This article discusses the influence of Litanies of the Saints on Middle English ly­rics, which is exemplified by Of on that is so fayr and bright (New Index No. 2645) and Five Joys of Mary from the Harley Miscellany 2253. The influence of liturgy on Middle English poetry is thus confirmed again. The introductory parts of the poem in the vernacular are interspersed with Latin phrases that must have been taken from litanies, which makes the text a representative of the so-called “litanic verse.” Furthermore, events from the Virgin Mary’s life are referred to, which is inspired by the Byzantine Great Akathist hymn. The Great Akathist itself also uses diverse Holy Names of Mary. The Harley Five Joys of Mary must have derived from a similar inspiration, since under the form of chanson d’aventure lies the tradition of the Names of Mary, and the listing of the Joys of Mary also suggests the Great Akathist as a source for the lyric. Recent research on litanic verse in various literatures of Europe throughout the ages includes the term “polyonymic,” which refers to the many names of God, Jesus, and Mary. The Great Akathist also includes the “chairetismic” element of this type of verse, since Mary is addressed with the word “hail.”

The aim of this paper is to present a functional and historical-semantic analysis of the following notions: tradition (traditio), authority (auctoritas), understanding (interpretatio), explanation (sensus), and sensus communis, which appear in the hermeneutics of Erasmus of Rotterdam. In a wider perspective, the study is also an attempt at re-identifying the place of the Dutch scholar’s thought within the history of hermeneutics. Contrary to what has been said to-date in studies (mainly by E.-W. Kohls, R. Stupperich, F. Krüger, and P. Walter), the hermeneutical problem, according to Erasmus, is not restricted only to exegesis or biblical philology, i.e. methods of explaining a text’s meaning. In its basic form, it includes the ontology of hermeneutical experience (disregarded in this context) and the act of understanding, with its initial conditions, course and specific cognitive benefits. Therefore, this paper attempts to answer two fundamental questions. First: how did Erasmus arrive at the universal, historically mediated horizon of the process of understanding?
Second, introducing the epistemological dimension, did Erasmus attribute to tradition – by cognitively appreciating it as an element essential for understanding – the ability to reveal a truth that is different to that which is verifiable by objective exegesis? The 20th century hermeneutics of M. Heidegger, H.-G. Gadamer and R. Bultmann provide helpful terminological frames that go beyond the solely methodical character
of understanding. The fundamental sources include those of Erasmus’ texts that constituted his polemic with Martin Luther, that is De libero arbitrio, and particularly the first part of Hyperaspistes diatribae adversus Lutherum. Thanks to this choice of literature the contention between the two scholars concerning the freedom of will is here discussed from a barely known epistemological point of view.
The next subject discussed is the epistemological character of Erasmus’ hermeneutics. It was supposed to help formulate specific exegetic judgements, while at the same time, it already included historicity (Geschichtlichkeit), which, according to Erasmus, was the imperative feature of understanding perceived as an epistemological-existential act. The next subject discussed is the rhetoric specificity and the cognitive value of the so-called sensus communis, which together with philological skills, constituted the indispensable research equipment of an exegete in Erasmus’ opinion. In the hermeneutical reflection of Erasmus, sensus communis − unlike
Luther’s binding judgement (assertio) − is what makes explanation as a result of understanding only probable, not certain, and reveals how the process of understanding depends on a particular situation. Hermeneutical epistemology of Erasmus provides us, therefore, with practical knowledge that constantly includes changing circumstances and so constitutes the basis for sensus communis. Consequently, in Erasmus’ thought, the Christian tradition has a cognitively privileged function of an authority that aids understanding. Thereupon, Erasmus supplements the previously adopted hermeneutical division into the Holy Scripture and its interpretation with an equally important relation between the exegetical tradition applied and the exegete that relies on it. For according to Erasmus, far from obstructing understanding, tradition actually enables it because understanding always retains its historical character. In this regard, Erasmus substantially differs from Luther. Thus, the presented hierarchy of tradition and exegete not only determines the hermeneutical stance of the Netherlandish scholar, but also methodically substantiates his scepticism of a positive epistemological stance.
The functional and semantic analysis of the notions of tradition and understanding presents Erasmus’ thought as one of the early elements of the history of hermeneutics that is supposed to consider not only rules and canons of “proper” understanding, but also indicate the historical dependence and the actual process of understanding. Having problematized such cognitive relations between tradition and understanding, Erasmus set off on a similar course to that which had been crowned by H.G. Gadamer’s ontological rehabilitation of prejudices (Vor-urteile).
 

This paper presents the first critical edition of the first political speech by an important representative of the Polish Renaissance, Erazm Ciołek. He came to the Holy See with a diplomatic mission from the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Alexander Jagiellon, and delivered his oration before Pope Alexander VI in March 1501. As a young diplomat of little experience, he faced a difficult task: under the pretext of paying the tribute of obedience to the Pope, which was the mission’s official purpose, he was supposed to broach the subject of a religious union between the Lithuanian Orthodox Church and the papacy in order to deprive Moscow of the argument to instigate war. Despite his initial reluctance to accept Ciołek, the Pope much appreciated his oratorical talent.
It is likely that the speech was first printed the same year in Rome, because as a print it could have had a greater outreach and thus helped the delegate achieve his political objective. However, even though the oration was highly regarded by the addressee, it has never been thoroughly studied. It has only been mentioned in a few historical studies. No critical edition with a proper commentary that would enable a wider audience to understand the content of Ciołek’s performance has ever appeared. This paper contains an edition of the Latin text of the speech based on its 16th century edition. The critical apparatus also includes all variants of the manuscript. The Polish translation was also provided with appropriate philological and historical comments. What is more, the introduction discusses the structure of the speech, or the orator’s thread of persuasion. Both the introduction and the commentary to the translation are based largely on historical sources.