Contributors to this volume seek to reconsider the heritage of discourses of patriotism and national allegiance in East Central Europe between the sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries. It results from an international research project, “The Intellectual History of Patriotism and the Legacy of Composite States in East Central Europe,” which brought together scholars to discuss the problem of patriotism in the light of the many levels of ethnic, cultural and political allegiances characterizing East Central Europe in early modern times. The authors analyze the complex process of the formation, reception and transmission of early modern discourses of collective identity in a regional context. Along these lines, the contributors also seek to reconfigure the geographical focus of scholarship on this topic and integrate the Eastern European contexts into the broader European discussion.
the invention of new terms ( capitalism ); in the adaptation and alteration (indeed at times reversal) of older terms ( society or individual ); in extension ( interest ) or transfer ( exploitation ). But also, as these examples should remind us, such changes are not always either simple or final
our kingdoms and territories by those journeying in the said ocean sea.’ In Davenport F.G. (ed.), European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648 (Washington, DC: 1917) 103–105. Slight adaptation of the English translation. 26 See Sandman A., “Spanish
being the symbol of an authentic overturning seemed to be translations and adaptations of some of the most important Dutch periodicals of the time: the Bibliothèque universelle et historique (1686–1693) directed by the Genevan theologian Jean Le Clerc (1657–1736), and mostly the ambitious Histoire
Olga Anna Duhl (ed.), La Nef des folles. Adaptation de Jehan Drouyn (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2013; Textes de la Renaissance 190, L’ Éducation des femmes à la Renaissance et à l’ âge classique 15). 309 pp. ISBN 978-28124-1138-0.
In the last decade, a century after the impressive
Erasmus was not only one of the most widely read authors of the early modern period, but one of the most controversial. For some readers he represented the perfect humanist scholar; for others, he was an arrogant hypercritic, a Lutheran heretic and polemicist, a virtuoso writer and rhetorician, an inventor of a new, authentic Latin style, etc. In the present volume, a number of aspects of Erasmus’s manifold reception are discussed, especially lesser-known ones, such as his reception in Neo-Latin poetry. The volume does not focus only on so-called Erasmians, but offers a broader spectrum of reception and demonstrates that Erasmus’s name also was used in order to authorize completely un-Erasmian ideals, such as atheism, radical reformation, Lutheranism, religious intolerance, Jesuit education, Marian devotion, etc.
Contributors include: Philip Ford, Dirk Sacré, Paul J. Smith, Lucia Felici, Gregory D. Dodds, Hilmar M. Pabel, Reinier Leushuis, Jeanine De Landtsheer, Johannes Trapman, and Karl Enenkel.
This paper claims that Erasmus was the most important and influential theorist of rhetoric in the Renaissance and that Erasmus’ thinking is heavily influenced by rhetoric. After showing that Erasmus wrote the most successful rhetoric textbooks of the sixteenth century and that he ontinued to compose and revise rhetoric books from the 1490s right up to his death in 1536, the paper argues that rhetorical ideas condition Erasmus’ way of thinking and arguing about editing, commentary, and religious teaching. Then the paper analyses in more detail Erasmus’ contribution as a theorist of rhetoric in the areas of: rhetoric and reading, the audience, adaptation of the three genres of classical rhetoric, invention, proverbs, descriptions, comparisons, style, imitation, emotion, and decorum. Finally the paper argues that Erasmus the writer made use of his rhetorical theories but also went beyond the prescriptions of the textbook, discussing the Adages and the Praise of Folly. Erasmus develops the deeply playful originality of his work from the rhetorical principles of declamation, topical invention, irony, ethos, and decorum.
,” “Religious Ideas,” “Political Ideas,” and “Rabelaisian Satire, Triumph, Dialogue and Other Adaptations”—heterogeneous designations that reflect the range of the contributions. In the first, “A Blueprint for the Reception of Erasmus: Beatus Rhenanus’ Second Vita Erasmi (1540),” Enenkel argues against
translations and adaptations of the Praise of Folly , which are also the history of its betrayal and whose reordering of the text expresses a paradoxical concern for control (P.J. Smith); on the other hand synchronically, through individual actualizations whose didactic and polemic imperatives take precedence