The Critique of Scholastic Language in Renaissance Humanism and Early Modern Philosophy

This article studies some key moments in the long tradition of the critiqueof scholastic language, voiced by humanists and early-modern philosophers alike. It aims at showing how the humanist idiom of “linguistic usage,” “convention,” “custom,” “common” and “natural” language, and “everyday speech” was repeated and put to new use by early-modern philosophers in their own critique of scholastic language. Focusing on Valla, Vives, Sanches, Gassendi, Hobbes, and Leibniz, the article shows that all these thinkers shared a conviction that scholastic language, at least in its more baroque forms, was artificial, unnatural, uninformative, ungrammatical, and quasi-precise. The scholastics were accused of having introduced a terminology that was a far cry from the common language people spoke, wrote, and read. But what was meant by “common language” and such notions? They were not so easy to define. For the humanists, it meant the Latin of the great classical authors, but this position, as the article suggests, had its tensions. In the later period it became even more difficult to give positive substance to these notions, as the world became, linguistically speaking, increasingly more pluralistic. Yet the attack on scholasticlanguage continued to be conducted in these terms. The article concludes that the long road of what we may call the democratization of philosophical language, so dear to early-modern philosophers, had its roots – ironically perhaps – in the humanist return to classical Latin as the common language

Hebraism and Humanism

The article presents the relationship between Christian Hebraism and Humanism between the end of the 15th and the first half of the 16th century. The polemical origins of Humanism as an anti-scholastic movement, and of Hebraism from Christian-Jewish controversies in the Middle-Ages are studied from the vantage point of selected, significant cases. The initial success and the final demise of the Christian Hebraist project are explained in term of the "limits of Humanism", that is to say the challenge the discovery of extra-Christian or extra-Catholic sources posed for the formation of early modern Western identity. The reaction against the integration of Hebrew among the Humanistic canon of the educational languages represents a convenient vantage point to observe the ultimate failure of the Humanistic project, or, in a more optimistic bend, its permanent perfectibility