Search

In this article I discuss Armando Cardoso's philological work in the Monumenta Anchietana’s edition, his research with manuscripts and other documentary sources, the translation process and the organization of the collection. The theoretical model for this analysis, based on Linguistic Historiography, is the one proposed by Pierre Swiggers (2013), by which I discuss the 'heuristic dimension' of Anchieta's work. Monumenta Anchietana is a collection of works by S. Jose de Anchieta, SJ (1534-1597) and biographical studies published by Loyola Editions in Brazil. The collection is not yet complete and some volumes have not yet been published. Jesuit missionary Anchieta was one of the most representative humanists of the 16th century in Brazil, having been a student of the Royal College of Arts of Coimbra in 1548, before coming to Brazil in 1553. He wrote literary, religious and historical works in four languages: Latin, Portuguese, Spanish and Tupi, indigenous language of the early days of colonization in Brazil. His works written in Latin are the main source for analyzing the reception of Classical Culture in 16th century Brazilian linguistic thought.

Este artículo tiene por objeto dar a conocer un documento latino del siglo XVI existente en la Real Biblioteca de Palacio de Madrid. En él se relata el mal trato dado por el rey de Persia a un embajador turco. En el estudio preliminar se detallan el ambiente y circunstancias históricas de esa embajada y se indica que hechos parecidos no eran infrecuentes en aquellos tiempos. En cuanto al latín del documento se señala que, a pesar de algunos rasgos vulgares y medievales, es un excelente ejemplo de latín renacentista. The aim of this article is to make known a Latin document from the sixteenth century, which exists in La Real Biblioteca de Palacio de Madrid. It relates the bad treatment given to a Turkish ambassador by the King of Persia. The preliminary study gives detailed information about the atmosphere and historic circumstances of the Turkish embassy, and it is indicated that similar events were common at that time. As for the Latin used in the document, despite some vulgar and medieval uses, it is an excellent example of Renaissance Latin.

The History of the Normative Opposition of “Language versus Dialect”: From Its Graeco-Latin Origin to Central Europe’s Ethnolinguistic Nation-StatesThe concept of “a language” (Einzelsprache, that is, one of many extant languages) and its opposition to “dialect” (considered as a “non-language,” and thus subjugable to an already recognized language merely as “its” dialect) is the way people tend to think about languages in the West today. It appears to be a value-free, self-evident conception of the linguistic position. So much so that the concept of “language” was included neither in Immanuel Kant’s system of categories, nor in the authoritative Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. This paper sketches the rise of the “dialect vs language” opposition in classical Greek, its transposition onto classical Latin, and its transfer, through medieval and renaissance Latin, to the early modern period. On the way, the Greek and Latin terms for “language” (and also for “dialect”) sometimes functioned as synonyms for peoples (that is, ethnic groups), which – importantly – contributed to the rise of the normative equation of language with nation in the early nineteenth century. It was the beginning of the ethnolinguistic kind of nationalism that prevails to this day in Central Europe. Dzieje normatywnej dychotomii języka i dialektu: Od greko-łacińskich źródeł po państwa etnicznojęzykowe Europy ŚrodkowejPojęcie języka jako jednego z wielu (Einzelsprache) stawiane w diametralnej opozycji do „dialektu” (czyli „nie-języka”, który normatywnie musi zostać przyporządkowany jakiemuś już wcześniej uznanemu językowi jako jeden z jego dialektów) stanowi formę pojęciową, poprzez pryzmat której postrzega się języki i dyskutuje o nich we współczesnym świecie Zachodu. Z powodu powszechnego uznania owa forma pojęciowa wydaje się tak oczywista i wolna od nacechowania ideologicznego, że Immanuel Kant nie uwzględnił języka w zaproponowanym przez siebie systemie kategorii filozoficznych, podobnie jak i autorzy niezmiernie wpływowego dzieła z zakresu historiografii i socjologii politycznej o znamiennym tytule Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. W niniejszym artykule przedstawiam wyłonienie się opozycji języka wobec dialektu w starożytnej grece oraz jego recepcję na gruncie łaciny od starożytności rzymskiej po okres nowożytny. W ciągu wieków utarło się używanie greckich i łacińskich terminów w odniesieniu do „języka” jako synonimów na określenie ludów (czy też grup etnicznych), co we wczesnym XIX stuleciu silnie wpłynęło na wykształcenie się normatywnego zrównania języka z narodem. Stanowiło to początek fenomenu znanego pod nazwą „nacjonalizmu etnicznojęzykowego”, który na poziomie państw dominuje po dziś dzień w całej Europie Środkowej.

These pages continue the inventory of Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries published in Studies in the Renaissance, XXI (1974), 228-289; Renaissance Quarterly, XXVIII (1975), 689-741; XXIX (1976), 714-745; XXX (1977), 681-741; XXXI (1978), 532–603. The commentaries have been arranged alphabetically according to the author's family name, with a brief biobibliographical note and indication of the manuscripts and printed editions.

The Renaissance humanists’ quest for the perfect Latin style formed the central element in their views of literature and history and contributed fundamentally to the genesis of their cultural values. In order to establish the ideal Latin, the humanists searched the treasures of Antiquity and formed the critical standards necessary to judge and use ancient writers. As a consequence Renaissance Latin prose was dynamic, although within definite limits. It changed according to the increased knowledge and sophistication of both its practitioners and their audience. This essay will describe the changes that Latin prose (Latin poetry will be discussed only in passing) experienced in Italy in the last decades of the Quattrocento and first years of the Cinquecento. It will review the major schools of Latin prose composition—the eclectic, the strict imitative, and the “archaizing“— and concentrate on the last of these in an attempt to explain why some Italian humanists followed certain ancient but uncommon Latin models in their writing and, thereby, rejected, at least implicitly, a number of basic elements in the view of the Latin language and its history that was accepted during the Quattrocento.

These pages conclude the inventory of Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries published in Studies in the Renaissance, XXI (1974), 228-289; Renaissance Quarterly, XXVIII (1975), 689-741; XXIX (1976), 714-745; XXX (1977), 681-741; XXXI (1978), 532-603; XXXII (1979), 529-580; XXXIII (1980), 623-734. The commentaries have been arranged alphabetically according to the author's family name, with a brief biobibliographical note and indication of the manuscripts and printed editions.On the completion of this inventory I should like to express my gratitude for the tireless cooperation of Gerlinde Danzeisen and Marlen Wronka.

The study of Latin manuscripts has been of vital importance not only to the student of classical and patristic literature but also to every serious scholar interested in the literature, theology, philosophy and science of the Middle Ages and of the Renaissance. In this field, the manuscripts contain not merely new variants of well-known texts but an often unsuspected amount of new textual material that never got into print but often had as wide a circulation and importance as some of the printed works. This material is by no means easily accessible. If a collection of manuscripts has no printed catalogue, there is no way of investigating its content except by working on the spot. On the other hand, printed catalogues, when available, permit the location of pertinent material from a distance, and hence are a definite scholarly aid and desideratum. Since even the printed catalogues are often inadequate and sometimes rare, it has seemed useful to compile an annotated bibliography of these catalogues, which would serve as a guide to medievalists and Renaissance scholars in general, and in particular to the contributors to the project of ‘Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries,’ which has been undertaken by a group of scholars under the auspices of several learned societies. The present bibliography was originally compiled for the purposes of that project, and it has been decided to print it, since previous bibliographies of a similar nature were either conceived along narrower lines, like Weinberger's, or were inaccurate, like Richardson's.

Aristotelianism occupies a unique position in the intellectual history of the Latin West. From Boethius to Galileo—from the end of classical civilization to the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, and in some circles even beyond—die works of the philosopher had a decisive influence, not only on the development of theology, philosophy, and natural sciences, but also on university structure and the system of education. The history of Aristotle's influence in the Middle Ages, especially the history of its thirteenth- century beginnings, is quite well known. But renaissance scholars have generally concentrated on the revolt against the Scholastic Aristode, the revival of other ancient philosophies, and the birth of the new science, only recently turning their attention to the history of Aristotelianism and university philosophy.

QUID petitur sacris nisi tantum fama poetis?" inquired Boissard as a representative sixteenth-century man of letters.' That he cribbed the wording of his question from Ovid merely makes him a more typically Renaissance author. Like other literary theorists of the period, the emblematists-those essayists in prose and verse who reached such a vast public in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries-subscribed to the contention that the great poet achieves renown and immortality through his works. The emblematists frequently chose engravings or woodcuts containing symbols of glory, affixed brief titles or "posies" to these cuts, and then subjoined thereto essays or poems developing the theme of literary glory suggested by the plate. The accompanying reproduction from Peacham's Minerva Britanna (note 23) will acquaint the reader with a typical page from an emblem-book. Of all the literary notions encountered in emblem-books, this belief that the Muse saves poets from ignominy and death is the most frequent. It is the basic idea underlying the classic cult of poetic glory, the one cult shared by classic and Romanticist alike. It is interesting to see reappearing in every language of Western Europe the gratifying thought that authors win eternal life and kudos through their compositions. It strikes a most familiar note when we encounter it phrased in Renaissance Latin, for we remember reading it over and over in classic Latin texts. Four principal facets of this Pindaric or Horatian ideal will be pointed out in the subjoined paragraphs. Granting occasional overlapping, these four may be summarized as follows

Since Professor Marti has been in Europe for the past year and expects to stay there for another year, Professor Bradner has agreed to join the Executive Committee, first as an acting member and later as a regular member. This Committee has held three meetings since October 1954.The place of Miss Sanford as a member of the Editorial Board and as Section Editor for Latin Commentaries of the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries has been filled by Professor Revilo P. Oliver of the University of Illinois.