Suchergebnisse

This paper analyses the reception of Latin language and culture in the research of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It focuses on the works of various disciplines – social and cultural history, literary research, art criticism, etc. – and seeks to identify the recurring themes, symbols and topics that comprise homogenous narratives and interpretations. They consolidate the findings of different fields of study and thus allow to analyse the Latinitas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an integral part of the political community's identity. The symbols of Latin language and culture can be identified as a basis for a Shift from oral to written culture. It conveys the ideas of order and organisation, as it transforms customary law into a codified one, a natural religion into that based on Scripture, etc. It alters the society as well, mainly because writing and written culture marks a shift in identity and behaviour. Also, by focusing on social and educational aspects, the Shift marks an institutional change, which permeates the developments of the state and society as a whole. The multipolar cultural field of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is described by four cultural models – Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, and Latin. The metaphor of Interaction shows how Latin culture and language is seen as one of the four ideological alternatives that legitimize the state, dynasty and sovereignty. Thirdly, the metaphor of Tension depicts Latinitas as part of the dichotomy between Eastern and Western civilizations by expressing the symbolical content of the latter. This narrative also emphasizes the internal confessional disputes inside the Western Church, and by exploiting the specific understanding of the Renaissance humanism, it becomes a means to understand sociocultural conflicts of the Early Modern state. The interpretation of Latinitas as a communication channel is nested under the metaphor of Medium. Works in this category usually portray Latin language as an expression of a social, economic, political, etc. status quo, which differs in each European state. Latin culture thus helps to articulate national interests and identity, and enables the cultural exchange among the Western countries as well. Finally, by emphasizing the poor literacy of the society and only limited possibilities to learn Latin and acknowledge its cultural code, researchers portray Latinitas as a Secret. The speakers and writers of Latin form a hermetic group, possessing the knowledge of a cultural matrix inaccessible to others. The dignity of Latin language also strengthens the status of vernacular languages, and thus accumulates the process of identity formation. These five narratives exemplify how Latinitas is embedded within the economic, political, and cultural activities of the society. It also depicts the different ways by which it becomes an integrating principle of the identity of the intellectual and political classes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It provides an account of Roman descent, sustains the claim for political sovereignty, and indicates the civilizing process. By adopting those five different narratives, researchers may further analyse Latinitas not only as a separate cultural layer, but as a part of social identity as well.

This paper analyses the reception of Latin language and culture in the research of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It focuses on the works of various disciplines – social and cultural history, literary research, art criticism, etc. – and seeks to identify the recurring themes, symbols and topics that comprise homogenous narratives and interpretations. They consolidate the findings of different fields of study and thus allow to analyse the Latinitas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an integral part of the political community's identity. The symbols of Latin language and culture can be identified as a basis for a Shift from oral to written culture. It conveys the ideas of order and organisation, as it transforms customary law into a codified one, a natural religion into that based on Scripture, etc. It alters the society as well, mainly because writing and written culture marks a shift in identity and behaviour. Also, by focusing on social and educational aspects, the Shift marks an institutional change, which permeates the developments of the state and society as a whole. The multipolar cultural field of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is described by four cultural models – Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, and Latin. The metaphor of Interaction shows how Latin culture and language is seen as one of the four ideological alternatives that legitimize the state, dynasty and sovereignty. Thirdly, the metaphor of Tension depicts Latinitas as part of the dichotomy between Eastern and Western civilizations by expressing the symbolical content of the latter. This narrative also emphasizes the internal confessional disputes inside the Western Church, and by exploiting the specific understanding of the Renaissance humanism, it becomes a means to understand sociocultural conflicts of the Early Modern state. The interpretation of Latinitas as a communication channel is nested under the metaphor of Medium. Works in this category usually portray Latin language as an expression of a social, economic, political, etc. status quo, which differs in each European state. Latin culture thus helps to articulate national interests and identity, and enables the cultural exchange among the Western countries as well. Finally, by emphasizing the poor literacy of the society and only limited possibilities to learn Latin and acknowledge its cultural code, researchers portray Latinitas as a Secret. The speakers and writers of Latin form a hermetic group, possessing the knowledge of a cultural matrix inaccessible to others. The dignity of Latin language also strengthens the status of vernacular languages, and thus accumulates the process of identity formation. These five narratives exemplify how Latinitas is embedded within the economic, political, and cultural activities of the society. It also depicts the different ways by which it becomes an integrating principle of the identity of the intellectual and political classes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It provides an account of Roman descent, sustains the claim for political sovereignty, and indicates the civilizing process. By adopting those five different narratives, researchers may further analyse Latinitas not only as a separate cultural layer, but as a part of social identity as well.

This paper analyses the reception of Latin language and culture in the research of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It focuses on the works of various disciplines– social and cultural history, literary research, art criticism, etc.–and seeks to identify the recurring themes, symbols and topics that comprise homogenous narratives and interpretations. They consolidate the findings of different fields of study and thus allow to analyse theLatinitasof the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an integral part of the political community's identity.The symbols of Latin language and culture can be identified as a basis for aShiftfrom oral to written culture. It conveys the ideas of order and organisation, as it transforms customary law into a codified one, a natural religion into that based on Scripture, etc. It alters the society as well, mainly because writing and written culture marks a shift in identity and behaviour. Also, by focusing on social and educational aspects, theShiftmarks an institutional change, which permeates the developments of the state and society as a whole.The multipolar cultural field of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is described by four cultural models– Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, and Latin. The metaphor ofInteractionshows how Latin culture and language is seen as one of the four ideological alternatives that legitimize the state, dynasty and sovereignty.Thirdly, the metaphor ofTensiondepictsLatinitasas part of the dichotomy between Eastern and Western civilizations by expressing the symbolical content of the latter. This narrative also emphasizes the internal confessional disputes inside the Western Church, and by exploiting the specific understanding of the Renaissance humanism, it becomes a means to understand sociocultural conflicts of the Early Modern state.The interpretation ofLatinitasas a communication channel is nested under the metaphor ofMedium. Works in this category usually portray Latin language as an expression of a social, economic, political, etc.status quo, which differs in each European state. Latin culture thus helps to articulate national interests and identity, and enables the cultural exchange among the Western countries as well.Finally, by emphasizing the poor literacy of the society and only limited possibilities to learn Latin and acknowledge its cultural code, researchers portrayLatinitasas aSecret. The speakers and writers of Latin form a hermetic group, possessing the knowledge of a cultural matrix inaccessible to others. The dignity of Latin language also strengthens the status of vernacular languages, and thus accumulates the process of identity formation.These five narratives exemplify howLatinitasis embedded within the economic, political, and cultural activities of the society. It also depicts the different ways by which it becomes an integrating principle of the identity of the intellectual and political classes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It provides an account of Roman descent, sustains the claim for political sovereignty, and indicates the civilizing process. By adopting those five different narratives, researchers may further analyseLatinitasnot only as a separate cultural layer, but as a part of social identity as well. ; Straipsnyje analizuojami Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės lotyniškajai kultūrai skirti literatūros, kultūros ir socialinės istorijos bei kitų sričių tyrimai. Metaanalize siekiama išskirti įvairių disciplinų darbuose aptariamasLatinitasir lotyniškosios kultūros sampratas ir pateikti sisteminę šių sampratų apžvalgą. Skiriamos penkios interpretacijos, kurias įprasminaVirsmo,Sąveikos,Įtampos,IšraiškosirPaslaptiesmetaforos. Lotynų kultūra suprantama kaip: visuomenę ir valstybę civilizuojantis veiksnys; vienas iš ideologinių politinio tapatumo modelių; vienas iš civilizacinio konflikto tarp Rytų ir Vakarų polių; visuomenės sanklodos išraiškos priemonė; uždara, tik visuomenės elitui prieinama kultūrinių simbolių sistema. Šios skirtingos prieigos padeda atskleisti lotyniškosios kultūros universalumą ir vertinti ją kaip ankstyvųjų Naujųjų laikų politinės bendruomenės tapatumo dėmenį.

This paper analyses the reception of Latin language and culture in the research of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It focuses on the works of various disciplines – social and cultural history, literary research, art criticism, etc. – and seeks to identify the recurring themes, symbols and topics that comprise homogenous narratives and interpretations. They consolidate the findings of different fields of study and thus allow to analyse the Latinitas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an integral part of the political community's identity. The symbols of Latin language and culture can be identified as a basis for a Shift from oral to written culture. It conveys the ideas of order and organisation, as it transforms customary law into a codified one, a natural religion into that based on Scripture, etc. It alters the society as well, mainly because writing and written culture marks a shift in identity and behaviour. Also, by focusing on social and educational aspects, the Shift marks an institutional change, which permeates the developments of the state and society as a whole. The multipolar cultural field of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is described by four cultural models – Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, and Latin. The metaphor of Interaction shows how Latin culture and language is seen as one of the four ideological alternatives that legitimize the state, dynasty and sovereignty. Thirdly, the metaphor of Tension depicts Latinitas as part of the dichotomy between Eastern and Western civilizations by expressing the symbolical content of the latter. This narrative also emphasizes the internal confessional disputes inside the Western Church, and by exploiting the specific understanding of the Renaissance humanism, it becomes a means to understand sociocultural conflicts of the Early Modern state. The interpretation of Latinitas as a communication channel is nested under the metaphor of Medium. Works in this category usually portray Latin language as an expression of a social, economic, political, etc. status quo, which differs in each European state. Latin culture thus helps to articulate national interests and identity, and enables the cultural exchange among the Western countries as well. Finally, by emphasizing the poor literacy of the society and only limited possibilities to learn Latin and acknowledge its cultural code, researchers portray Latinitas as a Secret. The speakers and writers of Latin form a hermetic group, possessing the knowledge of a cultural matrix inaccessible to others. The dignity of Latin language also strengthens the status of vernacular languages, and thus accumulates the process of identity formation. These five narratives exemplify how Latinitas is embedded within the economic, political, and cultural activities of the society. It also depicts the different ways by which it becomes an integrating principle of the identity of the intellectual and political classes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It provides an account of Roman descent, sustains the claim for political sovereignty, and indicates the civilizing process. By adopting those five different narratives, researchers may further analyse Latinitas not only as a separate cultural layer, but as a part of social identity as well.

This paper analyses the reception of Latin language and culture in the research of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It focuses on the works of various disciplines – social and cultural history, literary research, art criticism, etc. – and seeks to identify the recurring themes, symbols and topics that comprise homogenous narratives and interpretations. They consolidate the findings of different fields of study and thus allow to analyse the Latinitas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an integral part of the political community's identity. The symbols of Latin language and culture can be identified as a basis for a Shift from oral to written culture. It conveys the ideas of order and organisation, as it transforms customary law into a codified one, a natural religion into that based on Scripture, etc. It alters the society as well, mainly because writing and written culture marks a shift in identity and behaviour. Also, by focusing on social and educational aspects, the Shift marks an institutional change, which permeates the developments of the state and society as a whole. The multipolar cultural field of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is described by four cultural models – Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, and Latin. The metaphor of Interaction shows how Latin culture and language is seen as one of the four ideological alternatives that legitimize the state, dynasty and sovereignty. Thirdly, the metaphor of Tension depicts Latinitas as part of the dichotomy between Eastern and Western civilizations by expressing the symbolical content of the latter. This narrative also emphasizes the internal confessional disputes inside the Western Church, and by exploiting the specific understanding of the Renaissance humanism, it becomes a means to understand sociocultural conflicts of the Early Modern state. The interpretation of Latinitas as a communication channel is nested under the metaphor of Medium. Works in this category usually portray Latin language as an expression of a social, economic, political, etc. status quo, which differs in each European state. Latin culture thus helps to articulate national interests and identity, and enables the cultural exchange among the Western countries as well. Finally, by emphasizing the poor literacy of the society and only limited possibilities to learn Latin and acknowledge its cultural code, researchers portray Latinitas as a Secret. The speakers and writers of Latin form a hermetic group, possessing the knowledge of a cultural matrix inaccessible to others. The dignity of Latin language also strengthens the status of vernacular languages, and thus accumulates the process of identity formation. These five narratives exemplify how Latinitas is embedded within the economic, political, and cultural activities of the society. It also depicts the different ways by which it becomes an integrating principle of the identity of the intellectual and political classes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It provides an account of Roman descent, sustains the claim for political sovereignty, and indicates the civilizing process. By adopting those five different narratives, researchers may further analyse Latinitas not only as a separate cultural layer, but as a part of social identity as well.

This paper presents rhetorical aspects of a sixteenth century Lithuanian polemical treatise "Rozmowa polaka z litwinem" ("Pasikalbėjimas lenko su lietuviu"). This anonymous work is often labeled as "humanist". Even though many scholars analyse its contents and emphasize references to the Classical Antiquity, formal aspects and their pragmatic implications remain unevaluated. Scholars have mainly focused on the issue of it authorship and quoted it illustrating cultural and political sixteenth century changes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The main aim of this article is to reveal rhetorical tropes and figures employed by the author of the treatise and discuss the possible motivation of their selection."Rozmowa" responds to, "Quincunx", written in 1564 by a Polish polemist Stanisław Orzechowski (1513–1566). It is a part of a prolonged polemic between the later and Lithuanian Chancellor, Palatine of Vilnius Mikalojus Radvila "The Black". The details and the course of their dispute is reconstructed by Orzechowski himself in the letter to Piotr Miscovius, which also is titled "Apologia pro Quincunce". He refers to the "Rozmowa" without mentioning its title or particular author. Historiography attributes it to the Vilnius mayor (wójt) Augustyn Rotundus (c. 1520–1582). Both Orzechowski and Rotundus studied abroad and had spent some time in Italy. Not only curricula of their studies ofartes liberaleswere influenced by Classical Antiquity, they also undoubtedly got familiar with humanist culture of the contemporary Europe."Rozmowa" consists of two main parts, which are separated by a verse. The treatise is written in a form of a dialogue, and allows to portray a vivid discussion and multiple points of view. The first part of "Rozmowa" focuses on the questions of the political theory, whereas the second one is dedicated to the history of Lithuania, its dynasty and the issue of the Polish-Lithuanian Union. While the first part is polemical, the second one has epideictic character. The author employs personification, paradiastole and antithesis. The latter two allow changing the normative contents of political concepts, and irony highlights the absurdities in the Polish political practices. The Lithuanian, one of the characters, uses deprecation and interpellation, addresses the absent participants of a dialogue (e.g. Orzechowski himself). The author quotes Ancient authors, Scripture, Church Fathers and contemporary thinkers (e.g. Machiavelli and Erasmus), whose ideas provide him with literarytopoi. Merged with the rhetorical techniques, they constitute the political arguments of the treatise and allows the author to express one's political ideas. ; Analizuojamas XVI a. LDK raštijos paminklas "Pasikalbėjimas lenko su lietuviu" istoriografijoje ir literatūros tyrimuose vadinamas poleminiu kūriniu, tačiau iki šiol jis daugiausia analizuotas tik įkontekstinant politinius įvykius, o jo turinio tyrimai apsiribodavo trumpa pagrindinių idėjų rekonstrukcija. Šiame straipsnyje į minėtą kūrinį siekiama pažvelgti kaip į ankstyvųjų Naujųjų laikų politinės polemikos tekstą, apžvelgiant jame naudojamus retorinius instrumentus. Tekstas laikomas platesnės Europos dialoginės kūrybos tradicijos dalimi – šio žanro savitumas leidžia sutalpinti viename kūrinyje ir viena kitai oponuojančias pozicijas, todėl įdėmus žvilgsnis į jo turinį bei retoriką padeda susidaryti išsamesnį vaizdą apie XVI a. politines aktualijas ar įtampas. Apžvelgus svarbiausius teorinius požiūrius į ankstyvųjų Naujųjų laikų poleminio kūrinio retorines raiškos priemones bei jų santykį su socialiniu ir politiniu kontekstu, analizuojama "Pasikalbėjimo lenko su lietuviu" struktūra, atskleidžiamos vartojamos literatūrinės bei stilistinės raiškos priemonės ir jų įtaka formuluojamoms teorinėms bei idėjinėms kūrinio pozicijoms ir praktinei politinei veiklai.

This paper presents rhetorical aspects of a sixteenth century Lithuanian polemical treatise "Rozmowa polaka z litwinem" ("Pasikalbėjimas lenko su lietuviu"). This anonymous work is often labeled as "humanist". Even though many scholars analyse its contents and emphasize references to the Classical Antiquity, formal aspects and their pragmatic implications remain unevaluated. Scholars have mainly focused on the issue of it authorship and quoted it illustrating cultural and political sixteenth century changes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The main aim of this article is to reveal rhetorical tropes and figures employed by the author of the treatise and discuss the possible motivation of their selection. "Rozmowa" responds to, "Quincunx", written in 1564 by a Polish polemist Stanisław Orzechowski (1513–1566). It is a part of a prolonged polemic between the later and Lithuanian Chancellor, Palatine of Vilnius Mikalojus Radvila "The Black". The details and the course of their dispute is reconstructed by Orzechowski himself in the letter to Piotr Miscovius, which also is titled "Apologia pro Quincunce". He refers to the "Rozmowa" without mentioning its title or particular author. Historiography attributes it to the Vilnius mayor (wójt) Augustyn Rotundus (c. 1520–1582). Both Orzechowski and Rotundus studied abroad and had spent some time in Italy. Not only curricula of their studies of artes liberales were influenced by Classical Antiquity, they also undoubtedly got familiar with humanist culture of the contemporary Europe. "Rozmowa" consists of two main parts, which are separated by a verse. The treatise is written in a form of a dialogue, and allows to portray a vivid discussion and multiple points of view. The first part of "Rozmowa" focuses on the questions of the political theory, whereas the second one is dedicated to the history of Lithuania, its dynasty and the issue of the Polish-Lithuanian Union. While the first part is polemical, the second one has epideictic character. The author employs personification, paradiastole and antithesis. The latter two allow changing the normative contents of political concepts, and irony highlights the absurdities in the Polish political practices. The Lithuanian, one of the characters, uses deprecation and interpellation, addresses the absent participants of a dialogue (e. g. Orzechowski himself). The author quotes Ancient authors, Scripture, Church Fathers and contemporary thinkers (e. g. Machiavelli and Erasmus), whose ideas provide him with literary topoi. Merged with the rhetorical techniques, they constitute the political arguments of the treatise and allows the author to express one's political ideas.

This paper presents rhetorical aspects of a sixteenth century Lithuanian polemical treatise "Rozmowa polaka z litwinem" ("Pasikalbėjimas lenko su lietuviu"). This anonymous work is often labeled as "humanist". Even though many scholars analyse its contents and emphasize references to the Classical Antiquity, formal aspects and their pragmatic implications remain unevaluated. Scholars have mainly focused on the issue of it authorship and quoted it illustrating cultural and political sixteenth century changes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The main aim of this article is to reveal rhetorical tropes and figures employed by the author of the treatise and discuss the possible motivation of their selection. "Rozmowa" responds to, "Quincunx", written in 1564 by a Polish polemist Stanisław Orzechowski (1513–1566). It is a part of a prolonged polemic between the later and Lithuanian Chancellor, Palatine of Vilnius Mikalojus Radvila "The Black". The details and the course of their dispute is reconstructed by Orzechowski himself in the letter to Piotr Miscovius, which also is titled "Apologia pro Quincunce". He refers to the "Rozmowa" without mentioning its title or particular author. Historiography attributes it to the Vilnius mayor (wójt) Augustyn Rotundus (c. 1520–1582). Both Orzechowski and Rotundus studied abroad and had spent some time in Italy. Not only curricula of their studies of artes liberales were influenced by Classical Antiquity, they also undoubtedly got familiar with humanist culture of the contemporary Europe. "Rozmowa" consists of two main parts, which are separated by a verse. The treatise is written in a form of a dialogue, and allows to portray a vivid discussion and multiple points of view. The first part of "Rozmowa" focuses on the questions of the political theory, whereas the second one is dedicated to the history of Lithuania, its dynasty and the issue of the Polish-Lithuanian Union. While the first part is polemical, the second one has epideictic character. The author employs personification, paradiastole and antithesis. The latter two allow changing the normative contents of political concepts, and irony highlights the absurdities in the Polish political practices. The Lithuanian, one of the characters, uses deprecation and interpellation, addresses the absent participants of a dialogue (e. g. Orzechowski himself). The author quotes Ancient authors, Scripture, Church Fathers and contemporary thinkers (e. g. Machiavelli and Erasmus), whose ideas provide him with literary topoi. Merged with the rhetorical techniques, they constitute the political arguments of the treatise and allows the author to express one's political ideas.

This paper presents rhetorical aspects of a sixteenth century Lithuanian polemical treatise "Rozmowa polaka z litwinem" ("Pasikalbėjimas lenko su lietuviu"). This anonymous work is often labeled as "humanist". Even though many scholars analyse its contents and emphasize references to the Classical Antiquity, formal aspects and their pragmatic implications remain unevaluated. Scholars have mainly focused on the issue of it authorship and quoted it illustrating cultural and political sixteenth century changes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The main aim of this article is to reveal rhetorical tropes and figures employed by the author of the treatise and discuss the possible motivation of their selection. "Rozmowa" responds to, "Quincunx", written in 1564 by a Polish polemist Stanisław Orzechowski (1513–1566). It is a part of a prolonged polemic between the later and Lithuanian Chancellor, Palatine of Vilnius Mikalojus Radvila "The Black". The details and the course of their dispute is reconstructed by Orzechowski himself in the letter to Piotr Miscovius, which also is titled "Apologia pro Quincunce". He refers to the "Rozmowa" without mentioning its title or particular author. Historiography attributes it to the Vilnius mayor (wójt) Augustyn Rotundus (c. 1520–1582). Both Orzechowski and Rotundus studied abroad and had spent some time in Italy. Not only curricula of their studies of artes liberales were influenced by Classical Antiquity, they also undoubtedly got familiar with humanist culture of the contemporary Europe. "Rozmowa" consists of two main parts, which are separated by a verse. The treatise is written in a form of a dialogue, and allows to portray a vivid discussion and multiple points of view. The first part of "Rozmowa" focuses on the questions of the political theory, whereas the second one is dedicated to the history of Lithuania, its dynasty and the issue of the Polish-Lithuanian Union. While the first part is polemical, the second one has epideictic character. The author employs personification, paradiastole and antithesis. The latter two allow changing the normative contents of political concepts, and irony highlights the absurdities in the Polish political practices. The Lithuanian, one of the characters, uses deprecation and interpellation, addresses the absent participants of a dialogue (e. g. Orzechowski himself). The author quotes Ancient authors, Scripture, Church Fathers and contemporary thinkers (e. g. Machiavelli and Erasmus), whose ideas provide him with literary topoi. Merged with the rhetorical techniques, they constitute the political arguments of the treatise and allows the author to express one's political ideas.

This paper presents rhetorical aspects of a sixteenth century Lithuanian polemical treatise "Rozmowa polaka z litwinem" ("Pasikalbėjimas lenko su lietuviu"). This anonymous work is often labeled as "humanist". Even though many scholars analyse its contents and emphasize references to the Classical Antiquity, formal aspects and their pragmatic implications remain unevaluated. Scholars have mainly focused on the issue of it authorship and quoted it illustrating cultural and political sixteenth century changes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The main aim of this article is to reveal rhetorical tropes and figures employed by the author of the treatise and discuss the possible motivation of their selection. "Rozmowa" responds to, "Quincunx", written in 1564 by a Polish polemist Stanisław Orzechowski (1513–1566). It is a part of a prolonged polemic between the later and Lithuanian Chancellor, Palatine of Vilnius Mikalojus Radvila "The Black". The details and the course of their dispute is reconstructed by Orzechowski himself in the letter to Piotr Miscovius, which also is titled "Apologia pro Quincunce". He refers to the "Rozmowa" without mentioning its title or particular author. Historiography attributes it to the Vilnius mayor (wójt) Augustyn Rotundus (c. 1520–1582). Both Orzechowski and Rotundus studied abroad and had spent some time in Italy. Not only curricula of their studies of artes liberales were influenced by Classical Antiquity, they also undoubtedly got familiar with humanist culture of the contemporary Europe. "Rozmowa" consists of two main parts, which are separated by a verse. The treatise is written in a form of a dialogue, and allows to portray a vivid discussion and multiple points of view. The first part of "Rozmowa" focuses on the questions of the political theory, whereas the second one is dedicated to the history of Lithuania, its dynasty and the issue of the Polish-Lithuanian Union. While the first part is polemical, the second one has epideictic character. The author employs personification, paradiastole and antithesis. The latter two allow changing the normative contents of political concepts, and irony highlights the absurdities in the Polish political practices. The Lithuanian, one of the characters, uses deprecation and interpellation, addresses the absent participants of a dialogue (e. g. Orzechowski himself). The author quotes Ancient authors, Scripture, Church Fathers and contemporary thinkers (e. g. Machiavelli and Erasmus), whose ideas provide him with literary topoi. Merged with the rhetorical techniques, they constitute the political arguments of the treatise and allows the author to express one's political ideas.