This paper reconsiders the accuracy of current historiographical premises with regard to the Chronica Majora of Matthew Paris and the Cronica or History of Florence of Giovanni Villani. When these chroniclers refer to oral situations, such as a dialogue between two or more people, to what degree did they themselves witness the situation that they describe, or did they enjoy the services of a first-hand source? A reconsideration of these questions advances our understanding of the challenges inherent in late-medieval chronicles as a source of orality and clarifies some methodological issues. Furthermore, analysis of these sources allows the conclusion that oral addresses mainly served to manipulate existing feelings, whether hatred, fear, latent antagonism, or unlimited support. Indeed, imagination, rhetoric, manipulation, idioms, stereotypes and the whole spectrum of human emotions were all encapsulated in the oral reports included in medieval chronicles. As such, they provide an important link between orality and literacy, one that is deserving of further investigation.
(1483–1546) broke with the Catholic Church. 16 Indeed, some ecclesiastical authorities found similarities with Ignatius’s meditative methodology and the alumbrados ’ techniques.
Ignatius also had connections to Spanish humanism. Although Pedro de Ribadeneyra’s (1526–1611) biography of Ignatius
-natural sciences. Galileo’s philosophy is non-systematic and anti-dogmatic since it operates on facts, all of which coincide in broad terms with the Andresian desideratum of a modern metaphysics renewal.
The particular classification of sciences fulfils, through comparatism, its methodological and universalist
understood as the construction of its own inter-continentalist theoretical argument, methodologically based on comparability, revealing a universal resolution. The term “universalism,” arising from globalization, has a number of advantages and few semantic misunderstandings. If globalization, in its actual
revision of this history, but also makes a substantial theoretical and methodological contribution to it: “in the discourse that I am going to deliver of the grammatical ideas of the deaf-mutes, I will deal with them in the same order that they are proposed to those who scientifically learn a language.” 8
focused on science and education. It was a Christian Enlightenment, humanistic and empiricist, historiographical and scientific, methodologically comparative, ambitious yet not ground-breaking, international and worldly, in harmony with a globalized understanding of the universe and the world. 4 Such
The implementation of a universalizing and integrating intellectual-scientific comparative program by the Spanish Universalist School 1 in 1773 was particularly relevant not only in terms of methodology but also as regards the history of ideas and human thinking. All in all, it responded to an
study of Renaissance architecture in Italian cities after the expulsion. From exile, he wanted to approach the pre-Hispanic past in the same way that historians and archaeologists of the Enlightenment had excavated Greco-Roman ruins in the Italian peninsula. Using a rigorous comparative methodology, he
the Greeks and Romans was based on a different method of study; it was therefore highly important that the new antiquarian science set its sights on classical methodology and pedagogy. Andrés wonders what methods the ancients had followed and how they had studied. How had they achieved such “sublime
sciences would progress according to two very different types of development: science, infinitely progressive and in constant epistemological and methodological improvement, and art, cyclical and with an oscillating movement due to alternate periods of progress (“perfection”) and decadence (“barbarism