123
Santigo del Rey Quesada DOI: 10.4312/linguistica.63.1-2.123-142
Universidad de Sevilla
sdelrey@us.es
THE CONTRIBUTION OF ERASMUS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
ROMANCE LANGUAGES IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD*
1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The work presented here is based on the theoretical and methodological assumptions of 
German Variational Linguistics, which have a strong Coserian imprint. Three models, 
within this framework, acquire special relevance in the context of the present paper. 
On the one hand, the model of the linguistic-historical variational space between com-
municative immediacy (Nähe) and distance (Distanz) proposed by Koch and Oester-
reicher (1990 [2007]: 15–19). For these authors, the variational space of any historical 
language (in the sense of Coșeriu 2007: 140) is understood as a continuum between the 
poles of conceptual orality (= communicative immediacy) and conceptual scripturality 
(= communicative distance), communicative domains determined by various param-
eters of an extra-linguistic nature (for instance, physical proximity of conversational 
partners, degree of familiarity, degree of emotional implication, possibility of partici-
pation in the conversation, deictic relationships between interlocutors etc.). In other 
words, the authors advocate overcoming the dichotomous distinction between oral and 
written on the medial plane and replacing it with a cline that refers to the type of 
discourse–medially oral or medially written– which is different according to different 
communicative parameters. In this sense, a medially written text may contain numer-
ous features of orality or communicative immediacy (such as a WhatsApp message to a 
friend) just as a medially oral text may contain numerous features typical of scriptural-
ity or communicative distance (for example, the solemn speech at the investiture of an 
honorary doctorate).
On the other hand, German Variational Linguistics has also successfully exploit-
ed the model of Discourse Traditions (Diskurstraditionen), a term first used by Koch 
(1987) in his unpublished habilitation thesis and developed theoretically and analytical-
ly by numerous authors within European and Latin American Romance Linguistics (cf. 
Del Rey 2015a; Vincis/Miotto 2016; López Serena 2007, 2011, 2021, 2023; Kabatek 
2018, and Cano Aguilar 2022, among others). The concept alludes to the traditional as-
pect that should be considered in any historical language (cf. Koch 1997: 45) in order to 
* This paper is part of the projects I+D+i Tradicionalidad discursiva, tradicionalidad idiomática, sintaxis del 
discurso, traducción y cambio lingüístico en la historia del español moderno: prosa (pre-) periodística, prosa (pre-)
ensayística y prosa literaria (PGC2018-097823-BI00) and Hacia una diacronía de la oralidad/escrituralidad: 
variación concepcional, traducción y tradicionalidad discursiva en el español y otras lenguas románicas 
(DiacOralEs) (PID2021-123763NA-I00), both funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER, UE.
124
understand how it functions, given that there are not only idiomatic rules in a language 
(referring to phonetics-phonology, morphosyntax and lexicon) but also discourse rules 
that enable a speaker’s linguistic competence to be recognised. The idea of evocation is 
central to the definition of discourse tradition, since certain elements in texts can func-
tion as discourse-traditional marks that evoke particular discourse zones (cf. Kabatek 
2018: 220) within texts, genres, textual sequences or particular conceptual profiles –by 
conceptual profile I mean the place a text occupies in the continuum between communi-
cative immediacy and distance.– Thus, for instance, the sequence once upon a time has 
the power to evoke the beginning of a tale (even if the author’s intention is not to tell a 
tale, by using that sequence he/she is evoking that specific discourse zone of that type 
of discourse with the communicative purpose he/she has set for him/herself). Likewise, 
the abundance of subordinate sentences and syntactic complexity in a text makes it pos-
sible to evoke the conceptual profiles of communicative distance.
Thirdly, a concept proposed by Kloss (1978) within the field of German Studies has 
proved to be particularly fruitful in Romance Linguistics research in recent decades 
and will be equally important in the arguments I will defend in the following pages. I 
refer to the concept of elaboration (Ausbau). Kloss (1978: 25) employs the term Aus-
bausprache or Ausbau languages referring to languages that are configured in such a 
way that they can serve ‘als standardisierte Werkzeuge literarischer Betätigung’ ‘as 
standardised tools for literary expression.’ The Ausbau i.e. elaboration processes of 
Romance languages consist of two complementary aspects of linguistic development 
(cf. Koch/Oesterreicher 1990 [2011]: 225). On the one hand, extensive elaboration 
(ibid.) refers to the ability of a language to occupy the domain of conceptual scriptur-
ality used in discourse traditions that are typical of communicative distance, in short, 
in all kinds of textual domains that characterise the languages of culture. And on the 
other, intensive elaboration refers to the development of specific linguistic mechanisms 
which enable a language confined up to a certain moment to communicative imme-
diacy to achieve the communicative domain of distance, i.e., mechanisms that lead to 
extensive elaboration. Languages that have not yet been scripted (cf. Frank-Job/Selig 
2016) adopt a specific orthography; in the case of Romance languages, recourse to the 
Latin alphabet was the most consistent solution. Moreover, elaboration also leads to 
an increase in the number of nexuses and forms of expression of syntactic relations, as 
well as an expansion of vocabulary, including the development of a technical lexicon. 
These mechanisms directly affect elements of the linguistic system. According to Kloss 
(1978: 28), in order to determine whether a given dialect or Abstand language has at-
tained the status of an Ausbau language, the widespread use of that dialect or language 
as a vehicle for the expression of instructional, technical and scientific texts1 – among 
which could be included discourses that are often considered characteristic of special-
ised languages2 – is more important than the proliferation of literary texts.
1 An Abstand language, a term coined by Kloss (1978: 25), is a language that differs from another language by its 
immanent qualities (phonetic-phonological, morphosyntactic and lexical system).
2 A discussion of this controversial term is given in Del Rey (2018: 343–350).
125
2 LATIN AND ROMANCE IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD
Throughout the European Middle Ages, numerous Romance languages or in Coseriu’s 
terminology “primary Latin dialects”3 (Coseriu 1981: 14), which had been restricted to 
oral use for centuries, developed the mechanisms needed to become languages of cul-
ture, i.e. languages capable of transmitting knowledge and producing works of literary 
creation through writing.
Elaboration mechanisms represent a crucial stage in language standardisation pro-
cesses (Haugen 1966, Milroy/Milroy 1985[2012], Maas 2014). The essential model 
for elaboration processes during the Middle Ages was the classical, postclassical 
and medieval Latin scriptural production, fundamental material in the acculturation 
(Bossong 1979) of the neo-Latin languages. Therefore, the translations from Latin into 
the vernaculars that were created to disseminate knowledge and Roman case law (a 
symptomatic example is that of Fuerzo Juzgo in the Iberian Peninsula, a translation 
of the visigothic Liber Iudiciorum, cf. Kabatek 2005, Castillo Lluch 2018), especially 
in medieval times, were considered a key tool in the development of these elaboration 
processes (cf. Albrecht 1995: 2017). Both the lexical-semantic and the syntactic-dis-
cursive levels have been cited on several occasions as proof that translation represents 
a catalytic force of linguistic elaboration, based primarily on the interference of the 
Latin models over the Romance models (cf. Fernández-Ordóñez 2004, Del Rey 2021b).
The consolidation of the Romance languages as languages of culture goes hand in 
hand with the progressive retreat of Latin in the legal-administrative and aesthetic-lit-
erary spheres. A paradigmatic case is that of 13th-century Castile in the period between 
the rule of Ferdinand III (1217–1252) and Sancho IV (1284–1295) (cf. Sánchez-Prieto 
2004: 424–426). However, this does not mean that Latin declined in importance as a 
model of elaborated language.4 Even in the Early Modern Period, Latin, which had 
been refined during the Age of Humanism, was still considered a more eloquent, con-
cise and elegant language than the vernaculars, as can be seen from the reading of 
numerous prologues to the romanceamientos (translations from Latin into the vernacu-
lars) produced during this period (cf. Del Rey 2020). Boscán himself, in his translation 
of Il Cortegiano by Baldassare Castiglione – a translation that became a style guide in 
the Spanish Renaissance – complains about the terrible translators of Latin and justifies 
his translation by the fact that it is not precisely a romanceamiento but the translation 
from one vulgar language into another vulgar language.
The Early Modern Period, heir to humanism, continued to revere Latin as the most 
valued language for the transmission of knowledge. In order to carefully re-establish 
the texts of classical antiquity, the humanists sought to interpret them correctly, based 
on a rigorous knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the classical languages (He-
brew, Greek, Latin), but also on complementary disciplines such as geography, history, 
3 Primary Latin dialects correspond to the direct evolution of Latin in the different territories of the Romance-
speaking world, while the secondary dialects are an evolution of the primary dialects themselves (for example, 
while Castilian is a primary Latin dialect, Andalusian and its varieties can be regarded as a secondary dialect).
4 By elaborated language I mean any Romance language that has been developed according to the procedures of 
intensive and extensive elaboration and is therefore suitable for use in the field of communicative distance.
126
sociology, religion, etc., specific to the ancient civilisations they admired (cf. Flórez 
Míguez 1994: 348). This scientific fixation with classical languages (Latin, Greek and 
Hebrew) led Renaissance humanists in Catholic areas to question the truth inherited by 
tradition, and even the Bible was subjected to an exhaustive scrutiny in which Hebrew 
and Greek sources were crucial for determining the original meaning of the Gospels in 
Latin. Thomas More, Nebrija and Erasmus are clear examples of this intellectual stance 
of which Latin was the vehicle of expression.
By the 15th and 16th centuries, the European vernaculars had reached a consider-
able level of elaboration. In the official sphere, Latin was still mainly used as a lingua 
franca in international diplomacy, although creative literature and other manifestations 
of written culture continued to produce texts in Latin, especially among Europe’s in-
tellectual elite. The humanists, however, saw an unparalleled opportunity in Latin to 
promote the knowledge of antiquity, and to discuss problems that were of considerable 
concern to Europe’s cultured elite. Erasmus is perhaps the figure who best embodies 
this humanist ideal that placed hope in Latin to unite a Europe separated by languages 
and particularistic interests which often escalated into wars and diplomatic conflicts of 
various kinds. In his excellent biography of Erasmus, Zweig states:
Languages, which had hitherto formed an impenetrable wall between nation and 
nation, must no longer separate the peoples. A bridge would be built by means of 
a universal tongue, the Latin of the humanists. At the same time the concept of a 
fatherland for each nation would have to be proved untenable because it formed 
too narrow an ideal. It should be replaced by the European, the supranational 
ideal (Zweig 1934 [2015]).
Given his strong leaning towards Latin, one might think that Erasmus’ influence 
on the vernacular languages was minimal. However, nothing could be further from the 
truth, as I will try to demonstrate in the following two sections.
3 ERASMUS: DISSEMINATION OF HIS WORK AND STYLISTIC 
SIGNIFICANCE
Erasmus of Rotterdam is probably the most decisive figure of European humanism and 
one of the most influential personalities in the field of culture and literature of the Early 
Modern Period. Erasmian humanism has been defined as a ‘Christian humanism’, under-
stood as an intimate connection between ‘Christian wisdom and classical culture: classi-
cal education and ethics illuminated, modified, or corrected by Christian truth’ (Thomp-
son 1965: xvi, n. 4).5 Erasmus was a critic and interpreter of the Bible, and his particular 
form of evangelism found a fertile ground in Europe for the initiatives and reforms of 
Luther in Germany and Cisneros in Spain (cf. Pérez 2013: 12), with notable differences 
5 The Spanish humanist Antonio de Nebrija also occupies a privileged place in this field. Bataillon (1966 [2007]: 
25) says of him that he embodies, on the threshold of the Spanish sixteenth century, the autonomous effort of 
humanism to restore integral, profane and sacred antiquity and that, as far as Christian humanism is concerned, 
Nebrija is not only the forerunner of Spanish Erasmism but anticipates Erasmus himself (id.).
127
in both cases. His reputation as a humanist earned him esteem in academic circles and 
his works began to be widely translated into Romance languages. The Kingdom of Cas-
tile took the lead in this endeavour; in fact, Bataillon (1966 [2007]: 279) describes the 
proliferation of translations on Spanish soil as a veritable ‘Erasmian invasion’.6 The 
Colloquia familiaria,7 the author’s most famous and most translated work in the whole 
European continent during his lifetime, helped, as Prosperi notes, to spread 
un tipo di moralità fondata sui Vangeli e sulla sapienza antica, che si oponeva 
in tutto alla religione dei frati. Le dispute teologiche, l’ossessiva insistenza su 
voti, pelegrinaggi, culto dei santi, digiuni, la concezione della castità femminile, 
la pratica della confessione e degli altri sacramenti erano realtà viste da Erasmo 
come superstizioni, soppravivenze pagane o ebraiche, lontane dalla pietas cris-
tiana a cui si dovevano educare i giovani lettori dei Colloquia. (Prosperi 2002: 
XLIII)
[a type of morality founded in the Gospels and ancient wisdom, which was op-
posed in every way to the religion of the friars. Theological disputes, the obses-
sive insistence on vows, pilgrimages, the cult of saints, fasting, the concept of 
female chastity, the practice of confession and other sacraments were all seen 
by Erasmus as superstitions, pagan or Hebrew leftovers, far removed from the 
Christian piety in which the young readers of his Colloquia were to be educated.]
The linguistic question was not alien to the concerns of humanism and was mani-
fested in two somewhat contradictory attitudes. Erasmus, who stated Ego mundi civis 
esse cupio ‘My own wish is to be a citizen of the world,’ showed a universalist at-
titude which was materialised in his attempt to revive Latin as a language of effective 
6 Burke (2010: 43) highlights that Erasmus’ reformist ideas had more impact in Europe through his translations 
than through his original works.
7 Translations of the Colloquia in Castile began with the version of the Uxor mempsigamos by Diego Morejón in 
1527, of which a new anonymously revised version appeared in 1528. From the same year date the translation 
of the dialogue De rebus ac vocabulis, also anonymous, and that of the dialogue Proci et puellae, written by 
Luis Mejía. The first collection of translated Erasmian colloquies was also printed in 1528. This collection 
consists of the Spanish versions of the Pietas puerilis, the Colloquium senile and the Funus. However, the most 
widespread volume of colloquiums of the time is the one published in 1529, which includes eight versions by 
Alonso Ruiz de Virués (Puerpera, Pietas puerilis, De visendo loca sacra, Uxor mempsigamos, Convivium 
religiosum, Militis et carthusiani, Abbatis et eruditae and Franciscani), Mejía’s translation of Proci et puellae 
and two anonymous translations (Senile and Funus). A new anonymous translation of the Funus was printed 
in Seville in 1529 in a collection that also incorporated earlier versions already published in collections or in 
an exempt form. We have to wait until 1550 to find a new translation of the Uxor mempsigamos, not presented 
as such, in Pedro de Luján’s Coloquios matrimoniales. The last known Castilian translation of a colloquy by 
Erasmus in the Golden Age is that of the Charon (manuscript of 1617), by Juan de Aguilar Villaquirán. Italian 
translations are later: in 1537, Antonio Brucioli included a partial version of the Uxor mempsigamos in his 
Dialogi. Ortensio Lando was the first to translate and print this complete dialogue in Venice in 1542. In 1545 
the first integral translation of the Erasmian Colloquia appeared, the work of Pietro Lauro, who reprinted this 
collection in 1549 with some notable modifications in the versions. In French, we know the verse translation of 
the Uxor mempsigamos attributed to Berthélemy Aneau (1541). On the Erasmian tradition of the Colloquia in 
Castilian and other Romance languages, cf. Del Rey (2017, 2020).
128
communication in Early Modern Europe. A humanist concerned with the teaching of 
Latin to young people, he understood that the language of the classics was no longer 
a forever fixed, static language, but a dynamic one, still susceptible to change and de-
velopment. In short, a vibrant language that should be presented as such to the literate 
youth of Europe. Thus, as an educator, he ventured to write formulae aimed at offering 
numerous strategies to students for linguistic interaction (greetings, offers, expressions 
of good wishes etc.), based primarily on exercises in synonymy and verbal abundance 
(Bierlaire 1977: 21), which would help the interlocutor to converse in fluent Latin. 
This is how he conceived his Colloquia, to which, in the successive editions published 
between 1518 and 1533, scenes and passages were incorporated where the moralising 
content became more and more explicit. So much so in fact, that in the March 1522 
edition, the volume already indicated the author’s guiding purpose: non solum ad lin-
guam puerilem expoliendam, verum etiam ad vitam instituendam ‘not only to perfect 
the language of boys, but also to prepare them for life’. Consequently, from the earliest 
years, the Colloquia were conceived as ‘un manuel latin, pour apprendre, à la fois, les 
bonnes manières et le beau langage’ ‘a Latin manual to learn good manners and beauti-
ful language at the same time’ (Halkin/Bierlaire/Hoven 1972: 5).
Erasmus recognised that Latin was becoming an increasingly obsolescent lan-
guage even among the European intelligentsia of his time. Indeed, throughout antiq-
uity and the Middle Ages, a Latin proper of conceptual scripturality continued to ex-
ist (cf. § 1) but it hardly went beyond the domain closest to the pole of communicative 
distance within its own variational space, in other words, it was a language which, 
even when used in oral contexts within cultivated circles, was alien to the familiar 
and informal spheres for which Romance languages were reserved. At the other ex-
treme, the Vulgar Latin of both antiquity and the Middle Ages offered greater pos-
sibilities for variation in usage; however, it would never cross the conceptual spheres 
close to immediacy, as would be the case in early Romance texts. As explained in 
Section 2, Romance, while continuing to be a vehicle of communication in communi-
cative situations of communicative immediacy, progressively increased its presence 
in other areas of the continuum until it entered the domain of communicative distance 
by virtue of the processes of extensive and intensive elaboration (cf. Section 2). This 
was largely owing to the influence of Latin models at the other end of the variational 
spectrum, on the continuum between communicative immediacy and communica-
tive distance. Although increasingly weaker in Europe since the 16th century, Latin 
would continue to exist as a language of distance near the end of the continuum until 
around the 17th–18th centuries. However, also in the 16th century, Erasmus began a 
process of counter-elaboration (cf. Del Rey 2015b) to consciously make Latin a lan-
guage capable of not being exclusively associated with the sphere of communicative 
distance, to which it had been limited throughout the Middle Ages, in order to move 
towards the domain of communicative immediacy. However, this ‘new Latin’ pro-
posed by Erasmus for conversation was not intended to produce texts characterised 
by the presence of linguistic elements marked by low diastratic – i.e. motivated by 
the social affiliation or cultural level of the speakers – and diaphasic – motivated by 
129
the specific communicative – components, but rather by elements corresponding to 
the standard variety as specified in Del Rey (2021a). In other words, Erasmus’ con-
versational Latin was envisaged as a language that was not marked conceptually – i.e. 
a type of Latin at the centre of the continuum between communicative immediacy 
and distance – and, therefore, able to function at any point on the continuum between 
communicative immediacy and communicative distance.8
Erasmus’ attempt to revitalise a spoken Latin that would be suitable for use even 
in informal situations, and to restore an everyday Latin to the European intelligentsia, 
unfortunately fell on deaf ears. Throughout the Middle Ages, Latin had been the com-
mon, everyday language of science and intellectuals in European universities. Howev-
er, Pérez (2013: 81) states that by using the language in such professional realms it was 
transformed into a jargon full of words and turns of phrase that only masters were able 
to understand. Aware of this transformation, Erasmus took it upon himself to revitalise 
Latin. Notwithstanding, according to Pérez most humanists were, in general, very strict 
in censuring the degeneration of the language of Virgil and Cicero in the hands of the 
scholastics and took great pains to restore Latin to its pristine dignity (ibid.), though 
they forgot the communicative capacity of the Latin colloquy that Erasmus emphasised 
in his work. As a result, many humanists turned Latin into what it is said to be today: a 
dead language (ibid.).9
However, literary creation in vernacular languages was also flourishing. Works such 
as Lazarillo de Tormes (1554) and Don Quixote (1605/1615) in Spain, authors such as 
Antonio Brucioli (1498–1566) and Pietro Lauro (c. 1510–1568) in Italy, and Rabelais 
(1494–c. 1563) and Montaigne (1533–1592) in France were exponents of a type of 
natural language that spread as a stylistic model throughout Europe.10 Especially in 
16th-century Spanish and Italian Literature, prose aspired to the ideal of ‘writing as 
one speaks’, although the interpretation of this aspiration is controversial. In his famous 
work Il cortegiano, Baldassare Castiglione makes the following statement: ‘e dico aver 
scritto nella mia (lingua), e come io parlo, ed a coloro che parlano come parl’io’ ‘and I 
say I have written in my [language], and as I speak, and to those who speak as I speak’ 
(apud Gauger 1996: 342). It should be noted that Castiglione does not seem to allude 
here to a stylistic question (diaphasic in Coseriu’s terminology 1957 [1968]), but rather 
seems to take sides in the debate concerning the questione della lingua (question of 
language), showing his preference for the variety that is common to him as a user of a 
regional form of Italian (cf. Gauger 1996: 342).
8 On Renaissance Latin and, specifically, on the Latin of Erasmus, cf. Thompson (1965), Thomson (1970), 
Fontán (1974), Chomarat (1981), Ijsewijn and Dirk Sacré (1998) and Tunberg (2004), among others.
9 As one of the best Latinists of the Castilian 16th century, Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas (known as El 
Brocense), stated: latine loqui corrumpit ipsam latinitatem ‘speaking Latin corrupts Latinity.’ Cf. also Zweig 
(1934 [2015]): ‘even Latin, the language of a united Europe, the language of Erasmus’s very heart, was dead. 
Die thou, likewise, Erasmus!’
10 On the influence of Erasmus on Italian Renaissance rhetoric, cf. Cotugno (2019) and Cotugno/Sgarbi (eds.) 
(2022). The wake of Erasmism in France has recently been studied in the volume coordinated by Perona and 
Vigliano (eds.) (2017). For Spanish, the work of Marcel Bataillon (cf. Bataillon 1966[2007], 1977) remains a 
reference.
130
Juan de Valdés’ (1982 [2003]: 233) famous maxim, which embodies his own lin-
guistic ideology, ‘el estilo que tengo me es natural, y sin afetación ninguna escrivo 
como hablo’ ‘the style I have is natural to me and unaffected. I write as I speak’ con-
stituted a precept of style that shaped the Spanish Golden Age of literature decisively. 
Indeed, this quotation has given rise to various interpretations of not just the writer 
from Cuenca’s stylistic ideal but also that of many other authors from the first third 
of the 16th century onwards. As Bustos (2011), Oesterreicher (1996), Gauger (1996, 
2004) and Rivarola (1998) observe, the affirmation ‘escrivo como hablo’ ‘I write as I 
speak’ cannot be understood in isolation from the cultural context in which it appears, 
the rhetorical currents in force since the dawn of Humanism, and the variational reality 
of the texts that evolved into diverse discourse traditions (cf. n. 2). I believe that the 
importance of Erasmus of Rotterdam’s writings in Europe regarding the conception 
of the prevailing style in the first third of the 16th century has not yet been given the 
importance it deserves. Although, from an ideological point of view, authors such as 
Bataillon (1966 [2007]) and Seidel Menchi (1987) have already given well-founded 
reasons to underline the debt owed by the European intelligentsia to the Early Modern 
Period, its influence on the theories of style and rhetoric has been less frequently con-
templated, despite studies such as those by Chomarat (1981) and López Grigera (1986).
In the same way that Juan de Valdés’ precept ‘escrivo como hablo’ ‘I write as I 
speak’ is considered fundamental as a statement that presupposes the cultivation of 
speech itself in accordance with the humanist ideal (cf. Gauger 1996) or, conversely, 
as an ideal of style that requires speech to reflect a natural form of writing (cf. Bustos 
2011), the importance of Erasmus of Rotterdam also needs to be highlighted. This 
question has already been understood and highlighted by other scholars (cf. for exam-
ple, Cano Aguilar 1991: 50) who recognise his influence in the shaping and success of 
this stylistic maxim. They highlight the figure of Erasmus not only as a hugely influen-
tial literary author on the history of European ideas, but also as a master of natural style 
who was followed by many other writers in later centuries, as well as a genuine inspira-
tion for the precept that should be discussed in more detail in the light of his work. He 
wrote in one of his epistles:
Ego nec hos probo qui neglectis in totum praeceptionibus, ex autoribus petunt 
loquendi rationem, nec hos qui praeceptis addicti non versantur in euoluendis 
autoribus. Praecepta volo esse pauca, sed optima: quod reliquum est arbitror pe-
tendum ex optimis quibusque scriptoribus, aut ex eorum colloquio qui sic loqu-
untur vt illi scripserunt (OEDER: number 1115 –Letter from Erasmus to George 
Halewin, 21 June 1520–, lines 28–34, page 290).
[I do not agree with those who, totally unconcerned with the precepts, seek the art 
of speaking in the authorities, nor with those who, abandoned to the precepts, do 
not stop to read the authorities. I want the precepts to be few, but the best; what 
remains, I consider, is to be sought in the best writers or in the conversation of 
those who speak as they wrote.]
131
It is not, therefore, a matter of careless or informal speech, but the conversational 
ideal rests on a model of everyday Latin that demands dialectical effort and care-
ful discourse awareness. I said above that this was a frustrated and unfulfilled en-
deavour in Erasmian idiosyncrasy, but his stylistic concern for careful conversation, 
for elaborated orality (cf. Del Rey 2019), did find wide acceptance in the Romance 
languages, as we shall see below. It is in this sense that I consider that Erasmus 
contributed to the development of Romance languages, by promoting strategies for 
the textualization of orality that had an enormous impact on the writing of the time 
and on the rooting of discursive techniques that contributed to the representation of 
orality in writing in a much more advanced manner than that which had taken place 
during the Middle Ages.
4 TRANSLATION AND ITS IMPORTANCE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION 
OF THE PRECEPT OF NATURAL STYLE
The important impact that Erasmus’ works had on the European milieu of his time, 
not only through his works originally written in Latin but also through his translations 
into the different vernacular languages, explains why his worldview became so deeply 
rooted among Erasmian intellectuals in the 16th and 17th centuries. Bataillon (1966 
[2007]) already emphasised the importance of the Dutch scholar’s writings among the 
reading public. Erasmus himself was not opposed to translations into the Romance 
language as long as they led to piety and put an end to people’s ignorance (Bierlaire 
1978: 111). The case of the vulgarisation of Erasmus’ works in the Iberian Peninsula 
is particularly striking for its precocity and intensity (cf. Burke 2010: 28). Although 
Erasmus proposed a programme of translations for the Spanish public giving priority 
to his devout works to appease the exalted spirits of his Hispanic detractors, the public 
wanted more, and the Spanish versions of the Colloquia soon came to light (Bataillon 
1966 [2007]: 279–315). Before 1527, some Colloquia manuscripts (perhaps by the 
hand of Alonso de Virués) passed from hand to hand among the literate public, and 
between 1527 and 1532 at least six single Colloquia and six compilations of Colloquia 
were published (Bataillon 1966 [2007]: LII-LIII). This was undoubtedly made possible 
through the help of the powerful people at the court of Charles V, who were followers 
of Erasmus’s ideas. Donnelly (1979: 137) notes, ‘at a period when, in other countries, 
the Colloquia in Latin were heavily under attack, or even under censure, in Spain ver-
sions in both Latin and Spanish were in free circulation’.
Erasmus realised early on that his works were beginning to penetrate the literate 
society of the Iberian Peninsula, which is why he was determined to write his Apolo-
gia adversus articulos aliquot per monachos quosdam in Hispaniis exhibitos ‘apologia 
against several articles presented by certain monks in Spain’ in an attempt to defend his 
work against the fierce attacks of the Church. One of Erasmus’ objections to his detrac-
tors was their dismissive attitude towards the literary character of his work, given that 
he was usually held responsible for everything that appeared in the Colloquia, without 
his critics considering whether what was said was in jest or in earnest, or who the 
speaker was (cf. Augustijn 1986: 181).
132
However, from 1532 onwards, the Inquisition became more stringent than in previ-
ous years, and the Colloquia did not go unnoticed under its gaze. In Spain, as in the rest 
of Europe, there was opposition to the fact that questions of great philosophical weight, 
which were in fact normally discussed within universities (Prosperi 2002: XLIV), were 
presented to students of grammar (grammaticulis). There was also opposition to the 
topics that were presented in different Colloquia, such as criticism of monks (monacha-
tus non est pietas ‘the condition of monasticism is not synonymous with piety,’ Eras-
mus states in his Enchiridion of 1505), criticism of the vows, criticism of the nobility, 
the defence of sexual pleasure as a means of love, the defence of work (it should be 
remembered that both monks and nobles scorned manual labour).
Some of the worst propaganda against Erasmus of Rotterdam concerned his alleged 
ideological affinity with Luther’s theses. As Bataillon (1966 [2007]: 159–160) high-
lights, the Dutch scholar was considered a staunch Lutheran, which led to the name of 
Erasmus becoming associated with the risk of heresy, which contributed to increased 
suspicion of and hostility towards him in the following decades (cf. Pinto Crespo 1986: 
290). This was, however, based on an unwarranted misperception of Erasmus, who 
never departed from the Catholic Church, despite the criticism received from the most 
anti-Erasmian section of Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Moreover, the relationship be-
tween Luther and Erasmus had been profoundly damaged by the publication of the 
Colloquia, a work that the German theologian described as impious. As his last wish, 
he even forbade his children to read them. Despite this, the Latin manual became well 
established in Lutheran Europe and achieved huge success.11
Be that as it may, the accumulation of misgivings and fears about the alleged Er-
asmian heterodoxy meant that the Colloquia was the first of the author’s texts to be 
banned in Spain, which happened in January 1536 (Donnelly 1979: 138); its reading 
in Latin was, further, condemned in 1537. Thus, throughout Europe, the Colloquia be-
came a ‘cursed book’, which would remain on the index of banned books until the 19th 
century (Bierlaire 1978: 302), along with other translations and works by the Dutch 
scholar.
This did not prevent the Colloquia from shaping European dialogical literature in 
such a way that it became a model of natural style and conversational verisimilitude 
(cf. Del Rey 2015a, Vian 1988) in the vernacular languages through translations. Thus, 
Spanish, Italian, French and other Romance languages developed mechanisms for the 
construction of literary dialogue which had been unheard of before the decisive con-
tribution of Erasmus.12 The Dutch scholar had incorporated numerous conversational 
strategies – most notably turn-initiation formulas (cf. Del Rey 2016) – that were already 
11 His influence in schools was equally strong. Burke (1989: 8) recalls that the Colloquia were performed by 
pupils in the classroom as a pedagogical tool that enabled the conversational formulas of his work to be put into 
practice.
12 The translation from one Romance language to another (what Folena (1991) calls horizontal translation, 
as opposed to vertical translation, which refers to the translation from Latin into Romance languages) also 
contributed to the consolidation of the natural style that prevails in the literary dialogues of the time. In this way, 
Erasmus’ stylistic guide was also disseminated indirectly through the Romance translations of his Colloquies 
and other Renaissance dialogues that were widely circulated at the time (cf. Del Rey 2022b).
133
found in Plautus and Terence but had never been exploited, or very little, during the 
Middle Ages. Fragments, such as the one below, demonstrate the perfect union be-
tween the scathing criticism of ecclesiastical institutions, typical of Christian human-
ism, and the spontaneous, almost colloquial style in which Erasmus, and subsequently 
his translators, presents such criticism. The extract comes from the colloquy Senile, in 
which a group of elderly men meet to talk about their life experiences, which Erasmus 
uses to present different models of morality and religiosity at the time. At the end of 
the colloquy, the carriage where the old men have been talking along on their way to 
Antwerp meets another carriage head-on, a circumstance that allows the coachmen to 
exchange light-hearted words. The text (1a) corresponds to the Erasmian original, (1b) 
to an anonymous Spanish translation in 1528 and (1c) to the Italian translation in 1545 
by Pietro Lauro, amended by the same translator in 1549.13
(1a)
HVGVITIO AVRIGA. Vnde tam miseram sarcinam nactus es, lusce?
HENRICVS AVRIGA. Imo quo tu defers istud lupanar, ganeo?
HV. Debueras istos frigidos senes alicubi effundere in vrticetum, vt calescerent. 
HE. Imo tu istum gregem cura vt praecipites alicubi in profundam lamam, vt 
refrigerentur. Nam calent plus satis.
HV. Non soleo praecipitare sarcinam meam.
HE. Non? Atqui nuper vidi te sex Cartusienses deiecisse in coenum sic, vt pro 
candidis emergerent nigri. Tu interim, quasi re bene gesta, ridebas.
HV. Nec iniuria. Dormiebant omnes ac multum ponderis addebant carrui meo.
HE. At mei senes egregie subleuarunt currum meum, per totum iter perpetuo 
garrientes. Nunquam vidi meliores.
HV. Non soles tamen talibus delectari.
HE. Sed hi seniculi boni sunt.
HV. Qui scis?
HE. Quia per eos ter bibi per viam ceruisiam insigniter bonam.
HV. Ha ha he. Sic tibi boni sunt (Colloquium Senile, lines 437–456, apud Hal-
kin/Bierlaire/Hoven 1972: 387–388).
‘HUGO COACHMAN: Where did you get such a miserable load, old one-eye? 
HENRICO COACHMAN: Likewise, where are you taking that whorehouse, 
you libertine?
HU: You ought to throw those cold, old men into a nettle patch for them to warm 
up.
HE: Likewise, you should rather throw those cattle into some deep swamp, so 
that (they) can cool off. For they are warmer than would be sufficient.
HU: I don’t usually dump my load. 
HE: Don’t you? For not long ago I saw you throw six Carthusians into the mud 
13 The edition of the Romance texts standardises the spelling of consonants — except for the etymological h- in 
the Italian text — and the punctuation marks to make it easier to read.
134
in such a way that from white they came out black. You, meanwhile, as if it 
were something well done, laughed.
HU: And rightly so: they were all asleep and weighing down my carriage.
HE: In contrast, my old men have lightened my carriage to perfection, chatting 
non-stop all the way.
HU: But you don’t usually have a good time with such men!
HE: Yes, but these old men are good people.
HU: Why do you say that?
HE: Because thanks to them, I’ve drunk some really good beer three times on 
the road.
HU: Ha ha ha! That’s why you think they’re good people’. [My translation]
(1b)
H: ¿Adónde hallaste tan miserable carga, tuerto?
En: ¿Mas adónde llevas tú esa putería, frecuentador de tabernas?
H: Debieras echar estos fríos viejos en algún ortiguero para que calentasen.
En: Más ten tú cuidado de despeñar ese ganado en un hondo lodo, para que se 
resfríen, porque están mas calientes de lo que es menester.
H: No suelo despeñar mi carga.
En: ¿No? No ha mucho que te vi echar en un cieno seis frailes de la Cartuja, de 
tal manera que de blancos salieron negros y tú reíste y estabas gozoso como 
de hecho muy señalado.
H: No sin causa; dormíanse todos y acrecentaban mucho peso a mi carro.
En: Mis viejos notablemente aliviaron mi carro parlando por todo el camino: 
nunca los vi mejores.
H: ¡No sueles tú deleitarte con los tales!
En: Sí, mas estos viejos son buenos.
H: ¿Cómo lo sabes?
En: Porque a su causa bebí tres veces en el camino cerveza muy buena.
H: ¡Ha, ha, he! Y por eso te parecieron buenos (Anonymous, Colloquio de vie-
jos, 1528, f. 29r).
(1c)
Hugutio carettiere: Óve hai pigliato si tristo peso, ò losco?
Henrico: E tu óve hai tolto coteste meretrici?
Hu: Dovevi gittare cotesti freddi vecchi nelle ortiche, che si scaldassero.
He: Anzi sia meglio, che tu gitti in qualche profonda acqua cotesta greggia, acciò 
che si raffreddi, perché sono le meretrici troppo calde.
Hu: Non sono avezzo di precipitare il mio carico.
He: Io poco fa ti vidi precipitare nel fango sei Certosini, i quali riportarono neri 
gli habiti candidi, et tu smasciellavi delle risa, come se havesti fatto qualche 
buona opera.
Hu: Io ne haveva ragione, perché dormivano tutti, et gravavanmi il carro.
135
He: Questi miei vecchietti sono venuti ragionando piacevolmente: non mai ho 
veduto i megliori.
Hu: Non ti sogliono piacere tai cose.
He: Questi vecchietti sono da bene, e mi hanno fatto bene tre fiate per viaggio.
Hu. Ha, ha, he: per questo sono da bene (Pietro Lauro, Colloqui famigliari, 1549, 
f. 213).
The style is fast and lively, an effective manifestation of a spoken everyday Latin, 
suitable for informal situations, which was Erasmus’ dream. Numerous strategies con-
tribute to exploiting the conversational verisimilitude of the fragment in Latin and in 
the corresponding Romance versions. The vocatives lusce, ganeo/tuerto, frecuentador 
de tabernas/losco, are used with humorous intent; the discourse units, like Henrico’s 
question that initiates the turn Non?/No? affects, by repetition, an element of the previ-
ous intervention in order to question it, presupposing the falsity of what has been said; 
the counter-argumentative markers typical of conversational discourse, such as imo/
más/anzi; the interjective units such as ha ha ha!, which refers to a specific extralin-
guistic context in which the interlocutor is provoked to laughter and which, therefore, 
increases the degree of expressiveness and spontaneity of the communication (param-
eters c) and i) which Koch/Oesterreicher (1990 [2011]: 7) ascribe to communicative 
immediacy, cf. n. 1), and, in general, the speed of turn-taking, which enhances the 
level of dialogism (parameter h)). Moreover, in the colloquy as a whole, the episode 
is merely digressive and functions as a textual colophon. Thus, in part, it contributes 
to the thematic deviation that had remained uniform during the dialogue of the elders 
(parameter j). However, a comparison of the Spanish and Italian translations shows that 
the Spanish prose is more permeable to assimilating these types of strategies, which 
were consolidated in later dialogic literature, not only in translated texts.14
In some previous works (cf. Del Rey 2016, 2022) I have investigated numerous 
conversational formulas at the begining of the dialogical turn in Castilian, Italian and 
French that are closely related to Latin formulas used in Erasmus’ Colloquia. Among 
them, for the 16th century I have found the link between Sp. Yo te lo diré, It. Dirollo/
Dirotelo/Te lo diro, Fr. Ie le diray and Lat. Dicam ‘I will tell you’ as a presentational 
cataphoric formula; between Sp. Qué (es lo que) oigo, It. Che odo io/Che cosa chiodo, 
Fr. Qu’est ce que i’entendz? and Lat. Quid (ego) audio ‘What do I hear?’ as an expres-
sion of surprise; between Sp. Verdad dices, It. Tu di(ci) il vero, Fr. Tu dis (bien) vray/
la verité and Lat. Verum narras/praedicas ‘You speak the truth’ as a formula of accept-
ance; between Sp. (Muy) Bien dices, It. Rettamente ammonisci, Fr. Tu dis tres bien and 
Lat. Recte mones ‘You advise well’ with the same sense, or between Sp. Mira (bien) lo 
que dices, It. Non dire cosi/Non parlare in tal guisa, Fr. Hé parle mieulx and Lat. Bona 
verba ‘(Say) good words’ with recriminative intention on the part of the interlocutor. 
The tradition of this type of formulas, motivated by the exercise of translation in the 
14 Note the absence of the initial interrogative Non? in Italian or the elimination of the rude and/or offensive 
vocative ganeo (meaning ‘glutton’) in Pietro Lauro’s text. This translator also eliminates the reference to the 
alcoholic beverage at the end of the fragment.
136
first half of the 16th century, is documented in later dialogical works which do not re-
spond to the exercise of translation and which show the trail of Erasmian influence in 
the writing of Renaissance dialogue.
5 CONCLUSION
As is evident from the arguments and examples given in the previous section, writers 
in the Early Modern Period preferred (although not always) to employ Erasmian sty-
listic potential when writing dialogues in the vernacular to reach a wider readership. 
In other words, Erasmus’ frustrated attempt to revitalise conversational Latin led not 
to its revival but to the specialisation of dialogic discourse in the vernaculars. Indeed, 
mechanisms leading to textualisation of orality were adapted with astonishing dexterity 
in the Romance languages. These mechanisms affect various planes of discourse con-
struction (selection of verbs of utterance and perception, use of dialogical formulas and 
conversational markers, exploitation of politeness strategies etc.) which, as far as the 
writing of elaborated orality to which I have referred in this paper is concerned, will 
have enormous currency in Romance literature until well into the Modern Age (cf. Del 
Rey 2019). Natural style can be conceived as a translinguistic precept that fits perfectly 
with the humanist ideal that evolved in literature towards the individualisation of the 
dialogical I and you, as well as communicative context. This evolution is fundamental 
in explaining the ‘qualitative leap’ that occurred between medieval and Renaissance 
dialogues concerning the mechanisms used for textualisation of orality, according to 
Bustos (2007: 208). This is one of Erasmus’ major contributions to Romance literature, 
which increased its potential for the construction of an elaborated orality with a secular 
validity. Erasmus’ everyday Latin, the frustrated dream of a humanist who was opposed 
to frontiers of any kind, even linguistic ones, did somehow remained alive through the 
dialogic discourse in Romance and in the precept of natural style, which is one of the 
literary hallmarks of the Early Modern Period throughout Europe.
References
ALBRECHT, Jörn (1995) “Der Einfluss der frühen Übersetzertätigkeit auf die Heraus-
bildung der romanischen Sprachen.” In: C. Schmitt/W. Schweickard (eds), Die 
romanischen Sprachen im Vergleich. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag, 1–20.
ALBRECHT, Jörn (2017) “Sprachkontakt – schriftlicher Sprachkontakt – Übersetzung 
(lato sensu) – und Übersetzung (stricto sensu) als Fakten der Sprachgeschichte und 
als Gegenstand der Sprachgeschichtsschreibung.” In: Sarah Dessì Schmid/Heidi 
Aschenberg (eds), Romanische Sprachgeschichte und Übersetzung. Heidelberg: 
Winter-Verlag, 41–52.
AUGUSTIJN, Cornelis (1986) Erasmo de Rotterdam: vida y obra. Barcelona: Crítica.
BATAILLON, Marcel (1937 [1966]) Erasmo y España. Transl. by A. Alatorre. Ciudad 
de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
BATAILLON, Marcel (1977) Erasmo y el erasmismo. Transl. into Spanish by Carlos 
Pujol. Barcelona: Crítica.
137
BIERLAIRE, Franz (1977) Érasme et ses Colloques: le livre d’une vie. Genève: Li-
brairie Droz.
BIERLAIRE, Franz (1978) Les Colloques d’Érasme: réforme des études, réforme des 
mœurs et réforme de l’Église au XVIᵉ siècle. Paris: Les belles lettres.
BOSSONG, Georg (1979) Probleme der Übersetzung wissenschaftlicher Werke aus dem 
Arabischen in das Altspanische zur Zeit Alfons des Weisen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
BURKE, Peter (1989) “The Renaissance dialogue.” Renaissance Studies 3/1, 1–12.
BURKE, Peter (2010) “Culturas de traducción en la Europa Moderna.” In: Peter Burke/
Ronnie Po-Chia Hsia (eds), La traducción cultural en la Europa Moderna. Transl. 
by Jesús Izquierdo Martín/Patricia Arroyo Calderón. Madrid: Akal, 11–44.
BUSTOS TOVAR, José Jesús de (2007) “La textualización del diálogo en textos es-
pañoles de principios del Renacimiento.” Rivista di Filologia e Letterature Ispan-
iche 10, 201–222.
BUSTOS TOVAR, José Jesús de (2011) “Hablo como escribo”. In: José Jesús de Bus-
tos Tovar et al. (eds), Sintaxis y análisis del discurso hablado en español. Homenaje 
a Antonio Narbona. Sevilla: Secretariado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de 
Sevilla, I, 459–478.
CANO AGUILAR, Rafael (1991) “Sintaxis oracional y construcción del texto en la 
prosa española del Siglo de Oro.” Philologia Hispalensis 6/1, 45–67.
CANO AGUILAR, Rafael (2022) “Las tradiciones discursivas desde una perspectiva 
diacrónica. Tradiciones discursivas e historia de la lengua.” In: Steven N. Dwor-
kin/Gloria Clavería Nadal/Álvaro S. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (eds), Lingüística 
histórica del español/The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Historical Linguistics. 
London/New York: Routledge (forthcoming). /THE PAPER IS NOT PUBLISHED 
IN THIS HANDBOOK. PLEASE CHECK AND CORRECT THE REFERENCE./
CASTILLO LLUCH, Mónica (2018) “La historia de la lengua española vuelve por sus 
fueros.” In: María Luisa Arnal Purroy et al. (eds), Actas del X Congreso Internac-
ional de Historia de la Lengua Española: Zaragoza, 7–11 de septiembre de 2015. 
Vol. I. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico, 129–155.
CHOMARAT, Jacques (1981) Grammaire et rhétorique chez Érasme. Paris: Les belles 
lettres.
Colloquio de viejos (1528) = Anonymous translation of Erasmus’s Colloquium Senile. 
In: En este presente tratado se contienen tres Colloquios, s. l. Printed document 
held at Ghent University Library. https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:001259920 [ac-
cessed on 12 April 2022].
COSERIU, Eugenio (1957 [1988]). Sincronía, diacronía e historia. El problema del 
cambio lingüístico. Madrid: Gredos.
COSERIU, Eugenio (1981) “Los conceptos de «dialecto», «nivel» y «estilo de lengua» 
y el sentido propio de la dialectología.” Lingüística Española Actual 3, 1–32.
COSERIU, Eugenio (2007) Lingüística del texto. Introducción a la hermenéutica del 
sentido. Edited and annotated by Óscar Loureda Lamas. Madrid: Arco/Libros.
COTUGNO, Alessio (2019) La scienza della parola. Retorica e linguistica di Sperone 
Speroni. Bologna: il Mulino.
138
COTUGNO, Alessio/Marco SGARBI (eds) (2022) “Nella bottega di Erasmo.” Achi-
vum mentis 11, 155–364.
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2015a) Diálogo y traducción. Los Coloquios erasmi-
anos en la Castilla del s. XVI. Tübingen: Narr.
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2015b) “El «latín cotidiano» como referencia es-
tilística en la conformación del discurso dialógico castellano (s. XVI).” In: Esme 
Winter-Froemel/Araceli López Serena/Álvaro Octavio de Toledo y Huerta/Barbara 
Frank-Job (eds), Diskurstraditionelles und Einzelsprachliches im Sprachwandel. 
Tübingen: Narr, 209–230.
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2016) “En busca del ideal de naturalidad estilística a 
partir de las fórmulas de inicio de turno en el diálogo (s. XVI).” Revista de Filología 
Española 96/1, 169–202.
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2017) “(Anti-)Latinate Syntax in Renaissance Dia-
logue: Romance Translations of Erasmus’s Uxor Mempsigamos.” Zeitschrift für 
romanische Philologie 133/3, 673–708.
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2018) “Lenguajes de especialidad, sinonimia y elab-
oración en la historia de la lengua española.” In: Xosé Afonso Alvarez Pérez et al. 
(eds), Nuevas perspectivas en la diacronía de las lenguas de especialidad. Alcalá 
de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá, 343–365.
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2019) “Variantes de la oralidad elaborada en la se-
gunda mitad del siglo XIX: dos traducciones coetáneas de Los cautivos de Plauto”. 
Oralia 22/2, 283–326.
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2020) “La traducción de los textos erasmianos en los 
Siglos de Oro.” In: Francisco Lafarga/Luis Pegenaute (eds), Historia de la traduc-
ción en España. http://phte.upf.edu/hte/siglos-de-oro/rey-quesada/ [accessed on 11 
April 2022].
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2021a) “Lo marcado y lo no marcado en la cadena 
de variedades: apuntes para una nueva propuesta.” In: Teresa Gruber/Klaus Grübl/
Thomas Scharinger (eds), Was bleibt von kommunikativer Nähe und Distanz? Me-
diale und konzeptionelle Aspekte sprachlicher Variation. Tübingen: Narr, 205–238.
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2021b) Grupos léxicos paratácticos en la Edad Me-
dia romance. Caracterización lingüística, influencia latinizante y tradicionalidad 
discursiva. Berlin: Peter Lang
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2022) “Convergence et divergence entre espagnol, 
italien et français. La traduction des Colloques de Pedro Mexía (XVIe siècle)”. Vox 
Romanica 81, 85–109.
DEL REY QUESADA, Santiago (2023) “Discourse Traditions at the intersection of 
Romance and Latin in the Early Modern Period.” In: E. Winter-Froemel/Á. S. Oc-
tavio de Toledo y Huerta (eds), 411–434.
DE VALDÉS, Juan ([1982] 2003) Diálogo de la lengua. Edited by Cristina Barbolani. 
Madrid: Cátedra.
DONNELLY, Paul J. (1979) A Study of Spanish Translations of Erasmus’s Colloquia 
(1525–1536), with Special Reference to the Translations of Alonso Ruiz de Virués: 
139
together with a Critical Edition of the Versions of Uxor mempsigamos, Funus, and 
part of Convivium religiosum. Doctoral dissertation. Oxford: Oxford University.
FERNÁNDEZ-ORDÓÑEZ, Inés (2004) “Alfonso X el Sabio en la historia del espa-
ñol.” In: Rafael Cano Aguilar (ed.), Historia de la lengua española. Barcelona: 
Ariel, 381–422.
FLÓREZ MÍGUEZ, Cirilo (1994) “Humanismo y ciencia en Elio Antonio de Nebri-
ja.” In: Juan Antonio González Iglesias/Carmen Codoñer Merino (eds), Antonio de 
Nebrija, Edad Media y Renacimiento. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Sala-
manca, 347–357.
FRANK-JOB, Barbara/Maria SELIG (2016) “Early evidence and sources.” In: Adam 
Ledgeway/Martin Maiden (eds), The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press, 24–34.
FOLENA, Giancarlo (1991) Volgarizzare e tradurre. Torino: Einaudi.
FONTÁN, Antonio (1974) “El latín de los humanistas”. In: Id., Humanismo romano. 
Barcelona: Planeta, 257–272.
GAUGER, Hans-Martin (1996) “‘Escrivo como hablo’. Oralidad en lo escrito.” In: 
Thomas Kotschi/Wulf Oesterreicher/Klaus Zimmermann (eds), El español hablado 
y la cultura oral en España e Hispanoamérica. Madrid/Frankfurt a.M.: Iberoameri-
cana/Vervuert, 341–358.
GAUGER, Hans-Martin (2004) “La conciencia lingüística en la Edad de Oro.” In: Ra-
fael Cano Aguilar (ed.), Historia de la lengua española. Barcelona: Ariel, 681–699.
HALKIN, Léon-E./BIERLAIRE, Franz/HOVEN, René (1972) “Préface.” In: Ead. 
(eds), Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, Ordinis primi tomus tertius: Col-
loquia. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 3–23.
HAUGEN, Einar (1966) “Dialect, Language, Nation.” American Anthropologist 68/4, 
922–935.
IJSEWIJN, Jozef/SACRÉ, Dirk (1998) “Language, style, prosody and metrics”. In: 
Ead., Companion to neo-latin studies. Part II: Literary, linguistic, philological and 
editorial questions. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 377–433.
KABATEK, Johannes (2005) Die Bolognesische Renaissance und der Ausbau roma-
nischer Sprachen. Juristische Diskurstraditionen und Sprachentwicklung in Süd-
frankreich und Spanien im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
KABATEK, Johannes (2018) Lingüística coseriana, lingüística histórica, tradiciones 
discursivas. Edited by Cristina Bleortu̧/David Paul Gerards. Madrid/Frankfurt a.M.: 
Iberoamericana/Vervuert.
KLOSS, Heinz (21978) Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 
1800. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.
KOCH, Peter (1997) “Diskurstraditionen: zu ihrem sprachtheoretischen Status und 
ihrer Dynamik.” In: Barbara Frank/Thomas Haye/Doris Tophinke (eds), Gattungen 
mittelalterlicher Schriftlichkeit. Tübingen: Narr, 43–79.
KOCH, Peter/Wulf OESTERREICHER ([1990] 2011) Gesprochene Sprache in der 
Romania. Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
140
LAURO, Pietro (1549) I ragionamenti, overo Colloqui famigliari di Desiderio Erasmo 
Roterodamo: Di Latino in volgare già tradotti, ma hora in tanti luoghi racconci. 
http://books.google.es [accessed on 12 April 2022].
LÓPEZ GRIGERA, Luisa (1986) “Estela del erasmismo en las teorías de la lengua y 
del estilo en la España del siglo XVI.” In: M. Revuelta Sañudo/C. Morón Arroyo 
(eds), 491–500.
LÓPEZ SERENA, Araceli (2007) “Mesa redonda I. Las tradiciones discursivas en la 
historiografía lingüística y en la historia de la lengua española.” In: Marta Fernández 
Alcaide/Araceli López Serena (eds), 400 años de la lengua del Quijote. Estudios de 
historiografía e historia de la lengua española. Actas del V Congreso Nacional de 
la Asociación de Jóvenes Investigadores de Historiografía e Historia de la Lengua 
Española (Sevilla, 31 de marzo, 1 y 2 de abril de 2005). Sevilla: Secretariado de 
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla, 49–54.
LÓPEZ SERENA, Araceli (2011) “La doble determinación del nivel histórico en el 
saber expresivo. Hacia una nueva delimitación del concepto de ‘tradición discur-
siva’.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 62, 59–97.
LÓPEZ SERENA, Araceli (2021) “La tradicionalidad discursiva como materia y las 
tradiciones discursivas como objeto de estudio.” Verba 48 https://revistas.usc.gal/
index.php/verba/article/view/6864/10956 [accessed on 24 March 2022].
LÓPEZ SERENA, Araceli (2023) “Discourse Traditions and Variation Linguistics.” 
In: E. Winter-Froemel/Á. S. Octavio de Toledo y Huerta (eds), 59–79.
OEDER (1922) Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami. Vol. IV: 1519–1521. 
Edited by P. S. Allen/H. M. Allen. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
MAAS, Utz (2014) “Der Ausbau des Deutschen zur Schriftsprache.” Euphorion: 
Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 108/3, 325–363.
MILROY, James/Lesley MILROY ([1985] 2012) Authority in Language: Investigat-
ing Standard English. London: Routledge.
PÉREZ, Joseph (2013) Humanismo en el Renacimiento español. Madrid: Gadir.
PERONA, Blandine/Tristan VIGLIANO (eds) (2017) Érasme et la France. Paris: 
Classiques Garnier.
PINTO CRESPO, Virgilio (1986) “La herejía como problema político. Raíces ideo-
lógicas e implicaciones”, In: M. Revuelta Sañudo/C. Morón Arroyo (eds), 289–304.
PROSPERI, Adriano (2002) “Introduzione.” In: Erasmo da Rotterdam, Colloquia. To-
rino: Einaudi, IX-LVIII.
REVUELTA SAÑUDO, Manuel/Ciriaco MORÓN ARROYO (eds), El erasmismo en 
España: ponencias del coloquio celebrado en la Biblioteca de Menéndez Pelayo del 
10 al 14 de junio de 1985. Santander: Sociedad Menéndez Pelayo.
RIVAROLA, José Luis (1998) “El discurso de la variación en el Diálogo de la len-
gua de Juan de Valdés.” In: Wulf Oesterreicher/Eva Stoll/Andreas Wesch (eds), 
Competencia escrita, tradición discursiva y variedades lingüísticas. Aspectos del 
español europeo y americano en los siglos XVI y XVII. Tübingen: Narr, 83–108.
SEIDEL MENCHI, Silvana (1987) Erasmo in Italia. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.
141
THOMPSON, Craig R. (1965) The Colloques of Erasmus. Chicago/London: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
THOMSON, D. F. S. (1970) “The Latinity of Erasmus”. In: Thomas Alan Dorey (ed.), 
Erasmus. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 115–137.
TUNBERG, Terence (2004) “The Latinity of Erasmus and Medieval Latin: Continui-
ties and Discontinuities”. The journal of Medieval Latin 14, 147–170.
VIAN HERRERO, Ana (1988) “La ficción conversacional en el diálogo renacentista.” 
Edad de Oro 7, 173–186.
VINCIS, Valentina/Carla MIOTTO (2016) “Algunas consideraciones en torno al con-
cepto de tradiciones discursivas.” In: Chiara Albertin/Santiago Del Rey Quesada 
(eds), Hispanica Patavina. Estudios de historiografía e historia de la lengua es-
pañola en homenaje a José Luis Rivarola. Padova: CLEUP (Cooperativa Libraria 
Editrice Università di Padova), 199–215.
WINTER-FROEMEL, Esme/Álvaro S. OCTAVIO DE TOLEDO Y HUERTA (eds) 
(2023), Manual of Discourse Traditions in Romance. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter,
ZWEIG, Stefan ([1934] 2015) Erasmus of Rotterdam. Transl. into English by C. Paul/E. 
Paul. Lexington, Massachusetts: Plunkett Lake Press.
Abstract
THE CONTRIBUTION OF ERASMUS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF  
ROMANCE LANGUAGES IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD
The influence of Latin, since the Middle Ages, in shaping Romance languages as vehi-
cles for the expression of discourse traditions characteristic of conceptual scripturality 
(cf. Koch/Oesterreicher 1990 [2011]) has been analysed from different perspectives by 
Romance Linguistics scholars. Elaboration processes (Ausbau in German, cf. Kloss 
1978) are responsible for the development of the mechanisms needed in vernacular 
languages to access the domain of communicative distance, which remained for many 
centuries exclusively reserved for Latin. During the Middle Ages and the Early Modern 
Period, the use of Latin became increasingly restricted and was already limited in the 
16th century mainly to liturgical manifestations, science, learned literature and interna-
tional diplomacy. As Latin was excluded from oral communicative interactions, Eras-
mus’ Christian humanism advocated the recovery of Latin as an effective instrument of 
communication among Europe’s cultivated youth. The author’s most famous work dur-
ing his lifetime, the Colloquia familiaria, was conceived as a manual of conversational 
formulas and motifs to encourage the use of Latin among the European cultured elite 
of the early 16th century. Although the Erasmian endeavour did not succeed, the influ-
ence of the Dutch scholar on vernacular literatures propitiated the triumph of strategies 
suitable for the textualisation of orality based on the Erasmian Latin model, which led 
to a manifestation of the ideal of ‘natural style’ (cf. Del Rey 2015b) that is common to 
numerous European Renaissance authors. In this paper, we reflect on the importance 
of Erasmus’ influence on the shaping of literary dialogue in the Romance languages of 
142
the Early Modern Period (cf. Burke 1989). Important metalinguistic reflections of some 
of the most relevant authors of the time, such as Baldassare Castiglione and Juan de 
Valdés (cf. Gauger 1996, Bustos 2011), are also considered with the aim of understand-
ing the influence of Erasmus on their writing and, consequently, the importance of the 
Dutch author in the evolution of style in vernacular languages in Early Modern Period 
Europe.
Keywords: Erasmus, translation, Romance languages, dialogue
Povzetek
ERAZMOV PRISPEVEK K RAZVOJU ROMANSKIH JEZIKOV V  
ZGODNJEM NOVEM VEKU
Vpliv latinščine od srednjega veka dalje na romanske jezike kot izrazna sredstva dis-
kurznih tradicij, značilnih za konceptualno pisnost (prim. Koch/Oesterreicher [1990] 
2011), je bil v romanskem jezikoslovju predmet raznovrstnih analiz. S procesi širitve 
(nem. Ausbau, prim. Kloss 1978) vernakularni jeziki lahko pridobijo mehanizme do-
stopanja v območje komunikcijske distance, ki je bila stoletja dolgo izključno v domeni 
latinščine. V srednjem veku in v zgodnjem novem veku se je raba latinščine močno zo-
žila in je bila že v 16. stoletju omejena pretežno na liturgične kontekste, znanost, učeno 
slovstvo in mednarodno diplomacijo. Spričo izključenosti latinščine iz ustne komuni-
kacije je Erazmov krščanski humanizem zagovarjal vrnitev k latinščini kot učinkovi-
temu sporazumevalnemu sredstvu med kultivirano evropsko mladino. Erazmovo za 
časa njegovega življenja najbolj znano delo Colloquia familiaria je bilo zasnovano kot 
priročnik s konverzacijskimi vzorci in temami, ki naj bi spodbujal rabo latinščine med 
evropsko kulturno elito zgodnjega 16. stoletja. Čeprav Erazem s svojimi prazdevanji 
ni uspel, je njegov vpliv na književnosti v ljudskih jezikih privedel do uveljavitve stra-
tegij, primernih za tekstualizacijo ustnosti, ki so temeljile na erazmovskem latinskem 
modelu. Tako se je izoblikoval ideal “naravnega sloga” (cf. Del Rey 2015b), ki je sku-
pen številnim evropskim renesančnim avtorjem. V prispevku razpravljamo o pomenu 
Erazmovega vpliva na formiranje literarnega dialoga v romanskih jezikih zgodnjega 
novega veka (prim. Burke 1989). Pomudimo se tudi ob važnih metajezikovnih razmi-
šljanjih nekaterih ključnih avtorjev tega časa, kot sta Baldassare Castiglione in Juan de 
Valdés (prim. Gauger 1996, Bustos 2011), da bi tako razumeli, kakšen je bil Erazmov 
vpliv na njihovo pisanje in nato kako pomemben je bil nizozemski avtor za razvoj sloga 
v evropskih ljudskih jezikih zgodnjega novega veka.
Ključne besede: Erazem, prevajanje, romanski jeziki, dialog