This accompanies Kaarlo Havu’s Historical Journal article Erasmus and Juan Luis Vives on Rhetorical Decorum and Politics

The limits of acceptable speech were a major concern in early 16th-century Europe. The unity of Christendom was threatened by the Reformation, and Europe was pestered by continuous dynastic warfare. In this context, some European humanists – Erasmus and Juan Luis Vives in particular – began to connect the religious and secular discord of the time to aggressive and abusive speech, which had deprived language of its communicative function, turned it into an instrument of division, and, ultimately, caused violence. All this was in their minds linked to the nascent pamphlet culture of the time enabled by the printing press.

In the spirit of Renaissance humanism, Erasmus and Vives believed that speech and rhetoric could and should enhance religious and secular concord. Whereas classical rhetoric, inherited from Roman and Greek writers, often embraced open confrontation and victory in any debate, they, however, began to argue that in most contexts a speech that respected decorum and hid confrontation was the best way to persuade. They clearly believed that civil speech was an act of concord in itself since it reduced aggression between the speaker and the audience. Equally as importantly, they thought that civil speech that adjusted its tone to the preferences of the audience was the best and, perhaps, only way to speak convincingly about political and religious matters. In this way, differences of opinion could be negotiated but without compromising concord.

In many ways, the question of decorous speech in political counsel, preaching, and religious discourse within and outwith Europe was a major concern throughout the early modern period. We can discern different models for thinking about the problem, as several historians have pointed out. Some thought that civil speech was a denial of civic ideals. Others, such as Erasmus and Vives, believed that civic life in the service of the community could only be realized through civil speech. While different models were suggested as solutions to distinctively early modern problems, with their conceptual and institutional specificities, the question of appropriate and convincing speech clearly transcends its historical period. Indeed, it might well be that the emergence of novel techniques of communication makes us particularly well prepared to reflect on questions about the interrelations between civility, participatory ideals, plurality of opinions, and concord. While history does not provide us with ready-made answers to these problems, it can broaden our understanding of how some of these issues have been approached in the past.

Read the full article

Main image: Left shows Portrait of Erasmus of Rotterdam (1523) by Hans Holbein the Younger, Right shows Juan Luis Vives