Benjamin Victor Beier

The essay examines More’s 1535 letter to Antonio Bonvisi. It compares the epistle, as a whole and in its salutation and valediction, with the humanist epistolary conventions expressed by Erasmus and discovers that More often, but not always, ignores Erasmian precepts. The essay argues that More’s rhetorical choices deepen our understanding of his enactment of friendship in the letter and of More’s self-understanding near the end of his life. Cette étude examine la lettre de More de 1535 à Antonio Bonvisi. On y compare l’épître, dans son ensemble, ainsi que les formules de salutation et d’adieu, avec les conventions épistolaires humanistes pratiquées par Erasme pour découvrir que More ignore souvent, mais pas toujours, les préceptes érasmiens. L’étude démontre que les choix rhétoriques de More approfondissent notre compréhension de la mise en œuvre de son amitié dans cette lettre et de la compréhension de lui-même qu’avait trouvée More vers la fin de sa vie.

This essay reconsiders More's letter to Brixius. It uncovers early modern understandings of self-fashioning/ethos and epistolary conventions of the period, and with these contexts, it rereads More's self-presentation or ethos-development in the letter. The essay argues that More's ethos in the letter highlights an authentic facet of himself and, thereby, gives us a glimpse of the historical More who, in the Brixius moment, is angry, but not excessively or habitually, as has sometimes been claimed.

This essay examines Thomas More's De Tristitia Christi both to observe More's nonsystematic theological method and to understand his philosophical and theological anthropology. The paper argues that More has a particular esteem, founded on his Christology, for the human body. Furthermore, his understanding of the place and dignity of the body is deepened by a series of metaphors and analogies that he employs in the text.

Shakespeare's plays exhibit a sustained interest in rhetoric and in epistemology. Critics have been attracted to Othello in their attempts to understand Shakespeare's view both of the nature of rhetoric and of the ability of human agents to penetrate beneath false appearances so as to acquire authentic knowledge. This article proposes that our understanding of Shakespeare's view of rhetoric and of epistemology can be deepened by reading Othello with Cymbeline. While Shakespeare shows the real power of sophistry and concealment in the character of Iago, whose facade is impenetrable and whose words are persuasive, Imogen's ability to discern the evil intentions of the honey-tongued Iachimo and to forestall tragedy with her own ethical, skilled speech enlarges our understanding of Shakespeare's conception of rhetoric and epistemology and challenges interpretations in which it is proposed that he has a cynical view of rhetoric and a skeptical epistemology.

In The History of King Richard III, Thomas More presents a tyrant whose skill in speaking we often take for granted. This article, however, provides a more complicated view of the sophistic Duke of Gloucester. While More evokes the Roman ideal-orator tradition when describing Richard and while the future King and his henchmen give speeches that help Richard secure the throne, these acts of persuasion usually fail to persuade audiences. Such failures disclose More's (limited) epistemological confidence in the ability of human beings to see through false appearances. This belief, in turn, helps to reveal More's conviction - which he dramatizes in The History - about the nature of rhetoric: true and apt words are more persuasive than sophistic falsehoods that are delivered with equal skill.

This article revisits the often argued question of the relationship between More's English Life of Picus and his Latin original. However, instead of emphasizing More's transformation of his humanist model into what is essentially a work of medieval piety, the article arrives at the conclusion that humanism and faith in More's text mutually reinforce each other. By looking in detail at some of More's changes to Gianfrancesco's Latin biography, especially his striking omissions of intrusive authorial comments, the paper will argue that More turns his model into a much more open and contradictory text, thus provoking his readers to reflect upon their own state of soul in comparison with Pico's. In addition, More's transformation of his appended material from Pico's writings also makes it clear that his humanism remains essentially subordinate to his faith.