![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
joexnzor 2000 words that are bit to chatty to make up a third year essay
also gamer dear, you forgot to proof read it for me at lunch didn't you.
and the printer usb has been stretched onto the desk because the computer can't find it in when it's plugged into the USB hub
oh great now my faith in you as geek god is wavering
so whilst down the pub having a life, I'm going to bed!!!
Thomas More, Dedicatory Letter to Thomas Ruthall on his translation of the Dialogues of Lucian of Samosata, (1505-06), as reproduced in The Renaissance in Europe: An Anthology, edited by Peter Elmer, Nick Webb and Roberta Wood, Yale University Press.
Joanne Cross
T1734574
Word Count: 1942
In what ways is this a typical humanist text? 1
What strategies does More use to encourage a wider readership of his translation? 4
Bibliography 6
In what ways is this a typical humanist text?
In order to know if this is a typical humanist text, we must know what features a humanist text is expected to contain. Humanism is a concept of shifting definitions, used on the most general level to define how thought in the 14th and 15th centuries is different from the preceding centuries. It arrives in England where More writes this text sometime after its beginnings in Italy, is it a more definable concept by this stage for already being established a methodology for scholars.
The definitions of humanism are plentiful. But they all share key characteristics, such as a renewed interest in classical artefacts, the use of rhetoric, the desire for a closer understanding of original sources, without centuries of copying or commentary, this could be referred to as critical analysis. The renewed interest in the classical period of Rome leads to the study of philology (the origin or words and their meaning), rhetoric and moral philosophy. The interest in the classics and the desire to examine them as close to the original form that was possible was prompted by the desire for purification of language, religion and morals (Zaw, S.K. and Kekewich, L, 2000, p159-60). It was no longer desirable merely to study what others had said, you had to examine the original source and their meaning translating it not word for word but to give access to the meaning.. In history this meant the shift away from chronicles toward the periodization of history and an explanation of why things happened the way they had. This would eventually lead to modern historical scholarship.
Much is made in Burckhardt of the concept of the individual, that man became conscious of himself as an individual and not as a ‘member of a race, people, party, family or corporation’ (Burckhardt, 1990, p98). Studies since this have shown there is a strong presence of the corporate in Renaissance life, be it membership of an extended family, household, confraternity or guild. Modern scholarship on the topic seeks to explore the individual ‘as a site on which broader institutional and political forces are inscribed’ (Martin, J, 2000, p13). The difference between the definitions is an emphasis on what had the primary effect, the individual or society. That we are studying the interaction between the two, or that it begins to fundamentally change at this time is not disputed. Whilst the individual didn’t sprung into the fully formed Burckhardtian concept they do become more visible. The increasing profile of an artist’s individual name and self-portrait (Barker, 1999, pp.58-86) is one example.
In the Introductory Letter there are two examples of the emerging individual identity. The first is that More address the letter ‘Thomas Ruthall, Royal Secretary’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.34). He addresses the letter to the man first, position second. He also use the personal pronoun through out the text, to emphasis that it he that has undertaken this research and that he is expressing his own opinion. It is unclear if the letter was designed for publication and therefore how much of the explanation was for Thomas Ruthall and how much for a wider readership. The whole letter reads as a statement of ‘I did/think this’. Whether you feel Thomas More is defined by his social position or that his interests changed society, you have a definite sense that he recognises himself and Thomas Ruthall as individuals.
This sense is repeated in Poggio’s description of the ancient ruins of Rome, individuals, freed from their courtly positions by momentary circumstance, explore them. In his letters to Gaurino of Verona and Nicolo Niccoli you gain a vivid sense of his personal enthusiasm for the task.
Critical analysis is not a term directly used in chapter 3, but there is the implication of an awareness of methodology on the part of humanist scholars. The Renaissance context of this analysis should be examined. The humanist scholar was trying to move away from the philosophy for philosophy’s sake of scholastics. They were in the service of princes, condottieri, active political figures; philosophy and rhetoric were useful tools. The aim was a ‘more profound integration of the active and contemplative life, whereby the later could give health and wisdom to the former’(Kekewich, 2000, p158). The humanist scholar analysed ancient texts for moral exemplars, to underline the virtues needed by active rulers. The filter of Christianity was applied to all the ancient texts. When humanists translated for sense and meaning it is a Christian sense and meaning not the beliefs of the original author.
In his letter, More makes clear the reasons he favours Lucian and in the process demonstrates how humanist scholars used the classical texts, to ‘combine delight with instruction’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.34), provide support for the virtues, ‘In the same work the simplicity, temperance and frugality of the Christian life . . . are commended’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.35). Where the ideas become to far for explanation from Christianity More remarks ‘why should it concern me what a pagan thinks’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.34). His translations are clear example of humanist critical analysis, that antique texts were another source of support for the current political and religious values.
Although this was not always the case, Valla uses humanism to disprove the Donation of Constantine. But here to his patron had a political agenda. Erasmus turns the analysis to church texts themselves, seeking to establish the original meaning in order to reform the church in a purer form. This is an agenda that More shares he uses the translations of Lucian to discuss the accrual of false stories in church teachings. He argues that other the scriptures, judgement should be made by, ‘Testing the others by the doctrine of Christ, as by the rule of Critolaus, we should either accept cautiously and with judgement or reject, if we wish to be free from foolish trust and superstitious dread’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.36).
A humanist text should contain reference to classical artefacts, the letter discuss's the stories of Lucian a classical writer whom More has translated from he original Greek, for a closer understanding of original sources. He also presents it as his work when discussing it with a fellow scholar; any possible assistance from God goes unmentioned. It is a typical text in that this concern for individual achievement is found in Poggio’s works, along with the concern for classical artefact. It also shows the use of Renaissance critical analysis not as a way of getting closer to the original context but as a source for Renaissance concerns.
What strategies does More use to encourage a wider readership of his translation?
A discussion of the ideas of ‘wider readership’ and translation may demonstrate the use of several strategies, one is the interaction of Christian and pagan ideas and how they are used for the moral guidance they provide. Another strategy is circulation The letter he is sending these texts to Thomas Ruthall (although it is not clear if they drafts or the final printed version), free circulation to key scholars was probably just a wise a marketing move in the Renaissance as it is now. The translation was published, and with the new printing technology a wide circulation was possible.
How wide a readership was More aiming for? Wider than More’s immediate circle, the primary strategy for this is sending a copy to Thomas Ruthall. Wider than the scholars of England, as More translated them with Erasmus one can assume that Erasmus also sent copies to his fellow scholars in the low countries. Wider than their immediate contacts, a readership made up of humanist scholars throughout Europe, we know that the Dialogues went through 13 re-prints during Mores life so there was a wide readership for it. The strategy for reaching this readership is two fold, he translated the texts from Greek to Latin and then printed them on the new printing presses.
The next widest readership would be the population of European scholars. ‘Mores reputation as a fearless defender of the catholic faith’(Kekewich, 2000, p85)., and use of humanism techniques primarily to re-examine the teachings of the church would have interested both humanist scholars and those in the Church, it was not a mutually exclusive membership.
The levels of literacy whereby reading a Latin text was possible was probably limited beyond these groups. There is debate(Kekewich, 2000, p74). as to the curriculum of Italian grammar schools of the period, whilst there was exposure to humanism, the emphasis on the quadvarium and trivariumi for the merchants probably resulted in a more practical mathematical education than a philosophical one. Another area that was influenced by humanism was the visual artists, their major form of schooling at this period was still the workshop. There are exceptions to this, but humanism was usually a second or third hand commodity. Latin scholarship was rare, Alberti who codified the system for single point perspective published first in Latin for the humanist circles and several years later a slightly more practical version in Italian for his artist friends.
By translating into Latin More is aiming at a particular readership, the humanist one. Latin is the international language of scholars. It both expands and restricts the readership. It expands it beyond local linguistic boundaries and restricts it those who read Latin.
The translation is from Greek a language which was on the fringes of humanist scholarship. Opportunities to learn the language were few(Kekewich, 2000, p74)., but the market for the translations was big. The ability to mass print books would have been commercially constrained had every translation from the Greek been into a multitude of languages. More is also placing himself as a well educated humanist, showing off his ability.
‘The ancient secular tradition is introduced into a topic of contemporary interest as a point of departure’ (quoted in Kekewich, 2000, p164). More uses his translations to discuss the state of the church. He references Horace, St John Chrysostom, Socrates, Democritus, Lucretius, Pliny, St Augustine, Christ and Critolus, and uses them to support the same argument. The new interest in antiquity is seen as part of the Renaissance, the Christian reinterpretation of the ancient texts is another form of translation. More has deliberately chosen to translate three texts, which he can use to support his discussion of the church. By doing this the text is of interest both to humanist scholars, primarily for the translation and to those not so interested in the pagan aspect but in the exploration of the role of the church.
More’s whole market was reached by the fact that this book was printed. There had been previous renaissances interested in antique texts, but as the books had to be copied by hand they could not expand over the same area as More’s text. Printing combined two things that made it essential to the success of More’s translation. It was a commercial activity, More had to produce something others wanted to read in order for someone to print the book. His letter to Thomas Ruthall is both an outline of his argument as to why and a test of the potential market. By translating it into Latin More made the text more accessible to the reader, something printing was increasingly realising about its own medium at the same time.
So the strategy used by More was to produce an in demand commodity in a commercial form. A Latin translation of a Greek text, which displayed the pagan texts as supporting the Christian ideal, in a widely distributed format. His letter to Thomas Ruthall lays out the arguments and gains feedback as to the viability of the project, before any money or scholarly reputation is committed to print.
Bibliography
Barker, E. Webb, N. Woods, K. (eds.) (1999) The Changing Status of the artist, London, Yale University Press in association with The Open University.
Elmer, P. Webb, N. Wood, R. (eds.) (2000) The Renaissance in Europe: An Anthology, London, Yale University Press in association with The Open University.
Kekewich, L, (ed.) (2000) The Impact of Humanism, London, Yale University Press in association with The Open University.
Whitlock, K. (ed.) (2000) The Renaissance in Europe: A Reader, London, Yale University Press in association with The Open University.
also gamer dear, you forgot to proof read it for me at lunch didn't you.
and the printer usb has been stretched onto the desk because the computer can't find it in when it's plugged into the USB hub
oh great now my faith in you as geek god is wavering
so whilst down the pub having a life, I'm going to bed!!!
Thomas More, Dedicatory Letter to Thomas Ruthall on his translation of the Dialogues of Lucian of Samosata, (1505-06), as reproduced in The Renaissance in Europe: An Anthology, edited by Peter Elmer, Nick Webb and Roberta Wood, Yale University Press.
Joanne Cross
T1734574
Word Count: 1942
In what ways is this a typical humanist text? 1
What strategies does More use to encourage a wider readership of his translation? 4
Bibliography 6
In what ways is this a typical humanist text?
In order to know if this is a typical humanist text, we must know what features a humanist text is expected to contain. Humanism is a concept of shifting definitions, used on the most general level to define how thought in the 14th and 15th centuries is different from the preceding centuries. It arrives in England where More writes this text sometime after its beginnings in Italy, is it a more definable concept by this stage for already being established a methodology for scholars.
The definitions of humanism are plentiful. But they all share key characteristics, such as a renewed interest in classical artefacts, the use of rhetoric, the desire for a closer understanding of original sources, without centuries of copying or commentary, this could be referred to as critical analysis. The renewed interest in the classical period of Rome leads to the study of philology (the origin or words and their meaning), rhetoric and moral philosophy. The interest in the classics and the desire to examine them as close to the original form that was possible was prompted by the desire for purification of language, religion and morals (Zaw, S.K. and Kekewich, L, 2000, p159-60). It was no longer desirable merely to study what others had said, you had to examine the original source and their meaning translating it not word for word but to give access to the meaning.. In history this meant the shift away from chronicles toward the periodization of history and an explanation of why things happened the way they had. This would eventually lead to modern historical scholarship.
Much is made in Burckhardt of the concept of the individual, that man became conscious of himself as an individual and not as a ‘member of a race, people, party, family or corporation’ (Burckhardt, 1990, p98). Studies since this have shown there is a strong presence of the corporate in Renaissance life, be it membership of an extended family, household, confraternity or guild. Modern scholarship on the topic seeks to explore the individual ‘as a site on which broader institutional and political forces are inscribed’ (Martin, J, 2000, p13). The difference between the definitions is an emphasis on what had the primary effect, the individual or society. That we are studying the interaction between the two, or that it begins to fundamentally change at this time is not disputed. Whilst the individual didn’t sprung into the fully formed Burckhardtian concept they do become more visible. The increasing profile of an artist’s individual name and self-portrait (Barker, 1999, pp.58-86) is one example.
In the Introductory Letter there are two examples of the emerging individual identity. The first is that More address the letter ‘Thomas Ruthall, Royal Secretary’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.34). He addresses the letter to the man first, position second. He also use the personal pronoun through out the text, to emphasis that it he that has undertaken this research and that he is expressing his own opinion. It is unclear if the letter was designed for publication and therefore how much of the explanation was for Thomas Ruthall and how much for a wider readership. The whole letter reads as a statement of ‘I did/think this’. Whether you feel Thomas More is defined by his social position or that his interests changed society, you have a definite sense that he recognises himself and Thomas Ruthall as individuals.
This sense is repeated in Poggio’s description of the ancient ruins of Rome, individuals, freed from their courtly positions by momentary circumstance, explore them. In his letters to Gaurino of Verona and Nicolo Niccoli you gain a vivid sense of his personal enthusiasm for the task.
Critical analysis is not a term directly used in chapter 3, but there is the implication of an awareness of methodology on the part of humanist scholars. The Renaissance context of this analysis should be examined. The humanist scholar was trying to move away from the philosophy for philosophy’s sake of scholastics. They were in the service of princes, condottieri, active political figures; philosophy and rhetoric were useful tools. The aim was a ‘more profound integration of the active and contemplative life, whereby the later could give health and wisdom to the former’(Kekewich, 2000, p158). The humanist scholar analysed ancient texts for moral exemplars, to underline the virtues needed by active rulers. The filter of Christianity was applied to all the ancient texts. When humanists translated for sense and meaning it is a Christian sense and meaning not the beliefs of the original author.
In his letter, More makes clear the reasons he favours Lucian and in the process demonstrates how humanist scholars used the classical texts, to ‘combine delight with instruction’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.34), provide support for the virtues, ‘In the same work the simplicity, temperance and frugality of the Christian life . . . are commended’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.35). Where the ideas become to far for explanation from Christianity More remarks ‘why should it concern me what a pagan thinks’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.34). His translations are clear example of humanist critical analysis, that antique texts were another source of support for the current political and religious values.
Although this was not always the case, Valla uses humanism to disprove the Donation of Constantine. But here to his patron had a political agenda. Erasmus turns the analysis to church texts themselves, seeking to establish the original meaning in order to reform the church in a purer form. This is an agenda that More shares he uses the translations of Lucian to discuss the accrual of false stories in church teachings. He argues that other the scriptures, judgement should be made by, ‘Testing the others by the doctrine of Christ, as by the rule of Critolaus, we should either accept cautiously and with judgement or reject, if we wish to be free from foolish trust and superstitious dread’(quoted in Elmer, Webb, Wood, 2000, p.36).
A humanist text should contain reference to classical artefacts, the letter discuss's the stories of Lucian a classical writer whom More has translated from he original Greek, for a closer understanding of original sources. He also presents it as his work when discussing it with a fellow scholar; any possible assistance from God goes unmentioned. It is a typical text in that this concern for individual achievement is found in Poggio’s works, along with the concern for classical artefact. It also shows the use of Renaissance critical analysis not as a way of getting closer to the original context but as a source for Renaissance concerns.
What strategies does More use to encourage a wider readership of his translation?
A discussion of the ideas of ‘wider readership’ and translation may demonstrate the use of several strategies, one is the interaction of Christian and pagan ideas and how they are used for the moral guidance they provide. Another strategy is circulation The letter he is sending these texts to Thomas Ruthall (although it is not clear if they drafts or the final printed version), free circulation to key scholars was probably just a wise a marketing move in the Renaissance as it is now. The translation was published, and with the new printing technology a wide circulation was possible.
How wide a readership was More aiming for? Wider than More’s immediate circle, the primary strategy for this is sending a copy to Thomas Ruthall. Wider than the scholars of England, as More translated them with Erasmus one can assume that Erasmus also sent copies to his fellow scholars in the low countries. Wider than their immediate contacts, a readership made up of humanist scholars throughout Europe, we know that the Dialogues went through 13 re-prints during Mores life so there was a wide readership for it. The strategy for reaching this readership is two fold, he translated the texts from Greek to Latin and then printed them on the new printing presses.
The next widest readership would be the population of European scholars. ‘Mores reputation as a fearless defender of the catholic faith’(Kekewich, 2000, p85)., and use of humanism techniques primarily to re-examine the teachings of the church would have interested both humanist scholars and those in the Church, it was not a mutually exclusive membership.
The levels of literacy whereby reading a Latin text was possible was probably limited beyond these groups. There is debate(Kekewich, 2000, p74). as to the curriculum of Italian grammar schools of the period, whilst there was exposure to humanism, the emphasis on the quadvarium and trivariumi for the merchants probably resulted in a more practical mathematical education than a philosophical one. Another area that was influenced by humanism was the visual artists, their major form of schooling at this period was still the workshop. There are exceptions to this, but humanism was usually a second or third hand commodity. Latin scholarship was rare, Alberti who codified the system for single point perspective published first in Latin for the humanist circles and several years later a slightly more practical version in Italian for his artist friends.
By translating into Latin More is aiming at a particular readership, the humanist one. Latin is the international language of scholars. It both expands and restricts the readership. It expands it beyond local linguistic boundaries and restricts it those who read Latin.
The translation is from Greek a language which was on the fringes of humanist scholarship. Opportunities to learn the language were few(Kekewich, 2000, p74)., but the market for the translations was big. The ability to mass print books would have been commercially constrained had every translation from the Greek been into a multitude of languages. More is also placing himself as a well educated humanist, showing off his ability.
‘The ancient secular tradition is introduced into a topic of contemporary interest as a point of departure’ (quoted in Kekewich, 2000, p164). More uses his translations to discuss the state of the church. He references Horace, St John Chrysostom, Socrates, Democritus, Lucretius, Pliny, St Augustine, Christ and Critolus, and uses them to support the same argument. The new interest in antiquity is seen as part of the Renaissance, the Christian reinterpretation of the ancient texts is another form of translation. More has deliberately chosen to translate three texts, which he can use to support his discussion of the church. By doing this the text is of interest both to humanist scholars, primarily for the translation and to those not so interested in the pagan aspect but in the exploration of the role of the church.
More’s whole market was reached by the fact that this book was printed. There had been previous renaissances interested in antique texts, but as the books had to be copied by hand they could not expand over the same area as More’s text. Printing combined two things that made it essential to the success of More’s translation. It was a commercial activity, More had to produce something others wanted to read in order for someone to print the book. His letter to Thomas Ruthall is both an outline of his argument as to why and a test of the potential market. By translating it into Latin More made the text more accessible to the reader, something printing was increasingly realising about its own medium at the same time.
So the strategy used by More was to produce an in demand commodity in a commercial form. A Latin translation of a Greek text, which displayed the pagan texts as supporting the Christian ideal, in a widely distributed format. His letter to Thomas Ruthall lays out the arguments and gains feedback as to the viability of the project, before any money or scholarly reputation is committed to print.
Bibliography
Barker, E. Webb, N. Woods, K. (eds.) (1999) The Changing Status of the artist, London, Yale University Press in association with The Open University.
Elmer, P. Webb, N. Wood, R. (eds.) (2000) The Renaissance in Europe: An Anthology, London, Yale University Press in association with The Open University.
Kekewich, L, (ed.) (2000) The Impact of Humanism, London, Yale University Press in association with The Open University.
Whitlock, K. (ed.) (2000) The Renaissance in Europe: A Reader, London, Yale University Press in association with The Open University.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-12 07:09 am (UTC)