News Moreana Gazette Thomas More Thomas More Amici Thomae Mori Bookshop



Who are we ?


Dallas CTMS Nov 2016


Bruges 2016 - SCSC
  • Literature and Geography
  • Utopian mirrors and images
  • Spiritual Masters
  • Translations of Utopia
  • Utopia and De Tristitia Christi
  • Margaret Roper and Erasmus


  • Berlin 2015 - RSA
  • 16th and 17th Utopias
  • More and Publishing (I)
  • More and Publishing (II)
  • Humanism and spirituality


  • New York 2014 - RSA
  • Introduction
  • Geography and Utopias I
  • Geography and Utopias II
  • Geography and Utopias III
  • More Facing his Time
  • Intertextual Connections
  • More Circle I
  • More Circle II
  • Talk at St Bart's


  • Washington DC 2014 - TMS
  • Washington DC 2014


  • Paris 2012 - Amici Thomae Mori
  • Paris 2012 - Recordings


  • Other Conferences
  • Montreal 2011
  • Venice 2010
  • Dallas 2008
  • Liverpool 2008


  • 2016 M-C Phélippeau Talks
    2013 - M-C P at Boulogne


    Thomas More on air


    Web links
    Contact



    Panels "in honor of Clare Murphy"

    Saturday 29 March

    Thomas More and His Circle I: "More and Erasmus"


    Donald Gilman - Ball State University, USA

    "Rhetoric and the Paradoxical Structure of Thomas More's Utopia"
     

                                              Abstract  of Donald Gilman's paper

    Through the use of judicial and deliberative forms of rhetoric, More employs a bipartite structure to shape the coherent design of Utopia. In the first part the examination of practical politics based upon experience reflects the use of forensic oratory that, defined by Aristotle and Quintilian, probes questions of justice. In describing Utopia in book 2, Hythloday draws upon the resources of deliberative rhetoric to advise the reader on the expediencies of public policy. These divergent forms and intentions of rhetorical structure combine to create a cohesive vision. At the end of the text, More the interlocutor recognizes and reconciles within his mind the oppositions between the injustices of English society and the ideals of Utopian government that he “would wish rather than see.” The paradox that More perceives is tenuous, but the uses of these different rhetorical strategies unify the text and explore the complicated dimensions of politics and ethics.



     
    William Gentrup - Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, USA

    "The Political Application of Classical Friendship in Erasmian Pacifism"

                                                         Abstract of William Gentrup's paper
     
    Current critical assessment of early modern notions of civic or political friendship based on classical tradition has focused on its relation to the problems of and applications to tyranny, counselorship, humanist education, republicanism, and patronage. Not enough attention has been paid to friendship’s political role in the promotion of early modern pacificism. The greatest exponent of peace in this era was Erasmus of Rotterdam, his pacifist efforts ranking in his own assessment with his accomplishments in the recovery of biblical, patristic, and classical texts and the reform of education. The role that the classical virtue of friendship plays in polemics against war in Erasmus’s as well as other humanists' writings and its connection to war, peace, humanist education, chivalric training, counselorship, and private property can be fully delineated in the political thinking of Erasmus and some of his contemporaries.



    John D. Pilsner
    - Franciscan University of Steubenville, USA

    "The Silenus Metaphor in Erasmus's Poetics and Hermeneutics"

                                                Abstract of John Pilsner's paper

     

    This paper will address the significance of the “Sileni Alcibiadis” for Erasmus in poetics and hermeneutics, from the Enchiridion and the Praise of Folly through his essay in the Adages of 1515. While Erasmus recapitulates the Platonic metaphor for the disparity between external appearances and inner reality, his adaptations are not always easy to reconcile. For many Erasmus’s juxtaposition of the Silenus with an “inverted” model is indicative of the instability of language and the irreconcilability of human perspectives. Such epistemological uncertainty and literary ambiguity, however, stands in sharp contrast with a confident Erasmian hermeneutics, where the Silenus represents textual obscurity and interpretative clarity. A more complete account of Erasmus’s Silenus will help us to understand the apparent conflicts as well as the humanist’s view of the relationship of theology to literature.