piscator]]<ref name = Toons/>
* [[Caspar Schoppe]]<ref>R. J. W. Evans, ''Rudolf II and His World'' (1973), p. 21.</ref>

===Hungarian===
* [[János Apáczai Csere]], encyclopedist.<ref>[http://www.phil-inst.hu/tudrend/PalloAeginart.htm Phil-inst.hu] ((webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110526092649/http://www.phil-inst.hu/tudrend/PalloAeginart.htm |date=26 May 2011 ))</ref>

===Swedish===
* [[Paulinus Gothus]].<ref>Jerzy Dobrzycki, ''The Reception of Copernicus' Heliocentric Theory: Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by the Nicolas Copernicus Committee of the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science'' (Toruń, Poland, 1973), p. 243.</ref>

===Swiss===
* [[Johannes Wolleb]]<ref name = Toons/>

===Welsh===
* [[Henry Perri]].<ref name="yba.llgc.org.uk"/><ref>William Kneale and Martha Kneale, ''The Development of Logic'' (1962), p. 306.</ref><ref>*A. Breeze, "Henry Perri or Perry (1561–1617)," ''British Rhetoricians and Logicians, 1500–1660, First Series'', volume 236 in the Dictionary of Literary Biography series, Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2001, pp. 202–209</ref>

==References==
((Reflist))

==Bibliography==
* J. C. Adams, "Ramus, Illustrations, and the Puritan Movement," ''Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies'', vol. 17, 1987, pp.&nbsp;195–210
* N. Bruyere, ''Méthode et dialectique dans l'oeuvre de La Ramée'', Paris: Vrin 1984
* N. Bruyere-Robinet, "Le statut de l'invention dans l'oeuvre de La Ramee," ''Revue des sciences philosophiques et theologiques'', vol. 70, 1986, pp.&nbsp;15–24
* S. J. G. Burton, ''Ramism and the Reformation of Method: The Franciscan Legacy in Early Modernity'', USA: Oxford UP, 2023
* M. Feingold, J. S. Freedman, and W. Rother (editors), ''The Influence of Petrus Ramus: Studies in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Philosophy and Sciences'', Basel, Schwabe & Co., 2001
* J. S. Freedman, "The Diffusion of the Writings of Petrus Ramus in Central Europe, c.1570–c.1630," ''Renaissance Quarterly'', vol. 46, 1993, pp.&nbsp;98–152
* [https://books.google.com/books?id=0D0RAAAAYAAJ F. P. Graves, ''Peter Ramus and the Educational Reformation of the Sixteenth Century'', New York: Macmillan, 1912.]*Howard Hotson, ''Commonplace Learning: Ramism and its German Ramifications, 1543–1630'' (2007)
* H. Hotson, ''Commonplace Learning: Ramism and Its German Ramifications'', ''1543–1630'', New York: Oxford University Press, 2007
* W. S. Howell, ''Logic and Rhetoric in England'', ''1500–1700'', Princeton: Princeton UP, 1956.
* R. Kennedy and T. Knoles, [http://www.americanantiquarian.org/proceedings/44525172.pdf "Increase Mather's 'Catechismus Logicus': A Translation and an Analysis of the Role of a Ramist Catechism at Harvard,"] ''Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society'', vol. 109, no. 1, 2001, pp.&nbsp;183–223
* K. Meerhoff and J. Moisan, eds. ''Autour de Ramus: Texte, Theorie, Commentaire'', Quebec: Nuit Blanche, 1997
* K. Meerhoff, ''Rhétorique et Poétique au XVle siècle en France'', Leiden: Brill 1986, pp.&nbsp;175–330
* J. J. Murphy, ed., ''Peter Ramus's Attack on Cicero: Text and Translation of Ramus's Brutinae Quaestiones'', Davis, C. A.: Hermagoras Press, 1992
* [[W. J. Ong]], ''A Ramus and Talon Inventory'', Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1958
* W. J. Ong, ''Ramus, Method and the Decay of Dialogue'', Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1958
* W. J. Ong, Introduction to Peter Ramus's ''Scholae in liberales artes'', Hildesheim: Olms, 1970
* W. J. Ong, Introduction to Peter Ramus's ''Collectaneae praefationes, epistolae, orationes'', Hildesheim: Olms, 1969
* S. J. Reid and E. A. Wilson (eds.), ''Ramus, Pedagogy and the Liberal Arts: Ramism in Britain and the Wider World'', Burlington: Ashgate, 2011
* P. Sharratt, "The Present State of Studies on Ramus," ''Studi Francesi'', vol. 47/48, 1972, pp.&nbsp;201–203
* ((Citation  | first = P. | last = Sharratt | title = Recent Works on Peter Ramus (1970–1986) | journal = Rhetorica | volume = 5 | number = 1 | year = 1987 | pages = 7–58 | author-mask = 4 | doi=10.1525/rh.1987.5.1.7)).
* ((Citation |first= P. |last= Sharratt |contribution= The First French Logic |title = Mélanges a la mémoire de Franco Simone |volume= IV |trans-title= Varieties in memory of Franco Simone |place= Geneva |publisher= Slatkine |year= 1983 |pages= 205–19 | author-mask = 4))
* ((Citation | first = P. | last = Sharratt | title = Peter Ramus and the Reform of the University | journal = French Renaissance Studies, 1540–1570 | place = Edinburgh | publisher = Edinburgh UP | year = 1976 | pages = 4–20 | author-mask = 4)).
* ((Citation | first = P. | last = Sharratt | title = Ramus 2000 | journal = Rhetorica | volume = 18 | number = 4 | year = 2000 | pages = 399–455 | author-mask = 4 | doi=10.1525/rh.2000.18.4.399| s2cid = 257484517 )).
* ((Citation | first = P. | last = Sharratt | title = Ramus | journal =  Argumentation |volume = 5 |number = 4 |year = 1991 |pages = 335–446 | author-mask = 4 | doi = 10.1007/BF00129135 | s2cid = 144442800 ))

==External links==
* [https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/ramus/bibliography.html Peter Ramus Conference 2008]

[[Category:Renaissance philosophy]]
[[Category:History of logic]]
[[Category:Theories of deduction]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Ramism (edit)
Template:17th-century scholasticism (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Blockquote (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Blockquote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Both (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation needed (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite EB1911 (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite ODNB (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite encyclopedia (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite wikisource/make link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cquote (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dead link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:In lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Link note (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:ODNBsub (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:ODNBweb (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Use dmy dates (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:In lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang/ISO 639 synonyms (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Lang/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana languages (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana regions (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana scripts (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana suppressed scripts (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Language/data/iana variants (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:Template wrapper (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unicode data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Webarchive/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Ramism.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramism"