Epilogue

The reception of Aristotelian rhetoric was gradual and often partial. It did not overthrow established rhetorical theory; it did not displace the school rhetorics that foregrounded stylistic facility as the main source of emotional appeal. Indeed, we might characterize much late medieval rhetorical thought and practice as hybrid, balancing—sometimes nervously—between older systems that were learned consciously and theoretical models that were absorbed through later cultural influences. This concluding chapter considers some later medieval experiments with the rhetorical vocabulary of emotion before looking forward to the canonical expansions and more synthetic directions of early renaissance rhetoric. After a brief look at Ramon Llull’s Rethorica nova, the chapter turns to the French Eschéz d’amours and Evrart de Conty’s Eschéz amoureux moralisés, Christine de Pizan’s Livre des fais et bonnes meurs du sage roy Charles V, the anonymous Tractatus de regimine principum ad regem Henricum sextum, and Alain Chartier’s Quadrilogue invectif. The chapter ends with a brief look at the “mixed rhetorics” of the early Renaissance, where Aristotelian rhetoric found greater traction alongside the growing corpus of Ciceronian rhetoric.

The “Sheep” and the “Lion”: Charles V, Barbarossa, and Habsburg Diplomatic Practice in the Muslim Mediterranean (1534-1542)

Between the 1530s and the 1540s, the Emperor Charles V tried to win over the Ottoman Grand Admiral Hayreddin Barbarossa, leading him to defect from the Ottoman cause and turn him into a faithful Habsburg warlord. In exchange for this, the former would have given the latter the opportunity to rule over the Central Maghreb as a new Habsburg ally. Obviously, both sides managed this negotiation in strict secrecy to prevent the plan from being discovered by the Ottoman sultan. Although it might seem surprising, this kind of diplomatic operation was a common tool to address political rivalries in the Early Modern Mediterranean. While efforts to recruit the best warlords were a well-established practice in Renaissance warfare, inter-religious dialogue was certainly nothing new at the beginning of the sixteenth century, given the long-lasting relations established between Christian and Muslim polities in the Middle Ages. Therefore, by analyzing the three main dimensions of diplomacy—communication, negotiation, and information gathering—this article aims to emphasize that the negotiation between Charles V and Barbarossa was not an exception, but a well rooted diplomatic practice in Habsburg Mediterranean policy.

A Constellation of Courts

This volume focuses on the various Habsburg courts and households of the two branches of the dynasty that arose following the division of the territories originally held by Charles V. The authors trace the connections between these courtly communities regardless of their standing or composition, exposing the underlying network they formed. By cutting across the traditional division in the historiography between the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs and also examining the roles played by the courts and households of lesser known members of the dynasty, this volume determines to what degree the organization followed a particular model and to what extent individuals were able to move between courts in pursuit of career opportunities and advancement.

Issues of examination of the ability to work in the practical work of a doctor

Medical expertise has its origins in the distant past. Prof. Shibkov attributes it to the time of the emergence of forensic medicine, namely for Zap. Europe by 1532, when the charter of Charles V was issued (the so-called Cardina), and for Russia by 1716, when the military charter was issued (article 154) (under Peter I). In the distant past (about 200 years ago) it appears in Zap. In Europe, the practice of insurance expertise is first in the interests of private and voluntary, and then compulsory insurance.

Empires and Cities—Political Thought in an Age of Expansion

In 1519 Charles V became the most powerful figure Europe had seen for generations, ruling over a vast collection of lands which stretched from the Iberian coast to the Baltic Sea. To the East, however, the position of the Ottoman sultan Selim I was no less auspicious. Not only had he amassed a large territory through conquest and force of arms, but he had established himself as Protector of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. Both men seemed blessed by their respective Gods and charged with authority both political and religious. Their empires would exert a powerful hold over the early modern imagination, as people wrestled with the intellectual as well as the practical implications of imperial rule. Across these lands, the concept of empire was challenged as well as defended, using Roman law, humanism, and religious ideas. Desiderius Erasmus combined classical ideas with Christianity to offer a new mirror for princes, while Niccolò Machiavelli drew on the heritage of ancient Rome to defend a vision of civic virtù. Meanwhile, the Ottoman sultans encouraged the development of an expansive imperial ideology in which the sultan was portrayed as divinely favoured.

ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT: THE SCA BRINGS CLARITY Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto 2011 1 SACR 315 (SCA); [2011] 2 All SA 157 (SCA)

Section 40(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for a number of different instances where a peace officer may effect an arrest without an arrest warrant. A perusal of the reported case law pertaining to the lawfulness of arrests without warrant reveals that section 40(1)(b) of the Act, in particular, has received much attention from the courts. In terms of this subsection a peace officer may arrest without warrant any person whom he reasonably suspects of having committed an offence referred to in Schedule 1, other than the offence of escaping from lawful custody. It is settled law that any deprivation of freedom is regarded as prima facie unlawful. The arrestor therefore bears the onus of proving that the arrest was justified. The following jurisdictional facts must be present for a peace officer to rely on the defence created by section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act in cases, where it is alleged that the arrest was unlawful: (i) the arrestor must be a peace officer; (ii) the arrestor must entertain a suspicion; (iii) the suspicion must be that the suspect committed an offence in Schedule 1; and (iv) the suspicion must rest on reasonable grounds. For a discussion of the differenttypes of jurisdictional facts provided for in section 40(1) see Watney. In Louw v Minister of Safety and Security Bertelsman J held, with reference to the right to personal liberty, that arresting officers are under a constitutional obligation to consider whether there are no less invasive options to bring the suspect to court than the drastic measure of arrest, thereby effectively requiring a further jurisdictional fact for successful reliance by a peace officer on the provisions of section 40(1). If a reasonable apprehension exists that the suspect will abscond, or fail to appear in court if a warrant is first obtained for his or her arrest, or awritten notice or summons to appear in court is obtained, then the arrest would be constitutionally untenable and unlawful. Bertelsman J relied on academic opinion and an obiter remark made by De Vos J in Ralekwa v Minister of Safety and Security and held that the approach in Tsose v Minister of Justice that there is no rule that requires the milder method of bringing a person to court if it would be as effective as arrest, could no longer be acceptable in a constitutional dispensation. This approach was followed in a number of reported High Court judgments but not approved of in Charles v Minister of Safety and Security. In Minister of Safety and Security v Van Niekerk the Constitutional Court found it not to be in the interests of justice on the facts of the case before it to pronounce on the constitutional tenability of the approach in Tsose, but nevertheless held that the constitutionality of an arrest will be dependent upon its factual circumstances. Watney succinctly discusses some of the abovementioned developments. However, on 19 November 2010 the Supreme Court of Appeal in Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto (2011 1 SACR 315 (SCA), also reported in [2011] 2 All SA 157 (SCA)) held that the approach of the different high courts requiring a further jurisdictional fact for the lawfulness of an arrest did nothave proper regard for the principles in terms of which statutes must be interpreted in the light of the Bill of Rights and that they have conflated the issue of jurisdictional facts with the issue of discretion. This lucid judgment brings clarity to the issue of the lawfulness of arrests without warrant.