Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:03:01.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ERASMUS AND JUAN LUIS VIVES ON RHETORICAL DECORUM AND POLITICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2021

KAARLO HAVU Open the ORCID record for KAARLO HAVU [Opens in a new window]
KAARLO HAVU*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
*
Department of Philosophy, History and Art Studies, University of Helsinki, PO Box 24, 00014, Finland[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article analyses the emergence of decorum (appropriateness) as a central concept of rhetorical theory in the early sixteenth-century writings of Erasmus and Juan Luis Vives. In rhetorical theory, decorum shifted the emphasis from formulaic rules to their creative application in concrete cases. In doing so, it emphasized a close analysis of the rhetorical situation (above all the preferences of the audience) and underscored the persuasive possibilities of civil conversation as opposed to passionate, adversarial rhetoric. The article argues that the stress put on decorum in early sixteenth-century theory is not just an internal development in the history of rhetoric but linked to far wider questions concerning the role of rhetoric in religious and secular lives. Decorum appears as a solution both to the divisiveness of language in the context of the Reformation and dynastic warfare of the early sixteenth century and as an adaptation of the republican tradition of political rhetoric to a changed, monarchical context. Erasmus and Vives maintained that decorum not only suppressed destructive passions and discord, but that it was only through polite and civil rhetoric (or conversation) that a truly effective persuasion was possible in a vast array of contexts.

Type
Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 64 , Issue 5 , December 2021 , pp. 1151 - 1172
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I thank Kari Saastamoinen, Simon Ditchfield, Brian Cummings, and two anonymous reviewers for reading drafts of the article and providing invaluable comments. I also thank Mikko Moilanen for his comments on style. For funding this research, I thank the Academy of Finland and the Alfred Kordelin Foundation.

References

1 For the history of early modern rhetoric, see Fumaroli, Marc, ed., Histoire de la rhétorique dans l'Europe moderne, 1450–1950 (Paris, 1999)Google Scholar; Vickers, Brian, In defence of rhetoric (Oxford, 1988); Peter Mack, A history of Renaissance rhetoric (Oxford, 2011)Google Scholar. For political thought and rhetoric, see Stacey, Peter, Roman monarchy and the Renaissance prince (Cambridge, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stacey, Peter, ‘Definition, division and difference in Machiavelli's political philosophy’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 75 (2014), pp. 189–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Skinner, Quentin, Reason and rhetoric in the philosophy of Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peltonen, Markku, Rhetoric, politics, and popularity in pre-revolutionary England (Cambridge, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For rhetoric and theology, see Jacques Chomarat, Grammaire et rhétorique chez Érasme (2 vols., Paris, 1981); Cummings, Brian, The literary culture of the Reformation: grammar and grace (Oxford, 2007)Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Manfred, Rhetoric and theology: the hermeneutic of Erasmus (Toronto, ON, 1994)Google Scholar; Remer, Gary, Humanism and the rhetoric of toleration (University Park, PA, 1996)Google Scholar. For rhetoric and philosophy, see Kahn, Victoria, Rhetoric, prudence and skepticism in the Renaissance (Ithaca, NY, 1985)Google Scholar; Nauta, Lodi, In defense of common sense: Lorenzo Valla's humanist critique of scholastic philosophy (Cambridge, MA, 2009)Google Scholar; Mack, Peter, Renaissance argument: Valla and Agricola in the tradition of rhetoric and dialectic (Leiden and New York, NY, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For rhetoric and literature, see Kinney, Arthur F., ‘Rhetoric and fiction in Elizabethan England’, in Murphy, James J., ed., Renaissance eloquence (Berkeley, CA, 1983)Google Scholar. For rhetoric and medicine, see N. Siraisi, ‘Oratory and rhetoric in Renaissance medicine’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 65 (2004), pp. 191–211.

2 Skinner, Reason; Quentin Skinner, Visions on politics (3 vols., Cambridge, 2002), ii, pp. 264–85; Wayne A. Rebhorn, The emperor of men's mind, literature and the Renaissance discourse of rhetoric (Ithaca, NY, 1995), pp. 8–9; Vickers, In defence, pp. 254–6, 268–70.

3 Bryson, Anna, From courtesy to civility: changing codes of conduct in early modern England (Oxford, 1998), pp. 151–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomas, Keith, In pursuit of civility (London, 2018), p. 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For Vives and Erasmus, see Fantazzi, Charles, ‘The Erasmus–Vives correspondence’, in Ryle, Stephen, ed., Erasmus and the Renaissance republic of letters (Turnhout, 2014)Google Scholar.

5 Bietenholz, Peter G., ‘Ethics and early printing: Erasmus’ rule for the proper conduct of authors’, Humanities Association Review, 26 (1975), pp. 180–95Google Scholar; Zagorin, Perez, Ways of lying: dissimulation, persecution, and conformity in early modern Europe (Cambridge, MA, 1990), pp. 33–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cummings, Brian, ‘Palinodiam canere: rhetoric, philosophy & theology in Erasmus’, in Pitassi, M. and Camillocci, D. Solfaroli, eds., Crossing traditions: essays on the Reformation and intellectual history (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2018)Google Scholar.

6 Marc Fumaroli, ‘Rhetoric, politics, and society: from Italian Ciceronianism to French Classicism’, in Murphy, ed., Renaissance eloquence, p. 253. See also Jennifer Richards, ‘Introduction’, in Jennifer Richards, ed., Early modern civil discourses (Basingstoke, 2003), p. 2. For decorum and social distinction, see Rebhorn, Wayne A., ‘Outlandish fears: defining decorum in Renaissance rhetoric’, Intertexts, 4 (2000), pp. 2–24Google Scholar; Hall, Vernon Jr, ‘Decorum in Italian Renaissance literary criticism’, Modern Language Quarterly, 4 (1943), pp. 177–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an epistemological reading of decorum as search for truth that is embedded in time, see Kahn, Rhetoric; Pender, Stephen, ‘The open use of living: prudence, decorum, and the “square man”’, Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 23 (2005), pp. 363–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For decorum and historical interpretation, see Eden, Kathy, Hermeneutics and the rhetorical tradition: chapters in the ancient legacy & its humanist reception (New Haven, CT, 1997), pp. 17–18Google Scholar, 26–8, 69–70. See also Paul, Joanne, ‘The use of kairos in Renaissance political philosophy’, Renaissance Quarterly, 67 (2014), pp. 43–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Marc Fumaroli, L’âge de l’éloquence (Geneva and Paris, 1980), pp. 92–113; Fumaroli, ‘Rhetoric’, pp. 262–4.

8 Chomarat, Grammaire, i, pp. 13–25; Remer, Humanism, p. 41.

9 For the classical background of decorum and the Greek kairos, see P. Sipiora and J. S. Baumlin, eds., Rhetoric and kairos: essays in history, theory, and praxis (Albany, NY, 2002); Robert Hariman, ‘Decorum’, in Thomas O. Sloane, ed., Encyclopaedia of rhetoric, i (New York, NY, 2001), pp. 199–209.

10 Horace, Ars poetica, in Horace, Satires, epistles: the art of poetry, trans. H. R. Fairclough (Cambridge, MA, 1926), pp. 442–90, at pp. 456–61 (1.81–119).

11 Cicero, De officiis, trans. W. Miller (Cambridge, MA, 2005), pp. 94–121 (1.27.93–1.32.117).

12 For a distinction between ethical decorum and more opportunistic kairos, see Paul, ‘Use of kairos’, pp. 43–4. For an interpretation that shows how Latin decorum combined meanings from prepon and kairos, see James Baumlin, ‘Ciceronian decorum and the temporalities of Renaissance rhetoric’, in Sipiora and Baumlin, eds., Rhetoric, p. 159; James Kinneavy, ‘Kairos: a neglected concept in classical rhetoric’, in J. Deatz Moss, ed., Rhetoric and praxis: the contribution of classical rhetoric to practical reasoning (Washington, DC, 1986), p. 82.

13 Cicero, De oratore I–III, trans. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham (2 vols., Cambridge, MA, 1942), i, pp. 100–1, ii, pp. 166–9 (1.32.144, 3.60.210–12); Cicero, Orator, trans. H. M. Hubbell, in Cicero, Brutus – Orator (Cambridge, MA, 1939), pp. 306–509, at pp. 356–61 (21.69–22.74).

14 Quintilian, Institutio oratoria, trans. D. A. Russell (5 vols., Cambridge, MA, 2001), i, p. 341, v, pp. 8–59 (2.13.2–3, 11.1.1–11.1.93).

15 Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Poetria nova, trans. Margaret Nims (Toronto, ON, 2010), pp. 72–4; David Mañero Lozano, ‘Del concepto del decoro a la “teoría de los estilos”’, Bulletin hispanique, 111–12 (2009), pp. 357–85, at pp. 369–72; David Scott Wilson-Okamura, Virgil in the Renaissance (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 90–3.

16 Philipp Melanchthon, Institutiones rhetoricae, in Melanchthon, Opera omnia: Opera philosophica. Part 2, Principal writings on rhetoric, ed. William P. Weaver, Stefan Strohm, and Volkhardt Wels (Berlin, 2017), pp. 211–54, at p. 221; Philipp Melanchthon, Elementorum rhetorices libri duo, in Melanchthon, Opera, pp. 269–408, at p. 328.

17 Hermogenes, On types of style, trans. C. W. Wooten (Chapel Hill, NC, 1987), p. 101.

18 George of Trebizond, Rhetoricorum libri, in quibus quid recens praestitum, proxima facie indicabit liminaris epistola (Basel, 1522), fos. 164r–167r.

19 Hermogenes, Style, p. 101.

20 John Monfasani, ‘The Byzantine rhetorical tradition and the Renaissance’, in Murphy, ed., Renaissance eloquence, pp. 182–3; Juan Luis Vives, De disciplinis: savoir et enseigner, trans. and ed. T. Vigliano (Paris, 2013), pp. 388, 401, 402.

21 While the focus of De inventione dialectica is on the topical analysis of questions, Book 3 deals with the emotions and with the rhetorical goals of moving and pleasing; Rudolph Agricola, De inventione dialectica libri tres (Tübingen, 1992), pp. 228–98 (2.6–2.14), 280–3 (2.13), 440–1 (3.2.26–31), 446–7 (3.3.36–46). See also Mack, Renaissance argument, pp. 181–9, 203–18.

22 Peter Mack, ‘Vives's De ratione dicendi: structures, innovations, problems’, Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, 23 (2005), pp. 65–92, at pp. 84–5; Peter Mack, ‘Vives's contributions to rhetoric and dialectic’, in Charles Fantazzi, ed., A Companion to Juan Luis Vives (Leiden and Boston, MA, 2008), p. 238.

23 Juan Luis Vives, Del arte de hablar, ed. J. M. Rodríguez Peregrina (Granada, 2000), p. 100: ‘Caput artis dicunt esse decere quod facias, atque id unum esse quod tradi non possit, quod non tam es huius artis proprium quam vitae totius; itaque prudentiae est, quae praeceptis contineri nequit, nempe sigularum rerum, quaeque spectat res, personas, loca, tempora.’ All the translations from Vives's De ratione dicendi are mine.

24 Vives, Hablar, pp. 101–4, 111–13.

25 Ad Herennium, trans. H. Caplan (Cambridge, MA, 1954), pp. 16–18 (1.5.8).

26 Vives, Hablar, pp. 116–23.

27 Ibid., p. 91: ‘Ante omnia considerandum qui nos simus, qui illi quos agitare volumus aut sedare, quod eorum iudicium de rebus, quibus plurimum tribuunt, quibus parum, in quos affectus sint proclives, a quibus alieni, ex quibus in quos leviter transeant, ex ingenio, persuasionibus, moribus, aetate, sexu, valetudine, habitudine, conditione…Induenda mens illorum et totum ingenium tantisper, dum quae ad rem nostram faciant excogitamus; ponamusque nos illorum loco.’

28 See for instance ibid., pp. 123–5.

29 Sowards, ‘Introduction’, CWE, xxv, pp. ix–lix, at pp. li–lii. All references to works by Erasmus follow the collected editions using the standard abbreviations: CWE, Collected works of Erasmus (72 vols., Toronto, ON, 1974– ); ASD, Opera omnia (9 vols. in parts, Amsterdam, 1969– ). All translations of Erasmus are from CWE.

30 CWE, xxv, p. 261 (Conficiendarum epistolarum formula).

31 ASD, i/2, p. 316 (De conscribendis epistolis, CWE, xxv, p. 74).

32 Juan Luis Vives, De conscribendis epistolis, ed. Charles Fantazzi (Leiden, 1989), pp. 34–5, 51–65; see also pp. 28–9.

33 James J. Murphy, Latin rhetoric in the middle ages (Aldershot, 2006), pp. i:13–16.

34 John D'Amico, Theory and practice in Renaissance textual criticism: Beatus Rhenanus between conjecture and history (Berkeley, CA, 1988), pp. 1–7; Luca Bianchi, ‘Continuity and change in the Aristotelian tradition’, in James Hankins, The Cambridge companion to Renaissance philosophy (Cambridge, 2007), pp. 54–9.

35 For Ciceronianus, see Knott, ‘Introductory note’, in CWE, xxviii, pp. 324–7.

36 See for instances ASD, i/2, p. 609 (Ciceronianus).

37 ASD, i/2, pp. 650 (Ciceronianus, CWE, xxviii, p. 400), 654. See also Eden, Hermeneutics, pp. 69–70.

38 ASD, i/2, pp. 654, 702–3 (Ciceronianus); ASD, i/2, pp. 222–3 (De conscribendis epistolis).

39 CWE, xxv, p. 261 (Formula).

40 Vives, De conscribendis, pp. 26–7.

41 Juan Luis Vives, Aedes legum, in Vives, Opera omnia, i (Basel, 1555), pp. 301–6, at pp. 305–6; ASD, iv/1, pp. 194–204 (Institutio principis Christiani).

42 See n. 5.

43 Andrew Pettegree, ‘Books, pamphlets and polemic’, in Andrew Pettegree, ed., Reformation world (London, 2000), pp. 110–11.

44 Peter G. Bietenholz, ‘The patristic controversy about Galatians 2.11–14 and the reaction of Erasmus of Rotterdam’, Shingaku-kenkyu, 50 (2003), pp. 171–83; Bietenholz, ‘Ethics’, pp. 142–7.

45 Allen, 1374, v, p. 304 (Wolfgang Capito to Erasmus, CWE, x, p. 46). All references to Erasmus's letters are taken from Erasmi Epistolae, ed. P. S. Allen and H. Allen (12 vols., Oxford, 1906–58), using the abbreviation Allen, the number of the letter, the volume, and the pages in question.

46 Allen, 1202, iv, p. 488 (Erasmus to Justus Jonas, CWE, viii, pp. 203, 204).

47 Allen, 1202, iv, p. 487 (Erasmus to Justus Jonas, CWE, viii, pp. 202, 203).

48 For more about Erasmus's choice of genre, see Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle, Rhetoric and reform: Erasmus’ civil dispute with Luther (Cambridge, MA, 1983); Remer, Humanism, pp. 81–4, 92–7.

49 ASD, v/5, pp. 288–308 (Ecclesiastes).

50 ASD, iv/1a, p. 22 (Lingua, CWE, xxix, pp. 259–60). See also ASD, v/5, p. 302 (Ecclesiastes).

51 ASD, iv/1a, pp. 116–17, 127, 130 (Lingua).

52 Ibid., p. 102.

53 Vives, Opera omnia, ed. Gregorio Mayans y Siscar (8 vols., Valencia, 1782–90) (hereafter Mayans), v, pp. 233, 247 (De concordia).

54 Enrique González González, ‘Vives: un humanista judeoconverso en el exilio de Flandes’, in Luc Dequeker and Werner Verbeke, eds., The expulsion of the Jews and their emigration to the Southern Low Countries (15th – 16th c.) (Leuven, 1998), p. 81; Enrique González González, Una república de lectores. Difusión y recepción de la obra de Juan Luis Vives (Mexico, 2007), pp. 54–6.

55 Vives, De consultatione liber I, in Vives, Rhetoricae, sive de recte dicendi ratione libri tres, Eiusdem de consultatione liber I (Basel, 1536), pp. 233–72, at p. 250.

56 Erasmus, ASD, i/2, pp. 653–5 (Ciceronianus, CWE, xxviii, p. 406). For the Christian dimension of the work, see esp. ibid., pp. 599–600.

57 Vives, De consultatione, pp. 244, 247.

58 ASD, iv/1, pp. 154–6 (Institutio principis Christiani, CWE, xxvii, p. 224).

59 Vives, De conscribendis, p. 22; ASD, i/2, pp. 210, 215–16 (De conscribendis epistolis).

60 Rose, Jacqueline, ‘Kingship and counsel in early modern England’, Historical Journal, 54 (2011), pp. 47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at pp. 49–50; John Guy, ‘The rhetoric of counsel in early modern England’, in Dale Hoak, ed., Tudor political culture (Cambridge, 1995).

61 ASD, i/2, p. 488 (De conscribendis epistolis, CWE, xxv, p. 189).

62 ASD, iv/1a, pp. 60–2 (Lingua, CWE, xxix, pp. 294–5). See also David Rundle, ‘Erasmus, panegyric, and the art of teaching princes’, in Yun Lee Too and Niall Livingstone, eds., Ideology and power (Cambridge, 1998).

63 Allen, 179, i, p. 397 (Erasmus to Nicholas Ruistre); Allen, 180, i, p. 399 (Erasmus to Jean Desmarais); ASD, iv/1, p. 154 (Institutio principis Christiani).

64 ASD, i/2, pp. 310–11 (De conscribendis epistolis).

65 Ibid., pp. 315–16 (CWE, xxv, p. 73).

66 Ibid., pp. 324–5 (CWE, xxv, pp. 79–80).

67 ASD, i/2, pp. 325–7 (CWE, xxv, pp. 80, 81).

68 Vives, De conscribendis, pp. 50–1, 56–9.

69 Ibid., pp. 52–3.

70 Ibid., pp. 52–5.

71 For the classical tradition, see Ad Herennium, pp. 156–73 (3.2.2–3.5.9); Cicero, De inventione, trans. H. M. Hubbell, in Cicero, De inventione, De optimo genere oratorum, Topica (Cambridge, MA, 1949), pp. 1–346, at pp. 324–43 (2.52.157–2.58.176).

72 Mayans, viii, p. 465 (De communione rerum): ‘Ex dissensione opinionum ventum est ad dissidium vitae, coeptum est non jam ampliis linguis et calamis certari, sed hastis, gladis, bombardis.’ The translation is mine.

73 For Vives's reception, see Gallego, Valentín Moreno, La recepción hispana de Juan Luis Vives (Valencia, 2006)Google Scholar; González González, Una república.

74 Lawrence D. Green, ‘Aristotle's rhetoric and Renaissance views on the emotions’, in Peter Mack, ed., Renaissance rhetoric (London, 1994); Mack, A history of Renaissance rhetoric, p. 170.

75 Thomas, Civility, p. 18; Chartier, Roger, The cultural uses of print in early modern France (Princeton, NJ, 1987), pp. 76–9Google Scholar.

76 Lander, Jesse, Inventing polemic (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 6–19Google Scholar; Lake, Peter and Pincus, Steven, ‘Rethinking the public sphere in early modern England’, Journal of British Studies, 45 (2006), pp. 270–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 Bejan, Teresa M., Mere civility (Cambridge, MA, 2017), pp. 8–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 20–49.

78 Remer, Humanism, pp. 103–5; Kaplan, Benjamin J., Divided by faith: religious conflict and the practice of toleration in early modern Europe (Cambridge, MA, 2007), pp. 127–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Banchoff, Thomas and Casanova, José, eds., The Jesuits and globalization: historical legacies and contemporary challenges (Washington, DC, 2015), pp. 7–8Google Scholar.

80 See Mayans, v, p. 288 (De concordia).

81 Pocock, John, Virtue, commerce, and history (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 49–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 115; Bryson, Courtesy, pp. 44–6, 181.

82 Vives, De disciplinis, pp. 469–72.

83 Ibid., p. 477.

84 Peltonen, Rhetoric, p. 2; Skinner, Reason.

85 Soarez, Cypriano, De arte rhetorica (Seville, 1569)Google Scholar, fos. 21r–22v; Nicolas Caussin, De eloquentia sacra et humana (Paris, 1657), pp. 145–6; Fumaroli, ‘Rhetoric’, p. 258. For John Rainolds's use of Vives's conception of decorum, see Pender, ‘Prudence’, pp. 363–5.