The Politics of Appropriation: Erasmus and Bayle
Over the centuries, the local elites of Rotterdam have gone out of their way to cultivate the memory of Erasmus. From the sixteenth century onwards to this day, he has been consistently put forward as the city’s greatest son. During the early 1690’s, when Pierre Bayle, “le philosophe de Rotterdam”, was facing dismissal as professor of the Illustrious School of Rotterdam, he launched an attempt to save his position by reminding his employers of his allegiance to Erasmus’ heritage. Although Bayle would be fired just the same, we have every reason to take his Erasmianism seriously. In particular, Bayle’s critical attitude as an historian is reminiscent of Erasmus’ philological stance.
Erasmus and the republic of letters
Erasmus was the first European intellectual to become famous, in the majority of European countries in his own lifetime. He thus illustrates the increasing importance of the international scholarly community or ‘republic of letters’ (respublica litteraria), a phrase which he helped to launch and which was common currency until the age of Voltaire. This article examines the ideal embodied in the phrase and suggests seven ways of testing the extent to which it was translated into practice (invitations to foreign scholars; the internationalization of libraries; correspondence; visits to famous scholars as part of the practice of travel; the album amicorum; the learned society; and the learned journal). A final section discusses the extent to which the republic may be said to have survived until our own day.
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.