Pub Date : 2020-11-12DOI: 10.1163/18749275-04002006
{"title":"Bibliography of Secondary Sources on Erasmus and Emotion","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/18749275-04002006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18749275-04002006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":40983,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42777007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-12DOI: 10.1163/18749275-04002004
B. Cummings
Cognitive philosophy in recent years has made conversation central to the experience of emotion: we recognise emotions in dialogue. What lesson can be drawn from this for understanding Erasmus’ Colloquies? This work has often been rifled for its treatment of ideas and opinions, but it also offers a complex and highly imaginative treatment of conversation, originating as rhetorical exercises in De copia. This essay reconfigures the Colloquies in such terms, especially those involving female interlocutors, drawing on the riches of ancient interest in conversation in Plato, Cicero and Quintilian, and also on the vogue for dialogue in Renaissance Italy from Leonardo Bruni to Castiglione.
{"title":"Erasmus and the Colloquial Emotions","authors":"B. Cummings","doi":"10.1163/18749275-04002004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18749275-04002004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Cognitive philosophy in recent years has made conversation central to the experience of emotion: we recognise emotions in dialogue. What lesson can be drawn from this for understanding Erasmus’ Colloquies? This work has often been rifled for its treatment of ideas and opinions, but it also offers a complex and highly imaginative treatment of conversation, originating as rhetorical exercises in De copia. This essay reconfigures the Colloquies in such terms, especially those involving female interlocutors, drawing on the riches of ancient interest in conversation in Plato, Cicero and Quintilian, and also on the vogue for dialogue in Renaissance Italy from Leonardo Bruni to Castiglione.","PeriodicalId":40983,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46461455","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-06DOI: 10.1163/18749275-03902005
John Monfasani
The article confirms Andrew J. Brown’s thesis that despite carrying colophons with dates in the first decade of the sixteenth century, the four sumptuous manuscripts of Erasmus’ translation of the New Testament produced by the scribe Pieter Meghen could not have been finished until the 1520s and in fact preserve a version of Erasmus’ translation not available until the 1520s. Nonetheless, the article goes on to prove that Erasmus was working on a translation of the New Testament already at the time of the colophons in the Meghen manuscripts. Erasmus’ translation was part of his large-scale culture war against medieval scholasticism that he embarked upon at the end of the fifteenth century and continued until his death in 1536. The world around Erasmus changed radically, however, in those four decades, in significant measure because of his own scholarship and writings, but Erasmus himself changed amazingly little in his basic attitudes. The result was that by the end his critics from the Protestant as much as from the Catholic side were rightly frustrated by his incoherent reaction to the changed situation. Emblematic of his inability to face up to the transformed reality is his annotation to I Timothy1:6, which became an unconscious parody of his incoherent stance on religious doctrine and which is translated in an appendix to the article.
{"title":"In Defense of Erasmus’ Critics","authors":"John Monfasani","doi":"10.1163/18749275-03902005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18749275-03902005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The article confirms Andrew J. Brown’s thesis that despite carrying colophons with dates in the first decade of the sixteenth century, the four sumptuous manuscripts of Erasmus’ translation of the New Testament produced by the scribe Pieter Meghen could not have been finished until the 1520s and in fact preserve a version of Erasmus’ translation not available until the 1520s. Nonetheless, the article goes on to prove that Erasmus was working on a translation of the New Testament already at the time of the colophons in the Meghen manuscripts. Erasmus’ translation was part of his large-scale culture war against medieval scholasticism that he embarked upon at the end of the fifteenth century and continued until his death in 1536. The world around Erasmus changed radically, however, in those four decades, in significant measure because of his own scholarship and writings, but Erasmus himself changed amazingly little in his basic attitudes. The result was that by the end his critics from the Protestant as much as from the Catholic side were rightly frustrated by his incoherent reaction to the changed situation. Emblematic of his inability to face up to the transformed reality is his annotation to I Timothy1:6, which became an unconscious parody of his incoherent stance on religious doctrine and which is translated in an appendix to the article.","PeriodicalId":40983,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18749275-03902005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42804184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-06DOI: 10.1163/18749275-03902003
N. Mout
The publication of the fiftieth volume of Erasmi Opera Omnia (ASD), a series begun in 1969, leads to an examination of Erasmus as editor of texts, of which his editions of the New Testament and of patristic writings hold pride of place. Treatment of the question how Erasmus himself rated editions and editors is preceded by an assessment of his public persona. The disputatious or outright polemical Erasmus showed himself not at all, as Huizinga would have it, “restricted to the feline” in his expressions about other scholars and their work. Erasmus’ ideas about the making or the appreciation of an edition often started from the negative: who is not able to make or to appreciate a good edition, and what exactly is a bad edition? In the end, however, while discussing St Augustine’s works he drew a portrait of the ideal editor.
{"title":"Against a Feline Erasmus","authors":"N. Mout","doi":"10.1163/18749275-03902003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18749275-03902003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The publication of the fiftieth volume of Erasmi Opera Omnia (ASD), a series begun in 1969, leads to an examination of Erasmus as editor of texts, of which his editions of the New Testament and of patristic writings hold pride of place. Treatment of the question how Erasmus himself rated editions and editors is preceded by an assessment of his public persona. The disputatious or outright polemical Erasmus showed himself not at all, as Huizinga would have it, “restricted to the feline” in his expressions about other scholars and their work. Erasmus’ ideas about the making or the appreciation of an edition often started from the negative: who is not able to make or to appreciate a good edition, and what exactly is a bad edition? In the end, however, while discussing St Augustine’s works he drew a portrait of the ideal editor.","PeriodicalId":40983,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18749275-03902003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47138893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-06DOI: 10.1163/18749275-03902001
F. Blumberg
In this essay, I reconsider the proposition that Erasmus’ The Praise of Folly is a satire—an attribution of genre that has long been treated as a truism. I argue that greater attention to several key sources can adjust our understanding of both the text and its kind. The article examines the early reception of Folly’s speech; a pivotal passage in the text itself; crucial translation choices; and Erasmus’ reflections on both his creation and the nature of satire. I investigate the idea of the Praise as a satire not to quibble about generic designations but to bring into relief Erasmus’ contribution to questions of creative licence during the Renaissance; in particular, the permissible scope of social critique, or how to approach the darker side of epideixis.
{"title":"The Praise of Folly and the Limits of Satiric Licence","authors":"F. Blumberg","doi":"10.1163/18749275-03902001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18749275-03902001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this essay, I reconsider the proposition that Erasmus’ The Praise of Folly is a satire—an attribution of genre that has long been treated as a truism. I argue that greater attention to several key sources can adjust our understanding of both the text and its kind. The article examines the early reception of Folly’s speech; a pivotal passage in the text itself; crucial translation choices; and Erasmus’ reflections on both his creation and the nature of satire. I investigate the idea of the Praise as a satire not to quibble about generic designations but to bring into relief Erasmus’ contribution to questions of creative licence during the Renaissance; in particular, the permissible scope of social critique, or how to approach the darker side of epideixis.","PeriodicalId":40983,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18749275-03902001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48265970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-06DOI: 10.1163/18749275-03902002
K. Goudriaan
A series of accounts in the archive of St Saviour’s Collegiate Church in Utrecht, kept in the Utrecht Record Office, contains information on Gerardus Helye, Erasmus’ father, showing that he functioned as vice-pastor in the small town of Woerden from 1471 onwards and then from 1476 onwards fulfilled this same function for a couple of years in Gouda. This article presents and analyses these new data and considers their implications for the reconstruction of Erasmus’ early life until his departure from Steyn monastery.
{"title":"New Evidence on Erasmus’ Youth","authors":"K. Goudriaan","doi":"10.1163/18749275-03902002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18749275-03902002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A series of accounts in the archive of St Saviour’s Collegiate Church in Utrecht, kept in the Utrecht Record Office, contains information on Gerardus Helye, Erasmus’ father, showing that he functioned as vice-pastor in the small town of Woerden from 1471 onwards and then from 1476 onwards fulfilled this same function for a couple of years in Gouda. This article presents and analyses these new data and considers their implications for the reconstruction of Erasmus’ early life until his departure from Steyn monastery.","PeriodicalId":40983,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18749275-03902002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44347759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-03-13DOI: 10.1163/18749275-03901001
P. Mack
Erasmus wrote his Paraphrases on the New Testament (1517–1524) at the climactic point of his literary career, just after his new edition of the New Testament, the humanistic edition of the Adagia and his edition of the works of St Jerome. This lecture asks why Erasmus gave so much time to paraphrase at such a key moment, what he hoped his paraphrase would give to early sixteenth-century Christians, and how his paraphrase clarifies, dramatizes and adds to the Biblical text. It analyses quotations from the paraphrases on Romans and the Gospel of Mark, relating to his historicization of the text, his criticism of the contemporary church, and his presentation of issues of law, grace and faith, the appropriate attitude to civic authority and Christian love. It compares Erasmus’ approach to teaching from the New Testament to his hero Rudolph Agricola’s Oration on Christ’s Nativity (1484) and to Philipp Melanchthon’s approach in the first version of his Loci communes (1521).
{"title":"Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament and the Presentation of Christ’s Teaching","authors":"P. Mack","doi":"10.1163/18749275-03901001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18749275-03901001","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Erasmus wrote his Paraphrases on the New Testament (1517–1524) at the climactic point of his literary career, just after his new edition of the New Testament, the humanistic edition of the Adagia and his edition of the works of St Jerome. This lecture asks why Erasmus gave so much time to paraphrase at such a key moment, what he hoped his paraphrase would give to early sixteenth-century Christians, and how his paraphrase clarifies, dramatizes and adds to the Biblical text. It analyses quotations from the paraphrases on Romans and the Gospel of Mark, relating to his historicization of the text, his criticism of the contemporary church, and his presentation of issues of law, grace and faith, the appropriate attitude to civic authority and Christian love. It compares Erasmus’ approach to teaching from the New Testament to his hero Rudolph Agricola’s Oration on Christ’s Nativity (1484) and to Philipp Melanchthon’s approach in the first version of his Loci communes (1521).","PeriodicalId":40983,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2019-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18749275-03901001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44241197","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：