Sermones y espejos de príncipes castellanos
This essay describes the evolution of the political discourse in the Castilian mirrors of princes. In fact it can be observed that, even if the catalogues of vices and virtues were already considerably important in the treaties of Arabic origin, these lists became even more relevant in the treaties of western sources and became their distinctive mark. This allowed the bringing together of the political and the religious discourse and it especially contributed to the mixing of two literary genres: the mirrors of princes with the sermons.
Les vices du roi dans les lettres de Benahatín : transformation et manipulation du miroir du prince
Dans sa Cronica del rey don Pedro y del rey don Enrique, su hermano, Pero Lopez de Ayala decide d’inserer deux lettres pretendument ecrites au roi Pierre Ier de Castille par le sage maure Benahatin. Le premier de ces textes met en garde le roi castillan contre les vices dont se rendent coupables les monarques et le danger qu’ils representent pour la preservation de leur royaume, avant que la seconde missive n’annonce, par le biais d’une prophetie, que la pratique de tels vices par Pierre Ier debouchera fatalement sur sa mort. Ce travail cherche a montrer les liens qui unissent cet ensemble epistolaire au genre du miroir du prince, et a mettre en evidence les procedes litteraires et les fondements theoriques politiques qui, dans le contexte de la guerre civile castillane (1366-1369) et de l’accession au trone d’Henri de Trastamare, transforment ces lettres en un discours de propagande extremement habile en faveur du nouveau roi.
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.