Hanan Yoran
Ben Gurion University of the Negev, General History, Faculty Member
- Renaissance Studies, Leon Battista Alberti, Early Modern Intellectual History, Erasmus, Early Modern Literature, Renaissance Humanism, and 22 moreModernity, CIvic Humanism, Intellectual History of the Renaissance, History of Political Thought, Sir Thomas More, Niccolò Machiavelli, Histories and theories of modernity, Political Theory, Intellectual History, General History, Political Philosophy, Ideology, History of Historiography, English Renaissance Literature, Utopianism, Intellectuals, Intellectuals of Renaissance, Lorenzo Valla, Erasmain humanism, Judith Butler, Early Modern History, and Early Modern Europeedit
- My main field of interest is early modern intellectual and cultural history, particularly Renaissance humanism. My re... moreMy main field of interest is early modern intellectual and cultural history, particularly Renaissance humanism. My research is informed by the theoretical and historical discussions concerning the nature of modernity.
In my study of early sixteenth-century Erasmian humanism I argued that Erasmus and the circle of humanists around him constructed the identity of the autonomous intellectual. As universal intellectuals Erasmus and Thomas More could allow themselves to criticize the foundations of contemporary social order and to present a reform program that did not reflect the interests or the ideology of any distinct social stratum or political establishment. I further argued, however, that the position of the autonomous intellectual conflicted with the ethical and epistemological premises of humanist discourse which perceived knowledge as socially embedded and practical.
Currently I am working on fifteenth and early sixteenth-century Italian humanism. My point of departure is the well-established understanding of humanism as an intellectual movement which undermined entrenched metaphysical assumptions of mainstream classical and medieval thought. Specifically, the humanists rejected the notion that human reality was moored in an objective cosmic order. Instead they presupposed that the political order was a human artifact. This insight released great cultural energy and led to the elaboration of various original views and notions. I would like, however, to look at humanist discourse from the reverse angle. In other words, I examine how some humanists grappled with the intuition that disjoining human reality from an objective order of things threatened to undermine the foundations of ethics and politics as well as of knowledge. My contention is that some of the most innovative and radical views propagated by the humanists was the result of an intellectual confrontation with this unsettling and ultimately irresolvable problem.edit
The figure of the intellectual looms large in modern history, and yet his or her social place has always been full of ambiguity and ironies. Between Utopia and Dystopia is a study of the movement that created the identity of the universal... more
The figure of the intellectual looms large in modern history, and yet his or her social place has always been full of ambiguity and ironies. Between Utopia and Dystopia is a study of the movement that created the identity of the universal intellectual: Erasmian humanism. Focusing on the writings of Erasmus and Thomas More, Hanan Yoran argues that, in contrast to other groups of humanists, Erasmus and the circle gathered around him generated the social space the Erasmian Republic of Letters that allowed them a considerable measure of independence. The identity of the autonomous intellectual enabled the Erasmian humanists to criticize established customs and institutions and to elaborate a reform program for Christendom. At the same time, however, the very notion of the universal intellectual presented a problem for the discourse of Erasmian humanism itself. It distanced the Erasmian humanists from concrete public activity and, as such, clashed with their commitment to the ideal of an active life. Furthermore, citizenship in the Republic of Letters threatened to lock the Erasmian humanists into a disembodied intellectual sphere, thus undermining their convictions concerning intellectual activity and the production of knowledge. Between Utopia and Dystopia will be of interest to scholars and students interested in Renaissance humanism, early modern intellectual and cultural history, and political thought. It also has much to contribute to debates over the identity, social place, and historical role of intellectuals
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Machiavelli’s historical writings, notably the Discourses on Livy and the Florentine Histories, continued the tradition of the humanist historical enterprise. They were informed by the humanist conviction that historical learning provided... more
Machiavelli’s historical writings, notably the Discourses on Livy and the Florentine Histories, continued the tradition of the humanist historical enterprise. They were informed by the humanist conviction that historical learning provided guidance for public activity and was therefore an important means of political education. However, a close examination of these works reveals internal strains and an undercurrent of skepticism concerning the value of historical knowledge. The article argues that these tensions and doubts are symptoms of a paradox inherent in humanist discourse: the paradox of historical distance. The humanist project of reviving classical antiquity was based on the premise that the past is different yet relevant to the present. But the very historical consciousness implied by this project threatened to reveal the opposite: that the past was alien and therefore irrelevant to the present.
Research Interests:
Contemporary scholarship is by and large united in its rejection of Hans Baron’s postulation of an affinity between humanism and republicanism. This article sets out to challenge this prevailing view by offering a close reading of a... more
Contemporary scholarship is by and large united in its rejection of Hans Baron’s postulation of an affinity between humanism and republicanism. This article sets out to challenge this prevailing view by offering a close reading of a largely forgotten—yet highly important—humanist political dialogue: Aurelio Lippo Brandolini’s Republics and Kingdoms Compared. While Brandolini’s stated goal is to offer a critique of republicanism and assert the supremacy of a monarchical regime, the article shows how his attempt to theoretically account for and ethically legitimize monarchy in humanist terms is fraught with tensions and contradictions and ends up affirming the de-facto superiority of a republican government. Particularly, Brandolini’s egalitarian anthropology and perception of human beings as driven by desires, especially the desire for glory, turns out to be much more consistent with a republican regime than with a one man’s rule.