If we inquire the origin of what we know today as leadership, we necessarily arrive at Oratory and Rhetoric, two disciplines that are essentially political and naturally linked to democracy since classical Antiquity. In fact, Cicero considered them as part of civic science, that is, of politics, since they were indispensable for a leader or for any speaker who needed to communicate and convince through words.

Rhetoric has been a distinctively European cultural manifestation, mainly due to the impulse received from the Renaissance humanists. In the process of producing and disseminating a speech, this discipline, since Aristotle, attaches a great importance to the figure of the listener, whether judge or private citizen, whose nature and status must be assessed by the speaker if his message is aimed to have the expected impact, approval or support.

Knowledge, including science and wisdom (scientia and sapientia), also plays an essential role in the speech communication process, as some contemporary versions of Rhetoric still confirm. On the one hand, Cicero demanded from the good speaker a solid scientific and philosophical background, and this association of knowledge to goodness undoubtedly affects the thinking and behaviour of the speaker, or leader. But above all, on the other hand, listeners need to know the conceptual framework on which the speaker, or leader, produced his message; otherwise, they will not be able to evaluate the content of this message in order to, if necessary, accept it and adopt it in their own decision-making.

The projection of these principles of communication and leadership in many current circumstances is extraordinary. That is the reason why they are classical. And they take on special relevance in the current European scene.

The European cultural identity is a reality firmly grounded in facts and manifestations that have occurred throughout history, and it must be one of the pillars of today’s Europeanism. These manifestations have been the result of intellectual, scientific and social movements arising from a supranational activity and spirit, which, precisely because of this nature, transcended the borders of the former and current European states.

Renaissance humanism, for example, was a movement of deep intellectual and pedagogical renewal which, founded on common principles, instruments and goals, shaped the actions of the main agents of progress and development in Early Modern Europe. New ideas, accompanied by new methods that brought together traditional knowledge, progress, technology and ethics, were both a cause and a consequence of the fact that all those who pursued the public utility in the fields of education, politics, health or science in general, felt that they were citizens of a common nation, the so-called Respublica Litterarum. This ‘Republic of Letters’ basically spread all over the European territory, even though there were, at the same time, destabilising and disruptive forces in the social and political spheres. But the significance, projection, acceptance and depth of the formal and conceptual principles that arose in that intellectual context were outstanding, and created a global Europe united by a supranational culture, which coexisted with local, ideological and religious identities, and substantially influenced them. Politicians, lawyers, scientists and educators, all of them motivated by the same humanist purposes, travelled across the European territory and set their objectives for the common benefit and progress in their particular fields of action. Concerning this, it can certainly be problematic and anachronistic to assign to many of those Europeans a nationality conceived from our contemporary perspective, given that the political map of Early Modern Europe was notably different from the present one. Besides, many of those humanists, for different reasons, spent their lives or carried out their work in countries other than those of their origin. But, anyway, in order to bring to the present, and to understand the transnational dimension and the great unifying capacity that the European humanistic culture had, updating the nationality of some humanists can sometimes be useful.

In addition to the Dutchman Desiderius Erasmus, the Englishman Thomas More, the Italians Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo Galilei, the Polish Nicolaus Copernicus or the Spaniard Michael Servetus, whose names are now well known, a plethora of intellectuals, politicians, educators, doctors and scientists born in different European countries contributed substantially, within the framework of these new ideas, to the development of what we would today consider European culture. Let us recall, for example, the contributions in the field of translation studies by Leonardo Bruni, the first modern theorist on this discipline; the editorial collaboration of the Spaniard Benito Arias Montano in Antwerp with the printer Christophe Plantin and with several humanists from other nations; the intense activity developed by the Polish diplomat and poet Johannes Dantiscus in various European countries; the advances in Anatomy by the Brussels-born Andreas Vesalius; the pedagogical renewal undertaken by the Czech Jan Amos Comenius; or the famous collections of emblems by the Italian Andrea Alciato, the Hungarian Johannes Sambucus and the German Joachim Camerarius the Jounger, who was a physician, botanist and Hellenist. And to them we may add Giovanni Pontano, Lucio Marineo Siculo, Aldo Manuzio, Thomas Linacre, Guillaume Budé, Julius Caesar Scaliger, Juan Luis Vives, Philipp Melanchthon, André de Resende, Leonhart Fuchs, Andrés Laguna, Conrad Gessner, Ulisse Aldrovandi, Achilles Statius, Henri Estienne, Justus Lipsius, and a very long etcetera.

And there is no lack of women in the European humanist context. The humanistic education received by many of them –the greater part, but not all, from noble families– facilitated their access to various academic and political circles, and even to a relevant intervention in public life, insofar as it was possible at the time. They were teachers, produced and published books, and wrote and gave speeches, like the Venetian Cassandra Fedele at the University of Padua and before the Senate of Venice. Some others were important agents of political and cultural modernisation, like Beatrice of Aragon, Queen of Hungary, who brought from Naples to Buda and Visegrád the ideas and action guidelines linked to her new and careful education. Like them, many other women –namely Isotta Nogarola, Laura Cereta, Beatriz Galindo, Luisa Sigea, Mencía de Mendoza, or Marie de Gournay– also took part in that female revolution. European Early Modern humanism, its educational principles and the renewal of knowledge it brought about, directly influenced the modern discourse on women’s right to education and on their role in society. Christine de Pizan being the pioneer at the beginning of the 15th century, the writings of other women of those times –and of some men too– enriched the discourse that today we could call feminist.

A community does not come out of nowhere; in its formation process, the contributions of the ancestors is always a source of inspiration to move forward. In this respect, a current and fruitful understanding of these contributions necessarily requires avoiding anachronism and errors derived from unreasonably applying a contemporary perspective. But in any case, there is no doubt that knowing the work and objectives of the Europeans before us provides today’s Europeans with excellent tools to wisely assess social behaviours, all kinds of events, and even ways of acting in the circumstances that the course of time brings.

Let us go back to Rhetoric: if Europeanism and the cultural identity that support it are to play the role they naturally possess as effective elements of social cohesion, the common facts on which they are based must necessarily be known to the people. Otherwise, the Europeanist speeches will not work in the communication process, and the leaders will not be able to transmit, if that is their objective, the validity of the cultural cohesion uniting all Europeans. And this is especially relevant in times of crisis.

Today’s Europe requires pedagogical efforts in this direction. Effectively incorporating European culture into both the educational and scientific policy and diplomatic activity of the EU institutions and of its member countries would undoubtedly be a successful action bringing together benefits and a decisive step towards social and political cohesion. In this respect, schools and universities have much to offer.

There is no Europeanism without science, or, in other words, there is no discourse without knowledge. It is urgent.

María Teresa Santamaría Hernández (UCLM)