Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • Chapter 12 - When Did the Emotions Become Political?

  • Edited by Ardis Butterfield, Yale University, Ian Johnson, St Andrews University, Andrew Kraebel, Trinity University
  • Book:
    Literary Theory and Criticism in the Later Middle Ages
    Published online:
    20 April 2023
    Print publication:
    20 April 2023, pp 249-268

  • Summary

    When did the emotions become political? It would be natural to view a formal political analysis of emotions as a classical phenomenon that was reprised under new and more decisive terms in late humanism and reimagined in the eighteenth century. In such a history we would expect to encounter the work of Thomas Hobbes and Giambattista Vico. It would also be natural to take Hobbes and Vico at their word and read this recovery of the political dimension of emotion as a rejection of medieval philosophy. I will propose the opposite: the grounds for this political turn were laid in late medieval scholasticism. The precedent for humanist and Enlightenment-era political thought about emotion lies with a repudiated scholasticism and its reinvention of classical Greek thought. It is the history of rhetoric that reveals this turn to the political. The thread that links these transformations together is the political reception and re-absorption of Aristotle’s Rhetoric and the modern assimilation of the Rhetoric began in earnest with the most influential statecraft treatise of the Middle Ages, De regimine principum, written about 1277 by the scholastic theologian Giles of Rome.

  • 28 - Wycliffism and Lollardy

  • from PART VII - REFORM AND RENEWAL
  • Edited by Miri Rubin, Queen Mary University of London, Walter Simons, Dartmouth College, New Hampshire
  • Book:
    The Cambridge History of Christianity
    Published online:
    28 March 2010
    Print publication:
    02 July 2009, pp 433-445

  • Summary

    Wycliffism and Lollardy raise a question of fundamental relevance to the study of late-medieval 'heresy' in England. This chapter explores whether it might be meaningful to use 'Wycliffism' and 'Lollardy' at least for purposes of analysis as designating conceptually distinct phenomena, whatever their actual interrelationship may have been in late-medieval England. The episcopal condemnation in 1277 of 219 Aristotelian articles allegedly supported by members of the faculty of arts in the University of Paris had a long prehistory and an equally substantial posterity. The implied endorsement of lay, extra-institutional, spiritual authority was sometimes accompanied by a questioning of the efficacy and administration of the sacraments. Of equal importance in Wyclif's polemic is anticlericalism. Wyclif's work both uses and critiques the academic-rationalist tools available to medieval scholasticism. Alexander Patschovsky's insight can be of assistance in broaching the vexed question of the medieval meanings and definitions of 'heresy' in general, and of Wycliffism/Lollardy in particular.