A Companion to Erasmus (The Renaissance Society of America, 20) 9789004358447, 9789004539686, 9004358447

Citation preview

A Companion to Erasmus

The Renaissance Society of America texts and studies series

Editor-in-Chief David Marsh (Rutgers University)

Editorial Board Anne Coldiron (Florida State University) Ingrid De Smet (University of Warwick) Paul Grendler, Emeritus (University of Toronto) James Hankins (Harvard University) Gerhild Scholz-Williams (Washington University in St. Louis)

volume 20

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/rsa

A Companion to Erasmus Edited by

Eric MacPhail

leiden | boston

Cover illustration: Erasmus of Rotterdam (c. 1532). Painting by Hans Holbein the Younger. Object in the Robert Lehman Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Image in the public domain. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at https://catalog.loc.gov lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022056990

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill‑typeface. issn 2212-3091 isbn 978-90-04-35844-7 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-53968-6 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill nv via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Abbreviations vii Notes on Contributors Introduction

viii

1

1

A Life of Learning: Erasmus’ Literary & Educational Writings Brian Cummings

2

Erasmus and the Church Fathers Mark Vessey

3

Erasmus and the Philosophers Anita Traninger

4

Erasmus and Biblical Scholarship Jan Bloemendal

5

Erasmus and Luther: Free Will and Tradition Greta Grace Kroeker

6

Proverbial Wisdom: The Adagiorum Chiliades Robert Kilpatrick

7

The Correspondence of Erasmus Christine Bénévent

8

Print and Humanism: Portrait of Erasmus as a Paper Oracle Alexandre Vanautgaerden

9

Erasmus in the History of Religious Tolerance Eric MacPhail

10

Erasmus and the Other Terence J. Martin

11

Erasmus in Translation (16th–17th Centuries) Paul J. Smith

4

24

45

68

90

103

119

162

181

201

145

vi

contents

Catalogue of the Works of Erasmus of Rotterdam Joan Tello Bibliography Index 358

345

225

Abbreviations Allen

Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, ed. P.S. Allen et al. 12 vols. (Oxford, 1906–1958). References are to letter and line number. Most of the volumes have appendices, which will be cited by volume and page number. asd Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami. In progress. (Amsterdam, 1969–). References are to ordo, volume, page, and line number. bre Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus, ed. Adalbert Horawitz and Karl Hartfelder. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1966). References are to letter and page number. coe Contemporaries of Erasmus, ed. Peter Bietenholz, 3 vols. (Toronto, 1985– 1987). csel Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. In progress. (Vienna, 1866–). References are to volume and page number. cwe Collected Works of Erasmus. In progress. (Toronto, 1974–). References are to volume, page, and line number, except for letters: letters use only Allen letter numbers with line numbers of the English translation. Ep. A letter in any edition using Allen numbers. ersy Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook Ferguson Erasmi opuscula, ed. Wallace K. Ferguson. (The Hague, 1933). Holborn Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, Ausgewählte Werke, ed. Hajo Holborn. (Munich, 1933). lb Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opera omnia, ed. Jean Le Clerc. 10 vols. (Leiden, 1703–1706). References are to volume, column, and column section number. pl Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne. 221 vols. (Paris, 1844–1864). References are to volume and column number. wa D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe. 136 vols. (Weimar, 1883– 2009). References are to volume and page number.

Notes on Contributors Christine Bénévent is Professor of book history at the École Nationale des Chartes (Paris). Her research focuses mainly on humanism of the early 16th century, in particular on Erasmus and Budé. She has just published Miroirs d’encre. Histoire du livre, désirs de lecture (ehess editions, 2022). Jan Bloemendal is a senior researcher and coordinator of the Erasmi Opera Omnia (asd) at the Huygens Institute for the History and Culture of the Netherlands (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences), and PrivatDozent at the RuhrUniversity Bochum. His publications include the asd volumes vii, 2 and vii, 3A (Paraphrases on Luke and John), the edited volume Bilingual Europe (2015), the co-edited volume (with Howard B. Norland), Neo-Latin Drama and Theatre in Early Modern Europe (2013) and a special issue of Renaissance Studies (with James A. Parente, Jr. and Nigel Smith) “Transnational Exchange in the Early Modern Low Countries.” Brian Cummings is Anniversary Professor at the University of York in the Department of English and Related Literature and a Fellow of the British Academy. He has given the Clarendon Lectures at Oxford and the M.M. Phillips Lecture for the Erasmus of Rotterdam Society. His books include Bibliophobia: The End and the Beginning of the Book (2022). Currently he is a Leverhulme Trust Major Research Fellow working on a forthcoming study of Erasmus, The Art of Reading. Robert Kilpatrick is Professor of French at the University of West Georgia, and currently serves as Chair of the Regents Advisory Committee for languages within the University System of Georgia. His research investigates the collection and reception of classical fragments in sixteenth-century compilations such as Erasmus of Rotterdam’s Adagia and Apophthegmata, and their redeployment in new literary contexts. He has published articles on these topics in Erasmus Studies and Montaigne Studies. Greta Kroeker is Associate Professor of History with a cross-appointment to the Gender and Social Justice program at the University of Waterloo. She is the author of Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul (University of Toronto Press, 2011).

notes on contributors

ix

Eric MacPhail is Professor of French at Indiana University and editor of Erasmus Studies. Terence J. Martin is Professor Emeritus from Saint Mary’s College in Notre Dame, Indiana. He is the author of Living Words: Studies in Dialogues about Religion (Scholars Press, 1998) and Truth and Irony: Philosophical Meditations on Erasmus (Catholic University of America Press, 2015). In recent years he has written on Erasmus’ handling of a variety of theological and ethical topics. Paul J. Smith is Emeritus Professor of French Literature at Leiden University. His major book publications include Het schouwtoneel der dieren. Embleemfabels in de Nederlanden (1567–ca. 1670) (2006); Dispositio. Problematic Ordering in French Renaissance Literature (2007), and Réécrire la Renaissance, de Marcel Proust à Michel Tournier (2009). He co-edited several volumes, of which the most recent are Emblems and the Natural World (2017) with Karl Enenkel; Natural History in Early Modern France (2018) with Raphaële Garrod; and three volumes with Anne-Pascale Pouey-Mounou: Langues hybrides. Expérimentations linguistiques et littéraires (xve-début xviie siècle). Hybridsprachen. Linguistische und literarische Untersuchungen (15.-Anfang 17. Jh.) (2019), Early Modern Catalogues of Imaginary Books. A Scholarly Anthology (2020), and Ronsard and Du Bartas in Early Modern Europe (2021). Joan Tello (PhD in Philosophy, ba in Classical Philology) is currently a Postdoc Researcher in Philosophy at the Universitat de Barcelona / Stockholm University on the project “Towards a complete analysis of the term animus: A contribution to philosophy of mind.” His fields of research include Humanism and Renaissance Philosophy, Aristotle and the Latin tradition, and History of the Book. He has studied, edited, or translated several works of Joan Lluís Vives (De subventione pauperum, 2008; De Aristotelis operibus censura, 2019; Aedes legum, 2020; Satellitium sive symbola, 2020; Introductio ad sapientiam, PhD thesis 2022) and Erasmus of Rotterdam (Adagia, 2018; Augustini opera omnia, 2022). He is now preparing for publication a revised and enlarged version of his catalogue of Vives’ works (2018). Anita Traninger is Full Professor of Romance Literatures at Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. Her research focuses on the shape of knowledge, predominantly in the early

x

notes on contributors

modern period, and specifically with a view to European literatures in a global context. Her books include: Disputation, Deklamation, Dialog. Medien und Gattungen europäischer Wissensverhandlungen zwischen Scholastik und Humanismus (Stuttgart: Steiner 2012); The Emergence of Impartiality (ed. with Kathryn Murphy, Leiden: Brill 2014); Discourses of Anger in the Early Modern Period (ed. with Karl A.E. Enenkel, Leiden: Brill 2015); The Figure of the Nymph in Early Modern Culture (ed. with Karl A.E. Enenkel, Leiden: Brill 2018); Copia / Kopie: Echoeffekte in der Frühen Neuzeit (Hannover: Wehrhahn 2020). Alexandre Vanautgaerden was for many years the director of the Erasmus Museum in Brussels before taking over the direction of the Library of Geneva. Now an Honorary Reader at the University of Warwick and a member of the Royal Academy of Belgium, he is the author of Érasme typographe: Humanisme et imprimerie au début du xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 2012). Mark Vessey is Professor of English Literature at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He will edit a selection of Erasmus’ patristic scholarship (excluding the edition of St Jerome) for Volume 62 of the Collected Works of Erasmus published (in English) by the University of Toronto Press.

Introduction After five hundred years, the time seems to be ripe for a companion to Erasmus. The burgeoning field of Erasmus studies, buoyed by the great, multi-volume editions of the Opera omnia (asd) and the Collected Works of Erasmus (cwe), has sponsored some of the most interesting and innovative scholarship in the humanities in recent years, and it is time to take stock of these advances and to put them at the disposal of a wide and general reading public. The ambition of this companion is to illuminate every aspect of Erasmus’ life, work, and legacy while providing an expert synthesis of the most inspiring research in the field. Above all it is our ambition to serve the needs of teachers who want to incorporate a lesson on Erasmus into a broader survey of Reformation History, Renaissance Civilization, the History of The Book, or any of the numerous disciplines to which Erasmus devoted his efforts. In this way Erasmus can resume his rightful place at the center of humanist training and the humanities can reclaim their place at the head of the university curriculum. This companion shall be the Enchiridion of the humanist pedagogue and the manual of the modern reader with the curiosity to match the wide-ranging interests of Erasmus. To achieve these lofty aims, we have assembled an international team of distinguished experts whose contributions are arrayed in eleven chapters followed by a detailed chronological catalogue of Erasmus’ works. A comprehensive bibliography brings together the references found in the notes to each chapter. In the first chapter, Brian Cummings surveys Erasmus’ place in the history of education on the basis of his most important and indeed most immediately popular rhetorical manuals and educational treatises, culminating in the richly provocative Colloquies. Through their profound inquiry into literary representation, these are the works that earn their author recognition as “an unacknowledged mentor of Renaissance literature” and a founder of our modern concept of the literary. In chapter two Mark Vessey explores Erasmus’ lifelong working relationship with the church fathers on the basis of what he calls Erasmus’ “bookmanship” or immersion in and contribution to the book culture of his time, undergoing a transition from manuscript to print. At the same time, Vessey synthesizes the major trends and “trajectories” of prior research on Erasmus and patristic, exemplifying a paradigmatic ambition of this volume to guide its readers on the new and established trajectories of Erasmus studies. In the third chapter Anita Traninger examines Erasmus’ “uneasy relationship” with philosophy as it was practiced in the universities and humanist circles of the Renaissance. Rather than subscribe to any sect of ancient or modern philos-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_002

2

introduction

ophy, Erasmus propounded his own philosophy of Christ as a way of life rather than a system of doctrine. What is for me the most innovative aspect of the chapter is the idea that Erasmus cultivated the genre of the declamation as an answer to the scholastic habit of disputation and therefore his ambitions took shape partly in emulation of the freedom enjoyed by professional philosophers. In chapter four Jan Bloemendal covers the immense terrain of Erasmus and biblical scholarship, rehearsing all the circumstances of Erasmus’ New Testament edition and synthesizing all the trends of modern scholarship on the topic. With his customary sagacity, Bloemendal assesses the relative weight of tradition and innovation in Erasmus’ work on the New Testament, situating Erasmus in relation to humanist textual criticism and documenting in some detail the most important changes Erasmus made to the Vulgate and the controversy they provoked. Chapter five, by Greta Kroeker, presents the debate between Erasmus and Martin Luther on free will and situates their conflict in the dual context of humanism and reform. With exemplary clarity, Kroeker explains the terms and stakes of this debate and gives each debater his due, while enlisting the best insights of previous criticism and historiography. In chapter six Robert Kilpatrick offers us some reflections on the ethics and esthetics of timeliness in Erasmus’ Adages. Through a generous sampling of the adages and their thematic index, he reveals how the adages practice their own theory of timing and how they complicate their own message through their reversibility of meaning. In chapter seven Christine Bénévent surveys Erasmus’ massive correspondence, detailing its labyrinthine history of publication and highlighting the complex dialectic of public and private in Erasmus’ career as well as in the carefully constructed image he bequeathed to posterity. The first appendix to her chapter reconstitutes the structure of Erasmus’ epistolary treatise De conscribendis epistolis while the second proposes an ingenious typology of the letters on the basis of their place on the broad spectrum of private to public communication. In chapter eight Alexandre Vanautgaerden traces a chronological portrait of Erasmus through his collaboration with successive printing houses culminating in his partnership with the house of Froben in Basel, Switzerland. Vanautgaerden is particularly interested in how printing helped to shape Erasmus’ literary creativity as he evolved a new way of working in which the writing of a text becomes nearly simultaneous with its printing. In chapter nine Eric MacPhail, your fearless editor, assesses Erasmus’ contribution to the theory and practice of religious tolerance in the Renaissance and after. This contribution was both tentative and tenacious and earned Erasmus a moral standing with posterity that he couldn’t claim in his own lifetime. In chapter ten Terence J. Martin tackles the ever actual, ever controversial topic of Erasmus and the other. His thorough and balanced approach should

introduction

3

prove ideal for those wanting to teach this sensitive subject in a course on the Renaissance. Finally, in chapter eleven Paul J. Smith offers a magisterial survey of European vernacular translations of Erasmus’ work in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He also reflects on the problem of determining precisely what a translation is and how translations strictly speaking can only represent one facet of Erasmus’ wide-ranging impact and legacy. No matter what chapter you consult or what topic interests you, you will return time and again to the catalogue of the works of Erasmus by Joan Tello. Tello has spared no expense of time or effort to compile this meticulously detailed chronological catalogue, which represents the crowning achievement of our Companion. Through the broad scope of its coverage and the fine detail of its analyses, the new Companion to Erasmus should satisfy all those interested in the traditions, the institutions, and the movements that defined the Age of Erasmus. Students and teachers from a wide range of disciplines can draw on the wealth of information and insight assembled here in order to enrich their understanding of the vibrant intellectual and cultural contexts in which Erasmus lived and worked. If I were to privilege just one discipline among so many represented here, I would highlight the shared interest of all our contributors in the unique status that Erasmus occupies in the history of the book, the fashion that has carried all before it in recent years. From the collaboration of so many gifted colleagues emerges a clear portrait of Erasmus as the maker of the modern book.

chapter 1

A Life of Learning: Erasmus’ Literary & Educational Writings Brian Cummings

Erasmus is sometimes called the greatest figure in the history of education since antiquity.1 According to R.R. Bolgar, those qualities of “sympathy, mental grasp and imagination which an educator requires,” are found in him in perfect combination. “Erasmus enjoyed an international reputation on a scale matched by no scholar before him—and not so many since,” writes Peter Burke.2 When Erasmus began to take an interest in the artistic representation of his appearance, it was as a scholar that he chose to pose himself, in versions by Quentin Metsys, Hans Holbein the Younger and Albrecht Dürer.3 It is not incidental that, five hundred years after his birth, when the European Union wanted a symbolic figure around whom to build a fund for international movement between universities, it was Erasmus (in Holbein’s familiar outline) who fitted the bill. The role, complete with an element of vainglory, is one he might have recognised for himself. “Ego mundi civis esse cupio, communis omnium,” he wrote to Huldrych Zwingli in September 1522.4 The compliment was reciprocated: he was invited to share his illumination in places as far apart as the Low Countries; all corners of Germany; in Italy, Spain, France, England, Switzerland, Hungary, and Poland.5 Erasmus is the idealized praeceptor of Europe, north, south, east and west. It can also be said that educational writing is central to Erasmus’ literary output. When Erasmus proposed in 1523, to his friend Johann von Botzheim, a future edition of his complete works, he designated that the first volume should contain those of his works that concern the institution of letters: “In

1 R.R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries (Cambridge, 1954) 336. 2 Peter Burke, The European Renaissance (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998) 98. 3 Peter van der Coelen, “Portraits of Erasmus” in Images of Erasmus, ed. P. van der Coelen (Rotterdam: Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 2008) 55–72. 4 Ep. 1314 Allen line 2; cwe line 2: “My own wish is to be a citizen of the world, to be a fellowcitizen to all men.” Zwingli had proposed Erasmus as a citizen of Zürich (see Ep. 1342 cwe lines 585–589). 5 Burke 98.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_003

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

5

Primum tomum conferri poterunt quae spectant ad institutionem literarum.”6 The primacy given to the literary writings was maintained in his letter to Hector Boece in March 1530, and confirmed in the canonical edition of the posthumous Opera omnia published by Hieronymus Froben at Basel in 1538–1540.7 Even as the Erasmian project grew in bulk over the next 450 years, the scope of the first volume stayed ever the same (with some small rearrangements of detail), first in Jean Leclerc’s Leiden edition of 1703–1706, and now in the twentieth and twenty-first century Amsterdam / Leiden incarnation of the Opera omnia. The first volume is nevertheless a miscellaneous collection of works very various in genre and style. Pride of place in Erasmus’ own catalogue of his writings goes to De duplici copia verborum ac rerum libri duo (Foundations of the Abundant Style). Copia, a term Erasmus found in Quintilian, is almost untranslatable: it means ‘abundance’ or ‘richness,’ implying in one sense a technical summary of the art of rhetoric, but in another a broader reference to the total sum of things possible within a language.8 Terence Cave calls the Renaissance version of the term “a ubiquitous synonym for eloquence.”9 De copia is followed in Volume 1 by a grammar and a syntax; a wide variety of Erasmus’ poems and Lucianic imitations; other rhetorical works, including De ratione studii, a short treatise on education, along with ones on letter-writing and on the pronunciation of dead languages; and editions of classical authors, including Cicero, Ovid and Euripides. To these are added the Colloquies, included here perhaps because of their origin as an appendage to De copia; but which also causes some confusion, since the dialogue form developed into Erasmus’ freest literary genre, comparable in style and popularity to The Praise of Folly, which was grouped instead in Volume 4. The importance of the literary and educational works is attested finally by their popularity and their longevity. The Europe-wide significance of De copia is demonstrated by it appearing four times within a year of its first publication in Paris by Josse Bade on 15 July 1512; around eighty editions more by the time of Erasmus’ death; and a similar number between 1536 and the end of the century.10 During the sixteenth century it was printed in at least twenty-one cities

6 7 8 9 10

Allen i: 38; cwe Ep. 1341A line 1507: “In the first volume can be put everything that concerns literature and education.” Ep. 2283. Institutio oratoriae, 10.1.5; see also 10.1.61. Terence Cave, The Cornucopian Text. Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance (Oxford, 1979) 5. Craig Thompson in cwe 23: lix.

6

cummings

by sixty-five printers.11 The number of editions of the Colloquies is comparable. While in time reprints of Erasmus fell off, De copia was printed at least 14 times in the seventeenth century. As remarkable as its publication was its presence as a textbook in schoolrooms. The fact that Erasmus thinks of himself as an educational writer is confirmed by the dedicatory letter of the 1512 edition addressed to John Colet, Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral in London. Here Erasmus praises the school founded by Colet as excelling all others “in beauty and splendour.” Colet, he says, has chosen the very best teachers in order that the pupils should absorb “Christian principles together with an excellent literary education from their earliest years.”12 He commends his new book for the new school (just three years old), and Colet reciprocated by putting the book at the head of the school’s required syllabus in teaching the boys in “good Manners and literature.”13 At the heart of the Erasmian enterprise, evidently, lies the classical heritage. “Erasmus made current the classic spirit,” said Johan Huizinga.14 Beatus Rhenanus declared that the Adagia initially earned the ill will of fellow humanists, because Erasmus was giving away the mysteries of their craft. However, Erasmus desired that the book of antiquity be open to all. If De copia is dedicated to the inculcation of a sophisticated Latinity, Erasmus increasingly emphasised the equal importance of facility in Greek learning. The standard history of the transmission of classical literature has readily concluded that in Erasmus, the work of Lorenzo Valla and Cardinal Bessarion “came to fruition.”15 Such a picture fits with the image of Erasmus as a bold originator of the humanist project of the ‘liberal arts,’ which exerted such a visible influence on the schools of what became the British Empire in the nineteenth century, and indeed the American global dominion of the twentieth. De copia was still in use at St Paul’s School in the 1830s.16

11

12

13 14 15 16

There were 168 editions of De copia up to 1580, compared with 141 of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, 140 of Cicero’s Partitiones oratoriae, and 81 of Quintilian’s Institutio oratoriae; see Renaissance Rhetoric Short-Title Catalogue, ed. L.D. Green and J.J. Murphy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006) 185–188; 114–117; 119–122; 352–353. cwe 24: 284; asd i-6: 21: “ludum literarium longe pulcherrimum ac magnificentissimum instituisti, ubi sub electissimis ac probatissimis praeceptoribus Britannica pubes rudibus statim annis simul et Christum et optimas imbiberet literas.” Statutes of St Paul’s School, London, Mercer’s Company mss. Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation (New York, 1957) 39. L.D. Reynolds and N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, 4th ed. (Oxford, 2013) 163. Michael McDonnell, A History of St Paul’s School (London, 1909) 398.

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

7

One way of understanding the staggering success of the Erasmian project, then, is to see it as part of what Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine called “the institutionalising of Renaissance humanism.”17 From the exemplary individual of Italian humanism, epitomized in the figures of Francesco Petrarca or Angelo Poliziano, we arrive at the ideal of northern European humanism embodied in the school curriculum, “a distinctive discipline in the arts.” Certainly, Erasmus proved adaptable, beyond the reading of his works in their original editions, to a proliferation of compendia, abridgments, and syntheses. He was subsumed into the rhetorical theory of Philipp Melanchthon and thence into a northern European consensus. By 1526, Georgius Major had compressed parts of Books i and ii of the Copia into tables for ease of memorization. Peter Schade added his Tabulae de schematibus et tropis in 1529. Johannes Weltkirchius produced a shortened edition in Hagenau in 1534; it was endorsed by Melanchthon and became a standard schoolbook in England.18 Johnannes Susenbrotus’ Epitome troporum ac schematum (1541), while claiming independent status, trawled Erasmus for examples as well as arguments.19 It was printed twenty-five times up to 1635, including eight times in England.20 In many schools the abridged versions were used for the elementary training, to be followed by De copia at a more advanced stage, merging with lessons directly from Cicero and Quintilian. John Dorne, a bookseller in Oxford, sold seventeen copies of De copia in 1520.21 Alexander Nowell, later master at Westminster School, and Dean of St Paul’s for 42 years, made a record of 36 books in his possession in 1539. Eleven were by Erasmus (including De copia, his grammar, the Colloquia, and Adagia) and another four probably edited by him. The list also includes Schade’s Tabulae.22 In this way, for a hundred years Erasmus commanded the curriculum. Since the monumental study by Jacques Chomarat in 1981, it has been natural to follow his guide and place Erasmus “le grammarien et le rhéteur” at the centre of his study.23 Peter Mack calls Erasmus “the most important and influential theorist of rhetoric in the Renaissance,” and also emphasises that

17

18 19 20 21 22 23

Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities: Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth and Sixteenth-Century Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard up, 1986) 124. On these figures, see Peter Mack, A History of Renaissance Rhetoric, 1380–1620 (Oxford, 2011) chs 6 and 10. Mack, A History of Renaissance Rhetoric 220. Renaissance Rhetoric Short-Title Catalogue 421–422. Betty Knott in cwe 24: 283. T.W. Baldwin, Shakespeare’s Small Latine and Lesse Greek, 2 vols. (Urbana, IL, 1944) i: 174. Jacques Chomarat, Grammaire et rhétorique chez Érasme (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981) 24.

8

cummings

Erasmus’ thinking on many issues is dominated by rhetorical concepts.24 Mack shows how a number of Erasmus’ writings originate in short form in manuscripts which he compiled for the benefit of his pupils in Paris in the late 1490s; how these works answer to the needs of the schoolroom; how they are dedicated or addressed directly to both teachers and pupils; and how he revised the texts many times over his life in order to fit them better to the purposes of these readers. A ready confirmation of Mack’s thesis comes with De copia, which is first mentioned in a letter of May 1499 to Jacob Batt, the Bergen schoolteacher who was used by Erasmus as a character in Antibarbari. In the letter, Erasmus describes himself as at work on a treatise on letter writing (later printed in 1521 as De conscribendis epistolis); De copia itself; and some other pieces on amplification, arguments, and rhetorical figures.25 Erasmus calls all of these works “for use in school.”26 Nonetheless, Grafton and Jardine may have overstated the case that Erasmianism is associated with a move towards “an ideology of routine, order, and above all, method.”27 Cave observes that copia was never a technical term in antiquity, and emphasises Erasmus’ originality and flair in reinventing the topic.28 Despite Copia’s fame and reach, Bolgar laments that it has never been accorded the importance it deserves: it “provides us with a clue to the whole of humanism.”29 Mack, too, argues for the uniqueness of Copia: its sensitive understanding of the nature of figurative language, astonishing range of classical authors and acuteness of technique, and its contribution to a theory and practice of writing.30 While a master of rhetoric without peers, then, Erasmus also moves beyond rhetoric to create what we might call a literary world of maximum amplitude. Littera, not rhetorica or grammatica, is his benchmark.31 He could afford to eschew disciplinary formalities since, apart from a brief period in Cambridge after 1511, he never attached himself to an institution. Like the early Italian humanists, he professed the best classical literary values, and sought preferment with rich patrons; but unlike them, in Grafton’s words, he

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Peter Mack, “Erasmus’ Contribution to Rhetoric and Rhetoric in Erasmus’ Writing,” ersy 32 (2012) 27. Ep. 95 Allen lines 33–36. Ep. 95 cwe line 40. Grafton and Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities 123. Cave, The Cornucopian Text 7. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage 274. Mack, A History of Renaissance Rhetoric 76. Brian Cummings, “Erasmus on Literature and Knowledge” in Literature, Belief and Knowledge in Early Modern England: Knowing Faith, ed. Subha Mukherji and Tim Stuart-Buttle (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018) 39–61.

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

9

took immediate advantage of a wholly new means “for attaining public position in the republic of letters: the printing press.”32 Within this is a characteristically ambivalent attitude towards the schoolroom. While he became a textbook writer, it was not his ambition to be known as such, and it is likely that many of his readers in the schools and universities of the sixteenth century, at whatever level, often failed to understand him, and indeed continue to do so. Erasmus the writer is always also Erasmus the reader: and in both guises he is the fastest and most elusive of companions. His wit is all-encompassing and ever-present and is aimed at his own efforts and those of his followers as much as it is at his opponents. A great champion of education, he is coruscating in his criticism of the attributes and affordances of traditional education. There is little doubt that he would have scoffed at many of the textbooks produced in the next century that claimed to be Erasmian. He may also have found funny many of the ideals attributed to him, including in our own times. What he would have made of the English public-school system and its imperial ambitions can only be imagined. While a user of the word methodus he despised its constraints of rule-making, and his well-known addiction to pious morality often collided with his more powerful addiction to irony. He was happy to use scholasticism as a butt to critique bad practice, but he had less confidence than subsequent historians of humanism that things were about to get better. For Erasmus, most teaching, including by humanists, is awful. A good teacher, and good teaching, are rare, and not predictable by enlightened programmes of reform—indeed often the opposite. This may explain how Erasmus, as well as a darling of schoolteachers, is also an unacknowledged mentor of Renaissance literature, whether in Rabelais, Montaigne, Cervantes or Shakespeare.

1

De copia

De copia was long in the making. An early version of the work, with the title Brevis de copia praeceptio, was in existence by 1499.33 As yet, Erasmus was not ready to publish, but this particular manuscript fell into the hands of Augustin Vincent, and was later incorporated in Familiarium colloquiorum formulae, published without Erasmus’ consent in 1518.34 Meanwhile, Erasmus took the 32 33 34

Grafton, Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1997) 137. See Allen introduction to Ep. 260. Knott in cwe 24: 280.

10

cummings

embryonic Copia with him to Italy in 1506, and then to Cambridge in 1511. Concerned that the work, which now existed in several handwritten versions across Europe, was about to appear outside of his control, Erasmus came to an arrangement with Colet to use it for the syllabus of his new school at St Paul’s. This was the version published by Bade in Paris in July 1512, in a volume also containing De ratione studii, Concio de puero Iesu (a homily for use in the school) and some poems. After 1512, the work appeared again in substantively distinct versions in December 1514 (Strasbourg: Schürer); May 1526 (Basel: Froben) and August 1534 (Basel: Froben). All these editions, but especially the last, showed changes minor and major, as Erasmus expanded or emended his ideas through his life. Although Valla’s Elegantiae linguae Latinae (1441) is in some sense a model for the book as an epitome of the art of eloquence for a modern audience, it is Rodolphus Agricola’s De inventione dialectica (1479) which gives it an intellectual grounding, a source half-acknowledged in the preface to Schürer’s edition of 1514.35 Erasmus as a boy saw the Dutch master in person on his visits to the school of Hegius and Synthen.36 Agricola’s great work used the Ciceronian metaphor of the abundance or storehouse of rhetoric as a template for the elucidation of logic in terms of loci or places.37 Every argument has its ‘place,’ which it is the aim of dialectic to find; copia, he says in Book ii, chapter 19, provides for this “a complete supply and store of arguments.”38 Agricola took advantage here of Quintilian’s notion of a mental thesaurus always at the reader’s fingertips.39 Once invention has found the right place for everything, very little work remains to be done. Hence it is that Erasmus creates the philosophical key to De copia, in articulating as it were a double helix of verba and res, words and things. The world contains a more or less infinite series of things; it is the job of language to find an equivalent for each thing in the separation of one word from another, one word for every thing. Clearly language as we inherit it has no such inherent elegance, so that it is the work of good reading and writing to make what sense it can of the endless river of language as described in Cicero. Agricola’s method was to create a dialectic of place logic. Erasmus’ readers perhaps expected him to show a similar rigour in explicating

35 36 37 38 39

cwe 24: 289. Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print (Princeton, NJ: Princeton up, 1993) 55–56. De oratore, 2.39.162. Rudolph Agricola, De inventione dialectica, ed. Wilhelm Risse (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1976) 303. Institutio oratoriae, 11.1.2.

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

11

res via the rules of rhetoric. However, Erasmus does not use that word, preferring instead copia itself as a kind of shorthand for the problem of language in philosophy. We have both too many things to make sense of and too many words to put in each place; the task of eloquence is to find a rule of thumb between brevity and variety. Copia indeed opens with a joke about the dangers of copia. The reputation of eloquence is given a bad name by the tendency of orators to talk too much: “They pile up a meaningless heap of words and expressions without any discrimination” (cwe 24: 295). Ovid, Seneca, Aeschylus, Virgil and Cicero are among an Olympian list of writers taken to task for “excessive verbosity,” by saying the same thing twice (cwe 24: 299). And yet, turning the joke on himself, Erasmus uses several ways of saying this same thing, and repeats himself in citing different examples. His own book is thus an object lesson in the problem of loci. He recommends brevity instead, repeatedly: but all the time, there is the problem of knowing when to stop, when enough is enough. In the late sixteenth century, De copia itself became a byword for the triumph of words over matter. In Francis Bacon’s Advancement of Learning (1605) this produced a classic counter-argument preferring matter above words, and excoriating a century’s predilection for “eloquence, and copie of speech, which then began to flourish.”40 Bacon blames Luther for the origins of the trend, but the overt use of the English word ‘copie’ shows Erasmus is on his mind. The criticism is, however, born of a misunderstanding, derived from separating words from matter in the first place. Erasmus insists that Book ii (“Abundance of Subject-Matter”) of his treatise is just as important as Book i, however much his idler readers might omit to get that far. Yet Book i is also a key to untangling this mystery. A synonym for copia is varietas: the ability of a writer to vary vocabulary, style, and affect to every occasion. The ultimate proof of Erasmus’ expertise in this art is the hyperbolic chapter 33 in the 1534 edition, which provides 146 different ways of saying to Thomas More how pleasing he found his latest letter: “Tuae litterae me magnopere delectarunt.”41 This was a copy of a standard exercise from the ars dictaminis; Piccolomini had provided 11 variants. The earlier version provided by Erasmus in the Breuis praeceptio had 35. In a second example, Erasmus upped the stakes to 195 variants (making it a round 200 in 1534). What better example was there of Erasmus offering value for money in his treatise? Betty Knott calls it “a dazzling demonstration of Erasmus’ mastery,” to which we could add a grain of self-pastiche.42 Yet behind the showman40 41 42

Francis Bacon, Advancement of Learning, ed. Michael Kiernan (Oxford, 2000) 22. asd i-6: 76. The chapter takes up nearly twenty pages in cwe 24: 348–365. Knott in asd i-6: 77 n. 86.

12

cummings

ship and the exercices de style (to use Raymond Queneau’s avant garde phrase for a different era of literary modernism) lay a philosophical debate that goes back to Aristotle and Boethius. Aristotle’s Categories distinguished between homonyms and synonyms as poles of language use, later translated by Boethius with the resonant Latin terms aequivoca and univoca.43 Language exists on a spectrum, Erasmus says, between univocality and equivocation (or as he preferred to put in in Greek, the “isodynamic” and the “polysemous,” cwe 24: 307). At one end of the scale is an infinite number of words for the same thing, at the other, an infinity of objects represented by the same word. The art of language is to be able to provide some kind of matrix which makes sense along this spectrum. In effect, he gives this matrix the name of varietas: finding the right proportionality in language to make sense of a complex world. This idea of equation or equivalence is at the heart of Erasmus’ exposition of the figures of speech, which takes up Chapters 11–32 of Book i in the 1534 version. While the bulk of these figures can be found, of course, in standard ancient sources such as the Rhetorica ad Herennium or in Quintilian, Erasmus not only changes the order and the definition of the figures, but also twists their enumeration to a distinct purpose. He sets out the figures according to a kind of philosophical order, via as it were degrees of difference.44 The synonym comes first, naturally, as implying no difference at all, followed by figures such as enallage, which use “related words which differ only slightly” (cwe 24: 331). The crucial theoretical moment then comes with the transition into the long discussion of metaphor, which begins with an etymology via the Greek root of “transport” (or, in the Latin term favoured by Erasmus, translatio): “so called because a word is transferred away from its real and proper signification to one that lies outside its proper sphere” (cwe 24: 333). Rather than seeing metaphor as one figure among many, Erasmus sees it as the key to the mystery of language, the mechanism via which a word is placed in relation to a thing: a process which is arbitrary in the sense that it can be done over and again, with words exchanged for each other in ever more figurative senses. Thus, while the Rhetorica ad Herennium, for so long the standard account of figures, lists them with very little sense of their relation to each other, Erasmus attempts to link them semantically: allegory is “extended metaphor”; metalepsis is a double metaphor, in which “we move by stages towards our meaning” (cwe 24: 339); metonymy is a “shift of name” (for example, the container for the thing contained); synecdoche (by reverse) a shift of thing, such as the whole for the part, 43 44

Aristotle, Categories, 1 (1a1–6); Boethius, In categorias Aristotelis libri quatuor, i (pl 64: 163– 167). Renaissance Figures of Speech, ed. Sylvia Adamson et al. (Cambridge, 2007) ch. 1.

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

13

by which “we deduce the thing signified from the sign” (cwe 24: 341). Simile, contrary to modern accounts, he relegates to an “overt” subspecies of metaphor. At the same time, Erasmus stresses the interchangeability of the figurative terminology, acknowledging the slippage between word and thing. This provides a natural prelude to Book ii of De copia. Here he turns, as promised, to rerum copia (“abundance of subject-matter”). For this he describes the ideal orator: his knowledge of the movements of the stars, the principles of number, the dimensions of the various lands, the position and name of cities, mountains, rivers, springs, the harmony and intervals of musical sounds; such is his memory of ancient and modern history; every good writer, whether of ancient or of modern times, he has them all cwe 24: 573

Erasmus asks rhetorically how he can balance brevitas with varietas in enumerating the richness of the world in verbal form, but of course he is doing it all the time: this very sentence, with its idealized version of humanist knowledge, is also a form of rhetorical redescription of the very art in question. At the heart of this is a question about imitatio: how to represent things in words. His own writing is an example of his theory. He turns to a series of figurative devices: enargeia, the Greek term for “vividness,” which he calls in Latin evidentia; and hypotyposis, by which something not present is represented as though present. Both of these figures are especially related to the theatre. The reader is made to see things that are not there, she is transported to an imaginative world of excitement and empathy. Appropriately, Erasmus makes reference to his own explorations of the Athenian stage, for example the two plays by Euripides which he had translated for editions by Bade in 1506 and Aldus Manutius in 1507: Hecuba and Iphigenia in Aulis. By this means of poetic transformation, “we seem to have painted the scene rather than described it, and the reader seems to have seen rather than read” (cwe 24: 577). Broader in implication than a strict figure of vividness is a theory of mimesis in its entirety: a question treated in fullest terms by Aristotle in the long-lost Poetics, a work Erasmus came across in Aldus’ print shop in 1508. Even if he did not read the work carefully, Erasmus outlines enough of the ancient theory of representation to apply it to his treatment of copia. It is implicit in Erasmus’ whole treatment of how the abundance of nature may be made to correspond to the abundance of language. The finale of Book ii is rhapsodic on this question, but in characteristic style, he also exposes it to irony. In an Epilogue, he asks if he has been eloquent enough. For the ideal orator, he declares, says less rather than more: “he

14

cummings

must set out his matter in simple and summary form, and not use every argument” (cwe 24: 657). Yet is this not the opposite of De copia, which is after all a very long book? He allows himself to appear for a moment in the guise of Holofernes in Love’s Labour’s Lost, or even Polonius in Hamlet. With a last touch, he refers to Folly as his example. It is doubtful that all of his readers got the joke.

2

De ratione studii

If De copia is a flowing river, De ratione studii, so often its printed companion, is a limpid pool. Its origins, as with Copia, are a biographical puzzle. The two works were published together by Bade in 1512, De ratione studii with a dedicatory epistle to Pierre Vitré. However, this same letter seems to have been addressed first to Thomas Grey, and then, all the more confusingly, was published earlier in 1512, this time addressed to William Thale. It appears that Thale had a copy of the treatise in Ferrara by at least 1509; and that Erasmus, fearing the work would appear in a pirated edition, pre-empted it with an official version.45 The treatise concerns the ideal teacher: which explains the presence of Grey, who was Erasmus’ pupil in Paris, and Vitré, who also taught there, and perhaps taught Grey as well. The dedication promises, in extravagant literary style, “to lay down for you an ordered course of study so that, following it like Theseus’ thread, you may be able to find your way in the labyrinths of letters.”46 Bonae litterae are the key to opening education (and vice versa). The treatise itself begins in copious vein: “In principle, knowledge as a whole seems to be of two kinds, of things and of words. Knowledge of words comes earlier, but that of things is the more important” (cwe 24: 666). Erasmus gives us a kind of mise en abyme: we can access things only via words; which are only words by virtue that they refer to things. Now he moves to the role of the educator. The early stages of his exposition are conventional enough, with an account of imitation in its basic form. Speaking correctly follows best from reading the best authors; from them the pupil learns purity of diction and skill in the use of language. Erasmus also sets out the best guides for the teacher: a variety of grammars including Gaza and Lascaris on Greek, and Diomedes and Perottus on Latin.47

45 46 47

For the evidence, see Allen introduction to Ep. 66. Ep. 66 cwe lines 12–14. See G.A. Padley, Grammatical Theory in Western Europe, 1500–1700 (Cambridge, 1976).

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

15

The most fulsome praise is reserved for Valla’s Elegantiae as a model for rhetorical eloquence. The good student must also study copiously from the world of things, from nature, geography or history. Yet even so, Erasmus begins to backtrack, insisting that learning from models is less important than developing an individual style through practice. Indeed, De ratione studii is a frustrating textbook. It keeps making lists of the things that cannot be taught, and states that these are the most important things. Rather than describing how to teach well, it works more by describing how easy it is to teach badly. Indeed, Erasmus is very short on method in his book of method. His advice is, not exactly helpfully, “he who wishes to instruct someone will be careful from the beginning to teach only the best” (cwe 24: 672). Yet to know what is best, one needs, he says, to have read everything already. Read closely, Erasmus goes inside and outside his own argument in a constant elliptical movement, here recommending commonplace books to speed up understanding, there insisting that only an exhaustive knowledge of the sources will do. At one point he gives his game away: “Truly, you say, you place an immense burden on a mere elementary teacher” (cwe 24: 675). As he proceeds, it appears that he has something different in mind. Rather than a manual for teaching, De ratione studii is an oration in praise of lifelong learning. Nothing is by rote: rather the aim is for the love of the thing for its own sake. Yet if this sounds like an educational piety, something more subtle is going on. His object is to convey the pleasure that is to be gained from reading literature, and his means is to convey his own pleasure, so that his reader feels it for herself. Literature, he says, is an act of love: it represents feelings in the most complex form, in such a way that we are made to feel them again anew. This is the true art of imitation: not copying existing authors, but rather rendering life in a way that makes the reader experience it more closely and intelligently. That he is thinking of mimesis in the Greek sense is suggested by the way that he singles out tragedy as the place where the most intense emotions are aroused, in the most acute form of representation.48 However, it is also something that takes place when reading poets like Virgil or Ovid. At the heart of this is a special kind of self-knowledge. In poetic myth we find a form of ourselves reflected. The climax of this is an argument that is clearly derived from Plato’s Symposium: “each is drawn to nothing other than his own character as reflected in another person” (cwe 24: 686).49 Remembering that he is supposed to be teaching the principles of education rather than the metaphysics of the soul, Erasmus brings himself down to earth with a joke: “someone will criticize

48 49

asd i-2: 142: “In tragoedia praecipue spectandos affectus, et quidem fere acriores illos.” Plato, Symposium 180D–E.

16

cummings

all this as involving too much hard work” (cwe 24: 690). It is the quintessential Erasmian irony: making the easy seem hard, and the hard easy. Yet his rhapsody of the life of learning is heartfelt.

3

De pueris instituendis, De recta pronuntiatione and Ciceronianus

If literary education is the most persistent topic in Erasmus’ writing career from beginning to end, his publications on the subject are concentrated in two flurries, one at the beginning of the 1510s, and the other at the end of the 1520s. In part, this reflects the changing controversial status of humanism, but in other ways the later works represent a pressing home of arguments Erasmus had been making for decades. Indeed, De pueris instituendis, published just as Erasmus moved from Basel to Freiburg-im-Breisgau in the spring of 1529, was written at the same time as the earlier works, as he describes in the dedicatory letter to William, the thirteen-year-old son of the Duke of Cleves.50 Its overt purpose is not its contents (a description of the ideal form of early education) but its form, as an ideal version of an extended declamation. This classical genre was meant as a showpiece and not for its practical argument: nevertheless, De pueris instituendis has frequently been used as a source to demonstrate Erasmus’ own opinions and even autobiography. That it is not to be taken so literally is indicated by extravagant technical features such as the presence of seven rhetorical questions on the first page. The work is self-consciously digressive, including discussions of how barbaric the French language is; when is the best time to get married; and how often a couple should have sex.51 That Erasmus was famously unmarried might alert the reader to an element of parody. The length of the passage on the evils of flogging in schools may or may not reflect personal experience (cwe 26: 330), just like the shorter digression on the practices of scholastic grammar (cwe 26: 345). Time and again, however, these rhetorical flourishes are taken as verbatim rehearsals of Erasmus’ preference for the standard humanist critique of medieval schoolroom methods. Just as significant, however, may be the critique of too much method in humanist learning. While favouring method in principle, he excoriates much of its practice: “schools have become torture-chambers” (cwe 26: 325). Contrary to the textbook approach to Erasmus, he claims to favour play and experiment over the rules and rote-learning which became associated with Erasmian human-

50 51

Ep. 2189; asd i-2: 22. cwe 26: 320 and 314–315.

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

17

ism later in the century. In place of this is another encomium of imitation, in a passage on the difference between the natural mimicry of animals and children which is reminiscent of the opening of Aristotle’s Poetics.52 The good teacher, as in De ratione studii, appears to be less the result of good training, and more a person who can best convey her own love of literature to others. A rather different approach to the psychology of childhood is taken in De civilitate morum puerilium (1530). Addressed to the eleven-year old Henry of Burgundy, son of Adolph of Burgundy (himself the former pupil of Erasmus’ friend Jacob Batt), the treatise gives instruction on how a child (that is, a male one) should conduct himself. The seventeen topics range over different aspects of good manners, rebuking arrogance, runny noses, rudeness and imbecility, some of the bolts aimed at aristocratic boorishness. The Right Way of Speaking Latin and Greek: A Dialogue first appeared a year before A Declamation on the Subject of Early Liberal Education for Children, in a volume published by the Froben firm in Basel in honour of its founder, Johann Froben, who had died the year before. Froben senior had been Erasmus’ most long-term editor and collaborator. The volume also contained The Ciceronian: A Dialogue on the Ideal Latin Style along with a proliferation of smaller works. It was reprinted the same year in Lyon by Gryphius and in two editions from Paris (one by Robert Estienne). The two most substantial works in the volume are both extraordinary in their own right, but also very different from each other, and difficult to classify. De recta pronuntiatione is one of the most unjustly neglected books by Erasmus, presumably because its subject appears so technical and recondite. The pronunciation of the ancient languages in their classical form had been controversial for centuries, ever since they had been subsumed into Byzantine and medieval practice. Antonio de Nebrija had put forward a full argument for reform in De vi ac potestate litterarum (1503).53 Aldus was influenced by this in the later editions of his grammars, and the topic was rehearsed again and again up to the time of Justus Lipsius and beyond.54 What is striking about Erasmus is not so much his originality as his apprehension of the breadth of the topic. The dialogue takes place between Leo and Ursus (Lion and Bear), Lion on the look-out for a good tutor for his cub, and Bear trying to help him. As a result, they begin by discussing the principles of education all over again and go on to the problem of language in general. The correct values of vowels, diphthongs and consonants merges in the mind with

52 53 54

cwe 26: 336; see Poetics, 1448b6. Maurice Pope in cwe 26: 354. Pope in cwe 26: 356.

18

cummings

the problem of sound and speech in general, rather like Saussure or Sapir in modern times. Since the surviving evidence for ancient speech is entirely that of written sources, Erasmus also embarks on an outline theory of the relation between writing and speech, and indeed a theory of writing as such. To make sense of sound, moreover, he has to have recourse to examples from other languages, and among the outstanding features of his work is the reference to up to twenty different languages or dialects: French (Parisian but including also Picard); Spanish; Italian (with special cases from Florence, Bergamo, Rome, Sicily); ancient Hebrew and modern Greek (sometimes identified as Byzantine); Dutch (including Flemish, Hollander, Brabant, Frisian, and Zeelander dialects); German (High German but also Saxon (‘Upper German’), Swabian and Westphalian); English; Scots; Danish; and Polish. Anyone who thinks either that Erasmus never expresses anything in his own vernacular, or that he is uninterested in modern languages, or incapable of speaking them, need only look here. Betwixt and between, Lion and Bear digress, often very funnily as well as with great curiosity, on letter design, on the art of painting, on political violence, or on Parisian women. Ciceronianus especially represents a sharpening of Erasmus’ attitude to the humanist legacy on literary studies, and an admission that consensus no longer prevailed in the new century. Early in his career Erasmus declared common ground with the Italian humanism which had preceded him. He argued that he came too late to the Italians directly to be much influenced by them; but he claimed to be marching to the same tune. This applied to the topic of imitation as to other areas. De copia is difficult to distinguish on this topic from Pietro Bembo: “aemulatio semper cum imitatione coniuncta sit.”55 In that sense, Erasmus thinks of himself as Ciceronian, in the same way that Petrarch or Valla did, or in the same way as every writer in western Christendom. By the time Erasmus produced an edition of Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations in 1523, however, the Ciceronian ideal had become controversial and even confessionalized. The Italians now claimed Ciceronianism as a kind of birthright, born of the Italian soil, just as they took for granted their own mother, Catholicism. In 1528 Erasmus felt the need to distance himself from Italian and even French humanism, just as he had earlier distanced himself from Luther. In an unguarded passage in Ciceronianus he took to listing the faults of contemporaries, egged on in part by Poliziano’s earlier critique of “the apes of Cicero”.56 Poggio Bracciolini and even

55 56

Bembo to Pico, 29 in Ciceronian Controversies, ed. JoAnn DellaNeva (Cambridge, MA: Harvard up, 2007) 80. A.H.T. Levi in cwe 28: 330.

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

19

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola are not spared, and in an especially ambiguous passage Erasmus appeared to slight Guillaume Budé.57 When Germain de Brie and Janus Lascaris took up cudgels in defence of the doyen of French humanism, Erasmus defended himself that the list of failed Ciceronians is presented in dialogue form and that the speaker is a poor defender of Ciceronianism. If this argument has merit (Budé is after all in good company in receiving blows along with Livy, Tacitus, Quintilian, and Boethius) it was also tortuously circumlocutory and hopelessly donnish in tone. While Erasmus included himself in the blacklist, this went unnoticed by enemies. Yet the argument of Ciceronianus goes far beyond polemicism and faction. At the heart of the work is the question of what it means to be a writer. The modish position was to say that Cicero was the acme of Latin style, and to denigrate any kind of Latinity that diverged and thus deteriorated from him. In a letter of September 1527, Erasmus simultaneously bolstered his anti-Lutheran credentials, and added in an aside that for some people being un-Ciceronian was worse than to be a heretic.58 The work is once again a dialogue, between Nosoponus (“Mr Workmad”) and Bulephorus (“Mr Counsellor”), with a few minor characters added. Imitation properly conceived cannot be an art of reproduction, in which one author tries to copy another. This has been the mistake of years of literary theory in the past (and we might add, of centuries to come). A true theory of imitation tells us how Cicero comes to write as himself, that is, by a process of literary mimesis. If I try to write merely like him, I succeed in the opposite. For I cannot be Cicero, I can only be myself. Ciceronianism is an impossible chimera, which also leads to bad writing: bulephorus: It’s impossible, even if it were any use; and it wouldn’t be any use if it were possible. The only way Cicero can be reproduced in his entirety is if we try not to copy those virtues of his exactly, but to produce something equally good after the pattern set by him, or if we can, something even better cwe 28: 399

Imitation, Erasmus avers, is the highest claim of literature (cwe 28: 441). But it does not consist in enslavement to a set of rules, rather it is an act of liberation, in which we learn to be ourselves, and to represent ourselves in good

57 58

The list runs on from cwe 28: 408–431. Ep. 1875 Allen lines 156–157: “ac non Ciceronianum appellari, multo probrosius esse ducunt quam appellari haereticum.”

20

cummings

writing. Ciceronianus thus succeeds in being a passionate attack on commonplace versions of imitation, and the most detailed exposition since Aristotle of an alternative theory of poetic mimesis.

4

Colloquies

Most of the works in volume 1 of his Opera omnia, as we have seen, take part in a debate about literary theory. Erasmus is a much more persistent and successful theorist than he wants to appear to be, and in a way that opens out grammar and rhetoric towards poetics and something like a modern concept of the literary as one of the major modes of human culture. Yet the volume also contains a great deal of literary practice. From boyhood, he declared to Cornelis Gerard in 1489, he had ever been a lover of literature, beyond any of the treasures of Arabia, or the riches of Croesus.59 He was indeed also ever a writer of poetry, artfully if fitfully, producing 144 poems between 1491 (a hymn to St Ann) and 1536 (a two-line elegy for John Fisher and Thomas More).60 His title for these is Carmina, following Horace, although he has many poetic models old and new. More famously, he was the author of the Encomium Moriae, a literary fiction as good as any of the century, if hard to classify as such. Most typical of him are the Colloquies. In the sixteenth century they were as popular as the Encomium. Like that work, they show Erasmus as a kind of accidental literary genius. He saw himself not as an author but as the servant of authors. He was the editor of Euripides, Ovid and Cicero; of Augustine, Jerome, and Origen; he was the commonplace collector of Plato, Lucretius, and Aulus Gellius; he was the annotator of Christ himself in the New Testament. Later authors learned their trade from him, too. Renaissance drama, poetry and fiction are unimaginable without Erasmus’ example, and above all the Colloquies, which not only reinvent the prose dialogue as a new genre, but also in the process create a living art of conversation. “Shipwreck” can be identified at work in Rabelais, in Daniel Defoe, and even Henrik Ibsen. If it has always been more fashionable (like Ben Jonson) to see Shakespeare’s art of the stage as both a tribute to and escape from classicism, he learns how to make people talk to each other by reading Erasmian dialogue.

59

60

Ep. 23 Allen lines 37–39: “Is enim mihi est atque a puero fuit literarum amor, ut dignae prorsus videantur, quas vel omnibus Arabum gazis non immerito antetulerim, nec totis Croesi opibus, quantaecunque fuerint, commutaverim.” asd i-7; cwe 85 and 86.

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

21

Yet the work almost did not exist. Like so much in his life, it is an offshoot from the pioneering originality of Copia. The early publication history of that work is bound up with pre-empting publication by Thale, who had copies of some colloquies among early versions of Copia. The colloquies demonstrate the principles of copiousness, and indeed some early versions of the later text are found in De ratione studii. Then in 1518, Erasmus decided to take advantage of the literary experiment in a volume produced by Froben called “Patterns of informal conversation” (Familiarium colloquiorum formulae). The book was reprinted at least thirty times by March 1522.61 Booksellers’ catalogues show its popularity, for example Dorne in Oxford, whose sales of 175 copies of Erasmus in 1520 included 48 of the Colloquies; while the will of the Edinburgh printer and bookseller Thomas Bassandyne in 1577 claims (improbably) 625 copies of the Colloquies in stock.62 Like much of Erasmus’ output in the 1520s, the book also acquired its share of obloquy, as Luther cast an ever more bulky shadow. The Carmelite Nicolaas Baechem was earliest to take up the fray, in Louvain; in Paris a motion of censure was proposed by the faculty of theology in 1526. In the edition of the Colloquies in June 1526, Erasmus included an apology for his new genre, “The Usefulness of the Colloquies”, which if more useful is also less playful than the original work.63 In catching up with his own figurative fictions Erasmus was forced to become increasingly literalminded in defending them. Sadly, modern critics are not above repeating the mistake. Later editions of the Colloquies begin with what its 1518 version frequently reverts to, that is ‘formulae’ in the literal sense: easy phrases to get a piece of literature going, like a creative writing class in the modern university. An early example is “On First Meeting,” showing modes of greeting and address, a popular topic in treatises on epistolography and courtesy manuals, of the kind Erasmus imitated in De conscribendis epistolis, and in the 195 pretty goodbyes of Book i, chapter 33 of Copia. Others show affinities with the methods of the Adagia, like “Sport” with its reference to Hercules’ club; or “In pursuit of benefices,” where the voyages of Ulysses are given a contemporary satirical edge in mocking priests. Here there is rampant use of the ploy of gameplaying turning serious.64

61 62

63 64

Craig Thompson in cwe 39: xxiv. A Half-Century of Notes, Or the Day-book of John Dorne, Bookseller in Oxford, a.d. 1520, ed. F. Madan (Oxford, 1886); The Wills of Thomas Bassandyne and other Printers in Edinburgh 1576–1587, Bannatyne Club (Edinburgh, 1936). cwe 40: 1095–1117. asd i-3: 154: “Ludus est in seria.”

22

cummings

After a while, though, Erasmus got the hang of his own game so much as to turn it into a free-flowing literary form. Principal among such exercises are masterpieces like the episodic series with titles such as Convivium profanum and Convivium religiosum (“The Profane Feast” and “The Godly Feast”). The titles here are a play on Plato’s Symposium, and while Erasmus is too smart to claim some kind of equality with Socrates, it is clear that he is mindful of the philosophical possibilities of the Platonic dialogue form. These examples are written in beautiful Latin, in his mature style, as far from Ciceronian plagiarism as they are from the Porrophagic pomposity Erasmus sometimes attributed to himself.65 They employ multiple characters, who not only represent a representative position but start to talk like true selves, interrupting each other and contradicting themselves in the process. Erasmus takes on both Epicureanism (in praising the body in Convivium profanum), and rapturous mysticism (in reconceiving the holy in Convivium religiosum). Another series imagines female selves in a totally novel exercise in gendered impersonation (“The Girl with no interest in marriage,” “The repentant girl”); or with a different kind of daring, examines the sexual life of the Renaissance (“Courtship,” “The Young Man and the Harlot,” “The Abbot and the Young Lady”). These literary types were inspirational still in the eighteenth century in the work of Diderot, Swift and Sterne. In more apparently conventional vein, he repeated the tricks of Moria in investigating the boundaries of religious and political satire. Yet just as in Moria, this slips into a vogue for the surreal or the fantastical (“Exorcism,” “A Pilgrimage for Religion’s Sake,” or “A Fish Diet”). “The Apotheosis of Johann Reuchlin” sails very close to the wind of Reformation violence; “Julius Excluded from Heaven” even further, so much so that Erasmus always denied writing it, and thus excluded Julius from the Colloquies. Only in the new Brill edition of 2013 does it make it to the canon of the Opera omnia.66 Yet perhaps the last word on literary Erasmus should be left to those places where he most tests the limits of imagination and perhaps speaks most vividly to his readers still today. In “Cyclops,” added in the 1529 edition, Erasmus constructs a vision of the apocalypse. Where do we get the notion that the end of the world is near? Because the climate is changing, the floods are coming, everybody just wants to make money, nobody is even trying to stop the war. As if to top it all, “Erasmus writes colloquies. In short, no calamity is lacking” (cwe 40: 870). If there is an

65

66

cwe 84: 14. While the barb began as a Florentine sarcasm at his expense, and is repeated here in the controversy with Alberto Pio, Erasmus later made fun of himself for starting so many sentences with the adverb porro (“furthermore”). The original joke concerned Nero the “leek-eater.” asd i-8: 223–297.

a life of learning: erasmus’ literary & educational writings

23

element of vanity in such an obvious display of humility, there is also a serious point. When the world is ending, is writing or reading literature really the thing to be doing? And yet, in the meantime, it is still one of the best ways of taking the highest pleasure together while we are not yet extinct.

chapter 2

Erasmus and the Church Fathers Mark Vessey

1

The Method of Erasmus: Reading with the Fathers

In a letter to a friend, written when he was still a novice Augustinian canon at Steyn, Erasmus gave a foretaste of the guidance in good reading that he would provide two decades later in the De ratione studii or “Method of Study” (1511). A work of his de litteris (on “letters” in a sense approximating “literature”) was then, ca. 1489, almost ready to disseminate. In the meantime, he suggested, those who wanted to be stammerers could follow the usual course of school instruction in Latin, while “one who wished to be able to speak” (qui loqui cupiet)—that is, to be an effective public speaker, or writer—could do no better than “choose Terence, whom Cicero and Quintilian and Jerome and Augustine and Ambrose learned in youth and frequented (usi sunt) in old age.”1 The cwe translators’ choice of “frequent” here for uti (ordinarily “make use of”) conveys the special sense of that Latin verb as “to enjoy the friendship of, to be familiar or intimate with.” Already at this early stage in his thinking de litteris Erasmus was inviting his acquaintances to model their readerly activity on what he imagined to be the personal relationships entertained with (the same) texts by ancient authors. Here he instanced as exemplary readers two classical masters of Latin oratory and three well-known Latin church fathers of the late fourth and early fifth centuries—a period taken by Erasmus, as commonly by others before and after him, for a golden age of ecclesiastical eloquence. Were there any doubt about the accuracy of the translation, it would be dispelled by a backward glance to a passage earlier in the same letter where Erasmus explained that he was presenting his friend with a copy of Terence that he, Erasmus, had “written out with [his] own hand,” and urged him to bestow upon it “the same affection as you have shown me.”2 Personal, affective, physical: such a relationship to the text or work of an (ancient) author was possible because the text existed in or as a book that could be held in the hand.

1 Ep. 31 Allen lines 76–87, cwe lines 87–100. The work de litteris is usually taken for the Antibarbari. 2 Ep. 31 cwe lines 28–32.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_004

erasmus and the church fathers

25

How tough Erasmian book-love might become, the young Erasmus then made clear: I shall finally be sure you have given [this copy of Terence] such affection when you show that you have studied it diligently and when I hear that it is always on your person and in your hands and on your lap. I consider as lovers of books, not those who keep their books hidden in their storechests and never handle them, but those who, by nightly as well as daily use, thumb them, batter them, wear them out, who fill up all the margins with annotations of many kinds, and who prefer the marks of a fault they have erased to a neat copy full of faults.3 The son of a man who sold his services as a copyist, the author of these lines was writing from the heart of a culture of manuscript books that had seen one major technological advance since the times of Terence, Cicero and Quintilian and that was now undergoing another. Between the end of the first and the beginning of the fourth century ad, the main weight of book copying in the Roman Empire had shifted from the previously dominant form of the roll or volumen to the spine-hinged codex form. The codex would from then on be normal for “literary”—including poetic, philosophical, historical, theological, liturgical and pedagogical—use, as likewise in a range of (other) practical and administrative applications. Most of the books known to Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and other “fathers” (patres) and opinion-formers of the late ancient church would have been codexes. Their own extensive writings were transcribed into books of that form as soon as they were ready to circulate. For a millennium afterwards the books available for study, devotion, reference or entertainment in the monasteries, churches, courts and cities of countries north and west of the Mediterranean basin as far as the Atlantic Ocean would generally consist of folded sheets of parchment, vellum or paper, gathered into quires, sewn and in some cases bound, carrying texts and images hand-written and hand-drawn by professional or amateur scribes and illustrators.4 This was the universal European culture of the codex that, from the mid-fifteenth century onwards, began to migrate into printed forms.

3 Ep. 31 cwe lines 32–39. 4 The techno-logic of the codex: Georgios Boudalis, The Codex and Crafts in Late Antiquity (New York City: Bard Graduate Center, 2018); Patrick Andrist, Paul Canart and Marilena Maniaci, eds., La syntaxe du codex: Essai de codicologie structurale (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013); Erik Kwakkel, Books before Print (Leeds: arc Humanities Press, 2018). The other side of the story:

26

vessey

Erasmus’ preference for using books lovingly but hard—as opposed, say, to treating them as objects of connoisseurship or religious veneration—can easily be paralleled in high-profile authors whom he frequented from his youth, both in manuscript and in printed codexes, such as the philosopher Seneca and Jerome. Neither of these, however, went as far in giving “hands-on” instruction to other users as Erasmus would. With good reason, the author of a new study of Erasmus and his books took the passage quoted at length above as a virtual epigraph for his central chapter, “Erasmus and the Book: The Humanist at Work.”5 That study is one of the latest large-scale contributions to a movement in Erasmian textual and bibliographic scholarship that has been building steadily since the launch of those twin great, late twentieth-century projects in the critical editing and popularization of Erasmus’ collected works, asd (1969–) and cwe (1974–), both inspired by P.S. Allen’s monumental edition of the correspondence (1906–1958). Allen’s opus epistolarum reprogrammed Erasmian studies by undoing much of the work of selecting, organizing and presenting Erasmus’ letters that had originally been done by Erasmus and his collaborators. Allen took apart the printed volumes of correspondence that they had serially assembled between 1515 and Erasmus’ death in 1536 and resequenced their contents in chronological order of composition. In keeping with Erasmus’ own designs, he added epistolary prefaces from his other printed works. He also included a large number of letters by Erasmus that either were not printed in his lifetime or, if printed then, were not sent to press by him or any of his trusted publicists. Our access now to Erasmus’ collected correspondence is thus an artefact, in eleven volumes plus an index from the Clarendon Press in Oxford, of its simultaneous redispersal by Allen into hundreds of separate, single, numbered documents analogous to— though in the vast majority of cases not derived directly from—the handwritten sheets, intended either for his correspondents or for printers, that once left Erasmus’ desk, the desks of his amanuenses or, in the case of letters addressed to him, those of his contemporaries. Compiled from printed books of letters, other printed books, manuscript letter-books and collections of manuscripts, the modern opus epistolarum Erasmi inexorably elides the eventful processes by which Erasmus (was) turned from a traditionally manuscribal man of letters and books into a consummately typographical one. To estimate such a potential loss of historical understanding Thomas Forrest Kelly, The Role of the Scroll: An Illustrated Introduction to Scrolls in the Middle Ages (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2019). 5 Egbertus van Gulik, Erasmus and His Books, trans. J.C. Grayson, ed. James K. McConica and Johannes Trapmann (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018) 111–124 at 111.

erasmus and the church fathers

27

is also to recognize how much we stand to gain from Allen’s method in the long run. Since the renewal of editorial work on Erasmus across a broad front in the 1960s, it has become clear that the formally non-Erasmian opus epistolarum, used critically as well as biographically, is an indispensable means for capturing the transformative processes just evoked.6 The opportunity is not one for intellectual biography alone. Medievalists and specialists in manuscript culture of all periods and zones bridle at suggestions that Gutenberg and his kind could have ushered in “the coming of the book,” as if there had been no books in Europe or anywhere else before 1450. No one has ever seriously claimed that. Equally, no one living today, sixty years after McLuhan pointed out the “Gutenberg Galaxy,” can ignore how communications and other media shape forms of human cognitive, affective, social, economic and political life.7 The revolution in (printed) “letters” lived and partly engineered by Erasmus and his associates in the early sixteenth century is an episode in human evolution observable at historical scale, one for which his own writings and books—understood in the most inclusive sense—are an extraordinary source.8 “Literary” history in this context is an adjunct of human biology. As has been well said, “if we are cyborgs now, we always have been.”9 Consider, as a pendant to the scene of ideally affective (manuscript) bookhandling sketched by Erasmus in that early letter of his, which was not printed until the early seventeenth century, this scene of him at work on his edition of the New Testament in the Froben print-shop at Basel, in 1515 or early 1516:

6 So Lisa Jardine, introducing Erasmus and the Renaissance Republic of Letters: Proceedings of a Conference to Mark the Centenary of the Publication of the First Volume of Erasmi Epistolae by P.S. Allen, Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 5–7 September 2006, ed. Stephen Ryle (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), xiv: “It is a tribute to the quality of [Allen’s] edition that we can now recognize the fictions and evasions that sometimes shape the published letters, as Allen did not, and yet continue to depend entirely upon his extraordinary edition as the infrastructure upon which all further scholarly work will surely be built.” 7 Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin, The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing 1450– 1800, tr. David Gerard, ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith and David Wootton (London: nlb, 1976); Marshall McLuhan, Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962); Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). 8 See, e.g., Karl A.E. Enenkel and Wolfgang Neuber, eds., Cognition and the Book: Typologies of Formal Organisation of Knowledge in the Printed Book of the Early Modern Period (Leiden: Brill, 2005), including an essay by Hilmar M. Pabel on Erasmus’ editions of Jerome (217–256). 9 John Sutton, “Exograms and Interdisciplinarity: History, the Extended Mind, and the Civilizing Process” in The Extended Mind, ed. Richard Menary (Cambridge, MA: mit Press, 2010)

28

vessey

It was a miraculous spectacle, or rather a spectacular miracle, to see him dictating and revising as much as three presses could cope with, while at the same time consulting Greek and Latin manuscripts, all very old and different from one another, comparing the Greek and Latin commentators (interpretes), both the ancient (priscos) and the relatively recent (recentiores), and evaluating writers of the highest and lowest rank. As a result, not only does he explain the general sense, with which many distinguished commentators are content … but he has never skipped over the tiniest word or article or stroke of the pen.10 The words come from an epistolary epilogue “To the Gentle Reader” that appears at the end of the body of annotations appended by Erasmus to parallel Greek and Latin texts of the New Testament in his Novum instrumentum of 1516. The writer was Johannes Oecolampadius, the future Reformer, who worked as a corrector on that edition. Fittingly, given his role and (embarrassed?) awareness of Erasmus’ zeal for accuracy down to the level of the apiculi minutissimi or tiniest pen-strokes in manuscripts (e.g., Greek breathings and accents; signs of abbreviation), the epilogue is followed by a long list of typographical corrigenda. Better those “marks of a fault,” we may think, recalling Erasmus’ advice to the recipient of his handwritten Terence, than an immaculate copy full of errors! In the case of this New Testament, the listing of corrections already marked a stage towards a second edition, which, when it came out in 1519, would be advertised as “much more carefully revised, corrected and translated by Erasmus of Rotterdam than before” (multo quam antehac diligentius … recognitum, emendatum ac translatum).11 Such assurances were part of the stock-in-trade of early sixteenth-century printers pitching to the new market for editions of classical and early Christian texts, and aspiring to the ideal of fidelity to ancient originals proclaimed, since Petrarch, by enthusiasts of the text-centred cultural revivalism we now think of as Renaissance humanism. Yet in this particular instance, as we shall see, the title-page appeal to diligentia— care for an object, like love or esteem for a person—went somewhat wider than usual. Here are the title-page terms in which Erasmus and his publisher laid their 1516 Novum instrumentum before the reader:

10 11

189–225 at 193. See also Peter Burke, What Is the History of Knowledge? (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016) 122–125. cwe 41: 775. cwe 41: 746–747.

erasmus and the church fathers

29

The complete New Testament (Novum instrumentum), carefully revised and corrected by Erasmus of Rotterdam (diligenter … recognitum [et] emendatum) not only in the light of the original Greek but also in accordance with the evidence of many manuscripts in both languages, manuscripts of great antiquity and correctness, and taking account also of citations, corrections and interpretations in the most respected authorities, especially Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Vulgarius, Jerome, Cyprian, Ambrose, Hilary and Augustine; also accompanied by annotations to explain to the reader what changes have been made and the reason for making them. Let everyone who loves the true theology read and study these before passing judgment. Do not be upset as soon as you stumble upon a change, but consider if it is a change for the better.12 A quarter-century or more had elapsed since Erasmus made the gift of a copy of Terence to his friend, or mimed doing so in a declamatory letter. The book in hand was now a bulky printed folio of some 700 pages. It comprised (after extensive preliminaries) a Greek text of the New Testament; a Latin rendering largely identical with the Vulgate but intermittently retouched by Erasmus; and an already extensive apparatus of notes designed primarily to justify departures from the textus receptus of the Latin, in some cases adducing patristic sources in support.13 (The notes would expand dramatically in later editions as Erasmus delved deeper into the archive of ancient Christian writing and defended himself on points of controversy.) For all that, Erasmus’ manner of recommending his latest book to the reader was fundamentally the same as on the earlier occasion with Terence. (1) This was a book for use. (2) Its value lay in its (printed) text, as we should now say. (3) The reader had some responsibility for that text’s correctness and, if necessary, correction. On the last point, the phrasing of the cwe translation takes the edge off the original. There the “lover” of true theology is told straight out: lege, cognosce, ac deinde iudica (“read, consider, and then judge!”). The title-page of the Novum instrumentum does more than tout the affectivecritical book-zeal (diligentia) of the humanist editor in the interest of boosting sales, as if to say, as it might have done: “read, consider, and then buy!” It also enjoins upon the reader—presumed already to have bought the book—a cor-

12

13

cwe 41: 744–745. Vulgarius, as noted there, “is a mistake for Theophylact [d. after 1125], archbishop of Ochrida, seat of the Bulgarian patriarchate.” Erasmus subsequently corrected the identification of this (very late) Greek father. See generally Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1986).

30

vessey

responding critical-affective role in the work’s reception. What exactly is the implied focus of critical attention? On the face of things, it is at least double. The cwe translation makes the “annotations” the sole direct object of lege, cognosce, etc. However, taking the sentence beginning Quisquis amas (“You, then, lover of true theology, whoever you are …”) with the one that comes after it, we can infer that what stands to be “changed for the better” as a result of this combined editorial and readerly-critical activity is, as we should expect, the Latin text of the New Testament. Persons familiar with the prior textus receptus of the Vulgate would see that it had been altered in a number of places by Erasmus and might, exercising their own judgment, see fit either to (re)correct it in their own hand or else let stand what was printed. They were not, though, to take that final critical step (ac deinde iudica) until after reading and considering (lege, cognosce) everything else set forth in the book in hand, meaning essentially the notes (Annotationes) where Erasmus reported his findings with respect to the Greek text, the manuscripts he had consulted, and—looming large in the title-page enumeration—the citations, emendations and interpretations of biblical passages furnished him by an array of Greek and Latin church fathers. Rarely can a critically edited text and its accompanying apparatus have appeared in so dynamic a relationship with the “implied” critical reader as they did in this case.14 “Strictly,” the editor of the New Testament Scholarship for cwe reminds us, “Novum instrumentum is not the title of the work but refers specifically to the Vulgate.”15 Strictly, there is no title for this work or book of Erasmus, as such. Nor, we may be sure, did Erasmus suppose that the Latin biblical text he was presenting would be taken at that moment for definitive, let alone as a “new” Vulgate or revised standard version. The 1516 title-page thus named neither the work in hand nor the ideal text towards which it pointed. Rather, we may say, it described a hands-on, interactive mechanism (or novum instrumentum?) for making such a text (begin to) appear—a mechanism that mobilized and implicated Erasmus, the lovers of true theology who were his target-readers and collaborators, the church fathers who were his titular guides and intellectual sponsors, and, last but not least, the personnel and plant of a well-run printing shop.16

14 15 16

Cf. Wolfgang Iser, The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974). cwe 41: 743 n. 1. For this construction of Erasmus’ nt project, see further Mark Vessey, “The Actor in the Story: Horizons of Interpretation in Erasmus’s Annotations on Luke” in The Unfolding of Words: Commentary in the Age of Erasmus, ed. Judith Rice Henderson (Toronto: Univer-

erasmus and the church fathers

2

31

Erasmus and the Fathers: Research Field and Trajectories

An edition like Allen’s of the opus epistolarum was a pre-condition for any serious investigation of Erasmus’ nearly lifelong working relationship with the patres, a class of writers qualified by Michel Foucault as “authors” in a sense beyond “the limited [one] of a person to whom the production of a text, a book, or a work can be legitimately attributed.” For as Foucault went on to say, “it is easy to see that in the sphere of discourse one can be the author of a theory, tradition, or discipline in which other books and authors will in their turn find a place.” He called authors of this higher order “transdiscursive” and counted the church fathers among them “in our civilization,” along with Homer, Aristotle, “the first mathematicians and the originators of the Hippocratic tradition.”17 Beyond the scope of Foucault’s essay on the “author-function” but central to the research agenda that his work laid out for intellectual historians was the question of how such classes of author acquired and more or less continuously exercised their transdiscursive power in (our) culture, for as long as they did or have. Reading Erasmus’ correspondence in Allen’s edition, we can already begin to see how the church fathers—individual figures such as Jerome and Augustine, a select canon of Greek and Latin patres, or indeed an entire imagined company of them—migrated or were re-mediated from one set of material and institutional platforms to another in Latin-reading Europe between the late fifteenth and mid-sixteenth century. Our shorthand for that transfer relies on time-worn binaries: scholastic and humanist, Catholic and Reformed, monastic and civic, manuscript and print, sacred and secular, etc. The challenge now for students of Erasmus is to capture the early modern re-mediation of the church fathers in terms fully responsive to the last half-century or so of revisionist scholarship cutting across those conceptual-pragmatic divisions. Allen’s collection of the letters remains indispensable in any case. In Allen are the texts where, with due precaution, we can trace Erasmus’ patristic readings and re-purposings. Laid out there are many elements of his successive rationales for using the fathers as he does, and for his harnessing of them to the “theory, tradition or discipline” that by 1516, in the preliminaries of the Novum instrumentum, he was ready to style the “philosophy of Christ,” philosophia Christi. There, too, is much of the publicity for the formidable series of patristic editions that Erasmus oversaw,

17

sity of Toronto Press, 2012) 55–69, esp. 56–59, and “A More Radical Renaissance: Erasmus’ Novum instrumentum (1516) in Its Time and Ours,” Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 23–44. Michel Foucault, “What Is an Author?” in Michel Foucault: Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology, ed. James D. Faubion, tr. Robert Hurley and others (= Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, Vol. 2) (New York: New Press, 1998) 205–222 at 216–217.

32

vessey

beginning with the works of Jerome in the same year, 1516, and ending, posthumously for him, with those of Origen in 1536.18 Consciously or unconsciously echoing Foucault, an expert in the ideology and social forms of the early modern European respublica litterarum called it “a great act of daring on Erasmus’ part to include, among the ‘classics,’ [ancient] Greek and Latin Christian literature in its original texts, and to take that as well, with its own eloquence, as a basis for education and civilization.”19 Daring there certainly was on the part of Erasmus and his associates, and as quincentenaries of Erasmian patristic opera roll by we may expect to sharpen our sense of the stakes, corollaries and consequences of his republishing of the texts of those authors. The basic reconnaissance for research in this field was done some time ago. Several trajectories within it have been marked out with special clarity in recent decades. An annotated bibliography would be useful. A concise mise à point will be attempted. Allen in a 1922 lecture on “Erasmus’ Services to Learning” already sketched the contours of this author’s “work for the serious study of divinity,” giving pride of place to the patristic editions.20 On the basis of Allen’s edition-in-progress of the opus epistolarum, Renaudet in 1939 was able to offer a more circumstantial account of Erasmus’ “patrological publications,” still anchored by the major patristic opera.21 It was left to Gorce in 1957 to pose the essential questions of what “patristics” (a post-Erasmian term of art) could have been for Erasmus and how it contributed to his evangelical enterprise.22 Forty years later, in a 18

19

20 21 22

Erasmus’ other major patristic editions: Cyprian (1520), Arnobius (1522), Hilary (1523), John Chrysostom (1525), Irenaeus (1526), Athanasius (1527), Ambrose (1527), Augustine (1529), Gregory of Nazianzus (1531), Basil (1532). For a full inventory and descriptions, consult Jan den Boeft, “Erasmus and the Church Fathers” in The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. Irena Backus, 2 vols. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997) 2: 537–572. On aspects of the Foucauldian “author-function” in such cases, see Robert Sider, “Erasmus and Ancient Christian Writers: The Search for Authenticity” in Nova & Vetera: Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998) 235–254, and, for the special case of Jerome, Harold Love, Attributing Authorship: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) 16–23. Marc Fumaroli, “La République européenne des lettres et les Sources Chrétiennes” in Les Pères de l’Église aux sources de l’Europe, ed. Dominique Gonnet and Michel Stavrou (Paris: Cerf, 2014) 433–448, at 443, my translation and emphasis. P.S. Allen, Erasmus: Lectures and Wayfaring Sketches (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934) 47– 55. Augustin Renaudet, Études Érasmiennes (1521–1529) (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1981 [Paris, 1939]) 31–40. Denys Gorce, “La patristique dans la réforme d’Érasme” in Festgabe Joseph Lortz, ed. Erwin Iserloh and Peter Manns, 2 vols. (Baden-Baden: Bruno Grimm, 1958) 1: 233–276.

erasmus and the church fathers

33

context reshaped on the one hand by work on asd and cwe and on the other by a rapid growth of academic interest in all aspects of patristic reception, Den Boeft fused religious-historical and text-critical perspectives in a comprehensive survey that is still the best of its kind and for which no substitute will be offered here.23 Between Gorce’s pioneering piece and the present state of the question, scholarship has expanded and accelerated impressively. In retrospect, we may see an early threshold marked by Béné’s study of Erasmus’ use of Augustine (1969), which provided a model for split-focus intellectual biography that was soon followed by Godin for Origen (1982).24 On Godin’s heels, and taking wider views, came Rice’s Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (1985), where Erasmus appeared to advantage.25 Rice’s book in turn helped set the scene for Jardine’s finely iconoclastic, Jerome-focused, Allen-unravelling Erasmus, Man of Letters (1993), which put a new spin on the contents of cwe 61 (“The Edition of Jerome”), then just published in the first of two volumes in cwe allocated to patristica.26 Jardine’s book, though left out of Den Boeft’s account, marks a further threshold in the history of scholarship on our subject, unleashing as it did the energies both of a highly skeptical, ultra-Erasmian “literary” intelligence and of a critically disenchanted, materialist histoire du livre. Oversimplifying slightly, we may say that by the mid-1990s a matrix had been established for future studies of Erasmus and his milieu that would thematize, cross, or impinge upon his working relationships with the church fathers. That matrix has three leading vectors, namely: (1) work contributing to or flowing out of asd and cwe, especially—pending further publication of patristica in those series—on Erasmus’ “New Testament Scholarship,” including the recent, richly documented presentation of his nt paratexts in cwe 41; (2) work focused on Erasmus’ dealings with individual church fathers, Jerome pre-eminent among them;27 (3) work that re-evaluates Erasmus’ general strategies as an exponent of bonae litterae in the service of the philosophia Christi, including studies that

23 24

25 26 27

Den Boeft, “Erasmus and the Church Fathers,” cited above, n. 18. Charles Béné, Érasme et saint Augustin ou Influence de saint Augustin sur l’humanisme d’Érasme (Geneva: Droz, 1969); André Godin, Érasme lecteur d’Origène (Geneva: Droz, 1982). Eugene F. Rice Jr, Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985), ch. 5: “Hieronymus redivivus: Erasmus and St. Jerome.” Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Benedetto Clausi, Ridar voce all’ antico Padre: L’edizione erasmiana delle Lettere di Gerolamo (Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino, 2000); Hilmar M. Pabel, Herculean Labours: Erasmus and the Editing of St. Jerome’s Letters in the Renaissance (Leiden: Brill, 2008). On Erasmus’ path-breaking work as biographer of Jerome, see now Érasme: Vie de saint Jérôme,

34

vessey

give special consideration to the linguistic, literary, technological, material, and commercial aspects of his chosen media.28 (Citations in the notes are merely indicative.) Standing back from the press of recent, new, and emerging scholarship on Erasmus and the fathers, we may be struck by how closely much of it still hews to the main lines drawn by Gorce as long ago as 1957. His essay had five sections. In the first he painted Erasmus, sometime pupil of the Brothers of the Common Life and product of a milieu strongly influenced by the Devotio Moderna, as an opponent of the “systematic” theology of the universities. This positioning of Erasmus and, even more so, his self-positioning as a new-style (“humanist”) theologian appealing from the schoolmen of his own and recent times to the ancient patres, have been major concerns of subsequent research across the fields of Erasmus and Reformation studies. In his next section, Gorce selectively summarized Erasmus’ own summary of how to do theology in the new-yet-ancient style, the Ratio seu methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam (“System or Method of Arriving by a Shortcut at True Theology”), a text first published in 1518, then included in the preliminaries of the 1519 (second) edition of the Erasmian New Testament, where it replaced a much shorter prototype in the 1516 Novum instrumentum, there entitled simply “The Method of Erasmus of Rotterdam” (Erasmi Roterodami methodus).29 For Gorce, the Ratio verae theologiae—to use the customary short-title of that work— represented the best of Erasmus’ thought on the nature of theology and the role of ‘patristics’ in it. The Ratio was “the very charter of Erasmianism” (la

28

29

ed. and tr. André Godin (Turnhout: Brepols / Bibliothèque de Genève, 2013). Critical survey of recent work: Francesca Sola, “Filologia come ideologia: Un quindicennio di studi su Erasmo editore di Gerolamo,” Adamantius 23 (2017) 500–517. István Bejczy, Erasmus and the Middle Ages: The Historical Consciousness of a Christian Humanist (Leiden: Brill, 2001); Brian Cummings, Grammar and Grace: The Literary Culture of the Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002); Christopher Ocker, Biblical Poetics Before Humanism and Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Ann Moss, Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Kathy Eden, The Renaissance Rediscovery of Intimacy (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2012); Alexandre Vanautgaerden, Érasme typographe: Humanisme et imprimerie au début du xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz / Académie royale de Belgique, 2012), Christoph Galle, Hodie nullus–cras maximus: Berühmtwerden und Berühmtsein im frühen 16. Jahrhundert am Beispiel des Erasmus von Rotterdam (Munich: Aschendorff, 2013); Valentina Sebastiani, Johann Froben, Printer of Basel: A Biographical Profile and Catalogue of His Editions (Leiden: Brill, 2018); Van Gulik, Erasmus and His Books, cited above, n. 5. cwe 41: 488–713 (Ratio verae theologiae, “System of True Theology”), 424–454 (Methodus). The cwe translation of the Ratio is reproduced in Erasmus on Literature: His Ratio or ‘System’ of 1518/1519, ed. Mark Vessey (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2021). Latin texts of Ratio and Methodus critically edited in Holborn and in preparation for asd.

erasmus and the church fathers

35

charte même de l’érasmisme).30 Those judgments, too, have been corroborated by subsequent work; when Den Boeft, for example, chose a passage to evoke the mood of the “programmatic change” implied by Erasmus’ “revolutionary humanistic reorientation” of theology to the text of the bible and the biblical exegesis of the fathers, he took it from the Ratio.31 Having cited the Ratio for the theory of theological recourse to the fathers, Gorce used his next two sections to recall Erasmus’ labours as their critical editor in print and to celebrate his particular devotion to Jerome. (So convinced was Gorce of Jerome’s role as alter ego of Erasmus—a persistent strain in research before Jardine pointed up the strategic importance of the elective affinity—he at one point wrote “Jerome” by mistake for “Erasmus.”) The Rotterdammer’s evolving relationship to Jerome’s writings, observable from the late 1480s in the opus epistolarum as well as in early drafts of the Antibarbari, likewise serves as a lead-in for Den Boeft’s description of Erasmus’ biblical-patristic “programme,” as he called it. An account of the patristic editorial work forms a coda to that description, paralleling a section of Gorce’s essay but enlarged by summaries of the prefaces to each edition. As noted above, Jerome has the lion’s share of space given over to patristica in cwe. Paratexts of the other patristic editions will appear in both asd and cwe.32 Once that part of the shelf has been filled, along with the part assigned in asd to the Ratio verae theologiae and other nt pro- and epilegomena (matching cwe 41), we shall be better able to test the truth of Gorce’s claim that those editions fit hand-in-glove in the Ratio, “as if by magic.” Not that Gorce was any more likely than we are to be deceived by illusionist tricks of print performed by Erasmus, Froben and their kind. Among his research desiderata he already included the petite histoire of commerce upon which these men and their dependents relied for their livings.33 30 31 32

33

Gorce, “La patristique dans la réforme d’Érasme” 239. Den Boeft, “Erasmus and the Church Fathers” 546–549. cwe 61 (Jerome: Life of Jerome; prefaces to the edition; scholia on selected letters), 62 (other patristica); asd viii-1 (Erasmus’ Lives of Jerome, Chrysostom and Origen; his edition of the previously unprinted tract De duplici martyrio, attributed by him to Cyprian; prefaces to the patristic editions besides that of Jerome). asd viii-2, which was once destined to contain the scholia on Jerome, will now encompass the prefaces to that edition, as well as (probably) Erasmus’ Latin translation of a text by either Origen or Chrysostom, as a counterpart to the editions of his Latin translations of Greek non-Christian texts included elsewhere in asd; personal communication from M.E.H.N. Mout, July 15, 2021. Erasmus’ extensive translations from Greek fathers—notably Chrysostom and Athanasius, but also Origen and Basil—were envisaged by him as forming a distinct section of his collected works and appeared in volume 8 (1540) of the Opera omnia printed at Basel after his death: see Ep. 2283 Allen lines 155–178, cwe lines 173–197. Gorce, “La patristique dans la réforme d’Érasme” 274, 260.

36

vessey

At this moment in Erasmus studies, the nexus of interests binding Erasmus to the church fathers at successive stages of his career is clear. Those interests were always ultimately theological, simultaneously literary (text-critical, grammatical, rhetorical), not incidentally commercial. They can be seen playing out across his published work in all genres and formats, as also more widely across the European society of his age. Given the programmatic thrust of his ratio, method or system for a biblical-patristic renewal of theology, it is no surprise to find its outcomes extending in time and space beyond Erasmus’ own original theatre of work. Since the material basis of such long-range, Erasmianpatristic transdiscursivity consisted and consists of books, we may usefully end here as we began, by trying to seize the spirit of Erasmus’ patristic bookmanship sur le vif, in the life of the books in hand. Two handbooks, produced at some distance from each other in the historical process of his “life-work” (Allen), yet visibly compounding in their effects, lend themselves for the purpose.

3

The Book in Hand: From Enchiridion to Ratio verae theologiae

The second printed book to appear with Erasmus’ name on the title-page, in 1503, was entitled Lucubratiunculae. The title-word is a diminutive of lucubrationes, literally “works done by lamplight,” used by classical Latin authors and their imitators as a suprageneric term for a zealous activity of reading-andwriting and for its products in the form of published texts-in-books.34 Prefacing his first printed book, the Adages, in 1500, Erasmus made a point of explaining that this compilation of proverbs—for which Jerome and Augustine were sources alongside their ancient, non-Christian counterparts—had caused an interruption of his “nightly labours over a more serious work” (gravioris operae lucubrationibus).35 From that point on, lucubrationes meae would be an Erasmianism for what in the course of time emerged as his published life-work—a subliminal signature trope for an author who, from 1517, was routinely represented in visual media against a backdrop of printed books and with manuscript(s) of his own in hand. His early Lucubratiunculae or “Minor Nightworks,” the reader was given to believe, were an earnest of greater things

34

35

Detailed presentation of the Lucubratiunculae and later Lucubrationes in Mark Vessey, “Erasmus’s Lucubrationes: Genesis of a Literary Oeuvre” in Author, Reader, Book: Medieval Authorship in Theory and Practice, ed. Stephen Partridge and Erik Kwakkel (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012) 232–262. Ep. 126 Allen lines 15–16, cwe lines 19–20.

erasmus and the church fathers

37

to come. A modestly proportioned quarto of 200-odd pages, or about half as long again as the Adages, this libellus (as it was called on the title-page verso) presented a miscellany of devotional texts in sundry genres. At the heart of it, filling more than half of it, was a book within the book, entitled Enchiridion militis Christiani. The miles Christianus or “Christian soldier” was a layperson for whom Erasmus set out guidelines for a lifestyle oriented on prayer and biblestudy. In the printed text of 1503 there is an epistolary-style opening address “To a Friend at Court” and the text is dated at the end from St Omer in 1501, as if it were a letter. By omitting almost all of what falls between epistolary opening and close, the publishers of a seventeenth-century collection of Erasmus’ letters confected an additional item, which Allen reproduced as Letter 164, as if there could once have been an equivalent manuscript document. Textcritically, Letter 164 is a phantom. Yet, as often, Allen’s sleight of hand, once recognized, reveals more than it conceals. For the terms of “pre-print” intimacy offered by dint of this latterday editorial shortcut to Erasmus’ implied reader are not only consistent with Erasmus’ general manner as an author for print but also, as we shall now see, highly suggestive of the style of hands-on engagement that he was practising himself and recommending to others with respect to texts of the bible and the church fathers. Here is an even shorter circuit of the Enchiridion than Allen’s, combining passages from the beginning and end of the text: You have urgently entreated me, most beloved brother in the Lord, to set down for you a kind of summary guide to living (ut tibi compendiariam quandam vivendi rationem praescriberem), so that, equipped with it, you might attain to a state of mind worthy of Christ (qua instructus posses ad mentem Christo dignam pervenire). … Associate with those in whom you have seen Christ’s true image (veram imaginem Christi); otherwise, where there are none whose society can improve you, then withdraw from human intercourse as far as you can, and take for company the holy prophets and Christ and the apostles. Above all, make Paul your special friend; him you should keep always in your pocket (in sinu) and “ply with nightly and with daily hand,” and finally learn by heart. I have been carefully preparing an interpretation of him for some time. Certainly it is a bold venture. None the less, relying on heaven’s help, I shall earnestly try to ensure that, even after Origen and Ambrose and Augustine and all the commentators of more recent date (tot recentiores), I may not appear to have undertaken the task without any justification or profit. Second, I shall try to cause certain malicious critics,

38

vessey

who think it the height of piety to be ignorant of sound learning (nihil bonarum litterarum scire), to realize that, when in my youth I embraced the finer literature of the ancients (politiorem veterum litteraturam) and acquired, not without much midnight labour (non sine multis vigiliis), a reasonable knowledge of the Greek as well as the Latin language, I did not aim at vain glory or childish self-gratification, but had long ago determined to adorn the Lord’s temple, badly desecrated as it has been by the ignorance and barbarism of some, with treasures from other realms, as far as in me lay; treasures that could, moreover, inspire even men of superior intellect to love the Scriptures. But, putting aside this vast enterprise for a few days, I have taken upon myself the task of pointing out to you, as with my finger, a short way to Christ (ut tibi veluti digito viam, quae compendio ducit ad Christum, indicaremus).36 Locked in the nutshell of this factitious piece of familiar correspondence is the dynamic of Christ-familiarity that is Erasmian pietas. Christ no longer walked and taught on earth. His image—God’s image—was, however, still present in human company, including the special company of biblical authors whose texts (prophetic, evangelical, apostolic) gave them continuing lifelike expression. Paul, prototype of the class of apostle or teacher who had not seen Christ during his life on earth, modelled Christ-familiarity in the texts of his collectively familiar letters, beginning with one to the Romans. Contrary to what he implied in this passage, Erasmus’ project for a commentary on Romans—never realized as such, no doubt partly displaced into his Annotations and Paraphrase on that book—could hardly have been of long date in 1501. Its mention in the Enchiridion was a sign of his then-recent turn to the Greek text of the New Testament (and so to learning Greek), upon which his discovery of the biblical exegesis of Origen had quickly followed. Reading Origen heightened Erasmus’ sense of just how expressive the texts of the Old and New Testaments could be when read continuously with the kind of literal-historical and allegorical attention that ancient interpreters, trained in the classical grammarians’ procedures for expounding ancient poetry as a cultural encyclopaedia and guide to life, brought to bear on them.37 Outstanding Pauline commentators as they were, Origen, Ambrose (in fact, pseudo-Ambrose or “Ambrosiaster”) and Augustine lined up at the end of the Enchiridion to vouch for the enduring value in biblical 36 37

cwe 66: 24, 127; Holborn 22, 135. According to Godin, Érasme lecteur d’Origène 116, summarizing the first part of his study, “It is to Origen in the first place that Erasmus owes the most striking pieces of spiritual and hermeneutical evidence put forward like a manifesto in the Enchiridion.”

erasmus and the church fathers

39

exegesis of a familiarity with the classical “literature” that, as it happened, had been a passion of Erasmus since his youth. Themes from his Antibarbari, composed in the mid-1490s but only printed (in part) much later, resurface here, wrought to a new, hermeneutical point. Already in the earlier work Erasmus had leant heavily on Augustine’s treatise De doctrina Christiana for its rationale for Christian use of “pagan” liberal learning.38 Now, in the last line quoted above, he took from Augustine’s book the image of the hermeneutical guide’s skyward-pointing finger and redirected it down to earth, to the short way (compendium) through Erasmus’ book to Christ.39 The harmonics of Erasmian book-use in this passage are as audible and distinctive as its top-line melody. The injunction to “ply” (that is, unroll and re-roll) the book of Paul’s Letters “with nightly and with daily hand” was lifted from Horace’s advice to would-be Roman poets (Ars poetica 268–269), where it referred to copies (exemplaria) of the Greek poets circulating as volumina. (Lucubratio is not a poetic word, but the Horatian doctus poeta still had to burn the midnight oil.) Before making explicit his claims for “the finer literature of the ancients,” Erasmus insinuates them, slipping Horace tacitly into the conversation as a way of slipping Paul into his reader’s hands, pocket, or purse (in sinu). The analogy with Roman poetry-books, though specious with the respect to format (roll/codex), was calculated. It is a portable, “pocket” Paul that Erasmus commends, a constant companion, ready to hand, well-thumbed and marked, taken to heart.40 Correspondingly, the work in quarto by Erasmus that is putting Paul’s book into this well-disposed reader’s hands is itself easily compassed, compendious. It has the form of an enchiridion, meaning “a handheld device,” such as a dagger or—in Greek and Latin literary contexts since the late Roman Empire—a handbook: a book for the hand, and a book that handily points things out. A year or two earlier, Erasmus had collaborated on an edition of Cicero’s De officiis published by the same printer who issued his Adages; it was advertised on the title-page as equipped “with a concise commentary” (compendiario commento) and as designed for easy handling, pro enchiridio.41 Aldus Manutius, in Venice, was by then using the same language to market his octavo editions of classical and early Christian poets.42 Augustine had com-

38 39 40 41 42

Béné, Érasme et saint Augustin, 59–95, 127–186. For the figure of the hermeneutical guide as one who points out heavenly bodies, see Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, pref. 3. The same Horatian mantra would recur, with reference to the biblical text at large, in the Methodus and Ratio verae theologiae: cwe 41: 447–448, 693. Facsimile of the title-page in Vanautgaerden, Érasme typographe 37. See the prefaces assembled in the first section of Aldus Manutius: Humanism and the Latin

40

vessey

posed a work entitled Enchiridion, summarizing the Christian faith under the Pauline headings of faith, hope, and love. Erasmus owned a copy of it on parchment, which at one point in 1500 he directed his friend Jacob Batt to recover from a package that also contained “a violet-coloured pair of hose … and Paul’s Epistles, and other things I cannot remember,” before lamenting: “My readings in Greek almost crush my spirit; but I have no spare time and no means to purchase books or employ the services of a tutor.”43 Such was the hand-to-mouth, hand-to-hand economy that formed the bookman Erasmus. Present-day scholars luxuriating amid lb, Allen, asd, and cwe have to make a conscious effort to recreate it. The Enchiridion militis Christiani, as part of the Lucubratiunculae of 1503, was still novice-work. Only with the publication of a hugely expanded edition of his Adagia, undertaken by Aldus Manutius in Venice in 1508, did Erasmus enter the front rank of printed authors of his day. The succès de scandale of his Praise of Folly (1511) made him a celebrity. From 1512 onwards, the tempo of his publications rose sharply. In his De copia of that year, he referred again to the “more serious studies” that he had set aside in order, now, to provide these precepts for an abundant style. They culminated in a set of guidelines for stockpiling materials for future use by copying down telling examples and turns of thought or phrase from one’s general reading “in a notebook under systematically arranged topical headings (loci communes or commonplaces).”44 In the De ratione studii or “Method of Study,” reissued with De copia, Erasmus urged students to devise a personal system of pen-marks with which to flag promising passages as they read.45 And as once he had invoked Jerome and Augustine to sanction hands-on study of Terence as a master of style, he now promoted the church fathers as models in their own right: Among theological writers, after the Scriptures, no one writes better than Origen, no one more subtly or attractively than Chrysostom, no one more devoutly than Basil. Among the Latin Fathers, two at least are outstanding in this field: Ambrose who is wonderfully rich in metaphors, and Jerome who is immensely learned in the sacred Scriptures. If you lack the time

43 44 45

Classics, ed. John N. Grant (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017) nos. iii and following, including the 1501 Virgil presented in “pocket-book size format” (enchiridio). Grant notes (325) that “[b]ooks with this size of page were not new, but they were often devotional texts.” Erasmus, it would appear, was knowingly exploiting both bibliographic registers—devotional and “classical”—at once. Ep. 123 cwe lines 22–27. cwe 24: 297, 635–648. cwe 24: 670.

erasmus and the church fathers

41

to dwell on them individually, I nonetheless recommend that they all be savoured.46 For all that Jerome is here called “learned in the sacred Scriptures,” it was plainly for his eloquence, as previously, rather than for his exegetical prowess that he was cited. The emphasis of Erasmus’ invocations of the church fathers was about to change, however. By the late summer of 1514, having settled for the time being at Basel where Froben had his print-shop, he was finally ready to announce the “more serious” works that he had been promising for over a decade— specifically, an edition of the works of Jerome and another of the Vulgate (the future Novum instrumentum). Simultaneously, he began re-presenting his “back list” in such a way as to underline—indeed, assert—the long-term consistency of his projects. The Praise of Folly was “concerned in a playful spirit with the same subject as the Enchiridion,” he claimed in a publication of August 1515, where he also defended his decision to emend the text of the Vulgate.47 Already in June of that year the original publisher of the Lucubratiunculae had brought out the Enchiridion as a separate work, at Louvain. In September, another of Erasmus’ publishers, in Strasbourg, produced a new edition of the Lucubratiunculae, now upgraded on the title-page to Lucubrationes, with the Enchiridion in first place, and incorporating several new items. The title-page of the volume matched images of the four Doctors of the Latin Church (Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Gregory the Great) with a foursome of Old and New Testament authors (David and Isaiah, Paul and John). It was a diagram of the expressive resources of a bible-based Latin Christianity, more or less as Erasmus might have drawn it. Included among the new items in these Lucubrationes, tellingly, was an allegorical commentary (enarratio) on Psalm 1 that drew heavily on several Latin fathers (Hilary, Jerome, Augustine) and, by their mediation, the Greek Origen. In the absence of his still-awaited commentary on Paul, this was the first piece of continuous, line-by-line biblical exegesis Erasmus had published. It was issued while he and his assistants were finalizing the contents of the Novum instrumentum, in which his introductory Paraclesis or exhortation “To the Pious Reader” would stop only just short of affirming that Christ spoke

46 47

cwe 24: 673. Ep. 337 (to the Louvain theologian Maarten van Dorp) cwe lines 114–115. For the context and fuller argument, Mark Vessey, “Erasmus (1515) between the Bible and the Fathers: Threshold of a Hermeneutic” in Crossing Traditions: Essays on the Reformation and Intellectual History in Honour of Irena Backus, ed. Maria-Cristina Pitassi and Daniela Solfaroli Camillocci (Leiden: Brill, 2018) 133–148.

42

vessey

“more effectively” now in these late times, through the text of the New Testament, than he had while walking and talking with his disciples long before in Galilee.48 How could so extravagant a claim possibly stick to the work-in-progress of Erasmus’ patchily improved Vulgate? Erasmus seems to have thought or at least hoped that it might do so if the “original” sense and force of the Christ-bearing biblical text—inferrable from the evidence of Greek and Latin traditions— could be reliably registered and promulgated by an intermediate class of persons considerably narrower than the universe of Christians envisaged as frequenters of the bible in the Paraclesis, namely the class of Latin-reading (and in some cases also Greek-reading) users of the Novum instrumentum whom, as we have seen, he hailed into the company of the church fathers in that work’s extended title. By reading the biblical text with the fathers, if only by picking up the cues from patristic exegesis supplied by Erasmus in his Annotations, these newly recruited old-style “theologians” might be able faithfully to re-present the speaking image of Christ to their fellow human beings. Their brief was given formally in the little treatise headed Erasmi Roterodami methodus (the Methodus) and included in the preliminaries of the Novum instrumentum. As part of a large-scale rethinking of the New Testament project that began before the corrigenda of that volume came off the press in 1516, and that led to a major expansion of the patristic content of the Annotations in the (retitled) Novum testamentum of 1519, Erasmus soon turned the elliptical Methodus into a more expansive, freestanding handbook for trainees in his kind of practical theology, published separately at Louvain in late 1518 as Ratio seu methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam (“System or Method of Arriving by a Short Cut at True Theology”), under a slightly different title by Froben at Basel early in 1519, and then in place of the Methodus in the second edition (and that one only) of the Erasmus-Froben New Testament.49 The Ratio verae theologiae or “System of True Theology” would appear straight after the Enchiridion and just ahead of the Paraclesis in Erasmus’ ideal scheme for the section of his Complete Works devoted to the inculcation of piety.50 Described by Gorce as la charte même de l’érasmisme, it can also be 48 49

50

cwe 41: 417. On the publishing history, see cwe 41: 183–190, 389–391, 481–485. The contents of the Ratio are summarized by Manfred Hoffmann, Rhetoric and Theology: The Hermeneutic of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994) 32–39, and there is an excellent discussion of the work in Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle, Erasmus on Language and Method in Theology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977) 59–127. Full presentation now in Erasmus on Literature, cited above, n. 29. Ep. 1341a cwe lines 1576–1581.

erasmus and the church fathers

43

thought of as the primer for what Godin terms Erasmus’ “biblico-patristic” theological enterprise,51 which—by 1516, if not demonstrably earlier—had become the main axis of his whole “literary” enterprise or life-consuming lucubrationes. Running to 136 pages in quarto as a stand-alone handbook in the 1518 editio princeps, the Ratio is only slightly longer than the Enchiridion. Erasmus devised the work, he said, so that “it can, if one likes, be added as a preface [as it would be for the 1519 Novum Testamentum]; otherwise, it can be read separately.”52 Like the Enchiridion, the Ratio needs to be read right through: there can be no short-cutting Erasmus’ short-cut to “true theology.” Nor in this case is there any pretext for our turning it back (à la Allen) into a lost, handwritten letter to a friend. The personal intimacy with Christ that is the goal of the Ratio and of all Erasmus’ Old and New Testament undertakings—including, from 1517 onwards, his nt Paraphrases—is, as modeled there, inextricably printborne and print-mediated, contingent now upon an immense industry of men and women with machines. Erasmus’ full-dress Novum Testamentum with its lengthy prolegomena, its twin columns of biblical text and its ever-expanding apparatus of Annotationes was anything but a pocket-book. For the ideal textgenerating mechanism or instrument of that work to function, all its moving parts, including the ideal reader, had to be in place and fully in play. Quarto and octavo editions of his Paraphrases would in due course channel Erasmus’ own performance as ideal reader of the New Testament to a wider market.53 In the meantime, the Ratio verae theologiae of 1518/19 and its subsequent editions captured a vision and system for deriving a living, affective, potentially transformative sense from the biblical text in print, a sense in aid of which all the resources of “literary” language would now once again be activated, just as— Erasmus surmised—they routinely had been in the age of the fathers. The lines that follow in the Ratio after the reprise of a homily by Origen on the story of the sacrifice of Isaac convey the polemical spirit of that distinctively Erasmian “literary” vision and system, and also the affability of a writer who had once copied out Terence so that his friend could begin learning eloquence in a poet’s company: 51

52 53

asd v-2: 21–23, with a facsimile (20) of the title-page of the Lucubrationes gallerying the Latin Doctors of the Church in company with the biblical authors David, Isaiah, Paul and John. cwe 41: 488, from the opening of the Ratio, where Erasmus explains its relation to the earlier Methodus. See John J. Bateman, “The Textual Travail of the Tomus secundus of the Paraphrases” in Holy Scripture Speaks: The Production and Reception of Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament, ed. Hilmar M. Pabel and Mark Vessey (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002) 213–263.

44

vessey

Origen’s discourse on this passage is fuller and more finely wrought, whether with greater pleasure to the reader or greater profit, I hardly know, though he is, for the moment, engaged only with the historical sense. He does for the divine books exactly what Donatus does for the comedies of Terence in laying bare the intent of the poet. Would anyone see such things who had never applied himself to the more refined literature, who had scarcely tasted the precepts of grammar (and at that, from authors ungrammatical), then—soon hurried off to thorny arguments and dry and troublesome questions—spent the rest of his life in these? … For the present, however, it is my concern not to ridicule anyone’s ignorance but to invite young persons to the best system of study (ad optimam studii rationem). Only, I shall say this in general: if anyone seeks some ready proof of this, let that individual place those ancient theologians (veteres illos theologos), Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome beside these more recent ones (hisce recentioribus) and compare them. There will be seen a sort of golden river flowing, here some shallow streams, neither very pure nor much like their source. There, the oracles of eternal truth thunder forth, here, you hear the trifling fabrications of human beings, which, the more closely you investigate the more they vanish like dreams …54 There, in 1518/19, was Erasmus’ signal “daring,” as Fumaroli called it, in summoning a plenary company of church fathers in support of his (latest) work in progress.55 How he might mobilize “Greek and Latin Christian literature, in its original texts [and] with its own eloquence” for such a project may not at that point have been entirely clear even to him. But he knew already that further labour, both critical and mechanical, would be required of him and his associates if those ancient Christian writers were to fall safely into the hands of readers able to use them to good ends in the present time.56 54 55 56

cwe 41: 509–510. See n. 19 above. See cwe 41: 696–697 for the progress and prospects of Erasmian patristic editions, as reported and envisaged successively in the Methodus and Ratio verae thelogiae.

chapter 3

Erasmus and the Philosophers Anita Traninger

Erasmus was not a philosopher—at least this is what appears to be the current consensus among Erasmus scholars. He had a “philosophical bent,” as Erika Rummel put it, “but he was no systematic philosopher. His writings contain inconsistencies and ambiguities, some of them rooted in literary conventions. It is clearly unrealistic to look for perfect consistency in an oeuvre that includes fiction and rhetorical exercises.”1 In addition to not being a philosopher himself, Erasmus had an uneasy relationship with philosophy as practiced in his day and age, both in the schools and in humanist circles. Neither was Erasmus properly trained in the philosophy of the schools, nor did he build on his and others’ readings of ancient philosophers to produce a philosophical system of his own. What is more, his preference for expressing seminal ideas in literary genres such as dialogue and declamation makes it difficult to hold him accountable for the positions uttered by fictitious characters. The fact that Erasmus was widely read in ancient philosophy has led to claims of him having identified with one or more of the ancient philosophical sects, from the Academy to Stoicism and even Epicureanism. In the first part of this chapter, I will give a brief overview of these interpretations, and my approach will be deeply indebted to John Monfasani’s magisterial account of Erasmus’ engagement with the various philosophical schools.2 In the second part, I will show that it is his philosophia Christi that most aptly illustrates how he dealt with the classical legacy. Third and finally, I will discuss Erasmus’ stance toward philosophy as it was taught at universities in the early decades of the sixteenth century. Erasmus shunned formal university training, a decision that is overwhelmingly met with approval and even sympathy in the literature. Surely, they agree, he was right in condemning the stubborn ways of the schoolmen, right in attacking their unforgiving rigor so utterly out of touch with the concerns of everyday pious life, right in removing himself as much as possible from the futile pursuits of vainglorious academics. Erasmus stated his aversion towards scholasticism in no uncertain terms and across many genres, from the

1 Erika Rummel, Erasmus (London / New York: Continuum, 2004) ix. 2 John Monfasani, “Erasmus and the Philosophers,” ersy 32 (2012) 47–68.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_005

46

traninger

satirical poise of Praise of Folly to the variously evoked notion of a ‘true’ theology and his letters. And yet he remained endlessly intrigued by the ranks, the prestige, and the methods of the schools. In the last part of this chapter I will show how his open disdain of scholastic method brought about some of the most original traits of Erasmus’ writing.

1

A Man of Many Tribes

Despite his extensive correspondence, Erasmus was almost aggressively uninterested in contemporary ideas. This holds true not only for the thought of professional philosophers in the universities, of whose writings he was blissfully unaware (and of whom more below), but also for fellow humanists who would have catered directly to his own aims and predilections. This is not to deny that Erasmus read his contemporaries, but his reading was selective. His familiarity with the writings, and in particular the letters, of scholars such as Angelo Poliziano, Pico della Mirandola or Ermoalo Barbaro was often driven by an interest in quotable portions of text. For his Adages, for instance, he drew on their way with words and their dexterity in employing metaphors and ingenious turns of phrase, but also skimmed them for their quotations of ancient proverbs.3 Throughout his life, Erasmus far preferred communing with the ancients than with his contemporaries. As a consequence, his work gives the sense of very deep and stable foundations. Despite his eclecticism and his ever-shifting interests, scholars often evoke lines of consistency and cohesion running through his works that unite him to the ancient sects, the result being a body of scholarly literature that variously portrays Erasmus as a Platonist, a Stoic, a Skeptic, or even an Epicurean. In what follows, I will discuss the varied ways in which Erasmus engages with these schools and highlight in particular the complicating factors that make it impossible to claim his clear-cut allegiance to any of them. The Renaissance fascination with Neoplatonism did not resonate with Erasmus, but he was familiar with Marsilio Ficino’s translation of Plato’s works,

3 Cf. John Neilson Grant, “Erasmus’ Adages,” cwe 30: 7. For the broader intellectual context see Ann Moss, Printed Commonplace Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996) 101–115 (on Erasmus’ De copia); Felix Heinimann, “Zu den Anfängen der humanistischen Paroemiologie” in Catalepton. Festschrift für Bernhard Wyss, ed. Christoph Schäublin (Basel: Seminar für Klassische Philologie der Universität Basel, 1985) 158–182; Miekske L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk, “Humanists, Letters, and proverbia: Some Aspects of Erasmus’ First Collection of Proverbs,” ersy 26 (2006) 1–15.

erasmus and the philosophers

47

with which he had become acquainted in Thomas More’s circle.4 Some fundamental Platonic tenets were easily compatible with Erasmus’ interests, but his approach, as always, was not about embracing the philosophical system as a whole. Rather, he took to specific passages and concepts: “He very much liked many passages of Plato’s dialogues: the theory of ecstasy, the image of the Silenus, the figures projected in the cave, the wish for kings to be philosophers, the notion of the body as the corporeal prison of the soul, and, at least for a time, the community of goods. But he had little use for Plato’s epistemology, metaphysics, and political theory.”5 The Platonists were to be commended, he wrote, “because in much of their thinking as well as in their mode of expression they are the closest to the spirit of the prophets and the gospel.”6 The two perspectives are equally important: a compatibility with Christian teachings matters just as much as style and linguistic elegance. Erasmus’ general sympathy towards Plato is certainly informed by a desire to promote an alternative to Aristotelianism, yet this alternative was not sought out for philosophical reasons alone. It was linguistic dexterity that he was after, a fluidity of expression in philosophical discourse diametrically opposed to the technical Latin employed by the scholastics. Against this backdrop, Erasmus’ persona in the dialogue Antibarbari proposed to set up “an academy on the model of Plato’s,” stressing that it was the writings of the “most eloquent of philosophers and the wisest of orators” that would make such an institution prosper.7 It is fair to say that it was predominantly a rhetorical interest that drove Erasmus to the Platonic dialogues. His thoughts on the silenus illustrate how he approached and exploited Platonic concepts. In the Adagia, Erasmus introduces “Sileni Alcibiadis” as a phrase that “seems to have passed into a proverb among educated people.”8 While adducing several classical sources for the concept of a silenus, a small figure designed to be deliberately hideous but which would, when opened, display marvelous beauty, the ‘saying’ itself gives away

4 Carlos Steel, “Erasmus and Aristotle” in Erasmo da Rotterdam e la cultura europea / Erasmus of Rotterdam and European Culture. Atti dell’incontro di Studi nel v Centenario della Laurea di Erasmo all’Università di Torino, ed. Enrico Pasini and Pietro B. Rossi (Florence: Sismel, 2008) 149–174: 159. See also Dominic Baker-Smith, “Uses of Plato by Erasmus and More” in Platonism and the English Imagination, ed. Anna Baldwin and Sarah Hutton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994) 86–99. 5 Monfasani, “Philosophers” 66–67. 6 cwe 66: 33 (Enchiridion). Quoted in Erika Rummel, “Desiderius Erasmus,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, https://plato.stanford.edu/​ archives/win2017/entries/erasmus. 7 cwe 23: 39. 8 Adagia, iii.iii.1, cwe 34: 262–282; asd ii-5: 159–190.

48

traninger

the Symposion as the actual source. It was Alcibiades who, while inebriated, compared Socrates to a silenus (216D): “Is not this like a Silenus? Exactly. It is an outward casing he wears, similarly to the sculptured Silenus. But if you opened his inside, you cannot imagine how full he is, good cup-companions, of sobriety.”9 Despite the scene being memorable, it did not yield a proverb. That a pertinent saying is not extant in the Greek collections of proverbs has been duly noted by R.A.B. Mynors in his cwe edition. And in all probability, Erasmus came across the word in one place in particular beyond the Symposion. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, with whose philosophical works Erasmus does not engage otherwise, likened scholastic discourse to Alcibiades’ description of Socrates as a Silenus in his epistolary exchange with Ermolao Barbaro on questions of philosophical style. Pico puts the word in the mouth of a scholastic philosopher, who ironically relies on Platonic imagery to defend his technical, unclassical use of Latin: Yet I shall indicate the form of our discourse. It is the same as that of the Sileni of our Alcibiades. Among them were likenesses of a shaggy face, loathsome and disgusting; but within full of gems, a rare and precious thing, if you looked within you perceived something divine.10 The wording of Pico’s passage suggests that it was just as much at the root of Erasmus’ adagium as the Symposion itself. Erasmus then takes the image of the Silenus as a starting point for a prolonged meditation on surface and depth, shifting his discussion from the silenus as a metaphor for a person as found in the Symposion—the prophets and even Christ himself are aptly described as sileni, he claims—to the interpretation of texts.11 In doing so, he follows the fic9 10

11

Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 9, trans. Harold N. Fowler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1925). Symposium, 216D. Quirinus Breen, “Giovanni Pico della Mirandola on the Conflict of Philosophy and Rhetoric,” Journal of the History of Ideas 13 (1952) 384–426: 398. For the original Latin see Ermolao Barbaro and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Filosofia o eloquenza?, ed. Francesco Bausi (Naples: Liguori Editore, 1998). See on the letters Jill Kraye, “Pico on the Relationship of Rhetoric and Philosophy” in Pico della Mirandola: New Essays, ed. M.V. Dougherty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 13–36; Letizia Panizza, “Ermolao Barbaro e Pico della Mirandola tra rettorica e dialettica: il De genere dicendi philosophorum del 1485” in Una famiglia veneziana nella storia: i Barbaro. Atti del convegno di studi in occasione del quinto centenario della morte dell’umanista Ermolao. Venezia, 4–6 novembre 1993, ed. Michaela Marangoni and Manlio Pastore Stocchi (Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 1996) 277–330. cwe 34: 264f. Cf. J.B. Payne, “Toward the Hermeneutics of Erasmus” in Scrinium Erasmianum, ed. J. Coppens, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1969) 13–49.

erasmus and the philosophers

49

titious scholastic philosopher who propounds the apology of scholasticism in Pico’s letter. The Old Testament, Erasmus claims, “has its own Sileni.” The story of the creation of man and Adam and Eve’s expulsion from paradise come to mind: “would you not think this was a fable that issued from Homer’s workshop? […] Yet under these wrappings, in heaven’s name, how splendid is the wisdom that lies hidden!”12 Erasmus’ reading of the Symposion (through Pico’s lens) is not so much philosophical as it is an exploitation of the text for a metaphor that would stand emblematically for some of the issues that informed many of his writings: namely, propagating the study of the Bible, advocating an allegorical reading of the biblical text, in particular of the Old Testament, and, in going beyond philology proper, proposing a general interpretability of the world, never trusting the surface and always seeing the need to probe deeper. The general trope is that truth is not to be found in first appearances, but that it typically needs to be excavated and extracted from beneath an unseemly surface. For Erasmus, this serves as a topos rather than a philosophical tenet, a source of invention for all kinds arguments that can be framed as surface/depth or outside/inside constellations. It leads him, for example, to the argument that truth is (and needs to be) hidden from the masses, that it does not manifest itself openly: “the real truth of things is always most profoundly concealed, and cannot be detected easily or by many people.”13 To derive this elitist idea—so very common in the early modern period and up to Spinoza—from Alcibiades’ musings about the silenus in the Symposion is a rhetorical inference, not a philosophical deduction. Erasmus’ stance towards the Stoics is best described as ambivalent.14 His focus was on Cicero and Seneca, and it was above all editorial projects that captured his attention. He edited Cicero’s De officiis in 1501 and turned to Seneca’s Opera twice in his career. In 1515, Johann Froben printed Erasmus’ Opera omnia Senecae, merging the philosopher and the rhetor to make up a

12 13 14

cwe 34: 267. For Erasmus’ unequivocal endorsement of allegorical readings cf. cwe 63: 78–79 (Enarratio in Psalmum 2). cwe 34: 267 (Adagia). Peter Walter, Theologie aus dem Geist der Rhetorik. Zur Schriftauslegung des Erasmus von Rotterdam (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1991) 70. On the difficulties involved in defining Stoicism itself in the Renaissance see William J. Bouwsma, “The Two Faces of Humanism: Stoicism and Augustinianism in Renaissance Thought” in Itinerarium Italicum. The Profile of the Italian Renaissance in the Mirror of Its European Transformations. Dedicated to Paul Oskar Kristeller on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, ed. Heiko A. Oberman with Thomas A. Brady, Jr. (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 3–60: 6–7.

50

traninger

“sanctissimus philosophus.”15 Erasmus had entrusted the work to a collaborator, Robert Aldridge, who, however, did not meet his standards. As a consequence, the second, revised edition was published in 1529, again by Froben, this time containing a much more diligent assessment of authentic and spurious writings. The title page indicates that the purpose of the work is twofold: as he did with Plato, Erasmus recommends Seneca’s works to the reader both for their style and the advice they offer for bettering one’s life.16 Above all, Erasmus lauds him for the moral example he poses through his own actions, deducing from Seneca’s impassioned style that he not only propagated the betterment of man through his writings, but lived up to his teachings: Nothing sets a higher tone than his pronouncements, and he preaches the path of honour with such fervour that it is quite clear he practised what he preached. Seneca alone calls the mind away to heavenly things, exalts it until it despises the world of everyday, implants a loathing of all that is mean, and kindles with a love of honour; in a word, sends his reader away a better man, if he opened the book with the purpose of becoming better.17 Despite Seneca’s supposedly exemplary behavior that ostensibly aligns with Christian values, Erasmus warns against reading him as if he were a Christian author in the preface to the second Opera edition in 1529: “I think it is better for the reader to approach Seneca’s works as if they were written by a man ignorant of our religion. For if you read him as a pagan, he wrote like a Christian; while if you read him as a Christian, he wrote like a pagan” (“Etenim si legas illum vt paganum, scripsit Christiane; si vt Christianum, scripsit paganice”).18

15

16

17 18

Like his contemporaries, Erasmus commingled the two authors now known as the younger and the elder Seneca, the philosopher and the rhetorician, while he held the author of the tragedies to be a separate person. See Peter Walter, “‘Nihil enim huius praeceptis sanctius.’ Das Seneca-Bild des Erasmus von Rotterdam” in Stoizismus in der europäischen Philosophie, Literatur, Kunst und Politik. Eine Kulturgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Moderne, ed. Barbara Neymeyr, Jochen Schmidt and Bernhard Zimmermann (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008) 501–524: 501. Lucij Annaei Senecae sanctissimi philosophi lucubrationes omnes, additis etiam nonnullis, Erasmi Roterodami cura, si non ab omnibus, certe ab innumeris mendis repurgatae. In his euoluendis si diligenter uersaberis, et linguam tuam reddent expolitiorem, et uitam emendatiorem (Basel: Johannes Froben, 1515). Ep. 325 cwe lines 83–89 (Preface to the Lucubrationes, 1515), Allen lines 75–80. Ep. 2091 cwe lines 232–235, Allen lines 221–222.

erasmus and the philosophers

51

The question of whether Seneca is suitable for a Christian readership points to the fact that philosophy, for Erasmus, is essentially ethics.19 Stoic ethics had informed Christian doctrine from the beginning. Peter Walter, drawing on an idea put forward by Karl Suso Frank, somewhat polemically suggested that Christian ethics (and in particular monastic asceticism) was in many regards Stoicism sprinkled with holy water.20 Thus it does not come as a surprise, as Manfred Hoffmann has pointed out, that Erasmus confounds, without much reflection, Stoic apatheia with Christian notions of virtue.21 But it is not only Stoic and Christian ethics that are to be reconciled; the Stoic notion of the philosopher itself is easily compatible with other schools’ teachings as well: […] if a man is distracted by anger, hatred, love, ambition, lust, pride, or spite, his mental perceptions are disturbed and he cannot discern the best course. It is the mark of a philosopher to be free from such distractions. Plato recognized this when he declared that the well-being of the state depended upon its rulers being philosophers as well.22 Here, Erasmus ties Plato’s call for kings to be philosophers to the condition that these be unmoved by the passions, thus inserting the Stoic ideal as an enthymematic premise to Plato’s claim. Core concepts of the Stoic and even the Epicurean sects, apatheia and ataraxia, are thus tacitly and effortlessly linked to the Platonic philosopher state. One could say that this echoes the scholastic theological practice of reconciling apparently contradictory authorities,23 but Erasmus foregoes a detailed discussion. He is not keen on identifying and discussing semantic nuances or on mapping convergences and differences. Rather, this is copia in action: the collection of quotations, sententiae, and exempla that can be made to appear to converge on issues close to his heart,

19 20 21 22 23

Maria Cytowska, “Erasme et la philosophie antique,” Živa Antika / Antiquité vivante 26 (1976) 453–462: 454; Monfasani, “Philosophers” 57. Walter, “Seneca-Bild” 522, quoting Karl Suso Frank, Grundzüge der Geschichte des christlichen Mönchtums (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975) 5 f. Manfred Hoffmann, Erkenntnis und Verwirklichung der wahren Theologie nach Erasmus von Rotterdam (Tübingen: Mohr, 1972) 219. cwe 63: 138 (Expositions of the Psalms). See also Monfasani, “Philosophers” 57. L.M. de Rijk, Logica modernorum. A Contribution to the History of Early Terminist Thought, vol. ii–i. The Origin and Early Development of the Theory of Supposition (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1967) 95, 491. For a general overview of the handling of contradiction, see Reinhold Rieger, Contradictio. Theorien und Bewertungen des Widerspruchs in der Theologie des Mittelalters (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).

52

traninger

quotations that support points he wishes to make, even if this means that this convergence is only superficial and available only at the price of neglecting the semantic complexities that underwrite what, superficially, seems to treat of the same thing.24 One can easily imagine a rubric ‘philosopher’ in his commonplace book, where Plato’s vision of the philosopher state is just as duly noted as a quote from Seneca or from Cicero’s De officiis. Subtle differences in doctrine are rather irrelevant in the service of a copious style and an awe-inspiring command of classical references. The overall modus operandi was “[…] to cite classical sources in order to give a historical and pan-cultural dimension to Christian values.”25 Erasmus’ harmonizing and syncretistic impetus was, in any case, not driven by an investigative or analytic spirit, as were, for example, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s 900 theses.26 It is informed by the spirit of compilation rather than that of judgment. Erasmus was certainly aided by the fact that notions of the philosopher as being free of the disturbances caused by the affects were shared by several schools. At least Stoic and Epicurean teachings do not exclude each other with a view of how they conceived of the sage, a fact that Cicero pointed out in De finibus bonorum et malorum, where he offers a discussion of Stoic, Epicurean, and Academic ethics. Freedom from the fear of death was certainly an issue that moved Erasmus time and again, and he quite likely sympathized with Cicero’s description of the Epicurean sage as a man who is always happy (semper beatus)—possibly not least because Cicero pronounces it compatible with Stoic doctrine: For Epicurus thus presents his Wise Man who is always happy: his desires are kept within bounds; death he disregards; he has a true conception, untainted by fear, of the Divine nature; he does not hesitate to depart from life, if that would better his condition. Thus equipped he enjoys perpetual pleasure, for there is no moment when the pleasures he experiences do not outbalance the pains; since he remembers the past with gratitude, grasps the present with a full realization of its pleasantness, and does not rely upon the future; he looks forward to it, but finds his true enjoyment 24 25

26

Cf. Erasmus’ instructions for collecting sententiae and exempla in De copia, asd i-6: 258– 260. Erika Rummel, “Desiderius Erasmus,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Winter 2017 Edition) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/ entries/erasmus. See S.A. Farmer, Syncretism in the West: Pico’s 900 Theses (1486). The Evolution of Traditional Religious and Philosophical Systems. With text, translation and commentary (Tempe, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1998).

erasmus and the philosophers

53

in the present. Also he is entirely free from the vices that I instanced a few moments ago, and he derives no inconsiderable pleasure from comparing his own existence with the life of the foolish. More, any pains that the Wise Man may encounter are never so severe but that he has more cause for gladness than for sorrow.27 Taken out of context—as a locus communis would be—, this description may indeed resonate with a Christian believer. Yet that Erasmus would have subscribed to a full-fledged Stoicism28 or Epicureanism seems rather implausible. It was in particular Epicurus’ denial of the immortality of the soul and of divine providence that was simply irreconcilable with Christian belief. Unsurprisingly, the Church fathers, so venerated by Erasmus, generally abhorred Epicureanism, viewing it as opposed to core tenets of Christianity. Still, there are indeed aspects in Erasmus’ writings that point to a more substantial fascination with Epicureanism.29 John Monfasani even claims that Martin Luther, when calling Erasmus an Epicurean, was, while intending it as a polemic, unwittingly conveying the truth: he just did not understand the sincere nature of Erasmus’ Epicureanism, which was focused on the desire for an absence of the fear of death and on finding happiness in whatever moral pursuit it is that a man dedicates his life to.30 If we take a closer look at two of Erasmus’ writings that deal explicitly with Epicureanism, another aspect comes to the fore, namely that of the high degree of literary artifice with which he treats the issue, both times delegating the argument to a fictitious speaker. De contemptu mundi, a text dating back to the beginning of Erasmus’ career in the 1480s, has the form of a letter written by a monk to his nephew. It is one of the earliest examples of Erasmus adopting a persona. Here, it is the retreat from the world and abstaining from marriage that appear easily reconcilable with a monkish existence.31 Erasmus takes Epicurus’ position that “men may misjudge what constitutes pleasure, but […] they are

27 28 29

30 31

Cicero, De finibus 1.62. I quote from H. Rackham’s translation in the Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA / London, England: Harvard University Press, 2014). Cf. Ross Dealy, The Stoic Origins of Erasmus’s Philosophy of Christ (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017) 339. Peter Bietenholz, “Felicitas (eudaimonia) ou les promenades d’Érasme dans le jardin d’Épicure,”Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme 30,1 (2006) 37–86, traces Erasmus’ engagement with Epicurean thought chronologically. Monfasani, “Philosophers” 58. Monfasani, “Philosophers” 59, referencing asd v-1: 60, 73. Cf. R. Bultot, “Érasme, Épicure et le ‘De contemptu mundi’” in Scrinium Erasmianum, ed. J. Coppens, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1969) 205–238.

54

traninger

unanimous in pursuing pleasure in one way or another” as the starting point for arguing a paradox: that monks subjecting themselves to the strict rule of a monastery pursue the principle of pleasure.32 In the colloquy The Epicurean, first published in 1533 and thus dating from towards the end of Erasmus’ life, two interlocutors, “the Hedonist” and his pupil, discuss the end of a good life, taking Cicero’s De finibus as a starting point. Echoing a debate first staged by Lorenzo Valla one hundred years earlier in De voluptate (which was mostly known in Erasmus’ times under the title De vero falsoque bono),33 but this time turning it into the subject matter of a language learning dialogue, Erasmus has two interlocutors discuss Epicureanism—again in the limited sense of moral philosophy, leaving out in particular Epicurean theology, which claimed the Gods’ indifference towards humankind.34 And again, it is an argument against common opinion, as Hedonius seeks to counter young Spudaeus’ common sense reservations. While Spudaeus cautions that no philosophical school is more detested than the Epicurean, Hedonius seeks to leave bad reputations aside and expound the value of the Epicurean notion of human happiness—going so far as to claim that “there are no people more Epicurean than godly Christians” (“nulli magis sunt Epicurei quam Christiani pie viuentes”).35 This is the thesis Hedonius defends, and it is derived from the assumption that true pleasure equals virtuousness.36 Spudaeus is not convinced, however, countering that “Christians are closer to Cynics, because they wear themselves out by fasting and bewailing their sins” (“Cynicis propiores: nam isti se macerant ieiuniis, deplorant sua commissa”).37 But Hedonius is not 32 33

34

35 36

37

cwe 66: 165 (De contemptu mundi). Lorenzo Valla, De vero falsoque bono, crit. ed. Maristella de Panizza Lorch (Bari: Adriatica Ed., 1970). Brian Vickers, “Valla’s Ambivalent Praise of Pleasure: Rhetoric in the Service of Christianity,” Viator 17 (1986) 271–319; for a comparison of the versions see Gernot Michael Müller, “Diskrepante Annäherungen an die voluptas. Zur Funktion der Figureninteraktion in Lorenzo Vallas Dialog De voluptate,” in Möglichkeiten des Dialogs. Struktur und Funktion einer literarischen Gattung zwischen Mittelalter und Renaissance in Italien, ed. Klaus W. Hempfer (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2002) 163–223; Howard Jones, The Epicurean Tradition (London et al.: Routledge, 1989) 142–165, retraces the humanist debate about Epicureanism and argues that Epicurus became “a rhetorical shuttlecock to be batted back and forth between opponents” (165). On the sources of Epicurean theology and its transmission, among others, by Cicero, see Jaap Mansfeld, “Aspects of Epicurean Theology,” Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, 46,2 (1993) 172–210. cwe 40: 1075, line 29, asd i-3: 721, lines 33–34. For Erasmus’ consistent claim to the necessary unity of pleasure and virtue across his body of works cf. the contributions in Le bonheur selon Érasme, ed. Brenda Dunn-Lardeau. Special issue, Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme 30,1 (2006). cwe 40: 1075, lines 30–31; asd i-3: 721, lines 35–36.

erasmus and the philosophers

55

deterred and keeps pushing to the point at which Christ himself is labelled an Epicurean (“nemo magis promeretur cognomen Epicuri, quam adorandus ille Christianae philosophiae princeps”).38 Both writings, from the beginning and the end of Erasmus’ career, share four important traits. First, they rely on fictitious characters (personae) for defending Epicureanism, thus distancing the real Erasmus from the arguments that are being made. Second, they depend on very specific, if not forced and slightly disingenuous redefinitions of Epicurean doctrine from which the argument is then developed. Third, they focus on particular aspects and conveniently obliterate elements of the doctrine that are at odds with Christian belief. And fourth, the argument is propounded against common opinion, as Spudaeus explicitly remarks: “Really, you present us with a paradox topping all the paradoxes of the Stoics.”39 Probably just as much as with regard to the concept apatheia, the Stoics were inspirational for Erasmus with a view to their predilection for paradoxical argumentation. In the preface to the Paradoxa Stoicorum, Cicero praises Cato as the perfect Stoic who advanced opinions not shared by the masses (“ea sentit quae non sane probantur in vulgus”).40 This is what the Stoics were indeed known for: propounding enigmatic doctrines contrary to common opinion, which they themselves called paradoxa.41 Cicero’s combination of improbable maxims and rhetorical persuasion, which he demonstrates with six Stoic sayings, is most likely one of the sources for Erasmus’ revival of classical declamation, which he uses to propound theses contrary to common opinion.42 In the course of his career, Erasmus took his early translations and imitations of Lucian’s declamation Tyrannicida, undertaken together with Thomas More (where they were left with arguing the more probable side of the case),43 to a new level that imbued the rhetorical format with intellectual ambition. More than dialogue, Erasmus championed declamation as his philosophical vehicle,

38 39 40 41 42 43

asd i-3: 731, lines 421–423. cwe 40: 1076. Cicero, Paradoxa Stoicorum, Prooemium, 2. Trans. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA / London, England: Harvard University Press, 2004). Paradoxa Stoicorum 4: “These doctrines are surprising, and they run counter to universal opinion—the Stoics themselves actually term them paradoxa.” Marc G.M. van der Poel, “For Freedom of Opinion: Erasmus’s Defense of the Encomium matrimonii,” ersy 25 (2005) 1–17. The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, 15 vols. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1963–1997) vol. 3,1: 94–127; asd i-1: 379–627, cwe 29: 77–123. That Erasmus and More competed with regard to the Tyrannicida happened on More’s initiative, see Craig Thompson, “Introduction” in More, The Complete Works, vol. 3,1, xxx.

56

traninger

which was not least inspired by Cicero’s recasting of the orator as a philosopher.44 Cicero had insisted in particular that the ability to argue both sides of a question (in utramque partem disserere), which is at the heart of paradox, is not limited to rhetoric—despite the claim made in De oratore that only he who mastered it could be called the perfect orator.45 Rather, it emerges from a mindset that underwrites both rhetoric and dialectics and results in the practice of propounding a thesis or opposing it, be it by attacking it through a series of questions, or by formulating an oration on the contrary view. Cicero himself attributed both the invention of the technique and the combination of rhetoric and dialectics under the umbrella of in utramque partem disserere to Aristotle, who supposedly trained his disciples not only to expound arguments on both sides in the plain manner of the philosophers, but to treat them with rhetorical copiousness.46 The aim was to find truth by contrasting probable positions.47 As such, the technique was not the exclusive province of any philosophical school, despite the Stoics’ reputation for clothing their doctrine in the most outlandish paradoxes on the one hand and the sceptical epistemology that was associated with the practice already in antiquity on the other.48 With a view to the problem of criteria for truth which was at the root of the “implicit sceptical tendencies of the Reformation crisis,” Richard Popkin diagnosed Erasmus with a “sceptical attitude” which became manifest in the debate with Luther on free will.49 As a consequence, according to Popkin, he turned his 44

45 46

47 48

49

This extended to Erasmus’ understanding of theology: “The theologian is in the Erasmian scheme a holy orator declaiming in the forum of the commonwealth.” Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle, Erasmus on Language and Method in Theology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977) 72. Cicero, De oratore 3.80. Cicero, De finibus 5.10: “ab Aristoteleque principe de singulis rebus in utramque partem dicendi exercitatio est instituta […].” Cicero, Orator 46: “In hac [i.e. treating a question on both sides] Aristoteles adolescentes non ad philosophorum morem tenuiter disserendi, sed ad copiam rhetorum in utramque partem, ut ornatius et uberius dici possit, exercuit.” Cf. Aristotle, Rhetoric 1355a. See Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Philosophers iv, 6, 28 on Arcesilaus, who supposedly instigated the Academy’s adoption of scepticism and who was said to have invented the method of arguing both sides. Cf., however, Socrates’ two speeches in Phaidros 237A–241D, 243E–257B, and Cicero’s characterization of disputing in utramque partem as the Socratic method for finding truth in Tusculan disputations 1.8. Cf. K.E. Wilkerson, “Carneades at Rome: A Problem of Sceptical Rhetoric,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 21,2 (1988) 131–144; Pierre Couissin, “L’origine et l’évolution de l’ εποχη,” Revue des études grecques 42 (1929) 373– 397. Richard Popkin, The History of Scepticism. From Savonarola to Bayle (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 56. Thomas Conley makes the same point with regard to the Praise of Folly: “Erasmus, in taking the stance of the Academic Sceptic who can argue all sides of a

erasmus and the philosophers

57

back on systematic and theological questions and resorted to sceptical epoche: “For Erasmus, what is important is a simple, basic, Christian piety, a Christian spirit. The rest, the superstructure of the essential belief, is too complex for a man to judge. Hence it is easier to rest in a sceptical attitude and accept the age-old wisdom of the Church on these matters than to try to understand and judge for oneself.”50 His retreat from doctrinal strife meant, for Erasmus, to take sides with an idea of Christian piety that he chose to frame as a philosophy.

2

Philosophia Christi

Erasmus was very much aware of what adherence to a philosophical sect actually implied. In the Paraclesis, he compares Christianity unfavorably to the ancient philosophical sects with regard to the fervor with which adherence to a doctrine was pursued and defended: Platonists, Pythagoreans, Academicians, Stoics, Cynics, Peripatetics, Epicureans have all learned thoroughly the teachings of their schools, know them by heart, fight for them, are even prepared to die for them sooner than give up the defence of their founder. Why are we not more ready to show such enthusiasm for Christ, the founder of our faith and our Lord?51 This battle cry for allegiance to Christ is at the heart of what Erasmus deemed his own philosophy, the philosophia Christi. A core text for his discussion of the concept is the Paraclesis, literally an exhortation, published for the first time in 1516 in conjunction with the edition of the New Testament, but circulating in many individual prints from 1519 onwards. While conventionally aimed at attracting readers for the edition, in his preface Erasmus acts as if his remit was to enlist followers for Christ himself—and that this was the true purpose of the edition. Philosophia Christi is “living faith”:52 a way of life, not the study of or the adherence to doctrine. Erasmus seeks to couple traditional Christian notions

50 51 52

question, avoids any hint of dogmatism, indeed of any consistent point of view.” Thomas M. Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1990) 121. Popkin, History of Scepticism 8. cwe 41: 407–408; asd v-7: 288, lines 39–43. Rummel, Erasmus, xi. For the concept’s dependence on Lactantius, see Gerhard B. Winkler, Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Einleitungsschriften zum Neuen Testament. Formale Strukturen und theologischer Sinn (Münster: Aschendorff, 1974) 56–65.

58

traninger

of a pious and spiritual conduct that is geared towards the eternal life and that abnegates corporeal and sensual desires with readings from the ancient philosophers that concur with and support Christian teachings. While he rules out the possibility that anyone could have conveyed these more perfectly and effectively than Jesus Christ himself, there is much to be found in pagan authors that accords with his teachings. Yet the overall aim of philosophia Christi goes beyond offering maxims for a good Christian life, collected from ancient sources of wisdom. It supposedly leads the way to the restoration of post-lapsarian man to the state of perfection in which he had been created: “[…] what else is the philosophy of Christ, which he himself calls a ‘rebirth,’ than the restoration of nature, which was created whole and sound?” (“Quid autem aliud est Christi philosophia, quam ipse renascentiam vocat, quam instauratio bene conditae naturae?”).53 Time and again, Erasmus made philosophy and Christianity appear coextensive. In the Antibarbari (1520), the character Jacob Batt calls Christ himself “the very father of philosophy” (“ipsum philosophiae parentem”).54 And in turn: “Further, you must realize that ‘philosopher’ does not mean someone who is clever at dialectics or science but someone who rejects illusory appearance and undauntedly seeks out and follows what is true and good. Being a philosopher is in practice the same as being a Christian; only the terminology is different.” (“Porro philosophus is est, non qui dialecticen aut physicen calleat, sed qui contemptis falsis rerum simulachris infracto pectore vera bona et perspicit et sequitur. Vocabulis diuersum est, caeterum re idem esse philosophum et esse Christianum.”)55 Crucially, philosophia Christi was conceived as an alternative or even antidote to scholastic philosophy. Erasmus’ enmity towards scholasticism of course entailed a conspicuous disinterestedness in one philosopher in particular: Aristotle.

3

Erasmus and Aristotle

Somewhat surprisingly, Erasmus did not hold back in praising Aristotle for his learning, calling him “Philosophorum […] omnium doctissimus,” the most

53 54 55

cwe 41: 415; asd v-7: 293, lines 168–169. cwe 23: 102, lines 30–31; asd i-1: 121, lines 32–33. cwe 27: 214; asd iv-1: 145 (Institutio principis Christiani). See Han van Ruler, “The Philosophia Christi, Its Echoes and Its Repercussions on Virtue and Nobility,” in Christian Humanism: Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt, ed. Han van Ruler et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2009) 235–263: 238.

erasmus and the philosophers

59

learned among all the philosophers.56 Still, he did not engage with his writings in a significant manner. When he agreed to be named on the title page of a Greek edition of Aristotle’s work, published by Johann Bebel in Basel in 1531, instead of the much lesser known actual editor, Simon Grynaeus, he contributed only a preface—his longest text on Aristotle.57 There, he acknowledges Grynaeus’ role, offers a list of Aristotle’s lost and extant writings and ponders the authenticity of those works considered spurious. As Jill Kraye has shown, Erasmus owed his four-part division of the Aristotelian corpus to Leonardo Bruni and essentially compiled the work catalogue from Diogenes Laertius’ life of Aristotle.58 On Indivisible Lines he identified as a forgery, arguing that it did not ring Aristotelian in its style and that it was not mentioned by Diogenes Laertius. Despite the decisive stylistic diagnosis, it seems as if Erasmus had not even consulted the Greek text: “Had Erasmus even skimmed the Greek, he would surely have noticed that the author frequently refers to the views of ‘the Philosopher’—a far more certain proof of its inauthenticity than its lack of Aristotelian flavour. If he was referring to the Latin version, then he came to the correct conclusion, although he was not the first to do so, that On Indivisible Lines was falsely attributed to Aristotle.”59 As far as can be gained from his annotations in Aldo Manuzio’s Greek Aristotle, which he owned and which is now at the library of King’s College, Cambridge, Erasmus’ perusal of the edition focused on the Topics, the Nicomachean Ethics and the (spurious) Economics, demonstrating a pronounced interest in “idiomatic locutions, unusual words and historical names.”60 In the Adagia, Erasmus quotes Aristotle 304 times, according to Margaret Mann Phillips,61 making extensive use of the moral, philosophical, political, and rhetorical writings as well as those on natural philosophy, while completely shunning the logical works that formed the basis for scholastic philosophy. This is quite likely an expression of a contrarian position towards the high esteem in which “the philosopher” was held in the schools, but probably also results from not only a

56 57 58

59 60

61

Ep. 2432 Allen lines 1–2. Steel, “Erasmus and Aristotle” 150. Jill Kraye, “Erasmus and the Canonization of Aristotle: The Letter to John More” in England and the Continental Renaissance, ed. Edward Chaney and Peter Mack (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1990) 37–52: 38–42. Kraye, “Erasmus and the Canonization of Aristotle” 46–47. M.C. Davies, “Appendix: Erasmus’s Aldine Aristotle” in England and the Continental Renaissance, ed. Edward Chaney and Peter Mack (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1990) 50–52. Margaret Mann Phillips, The ‘Adages’ of Erasmus. A Study with Translations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964) Appendix iii, 395; Monfasani, “Philosophers” 51.

60

traninger

disdain for, but also a fundamental incompetence in all things logical on Erasmus’ side. That Erasmus would praise Aristotle for his great didactic skills62 and recommend, in De ratione studii, that dialectics should be studied directly from Aristotle and not from his modern commentators63 is indicative of a limited familiarity with the complex corpus. Aristotle was generally perceived as notoriously difficult and in need of commentary and explication, and the overwhelming and long-lasting success of textbooks such as Petrus Hispanus’ Summulae logicales is due to precisely the didacticism that was lacking in Aristotle himself.64 Curiously, he also praises Aristotle as an example of structure and orderliness in contrast to Seneca: “Generally, one misses in Seneca a sense of order and structure. […] This is what we admire in Aristotle and miss in Seneca” (“Desideres enim fere in huius viri [i.e. Seneca] scriptis ordinem et compositionem. […] id quod in Aristotele mireris, in Seneca desideres”).65 It appears, in general, as if a positive rating of Aristotle is brought forward if and only if it serves to highlight a deficit of another author in a given, specific context; and, of course, if his name could be used to reinforce the philological claim of ad fontes.

4

Erasmus and the Schoolmen

A philosopher, in the parlance of Erasmus’ day and age, was a member of the arts faculty, which ranked below the three ‘higher’ faculties of theology, law, and medicine. This perspective has been largely overlooked in the face of Erasmus’ disputes with and judgments about theologians. Methodologically, however, the two are not far apart: both depended on what became later known as scholastic method, which was founded on dialectics, at the time synonymous with logic.66 Erasmus was very well aware of this contemporary notion, as he details it as the foil against which he projects his own “philosophy”: “I call philosophy not the method (ratio) of discoursing on the beginnings of things, on matter, time, motion, and the infinite, but the wisdom which Solomon judged to be more precious than all riches […].”67 Consequently, the true theologian, 62 63 64 65 66

67

Steel, “Erasmus and Aristotle” 157. cwe 24: 670, lines 19–20; asd i-2: 149, lines 22–24. Monfasani, “Philosophers” 52. Cf. Walter J. Ong, sj, Ramus, Method and the Decay of Dialogue (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 1983) 56–59. Ep. 2091 cwe lines 482–483 and 493, Allen lines 455–456 and 465–466. See E.J. Ashworth, Language and Logic in the Post-Medieval Period (Dordrecht/Boston: Reidel, 1974) 22; Arno Seifert, Logik zwischen Scholastik und Humanismus. Das Kommentarwerk Johann Ecks (Munich: Fink, 1978) 113, n. 22a. Ep. 2533 Allen lines 109–112, cwe lines 111–113.

erasmus and the philosophers

61

for Erasmus, is one who does not depend on syllogistic reasoning, which was of course the methodological cornerstone of the profession.68 In terms of his formal education, Erasmus was far removed from being a theologian. Having spent the years between 1495 and 1501 at the University of Paris, he left without having accomplished even the first step of academic formation, a bachelor’s degree in the arts faculty. He should have studied for it, since, as a Canon Regular, he was not exempt from taking the course of study in the arts faculty, contrary to members of the mendicant orders, who were typically instructed in their studia.69 Not only did Erasmus not complete an arts degree, he was even further removed (at least institutionally speaking) from theological study. To put it bluntly: “The Paris doctorate, demanding at least fourteen years of scholastic study and disputation, was not in his grasp.”70 Still, to be a sworn theologian was a life-long dream. In an outstanding act of bad judgement, Erasmus took upon himself a burdensome and lengthy trip to the remote city of Torino in Italy to acquire a doctorate in theology “per saltum” in 1506. This degree, awarded fourteen days after he handed in his application, was never acknowledged by the Leuven and Paris theologians, much to Erasmus’ chagrin.71 Erasmus’ neglect of his university studies had two important consequences. For one, he was, despite his studies at the college of Montaigu, only marginally aware of the philosophical work done at the universities, at the same time convincing generations of scholars in awe of his philological abilities that he was up against a repetitive, monolithic and ossified system.72 It does not come

68

69

70 71 72

Paraclesis, cwe 41: 412: “In my opinion, a man is truly a theologian who teaches not by convoluted syllogisms but by his disposition […] and by his way of life that wealth is to be scorned”; asd v-7: 291, lines 110–112. James K. Farge, “Erasmus, the University of Paris, and the Profession of Theology,” ersy 19 (1999) 19. Farge corrects earlier work on the issue, including Augustin Renaudet, Préréforme et humanisme à Paris pendant les premières guerres d’Italie (1494–1517) (Paris: Argences, 21953) 268; Léon E. Halkin, “Érasme docteur” in Mélanges André Latreille (Lyon: Audin, 1972) 42; Charles G. Nauert, Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968) 148; Craig R. Thompson, “Better Teachers than Scotus or Aquinas,” Medieval and Renaissance Studies 2 (1966) 114–145: 131. For a detailed description of the long course of study that led to a doctorate of theology, see James K. Farge, Orthodoxy and Reform in Early Reformation France: The Faculty of Theology of Paris, 1500–1543 (Leiden: Brill, 1985) 16–28. Farge, “Erasmus, the University of Paris, and the Profession of Theology” 19. Paul F. Grendler, “How to Get a Degree in Fifteen Days: Erasmus’ Doctorate of Theology from the University of Turin,” ersy 18 (1998) 40–69. Christian Dolfen, Die Stellung des Erasmus von Rotterdam zur scholastischen Methode (Osnabrück: Meinders & Elstermann, 1936) 10–94. For a nuanced discussion of the intel-

62

traninger

as a surprise that scholastic literature was only scarcely represented in Erasmus’ library, at least insofar as documented in the inventory that was drawn up when it was sold to Jan Laski after Erasmus’ death.73 Second, Erasmus had only the most basic grasp of philosophical method. The study of philosophy meant starting out with Petrus Hispanus, imbibing definitions and terminology, then learning how to conduct a disputation, immersing oneself in the practices of the scholastic university. While Erasmus may have studied the Summulae logicales at the Brethren of Common Life in Deventer,74 he desperately lacked a scholastic habitus, the type of thinking on one’s feet that was required from participants in a disputation and that could not be acquired through the study of books alone. This issue came to the fore in the exchange of letters with Maarten van Dorp in the wake of the publication of the Praise of Folly. Dorp gave voice to the concerns and the indignation of the Leuven theologians, and in the following exchange, questions of method came to play a central role.75 Dorp countered Erasmus’ allegation that theologians propounded a most confused and well-nigh absurd doctrine (“doctrinam perturbatissimam, immo insulsissimam”) with a reference to the Adagia: But you must remember, Erasmus, that the heron finds all water muddy and says it is the water’s fault, as it says in your own Adages; and in the same way in the logic of Aristotle (the only logic we teach here [i.e. in Leuven]) a beginner finds everything confused the moment he enters the arena of dispute.76

73

74 75

76

lectual versatility and linguistic ability of Erasmus’ scholastic contemporaries, such as John Mair, see Ann Moss, Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) 77–83. Fritz Husner, “Die Bibliothek des Erasmus” in Gedenkschrift zum 400. Todestage des Erasmus von Rotterdam, ed. Historische und Antiquarische Gesellschaft zu Basel (Basel: BrausRiggenbach, 1936) 228–256: 244. Husner notes, however, that contemporary humanist writings are equally sparse and that works in German are completely absent. It also has to be taken into account that the state of the library at the end of Erasmus’ life need not be representative of the volumes he owned and used throughout his lifetime. For the complete list, comprising 413 entries, see Husner, “Die Bibliothek des Erasmus” 238–244. Ep. 447 cwe lines 103–105. Ep. 304 (Dorp to Erasmus); Ep. 337 (Erasmus to Dorp); Ep. 347 (Dorp to Erasmus); The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, 15: 2–127 (More to Dorp). For detailed discussions of this epistolary exchange, see Rummel, Erasmus and His Catholic Critics, vol. 1: 1–13; Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993) 111–122. Ep. 347 cwe lines 258–262, Allen lines 238–243: “Sed memineris, Erasme, ardeae omnem aquam esse perturbatam, ideoque aquam culpare ardeam, extat in Adagiis tuis; itidem et

erasmus and the philosophers

63

It is Erasmus’ commentary on the saying “Aquam culpat ardea” (“The heron blames the water”) that makes the insult explicit: This is a common expression and one that is modern, but it deserves to be included with the ancient ones. It suits those who usually blame something in order to cast a cloak over their own ignorance. An example is of someone who cannot read very well and gives as an excuse illegible writing.77 In quoting the Adagium and alluding to Erasmus’ own explication, Dorp insinuates that Erasmus is not just critical, but incapable of dialectics. The message is as hard as it is clear: the great Erasmus attacks the theologians because he is not capable of the method that underwrites all of scholastic practice, from philosophy to theology. Erasmus should thus beware of denouncing the dialecticians as sophists—except if, Dorp ironically concedes, he considered all those who were his superiors in disputation as sophists.78 When forging his own arena, in print, Erasmus clearly took measure with scholastic practice and sought to establish genres that would echo central tenets of scholastic argumentation. Which genre he chose is counterintuitive at first sight, at least it was to his contemporaries. As I have mentioned above, one of Erasmus’ favorite genres for expressing current ideas and for addressing topical issues was declamation. If philology was the method of the new Erasmian theology, declamation was its mode of controversy. The fictitious orations uttered by personae adopted by the declaimers of the Second Sophistic— collected by Seneca the Elder in the controversiae and suasoriae—spoke to Erasmus, who preferred staging arguments by having fictitious characters propound them, be it in the dialogues of the Colloquies or in the letters he wrote as someone else.79 Erasmus followed Lorenzo Valla in turning declamation into

77

78

79

dialecticae Aristotelicae (que hic sola docetur) imperitis omnia sunt perturbata, quoties in disputandi palestram descenditur.” cwe 30: 265; asd ii-9: 192. The saying, entry no. 500 in the Collectanea, did not make it into the Adagia, probably because it was not of ancient origin, see W.H.D. Suringar, Erasmus over Nederlandsche spreekwoorden en spreekwoordlijke uitdrukkingen von zijnen tijd (Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1873) 29–31, no. xvii. Ep. 347 Allen lines 298–300, 311–312: “Etiam hoc caue, mi Erasme, ne falsa opinione sophistas voces qui syncerissimi sunt omnium qui hodie viuunt dialecticorum. […] Nisi forte tibi sophistae sunt omnes quibus disputatione videaris inferior.” See Anita Traninger, “Erasmus’ personae between Rhetoric and Dialectics,” Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 5–22.

64

traninger

a vehicle of controversy,80 abandoning its traditional function of immersing young students of rhetoric into the mindset of a Roman citizen and perpetuating Roman values by performing them in extravagant fictional settings.81 Valla, in his declamation on the forgery of the donation of Constantine, had fashioned the genre as a pedestal for those who were seeking to voice opposition, but who, at the same time, lacked the mandate to do so. This is a baffling shift and an exceedingly creative appropriation of the classical tradition given the humanists’ general disposition toward conservative imitatio.82 But for Erasmus declamation carried even more weight, and specifically with regard to creating an alternative to scholastic disputation. He hoped to establish declamation as the written equivalent of the oral frame of scholastic debate, not least with a view to the liberties awarded to philosophy in comparison with theology. Academic disputation offered a framework which decidedly separated man and argument: anyone could be asked to serve either as respondent or opponent in a debate and to either defend or attack a given thesis. The disjunction has tended to be challenged when topical issues were at stake, but Johannes Eck, the Ingolstadt theologian opponent of Martin Luther, in his report about a disputation he participated in in Vienna in 1516, scolded those as childish who thought that everything said in disputation was a personal conviction.83 Just a few years later, Juan Luis Vives, in his Declamationes Syllanae (1520), laid down a declamandi lex, a law for declaiming: “non quid sentias, sed 80

81

82

83

Lorenzo Valla, On the Donation of Constantine, trans. G.W. Bowersock, I Tatti Renaissance Library 24 (Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press, 2007). Wolfram Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift gegen die Konstantinische Schenkung De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione. Zur Interpretation und Wirkungsgeschichte (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1975); specifically on rhetorical aspects, see Vincenzo de Caprio, “Retorica e ideologia nella Declamatio di Lorenzo Valla sulla donazione di Costantino,” Paragone—Letteratura 29 (1978) 36–56; Salvatore I. Camporeale, “Lorenzo Valla’s ‘Oratio’ on the Pseudo-Donation of Constantine: Dissent and Innovation in Early Renaissance Humanism,” Journal of the History of Ideas 57,1 (1996) 9–26. See W.M. Bloomer, “Schooling in persona: Imagination and Subordination in Roman Education,” Classical Antiquity 16,11 (1997) 57–78; Robert A. Kaster, “Controlling Reason: Declamation in Rhetorical Education at Rome” in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, ed Yun Lee Too (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 317–337; S.F. Bonner, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1969) 51–70. See M.G.M. van der Poel, “Humanist Rhetoric in the Renaissance: Classical Mastery?” in Latinitas perennis. The Continuity of Latin Literature, ed. Wim Verbaal, Yanick Maes, and Jan Papy (Leiden: Brill, 2006) 119–137: 129. Johannes Eck, Briefwechsel, ed. V. Pfnür, trans. and comm. Peter Fabisch and Hans Jörg Gerste, coll. Joseph Greving and Klaus Rischar, online edition (http://ivv7srv15.uni‑muenster​ .de/mnkg/pfnuer/Eck‑Briefe.html), ep. 32: “infantiliter existimasset omnia per Eckium in disputatione proposita eius fuisse sententiae tanquam asserta et ab eo firmiter tenta.”

erasmus and the philosophers

65

quid ad persuadendum faciat, dicendum” (“don’t say what you think but what is useful for persuasion”).84 That an understanding of declamation as an apt genre for negotiating serious philosophical and theological matters was developed and gained momentum among scholars does of course not imply that this view was commonly accepted. When the Paris theologian, Josse Clichtove, denounced Erasmus’ Encomium matrimonii (written in the 1490s, printed in 1518) in his Propugnaculum Ecclesie aduersus Lutheranos (1526) as one of a kind with Luther’s erroneous doctrine, a discussion of the generic implications of declamation ensued.85 Clichtove, in humanist terms just as well trained as Erasmus, in scholastic terms his superior, refused to accept Erasmus’ claims that he could not be held accountable for his advocacy of marriage because he was just declaiming. Even if he was not a seasoned practitioner, Erasmus was very much aware of the workings of a university and the prerogatives and privileges enjoyed by faculty members. A warrant of academic liberty was the distinction between theological and philosophical argumentation.86 While theological argumentation was concerned with the eternal truth of revelation that eludes human understanding, philosophical argumentation was seen as founded in human rationality. Philosophice loqui was the formula that opened up the possibility of discussing questions independently from doctrinal rigidity and deciding them according to the principle of probability. This is what the phrase “libertas philosophandi” referred to until Spinoza subjected it to a radical reinterpretation at the end of the seventeenth century.87 Erasmus invoked precisely this convention when he complained in the first of his replies to Clichtove, the Appendix de scriptis Clithovei, in 1526: “Those who put forward before theologians tenets of Aristotle that are diametrically opposed to the teaching of Christ 84 85 86

87

Juan Luis Vives, Opera omnia, ed. G. Mayáns y Síscar, 8 vols. (Valencia 1782–1790), vol. 2: 326, my translation. Josse Clichtove, Propugnaculum ecclesiae aduersus Lutheranos (Cologne: Hittorpius, 1526) ch. 34. Mary Martin McLaughlin, Intellectual Freedom and its Limitations in the University of Paris in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (New York: Arno Press, 1977) 63; Francisco Bertelloni, “Loquendo philosophice—Loquendo theologice. Implicaciones éticopolíticas en la Guía del estudiante de Barcelona. A propósito de una reciente publicación de C. Lafleur,” Patristica et Mediaevalia 14 (1993) 21–40; Malcolm de Mowbray, “Philosophy as Handmaid of Theology: Biblical Exegesis in the Service of Scholarship,” Traditio 59 (2004) 1–37. See Anita Traninger, “Libertas philosophandi” in Neue Diskurse der Gelehrsamkeit in der frühen Neuzeit, ed. Herbert Jaumann and Gideon Stiening (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016) 269– 318.

66

traninger

have only to say: ‘I speak as a philosopher.’”88 In the Dilutio eorum quae Iodocus Clithoveus scripsit adversus declamationem suasoriam matrimonii, his second refutation of Clichtove’s attacks dating from 1532, he protests that the privilege is not extended to rhetoricians: “In scholastic disputations, even if something is said that is contradictory to the Catholic faith, it is sufficient to say, ‘I speak now as a philosopher.’ But it did me no good to shout at the top of my voice, ‘I am speaking as a rhetorician; I am not fashioning morals, but I am teaching language.’”89 While we tend to think of Erasmus’ relationship with “the philosophers” as his readings of the ancients, it is contemporary philosophers—scholastics— that inform his thinking about modes of expression that would lend him the same intellectual liberties enjoyed by members of the universities. With a view to those, Erasmus wanted, if not to be one of them, then to have the same scope of action. That he did not, was made abundantly clear to him by those who did. This was not entirely a problem of personal qualification, but of institutional belonging and, not least, of media. His preferred medium of print would have cancelled any libertas philosophandi, which depended on the ephemerality of oral debate, right away.90

5

Conclusion

Erasmus was a philosopher—at least if we take him up on his claims about the extension of his philosophia Christi. Every believer in Jesus Christ, he alleged, was a philosopher. The philosophia Christi is emblematic of Erasmus’ attitude towards ancient philosophy, which he above all judged with regard to its convergence with Christian doctrine. But his approach to this body of texts was philological and rhetorical, exposing an appetite for accumulation, but a distaste for methodical investigation. This distances him from the philosophical practice of his contemporaries in the university, which was firmly anchored in scholastic method. At the same time, the liberties awarded by the universities to their sworn members, which were subsumed under the notion of libertas philosophandi, oriented Erasmus’ search for alternatives to the established formats of debate. They were rhetorical in kind, but charged with ambitions beyond rhetoric. In Erasmus scholarship, there still seems to be a certain exi88 89 90

cwe 83: 113, asd ix–10: 71: “Qui inter Theologos proferunt Aristotelis placita ex diametro pugnantia cum doctrina Christi, sat habent dicere, loquor ut Philosophus.” cwe 83: 118. McLaughlin, Intellectual Freedom 67.

erasmus and the philosophers

67

gency to demonstrate that Erasmus’ writings were “not only” rhetorical but rather deeply imbued with philosophical thought.91 Without doubt, Erasmus was indeed widely read in ancient philosophy. Yet all attempts at syncretism are anchored in rhetorical collecting rather than in dialectical discerning or system building. This is why attempts at forging Erasmus as a Stoic, a Platonist, or an Epicurean depend on fragile constructions of coherence in a body of work that is informed by the spirit of compilation. 91

Cf. e.g. Dealy, Stoic Origins 349.

chapter 4

Erasmus and Biblical Scholarship Jan Bloemendal

1

Introduction

The year 1516 was Erasmus’ annus mirabilis, when his editions of both the New Testament and St Jerome’s works appeared with Froben in Basel.1 It was the culmination of his strategic use of the printing press for his humanisticreligious programme. Both editions were works of learned philology, both editions aimed at a better understanding of Jesus’ teachings, the Bible and Christian tradition, and both editions ultimately had the ambition of contributing to a better Christian life and the unity of Christendom, Erasmus’ philosophia Christi.2 The Christian humanist was around fifty years old (assuming that he 1 See (for example) Hilmar Pabel, Herculean Labours: Erasmus and the editing of St. Jerome’s Letters in the Renaissance (Leiden: Brill, 2008). The year 2016 was particularly commemorative for the New Testament edition and saw the publication of several volumes and issues: Martin Wallraff, Silvana Seidel Menchi, Kasper von Greyerz (eds), Basel 1516: Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2016); Ueli Dill and Petra Schierl (eds), Das bessere Bild Christi: Das Neue Testament in der Ausgabe des Erasmus von Rotterdam (Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2016); Miguel Anxo Pena González and Inmaculada Delgado Jara (eds), Revolución en el Humanismo cristiano: La edición de Erasmo del Nuevo Testamento (1516) (Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 2016) Fuentes Documentales, 10; special issues of Church History and Religious Culture 96.4 (2016), The Bible Translator 76.1 (2016), and Erasmus Studies 37.2 (2017). Also Authority Revisited: Towards Thomas More and Erasmus in 1516, ed. Wim François a.o. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020). This chapter relies on these publications, albeit with its own emphases and discussion of the editorial environment of Erasmus. 2 The aim of knowing Christ better from the Bible had already been expressed in the 1503 Enchiridion, asd v-8: 196, lines 462–463: “Honoras imaginem vultus Christi saxo lignoue deformatam aut fucatam coloribus: multo religiosius honoranda mentis illius imago, quae Spiritus Sancti artificio expressa est litteris euangelicis” (“You give homage to an image of Christ’s countenance represented in stone or wood or depicted in colour. With how much more religious feeling should you render homage to the image of his mind, which has been reproduced in the Gospels through the artistry of the Holy Spirit” cwe 66: 72), also quoted in Das bessere Bild Christi 12. See also the 1516 Paraclesis, asd v-7: 298, lines 277–280: “Siquidem illa, quid alius quam corporis figuram exprimit? Si tamen illius quicquam exprimit, at hae tibi sacrosanctae mentis illius viuam referunt imaginem, ipsumque Christum loquentem, sanantem, morientem, resurgentem, denique totum ita praesentem reddunt, vt minus visurus sis, si coram oculis conspicias” (“A statue shows only the appearance of his body—if indeed it shows anything of that—but these books show you the living image of his holy mind and

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_006

erasmus and biblical scholarship

69

was born in 1466)3 and at the peak of his output, publishing both the first printed edition of the Greek text of the New Testament (with the first ‘new’ Latin translation since Jerome) and the first ever Opera omnia of St Jerome, for which Erasmus edited the correspondence.4 For Erasmus, both editions were closely related—Jerome had been the first to compile one translation of the entire Bible; he himself would be the first after Jerome to make a new one of the New Testament. He identified with the Church Father. In 1524, he had himself portrayed by Hans Holbein. In front of him lies a book with the text ηρακλειοι πονοι, referring to his edition of Jerome.5 Obviously so, since in the adagium “Herculean labours” Erasmus was also referring to Jerome, who had become the ‘patron saint’ of the humanists.6 The NovumTestamentum comprised the Greek text, a Latin translation and extensive annotations. Erasmus kept revising it, especially the translation and the annotations. Four new editions appeared between 1519 and 1535, in which the annotations—the scholarly foundation of the Novum Testamentum—grew

3

4

5 6

Christ himself, speaking, healing, dying, rising to life again. In short, they restore Christ to us so completely and so vividly that you would see him less clearly should you behold him standing before your very eyes” cwe 41: 422); Brian Cummings, “Erasmus and the Invention of Literature,”ersy 33 (2013) 22–54, 46 and The Literary Culture of the Reformation: Grammar and Grace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 102–118. With his philosophy of Christ, Erasmus followed in the footsteps of the Fathers. See also the De philosophia evangelica, added to the Novum Testamentum (translation in cwe 41: 729–737). Harry Vredeveld, “The Ages of Erasmus and the Year of His Birth,” Renaissance Quarterly 46 (1993) 754–809; see also Koen Goudriaan, “New Evidence on Erasmus’ Youth,”Erasmus Studies 39 (2019) 184–216. The edition is considered a companion to the New Testament edition; see Irena Backus, “Erasmus and the Spirituality of the Early Church” in Erasmus’ Vision of the Church, ed. Hilmar M. Pabel (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1995) 95–114, 97. In 1514 the New Testament part of the Complutensian Polyglot Bible was printed, but could only be published in 1520, after the Old Testament edition had been finished too, and after a privilege granted by Pope Leo x to Erasmus had ended. For Erasmus’ edition of Jerome, in which he himself edited the letters, see also D.F.S. Thomson, “Erasmus and Textual Scholarship in the Light of Sixteenth-Century Practice” in Erasmus of Rotterdam: The Man and the Scholar: Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 9–11 November 1986, ed. Jan Sperna Weijland and Willem Th.M. Frijhoff (Leiden: Brill, 1988) 158–171; Benedetto Clausi, Ridar voce all’antico Padre: L’edizione erasmiana delle Lettere di Gerolamo (Rubbettino: Soveria Mannelli, 2000). See Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993 [20153]) 55–82; Pabel, Herculean Labours. Eugene F. Rice (ed.), Saint Jerome in the Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985).

70

bloemendal

over time7 and the text and the translation were revised. But the humanist engaged with the Bible in other ways too. From 1517 to 1524 he also wrote Paraphrases of the New Testament (except the Book of Revelation) which are a more hermeneutical retelling of the New Testament and a running commentary and were to serve as an aid for preachers, or perhaps aimed at a somewhat broader audience: “students or accomplished theologians, clergy or laity.”8 During the preparation of the second edition of the New Testament, Erasmus composed the paraphrases on Romans (1516–1517) and part of the Apostolic Epistles (1518– 1521), which he continued to work on while preparing the third edition. He then wrote the paraphrases on the Gospels and on Acts (1521–1524).9 Froben saw the commercial possibilities and published the paraphrases in the same format as the Novum Testamentum. They were a great success.10 The New Testament itself did bring Erasmus fame too; in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, around 250 editions appeared.11 It also appeared in ‘minor’ editions, containing the Latin translation only.12 Morerover, it was the standard for all other editions, such as those of the Aldine press in Venice (1518), Robert Estienne (1546, through the third edition) and Theodorus Beza 7

8

9 10

11

12

From 294 pages in the 1516 edition to 783 in 1536. On the 1519 edition, see Henk Jan de Jonge, “Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum of 1519,” Novum Testamentum 61 (2019) 1–25. See also Heinz Holeczek, Humanistische Bibelphilologie als Reformproblem bei Erasmus von Rotterdam, Thomas More, und William Tyndale (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 101–137. See the special issue on the Paraphrases of Erasmus Studies 36 (2016), including an introduction and a bibliography, esp. 2. I am using the term hermeneutics in a general way, not in the limited sense of Schleiermacher and Gadamer. On Erasmus’ New Testament activities in relation to his life, see also Robert D. Sider’s historical introduction to cwe 41: 1–388. For John Bateman’s quotation on the broader audience, see asd vii-6: 1. Erasmus did not paraphrase the Apocalypse, since he was not interested in eschatology and—as many humanists—did not understand this book. On the paraphrases in England, see Gregory Dodds, Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian Legacy and Religious Change in Early Modern England (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009). On aim and methods of the paraphrases, see Jan Bloemendal, “Erasmus and His Paraphrases on the New Testament: What Kind of Enterprise?,” Erasmus Studies 40 (2020) 34–54. Henk Jan de Jonge, “Wann ist Erasmus’ Übersetzung des Neuen Testaments entstanden?” in Erasmus of Rotterdam: The Man and the Scholar 151–157, 151 and Valentina Sebastiani, “The Impact of Erasmus’ New Testament on the European Market (1516–1527): Considerations Regarding the Production and Distribution of a Publishing Success” in Basel 1516 225– 237, 230–233, and id., Johann Froben: Printer of Basel: A Biographical Profile and Catalogue of His Editions (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2018); Thomas Kaufmann, Die Druckmacher: Wie die Generation Luther die erste Medienrevolution entfesselte (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2022) 58– 67. See also below, n. 84. Silvana Seidel Menchi, “How to Domesticate the New Testament: Erasmus’ Dilemmas (1516–1535)” in Basel 1516 207–221.

erasmus and biblical scholarship

71

or Théodore de Bèze (1565), as well as the edition of the Greek New Testament by the Elzevier press, which became the textus receptus (1624), the generally accepted version of the Greek New Testament.13 What is more, it became the basis for authoritative translations, directly or indirectly; the second edition (1519) was the direct basis for Luther’s German translation (1522), and the third one (1522), through Estienne’s and Beza’s editions, served as the basis for William Tyndale’s English The Newe Testament (1526), the English King James Version (1611) and the Dutch States’ translation (Statenvertaling, 1637).14 Nonetheless, Erasmus’ edition of the Greek text and Latin translation of the whole New Testament also roused much controversy. Theologians from Leuven, Paris and Spain—each group for their own reasons—criticized it and attacked Erasmus himself.15 All were convinced that it diminished the sacrosanct status of the Vulgate, produced by St Jerome in the fourth and fifth centuries, and even of the Bible itself. The New Testament project had an experienced editor. By 1516, Erasmus had already had a long career of publishing classical texts, starting with the edition of Cicero’s De officiis (Paris, 1501).16 However, after he came to Basel in August 1514 and began to collaborate with Froben, an enormous flow of editions and translations followed.17 He also started to edit works by the theologians of the early Church. Erasmus did not make manifold editorial interventions for every edition, but he was highly engaged in those of Jerome and the New Testament. The publication of these two monumental editions urges us to pose at least three questions: when did Erasmus become a textual

13

14 15 16 17

See Henk Jan de Jonge, Daniel Heinsius and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament: A Study of his Contributions to the Editions of the Greek Testament Printed by the Elzeviers at Leiden in 1624 and 1633 (Leiden: Brill, 1971). On Erasmus’ New Testament as read by Jean Calvin, see Max Engammare, “John Calvin’s Use of Erasmus,” Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192. On this criticism, see Erika Rummel, Erasmus and His Catholic Critics, 2 vols (i, 1515–1522; ii, 1523–1536) (Nieuwkoop: De Graaff, 1986). See Jacques Chomarat, Grammaire et rhétorique chez Érasme, 2 vols (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981) 452–476. Mark Vessey, “Erasmus’ Jerome: The Publishing of a Christian Author,” ersy 14 (1994) 62– 99; idem, “Erasmus (1515) Between the Bible and the Fathers: Threshold of a Hermeneutic” in Crossing Traditions: Essays on the Reformation and Intellectual History In Honour of lrena Backus, ed. Maria-Cristina Pitassi, Daniela Solfaroli Camillocci, and Arthur Huiban (Leiden: Brill, 2018) 134: “… the two years that Erasmus spent mainly in Basel between 1514 and 1516 were decisive for the development and profiling of his authorial oeuvre and persona,” referring to Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters, and Alexandre Vanautgaerden, Érasme typographe: Humanisme et imprimerie au début du xvie siècle (Geneva: Droz, 2012) 277– 361.

72

bloemendal

critic of the Bible or a biblical scholar, how should his biblical scholarship be assessed, and how does this relate to other biblical textual critics of his age? But before we answer these questions, we will present Erasmus’ New Testament edition.

2

Erasmus’ New Testament

Erasmus’ edition of the Greek text and a thoroughly revised Vulgate translation of the New Testament accompanied by annotationes was published in February 1516, bearing the title Novum Instrumentum, which was a programmatic statement—written documents and charters were ‘instrumenta,’ whereas ‘testamentum’ in the sense of ‘covenant’ was used in the Bible when no New Testament yet existed.18 It was presented as a revision of the Vulgate in its very title: “The entire New Testament, accurately reviewed and improved by Erasmus …”.19 The Greek text and the Latin translation were presented in parallel columns.20 It was not an impeccable edition; the Greek text was rightly criticized for its numerous mistakes, whereas the Latin translation—of key importance for the understanding of Greek in an age in which knowledge of this language was not ever-present—was less erroneous, yet not faultless either. Hence Erasmus revised it, and four other authorized and emended editions followed at the Froben Press, in 1519, 1522, 1527 (which also contained the Vulgate version) and 1535. For these printings, Erasmus returned to the traditional title Novum Testamentum. His ‘new’ translation roused a storm of criticism for its faults and the mere fact that the Vulgate had been intensively revised. The criticism was for a greater part provoked by the fact that it was considered to be an offence to change the Vulgate translation, which had become the standard text for pulpit and theology. Each and every adjustment seemed to undermine

18 19

20

See Ueli Dill, “Das Novum Instrumentum von 1516” in Das bessere Bild Christi 67–85, 67–68. Title page: “Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum …”. Its full title runs: “Novum instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non solum ad Graecam veritatem, verumetiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum, eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem et interpretationem, praecipue, Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarii [= Theophylactus], Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini, una cum Annotationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram Theologiam, lege, cognosce, ac deinde iudica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit.” For instance, a facsimile can be found here: https://www.e‑rara.ch/doi/10.3931/e‑rara‑2849.

erasmus and biblical scholarship

73

the authority of the Bible.21 Some of the criticisms may have been unfair and theologically motivated, but others were right, and Erasmus modified his text in several places in response to his enemies. In addition to the texts and translations, the 1516 edition contained several paratexts, including a letter to the Reader by Froben, a letter of dedication to Pope Leo x in which Froben explained his editorial principles, the Paraclesis (‘Exhortation,’ viz. to read the Bible, directed towards all people), the Methodus (the ‘Method’ of good, ‘new’ humanist theology or theological study on the basis of the bonae litterae), and the Apologia (‘Defence’ against possible criticism; the authority of the Bible is enhanced by textual criticism).22 The Annotationes included a letter to the reader.23 In subsequent editions texts were added and omitted—the short Methodus was replaced by the long Ratio seu compendium verae theologiae (‘Method or Short Introduction in True Theology,’ i.e. how to study the Bible, which may well have been Erasmus’ counterpart for Augustine’s De doctrina christiana) in the second edition, and discussions and lists of all kinds of choices (and mistakes) were added in the second to fifth editions as De hac posteriore aeditione (‘About this later edition’).24 Erasmus also replaced the traditional Marcionite Argumenta by his own summaries.25 Apart from the deservedly famous paratexts mentioned, Greek and Latin paratexts from the Byzantine manuscript tradition (especially from the Corsendonck Codex) were also included in several editions of the Novum Testamentum, such as chapter lists and biographies of the evangelists.26 As said, besides these ‘great’ editions, other, minor ones were published by Froben and

21

22

23 24

25

26

Andrew Taylor, “Biblical Humanism” in The Oxford Handbook of Neo-Latin, ed. Sarah Knight and Stefan Tilg (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) 295–312, 298, 303–304. Obviously, the polyglot Complutensian Bible retained the Latin Vulgate. On the prefaces see Gerhard B. Winkler, Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Einleitungsschriften zum Neuen Testament: Formale Strukturen und theologischer Sinn (Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1974), and Yves Delègue and J.-P. Gillet, Érasme: Les préfaces au Novum Testamentum (1516) avec des textes d’accompagnement (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1990). The letter to Leo x is edited by Allen as Ep. 384. Ep. 373. A very helpful overview can be found in Das bessere Bild Christi 105–106. For the Ratio, see now also Erasmus on Literature: His Ratio or ‘System’ of 1518/1519, ed. Mark Vessey (Toronto, 2021). The paratexts to the nt will appear in asd vi–11. Riemer Faber, “The Argumentum as Paratext: Editorial Strategies in the Novum Testamentum,” Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175. On the paratexts, see now also Ann Blair and Maryam Patton, “A Quantitative Study of the Paratexts in Erasmus-Froben Imprints,”Erasmus Studies 41 (2021) 99–181. See Martin Wallraff, “Paratexte der Bibel: Was Erasmus edierte außer dem Neuen Testament” in Basel 1516 145–173.

74

bloemendal

other presses, which contained only the Latin translation as well as different paratextual material, for instance ad hoc prefaces written by Erasmus.27 For his Greek text, Erasmus stated in the Apologia, he relied on nine manuscripts,28 of which he consulted four in the first stage of his editorial work “carried out in England in the years 1512–1514, resulting in a set of annotations on selected passages,” and five in the second stage, in Basel, 1514–1515, “when Erasmus revised and enlarged his annotations and prepared a continuous Greek text of the whole New Testament, together with a new Latin translation.”29 In fact, he consulted more manuscripts, of which seven belonged to the Dominicans’ library in Basel and some contained commentaries by an 11th/12th-century archbishop.30 The fact that the first printed edition contained so many mistakes was due to the haste with which Erasmus had carried out the work, his failure to correct typographical errors, his reliance on too few manuscripts and his lack of control over his proof-readers and amanuenses.31 Other objections that have been made are that Erasmus occasionally retranslated the Latin Vulgate into Greek, adopted unnecessary conjectures, had no consistent editorial method and used late manuscripts.32 Moreover, he failed to see that Jerome had based himself mainly on the Alexandrine tradition of the Bible manuscripts for his translation, despite stressing the Byzantine tradition for the Greek text.33 But it would

27

28

29 30 31 32

33

Seidel Menchi, “How to Domesticate the New Testament” 213–217 (“High and Low”). See also Isabelle Diu, “Enjeux du pouvoir dans la République des lettres: Préfaces et dédicaces d’Érasme pour ses éditions et traductions d’œuvres classiques et patristiques” in Le pouvoir des livres à la Renaissance, ed. Dominique de Courcelles (Paris: École des chartes, 1998) 65–76. See Andrew J. Brown, “The Manuscript Sources and Textual Character of Erasmus’ 1516 Greek New Testament” in Basel 1516 125–144, and Patrick Andrist, “Structure and History of the Biblical Manuscripts Used by Erasmus for His 1516 Edition” ibidem 81–124. See also J.K. Elliott, “‘Novum Testamentum editum est’: The Five-Hundredth Anniversary of Erasmus’s New Testament,” The Bible Translator 67 (2016) 9–28, 19–24. Brown, “The Manuscript Sources” 125. They are preserved in the University Library Basel. On the commentary, see below on Erasmus’ sources. On these amanuenses, see now Ann Blair, “Erasmus and His Amanuenses,” Erasmus Studies 39 (2019) 22–49. Brown, “The Manuscript Sources” 137. For the discussion of Erasmus’ retranslation of a passage from the Apocalypse from Latin into Greek, which he explained in an annotation, see Jan Krans, Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2006) 54–58. See Krans, Beyond What is Written 13–18; Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19682) 277– 281.

erasmus and biblical scholarship

75

be unfair to judge Erasmus with post-Lachmannian measures—it would have been very difficult to consult several Greek manuscripts that were scattered over many libraries, let alone get an overview of them. Initially, Erasmus thought it would suffice to select one of the Greek manuscripts and give it to the printer as such, making only a few alterations. However, he soon found that the manuscripts contained lots of spelling errors requiring correction, and contained verbal differences, so he had to apply textual criticism to ascertain the Graeca veritas. Thus the edition presented an eclectic text, albeit within the Byzantine tradition.34 In the first edition, at least forty percent of the Latin translation was identical to the Vulgate version. Erasmus compared contemporary editions of the Vulgate with old manuscripts and with biblical quotations from the Church Fathers and other theologians of the Early Church. Some passages were modified considerably, whereas others were not changed at all.35 Not all New Testament books received the same attention from Erasmus, since he, as Andrew Brown remarks, “devoted most effort to his rendering of the Epistles and the first two Gospels, but did less work on Acts, and spent even less time on Luke, John and the Apocalypse.”36 This seems to reflect the chronological order in which he carried out the work. The translation of the Epistles may also have been produced in competition with that of Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples), which had been published in 1512.37 The annotations Erasmus added were meant to defend his choices in the Latin translation and his choices and emendations in the Greek text, at first primarily on the basis of philological, i.e. linguistic and textual evidence, later more on the basis of theological arguments.38 He was, so to speak, being forced towards this methodical shift by the criticisms of conservative theologians.

34 35

36 37 38

asd vi-2: 2; asd vi-3: 1–11. asd vi-2: 2–3: “[I]f the first thirteen verses of John’s Gospel in the 1516 Latin version were the only passage to be examined, occupying twenty-four lines, it would be found that there are no differences from the Vulgate at all. … [T]he first twenty-four lines of the Acts of the Apostles, covering the first seven verses, contain thirty-eight changes of vocabulary, as well as two omissions, twenty-three words added, and ten changes of word-order.” Ibidem 3. Erasmus stated that these verses “aberant in Graecis exemplaribus” (“were lacking in Greek copies”). Both theologians fought a fierce debate; see Andrea W. Steenbeek, “Introduction” in asd ix-3: 7–16. See Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1986) and Miekske van Poll-van de Lisdonk, “Die Annotationes in Novum Testamentum im Rahmen von Erasmus’ Werken zur Bibel” in Basel 1516 175–186.

76 3

bloemendal

The Plans for a New New Testament and the Printing

Although we do not know exactly when the first plan for Erasmus’ huge New Testament enterprise emerged, this must have been before he went to Basel in 1514. In any case, it was on his mind in the autumn of 1512, during his third stay in England, when he taught Greek at Cambridge.39 In that period, he studied the differences between the Latin Vulgate and the Greek New Testament text, with Greek manuscripts available to him, and he compared the printed Vulgate editions with manuscripts. He noted his observations on over a thousand pages of notes, which may have become the basis for his later annotations.40 However, it is not known whether at that time he was already planning to translate the entire New Testament. As Brown writes: “According to his later statements on the subject, Erasmus did not originally envisage that he would publish a new translation, but was at one time, in 1514, considering the possibility of publishing his annotations in conjunction with a continuous Greek New Testament text alongside the Latin Vulgate translation.”41 As early as 1499, the English humanist John Colet had suggested that Erasmus become an interpreter of the Bible.42 Another decisive moment was Erasmus’ discovery of a manuscript of Lorenzo Valla’s (1407–1457) annotations on the New Testament, which contained the result of the Italian humanist’s collation of the Vulgate with the Greek text. Erasmus published it in 1505.43 The final important event was his arrival at Basel and starting to work with the Froben press. There is some debate on the primacy of the Greek text, to which the Latin translation was added, or the Latin translation to which the Greek text served as an auxiliary.44 In any case, for a broader reading public in schools, universities and churches, the Greek text had less importance, since only a few readers had a substantial mastery of that language, whereas for Erasmus it was essential 39

40 41 42 43 44

For this section, see Henk Nellen and Jan Bloemendal, “Erasmus’s Biblical Project: Some Thoughts and Observations on Its Scope, Its Impact in the Sixteenth Century and Reception in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Church History and Religious Culture 96 (2016) 595–635, 596–598. See also Holeczek (n. 8 above) 62–100. asd vi-2: 1. asd vi-2: 2. However, Henk Jan de Jonge holds another view, see references given in nn. 12 and 45. On Erasmus’ development as a biblical scholar, see also Albert Rabil, Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist (San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1972). See below, n. 76. Henk Jan de Jonge, “Novum Testamentum a nobis versum: The Essence of Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament,” Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1984) 394–413; Andrew J. Brown, “The Date of Erasmus’s Latin Translation of the New Testament,” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society (1984) 351–380.

erasmus and biblical scholarship

77

as a point of reference for the changes he had made in the Vulgate translation. This version should offer a better translation, expressed in ‘better’ (i.e. less medieval, more classical and clearer) Latin, based on exegetical research and made with the use of philological methods to correct textual corruption.45 For Erasmus this turn to more classical Latin was a kind of rhetorical accommodatio, bringing the Bible to the new, humanist readers, to bring them to Christ and his teachings.46 Negotiations with the Froben press started in August 1514. At least part of Erasmus’ manuscripts for his editions must have been ready when he arrived in Basel. As Beatus Rhenanus wrote to Michael Hummelberger, 2 September 1514: Erasmus of Rotterdam, a highly erudite man, recently came to Basel with many good book manuscripts, among which are: all the works of St Jerome with corrections, all of Seneca with corrections, numerous annotations on the New Testament … Moreover, many products in a crude state that are indeed begun, but not yet completed.47 It was not obvious that Froben would print them, for Erasmus planned to go to Italy: If he does not find anyone in Germany to print them, he will take them with him to Italy, with the works of St Jerome. He has decided to go to Rome by the end of September, if the wars do not preclude this.48 The work on the New Testament edition with Froben must have begun in August 1515.49 By the end of September the lawyer Nikolaus Gerbel and Froben’s 45 46

47

48

49

See Nellen and Bloemendal, “Erasmus’s Biblical Project” 599–600. On Erasmus and accommodatio, see (for example) Peter Walter, Theologie aus dem Geist der Rhetorik: Zur Schriftauslegung des Erasmus von Rotterdam (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1991) 33–53. bre 40: 66: “Erasmus Roterodamus, summae eruditionis vir, nuperrime Basileam venit onustus bonis libris, in quibus sunt haec: omnia opera divi Hieronymi emendata, omnia opera Senecae emendata, annotationes in Novum Testamentum copiosissimae … multa praeterea rudia etiamnum incepta quidem, sed nondum absoluta.” bre 40: 67: “Quod si in Germania non invenerit, qui imprimat, secum in Italiam deferet cum operibus divi Hieronymi. Omnino enim paulo ante Kalendas Octobres Romam proficisci statuit, nisi bella vetent.” In the same letter, Beatus tells us that Froben will print the works (p. 66): “Novum Testamentum Graece hic imprimet Frobenius cum annotationibus illius.” cwe introduction to Ep. 384, the dedication to Pope Leo x.

78

bloemendal

corrector, the Hebraist Johannes Oecolampadius, were ready to correct the proofs. Erasmus complained about the poor work of these pricy correctors.50 However, they had to work under great pressure. Two presses were used to speed up the printing. Even then, Erasmus changed the text and the translation and augmented his annotations during the printing process, which was done quickly, and each day twelve pages were printed.51 The edition of the Greek text and the translation was ready by 1 February 1516, as the final colophon says, that of the annotations by 1 March. The haste with which this edition was made may well have been the result of the wish to anticipate the Spanish Complutensian Polyglot Bible, initiated by Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros at the University of Alcalà. The New Testament part of the Complutense had been printed in 1514, but the actual publication— in 1520—had to wait for the Old Testament to be printed and for papal authorization. Moreover, Erasmus’ New Testament needed to be ready by 23 March 1516, the beginning of the Frankfurt Buchmesse. Erasmus had produced his own translation of the New Testament. However, for the first edition, he had changed this Latin translation to resemble the Vulgate more, probably from fear of reactions from orthodox theologians. For the second, 1519 edition, Erasmus used his original translation to revise that of the 1516 one.52 The third edition (1522) was again revised, as was the fourth one of 1527, in which the Greek text was printed parallel to both Erasmus’ translation and the Vulgate. Readings of the Complutense were incorporated into this fourth edition—the Spanish editors had recognized (more than Valla had done and he himself initially thought) that the Greek text was subject to corruption. The fifth and final edition in his lifetime (1535) contained only minor changes.

4

Erasmus’ Sources and Ways of Working

Erasmus describes his own way of working in the letter of dedication to Pope Leo x: I have revised the whole New Testament (as they call it) against the standard of the Greek original, not unadvisedly or with little effort, but calling in the assistance of a number of manuscripts in both languages, and those 50 51 52

Epp. 417 and 421. Ep. 421 Allen lines 58–59: “Edebatur simul et cudebatur opus, excudebatur singulis diebus ternio (sic enim nunc vocant).” Allen introduction to Ep. 384.

erasmus and biblical scholarship

79

not the first comers but both very old and very correct. And well knowing that sacred subjects demand equally scrupulous treatment, I was not content with that degree of care, but passed rapidly over all the works of the classical theologians, and ran to earth from their quotations or their comments what each of them had found or altered in his text. I have added annotations of my own, in order in the first place to show the reader what changes I have made, and why; second, to disentangle and explain anything that may be complicated, ambiguous, or obscure; and lastly as a protection, that it might be less easy in future to corrupt what I have restored at the cost of scarcely credible exertions.53 As said, Erasmus used nine Greek manuscripts, five of them stemming from the Dominican monastery in Basel, and two borrowed from Johann Reuchlin.54 One of the manuscripts also contained a commentary by the 11th/12thcentury Archbishop of Ohrid, Theophylact (whom Erasmus called Vulgarius in the 1516 and 1519 editions), another one scholia by pseudo-Oecumenius (Graeca or Graecanica scholia). The description in the dedicatory letter makes clear that Erasmus did not apply what now is considered highly important, the recensio codicum, the evaluation of the manuscripts, even though he had some understanding of their relative value.55 He rather emended the text ex ingenio (using

53

54

55

Ep. 384 cwe lines 55–66, Allen lines 52–64: “Nouum (vt vocant) Testamentum vniuersum ad Graecae originis fidem recognouimus, idque non temere neque leui opera sed adhibitis in consilium compluribus vtriusque linguae codicibus, nec iis sane quibuslibet, sed vetustissimis simul et emendatissimis. Et quoniam nouimus in rebus sacris religiose quoque versandum esse, nec hac contenti diligentia per omnia veterum theologorum scripta circumuolantes, ex horum citationibus aut expositionibus subodorati sumus quid quisque legisset aut mutasset. Adiecimus Annotationes nostras, quae primum lectorem doceant quid qua ratione fuerit immutatum: deinde, si quid alioqui perplexum, ambiguum aut obscurum, id explicent atque enodent: postremo quae obsistant quo minus procliue sit in posterum deprauare quod nos vix credendis vigiliis restituissemus.” See Patrick Andrist, “Der griechische Text: ‘Basler’ Handschriften als Vorlagen” in Das bessere Bild Christi 99–109; idem, “Structure and History of the Biblical Manuscripts Used by Erasmus for His 1516 Edition” in Basel 1516 81–124; Brown, “Introduction” in asd vi-5: 1– 2. See also Metzger, The Text of the New Testament 143, n. 13, and the references given there. For the manuscripts used by Erasmus, see David M. Whitford, “Yielding to the Prejudices of his Times: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,” Church History and Religious Culture 95 (2015) 19–40, 22, and Elliott, “‘Novum Testamentum editum est’ ” 19–24. Henk Jan de Jonge, “The Date and Purpose of Erasmus’s Castigatio Novi Testamenti: A Note on the Origins of the Novum Testamentum” in The Uses of Greek and Latin: Historical Essays, ed. A.C. Dionisotti, Anthony Grafton, and Jill Kraye (London: The Warburg Institute, 1988) 97–110.

80

bloemendal

his knowledge of Greek) and ex collatione (by comparing one Greek manuscript with other ones and, unlike modern editors would do, with the Vulgate, since he was convinced of the value of both the Greek text and the Latin translation). For the Latin translation he probably used a printed edition of the Vulgate in which he noted his emendations and changes.56 For these, he took great liberty, using manuscripts, ancient translations, quotations from the Fathers and other theologians, and, again, conjectures ex ingenio. He himself described this process as a castigatio (review or revision) of the Greek text and the Vulgate.57 Erasmus did not avoid controversial interventions, although he will not always have foreseen the problems attached to them. At the beginning of the Gospel according to St John (1, 1), he changed the translation of the Greek ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος from the Vulgate “In principio erat verbum” into “In principio erat sermo”. The widely accepted word that was common in Bibles, commentaries, treatises on systematic theology, liturgy and homilies, was changed. Erasmus defended his choice in the annotations, and in a separate defense, the Apologia de ‘In principio erat sermo’ (1520, with a copiously expanded version in 1522).58 In this polemical work, he describes how preachers in London, Brussels and Paris rallied against him, and he adopts two strategies of defence that were characteristic of him: he appeals to the Patres for this translation, and he claims that the Novum Testamentum was not meant for the masses, but for the scholars, meant to be read not in the churches and from the pulpit, but in private, at the scholars’ desks.59 For although Erasmus stated in the Paraclesis that he wishes the Bible to be read by everybody, it would be of no use to publish an expensive text for the laity, nor add a Greek original for an audience for whom Greek was a foreign language and a bilingual edition—including lengthy, learned, overly scholarly annotations—other than as a status symbol to adorn their desks or bookshelves.

56 57

58 59

Ibidem. See, for instance, Ep. 296 Allen lines 155–157 (Erasmus to Servatius Rogerus, July 1514): “Ex Graecorum et antiquorum codicum collatione castigaui totum Nouum Testamentum, et supra mille loca annotaui non sine fructu theologorum.” Italics mine. A critical edition in asd ix-9: 17–47. See, e.g., asd ix-9: 8; asd ix-6: 192, lines 994–997 and 193, n. lines 991–992: “Er. time and again emphasizes that he did not mean his version to replace the Vulgate in ecclesiastical life,” referring to Apolog. adv. debacch. Petr. Sutor., asd ix-9: 123, lines 661–662: “nec hoc ambii nec optaui, vt mea publicitus legeretur, aut veterem expelleret”; asd ix–9: 123, lines 677–679: “Affingit et illud quod palam est falsum, me hoc animo vertisse Nouum Testamentum, vt receptam Translationem extruderem”; Ep. 1571 Allen lines 38–39: “Assumit [sc. Sutor] me in hoc vertisse, vt mea translatio cum auctoritate legeretur, exclusa veteri”; Ep. 2951 Allen line 42: “Mea versio e libris Graecis non damnat nostram editionem.”

erasmus and biblical scholarship

81

Furthermore, in another notorious passage, Erasmus let philological motives prevail over theological ones. In 1Corinthians 15, 51, the Vulgate text gives “Omnes quidem resurgemus sed non omnes immutabimur” (“We all will resurrect, but we will not all change”). Erasmus replaced it with: “Non omnes quidem dormiemus, omnes tamen immutabimur” (“We will not all sleep, yet, we will all change”). In this controversy the resurrection of the body was at stake. To ward off the attacks of the Leuven theologians who had taken up arms against him, he wrote an Apologia de loco ‘Omnes quidem resurgemus’, published by Froben in 1522.60 A third passage on which Erasmus initially took a rigorous stance is 1 John 5, 7–8, the so-called Comma Johanneum (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one”, kjv). This is the locus classicus that should prove the Trinity and the divine status of Jesus. The italicized words seem to be a later interpolation, and therefore Erasmus struck them out in the editions of 1516 and 1519, explaining his choice in an initially brief annotation.61 However, the accusation that he was thus promoting Arianism was dangerous. Therefore, and because a Greek manuscript was found in which the disputed words occurred (which centuries later turned out to be a falsification), he reinserted them in the 1522 edition. In Ephesians 5, 32 Erasmus rendered the word μυστήριον not as “sacramentum” (the Vulgate), but as “mysterium”, wherefore he was criticized for diminishing the holy institution of marriage. Likewise, in Hebrews 2, 7, where Paul, quoting Psalm 8, 6 (“Thou madest him a little lower than the angels”) applies the passage to Jesus. This explanation did, of course, affect the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Whereas the French theologian Lefèvre d’Étaples translated it “lower than God,” thus adopting some kind of hypostatic interpretation, Erasmus rendered it as “a little lower than the angels,” invoking the help of Thomas Aquinas and endorsing his interpretation that Christ in

60 61

Published by Cecilia Asso, asd ix-9: 49–84. See also cwe 73: 41–62. “Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo.] In græco codice tantum hoc reperio de testimonio triplici: ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα id est quoniam tres sunt qui testificantur, spiritus et aqua et sanguis,” asd vi-10: 540, lines 252–255. And: “Et hi tres vnum sunt.] Hi redundat. Neque est, vnum, sed in vnum,” asd vi–10: 552, lines 414–416. See Grantley McDonald, Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) 17, n. 12. On the controversy between Erasmus and Lee on the comma, see ibidem 16–22.

82

bloemendal

his human nature was “a little lower than the angels.”62 These examples show that Erasmus primarily used the exegetical tradition and variant readings in the manuscripts. Sometimes it was mainly the annotations that provoked criticisms, such as in his annotation on Matthew 6, 12. In the first edition he had simply suggested replacing the phrase “dimitte” in the Lord’s Prayer with “remitte,” but after being criticized he added a note adducing authorities such as Cyprian and Augustine. Jan Krans analyses Erasmus’ way of working in detail in his dissertation.63 He shows that although the humanist did not approach the textual evidence systematically, he had an idea of practical and ideological circumstances that might have caused errors, such as the confusion of similar sounds or similar letters, errors caused by homoioteleuton, abbreviations that were solved wrongly, omissions in lists, scribal faults, and the intentional changes caused by liturgical use, additions for clarity’s sake, harmonization, the adoption of marginal glosses in the text, and dogmatic considerations. Moreover, Erasmus adopted the rule of the lectio difficilior potior (the harder reading should be preferred)— though he did so sparingly and was by no means the first humanist to do so—as well as that of the lectio facilior potior (preference for the easier reading), as far as he could explain them with common sense.64 He may also have applied the principle of the reading that best explains the other readings.65 However, he did not apply his own rules systematically. As we saw, Erasmus did not recoil from retranslating passages from Latin into Greek and inserting them into the text. Erasmus did not apply all these principles primarily to the Greek text, as Krans states: “he chose to print the Greek text as he found it, with some emendations mainly from other manuscripts than the ones he used as printer’s copy[;] he regularly raised questions about the quality of its text. Sometimes these ques-

62

63 64

65

Rummel, Erasmus and his Catholic Critics i 49–52; Walter, “Ad fontes: Humanistische Schriftauslegung am Beispiel des Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples und des Erasmus von Rotterdam,” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 31 (2016) Der Streit um die Schrift 203–223, esp. 221– 222. Krans, Beyond What is Written 31–65. This principle is formulated by Erasmus himself in Annot. in 1. Cor. 15, 51, asd vi-8: 310, lines 774–777: “Et quoties veteres fatentur lectionem esse diuersam, semper mihi suspectior esse solet ea quae prima specie videtur absurdior, vt consentaneum sit lectorem vel parum eruditum vel parum attentum, offensum absurditatis imagine, mutasse scripturam.” This is also quoted by Krans, Beyond What is Written 48, n. 87, who suggests reading “non ea” instead of “ea.” See also Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983) 154. Cf. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ 157.

erasmus and biblical scholarship

83

tions became conjectures on the text. Their place, as we will see, is mostly in the annotations, not in the printed text.”66 It may be clear that, with all these interventions, Erasmus as a humanist approached the Greek text of the Bible as if it was a pagan classical one, since in this way a better understanding of the divine message could be achieved. In this sense, his edition is driven by philological reasons, including the wish to establish a reliable text, with the means Erasmus had at his disposal, and by linguistic reasons. Indeed, he tried to make a lucid translation in impeccable Latin to make the medium fit the message and the intended audience.

5

Tradition and Originality in Erasmus’ New Testament

Was Erasmus’Novum Testamentum a new enterprise or a traditional one? Henk Jan de Jonge points out that although it certainly has innovative aspects: the Greek text, a challenge to the authority of the Vulgate, philological discussion on the meaning of words, in many respects it is traditional, or builds on tradition.67 It was (as said) not meant to replace the Vulgate as a translation read in services and from the pulpit. Nor was it a new translation, but a revision of the same Vulgate (just like the Paraphrases were paraphrases of the Vulgate, not of the Novum Testamentum), in late-medieval editions, and for Erasmus the New Testament remained a Latin book. The paratexts added to the Novum Testamentum had their parallels in paratexts to contemporary Vulgate editions: the Paraclesis had a counterpart in the Ad divinarum litterarum verarumque divitiarum amatores exhortatio, the Methodus in the Modi interpretandi sacram scripturam, and the Apologia in the Traductores bibliae, a short text that discusses earlier translations and translators. These three texts were included in several fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Vulgate editions, and were printed all three in two Froben editions of the Vulgate (1509 and 1514), of one of which Erasmus himself owned a copy. Erasmus’ own intervention was to place Acts between John and Romans, deviating from Vulgate editions, which is still the order in which the New Testament writings are printed.

66 67

Krans, Beyond What is Written 67. For this section, I rely on Henk Jan de Jonge, “Traditional Features in Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum and the order of the Writings of the New Testament” in Wim François a.o. (eds), Authority Revisited: Towards Thomas More and Erasmus in 1516 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020) 159–191.

84 6

bloemendal

The Humanists’ Commerce with the Bible Around Erasmus68

Erasmus stood in a long humanistic tradition. Two of the tasks humanists set themselves, since the Trecento with Lovato Lovati and Albertino Mussato, were to establish ‘correct’ texts of classical authors and to comment on them and— after Boccaccio invited Leonzio Pilato to Florence around 1360 to teach him Greek—to translate Greek texts into Latin and thus to make them accessible and available to the Latin respublica literaria.69 They also hunted to find new manuscripts; for example, Petrarch rediscovered the letters of Cicero. It was Lorenzo Valla (1407–1457) who also discussed the text of the Bible and the quality of the Latin Vulgate by St Jerome,70 thus inaugurating “the modern tradition of critical, philological scholarship on the New Testament.”71 In other words, he and other humanists took the first steps in philological analysis and historical criticism. Valla was well equipped for the collation of the Greek text and the Latin translation, since he had translated two thirds of the Iliad into Latin prose, as well as Thucydides’ historical work. In biblical philology, he and other humanists opposed the medieval theologians, who were more interested in theological and dogmatic issues than in the biblical text itself since they considered the Vulgate to be the unchanged and immutable, divinely inspired text. The humanists, on the contrary, tried to go back to the sources and held the New Testament Greek text in higher esteem. In contrast to the scholastics, the humanists also had an idea of the historical context as an aid to philology, witness Valla’s falsification of the Donatio Constantini in 1439–1440.72 Moreover,

68 69

70

71 72

Cf. Anthony Grafton, Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1997). On the humanists’ approach to textual transmission of classical texts, see also L.D. Reynolds and N.G. Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20134) 123–164. On their philological approach to the Bible, see also Petra Schierl, “Die Humanisten und die Bibel” in Das bessere Bild Christi 35–44. As Debora Kuller Shuger remarks, Valla treats the New Testament as a text rather than as a document providing information about the world; see Shuger, The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1998) 18. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ 34. That this historical context was not always on the humanists’ minds can be proved from Valla’s criticism of the Vulgate rendering of Matthew 2, 4 as “principes sacerdotum,” stating that the proper Latin word should be either “pontifex” or “praesul,” disregarding the fact that a Hebrew priest may differ from a Roman one; see Shuger, The Renaissance Bible 19.

erasmus and biblical scholarship

85

medieval scholars were often satisfied with compiling remarks from the Fathers to the Bible.73 Valla’s Collatio Novi Testamenti was essential to Erasmus’ project.74 As said before, in 1504, he himself discovered a manuscript copy of this work in the Premonstratensian monastery in Leuven,75 saw its importance and edited it the year after as In Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem annotationes. Valla had been able to use seven Greek and four Latin manuscripts, but in accordance with the humanists’ motto ad fontes, he preferred the Greek tradition. “His philological approach in locating textual flaws and proposing emendations was innovative and must have inspired Erasmus a great deal. Valla already had a keen idea of the way in which textual variants had come into being during the long-lasting transmission process, because of his firmly grasping the psychology of the scribes, who often were sloppy, negligent, tired and inclined to smooth out opaque passages or assimilate the text according to similar verses nearby.”76 Yet there were differences between Erasmus’ and Valla’s way of working. “Whereas Valla’s notes had a narrow, strictly textual scope, Erasmus succeeded in transcending the initial philological nature of his project by assembling in his annotations a vast body of explicatory material that broached all kinds of linguistic, exegetical and historical questions.”77 Moreover, Erasmus and Valla

73

74

75

76

77

The humanists looked down on these compilers but made use of them; see (for example) asd vii-2: 24–26. Erasmus owned copies of (for instance) the Catena aurea (Egbertus van Gulik, Erasmus and his Books, tr. J.C. Grayson, ed. James K. McConica and Johannes Trapman (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2018) 146, and no. 170), the Glossa ordinaria with the Postilla by Nicolaus Lyranus (ibidem 128–129 and no. 154). Even to such an extent that Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ 69, was able to write: “Erasmus was so deeply influenced by the Adnotationes that he devoted much of his career to the task of developing, refining, and extending Valla’s methods.” Erasmus Ep. 182 (to Christopher Fisher, ⟨March⟩ 1505) Allen lines 1–4: “Aestate superiore, quum in peruetusta quapiam bibliotheca venarer (nullis enim in saltubus venatus iucundior), forte in casses meos incidit praeda neutiquam vulgaris, Laurentii Vallae in Nouum Testamentum annotationes” (“As I was hunting last summer in an ancient library, for those coverts offer by far the most enjoyable sport, luck brought into my toils a prey of no ordinary importance: Lorenzo Valla’s notes on the New Testament” cwe lines 4–6). Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ 116 is misled by Erasmus’ “forte,” for the humanist did not find the manuscript by coincidence, but deliberately searched for it (“praeda”); it was already indirectly mentioned in his correspondence as early as 1498. Nellen and Bloemendal, “Erasmus’ New Testament Project” 597, referring to Taylor, “Biblical Humanism” 296–297. On Valla’s work on the New Testament, see also Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ 32–69 and Rudolf Pfeiffer, Die klassische Philologie von Petrarca bis Mommsen (Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1982) 54–60. Nellen and Bloemendal, “Erasmus’ New Testament Project” 597.

86

bloemendal

differed in their idea of the relative value of the Greek text and the Latin translation. For instance, in 2Peter 2, 18, Valla suggested correcting the Latin “paululum” to “plane” as a translation of ὄντως, whereas Erasmus proposed changing the corrupt Greek into ὀλίγως.78 The modern edition of the Greek New Testament by Nestle and Aland have ὀλίγως, thus supporting Erasmus.79 Erasmus’ was not the first new translation of the New Testament into humanist Latin. This was made in 1453–1455, when Gianozzo Manetti (1396– 1459) translated the New Testament in humanistic Latin.80 But his translation remained in manuscript and was hardly circulated. Erasmus was not aware of its existence. However, we can safely assume that Erasmus made his translation of the Pauline Epistles in rivalry with the 1512 translation by the French humanist Lefèvre d’Étaples. We can also be sure that the 1516 Novum Instrumentum was published in haste, as said before, in competition with the Complutensian Polyglot. Erasmus not only translated the Bible, but also explained it in his Annotationes and his Paraphrases. Here, too, he was not the only one. Lefèvre d’Étaples, already mentioned, was also occupied with the Bible in Latin. After he had published a Quincuplex Psalterium (Fivefold Psalter, 1509), he produced an edition of the Epistles (1512). In this edition he published the Vulgate rendering and— in smaller type—his own translation in more beautiful Latin and made after the Greek, and gave a paraphrasing commentary and explaining notes. Finally, he published the Gospels with the Vulgate text, annotations on the translation and a short commentary (1523–1541). Moreover, between 1523 and 1530 he made a French translation of Vulgate version of the New and Old Testament. He was a real competitor to Erasmus. Their exegetical methods were similar, yet different. Erasmus tried to keep exegesis and philology apart, whereas Lefèvre mixed them. Erasmus adhered to an allegorical interpretation of Scripture, in line with Origen, Augustine and others, Lefèvre preferred the literal sense, which he called ‘duplex’: the actual literary meaning and the divinely intended typological one.81

78 79 80

81

Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ 149. Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (London: United Bible Societies, 1969) (the Greek text resembles the 25th edition, 1963). See Annet den Haan, Gianozzo Manetti’s New Testament: Translation Theory and Practice in Fifteenth-Century Italy (Leiden: Brill, 2016). Manetti made use of Valla’s annotations, ibidem 48–58. See, for instance, Peter Walter, “Erasmus von Rotterdam und der mehrfache Schriftsinn” in id., Syngrammata: Gesammelte Schriften zu Humanismus und katholischer Reform, ed. G. Wassilowsky (Münster: Aschendorf, 2015) 99–112; id. “Ad fontes” 203–223 and John

erasmus and biblical scholarship

87

The humanists made accessible not only the Bible, but also many Fathers and other theologians of the early Church. It was Ambrogio Traversari whose Latin translations of Greek Fathers, produced between 1415 and 1439, included the works of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom. Now for the first time their work was accessible in its own right, and not as part of compilation works such as the (medieval) Catena aurea and the Glossa ordinaria, the ‘annotated Bible.’82 This marked the same development as the attention they had for the biblical text. ‘Commerce’ with the Bible also had financial implications. Froben must have wished to be the first to publish a bilingual edition of the New Testament.83 As mentioned above, approximately 1,200 copies of the Novum Instrumentum of 1516 were printed, a not especially high volume.84 Nevertheless, after two years, only 800 copies were sold.85 However, the subsequent editions found a greater market, and of the second edition some 3,000 copies found a buyer.86 In comparison, 600 copies of the Complutensian polyglot Bible—in six volumes— were printed.

7

Conclusion

Humanists wished to contribute to the renewal of Christian faith87 by drawing attention to the Fathers and other early theologians in their own right as seen in their own time, to the biblical text itself, also as seen in its own time, and to the Latin translation, trying to ‘accommodate’ it to the contemporary reader. The two outstanding figures in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century biblical scholarship were Lorenzo Valla and Desiderius Erasmus, whereas for (Greek) patristic scholarship the leading lights of scholarship were Ambrogio Traversari and Erasmus. Erasmus followed in the footsteps of Valla in his critical discus-

82 83 84

85 86 87

B. Payne, “Erasmus and Lefèvre d’Étaples as Interpreters of Paul,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 65 (1974) 54–83. See also Taylor, “Biblical Humanism” 296. Sebastiani, “The Impact of Erasmus’ New Testament on the European Market” and id., Johann Froben. Ibidem 230–231. On the estimated number of copies printed, see (for instance) Philip Gaskell, A New Introduction to Bibliography (Oxford: Oxford University Press 19853) 160– 163. Ibidem 232. See Sebastiani, Johann Froben, Ch. 2. Christine Christ-von Wedel, Erasmus of Rotterdam: Advocate of a New Christianity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013).

88

bloemendal

sion of the New Testament text, but he also went further than his predecessor, as a result of his awareness of the quality of manuscripts and his equating the value of the Greek text and the Latin translation. Moreover, he did not shun controversial interventions on the basis of the manuscripts at his disposal. He also took into account the exegetical tradition and the ways in which the early theologians quoted the Bible, and the historical context as he understood it. This accounts for a fundamental paradox in Erasmus’ treatment of the Bible: on the one hand he was the true, ‘new’ humanist focusing on the sources (the biblical text itself in its own right and in its historical context); on the other, he attached patristic, allegorical interpretations to this ‘better’ text, in which the biblical text was not interpreted in a literal sense, but rather considered to have a ‘hidden’ meaning (doing so particularly in the Paraphrases) such as given by the Fathers and other theologians of the early Church. Thus Erasmus was blending ‘old’ and ‘new’ theology, so to speak. Just like he was combining ‘old’ and ‘new’ elements in the paratexts. Ultimately, his edition was meant to advance his idea of philosophia Christi: the philosophical-theological foundations for a pure and Christian life. This ‘philosophy of Christ’ was formulated in the Enchiridion as a set of moral rules for life (as few as possible) that one could keep to, and focus on Christ, who is, as we saw, to be known best from the New Testament.88 Through his philological approach, Erasmus wished to give the faithful easier access to the essence of the biblical text and to encounter Jesus Christ, with emphasis on the ethical aspects and never fearing undermining much theological speculation. In his philological method, he treated the Bible as he would treat a paganclassical text, even though he remained convinced that the Bible was the Word of God. But his edition became the subject of fierce polemics, its interpretation fought over between Catholic orthodox theologians and Reformers. For his orthodox and adamant opponents he was diminishing the status of the Bible, precisely because of his adagium ad fontes, which closely resembled and in a sense paved the way towards Lutheran sola Scriptura. His work was quickly—too quickly—published by the Froben press. Nevertheless, Erasmus still deserves pride of place as a biblical scholar, for his treatment of the Greek text, for his revision of the Vulgate, for his learned annotations, including discussions of variant readings, and for his paraphrases, in which he interprets the Bible, occasionally calling the biblical text into question, albeit implicitly. However, by treating the New Testament text like any secular text, he did affect

88

A modern edition by Juliusz Domański and Raymond Marcel in asd v-8: 1–303.

erasmus and biblical scholarship

89

the status of the Holy Writ, and thus paved the way towards secularization, the opposite of what he meant to effectuate. In this way, his Novum Testamentum is ultimately a failure, but thanks to his erudition and scholarship, it is a brilliant failure indeed.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my colleague Henk Nellen for his valuable constructive comments on an earlier draft of this chapter.

chapter 5

Erasmus and Luther: Free Will and Tradition Greta Grace Kroeker

By the time Erasmus of Rotterdam gave into pressure from his peers and Church to write against Luther in 1524, he had already weathered many theological storms. He was the most famous intellectual of his generation, dubbed “the Prince of Humanists.” He had important and lofty admirers, friends, and patrons. The advent of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, however, challenged his secure position in the intellectual and religious circles of Europe and changed the stakes of his endeavors. Indeed, by the time he became Luther’s most famous antagonist, Erasmus’ own work had drawn such scrutiny that his Catholic detractors charged that “Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched” and had encouraged the Protestant heresy. Yet, even after he wrote against Luther, Erasmus pleased neither the Catholics nor the Protestants in the dangerous and fraught years of the early Reformation. By his death in 1536, he was a man in the middle, having neither joined the Protestants nor pleased the Catholics with his theological efforts.1

1

Humanism

To be sure, Erasmus had engaged in a rigorous critique of the Papacy, Church corruption, and monasticism and had undertaken an often controversial theological program based on humanist sources and techniques prior to his polemical encounter with Luther. But his early work, the work that made him famous as a brilliant scholar and linguist, focused on imitating classical Latin style, a common undertaking by those enamored of the “new learning,” humanism. Humanism emerged as a Renaissance educational movement that first appeared in the fourteenth century and focused on the study of bonae litterae, or “fine letters,” found in the works of classical authors.2 Humanists advocated the study of the classical world and ancient rhetoric, grammar, philosophy, and 1 My perspectives on the Erasmus and Luther debate have appeared elsewhere, most completely in Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul: A Pauline Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011). 2 For a comprehensive treatment of Erasmus’ intellectual development, see James D. Tracy,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_007

erasmus and luther: free will and tradition

91

style. Most importantly, humanism offered an innovative educational design, one that directly challenged the way scholastics, the “schoolmen” of Medieval and Early Modern universities, taught, read, and wrote about the world in general, and religion, in particular. As Charles Nauert explains, humanism emerged in response to a changing society in late Medieval Europe.3 While both scholastics and humanists depended on the rich sources and influences of the ancient Mediterranean world, scholastics focused primarily on the synthesis of classical philosophy and Christian faith. Medieval universities developed around a scholastic educational paradigm, which increasingly came to rely on reductive logical exercises and anthologies of the works of Medieval thinkers, which were “completely divorced from their original context and hence often also divorced from their original meaning.”4 Humanists criticized this educational method as impractical, useless and pedantic and argued that it poorly prepared graduates for both practical careers in Church and secular bureaucracies and for an active and engaged Christian life. Humanists critiqued scholastic philosophical and educational methods as old-fashioned and outdated. Instead, they proposed the pursuit of bonae litterae through the studia humanitatis, that is, the studies required to achieve “full potential as human beings.”5 Most importantly, they emphasized “grammar, rhetoric, poetry (a special application of rhetoric), history (which dealt largely with politics and with the consequences of moral decision), and moral philosophy (which included the issue of political obligation).”6 In other words, a humanist education proposed to prepare students for an active social, political, cultural, and intellectual life in the Age of Renaissance.

2

Christian Humanism

Erasmus grew up as this “new learning” flowered and spread from its Italian roots, over the Alps, and into Northern Europe. As Renaissance humanism spread, it adapted to new priorities and intellectual landscapes, and in the

3 4 5 6

Erasmus of the Low Countries (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). For his early scholarly life, see especially Chapter 2, pages 17–40. Charles Nauert, Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) explores the origins and context of humanism in Europe. Nauert, Humanism 17–18. Nauert, Humanism 12. Nauert, Humanism 13.

92

kroeker

early sixteenth century, Northern intellectuals, philosophers, theologians, and even politicians were increasingly preoccupied with questions of faith, ecclesiology, and Christian truth. Although Erasmus spent many years studying the ancient world and its sources, like others steeped in the studia humanitatis, he soon sought to apply the tools of humanism to the texts and questions of faith that had become central to debates about religious authority, Church corruption, clerical celibacy, and most importantly to Erasmus and Luther, the role of faith in Christian salvation. Thus, Christian humanists in general, and Erasmus, in particular, applied the philological skills, linguistic talents, and philosophical priorities of humanism to Scriptural study, theological interpretation and ecclesiastical debate. These skills, in turn, informed Erasmus’ emerging theology as well as his encounter with Luther in their Diatribe on Free Will.

3

Theology

Erasmus’ foray into the theological challenges of his age began even before 1516 when he published his controversial Annotations on the New Testament and drew the ire of theologians who charged that he was unqualified to “do theology” as a Christian Humanist who used innovative linguistic and textual methodologies to approach theology. As if Erasmus’ interest in Scripture and the politics of theology had not irritated his detractors quite enough, he soon undertook to explicate, analyze, and explain scripture. That is, he moved beyond the humanistic study of scriptural texts and began to “do” theology. Indeed, his detractors, most notably the powerfully connected and influential professors of theology at the University of Paris, accused him of “putting his sickle in another man’s field”; that is, of doing theology when he was not entitled to do it. By 1524, when he published De libero arbitrio on the subject of Free Will to refute Luther, Erasmus had already published theological works, including De contemptu mundi, Enchiridion militis christiani, the Novum Instrumentum (including Annotations), and many other important religious works. And yet, though he had clearly ruffled feathers among many theologians, the late Medieval and early modern religious context had allowed a great deal of room for theological debate. Quite in contrast to our modern notions of a rigid Medieval Catholic system intent on burning heretics at the stake, late Medieval theological discourse provided a great deal of theological wiggle room for differences of opinion. The advent of the Protestant Reformation changed all that.

erasmus and luther: free will and tradition

4

93

The Reformation

In 1517, when Martin Luther made his stand against the Catholic hierarchy on issues as wide-ranging as justification by faith, Papal authority, and ecclesiastical corruption, he took advantage of three factors that helped him create not merely an irritation to Catholic hegemony but a full-fledged rebellion. First, the printing press enabled Luther and his supporters to circulate his ideas far and wide. Second, the political situation in his immediate surroundings and his university teaching position created a reliable buffer and protection. Third, the establishment of Christian humanism provided the intellectual tools and educated readers for his opinions. As a result of these three factors, Luther’s message had a truly remarkable impact on the faithful of Christian Europe, challenged Roman Catholic hegemony in Western Europe, and opened up a range of theological options for those willing to critique and challenge the Catholic Church.7 While the Protestant movement spread across Europe and Luther’s ideas gained notoriety, adherents, and spinoffs, the Catholic Church became increasingly focused on not only stopping the spread of what they saw as a heretical rebellion, but also policing the thoughts and opinions of their own theologians, preachers, and intellectuals. The Reformation was a game changer for those who thought, wrote and spoke about Christianity: they took on newly charged risks for the same opinions that had only recently been part of acceptable theological debate. For Erasmus’ part, his Christian humanist work underwent increased scrutiny and drew accusations that his work had things in common with Luther’s theology and that he had “laid the egg that Luther hatched.” In particular, Erasmus’ New Testament, which provided side-by-side Greek and Latin texts and notes on the text, came under increased scrutiny. Beginning with its publication in 1516, Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum and Annotations explicated Scriptural passages and provided linguistic and theological analysis of his translation of the Vulgate, the accepted Latin text of the Bible in the Catholic Church, into what he believed to be a “better” Latin translation and a more accurate representation of original sources. Subsequent editions provided increasingly bold “corrections” to the Vulgate text and commentary.8 As

7 For an overview of the causes and courses of the Reformation, see Euan Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). 8 For a comprehensive study of Erasmus’ Annotations, see Erika Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986).

94

kroeker

Erika Rummel notes in her in-depth study of the Annotations, “They became a mixture of textual and literary criticism, theological exegesis, spiritual counsel, and polemical asides.”9 Later, Erasmus added Paraphrases on the Scripture to his theological works in an effort to make the Bible more comprehensible, inspiring, and accessible to readers.10 These publications created controversy for a variety of reasons, including the challenge they posed to the Vulgate as the textus receptus and the critiques of Catholic ecclesiology and theology within them. But without the context of the burgeoning Protestant movement, Erasmus might have avoided the intense scrutiny his work engendered. As Catholic theologians looked to stem the momentum of Protestantism, they pointed fingers at those they felt responsible for the inroads Protestants had been able to make. Many of those fingers pointed to Erasmus. Erasmus’ deep disappointment in the state of the Papacy, Church corruption, monastic excesses, and pedantic theological arguments might have made him very much in step with many of his fellow theologians, but they also made him suspect in the eyes of many defenders of the Catholic Church. In reality, Erasmus was deeply conflicted about Luther, his ideas, and his methods. On the one hand, “Erasmus could even entertain the possibility that Luther’s rage against the enemies of the Gospel might be the ‘violent physic’ that was sometimes necessary to cure a deep-seated illness”; but on the other hand, Erasmus was deeply disturbed by Luther’s “vitriol.”11 Erasmus’ commitment to religious moderation and his belief that good learning could inspire good faith recoiled at Luther’s spiritual fire and cynical view of human nature. Still, he believed that dialogue and debate could resolve theological matters. As the theological and political fights around the Protestant movement increased, Erasmus faced increasing pressure to take a definitive stand against Luther. Lofty patrons and friends like Emperor Charles v and Duke George of Saxony, Popes Leo x, Adrian vi, and Clement vii and other friends urged him to clearly rebuke Luther in writing.12 Finally, in 1524, in part to quiet his critics and 9 10

11 12

Rummel, Erasmus’ Annotations vii. For more on Erasmus’ Paraphrases, see Holy Scripture Speaks: The Production and Reception of Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament, ed. Hilmar M. Pabel and Mark Vessey (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002). Tracy, Erasmus of the Low Countries 149. For an overview of how Erasmus came to write against Luther, see Charles Trinkaus’ introduction to A Discussion of Free Will in cwe 76: xi–lxx. See also Charles Nauert’s entry, “Desiderius Erasmus,” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive, Fall 2017 edition (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/erasmus/#LifWor), accessed October 22, 2019.

erasmus and luther: free will and tradition

95

in part to answer the calls of many of his friends to defend the Church, Erasmus wrote against Luther. He chose the subject of Free Will for his diatribe.

5

The Freedom of the Will

Erasmus chose the subject of the freedom of the will for his diatribe against Luther for three primary reasons.13 First, and most importantly, it was key to the theological foundations of the most central issues at stake in the Reformation. In essence, the debate over free will was a debate about the role humans played in their own salvation. It asked, “Are human beings capable of contributing to their own salvation by what they choose to do or not to do? Or is the unmerited grace of God the sole and sufficient reason why some sinners but not others are reckoned as righteous by God?”14 The entire penitential cycle of the Church, and thus in many ways its justification for a priesthood, its understanding of penance, and even the sale of indulgences, rested on the idea that humans had to do something to participate in God’s forgiveness. That is, Christians had to exercise their Free Will to engage in their salvation. To be sure, not every Catholic thinker agreed with this interpretation of the role of Free Will in salvation, but like it or not, much of the functional apparatus of the Church in the daily lives of Catholics depended on the concept of Free Will as it related to justification. This question was based on the foundational Christian idea that all humans were stained by the burden of original sin, caused by Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden of Eden. As a result, all humans, Christians and nonChristians alike, were sinners, or people who disobeyed God. For Christians, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was believed to have provided the undeserved gift of salvation by the grace of God, despite their sins. Even before the Reformation, controversy existed among Christians about to what extent humans had to cooperate or participate with that unmerited gift to be saved. In other words, theologians asked, to what extent did humans have to do certain acts and behave in certain ways in order to accept or earn that grace. As Alister McGrath explains it, “The central teaching of the Christian faith is that recon-

13

14

For an accessible translation of Luther and Erasmus’ exchange on Free Will, see Erasmus and Luther: The Battle over Free Will, ed. Clarence H. Miller, trans. Clarence H. Miller and Peter Macardle (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2012). For critical English editions of the relevant texts, see cwe 76 and 77. They have not yet appeared in the asd. For Luther’s work see wa 18: 600–787. James D. Tracy, “Introduction,” in Erasmus and Luther: The Battle over Free Will ix.

96

kroeker

ciliation has been effected between God and sinful man through Jesus Christ, and that this new relation between God and man is a present possibility for those outside the church, and a present actuality for those within its bounds.”15 The way in which “the saving action of God towards mankind in Christ may be appropriated by the individual is of central significance.”16 That is to say, how Christians become “saved” and experience eternal salvation through this grace is and has been a matter of intensive debate. As a result, when Erasmus chose Free Will as the topic for his debate with Luther, he chose the theme on which most Christian thought relies. Second, Erasmus picked the subject of Free Will because there were so many diverse opinions in Church tradition upon which to base his own ideas.17 Medieval thinkers had relied heavily on Augustine’s understanding of grace, though they sometimes relied on other Church Fathers to bolster their arguments about the nature of free will as it related to salvation. One challenge for those who relied on Augustine and the other patristic writers was the diversity of opinions about the matter. As McGrath explains, “The emerging patristic understanding of matters such as predestination, grace and free will is somewhat confused, and would remain so until controversy forced a full discussion of the issue upon the church. Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Greek fathers had formulated a teaching on human free will based upon philosophical rather than biblical foundations.”18 Of course, this lack of Scriptural foundation was one of the central points of Luther’s attack on the way the Church had come to view Free Will. But for Erasmus, this informed his understanding of the Church as a manifestation of its historical tradition: that theology and the doctrines and dogmas that grew from it were an amalgamation of the layers of thought over time and diverse interpretations of Scripture. To Luther, this proved where the Church had gone wrong as it veered away from sola scriptura; to Erasmus, it demonstrated the richness of Church thought and the space for religious compromise.19 Third, Erasmus chose the subject of Free Will because he knew he would have “cover” for his opinions. In such religiously volatile times, Erasmus was

15

16 17 18 19

Alister E. McGrath, Iusitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) 1. This monograph explores the history of justification in Christian thought in its many complexities and manifestations. McGrath, Iustitia 1. McGrath, Iustitia 181 and throughout. McGrath 19. Kroeker, Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul 133ff.

erasmus and luther: free will and tradition

97

particularly vulnerable to attacks on his orthodoxy. He was in many ways unprotected. While Luther had both a university and a prince to protect him, Erasmus relied on book sales and fickle patrons for both his living and his protection. It was not a secure position from which to enter theological debates in a time when heresy was punishable by death. Should Erasmus’ opinions raise questions about his orthodoxy (and they did), he could always point to the plethora of Church opinions on the matter to show that he was in line with Church tradition. The subject also had the added advantage of sitting at the very center of Luther’s reform theology. In very general terms, Luther’s theology rested on three principles: Salvation by Faith Alone, Sola Scriptura, and the priesthood of believers. That is, Luther’s theology rested on the rejection of any works in the process of salvation, on the Bible as the primary source of Christian faith, and on a rejection of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, including the papacy, as the mediator between Christians and God.20 Indeed, Luther’s theology sought “to convince believers that the saving of fallen souls was not a process of little lapses and little rituals to correct those lapses. Rather, it was a question of real sin, of a massive, all-corrupting inability to do right, which only God, by utterly gratuitous, selfsacrificing mercy, first covered with his grace, and then gradually, step by step, replaced with his own goodness in the Christian, in a process completed only in death. This vast act of mercy made the piecemeal atonements and ‘good works’ performed by men, or by the church for men, seem not only hopelessly inadequate, but treacherously deceptive and blasphemously distracting from the real point.”21 Thus, when Erasmus struck at the idea at the core of this argument, he struck at the very heart of Luther’s reform program.

6

The Debate

On the matter of Free Will, Erasmus argues the point delicately: in De libero arbitrio, Erasmus argued against Luther’s insistence on the absolute depravity of the human will and maintained that the inability of humans to do anything positive to effect their own salvation was ahistorical and misguided. Though he carefully avoided making too strong a positive declaration about how grace

20 21

For an exploration of these themes, see Cameron, The European Reformation chapters 8– 10. Cameron, The European Reformation 112.

98

kroeker

and faith precisely worked together in the salvation of Christians, he did assert that “God initiated human salvation by a gift of first ‘free grace’, but man then ‘co-operated’ by responding to the offer.”22 Erasmus’ humanistic concern with Christian morality and his belief that human reason had to be engaged in faith inform his diatribe. Erasmus asks “Why, you may ask, attribute anything at all to free will? To allow the ungodly, who have deliberately fallen short of the grace of God, to be deservedly condemned; to clear God of the false accusation of cruelty and injustice; to free us from despair, protect us from complacency, and spur us on to moral endeavor. For these reasons nearly everyone admits the existence of free will; but, lest we claim anything for ourselves, they assert that it can achieve nothing without the perpetual grace of God.”23 In De libero arbitrio, Erasmus critiques Luther not on the basis that he is “wrong” about Free Will, but rather that he is out of step with the prevailing and accepted tradition of the Church on the matter. As James Tracy writes, “Instead of labeling Luther a heretic, Erasmus argues that Luther’s extreme assertions—especially in his Assertion of All the Articles—put him beyond the pale of the theological tradition.”24 In the diatribe, Erasmus relies primarily on Scripture for his arguments, conceding that Luther is not a fan of a great deal of patristic theology. Erasmus’ work is a bit slippery: he works quite hard in De libero arbitrio to avoid too firm a stance on free will and its role in salvation. It is designed to demonstrate his belief in the ability for compromise, even on such divisive theological points. Erasmus’ opinions developed in part from the Medieval Church tradition from which he emerged and in part from the Christian humanism he helped develop. His view of Christianity focused on morality, a Christian ethic, or the philosophia Christi, which emphasized the behaviors that good Christians should exhibit.25 He was less interested in dogma than in Christian moral conduct. He was less concerned with Church doctrines and more concerned with Church pastoral function. And most importantly, he was

22 23 24 25

Cameron, The European Reformation 189. cwe 76: 87. Tracy, “Introduction,” xxiv. “Introduction,” in The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther, translated by J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell, 1957) 43. The editors offer a common view of the debate between Luther and Erasmus that finds Erasmus’ theological skills lacking in comparison to Luther’s. My studies indicate that the differences are more likely attributed to literary style and theological intent rather than skill level. See for example, “Erasmus: Humanist and Theologian” in Martin Luther in Context, ed. David Whitford, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018) 290–298.

erasmus and luther: free will and tradition

99

committed to a theology of compromise that made room for doctrinal disagreements and eschewed dogmatism.26 His work on Free Will demonstrates that. Still, it would be a mistake to believe that Erasmus did not take theology seriously. He spent tremendous time and energy in his work to address, critique, reflect on, and present theological positions in new ways and in light of the skills gleaned from humanistic learning, methods, and sources. As Irena Backus has demonstrated, Erasmus very seriously wanted to reform the Church, but not in the way Luther envisioned. He wanted to use the wisdom of the historical Church to restore a more functional and moral Christian society. To Erasmus, Sola Scriptura was as nonsensical as the enslavement of the free will of humans. Erasmus indisputably wanted to institute some kind of reform program so as to reconvert the church to its early doctrine and language. The Fathers were to provide a valuable ethical model, although it was a model of how not to act as well as of how to act. However, the main reason why Erasmus helped publish patristic writings was to show the relative and fluid nature of the teaching they contained. Although radical in its conception of history, this view of tradition did not make Erasmus into a ‘radical reformer.’ The doctrine of the church of this time, he constantly implies, is as history-dependent as that of the early church, but this does not mean that it has to be overturned in every detail.27 He simply could not envision the radical departure from Christian tradition that Luther promoted. Luther exhibited no such Erasmian qualms about over-certitude and no devotion to Catholic theological tradition in his response, De servo arbitrio (Bondage of the Will) from 1525. As Harry J. McSorley explains in his comprehensive study of the subject, Luther demonstrated “the desire to uphold the absolute necessity of God’s grace for every human act that has any relevance for salvation (bonum coram Deo) and to strike down every doctrine which places the beginning of salvation or the effectiveness of God’s grace in the power

26 27

See, for example, Greta Grace Kroeker, “Erasmus the Theologian,” Church History and Religious Culture 96 (2016) 498–515. Irena Backus, “Erasmus and the Spirituality of the Early Church” in Erasmus’ Vision of the Church, ed. Hilmar M. Pabel (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1995) 114.

100

kroeker

of fallen man’s free will.”28 This concept rests on another theological tenet of Luther’s theology: to allow the free will of man into the process of salvation would undermine the omnipotence of God: “whatever God foresees and foreknows must happen necessarily: otherwise God could be mistaken.”29 Thus, for Luther, no act of the Christian, including those central to the Catholic penitential cycle like confession and penance, could possibly affect the power of God to determine who is saved and who is not. In other words, no works, no good deeds, no great gifts to the Church could ever sway God’s grace. As he writes in the De servo arbitrio, “For if we believe it is true that God foreknows and foreordains everything and that he can be neither deceived nor hindered in his foreknowledge and foreordination, and then if we believe that nothing happens unless he wills it—which even reason is forced to concede—then reason itself likewise testifies that there is no free will, whether in man, angel, or any creature.”30

7

The Aftermath

Both in De libero arbitrio and in his other work, Erasmus had very deliberately left room for Luther’s opinions.31 And despite his ultimate rejection of Luther’s reform program and split from Rome, Erasmus very definitely agreed with some of Luther’s critiques of Church corruption, monastic extremism, and clerical ignorance. In many ways, Erasmus approached Luther’s theology with an incredible intellectual generosity, informed both by his own eclectic education and his nuanced approach to both theology and Scripture. Erasmus firmly believed that religious compromise was possible, that Scripture relied on careful interpretation in order to be meaningful to the faithful, and that religious extremism in all of its manifestations was both flawed and dangerous. But in an age of vigorous religious debate and fervor, Erasmus’ mediating view was unpopular. Just as Luther and his followers found Erasmus’ arguments in De libero arbitrio (and those in his follow up works, Hyperaspistes i and ii) uncon-

28

29 30 31

Harry J. McSorley, Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical-Theological Study of Luther’s Major Work, The Bondage of the Will, by a Roman Catholic Scholar (New York: Newman Press, 1969) 304. McSorley 311. Erasmus and Luther: The Battle over Free Will 125. Kroeker, Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul, see especially Chapters 2–4. I assert that Erasmus developed his own Theology of Grace designed to articulate points of religious compromise and prevent the fissure of Western Christendom.

erasmus and luther: free will and tradition

101

vincing, so, too, did many of Erasmus’ Catholic critics. As Erasmus’ gentle biographer, Preserved Smith, argued, Erasmus was “The man to whom all Europe turned at the crisis of religious conflict as to an umpire and whom zealots then reviled because he would not prostitute his judicial office to their petty ends …”32 In the end, he had disappointed both the Protestants for not joining them and the Catholics for not defending the faith more tenaciously. But on this issue of Free Will, Erasmus never gave up urging moderation upon Protestants and Catholics alike. He continued to ponder the question and its implications long after his Diatribe appeared in print. In fact, not only did he publish two additional treatises on the subject in the Hyperaspistes i and ii, his struggle with the question of human freedom in salvation continued to preoccupy him. As he wrote to his dear friend Thomas More in 1527, three years after the appearance of De libero arbitrio, If I treat the subject from the point of view of the monks and theologians, who attribute too much to man’s merits because it is to their advantage to hold this opinion, clearly I speak against my conscience and knowingly obscure the glory of Christ. But if I govern my pen in such a way as to attribute some power to free will, but great efficacy to grace, I offend both sides, which was my experience with the Diatribe. If I follow Paul and Augustine, very little is left to free will …. For myself, I should not be averse to the opinion according to which we can of our own natural powers and without particular grace acquire congruent grace, as they say, except that Paul opposed this view.33 Erasmus struggled with the question of free will not only because he had been forced to write against Luther on the matter, but also because he knew it struck at the very heart of the conflict between Protestants and Catholics. His foray into the subject, initiated in De libero arbitrio, continued in his Annotations and Paraphrases on the New Testament and showed his ongoing efforts to develop a theology of Grace that could hold western Christendom together. He died in 1536 in his beloved city of Basel, still preoccupied with the freedom of the will. The debate highlighted the temporary defeat of Erasmus’ irenic theology. Fiery rhetoric and theological intransigence won the day and the two sides, one Protestant and one Catholic, became entrenched in mutually 32 33

Preserved Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals and Place in History (New York: Harper, 1923; reprint Dover Publications, 1962) 439. Ep. 1804 cwe lines 82–101. See my discussion of the letter in Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul 26–27.

102

kroeker

exclusive claims to religious truth. The results were often violent and Europe experienced the spasms of religious turmoil for generations. History was Erasmus’ friend, however, and though no religious movement bears his name, his nuanced approach to theology and skepticism about doctrinal certitude and theological intransigence gained a modern audience and informed ecumenical movements among Christians and non-Christians. This was Erasmus’ legacy, and as his contemporaries knew, the name of Erasmus will “never perish.”34 34

Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994) 175–190.

chapter 6

Proverbial Wisdom: The Adagiorum Chiliades Robert Kilpatrick

The 1515 edition of Erasmus’ massive collection of ancient adages opens with a magnificent frontispiece executed by the Swiss artist Urs Graf.1 The woodcut is remarkable for the geometrical symmetry of its design. Surrounding Froben’s address to the reader, in which he likens the Adagia to a golden stream of erudition and copia, arches and columns frame illustrious classical figures in descending chronological order from Homer, King Solomon, and Hesiod, to Greek writers, and finally to Roman authors. The following page extends the list of authors, dividing them into categorized lists such as philosophers, orators, or grammarians. The authors represented on the frontispiece appear in dynamic poses: Homer and Hesiod play the lyre and the pairs of authors shown below the top row engage in lively conversation with each other. Below the address to the reader, and extending its branches upwards towards the carefully arranged authors, we see a flowering tree placed at the center of a garden, itself enclosed by classically-decorated walls. Architectural and horticultural images combine in the frontispiece to produce an overall effect of harmonious order. The reader might expect to pluck flowers of wisdom as they stroll through Erasmus’ gathering of classical sayings. Complicating this image of order was the bulk and variety of the Adagia, which by 1515 had grown to more than three thousand entries, resembling more a wild forest than a neatly pruned garden or monumental structure. Erasmus himself calls his book a sylva (“wood” or “forest”), which humanist writers associated with disorder.2 The first edition of the adages, the Collectanea adagiorum (1500), had contained a more manageable 953 proverbs, listed in no discernable order, whether thematic, alphabetical, or by source.3 The operating principle of this disordered arrangement is aesthetic—Erasmus wishes to encourage 1 On this woodcut, see Germaine Aujac, “La culture classique à Bâle au temps d’Érasme d’après trois frontispices,” Anabases 10 (2009) 161–180. 2 On the humanist motif of the sylva and its relation to the genre of the Miscellany, including various versions of the Adagia, see Eric MacPhail, Dancing around the Well: the Circulation of Commonplaces in Renaissance Humanism (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 7–17. 3 As counted by John Grant in cwe 30: 9. The University of Toronto Press has now published richly annotated English translations of the entire Adagia, both the Collectanea and later, expanded versions: cwe volumes 30 to 36.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_008

104

kilpatrick

surprising textual discoveries and avoid the tedium that would result from a predictable order. Yet Erasmus’ interest in varietas implies much more than an attention to the pleasure of reading, making up a central component of his approach to language and rhetoric.4 As the collection grew in size and popularity, Erasmus and his editors preserved the principle of varietas while adding tools readers could use to navigate the book, which would grow to more than four thousand entries by the last edition published during the author’s lifetime (1536). Already in the 1508 Aldine edition, when the book became the Chiliades adagiorum tres (Three Thousands of Adages) and Erasmus added a theoretical Prolegomena, readers could approach the collection from a variety of entry points.5 For example, Erasmus took advantage of the numerical ordering of proverbs into chiliades (groups of a thousand proverbs) to give pride of place to several of his new essay-like commentaries. Thus, the adages Make Haste Slowly (adage 1001), The Labours of Hercules (adage 2001), and War is a treat for those who have not tried it (adage 3001) occupied privileged positions at the head of three chiliads. Even centuries (groups of one hundred proverbs) provided opportunities to highlight certain commentaries. Essay-like proverbs such as The Sileni of Alcibiades (adage 2201) and Sparta is your portion, do your best for her (adage 1401), and an increasingly precise set of page headings helped readers locate chiliades and centuries quickly.6 In their most basic form, commentaries in the Chiliades included a brief explanation of an adage’s meaning, a description of its cultural-historical context, advice for when to use it, and an enumeration of mostly ancient sources. But at their most ambitious commentaries could swell into long texts Erasmus used to develop stances on such topics as war, governance, religion, or even the theory and practice of collecting proverbs. Some of these adage-essays gained such a stature that they were also 4 On the theme of varietas in the Adagia, see Claudie Balavoine, “Principes de la parémiographie érasmienne” in François Suard and Claude Buridant, Richesse du proverbe, vol. 2 (Lille: Diffusion p.u.l., 1984) 9–23. Also see Isabelle Diu and Alexandre Vanautgaerden, “Le jardin d’abondance d’Érasme: le De copia et la lettre sur les Adages non éditée par P.S. Allen” in La varietas à la Renaissance, ed. Dominique Courcelles (Paris: Publications de l’École nationale des chartes, 2001) 43–55. 5 From here forward I will refer to the Adagia as the Chiliades, which designates all editions containing thousands of proverbs published between 1508 and 1536. The smaller (and more affordable) Collectanea continued to be published even after the first appearance of the Chiliades. For a helpful overview of the publication history of the Chiliades, see cwe 30: 21–38. 6 In 1508, readers could glance at the top of the recto of a given page to identify a millennium of proverbs. By 1515, Erasmus’ new publisher Froben had introduced labels for centuries on the recto and millennia on the verso eliminating the need to list Roman numerals greater than one hundred alongside proverbs and allowing speedier access to proverbs. By 1518 millennia and centuries were listed together on alternate pages.

proverbial wisdom: the adagiorum chiliades

105

published in the sixteenth century as stand-alone texts.7 The commentary to War is a treat for those who have not tried it thus becomes a powerful anti-war essay, while Erasmus exploits a reference to the Sileni of Alcibiades in Plato’s Symposium to denounce worldly values, celebrate the paradoxical wisdom of Christian folly, and express his views on biblical exegesis. In 1515, Johann Froben’s print shop added ornamental capitals at the beginning of each chiliad and century to facilitate navigation of the Chiliades and to make certain adages stand out visually. These arresting visual cues authorize or even encourage a reader to approach a century as a loosely-conceived textual unit of analysis, even though the principle of varietas consistently frustrates any attempt to impose a definitive reading on these groupings. At the conclusion of this essay, I will give an example of how this sort of reading by century might inform an analysis of an individual theme or proverb. Each entry might, as Erasmus claims in his Prolegomena, “stand by itself,” or lead to a “new beginning,”8 but the context provided by century or page layout can sometimes add to our understanding of an adage and reduce this singularity or isolation. One of the most important innovations of the 1508 edition was the introduction of two indexes. An alphabetical index gave readers a fast and easy method for locating an adage by title, and a thematic index, organized into carefully arranged commonplace headings, allowed readers to identify proverbs related to a given topic.9 These topics, or loci, are not listed alphabetically, but by links of juxtaposition and affinity. For example, the heading Gratitude is listed alongside Ingratitude. In general, these themes reflect the interest of early modern writers in culling fragments from their reading and re-organizing them into moral categories. The headings and their contents offer a way to read the Adagia along a loosely set path, jumping rapidly across the thousands of entries, since under a given heading proverbs appear neither alphabetically nor in numerical order. Reading the Adagia thematically, using the index, can lead to fascinating insights on the potential meanings of a given ethical term in the

7 For the sixteenth-century publication history of these texts outside of the macrostructure of the Chiliades, see Ferdinand van der Haeghen, Bibliotheca Erasmiana. Bibliographie des œuvres d’Érasme. Adagia (Ghent: C. Vyt, 1897) 447–562. 8 cwe 31: 19. In this passage Erasmus is referring to the use of proverbs in speech or writing, warning writers not to cite them too frequently lest discourse become too disconnected, but we can also apply his statement to the grouping of proverbs within the Chilades. 9 The most complete analysis of the thematic index can be found in Alexandre Vanautgaerden’s essay, “L’index thématique des ‘Adages’ d’Érasme” in Les Instruments de travail à la Renaissance (Turnhout: Brepols, 2009) 241–280. Erasmus discusses the indexes in a brief note accompanying the 1528 edition of the Chiliades. Scholars can find this note translated into English in cwe 30: 369–371.

106

kilpatrick

early modern period or even on Erasmus’ theory and practice of the adage.10 The paratextual framing of the Chiliades in sixteenth-century editions also favors this sort of reading, since both indexes appear before the theoretical Prolegomena or the prefatory epistle to Mountjoy, which functions as a companion piece to the more treatise-like preface. One early modern editor would use Erasmus’ index to completely reorder the Chiliades, grouping proverbs by thematic heading within the text.11 Such a reorganization may have imposed order on the proverbial wilderness of the Adagia and facilitated a certain use of the Chiliades, but in so doing lost some of the surprise discoveries favored by the early sixteenth-century texts, where a reader may have been more likely to wander down an unexpected path or start out in a new direction. Closer to the present, the critical edition of the Chiliades for the asd represents a major achievement of modern collective scholarship.12 The entire Collectanea and Chiliades are available in a magnificent multi-volume edition complete with an abundant critical apparatus including thousands of references to classical sources, modern criticism, and other Erasmian texts. The critical edition also includes variants and allows readers to see through a convenient system of bracketed letters how the Chilades expanded both in the number of adages and in the length of entries from 1508 until Froben’s 1536 Basel edition, the last published during Erasmus’ lifetime. This edition facilitates an archeological reading by chronological layers. Erasmus’ text has also benefited from the growth of the digital humanities, since scholars can now access the complete text of the asd, including modern indexes, introductions, and notes, online.13 Readers can quickly navigate

10

11 12

13

William Barker examines the importance of the thematic index in “Implied Ethics in the Adagia of Erasmus: An Index of Felicitas,”Renaissance and Reformation 30.1 (2006) 87–102. Barker also engages in a reading of the concept of Felicitas (Happiness) in the Chiliades using the proverbs under that heading as a guide. Alexandre Vanautgaerden offers perhaps the most rigorous modern reading of a thematic heading and its contents in “L’index thématique des ‘Adages’ d’Erasme.” The scholar discerns a certain “ordre moral” under the heading, Divitiae (Riches), arguing that there is an intentionality behind the ordering of adages guided by “opposition, affinity, and contrast” (251–256). Erasmi Roterodami Adagiorum chiliades juxta locos communes digestae (Aureliae Allobrogum [Geneva]: sumptibus Caldorianae Societatis, 1606). Erasmus’ Opera Omnia are divided into nine ordines, of which the Collectanea (9) and the Chiliades (1–8) occupy all nine volumes of the second ordo published by Brill between 1981 and 2009. A web archive of the website is available through the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20210105062227/http://jvpoll.home.xs4all.nl/back/Web/era smusa.htm. Although it is now seven years old, scholars can still benefit from Jan Bloemen-

proverbial wisdom: the adagiorum chiliades

107

thousands of adages and notes through a convenient system of internal links. One minor disadvantage of the asd editions, both in print and online, is that they do not include Erasmus’ commonplace index, so there is no easy way to identify under which commonplace heading the author placed a given proverb. In reproducing the paratextual apparatus of the Adagia, the asd focuses on the Prolegomena first published with the 1508 edition, and on the various dedicatory epistles Erasmus wrote to accompany new editions. This gap has been filled, however, by another prominent accomplishment of modern scholarship. Volume 30 of the cwe lists all of Erasmus’ 278 commonplace headings and their contents.14 Moreover, readers can easily identify the thematic container for an adage through a cross reference in the English index of proverbs.15 Finally, a new digital humanities project organized through the ihrim research consortium has produced a publicly-accessible online version of the adages that foregrounds the thematic index in a way no print edition could.16 With a simple click, users can move instantly from the thematic index to a proverb under a certain heading. And if a reader wishes to move horizontally through the adages using a system of back and forward arrows, each new proverb is accompanied by its locus, meaning that it is now possible to move not just from index to adage, as in Erasmus’ lifetime, but from adage to index. Modern scholars can quickly identify clusters of proverbs belonging to the same heading, or adages brought into tension through the juxtaposition of antithetical headings. As has been noted, however, there was nothing rigid or programmatic about Erasmus’ organization of proverbs into thematic indexes. The indices thus not only facilitated information retrieval, but also offered a model for how adages could be (re)organized according to a new conceptual framework. Indeed, Erasmus takes care to point out that he completed his own organization of the material hastily and suggests that readers should view his index as a model rather than a definitive classification. In other words, he promotes an organizational method rather than a fixed organization.17 It offers an example of

14 15 16

17

dal’s, “Erasmus Online,” which provides descriptions and links for several useful digital resources. Erasmus Studies 34.1 (2014) 65–66; 42.2 (2022) 161–163. cwe 30: 568–621. cwe 30: 635–766. http://ihrim.huma‑num.fr/nmh/Erasmus/index.html. The project, still underway, is currently led by Paul Gaillardon within the Groupe Renaissance Âge Classique (grac) working group (https://grac.hypotheses.org/?RH=1464270711526&RF=1464270711526). cwe 30: 371: “The second index, the order of whose headings reflects some connection of meaning from one to another, was put together by us very hastily some time ago in Venice. We have left it as it is, apart from adding many items that had been omitted. More headings could have been added and there are many adages that would fit several headings; for

108

kilpatrick

how writers might go about forming a new storehouse of examples and sayings, adapting their work to new purposes. One of Erasmus’ obsessions in the Adagia is the principle of timing, or Kairos.18 For Erasmus, kairos can be understood in not just an ethical sense of choosing the right moment to act, but also in a rhetorical sense of seizing a textual occasion to deploy an adage. Or to combine these two impulses, we might think of kairos within the context of the Chiliades as the practice of choosing the right time to apply an adage. From a rhetorical standpoint, if a proverb is not used at the right time (or textually, in the right place), it loses its luster and risks exposing the person who uses it to ridicule. I propose here a brief reading of one thematic heading in the adages related to timing, Intempestiva et inepta (Untimely and useless actions), which is associated in the index through antithesis with Tempestiva (Timely actions) and Servire tempori (To serve time). My reading will follow a diagonal route across the twenty-five adages listed under Intempestiva et inepta. Some proverbs have retained my attention more than others, and at times I embark on detours inspired by small clusters of related adages along my path or intertextual wormholes suggested by the alliance between humanist erudition, modern scholarship, and new digital resources. My objective will not be to settle on a fixed definition of the concepts of Intempestiva et inepta for Erasmus, but to explore what this selection can tell us about the Chiliades as a work and to test out different ways of navigating them. The first adage to appear under the Intempestiva heading, if we consider the 1508 edition that introduced the index, is To paint a cypress (adage 419). This proverb reflects Erasmus’ ongoing concern with the principle of accommodation, or the ability to fit speech and action to circumstances. He explains in the commentary that the saying derives from the story of a Greek painter who only knew how to paint cypress trees. When asked to paint the portrait of a sailor amidst a shipwreck, the painter asked if he should paint anything besides a cypress tree. This became a joke, Erasmus tells us, that can be used

18

example, Dolium pertusum (‘A leaky tub’) can refer to an avaricious man or to a spendthrift or to a forgetful one, but the index would have grown to an immense size.” In his treatise on style and rhetorical abundance, De Copia, Erasmus encourages readers to develop their own personalized thematic indexes (cwe 24: 635–636). On the concept of Kairos in early modern artistic representations, see Simona Cohen’s chapter “Kairos/Occasio—Vicissitudes of Propitious Time from Antiquity to the Renaissance” in her book, Transformations of Time and Temporality in Renaissance Art (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 199–243. On the literary tradition of Kairos from antiquity to the sixteenth century, see Eric MacPhail’s The Sophistic Renaissance (Geneva: Droz, 2011). MacPhail discusses the genre of the proverb in particular in pages 105–118.

proverbial wisdom: the adagiorum chiliades

109

appropriately for anyone who forces what they have learned into inappropriate contexts: “It can aptly be used to describe people who are always obtruding what they have learnt at inopportune moments, and when it has no bearing on anything.”19 The reader hoping to glean stylistic flourishes from the Adagia might view this as a cautionary piece of advice, since Erasmus warns in the Prolegomena about the risks of using proverbs in an untimely or inappropriate manner: “Then we must not insert them just where we like; there are some places where it would be ridiculous to put jewels, and it is equally absurd to apply an adage in the wrong place.”20 An adage must be used at the right place and time lest its author be subject to ridicule. The task Erasmus sets out for himself as paroemiographer is to provide the contextual information needed for a timely use of proverbs, but he also gives us examples of how to use adages appropriately in new contexts. This focus on accommodation reveals an important tension within Erasmus’ theorization of the adage. On the one hand, he argues in the Prolegomena that proverbs contain relics or sparks of ancient philosophy, suggesting that they encapsulate fundamental truths. On the other hand, proverbs sometimes contradict each other or can be applied in ways that obscure any single ethical message or rhetorical usage. Take, for example, As versatile as a buskin (adage 94), whose commentary begins in typical fashion with an explanation of its meaning and original historical context: Εὐμεταβολώτερος κοθόρνου, As versatile as a buskin. This was used of a fickle and unreliable man, belonging to a doubtful and wavering party, by a metaphor which comes from the shoe called kothornos in Greek and cothurnus (one letter being changed) in Latin; a footgear usually adopted by the actors in tragedy. It was ‘square and suitable to either foot,’ so that it could be worn on the right or on the left.21 Based on this initial context, the adage would properly describe inconstancy, and thus carry a negative connotation. Yet Erasmus abruptly changes course at the end of his commentary, telling the reader that the proverb also has positive applications when describing someone who shows admirable versatility: There is no reason, however, why we should not use the proverb in a good sense; one might call a man a cothurnus because he had easy ways, a 19 20 21

cwe 31: 400. cwe 31: 19. cwe 31: 136.

110

kilpatrick

certain mobility of intellect, and a capacity for getting on with all kinds of people. For this reason Homer calls Ulysses a ‘man of many turnings’ because he could play any part to perfection—the general, the beggar, the head of the house.22 Ulysses’ great attribute is not any fixed quality, but rather the ability to appropriately (apte) adapt himself to different roles depending on the circumstances. Similarly, As versatile as a buskin itself can fit various, or even opposite, situations; we could rightly call adage 94 a buskin. While it would be an exaggeration to call every proverb in the Adagia an empty and infinitely adaptable container, many examples from the collection suggest their productive instability. Two adages under the Intempestiva et inepta heading deal specifically with the concept of reversibility based on bad timing, Goodwill untimely differs not from hate (adage 669) and the enigmatically titled Malum est bonum (adage 3202).23 Erasmus tells us that both designate things, actions, or words that can be good or harmful based on whether or not they occur at the right time. Thus, inopportune praise can become blame and wrongly timed gifts can lead to poverty. Intempestiva benevolentia forms a pair with the next entry in the Chiliades, Consider the Due Time (adage 670), which belongs to the thematic heading of Tempestiva (Timely things), itself placed in oppositional proximity to the Intempestiva et inepta in Erasmus’ commonplace index. Consider the Due Time stands out through its use of the imperative mood (the Latin title is Nosce tempus), which lends it the ethical tone of a precept.24 Erasmus explains why timeliness is such an urgent imperative in his commentary to Consider the Due Time: “Such is the force of Opportunitas, of Timeliness, that it can turn what is honourable into dishonour, loss into gain, happiness into misery, kindness into unkindness, and the reverse; it can, in short, change the nature of everything.”25 Applied to the use of proverbs, this principle of reversibility suggests that their power might reside less in their intrinsic meaning than in their timely deployment. More radically, the use of a saying at the right (or wrong) time might transform an adage into its opposite. In 1533, Erasmus inserted four new entries at the top of the list of proverbs belonging to Intempestiva et inepta. Two of these are proverbs embedded in

22 23 24 25

cwe 31: 137. The English title is A blessing can be a bane. I’ve listed the Latin here because it contains an oxymoronic tension that the translation loses. Some other notable examples in the Collectanea are Adapt the outlook of a Polyp (adage 93), Know thyself (adage 595), and Make haste slowly (adage 1001). cwe 32: 109.

proverbial wisdom: the adagiorum chiliades

111

commentary to other adages, while two will form the basis for the next part of my reading. The third entry, Ibycus’ Horse (adage 3659), is interesting for an ironic reference to Erasmus’ work as a paroemiographer and because its commentary puts into practice a central component of Erasmus’ theory of the proverb. It occupies a strategic place in the text right after the dedicatory epistle inserted in the 1533 Chiliades.26 This position should draw our attention, since the proverb concerns an old man compelled to continue doing something even though his time has passed. By the date of the epistle, October 1, 1532, Erasmus was nearly sixty-three years old and had been working on his adages for over three decades.27 Moreover, Erasmus and his editors found it fitting to interrupt the seventh century of the fourth millennium to set the letter between adages 3658 and 3659. In the general preface of the 1533 Chiliades addressed “To All Men of Letters,” Erasmus uses several well-placed proverbs to express his desire to “take a holiday” from the business of proverbs, telling the reader he only chose to work on this new edition out of a selfless devotion to scholarship and a bond of loyalty towards his printer, Hieronymus Froben.28 Significantly for the adage we are interested in and for our theme of intempestiva, Erasmus writes that it is indecorous of him to pursue the collection and glossing of proverbs, saying that he wishes to cease because “my age and mind, surely no longer the same, recoiling from this kind of literature, are carried away towards things in which it is not unbecoming or useless to spend one’s time.”29 The reference to an “age and mind” that are past their prime alludes to the beginning of Horace’s first epistle, where the Roman author cites his advancing age to justify his decision to devote himself to philosophy, renouncing his earlier interest in lyric poetry, more fitting for a younger man. The commentary to Ibycus’ Horse develops in seemingly conventional fashion as Erasmus begins by explaining its general meaning: “This seems to have become a humorous proverb, said of those who were forced unwillingly into a dangerous enterprise that was beyond their age and strength to endure.”30 Misunderstanding somewhat the source material, he gives the origin of the saying (Plato’s Parmenides) and recounts with considerable embellishment an anecdote drawn from that text. He invents, for example, a description of a crowd

26 27 28 29 30

Ep. 2726 to Charles Blount in cwe 36: 317–319 and asd ii-8: 100–102. If we assume a birthdate of October 28, 1469 and remember the editio princeps of the Collectanea in 1500. Ep. 2773 in cwe 19: 272–277. Ep. 2773 cwe lines 12–15. cwe 36: 319.

112

kilpatrick

laughing as the poet Ibycus creates the comparison that gives rise, according to Erasmus, to the proverb: “When the populace laughed at this [the old horse showing fear at the prospect of racing] Ibycus stood up and said, ‘The horse is like his master. For I am old and yet still suffer the compulsion of falling in love’.”31 What is interesting here is how the expression gleaned from Plato becomes an adage, not through an attested ancient circulation as a proverb— the only source listed outside of Plato is a vague allusion in Horace’s Epistles— but through a misunderstood citation, an imagined classical context, and the prestige of the Chiliades. Ibycus’ Horse is a proverb because it has the air of a proverb and Erasmus includes it in his collection. The author gives a highly expansive definition of the proverb in the Prolegomena: “A proverb is a saying in popular use, remarkable for some shrewd and novel turn.”32 Parmenides’ usage supplies the “shrewd and novel turn,” since he compares himself to Ibycus’ horse. As for the criterion of popular use, it is furnished to a great extent by the circulation of the Chiliades rather than a strongly attested status as a proverb in antiquity. It is thus an example of what Jean Céard so elegantly remarked: “The Adages are of course a collection of proverbs; but they are also a generator of proverbs.”33 Erasmus furnishes the most proverbial usage of Ibycus’ Horse within the commentary itself and in reference to his own work as paroemiographer: “Perhaps someone will think that I am not unlike the horse of Ibycus while I am being turned on this treadmill of adages.”34 This is an allusion to Erasmus’ somewhat facetious claim in The Labours of Hercules (adage 2001) that his task in the Chiliades is so daunting and unrewarding that he feels as though he is strapped to a treadmill (alligatus pistrino). As the notes to the asd edition of the Adagia helpfully point out, the humanists sometimes used the Latin word pistrinum to refer to the printer’s workshop.35 In The Labours of Hercules Erasmus is therefore making a claim that operates on at least three levels. We might read it as a literal reference to an arduous task, as an allusion to a story about Plautus in Aulus Gellius, or as a wry comment on the endless work of preparing new editions of the Chiliades. Aside from its status as one of Erasmus’ signature adage/commentaries, The Labours of Hercules stands as one of the proverbs whose commentary contains the most direct citations of and allusions to other adages in the collection. And even if Erasmus does not list Alligatus pistrino

31 32 33 34 35

cwe 36: 320. cwe 31: 4. “Le proverbe selon Érasme,” Seizième Siècle 1 (2005) 17–20. My translation of the French. cwe 36: 320. See asd ii-5: 30, note to line 202.

proverbial wisdom: the adagiorum chiliades

113

as an adage, it certainly possesses the ancient pedigree and charm to make it worthy of that title. When, many years later, he cites the image again in Ibycus’ Horse, Erasmus may be counting on readers to recognize the allusion to his famous adage-essay. He has thus packed a double proverbial allusion into a brief bit of self-deprecating humor that also illustrates how an author can efficiently transfer ancient sayings into new discursive contexts. The author uses his commentary on a proverb exemplifying untimeliness to insert an adage at the perfect time (when he was an old man reluctant to keep working on the Chiliades) and place (right after a dedicatory epistle for the new edition). Along with numerous other examples in the Chiliades, this little autobiographical insertion shows that Erasmus’ collection didn’t just gather and elucidate ancient proverbs, but that it sought to revitalize them through that very process of transferral and explication. Their energy relies, in fact, on their continued relevance to new circumstances, not just their illustrious past, as Erasmus points out in his commentary to The Labours of Hercules: The things dealt with here are all of the sort that get their shine from daily use, not craftsmanship, and do not reveal their innate power to please until they are displayed in context like jewels in their proper setting. Separately they lose interest, and give the impression of being small and unimportant.36 Erasmus makes the case here for the primacy of practice over theory, of usage over the toils of paroemiography, even suggesting that the adages in the Chiliades are cold and lifeless until they are inserted into a new context. Yet Eric MacPhail has argued convincingly that Erasmus’ abundant use of proverbial language to theorize and comment on proverbs within the Chiliades, whether in the Prolegomena or in commentaries such as the one accompanying The Labours of Hercules, undermines somewhat the author’s separation of theory and practice.37 Growing from a short entry in the Collectanea into one of the longest commentaries in the entire collection, The Labours of Hercules offers a powerful example of this sort of textual generation. On a smaller but nevertheless instructive scale, Ibycus’ Horse shows how proverbial commentary itself can create new contexts for proverbs.

36 37

cwe 34: 174. Dancing around the Well 26: “It may therefore be necessary to reverse the metaphor of the textual setting. The author does not set an adage in a text so much as the adage generates the text around it by evoking further adages.”

114

kilpatrick

The curious readers may notice, once they finish reading the commentary to Ibycus’ horse, that the succeeding proverb, Serious things are for the morrow (adage 3660), also expresses a joke about untimeliness, and in fact Erasmus lists it under the Intempestiva et inepta heading. We learn from the commentary to Serious things are for the morrow, first introduced in the 1523 edition, that the adage traces its origins to an ironic joke about timing drawn from Plutarch’s Life of Pelopidas.38 During a night of revelry the Spartan Archias, “a rich and powerful man, but not a sober one,”39 refuses to open a letter detailing a plot against him because he does not want to spoil the festive mood of a banquet. To justify his refusal, he says, “Serious things are tomorrow’s concern,”40 which subsequently became a proverbial joke among the Greeks. Elsewhere an early modern author would explore the ethical dimensions of Archias’ response, but Erasmus seems more interested in its rhetorical potential.41 Uncharacteristically, Erasmus chooses not to explain the adage’s meaning within the commentary, opting instead to let the example speak for itself. In fact, he omits key details from the Life of Pelopidas that would have made the proverb’s meaning clearer, such as the contents of the letter Archias received or the fact he was later killed by the conspirators. A 1533 addition to the commentary applies the proverb to a contemporary context and provides a fuller picture of how and when the proverb might be used. When I was a young man in Holland I heard a story that is not irrelevant to this adage. A certain person at a party was reclining too near the fire, the result being that the bottom of his clothing was being burned. One of the guests noticed this and said, ‘I have something to tell you.’ Then the other said, ‘If it is something sad, I don’t want to hear it at a party where everything should be happy and gay.’ ‘It’s not at all something happy.’ Then the other said, ‘Serious things are for after dinner.’ When they had dined in festive spirit, he said, ‘Now tell me whatever you want.’ The other pointed out to him that the back of his clothing was extensively burned. Thereupon the fellow became angry because he had not been told of this at the time. ‘I wished to do so,’ the other said, ‘but you told me not to: Μετὰ δεῖπνον σπουδαῖα.’42 38 39 40 41 42

Chapter 10, section 4. cwe 36: 321. cwe 36: 321. See the chapter, “A demain les affaires” in Michel de Montaigne’s Essais (Book ii, chapter 4), published between 1580 and 1595. cwe 36: 321.

proverbial wisdom: the adagiorum chiliades

115

Warned by a conscientious dinner guest, the man whose coat caught on fire, like Archias, dismisses the admonition by saying that it is out of place at a banquet and forging a little proverb that recalls the Spartan’s saying. He exemplifies the flaw of untimeliness by using a saying about foolish delay to justify his own negligence. The other guest, however, pulls off a timely piece of learned wit, not only turning the proverb against the more rash guest at just the right time, but doing so in an ancient Greek that connects textually to the source material.43 He may not have saved his fellow guest’s coat, but he did weaponize a proverb for a laugh. Erasmus’ commentary playfully illustrates how timeliness governs the appropriate and elegant use of adages, and also how an old saying can apply to the present while preserving a link to its ancient origins. Our last stop on our stroll through proverbs designating untimely and useless actions leads us to the fourth century of the first thousand proverbs. In entry 343, To Transplant an Aged Tree, Erasmus tells the reader at the beginning of his commentary that the adage describes anyone who tries to change old habits or simply undertakes something in vain. Γεράνδρυον μεταφυτεύειν, To transplant an aged tree, is said about people who at a late time of life, already past their prime, try to unlearn the customs they have been long used to as young men. Or it may be simply applied to those things which we attempt in vain. A tree must not be moved from its place when the roots have already struck deep, but while it is still a small plant.44 References to Pliny and Greek mythology explain the origins of the proverb, which until the last edition published in Erasmus’ lifetime seems to fit neatly within its commonplace slot, evoking proverbs like Ibycus’ Horse that describe actions that happen years too late, and for this reason are indecorous.45 A broader reading of this century of the Chiliades confirms the ethical message of To Transplant an Aged Tree. Indeed, a long chain of proverbs running from 342 to 400 belong to the thematic headings for “Pointless Action” (Inanis opera) or related topics. In commentary to the adage that initiates this sequence, To unravel Penelope’s web (adage 342), Erasmus uses a citation from Cicero to attack dialectic, “which by the same reasoning which has been used

43 44 45

Earlier in the commentary, Erasmus gives the original Greek for Archias’ words, setting up the use of ancient Greek by the early modern dinner guest. cwe 31: 353. Another adage under the Untimely and Useless Actions heading related to this theme is Seek no more for the rose that’s overblown (adage 1540).

116

kilpatrick

to make an assertion subsequently weakens and destroys it, so that nothing seems to have been settled.”46 This in turn reminds us of adages like As Versatile as a Buskin, which both attacks and defends changeableness. On a macrotextual level, the Chiliades contain thousands of examples and ethical lessons that could potentially be used on both sides of an argument. This century of proverbs’ formal structure suggests this tension with a touch of humor, since before the long string of adages on uselessness, particularly the futility of great effort, we find a thematically-linked cluster evoking extreme diligence and persistence.47 In glossing To transplant an aged tree, Erasmus gives horticultural, etymological, and mythical origins for the expression, explaining that it is most closely related to oak trees because of their extremely deep roots and that for this reason the sacred woods of Dodona in ancient Greece were made up of oaks: “For this reason it was sacred to Jove, and the wood of Dodona (sylua Dodonaea) was an oak wood, from which the first of all the oracles (prima omnium oracula) are believed to have proceeded.”48 This mention of Dodona recalls both the abundant metaphors of proverbs as oracles in the Prolegomena and Erasmus’ own description of the Chiliades as an uncultivated wood (rudis sylva).49 If we were to apply this proverb to the art of paroemiography, it would seem the immense effort of transferring ancient gems of wisdom to modern contexts might prove untimely and futile. After all, using proverbs depends on an author’s ability to uproot a micro text whose roots run deep and transfer it to new terrain. For the 1536 version of the Chiliades, however, Erasmus adds a quote from Seneca that gives an entirely new dimension to the adage: Seneca made elegant use of this proverb in his book of Letters, Letter 86: ‘If what I am saying shall seem to you too pessimistic, charge it up against the country-house where I have learned a lesson from Aegialus, a most careful householder and now the owner of this estate; he taught me that a tree can be transplanted, no matter how far gone in years. We old men must learn this precept; for there is none of us who is not planting an olive-grove for his successor.’50

46 47 48 49 50

cwe 31: 352–353. For a discussion of the importance of this image in various classical and humanist texts, including adage 342, see Dancing around the Well 88–89. The proverb With hands and feet (adage 315) opens the grouping, which runs with some interruptions until adage 331, To move every rope. cwe 31: 353; asd ii-1: 444. asd ii-5: 28. cwe 31: 353–354.

proverbial wisdom: the adagiorum chiliades

117

Erasmus adds no further commentary, leaving as his only judgment that Seneca made “elegant use” of the adage. That elegance derives from the surprising twist the Roman author gives to the saying—in the Moral Epistles it directly contradicts the idea of futility—and, once again, from Seneca’s timely use of it. An adage about transplanting an old tree was especially appropriate to a text written by an old man, and Seneca’s development of the proverbial allusion suggests a process of transmission that evokes, albeit in a new and different context, the old paroemiographer’s work. While Erasmus does not identify it as such, Oliuetum alteri ponere (“To plant an olive grove for others”) could easily qualify as a proverb within the pages of the Chiliades, a book that borrows extensively from the Moral Epistles and other writings by Seneca. Finally, Erasmus’ 1536 addition, late in life but not untimely, completes a neat triptych with To unravel Penelope’s web and the adage that precedes it, You are reaping another’s harvest (adage 341). The latter, Erasmus tells us, “fits equally well when applied to people who take over advantages gained by the labour of others, and to those who are not diligent enough about their own affairs.” Thus proverbs on either side of To unravel Penelope’s web, but only from 1536 on, can be seen to undo each other. But Seneca’s citation of To transplant an aged tree is not arbitrary or unmoored from any sort of foundation. It is rooted in and stems from a cultural tradition, learned or popular, that Erasmus (re)constitutes within the pages of his collection.51 The proverbs we have surveyed work because those who use them knowingly reference that tradition and carefully “Consider the due time.” This is not to say that the Chiliades is nothing but an exercise in futility or a handbook on sophistry. Some entries become points of departure for essays that are central to Erasmus’ thought. Moreover, the author does not abandon the claim, however ambivalent, that the proverbs contain ancient relics of true wisdom. As William Barker has so astutely observed, though, most truths that emerge from Erasmus’ collection are provisional and subject to reversal in another discursive context, including the commentaries themselves.52 Adopting any one of the routes opened up by sixteenth-century paratext or twenty-first-century digital resources, readers can forge their own paths

51

52

On the potential of adages to test the limits of their own meaning through the proliferation of examples and commentary, see Thomas Greene, “Erasmus’ ‘Festina lente’: Vulnerability of the Humanist Text” in The Vulnerable Text: Essays on Renaissance Literature (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986) 1–17. Barker, “Implied Ethics in the Adagia” 93: “Truth in the Adagia is plural, shifting, a chameleon figure that suddenly emerges out of obscurity, and then just as suddenly disappears.”

118

kilpatrick

through the Chiliades, discovering new connections and responding to Erasmus’ call, expressed with somewhat of a wink towards the end of The Labours of Hercules: “Last but not least, since the work knows no limits and aims at being generally useful, is there any reason why we should not share the labour and by our joint efforts finish it?”53 53

cwe 34: 180. Most recently, Willis Goth Regier has undertaken a list of adages Erasmus used in his writing but did not include in the Chiliades: “Erasmus’ uncollected adages,” Erasmus Studies 41.1 (2021) 62–79.

chapter 7

The Correspondence of Erasmus Christine Bénévent

An eminent scholar who published in many different fields, Erasmus was also a tireless letter writer. His surviving correspondence numbers almost 3,200 letters, the great majority of which were published between 1906 and 1947 in 11 volumes (vol. 12, Index, appeared in 1958) by Percy Stafford Allen (1869–1933) and his wife Helen Mary (1872–1953). The Editorial Board of the new Opera omnia of Erasmus (asd), instead of creating a new edition of the letters, has accepted the Allens’ work as a substitute for what would have been its series iii (Epistolae). The English translation of Allen has been completed in the first 21 volumes of the Collected Works of Erasmus (cwe) while volume 22, in preparation, will include the indexes. Allen has also been translated into French, 12 vols. (Brussels: University Press, 1967–1984) and into Dutch, 21 vols. (Rotterdam: Ad. Donker, 2004–2020). This immense body of work, however, includes only a small number of the letters exchanged between Erasmus and his correspondents. He remarked several times that he either wrote or received some 20 letters every day, adding that he devoted half his time to them. As well, that pace doubtless accelerated during the time of the book fairs that marked a seasonal increase in the correspondence of many humanist writers. Taking that into account, one might readily compare Erasmus’ original volume of correspondence to that of Voltaire: some 20,000 letters. The fact that so many letters were lost makes one wonder how such a great lot of them managed to survive. Nearly 1,500 were published by Erasmus himself in his lifetime, 1,200 of these in the collections that he personally oversaw, while most of the others appear in connection with his other works as paratexts. A still smaller number became public unbeknownst to him.1 After Erasmus’ death in 1536, but still in the sixteenth century, 125 additional letters appeared in print: 14 in the Epistolae universae published in the posthumous Opera omnia (Basel, 1538); 36 more in the Bellaria of Ambrosius Pelargus

1 For a typology based on the criteria of each publication, see Appendix 2. I am grateful to James K. Farge for his translation of my French into English. The intervening years between my composition and his translation have made possible his updating of several matters treated here.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_009

120

bénévent

(Cologne, 1539); 19 in the Viuis opera (Basel, 1555); and 11 in Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda’s Epistolarum Lib. 7 (Salamanca, 1557). The seventeenth century gave us a total of 76 previously unknown letters in the Vita Erasmi (Leiden, 1607), with an additional four in the supplement to it that appeared in 1610. The Pirckheimeri opera (Frankfurt, 1610) brought to light 37 previously unknown letters. They became better known in its 1642 London edition that was issued under the title Epistolarum D. Erasmi Roterodami libri xxxi.2 In the eighteenth century, volume iii of Jean Leclerc’s celebrated ten-volume Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opera omnia (lb) did not include an exhaustive duplication of previously published letters, but it gave us nearly 400 additional unknown letters.3 Added to them, in 1779, were 93 new letters in the Epistolae familiares Des. Erasmi Roterodami ad Bonif. Amerbachium. The nineteenth century saw the publication of 175 additional letters: about 60 in Adalbert Horawitz’s 1866 edition of the letters that Erasmus exchanged with Beatus Rhenanus, 36 in the Hungarian edition of the correspondence of Nicolaus Olahus (1875), with the rest appearing in a scattered but timely fashion. Finally, in the twentieth century and just prior to Allen’s magisterial undertaking, we must pay its deserved tribute to the publication of the two-volume Briefe an Des. Erasmus (1904, 1906), the work of several German scholars, which added 325 previously unknown letters addressed to Erasmus. The Allens undertook the immense task of gathering into one edition all those scattered editions mentioned above, many of them of limited diffusion. Moreover, they searched throughout Europe for letters not yet known, and many librarians and private persons called their attention to letters in their collections. They therefore added to the correspondence more than 320 previously unknown letters, 140 of them written by Erasmus himself. As a result, we can now read the voluminous correspondence that Erasmus exchanged with his Antwerp banker Erasmus Schets; and, among letters addressed to Erasmus, we can add the names of such important correspondents as Bonifacius Amerbach, Conradus Goclenius, and Bernhard von Cles. Allen added to his originally numbered Epistles 1 to 3141 an additional 23 letters discovered in the course of his later research, publishing them at the front of several later volumes, attaching a superscript ‘a’ to the number of the letter nearest in date to it. The cwe has the added advantage of printing those additions in their proper chronolog-

2 Among the additions to this expanded version were correspondence with Philipp Melanchthon, Thomas More, and Juan Luis Vives. See also Allen i: 602. 3 The letters omitted in lb are marked with an asterisk in the Allen edition. The total count of letters in the different publications mentioned here sometimes differs from the one cited by Allen.

the correspondence of erasmus

121

ical order, placing a suffix ‘a’ after Allen’s number but also adding considerably more of them to accommodate letters that had been discovered after the edition of the Allens was completed or to letters that its editors redated.4 Certain salient features become evident in this massive scholarly work of the Allens. While nearly 1,300 of the 1,500 letters published while Erasmus was living belong to his active correspondence, another 700 would be published after he died. Conversely, in addition to the 200 letters written by his correspondents that Erasmus had seen fit to publish, we now have another thousand or so that came to light after his death. Because Erasmus’ three most prolific correspondents—Bonifacius Amerbach (157 letters), Erasmus Schets (82), and Willibald Pirckheimer (55)—hardly appear at all in Erasmus’ lifetime editions,5 Allen’s comprehensive presentation of the letters gives us a completely different picture of their statistical profile because he regards each letter as an historical document, not simply as a literary type, as many letters had been treated in Erasmus’ publication of them. Allen’s intention, despite employing the title Opus epistolarum—the title that Erasmus used for his 1529 epistolary collection—was to produce a volume of all the correspondence in strictly chronological order. To accomplish his purpose, he gathered texts of different kinds, not only letters obviously intended for publication, such as prefaces or letters published in a collection, and others that had been rediscovered centuries later, but also excerpts from various works that were in epistolary form, namely letters that, even though addressed to an identifiable correspondent, are in fact models that Erasmus used in his theoretical treatise on the art of letter writing, the De conscribendis epistolis.6 Allen’s combining a range of different epistolary styles in chronological order may bother some modern readers who might see a letter written to a friend as exclusively an intimate writing; but this was not necessarily the case in the Renaissance, and Erasmus himself sometimes did the same thing.

4 See Michel Magnien, “Supplementunculum Allenianum: le début de l’ep. 2021 retrouvé” and Christine Bénévent, “Supplementa Alleniana: tentative de bilan et perspectives” in Erasmus and the Renaissance Republic of Letters, ed. Stephen Ryle (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014) 11–50. 5 Erasmus had not published a single one of the 82 letters exchanged with his banker Schets. As for Amerbach, only one of the 60 that Erasmus had sent and one of the 97 that he had received were published in Erasmus’ lifetime. For Pirckheimer, Erasmus had published (in 1516, 1519, and 1520) three letters of the 15 that he had written and six of the 40 that he had received. One prefatory letter and three other letters that he had exchanged with Pirckheimer did appear in his Opus epistolarum (1529). It should be noted, however, that some of the letters exchanged with Amerbach, Schets, and Pirckheimer contained information of a private nature that, in prudence, he wanted to remain private. 6 On the Writing of Letters in cwe 25: 1–254.

122

bénévent

Another example: in both versions of the Catalogus lucubrationum (1523/24 and 1530), he gives precise instructions for the posthumous publication of his Opera omnia in which he expressly combines prefaces with the more recognizable epistles. Allen observes some of Erasmus’ instructions but does not follow all of them. For example, he has not included poems in his edition, as Erasmus had intended. Nor does he include the Detectio praestigiarum, the text of which, apart from a few variants, is integrally set in Erasmus’ 1529 Opus Epistolarum.7 Allen’s criteria can also be questioned in light of Erasmus’ theoretical discourses on letter writing, not only in the prefaces to his own collections of letters, in his editions of the Epistolae of Jerome and Augustine, and in his De copia or in the Ciceronianus, but also, and especially, in the De conscribendis epistolis. Specialists in the field of Renaissance epistolary theory attribute special importance to this Erasmian treatise both because it manages a difficult synthesis of the ancient and medieval conceptions of letter writing8 and because of its great success, as shown by its numerous editions and multiple compiled or abridged versions of each edition. Erasmus’De conscribendis epistolis (Basel: Johann Froben, 1522, 1524) already had a long publication history prior to the authorized Basel editions, as at least three distinct unauthorized renditions of it—or parts of it—had already appeared. The celebrated Syntaxis of Johannes Despauterius (1509) includes a section on letter writing (Epistolae componendae ratio) that includes lengthy citations of previously unpublished excerpts of Erasmus.9 Some ten years later, a thin booklet attributed to Erasmus, the Breuissima maximeque compendiaria conficiendarum epistolarum formula, comprising two quires in-octavo, opened with a letter ostensibly of Erasmus to a certain Petrus Paludanus, who has never been identified, and was reprinted by several different printers.10 Then, 7

8 9 10

Detectio praestigiarum cuiusdam libelli germanice scripti, ficto autoris titulo, cum hac inscriptione Erasmi & Lutheri opiniones de coena domini in asd ix-1: 210–262. Updated versions of both catalogues were published together by Bonifacius Amerbach after Erasmus’ death; see introduction to Ep. 3141 in cwe 21: 570. Pedro Martín Baños, El Arte epistolar en el Renacimiento europeo, 1400–1600 (Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto, 2005). See Judith Rice Henderson, “Despauterius’ Syntaxis (1509): The Earliest Publication of Erasmus’s De conscribendis epistolis,” Humanistica Lovaniensia 37 (1988) 175–210. See especially Alain Jolidon, “Histoire d’un opuscule d’Érasme: la Breuissima maximeque compendiaria conficiendarum epistolarum formula” in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Sanctandreani (Binghamton, NY: mrts, 1986) 229–243; see also Judith Rice Henderson, “The Enigma of Erasmus’ Conficiendarum epistolarum formula,” Renaissance and Reformation 13 (1989) 313–330; Christine Bénévent and Steven Van Impe, “Rethinking the Publication History of Erasmus’s Formula: Three Unknown editions in the Erfgoedbibliotheek Hendrik Conscience,” De Gulden Passer (2013–1) 37–48; iidem, “Rethinking the Publication History

the correspondence of erasmus

123

in 1521, the Cambridge printer John Siberch, using the title Libellus de conscribendis epistolis, published a text that many believe to be closely drawn from a manuscript treatise on letter writing that Erasmus had sent in 1498 to Robert Fisher. Because parts of Siberch’s edition appear word-for-word in the definitive Basel version,11 scholars today generally agree that, because all three of those early unauthorized editions employed writings of the young Erasmus, they deserve a legitimate place among the possible variants of the definitive text.12 The Basel edition of the De conscribendis epistolis guides the reader through this quite dense, more than 400 pages-long text by interspersing some 150 sectional titles throughout. Although those titles are not arranged in any hierarchical order, they are clearly structured in two levels: about 20 types of letters are in fact defined there and, illustrated by numerous examples, are divided into four major genres.13 By borrowing the typology of species from fifteenthcentury Italian epistolary treatises14 and from two Greek formularies that were resurrected in the Renaissance—the Typoi epistolikoi of pseudo-Demetrius (ca. 350 b.c.) and the Epistolimaioi charaktêres of pseudo-Libanios (314–393)— the De conscribendis epistolis clearly alerts the reader that it is a pedagogical manual intended for use in schools of rhetoric at the level of grammaticus.15 Erasmus submits this typology to the three-part rhetorical genres inherited from Aristotle, to which is added a fourth “extraordinary” genre that, a priori, regroups the letters that could not be classed in the preceding rubrics. Under this apparently rigorous framework, the De conscribendis epistolis manages nevertheless to establish, not a rhetorical conception of a letter but, rather, two competing conceptions that Erasmus did not try to synthesize but which he allows to develop in parallel. On the one hand, the inaugural chapter, Quis epistolae character, offers an extensive definition of the letter as something that is at the same time infinite but can accommodate everything. On

11 12 13 14 15

of Erasmus’s Formula: Addendum,” De Gulden Passer (2013–2) 247–248. For the text of the letter—someone else’s free adaptation of Ep. 71 to Robert Fisher—see Allen xi: 366–367 and cwe 21: 599. The Introductions to the letter in both Allen and cwe provide succinct discussions of its context. See Harry Vredeveld, “Toward a Critical Edition of Erasmus’s De conscribendis epistolis,” Humanistica Lovaniensia 48 (1999) 8–69. For a more detailed treatment and a bibliography, see Bénévent and Van Impe (note 10 above). See Appendix 1 and Christine Bénévent, “Érasme épistolier: un modèle pluriel” in L’exemplarité épistolaire, ed. M.C. Panzera (pu-Bordeaux, 2013) 175–204. See Guy Gueudet, L’art de la lettre humaniste (Geneva: Droz, 2004) 229–247 and 255–273. Baños, El Arte epistolar 35–36 and 89.

124

bénévent

the other hand, a chapter entitled Peculiaris epistolae character endows the letter with a restricted definition that is limited in essence to the “true” letter— something familiar, free, and without rules. This distinction goes with a second one that Erasmus never clearly explains: on the one hand, letters that deal with a unique subject can be studied and conceived using the three rhetorical genres; on the other hand, letters that include several subjects are particularly prized among friends. The De conscribendis epistolis is therefore conceived as a manual for learning rhetoric in which the letter is presented as a preliminary rhetorical exercise (progymnasma) similar to a formal set speech (declamatio) and serves as a helpful tool in teaching rhetoric, but its material dimension is never discussed. Moreover, the text has many indications of being a hasty and somewhat botched revision that too often blurs its own logic.16 Erasmus carefully discourses on the fact that letters are written for different conceptual reasons and thus are composed in different ways. He develops those differences in writing letters using a panoply of examples varying in length. He borrows most of them from Cicero, considerably fewer from Pliny and Angelo Poliziano, and adds examples of his own. Yet, the tension between the broad and the more narrow definitions of the letters that Erasmus evokes makes it more difficult to determine the status of the examples and the status of the “I” that he employs in them. Between the rhetorical exercises whose brilliance raises some of them to the rank of a literary work and the actual epistles that are modified to make them less personal, the letters are never simple documents but paradigms or “documents-monuments” (see below). This ambiguity is found again in the adjective “familiar” when it is used to qualify the first occurrence of the genre “extraordinary.” It has different meanings that one can perceive in the title of Cicero’s letters Ad familiares that were discovered by Coluccio Salutati and that Erasmus uses extensively in his text. That full title makes one think initially that it refers to the persons familiar to the writer to whom the letters are addressed. But the title has often been abbreviated simply as familiares, a rhetorical adjective modifying the implied noun epistolae.17 In that shortened form it would refer, rather, to a property of the letter, the exact field of reference of which remains uncertain. Is it, for example, termed “familiar” because it is addressed to familiar people? Or is it a letter dealing with personal matters, defined by its “familiar” subject? Or, finally, is it

16

17

See Christine Bénévent, “Le De conscribendis epistolis d’Érasme: un De civilitate morum puerilium avant la lettre?” in Les rituels épistolaires, ed. Cécile Lignereux (Paris: Classiques Garnier, forthcoming). On the familiar letter, see Luc Vaillancourt, La lettre familière au xvie siècle. Rhétorique humaniste de l’épistolaire (Paris: Champion, 2003).

the correspondence of erasmus

125

used to characterize an informal style, a priori incompatible with the rhetorical approach? Erasmus, without making a rigorous demonstration of its meaning, emphasizes this last aspect that is well represented in the “mixed” letter, with the nuance that this informal, natural style is by no means shapeless. On the contrary, it implies a mastery whose perfect success lies in its apparent transparency. The rhetorical organization of the De conscribendis epistolis thus finds a paradoxical justification: the norm, the explicit object of the teaching, is only a propaedeutic to the truly free mastery of textual production. This mastery makes it possible to distinguish between contentio, often attached to rhetorical discourse, and sermo, understood as “one of the modalities of a state of mind which is characterized by the fact that the intelligence and the voice are not immediately and entirely directed towards an end.”18 The objective of such a learning experience is to build an êthos19 rendering one capable of knowing and in particular of writing in an appropriate way (apte dicere): something difficult but essential. The chapter De exordio epistolarum stresses that the young student preparing to write a letter must not look to rules (regulas praeceptas) or try to find formulas in books (voculas sententiolasve). He must first of all pay attention to the characteristics of the person to whom he is writing and to the nature of the relationship he has with him. Only then should he look for models in good authors, and even then he will have to adapt them to his particular reason for writing. What one writes must not seem to be borrowed from someone else but, rather, to find its source within one’s own self (domi nostrae nata).20 In this way, what one writes will become a kind of “mirror of the soul” (speculum animi), a transfer of one’s personal ingenium, a skill that is perfected by practice. But reconciling the differences between that commitment and mastering essential decorum can be compared to “imitating the octopus,” which, as it adapts itself to the bottom of the sea where it lives, eventually learns to do this without taking wrong steps. The same process of reconciling those differences can be observed as one reads the collections of letters. Following the example of Petrarch, many humanists made public their Latin letters, often as a way to assure that posterity would view them as they wanted 18 19

20

Carlos Lévy, “La conversation à Rome à la fin de la République: des pratiques sans théorie?,” Rhetorica 11 (1993) 399–420 (403). The notion of êthos, as Aristotle uses it, refers first of all to habit whether this habit is acquired naturally or is the result of education or custom. See Frédérique Woerther, “Origine et genèse de la notion d’êthos dans la Rhétorique d’Aristote,” doctoral thesis, Université Paris xii, 2003. On the question of êthos in the Renaissance, see (among others), Jean Lecointe, L’Idéal et la différence (Geneva: Droz, 1993). asd i-2: 317.

126

bénévent

to be remembered. We can count about a dozen letter collections that Erasmus published between 1515 and 1536 ranging between 20 and 1,205 letters, to which can be added other occasional publications, each containing from three to six letters.21 The role of Erasmus in publishing them can usually be properly recognized as his but is sometimes simply presumed. The criteria that governed his choice of letters for publication are difficult to determine, but the tension alluded to in the De conscribendis epistolis between the propaedeutic model of an impersonal letter and a “true” letter bearing the subjective stamp of its author is constantly in play. It explains a certain number of editorial strategies, notably the fine-tuning that one can detect in certain letters, as well as the frequent presence of an introductory section intended to assure its proper interpretation by the reader. Erasmus had very early thought of collecting and publishing his correspondence, as several letters from the years 1498 to 1500 can attest; but, during the ten years that followed, in which very few of his letters survive, he obviously had no intention of publishing them. He even pretends that, during those years he had destroyed letters that he had previously collected. In 1515, however, he published a thin booklet that includes a series of texts concerning the war against the Turks, along with four letters and one of his poems. Three of these letters served mostly, as do publishers’ brochures, to announce the imminent publication of the works of Saint Jerome. The last of the four is the long epistle addressed to the Leuven theologian Maarten van Dorp justifying the Praise of Folly (Ep. 337). This collection of letters was so successful that it was reedited three times in less than a year. The changes in the order of listing the texts on the different title pages demonstrate the enthusiastic attention given to them. With the publication of the works of Jerome and of the Novum instrumentum in 1516, Erasmus’ fame spread throughout Europe. As a result, the strategy of publishing his letters also changed significantly. Two strictly epistolary collections, the first dated October 1516 (Epistolae aliquot illustrium virorum ad Erasmum et huius ad illos …) and the second dated April 1517 (Aliquot epistolae sanequam elegantes …), were published in quarto by Dirk Martens in Leuven. They were edited by Pieter Gillis, a close friend of Erasmus in Antwerp, who signed the preface of each collection. In the 1516 edition, Gillis explains that he chose to publish letters of Erasmus to help his friend Jaspar van Halmale, a strong admirer of Erasmus as a theologian, recover from an illness. In the second, which he considers to be a continuation of the first edition, he insinuates that friendly pressures had been exerted on him to bring out this new edition.

21

For a list of the early printed editions, see Allen i: 599–602.

the correspondence of erasmus

127

Gillis pretends that he had done this without Erasmus’ knowledge and at the risk of displeasing him.22 The epistolary collections that followed those edited by Pieter Gillis were published by Johann Froben in Basel. For the Auctarium selectarum aliquot epistolarum (August–September 1518), the Alsatian humanist Beatus Rhenanus takes over as editor. In his preface, Beatus, like Gillis, invents a fictional account by saying that he was guilty of a daring offense in purloining a packet of Erasmus’ letters and choosing those that he knew would be ideal for publication.23 Pieter Gillis published letters of Erasmus because they were from the hand of the famous humanist so admired by him and his friend. Beatus Rhenanus shared that same admiration of Erasmus, but his primary purpose was to exhibit their stylistic and educational value. In letters published in the 1519 Farrago nova epistolarum, as previously, Erasmus uses Beatus’ fictional account about purloining the letters to justify the errors and the omissions that some readers had found in it. In his own version of the story, Erasmus first pretends that he was reluctant to authorize their publication but then legitimizes it with the friendly retort: “Nor was this my doing. … I very reluctantly allowed Beatus Rhenanus to choose whatever he could find in my bundle of papers.”24 The Farrago replaced the quarto format of the Auctarium with a voluminous folio edition in which paratextual accretions are reduced to a minimum. It has no preface and, without any other explanation, often reflects Erasmus’ strong interest and concern for things German. Its very title, Farrago nova epistolarum … admixtis quibusdam quas scripsit etiam adulescens, describes a gathering of recent letters mixed helter-skelter with others that he wrote as a youth. In the very first letter printed in his Epistolae ad diuersos, Ep. 1206, Erasmus retrospectively attributed responsibility for the Farrago to Beatus Rhenanus. That letter’s placement and dating, however, raises ambiguities. Erasmus dated it 27 May without a year-date, but in the 1529 Opus epistolarum he added “1520” while Allen opts for 1521: in either case, it is anterior to the date given on the title page of the Epistolae ad diuersos (31 August 1521), a date that is itself erroneous because that volume would actually appear only in the spring of 1522. Bietenholz offers some clarification in his introduction to Ep. 1206 for cwe. The Epistolae ad diuersos is for the most part a re-issue of the Farrago and previous collections, although 154 of its 613 letters are published for the first time. Its introduction could hardly ignore the important changes that had

22 23 24

Allen ii: 602. Allen ii: 602–603. Ep. 906 cwe lines 574–578.

128

bénévent

occurred in the 1520s. The Lutheran movement had profoundly altered perspectives of every sort, and the commitment to Germany that Erasmus had manifested in the Farrago would prove to be problematic. In leaving Leuven for good in October 1521 and settling in Basel, Erasmus nevertheless made an ambiguous attempt to justify its publication in three strategic stages. He left the impression that Beatus Rhenanus had supervised the publication not only of the Farrago but also of the Epistolae ad diuersos—an assertion that was “contradicted by the whole history of the volume.”25 Again and again he returns to the idea that the publication of a text or letter was always the result of some outside pressure: either from the printer, as shown by the policy of fait accompli imposed by Froben; by those who pirated his writings and published his letters clandestinely; or by various friends who urged that he publish this or that text or letter or who published it themselves (Epistolae … per amicos collectae, as one title has it). This topos, constantly repeated because of pressure exerted on him, brings to light the tension between the private letters and those destined for the public and invites his readers to interpret them more widely: that is, as having been caused by their passing from the private sphere to the public one. It is not only a question of justifying the publication of any letter but also of commenting on its conditions—often by blaming it on a third party. Epistle 1206 to Beatus Rhenanus also helps develop Erasmus’ concept of a “true” letter, recalling the chapter Peculiaris epistolae character in the De conscribendis epistolis and seeming to make him lean towards regarding the epistolary as a collection of historical documents: To begin with, letters which are deficient in true feeling and do not reflect a man’s actual life do not deserve to be called letters …. At the same time, the kind of letter that displays like a picture the writer’s character and fortunes and sentiments, and the state of affairs both public and private— such, for example, as the letters of Cicero and Pliny and in more recent times those of Aeneas Pius—have somewhat more risk about them than writing the history of recent events which, as Horace says, is “a task with dangerous hazard filled.”26

25

26

Léon E. Halkin, Erasmus ex Erasmo: Érasme éditeur de sa correspondance (Aubel: P.M. Gason, 1983). See the detailed analysis of this letter in Christine Bénévent and Michel Magnien, “Comment justifier la publication d’une correspondance privée? Érasme dans la première lettre des Epistolae ad diuersos. / Juste Lipse dans la Première Centurie de ses Lettres (1536),” Revue de l’aire 35 (2009) 13–36. Ep. 1206 cwe lines 96–110.

the correspondence of erasmus

129

The reference to Horace is borrowed from an ode addressed to Pollio,27 the author of a history of civil wars, periculosae plenum opus aleae, because its actors were not yet dead nor were the resentments between the parties appeased. The letter is just as dangerous in the eyes of Erasmus in this present time of fratricidal battles between Christians because it is null and void, even false, as soon as it is written and liable to public scrutiny—in every sense of the term—by its publication: Everything is wrested into the opposite sense, even what one writes with unimpeachable intentions; no notice is taken of the time when a man was writing, but what was entirely correct when it was written is transferred to a date which it does not fit at all.28 Once a letter is published it is set free from the context that conditioned its decorum. It can be wrongly interpreted simply because the circumstances have changed, its true kairos being quickly put to the test. Erasmus may be referring here to occasional publications that had targeted some of his letters, especially those published by partisans of Martin Luther. Those editions often cite one or two letters that, when published independently of the series of exchanges of which they are only a part, change their meaning and acquire a separate existence that gives them strength and univocity.29 By contrast, a collection leaves room for contradiction. To those who accuse him of not being consistent, Erasmus responds with the retort that inconsistency of that sort is ethically tenable as long as the contradictory letters are published in a way that they can be read together. A single letter merely yields a passing thought, not the full thought of its author. Only a grouping of texts subject to circumstantial variations could provide a semblance of their author’s ingenium totum.30 In this way the tension inherent in the De conscribendis epistolis can be resolved. During the following years, however, Erasmus published only collections that contained no more than five letters.31 In this way he uses the epistolary format solely as a way to make his positions on religious disputes known to a 27 28 29

30 31

Odes 2.1.6. Ep. 1206 cwe lines 51–55. See Christine Bénévent, La correspondance d’Érasme entre République des lettres et lettres secrètes. Pour une étude du rapport entre privé et public au xvie siècle, doctoral thesis, Université Paris xii (2003), 441–458. One thinks of Montaigne. See Michel Jeanneret, Perpetuum mobile. Métamorphoses des corps et des œuvres à la Renaissance (Paris: Macula, 1997) 255–260. See Allen i: 600.

130

bénévent

wider public rather than to just a particular correspondent. These occasional publications that gather together a small number of long texts are often works whose polemical nature he is able to pursue using the milder context and terms that a letter can provide. In August 1529, however, Erasmus published the Opus epistolarum per auctorem diligenter recognitum, the title of which forcefully stresses that collections published under the responsibility of an author, in function of his choices of inventio and dispositio, constitute a work composed in the same way as any other collection. Even if its arrangement sometimes gets out of hand, it is nevertheless a coordinated one; and even though it be a product of putting things together, perhaps even in a careless fashion, the author either published it intentionally or allowed it to appear: either way, it is his work, a reflection of his own self.32 The preface of the Opus epistolarum manifests a certain reticence, as Erasmus tells the reader that he does not think his letters have much importance and that, in publishing them, he was once again simply yielding to the friendly pressure of his printer, Hieronymus Froben.33 For the first time, though, by adding in the title the phrase “per auctorem diligenter recognitum,” he admits his personal responsibility for selecting the letters. He does nothing, however, to help the reader opening this enormous folio volume (1,205 letters, 386 of them in print for the first time) to find his way through it. For example, he refuses to put the letters in any order, as readers would normally expect. In that way he rejects the temptation to arrange the existential and stylistic varietas of the letters in an order that any logical system would impose—especially avoiding a linear trajectory that, for Erasmus’ purpose, would render them useless. Instead, he stresses the pedagogical dimension of the letters, whereas he minimizes their historical dimension, undeniable as it may be, by refusing to arrange them in chronological order, preferring to send those who want to know who is writing to whom to consult a somewhat disorganized index. If we were to use Erasmus’ letters as a documentary record of his life, would we not risk—instead of constructing an authentic biography—ending up with a “pseudo-biography”?34 Such a threat of misusing them is all the more serious 32

33 34

Marie-Madeleine Fragonard, “Éditer une correspondance. L’exemple des lettres d’Agrippa d’Aubigné” in L’épistolaire au xvie siècle Cahiers V.-L. Saulnier 18 (Paris: Editions de l’ens, 2001) 54. Ep. 2203. See Lisa Jardine, “Penfriends and Patria: Erasmian Pedagogy and the Republic of Letters,” ersy 16 (1996) 9 n. 20.

the correspondence of erasmus

131

because the prefaces to all of Erasmus’ epistolary collections refer to corrections and other modifications that he has made in the letters. The lexicon for those modifications is copious: he uses the terms castigatio, correctio, or emendatio to refer to stylistic or grammatical corrections, while locupletatio suggests a rhetorical enrichment that refers to the copia proper to the amplificatio. In other places we find terms that refer to suppressing or excising parts of the text—in other words, they refer to a form of censure by Erasmus of his own works—a censure that either purposefully hides something or fails to print the full, original text. Among the vaguer terms such as mutatio or commutatio, the term recognitio alerts the reader that Erasmus has revised a text that had been previously published. It is not so much a question of justifying the corrections he has made—which is obvious—as more to excuse anyone who had neglected to take them into account. It is therefore purposefully made clear that the published letter no longer necessarily matches the text that was originally sent—a convention that had already been accepted by Cicero.35 Such a radical procedure is justified by two main arguments: on the one hand, stylistic conventions; on the other, the wish not to shock anyone, especially with the image portrayed about someone in the letter. Aside from modifications in form36 and his regular practice of amplificatio,37 the most notable changes in the 55 autograph letters of Erasmus that are available for comparison with their printed versions38 occur when he deals with names. In many cases he simply eliminates them from the text; but the number of times in which he twists, omits, or creates a ruse with certain names, leaving the reader to figure out the real name, cannot be neglected. Such modifications are not limited to the initial transfer from manuscript to print. They are sometimes more important when they occur from one printed version to another, often after taking account of his readers’ reactions to the previous edition. These revisions draw their attention to the changes in circumstances,

35 36

37 38

See what Cicero wrote in a letter to Atticus (16.5.5). The order of the words is sometimes modified; certain terms are substituted for others in order to prevent repetition. Moreover, Erasmus occasionally likes to introduce a Greek word where the original text had a Latin one. He accentuates such changes by recalling the context of the original letter (“ut scribis”) and its modalities. We must also take note of frequent changes in the grammatical tenses of the words, something that would be worth careful examination. See also Charles Fantazzi, “The Evolution of Erasmus’ Epistolary Style,” Renaissance and Reformation 13 (1989) 263–288. See especially Epp. 2750 and 2879. Having an original autograph letter does not always guarantee that it was actually sent. On the problematic status of an “original” letter, see Bénévent, La correspondance d’Érasme 503–511.

132

bénévent

such as changes from one period of time to another and from whatever particular situation the letter describes. Modifying the text, making it more outspoken or more circumspect, also modifies the character of the person as he was depicted at the time of writing. In other words, it is not only a question of adapting the text to a wider audience but also of integrating in the text the changes brought about by the passage of time (diachrony). The practice of reissuing letter collections is therefore not undertaken simply to reproduce what was previously published. Rather, often introducing changes in place and deleting or correcting words is the best reason for a writer to undertake the task. That practice, however, can pose unexpected problems. Since a keyword of the epistolary art is “adaptation,” what happens if the person addressed cannot be identified? Or what if Erasmus, trying to impress his readers with the importance of his correspondents, adjusts their civil or ecclesiastical rank from what it was when the original letter was written to their new, elevated status? Once that change is made, the original status of a person is lost to his readers. Such adaptations can cause a serious short-circuit between the time when the manuscript letter was written and the time of its printing, and this can distort the readers’ understanding of the person’s proper situation. The Opus epistolarum is known for its considerable number of stylistic modifications. Studying the changes from the letters written or published earlier, however, makes it possible to evaluate Erasmus’ attention to epithets and formulas of salutation that conform more closely to those in the De conscribendis epistolis. This particular approach to studying these letters may seem inconsequential compared to the effort of correctly determining the dates of undated letters, thus assuring that they are anchored in reality. Nevertheless, being aware of all such adaptations tends to loosen the link between the printed text and the letter that was actually sent—all for the sake of assuring its decorum.39 This tendency to make examples of letters that were modified in ways that lessen their value as historical documents was often replicated in other editorial situations. During the 1520s, a time when Erasmus’ own publication of his letters was rare, collecting and publishing them by others increased in the Low Countries, in France, and in Germany. The Epistolae aliquot selectae is an example of such an anthology. It was published for the first time by the Leuven printer Dirk Martens in December 1520 at the initiative of Adrianus Barlandus, a member of the University of Leuven and an ardent supporter of Erasmus. In his preface Barlandus relates that it was Martens who asked him to select some

39

See Bénévent, “Érasme épistolier” (note 13 above).

the correspondence of erasmus

133

of the shorter (breviores) letters “ex magno epistolarum Erasmi volumine,” in view of publishing a collection of them for use in schools: a sort of handbook for school masters and for the students under their tutelage. Barlandus says he is enthusiastic about the project because he finds in Erasmus’ “truly golden letters (vere aureas epistolas)” such a “purity and facility of Latin speech (Latini sermonis castimonia et facilitas)” that they seem to have been written by Cicero himself (ab ipso Cicerone conscriptae). By using that ploy of substituting Erasmus for Cicero, Barlandus would make Erasmus the new paragon of epistolary eloquence. The magnum volumen from which Martens asked Barlandus to draw some of the shorter letters for the Epistolae aliquot selectae was the Farrago nova epistolarum (1519). Of the 123 letters chosen for the Epistolae, 115 were derived from the Farrago. But the Epistolae was more than a simple reprint of those selected letters. Of the eight letters not derived from the Farrago, six would appear in the Epistolae ad diuersos (Basel, 1521) and the two others, both addressed by Erasmus to Adrianus Barlandus, are known only from the Epistolae aliquot selectae. Barlandus was therefore acting with the full agreement and complicity of Erasmus, who nevertheless took care in the second of the two letters to Barlandus to express his reluctance about the whole initiative. In that letter Erasmus stresses the need for a “toning down” process—making changes that had been agreed upon as a necessary condition for their inclusion in the proposed edition. The changes tended to make the letters more neutral, clearly creating a tension, or opposing differences, between the ideological and the personal stakes attached to his letters and their possible pedagogical use.40 The success of the Epistolae selectae in taking its place among the other authorized letter collections41 is

40

41

“No doubt you have been careful to choose only those letters which have nothing prickly about them, for you can see how certain people nowadays take offence at the slightest opportunity. All the same, I could have wished that you had thought of something else; for I am afraid they will be annoyed by the very fact that they see something of mine prepared to be read in schools. I persuaded the printers with some difficulty not to reprint the Farrago. I have revised it, removing a few things and toning down others, so that it can appear in this form rather than as it was printed before; this was not my idea, but I did it to satisfy the wishes of my friends” (Ep. 1163 cwe lines 2–11). For Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters. The Construction of Charisma in Print (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993) 19 this edition is in fact “among the most carefully contrived of the many such volumes published in Erasmus’ lifetime. Ironically, Allen excludes it from his list of definitive editions, whilst including the volumes openly put together by Peter Gilles and by Beatus Rhenanus.” Allen does, however, deal with it extensively in his Appendix xii (iii: 627–629). See also Halkin, Erasmus ex Erasmo 89–95 and Étienne Daxhelet, Adrien Barlandus humaniste belge (1485–1538), Humanistica Lovaniensia 6 (1938) 131–135.

134

bénévent

made clear by the no less than 12 reprints of it in the sixteenth century. All of these appeared in the limited region of the Netherlands42 because it was “compiled as an epistolary narrative centred on Louvain.”43 Here, again, one can see the tension between using the letters as documents and their value after undergoing changes to suit a certain public. Two slightly later collections, both printed in Paris, drew heavily on the Farrago and the Epistolae ad diuersos. The first, Des. Erasmi Rot. breuiores epistolae, studiosis juuenibus admodum utiles (Paris: Simon de Colines, c. 1524), was carefully and elegantly printed. The second, Des. Erasmi Rot. breues epistolae, studiosis juuenibus utilissimae (Paris: Pierre Gromors for Jean Petit, 1525), received less care in its presentation and composition.44 Their intended use in schools explains why, as Barlandus did with his Epistolae aliquot selectae, they limited their selections to Erasmus’ shorter letters, although they managed to include more of them (respectively 227 and 225) in volumes that were relatively short (111 and 143 sheets in-octavo). These editions were intended to “praise the lucid and precise clarity of the Erasmian style.” They “exalt the elegant phrases, his quick and brilliant formulas, the use of litotes.”45 At the beginning of the collection printed by Gromors, Thierry Morel, a professor in the Collège de la Marche in Paris, explains in his dedicatory epistle to Pierre Pineau his motives for collecting these letters. As with Pieter Gillis, but in a more emphatic Latin, he wants to provide Pineau with “cartloads of pleasures and an ocean of enjoyments,” and seeks “to gratify all men of learning with a new source of bliss.” Morel presents Erasmus as “a man whose superiority is universal, … a divinity on earth, who has no equal in all the world,” a “demi-god.” He is indeed the “god of limpid elegance, the only one of the moderns who equals—or surpasses— Cicero and Quintilian.”46 42

43 44

45

46

These re-editions were not simply identical reprints. The 1522 edition contains ten additional letters not in the 1520 edition, all of which had already been printed in the Epistolae ad diuersos. The 1534 edition added three supplementary letters that had first appeared in the Auctarium (1518). Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters 19. 224 of the letters appear in both collections and are arranged in the same order. Epp. 144, 978, and 979 are the only ones that appear in the Epistolae breuiores but are absent in the Breues, which, to the contrary, contains Ep. 552 in which Erasmus acknowledges receiving the papal brief confirming his dispensation and which, after allowing it to appear in the Farrago, he took care to suppress in all later editions. Marie-Madeleine de la Garanderie, “Recueils parisiens de lettres d’Érasme,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 31 (1969) 455–456. See also Christine Bénévent, “Impressions parisiennes d’Érasme (1520–1536)” in Érasme et la France, ed. Blandine Perona and Tristan Vigliano (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2017) 115–151. La Garanderie, “Recueils parisiens” 465.

the correspondence of erasmus

135

We can prolong our study by looking into later epistolary collections published in German areas. For example, the Epistolae familiares that were included in the posthumous 1538 Basel Opera omnia47 of Erasmus would enjoy several later editions. Making clear from the outset their usefulness for young people, each later edition, little-by-little, added aids to help its readers in one way or another. The title page of the 1541 edition puts it like this: “Adiecimus in calcem prouerbiorum & graecarum vocum interpretationem floresque in elocutione latina selectissimos, quae omnia commentarii uice esse possunt” (“We have added below the interpretation of proverbs and Greek words and selected examples of Latin elocution, all of which can be used as commentaries”). The edition of 1546 adds Argumenta in omnes epistolas. With such editions, Erasmus becomes, alongside Cicero, a classic author, a fact confirmed by his works becoming prescribed reading in schools.48 This can be seen by observing the abundance of students’ marginal notes in existing copies of the De conscribendis epistolis, the Formula, and others. The large, unwieldy volumes of previous letter collections gave way to these editions of more modest size that serve their readers in two ways. On the one hand, many letters are important historical documents that reflect the life and friendly relations of their author; on the other, many of the letters have been modified or rendered less personal, more neutral, by eliminating those personal aspects. This second group of epistles serve as model letters for the student to appropriate for his own use, substituting himself for the depersonalized “I” that would appear there. This is how the ideal ethos of the stellar man of letters, the “elegantly fluent author” embodied by Erasmus, became a literary reality.49 The initiatives proposed here are not meant to discourage readers from using the letters as historical documents. The mere fact that Allen put them in chronological order shows his predilection for the historical paradigm rather than the formal aesthetic of varietas and gives credence to reading the letters as helps in reaching biographical reality. If the risks inherent in such an approach have been perceived by Léon Halkin in his Erasmus ex Erasmo and

47

48 49

Des. Erasmi Rot. epistolae familiares propter singularem elegantiam & argumenti materiam Scholis & adolescentum studiis captuique accommodatae ex omnibus, quas reliquit, literis summo doctissimorum iudicio segregatae (Basel: Bartholomeus Westheimer, 1538). See Silvana Seidel Menchi, Erasmo in Italia (1520–1580) (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1987) 122–142. Alain Jolidon, “L’évolution psychologique et littéraire d’Erasme d’après les variantes du De conscribendis epistolis” in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Amstelodamensis (Munich: Fink, 1979) 571–582.

136

bénévent

demonstrated in a sometimes iconoclastic way by Peter Bietenholz and Lisa Jardine, they link up with the common view of historians about the letter as a document-monument.50 They urge us to recall the posthumous instructions left by Erasmus with his friends who would survive him and whom he charged with establishing a true image of him: “And so, if things of this sort are to be published, I should not wish to encourage anyone to publish in his own lifetime, but to find some Tiro and leave the task to him.”51 Still, Erasmus seems to challenge even this image in the afterword that he noted near the end of his De puritate tabernaculi. It was a final and pungent appeal to posterity where one can read both the concern for the image one leaves of oneself and the ambivalence of the “epistolary ambiguity”:52 Finally, I believe that those who keep their letters to be published after their death are wise. … In searching through my papers, I was reminded of the human condition by the fact that among so many letters, written for the most part within the last ten years, so few came to hand whose authors were still alive. Man is but a bubble (Homo bulla). And I wanted you to be aware of this, gentle reader, so that you would not jump to the conclusion that something with my name affixed to it must be mine or imagine that no one is well disposed to Erasmus except a few of his boon companions.53 Like all letter writers of his time, Erasmus would have been haunted by that invasive thought linking the publishing of his letters with the prospect of his own death, for death alone could dispel the angst inherent in making public his personal letters. Does that mean, as we read in the soul-stirring phrase of Justus Lipsius, that someone reading an epistolary would be reading only letters that are “posthumous in expectation, if not in fact (spe, non re postumas)”?54

50

51 52 53 54

See especially Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts: Papers in and on Art History (New York: Doubleday, 1955); Michel Foucault, L’Archéologie du savoir (Paris: Gallimard, 1969); Jacques Le Goff et Pierre Toubert, “Une histoire totale du Moyen Age, est-elle possible?” in Actes du 100e Congrès national des sociétés savantes, i: Tendances, perspectives et méthodes de l’histoire médiévale (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1977) 31–44. Ep. 1206 cwe lines 111–113. Vincent Kaufmann, L’Équivoque épistolaire (Paris: Minuit, 1990). Ep. 3100 cwe lines 75–76, 94–101. Cited in Bénévent and Magnien (note 25 above) 31.

the correspondence of erasmus

137

Appendix 1: Erasmus, De Conscribendis Epistolis (Basel: Froben, August 1522) Nota bene: With some rare exceptions, Froben’s 1522 edition presents only one level of titles (in small capitals, interspaced between groupings of chapters, and introduced in sequential use of letters of the alphabet). The intra-text titles here are arranged hierarchically, and those that we have added are presented within square brackets. Page references are those enumerated in the Froben edition. Erasmus Roterodamus Nicolao Beraldo S. P. (a v°) Part One: Generalities [General Considerations About Letters] Quis epistolae character (p. 5) De illaborata epistola (p. 10) De gravitate epistolae (p. 11) De perspicuitate epistolae (p. 12) De compositione (p. 17) De habitu epistolae (p. 18) Peculiaris epistolae character (p. 20) Elegantia (p. 23) [Practical Lessons about the Epistolary Art] Exercitatio et imitatio (p. 23) Quomodo proponenda materia (p. 35) De emendando (p. 53) [Formulas of Salutation] De consuetudine unum multitudinis numero compellandi (p. 63) [The Salutation] De salutatione (p. 73) Simplicis salutationis aliquot formulae (p. 82) Novae salutandi formulae (p. 84) Quomodo per alium salutandum, aut resalutandum (p. 85) Reddita salutatio per alios (p. 86) [Epithets] De epithetis et nominibus adoptivis (p. 86) Principum epitheta fere sunt huiusmodi (p. 87) Magistratum civilium epitheta fuerint haec (p. 88) Cognatorum et affinium haec fere sunt epitheta (p. 88) Ubi et quomodo potissimum utendum epithetis (p. 89) De transfigurandis epithetis (p. 90) De adoptivis nominibus (p. 92)

138

bénévent

De superstitione epithetorum (p. 92) [The Salutation at the end of the letter] Quomodo dicendum, vale (p. 95) Vale dicendi formulae aliquot (p. 95) Quid post vale (p. 98) [General Structure of the Letter] De ordine epistolari (p. 100) Mixtae epistolae exemplum (p. 103): Domitius Lucio suo s. d. Part Two: Different Genres of Letters [Introduction: A Presentation of Genres] Epistolarum genera (p. 109) Tres omnium generum fontes (p. 110) [i. The Persuasive Genre] [Exhortation] Quid inter exhortationem et suasionem (p. 114) De exordio epistolarum (p. 115) Abruptum epistolae initium (p. 123) De exhortatoria epistola (p. 124) A laulde (sic) (p. 125) A spe et metu (p. 127) Ab amore, odio, miseratione (p. 128) Ab aemulatione (p. 129) Ab expectatione duplici (p. 130) Ab inimicorum expectatione (p. 131) Ab exemplis (p. 132) Exempla quomodo tractanda (p. 132) De contrariis exemplis (p. 133) De inaequalitate exemplorum (p. 133) De varietate et ordine exemplorum (p. 135) De fabulosis exemplis (p. 139) De obtestatione (p. 141) De lenienda exhortatione (p. 142) Quis huic generi character proprie conveniat (p. 143) De amplificatione (p. 145) De figuris ad grauitatem facientibus (p. 150) Exemplum epist. cohortatoriae (p. 150) De genere dehortatorio (p. 156) Exemplum depromptum ex prima Ciceronis ad Q. fratrem epistola (p. 156) Exhortatio (p. 159)

the correspondence of erasmus

139

Dehortatio (p. 163) Commenticia mea (p. 163) Exhortatio mea (p. 170) Dehortatio mea (p. 171) Quibus respondendum exhortatori (p. 171) [The Persuasive Letter] De epistola suasoria (p. 173) De complexione, et caeteris argumentationum oratoriarum generibus (p. 177) Alterum exemplum (p. 179) Aliud exemplum (p. 181) Aliud exemplum x 3 (p. 182) Exemplum, aliud exemplum, aliud exemplum (p. 183) Alterum exemplum (p. 184) Exemplum (p. 185) Aliud exemplum (p. 186) Aliud exemplum (p. 187) Aliud exemplum (p. 190) Exemplum (p. 194) Exemplum (p. 195) Alterum exemplum (p. 197) Exemplum epistolae suasoriae (p. 207) De genere dissuasorio (p. 232) [Other Types of Letters linked to the Persuasive Genre] De consolatoria epistola (p. 237) Aliud exemplum consolationis (p. 250) Sylva (p. 266) Ex epistolis Plinii Secundi (p. 271) Consolatoria sylua mea (p. 271) Consolatio familiaris cum obiurgatione mea (p. 274) Consolatio iocosa et familiaris (p. 275) Ad consolationem responsio De petitoria epistola (p. 278) Exemplum petitionis obliquae (p. 281) Petitio rei parum honestae (p. 282) Petitionis honestae exemplum (p. 283) Petitoriae sylva (p. 285) Sylva mea (p. 291) Responsio ad petitionem (p. 293) De commendatitia epistola (p. 294) Respon. ad commendationem (p. 306) Hermannus Theologus Andronio Bolanio antistiti. S. D. (p. 297)

140

bénévent

Commendatitiae sylva (p. 300) Commendatoriae ad nuptias exemplum (p. 304) Commendatio mea (p. 305) De monitoria epistola (p. 307) Exemplum epistolae monitoriae (p. 310) Aliud exemplum (p. 312) Quis sit modus repetendae lectionis Aliud exemplum de vita aulica (p. 317) Exemplum epistolae, quae habet admixtam obiurgationem (p. 321) Monitoriae sylva (p. 323) Monitio mea (p. 328) Responsio ad monitionem (p. 330) De amatoria epistola (p. 331) Santeranus Fausto S. D. (p. 331) Amatoriae sylua (p. 334) ii. De demonstrativi generis epistolis (p. 335) iii. De iudicialis generis epistolis, et primum de criminatoria (p. 338) [De criminatoria] Exemplum (p. 338) De expostulatoria epistola (p. 343) Exemplum (p. 344) Aliud exemplum x 2 (p. 345) Expostulatoriae sylva (p. 346) Expostulatio mea (p. 348) De purgatione (p. 349) Exemplum (p. 349) Purgatoriae sylva (p. 351) Purgatio mea (p. 354) Ad purgationem responsio (p. 355) Ad purgationem responsio mea (p. 356) De exprobratione (p. 357) Exemplum (p. 357) Exprobratione sylva (p. 360) Exprobratio mea (p. 361) De epistola invectiva (p. 361) Invectivae sylva (p. 363) De deprecatoria epistola (p. 363) Exemplum (p. 364) Alterum exemplum (p. 365) Aliud exemplum ex epist. Plinii (p. 366)

the correspondence of erasmus

141

Deprecatoriae sylva (p. 366) Responsio (p. 367) iv. De extraordinariis generibus epistolarum, et primum de nunciatione [“Familiar” Letters] [De nunciatione] Exemplum (p. 369) Nunciatoriae sylva (p. 371) Nunciatoria mea (p. 374) De mandatoria epistola (p. 374) N. Liberto suo S. D. P. Mandatoriae sylva (p. 376) Mandatoriae mea (p. 376) De epistola collaudatoria (p. 377) De gratiarum actione (p. 377) Agendi gratias sylva (p. 381) Mea (p. 383) Ad gratiarum actionem respons. (p. 384) Ex. Plinio. Gratiarum actio pro libera admonitione (p. 385) Lamentatoria epistola (p. 385) Lamentatoriae sylva (p. 387) Lamentatoriae mea (p. 393 n. p.) De gratulatoria epistola (p. 393) Gratuloriae sylva (p. 396) Gratulatio mea (p. 397) Responsio ad gratulationem (p. 399) Responsio mea (p. 399) De iocosa epistola (p. 399) Iocosae sylva (p. 400) Conciliatoria (p. 401) Laudatoriae sylva (p. 402) Responsio ad laudem (p. 404) Responsio ad laudem mea (p. 404) Officiosa (p. 406) Officiosae sylva (p. 406) [Other Extraordinary Letters] Disputatoriae genus (p. 409) Disputatoriae sylva (p. 410) Libri de ratione conscribendi epistolas, D. Erasmo Roterodamo autore, finis (p. 410)

142

bénévent

Appendix 2: For a Typology of Erasmus’ Letters Many “intermediate formulas” separate the “private letter that the writer never for a moment intended to publish” from “a letter that one writes for the very purpose of publishing it.”55 To understand this without creating too strict a distinction between simple letters and epistolary works, it could be useful to set up a typology based on the degree of publicity intended by their author. We propose therefore to make the following distinctions in dealing with the letters gathered by Allen: – Letters designed specifically to be published, including: – The works composed in epistolary form, some of which were partially published by Allen, as well as the 42 epistles addressed “To the reader” unknown or imaginary to the author. These latter are borderline cases of the epistolary form. – Prefaces, dedications, and afterwords addressed to a particular person.56 More clearly than the preceding cases, they imply an instance of double destination addressed both to a particular person and to a wider public, for whom the first addressee becomes a kind of relay of the letter to the wider public. – Letters intended for publication by Erasmus but which follow different procedures: – Those that were published immediately either alone or with others to accompany a short work. This usually applies either to letters containing contention or debate57 or to letters addressed to friends. An example of the latter is Ep. 2283 to the Scottish historian Hector Boece, in which Erasmus lists the latest catalogue of all his works (1530). – The wide body of letters appearing in any given collection, whose status is diverse. One difference would be between those letters for which a long time elapsed between the writing of a letter and its eventual publication and other letters, which were published so soon after Erasmus wrote them that their recipients read them in print before receiving them personally. 55 56 57

Bernard Bray, “L’épistolier et son public en France au xviie siècle,” Travaux de linguistique et de littérature 11 (1973) 7–17. We have identified 166 letters that are explicitly presented in that way to which should be added six afterwords and 12 others. See for example, Epistola ad quosdam impudentissimos gracculos (Ep. 2275), Epistola consolatoria in aduersis (Ep. 1925), Epistola contra pseudevangelicos (Ep. 2238), Epistola de Termino (Ep. 2018, in Interpretatio Ps. 85), Epistola … in tyrologum quendam impudentissimum calumniatorem (Ep. 1858, in De Babyla Martyre, of Chrysostom). Others were not reprinted by Allen, such as the Epistola de esu carnium.

the correspondence of erasmus

143

Of all the letters written by Erasmus and published before 1536 (including prefaces and particular editions), 32% were published in the same year they were written. Others, written in the interval between the publication of two collections, simply waited for the next collection to appear. In such cases, 20% appeared in print after only one year, and 9 % appeared within two years. Beyond that, the proportions vary between 2 % and 5 % appearing between three and eight years after they were written, and then dip below 1% for a period of more than eight years. A few very early letters, published twenty years later in the Farrago, increase this last percentage only slightly. – Posing a still more difficult problem are letters that were never published but were copied and distributed according to Erasmus’ wishes. The best and perhaps the only example is the famous letter to Beatus Rhenanus (Ep. 867) that recounts his difficult journey from Basel to Louvain in September 1518.58 In other cases, it is hard to ascertain whether Erasmus favored or regretted diffusing his letters in that way. Moreover, the criterion according to which these letters were printed or not is not always a good way to measure the extent of publicity, as Erasmus himself seems to have exercised the practice of “trial publishing”59 which he describes in a letter to Alonso Manrique.60 – A small proportion of letters were published by Erasmus’ correspondents in their own collections. While not always favorable, Erasmus’ reactions were not necessarily negative. – Quite different is the status of letters published in a collection under his authority that had been taken from a pirated edition that, at the same time, he was busy denouncing. This is undoubtedly the most troubling area of Erasmus’ publication strategies.

58

59

60

See Henri Gibaud, “Les tribulations d’Erasme de Bâle à Louvain” in La Correspondance d’Erasme et l’épistolographie humaniste (Bruxelles, 1985) 25–36. The recipients of epistles 877 to 885 (except Ep. 884) were told that they would receive copies of it from Beatus Rhenanus, although Erasmus had a copy sent directly to Cuthbert Tunstall in England (Ep. 886 cwe lines 13–14). Michel Simonin, “Poétiques des éditions ‘à l’essai’ au xvie siècle” in Riflessioni Teoriche e Trattati di Poetica tra Francia e Italia nel Cinquecento (Atti del convegno internazionale di Studio, Castello di Malcesine, 22–24 May 1997), ed. Elio Mosele (Fasano: Schena, 1999) 17–33. Ep. 1888 Allen lines 1–5: “Reverende Praesul, mitto Responsionem typis quidem excusam, at non aeditam, nisi quid aliter censuerit autoritas tua: cui per me licebit et isthic aedere, si videbitur. Videbam opus aliquot exemplaribus, quo certius iudicarent ad hoc delegati, nec mihi suppetebat tanta scribarum copia.”

144

bénévent

– Letters published without Erasmus’ knowledge. In this case we should distinguish between: – Letters printed against his will. – Letters that remained unpublished but were nonetheless copied and distributed in manuscript without his knowledge.61 – As we have seen, 700 of Erasmus’ letters remained unpublished during his lifetime. Among these, several names stand out: – The set of letters exchanged with his banker Erasmus Schets, and those with Jan de Hondt and Pierre Barbier, who were responsible for handling his pension in Courtrai. This tends to show that, in accord with Greek etymology, Erasmus preferred to keep his economic affairs private. Exchanges with his printers, often the hidden face so essential in producing his many works, were among the letters that Erasmus chose not to publish. – Letters exchanged with the men he considered to be his closest friends including Bonifacius Amerbach, Willibald Pirckheimer, Conradus Goclenius, Thomas More, and Nicolaus Olahus. Many of these letters Erasmus considered too private to publish because they contained discretionary instructions. Translated from the French by James K. Farge 61

For more on these problems that are too complex to untangle here, see Bénévent, La correspondance d’Érasme 441–458.

chapter 8

Print and Humanism: Portrait of Erasmus as a Paper Oracle Alexandre Vanautgaerden

1

Introduction

I want to sketch a biography of Erasmus based on his books, not on his writings: Erasmus ex Erasmi libris rather than Erasmus ex Erasmo. The use of painting by the Humanist has been emphasized. Still, it has not been possible to identify the painted portraits of Erasmus and his epistolary collections as part of the same communication strategy, the Humanist preferring one or the other medium depending on the evolution of the political context and the battle to be fought.1 By following the order of publication of the editiones principes, a new profile of the Humanist emerges, which allows us to define the conception he had of printing. This story, year after year, will enable us to understand that the printer’s status was not established in Erasmus’ eyes. In general, he regarded them with benevolence but condescension. Erasmus met few printers whom he considered to be true humanists. Erasmus first fixed his Latin name in 1506, chose a motto for himself in 1508 (concedo nulli), and then sketched the first portrait: literary in 1515, painted in 1517. The image that most scholars have of Erasmus today is the result of this meticulous elaboration. The Humanist quickly understood the importance of disseminating his works. Poor, bastard, orphaned at the age of twelve, Erasmus was aware of his intellectual superiority and social inferiority. His repeated polemics reflected Erasmus’ personality, notably with Prince Alberto Pio da Carpi. He used the weapons at his disposal, for without the presses of his printers, he would have remained a monk without intellectual influence. Symptomatically, his first literary and pictorial representations are contemporary with his desire to free himself from his status as a monk. In 1516 he obtained papal permission to continue his life outside the monastery of Steyn.

1 See Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters (Princeton, NJ, 1993), Karine Crousaz, Erasmus et le pouvoir de l’imprimerie (Lausanne, 2005), and Alexandre Vanautgaerden, Self-portraits of Erasmus (Turnhout, 2010), which offers a bibliography on the subject.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_010

146 2

vanautgaerden

Printing in Paris (1495–1501)

Erasmus’ first published work dates from 1495. It is a modest work, a laudatory letter to the glory of Robert Gaguin, minister general of the Trinitarian order in Paris, which appears as a postface to his work on the history of France. It was printed by Pierre Le Dru in Paris in 1495 in folio format. Erasmus’ letter is on folio 136. It is composed in Gothic, in a “block” text, which has a single graphic articulation, a fly foot, at the top of the verso of the folio. This work offers little reading comfort for a 21st-century reader. Erasmus’ second published text is a personal collection of poems published by Antoine Denidel in 1496. It, too, is not visually different from the general Parisian production. After collaborating with Denis Roce in 1497 in editing a volume of poetry by Willem Hermans, he left the Gothic world to publish his collection of adages in Roman type with Johannes Philippi in 1500.2 This new book was already an evolution in the eyes of Erasmus, who was not unaware of the Italian prints sold in the bookshops of the French capital. His second work published by Philippi a year later, an edition of Cicero, brought him into the circle of publishers of ancient texts. This edition of Cicero offers, apart from its Roman character, another novelty: it frees the text from the obese commentary of Pietro Marso. The comparison of this edition with the Venetian edition of Baptista de Tortis, published in 1486, shows this desire to give Cicero’s text the first place by freeing it from the pincers of the commentary. Although the De officiis is in folio format, folio aiii r° allows one to read from Cicero’s text only the title: “Marci Tullii Ciceronis liber primus ad Marcum filium,” followed by the beginning of the first sentence of the text: “Quanquam te Marce fili,” the rest of the sentence, and of the page, are eaten up by the commentary of Pietro Marso. The identical layout can be found in 1500 in another Venetian edition of Cicero by Filippo Pinzi. The Erasmian edition presents a very different face. Voluntarily abandoning the in-folio format, Erasmus chose to publish this text in a reduced format, as he explains in his preface: “Quos quoniam Plinius Secundus negat unquam de manibus deponi oportere, voluminis magnitudinem quoad licuit contraximus, 2 A detailed list of Erasmus’ editions can be found in Vanautgaerden, Érasme typographe (Geneva, 2012) 497–527. One can also consult the notes on the printers with whom Erasmus collaborated in coe. On the subject, see Peter F. Tschudin, “Erasmus und der Buchdruk” in Erasmus von Rotterdam. Vorkämpfer für Frieden und Toleranz (Basel, 1986) 41–48; the early article by P.S. Allen, “Erasmus’ relations with his printers” collected in Erasmus: Lectures and Wayfaring Sketches (Oxford, 1934) 109–137; Crousaz, Erasmus et le pouvoir de l’imprimerie; and Valentina Sebastiani, Johann Froben, printer of Basel (Leiden, 2018). The introductions to the various volumes of Erasmus’ complete works in Latin in asd contain a great deal of information on the editing of the humanist’s works.

print and humanism: portrait of erasmus as a paper oracle

147

quo semper in manibus enchiridii vice gestari et, quod scripsit idem, ad verbum edisci possint.”3 But that is not all. The text in Roman appears airy and is only commented on marginally, in annotations that Erasmus calls asterisci or little stars. These are, unfortunately, composed in Gothic. This edition remains in a cultural in-between. Erasmus favors text over commentary without daring to “strip” the page completely, as Aldus Manutius could do in the same years. Erasmus was aware of this slight “archaism.” However, he was not yet in a position to impose his views on his printers, for he remained a modest monk, who had become secretary to the bishop of Cambrai, Hendrik van Bergen, and who resided in Paris for his studies since he was unable to travel to Italy with his patron. As a result, Erasmus knew Italy only through the books he discovered in Paris or, from 1499, in the libraries of his English friends who had collaborated with Aldus in Venice, such as Thomas Linacre and William Latimer. Forced to leave Paris because of the plague, Erasmus published nothing in 1502.

3

Dirk Martens: First Collaboration (1503–1504)

He then returned to the Netherlands and began the first collaboration with Dirk Martens from 1503 to 1504.4 These publications did not satisfy him from an aesthetic point of view, but they enabled him to contact the court of Burgundy and find a new patron in the duke’s person. The aesthetic contrast between these impressions by Dirk Martens and a manuscript preserved today in Trinity College, Cambridge, and laid out by Erasmus himself is stupendous.5 It is a copy of a presentation of declamations by Libanius, offered to the bishop of Arras Nicolas Ruistre. This manuscript was copied in 1503 and provides the Latin text, then the Greek text. Dirk Martens did not publish these declamations until July 1519, sixteen years later, probably because he was unable to compose a text requiring so many Greek characters. At that time in Antwerp, the printer had been content with Greek quotations inserted in texts written in Latin. The Cambridge 3 Ep. 152 Allen lines 16–19, cwe lines 20–23: “Since Pliny the Elder says these books should never be out of one’s hands, I have reduced the bulk of the volume as far as possible to permit its being carried about always as a pocket handbook and, as Pliny also recommended, learnt by heart.” 4 On Dirk Martens, see Cornelis Reedijk, “Érasme, Thierry Martens et le Iulius exclusus” in Scrinium Erasmianum, vol. 2 (Leiden, 1969) 351–378 and his booklet Erasmus en onze Dirk (Haarlem, 1974). See also the biography of Martens by Adam and Vanautgaerden, Thierry Martens et la figure de l’humaniste imprimeur (Turnhout, 2009). 5 Libanius, Aliquot declamatiunculae Graece eademque Latine, 1503, Cambridge, Trinity College, R.9.26.

148

vanautgaerden

manuscript reveals an author, Erasmus, capable of setting out his work in the Italian style, with a more “modern” layout than the French or Flemish composers he had been working with for eight years. Erasmus was the son of a copyist. It was most probably through his father that the young Erasmus discovered Italian culture. Gerard knew Greek and Latin and had followed the lessons of Guarino Guarini of Ferrara. He had personally copied a small collection of classical texts for his use.6 On reading the manuscript of Augustine copied by Gerard in the British Library, we cannot establish a formal link between the handwriting of the father and that of the son. The handwriting of the manuscript copied in Italy in 1458 shows the Dutch copyist’s desire to integrate the style of Italian writing in use in the mid-15th century, but it is unrelated to Erasmus’ writing in 1503.7

4

Josse Bade (1505–1506)

At the end of his stay in the Netherlands, Erasmus discovered a manuscript by Lorenzo Valla near Leuven, which he decided to publish.8 He had to use the services of a printer who was familiar with Greek printing to do so. Therefore, he turned away from Dirk Martens and returned to Paris, where he began a new collaboration with a printer who had an outwardly similar profile to Aldus: Josse Bade. This printer, born in Ghent, had, in fact, first embarked on a career as a humanist before opening his own business. Josse Bade went to Italy not to learn the printing trade but to attend courses there. Although he, like Dirk Martens, is originally from Flanders, in reality, everything separates them. Bade worked as a scholarly proofreader in Lyon before opening his shop in 1503. In Paris, he embarked on his career without much financial means, but in the eyes of a humanist like Erasmus, he appeared to be the most promising printer. Bade in Lyon had refused to publish the poet Baptista Mantuanus in Gothic letters when he worked at Treschel. This was indeed a testimony to his “modernity” calculated to seduce the Rotterdam humanist.

6 Giuseppe Avarucci, “Due codici scritti da ‘Gerardus Helye’ padre di Erasmo,”Italia medioevale e umanistica 26 (1983) 215–255. 7 S. Augustini Hipponensis Episcopi de Civitate Dei libri xxii, London, British Library, Add ms 27867. 8 The manuscript of Valla’s Annotations to the New Testament discovered by Erasmus in the library of the Parc Abbey is now kept in the Royal Library of Belgium. On the history of the edition of this text, see Lorenzo Valla, Collatio Novi Testamenti, ed. Alessandro Perosa (Florence, 1970) for the Brussels manuscript, p. xi, note 7.

print and humanism: portrait of erasmus as a paper oracle

149

There was great disappointment when Erasmus discovered the printing of his Annotationes in Novum Testamentum and Bade apologized to the readers at the end of the work for the lack of “Greek letters.” This folio does not offer the revolutionary face that Erasmus had hoped for, and its layout is far inferior to what the Humanist had achieved in the Cambridge manuscript presented to Nicolas Ruistre. Nevertheless, he continued to publish with Bade the following year, in 1506, when he left England to stop in Paris to deliver his two manuscripts to the printer in Ghent. He did not wait for them to be published, as he was anxious to reach the longed-for Italy. Of the two volumes, one Euripides and one Lucian, the first is an absolute graphic surprise. Very airy in its design, it offers a reading comfort unheard of in the Parisian environment or the Netherlands at the same time. If it had a more refined title page, the edition of Euripides would appear as one of the most beautiful European books published at that time. Unfortunately, Erasmus was again dissatisfied. The edition contained too many typos. When he proposed its republication to Aldus in 1507, Erasmus did not fail to express his disapproval of the volume.9 A beautiful book is nothing in Erasmus’ eyes if the form does not reflect the elegance of the content.

5

Aldo Manuzio (1507–1508)

When he arrived in Italy, Erasmus became a doctor of theology in Turin and then travelled around before settling in Bologna, where he stayed for eighteen months. Erasmus retired and did not publish anything during his stay in Italy. He does not contact any printer because he wants to collaborate with Aldus and nobody else. He works alone and puts the revision of his collection of proverbs on hold. Erasmus is an unknown in Italy: he has published no outstanding work that would have crossed the mountains, and he does not teach. His strategy seems to be reculer pour mieux sauter. Instead of offering his manuscript of the Adages directly to Aldus, he prefers to present him with a reworked version from the edition of Euripides published by Bade.10 Erasmus knew of Aldus’ taste for Greek texts and knew that the Venetian publishing house demanded translations, as the Greek versions were not sufficiently profitable. The Humanist will always be able to offer his publishers books that sell. And his gamble succeeds. 9 10

Ep. 207 Allen line 29: “usque adeo mendis scatent omnia.” See Vanautgaerden, “Érasme, Alde Manuce et l’édition d’Euripide de 1507” in Italia Belgica (Rome, 2005) 85–101.

150

vanautgaerden

Aldus took the bait and decided to publish this “barbarian” from Thule. Erasmus knew of the fame of the dolphin mark among his humanist colleagues and noted the revolutionary form of the Aldine collection of in-octavos published in italics. Erasmus wanted to be published by Aldus, not in an in-folio as Bade had been able to do for his tragedies of Euripides, but in the small collection in which the ancient authors he revered shone. Manutius printed Euripides in ten days, and the Humanist used it as an end-of-year gift: penniless, he constantly needed to maintain his network of potential patrons. Erasmus went to Venice at the end of 1507 or the beginning of 1508. As soon as he arrived, the Aldine office put itself at Erasmus’ service for a few months while the editions of Pliny’s letters and the two volumes on the Greek rhetors were being prepared and printed. Erasmus was now forty years old and possessed a unique charisma that enabled him to unite the people. From then on, when Erasmus entered a workshop, he became the center of it. Whether in Venice, Leuven, or Basel, all the forces at work put themselves at his service to technically carry out his intellectual projects. The popularity of Erasmian writings stands in this balancing act between liberal and mechanical art. He could have remained the secretary of a bishop or worked in the imperial chancellery and published the fruits of his otium from time to time. In Venice, Erasmus changed the center of power. He drew a new cartography in which Aldus’ library-workshop became the central star around which the courts of diplomats gravitated as satellite stars disappeared.

6

Matthias Schürer and Beatus Rhenanus (1509)

After crossing the Alps, Erasmus had perfectly assimilated the collective dimension of intellectual work that a workshop could offer. From now on, he will try to reproduce this model of production, which will soon make him the Prince of humanists. He left the lagoon, exhausted, in October 1508. Erasmus finally discovered Rome, then accompanied Alexander Stewart to Naples as his tutor. Shortly afterwards, he learned that Henry viii had just ascended the throne. His friends urged him to leave Italy, promising him a glorious situation in England. After Florence, he crossed the Apennines, slept one night in Bologna, crossed the Alps at the Septimer pass, went through Chur, Constance, crossed the Breisgau, and reached Strasbourg. Unfortunately, Erasmus says nothing about this first contact with the Alsatian city in 1509. The Humanist only had to wait there for the embarkation to reach Cologne on the Rhine, while, unbeknownst to him, a humanist center impregnated with Erasmiansm was developing in Strasbourg around the printer Matthias Schürer, who had opened his workshop

print and humanism: portrait of erasmus as a paper oracle

151

the previous year. That same year, 1509, Schürer published two collections of proverbs, one by Polydore Vergil and one by Erasmus. Both works were published at the instigation of Beatus Rhenanus, a humanist from Sélestat who played a major role in Erasmus’ career and whose name we have already mentioned. The latter was to become the director of editions at the House of Froben and was one of the rare scholars whom the Rotterdam humanist trusted with the publication of his texts.11

7

Robert de Keysere and Gilles de Gourmont (1511)

But in 1509, although Beatus Rhenanus possessed almost all of Erasmus’ books, Erasmus knew nothing of Beatus and continued on his way to Calais and then London. Unfortunately, the British Isles did not shine in the sixteenth century for the quality of their typographical offices, and booksellers in London imported Latin books printed on the continent on a massive scale. This explains why in 1511, several works by the Humanist were published in Paris, not by Bade, but by a somewhat mysterious workshop, referred to in the colophons as the “Presses de Cesar,” Robert de Keysere, another citizen of Ghent. At the beginning of his career, Erasmus travelled mainly with compatriots belonging to the same ‘nation.’ Robert de Keysere was more of a schoolmaster than a printer. In the works attached to his name, the name of a printer (Biermant of Bruges) appears. It is not possible to determine whether the typographical equipment used by the “Cesar presses” belonged to Robert de Keysere in Paris or whether he acquired it when he left the capital to return to Ghent, where he printed several works with it. The important thing is to highlight the Parisian intellectual center that Robert de Keysere managed to establish around the College of Tournai, of which he assumed the direction. In this environment, Erasmus met Gilles de Gourmont, who published the first edition of The Praise of Folly in 1511. The first edition of Moria is not a typographical masterpiece. Printed in Roman, it presents various problems, both in the editing and in the printing. The Greek quotations are printed in a space left in reserve in the Latin text, but the space is often too ample for the Greek words. Erasmus expressed his dissatisfaction with this printing, which he did not fail to disown, leaving the authorship of the edition to an English student, Richard Croke. I cannot believe that Erasmus would relinquish the responsibil-

11

Frank Hieronymus, “Beatus Rhenanus und das Buch. Bio-biographische Flickstücke,” Annuaire des Amis de la Bibliothèque humaniste de Sélestat 36 (1986) 63–114.

152

vanautgaerden

ity of editing such a pivotal text to a student in Paris while he was living there. The rest of the Humanist’s career shows that whenever he feared the public’s reaction to a new text, he tried to suggest that his work had been published without his knowledge by a friend or student. This process allowed him to test the feedback from readers.

8

Josse Bade: Second Collaboration (1512)

In 1512, he sent a famulus to Paris to deliver several texts to Josse Bade, including an edition of Seneca’s tragedies. Unfortunately, the work arrived at the wrong moment in the office because this text had just been published in Paris. Bade published this work only two years later. It is an understatement to say that Erasmus must have been very disappointed when he saw the folio. Before the publication of the New Testament in 1516 and his appointment as adviser to the future emperor Charles v, Erasmus was constantly short of money. Therefore, it was essential for him to regularly dedicate his works to one, or better still, several patrons, to hope for an obolus. If we take the example of the edition of Lucian in 1506 at Bade, we find no less than eight different dedicatees. However, when he finally decided to publish Seneca’s tragedies, Bade completely drowned out Erasmus’ work by inserting him in a chain of commentators. On the title page, his name is wholly dissolved among the names of the other scholars. Therefore, Erasmus couldn’t appropriate this work. This was the last straw and the final collaboration between Erasmus and Josse Bade.

9

Discovery of Johann Froben (1513–1516)

The Humanist hoped to finally find a comfortable financial situation with the enthronement of Henry viii, but to no avail.12 Disillusioned, he ended up looking for a new home from 1513. In December, in Cambridge, he discovered a curious surreptitious edition of the Adages published in Basel and reproducing page by page the Aldine edition of 1508. The surprise was considerable. The edition presented an accurate text in Greek, better than that provided by Aldus! In many respects, the edition of this printer, whom he does not know and to whom he refers as quidam, Johann Froben, corrects several typos left by the 12

Erasmus published few books in England, but for his collaboration with Richard Pynson, see Vanautgaerden, “Érasme chez Richard Pynson (1513), imprimeur du Roi,” Moreana 176 (2009) 191–213.

print and humanism: portrait of erasmus as a paper oracle

153

Italian proofreaders. Not a trivial matter. For the first time, a “barbarian printer” beat the Italians at their own game of editing Greek texts. Moreover, history has preserved the name of the humanist who corrected these quotations from the Aldine edition: Bruno Amerbach. In his personal copy donated by the printer Matthias Schürer, another German humanist, Beatus Rhenanus, had drawn up a list of corrections to the Greek passages in 1509. But the work of Bruno Amerbach is much more significant. There was no doubt that he had to go to Basel to get to know this unforeseen quidam. Froben may have been unknown to Erasmus in 1513, but by then he had been publishing books under his own name for twenty-two years. Johann Froben, often associated with Johannes Petri and Johann Amerbach, in a partnership referred to by Reuchlin as the three Johanns, was not a humanist. Froben concentrated on the production of traditional works of theology, often in folio format, and Bibles printed in gothic. It is not surprising that Erasmus knew nothing about this workshop. Erasmus began a truly triumphal tour of the Rhine, with every city celebrating him: Strasbourg, Sélestat, then Basel. In Strasbourg, he begins a collaboration with Schürer. He will keep this friendship with the Alsatian printer, to whom he will provide several unpublished texts or revisions of his works.13 However, Erasmus would work for a single printing house that placed itself entirely at his service from now on. Froben had a virtual monopoly on the Humanist’s texts. This collaboration took place without a contract being drawn between them; they were united only by mutual trust. Erasmus settled in Basel in 1514. He found a context close to the one he had encountered in Venice in 1508. Johann Froben was not a scholar. What ties the Humanist to Froben’s ship is the industrial structure. Heir to the most important printer in Basel, Johann Amerbach, Froben was also associated with a bookseller who possessed considerable financial means and an effective distribution network, Wolfgang Lachner. Froben married his daughter Gertrud Lachner. But, above all, he could rely on the resources of the University of Basel. There, he found the scholarly proofreaders who would make his house famous and distinguish his mark with the caduceus, like Aldus’ dolphins, as a mark of quality. Soon, the snakes and dove would signify throughout Europe the guarantee of a carefully printed work. Froben also had the good fortune to work at the same time as a brilliant generation of artists such as Hans Holbein and Urs Graf, who invented a new 13

See H.D. Saffrey, “Trois avis au lecteur de Matthias Schürer,” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch (1979) 143–145 and Léon Halkin, “Matthias Schürer imprimeur d’Érasme” in Boek, bibliotheek en geesteswetenschappen (Hilversum, 1986) 124–131.

154

vanautgaerden

layout for titles. In 1513, Erasmus was undoubtedly struck by this engraved frame featuring philosophers and showing Humanitas in a chariot at the top of the engraving, pulled by Greek authors and pushed by Latin authors. Even the titles of Aldus Manutius pale in comparison to the engraved settings of the Frobenian office. Under the influence of Rhenanus and Erasmus, the printer quickly developed more handy quarto volumes. These volumes, which are easy to take with you when you travel, will fit in perfectly with the new spirit that Erasmus brings to Basel. However, the Humanist arrives in a city where he does not have to invent everything. Since the fifteenth century, Basel printers have worked with leading humanists such as Johann Heynlin von Steyn, Sebastian Brant, Conrad Leontorius or the Hellenists Johann Reuchlin and Johann Cuno, who worked before Erasmus in Italy. The place that Erasmus was to occupy at the center of production was not a novelty in Basel. Thanks to this scholarly tradition, the fusion with the Rhenish milieu took place easily and obviously in 1514. For two years, Erasmus did a Herculean job: the edition of the letters of Jerome, the New Testament accompanied by a new translation and annotations, a treatise dedicated to Prince Charles v, a completely revised version of his collection of proverbs, the edition of Seneca’s works, an expanded and commented version of The Praise of Folly, and many other smaller texts. In addition, Erasmus and his printer blackened no less than 1,522 printed sheets from the summer of 1514 to May 1516, the date of his departure for the former Netherlands, where he joined the court of Prince Charles, whose adviser he had become.

10

Dirk Martens: Second Collaboration (1516–1521)

In Leuven, Erasmus remained faithful to Johann Froben’s office while collaborating with Dirk Martens for the second time. To Martens he entrusted works of lesser importance (in terms of the number of pages to be printed) than those assigned to Basel. Martens had fewer presses and a more local influence. Martens’ primary customer was the city’s university and its students, and he did not have the international distribution that Wolfgang Lachner offered to the Frobens’ firm. Martens had extraordinary longevity as a printer (56 years), for he had been publishing books since 1473 and only stopped in 1529. Martens’ second Erasmian period (1516–1521) transformed the production and reputation of this printer. Like Johann Froben, Dirk Martens was a man of the workshop and not of the study. Although he was credited (from the 17th century onwards)

print and humanism: portrait of erasmus as a paper oracle

155

for scholarly work, he was not erudite. Martens is a humanist by nature of his production, not by his scholarship. The printer’s epistolary style was admired for a long time before anyone realized that Erasmus wrote most of his letters.14

11

The Fiction of the Aldus of the North (Froben) and the Aldus of the Netherlands (Martens)

Like Froben, who could only write his name in Latin, Martens began to sign “his works” at the age of more than fifty when Erasmus was working alongside him. As if by magic, he lost his pen as soon as Erasmus returned to Basel. He did not write any more letters to his readers during the last eight years of his activity as a typographer. We have several manuscripts signed by “Johann Froben” but written by Erasmus. We can see the same phenomenon in Leuven when Erasmus worked with Martens. About twenty letters are signed “Dirk Martens,” but the printer wrote none of them. The Nordic humanist printer is a figure invented by Erasmus. After discovering an Academy in Venice organized around the printer Aldus Manutius, he tried to reconstitute a similar Areopagus in Basel and the Netherlands. He failed. He found humanist printers there, but no humanists. So he invents them and spreads the image of the Aldus of the North (Froben) and the Aldus of the Netherlands (Martens). He writes letters to them, which they sign with their names, even though they know nothing of Latin: Johann Froben and Dirk Martens are two paper creatures. Two printers answer to these names, who print humanist books, but they are not humanists. Erasmus is a master of media and uses painters and engravers. The printers themselves must now be added to this list. Erasmus played the role of author and took on the task of dictating the text for his printers when they had to speak. The practice goes back a long way. In Bologna, in 1507, he had dared to send a draft of a dedication letter to Aldus Manutius for Aldus to sign with his own name. Big mistake. The Roman humanist discarded Erasmus’ letter and wrote his own epistle to the reader in his edition of Euripides.

14

See the edition of these letters in Vanautgaerden, “Les lettres de Dirk Martens, imprimeur d’Érasme” in Erasmus and the Renaissance Republic of Letters (Turnhout, 2014) 105–144.

156 12

vanautgaerden

Basel’s (Over)production (1521–1529)

In May 1521, tired of the hostile climate in Leuven, he decided to take refuge in the countryside of Anderlecht, where he enjoyed “playing the peasant,” as he wrote to Guillaume Budé.15 He spent the summer revising his annotations and his translation of the New Testament. In the autumn, he set off again to give the third version of his great work to Johann Froben for printing. Erasmus thought of going back and forth and had asked a friend to find him a house with a garden in Leuven. He then dreamed of returning to Rome and ending his days surrounded by scholars and libraries. When the Humanist arrived at Froben’s house, he set to work, turning, chained to his kneading trough. He publishes his New Testament, thinks of leaving Basel, then stays there, goes back to work. He finally acknowledges the Colloquia as his own work and offers an expanded version.16 He tackles the paraphrases of the Gospels. The Netherlands calls him. He saddles his horse, sets off, stops at Brisach, then at Sélestat: fever forces him to turn back. In Basel, he rents a larger house. The time when Erasmus was a penniless humanist is long gone. He needs a place to set up his library and to support his household ( familia). Erasmus waited until October 1522 to set off once more, this time to Rome. He stops in Constance at the home of his friend Botzheim: there, he falls ill again and has to return to Basel. As soon as he arrives, he receives an invitation from Pope Adrian vi to Rome. But he is tired of travelling and goes back to work. A new phase of (over)production comes to him, in demand from all sides. Until then, Erasmus was the master of his work and of his time. At the beginning of his career, he worked in a binary rhythm. He thinks, and he writes. From 1495, when he decided to deliver his texts to the Parisian printers, he did not change his rhythm. He only interrupts himself between two phases of writing to take care of the proofreading. When a book is finished, he retires to start writing a new project. In Venice, Erasmus had excitedly experimented with a new way of working. He starts printing a book without having finished writing it. He continues to write while the first sheets of his book are being printed. Marked forever by this way of working, he took the measure of what a printing office could be. In Paris and Antwerp in the years 1495–1505, it was still only a place of mechanical production that did not alter his thought content. On the lagoon, the dispensary metamorphoses his work intellectually. The scholarly proof15 16

Ep. 1233 Allen lines 185–186: “Haec scripsimus ex rure Anderlacensi, quando tuo exemplo provocati coepimus et ipsi rusticari.” Franz Bierlaire, “Érasme, les imprimeurs et les ‘Colloques’,” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch (1978) 106–114.

print and humanism: portrait of erasmus as a paper oracle

157

readers, the input from Aldus’ library, Aldus himself nourish the substance of his collection of sayings. A printing house becomes a place of mechanical and intellectual production. During his second stay in Basel, a new element emerged as Erasmus was increasingly exposed to external demands. The Humanist was caught up in a rhythm of work that was just in time. He was overwhelmed, not only by the will of his friends and his printer, who constantly demanded new texts to supply the booksellers’ shelves, but also by his passions. The Rotterdam humanist had been attacked from all sides since he published the New Testament. Contrary to the peaceful image he tried to convey in his portraits painted by Holbein, Erasmus had a sanguine temperament. He could not resist responding to the pamphlets that attacked him and sullied the name and image that he had polished by dint of his work. When Edward Lee published his Annotations to Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament in Paris in 1520, his fury was so great that he could not wait until he had completed his reply before printing his response. He tries three times: he delivers the first book to Michael Hillen in March in Antwerp, a second in April, and a last one in May. Erasmus is boiling. Erasmus is a victim of his ease of being printed. The last two volumes of his Opera omnia, devoted to his polemics, are the thickest volumes of the whole set, and one regrets that Erasmus always had a typographer at hand, ready to print whatever he wrote in haste. Erasmus aborted more than he delivered, rushed more than he edited. From then on, Erasmus never rested at the time of the fairs. 75% of the editions of the princeps with a colophon date were published in the two months preceding the spring and autumn fairs. Each time, he emerged from these phases of intensive work exhausted. Not infrequently, several of Erasmus’ books were running simultaneously on Froben’s six presses. He is obliged to run from one press to another to reread the proofs, correct a line, add a witticism. The most striking example is his response to Luther. Erasmus wrote his treatise on free will in 1524. Luther responded immediately but cautiously concealed his response, hoping to arrive triumphant at the Autumn Fair and to ensure that he would win the battle for at least six months, the time it would take for Erasmus to disseminate his response at the next fair. This was to misunderstand the Humanist and the network of acquaintances he had built up throughout Europe. Erasmus managed to obtain a copy of Luther’s treatise a fortnight before the ships sailed for Frankfurt. Within a fortnight, he read the De servo arbitrio and responded to it. Erasmus numbered the paragraphs, read, dictated, and then resumed his reading while Johann Froben printed his first cards. Fortunately, the enormous volumes of the editions of the Church Fathers and his paraphrases on the Gospels remain from this second period in Basel (1521–1529), which were also often written on demand, following external

158

vanautgaerden

requests, but which complete Erasmus’ inner journey. Today, we are content to record the Humanist’s corpus as it appeared at his death, without worrying about sorting out the works intended and written as a result of an intellectual necessity and the works commissioned by others or those of combat. If we compare this with painting, art historians have no trouble understanding this distinction between the food works, quickly executed, often in collaboration with the artist’s studio, and the more fundamental works that tell us about the painter’s vision. We should do the same and describe this red line around the essential work that Erasmus wrote willingly, but which the reputation of his name has buried in a mass of secondary texts. At the beginning of his career, Erasmus wanted to be recognized as a poet. It was a failure. By learning Greek and gradually devoting himself to biblical studies, he began to build his work. In Venice in 1508, he was honored by the Italians with his edition of the Adages. It is still in the field of letters that he makes his mark in 1511 with the publication of The Praise of Folly, which has an enormous impact. Erasmus had to wait until 1516, with his New Testament and Jerome’s edition, before he was finally recognized at his true value. Erasmus was pampered by all the printers for whom he represented a golden goose from that date onwards, as his works were sold and republished, often several times a year.

13

Aldus’ Heir: Gianfrancesco Torresani (1525)

In 1525, Erasmus wants to change his life and leave Basel because he still dreams of Italy. He recalls his time with Aldus the Elder and writes to Gianfrancesco Torresani known as Asulanus from his father’s birthplace of Asola, who now runs the Aldine office, enclosing a revised version of his Adagia.17 And then, to his great surprise, Asulanus refused to print it. He was furious. He writes threateningly, then retracts. We then see him carry out a strange “pas de deux,” which makes us understand how much the Aldine printing house is the only one Erasmus esteems intellectually. The reason given by Asulanus is simple, he cannot publish the Adagia because he is busy printing the five volumes of Galen. Erasmus is stunned, accustomed to printers standing at attention whenever he has a few sheets to distribute. However, he swallowed his anger and ended up writing to Asulanus in a conciliatory manner, then in 1526 inserted in Froben’s reprint of the Adagia praise for the Aldine printing house!18 In return, 17 18

Ep. 1592. See Stefano Gulizia, “The Ethics of Typography in the Erasmian Festina lente,” Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 68–108.

print and humanism: portrait of erasmus as a paper oracle

159

Asulanus offers him the set of Galen.19 Froben, Martens, and even Bade belong to the mechanical arts world in Erasmus’ eyes; the same is not true of Aldus the Elder or Torresani, whom he regards as his peers.

14

Johannes Faber Emmeus (1529–1535)

Erasmus, therefore, remained in Basel in 1525. He no longer wished to travel, but an event threw him back on the road: the iconoclastic crisis of 1529. He was obliged to show his disapproval by leaving the city or risk being accused of supporting the Reform. In order not to stray too far from Froben’s printing house, he moved temporarily, he thought, to Freiburg im Breisgau. The city was small, and he did not like it very much, but he stayed there from 1529 to 1535. Johann Herwagen married Froben’s widow, Gertrud Lachner. A third printer, Nicolaus Episcopius married Justina, the daughter of Johann Froben and Gertrud Lachner. The three of them frequently joined forces to publish Erasmus’ works. Erasmus left Basel for Freiburg in 1529, embarking with a printer more modest than Froben, Johannes Faber Emmeus, but whose religious convictions were close to his own. The Humanist published several works in his own home when Faber set up his business in Freiburg, mainly to affirm his membership in the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, Erasmus published a medieval treatise on the sacrament of the Eucharist, the De veritate corporis et sanguinis Dominici in Eucharistia by Saint Alger (12th century). About ten first editions, mainly of texts that he could no longer publish in Basel, such as his polemics with Geldenhouwer, Bucer or Eppendorf, were published under the Faber label.

15

Last Stay in Froben’s House (1535–1536)

But his leading printer was still the Frobenian firm, from which Erasmus could not distance himself, despite the invitations that the humanist received from the most influential figures in Europe. To supervise the printing of his treatise on the preacher (Ecclesiastes), he was obliged to return in 1535 to Basel. Unable to ride, Erasmus travels to Basel in a woman’s carriage. He is a tired man. He can no longer control the printing of his work as he would have done in the past because the pages to be corrected are often sent to him during the hours he must devote to sleep. He does not pass the buck to the proofreaders,

19

A gift acknowledged in ep. 1746.

160

vanautgaerden

assuming all the defects of the work in a letter to the reader.20 In January 1536, he published his last major work, a meditation on Psalm xiv and concord (De puritate tabernaculi), an in-quarto reflecting the typographical perfection the Frobenian office achieved. Everything was done to make it more readable. A few reprints followed (Ecclesiastes, Chiliades), but Erasmus’ suffering increased, and an attack of gout prevented him from writing. He died during the night of 11 to 12 July 1536.

16

Trophonius: The Birth of the Modern Book.

Erasmus divided his life into two equal parts, one devoted to travel, the other locked up in the office of his printers. The Humanist left his mark on the minds of his time by his liveliness of spirit, his desire for concord, and his uncommon strength of work for such a puny person. But he was not satisfied with surpassing the majority of his contemporaries by the power of his thought. Erasmus understood that it had to be embodied, to take shape in the mirror of the pages. He knew that he had to modernize the presentation of his texts if he wanted to impose himself in European humanist circles. By actually entering the printing workshop in Venice, working among the presses, he understood the typographer’s trade. He used this technical knowledge to sharpen his ideas. His great originality will be to have designed the form of his books according to their content. Erasmus proposed different layouts according to the readers for whom he intended a particular text. Erasmus knew that if he wanted to offer a treatise to the future Charles v, age 16, with a meagre knowledge of Latin, he had to provide a digestible layout, made up of short paragraphs accompanied by easily remembered headings. In the same way, in 1515, when he conceived an edition of The Praise of Folly reworked and provided with annotations, to protect himself against the attacks of theologians, Erasmus proposed to his printer that he adopt an “archaic layout,” where the text is concentrated in a rectangle surrounded by the commentary, as medieval Bibles could be. Erasmus did not just write. While his book was being composed in the printing press, he thought about how it would be read and understood. Sometimes he proposed graphic solutions to the composers in Froben’s workshop that offended the proofreaders. We know of a debate between a proofreader (Nikolaus Gerbel) and the author over the layout of the

20

Ep. 3044.

print and humanism: portrait of erasmus as a paper oracle

161

New Testament.21 The former objected to the latter’s wish to publish one Greek and one Latin column on the same page. What seems to us to be the rule of a bilingual text edition still remained to be defined, and Erasmus was the first to engage in such a debate, to make the ideas he wished to communicate read differently. Locked up in Aldus’ or Froben’s office, early in the morning until nightfall, Erasmus proclaimed oracles in the manner of Trophonius22 amidst the din of the presses, which still reach us because he was one of the key players in the birth of the modern book. 21 22

See Vanautgaerden, Érasme typographe 303–309. Adage 677 He has consulted the oracle in Trophonius’ cave.

chapter 9

Erasmus in the History of Religious Tolerance Eric MacPhail

Erasmus has earned a place of honor in the history of tolerance primarily through his paraphrase of the parable of the tares and the wheat in the gospel of Matthew and more generally through his courageous opposition to religious persecution, even and especially the persecution of his own bitter critics such as Martin Luther. At the same time, Erasmus was much more interested in advocating peace and concord within the Christian church than in defending religious pluralism. Mario Turchetti has drawn a useful distinction between concord and tolerance, and Erasmus clearly subscribes to the former term in this dichotomy.1 However, Joseph Lecler reminds us that Erasmus did on occasion advocate a policy of legal coexistence within the same territory of different Christian denominations, though this policy of civil tolerance had no immediate application in practice.2 The key issue for Erasmus and his era was the proper response of political and ecclesiastical authorities to heresy and the threat of schism. Should heretics be persecuted or not? To answer in the negative was to advocate tolerance, though not in the fullest modern sense of proclaiming the intrinsic value of religious pluralism. Tolerance of religious dissent within Christianity and indeed within Protestantism could have an instrumental value. Tolerance might be merely a means to an end, an interim solution to political problems. All of these issues surface in Erasmus’ work, in his biblical scholarship, his polemical writing, and his correspondence. Tolerance was first of all an historical problem bequeathed by the early Christian Church to the Reformation, and Erasmus, like his contemporaries, was keenly aware of how strongly the earlier controversies over Pelagianism, Arianism, and Donatism resonated in his own era. The main patristic reference in the matter was St. Augustine’s intervention in the Donatist movement of North Africa in the late Roman empire. The Renaissance knew Augustine as someone who had converted from tolerance to intolerance and who championed the persecution of the Donatists. Erasmus for his part was most sensitive

1 Mario Turchetti, Concordia o tolleranza? François Bauduin (1520–1573) e i « moyenneurs » (Geneva, 1984). 2 Joseph Lecler, Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme, vol. 1 (Paris, 1955) 137–138.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_011

erasmus in the history of religious tolerance

163

in Augustine’s work to signs of mansuetudo or leniency that brought Augustine’s teaching closer to the philosophy of Christ. In the aftermath of Luther’s 95 theses, Erasmus frequently invokes Augustine’s clemency or leniency toward his implacable foes the Donatists. Writing to Albert of Brandenburg in October 1519, he deplores the eagerness of the Louvain theologians to persecute Luther when Augustine, even against the Donatists, who were more brigands than heretics, would not countenance those who rely on force rather than teaching.3 The following year Erasmus recalls to Lorenzo Campeggi how Augustine interceded on behalf of the Donatists to spare them capital punishment, in part to justify his own intermittent sympathies for Luther.4 He probably has in mind the epistles that Augustine wrote to the imperial officials entrusted with the suppression of the Donatists. To Count Marcellinus, Augustine recommends, perhaps disingenuously, the model of apostolic mansuetudo, citing Paul’s epistle to the Philippians 4.5: “Mansuetudo vestra nota sit omnibus hominibus” or “Let all men know your forbearance.”5 Erasmus’ own translation of the New Testament follows the Vulgate reading modestia for Paul’s ἐπιεικὲς while Augustine conserves the earlier reading mansuetudo. Erasmus also had in mind a long letter of Augustine subtitled De correctione Donatistarum liber where Augustine recalls that initially he discouraged severity toward recalcitrant Donatists lest coercion lead to religious imposture and the Churches of Africa end up with a horde of fake Catholics on their hands.6 Erasmus remembers this letter in his Apology against certain Spanish monks written in the aftermath of the Conference of Vallodolid convened in 1527 by the Spanish Inquisition in order to examine the orthodoxy of his writings. To answer the accusation of enmity toward the holy inquisition of heretics, Erasmus turns once again to Augustine and the Donatists, reminding his zealous foes that upon the defeat of the Donatists, the more lenient of the orthodox, mansuetiores, including Augustine, argued against the violent coercion of heretics, not only so as to follow the example of Christ but also out of fear that in lieu of heretics they’d end up with fake Christians, which would endanger the Catholic flock.7 In all these instances, Erasmus speaks out not so much for tolerance as for mansuetudo, which presupposes the triumph of orthodoxy and the reintegration of religious dissidents within the orthodox fold. Mansuetudo operates within one church and not between churches.

3 4 5 6 7

Ep. 1033 Allen lines 102–106. Ep 1167 Allen lines 309–313. Augustine, Epistle 133.2 in csel 44: 82. Augustine, Epistle 185.25 in csel 57: 24. asd ix-9: 329.

164

macphail

Erasmus was particularly interested in those places where Augustine appeals to the parable of the wheat and the tares from Matthew 13 in his polemics against the Donatists. The key text here is Contra epistulam Parmeniani refuting the arguments of Parmenian, the successor to Donatus as bishop of Carthage. Parmenian had written to Tyconius to insist on the exclusive claim of the Donatist Church to be the true church, free of all taint of traditio or betrayal of the faith. Apparently Parmenian had appealed to Jesus’ parable of the tares to bolster his argument. In chapter 13 of the gospel of Matthew, Jesus preaches from a boat to a crowd on shore a sermon full of parables. Among other parables, he tells the crowd that the kingdom of heaven is like the man who sowed his field with good seed, but while his servants slept, his enemy came and sowed tares amid the wheat, “zizania in medio tritici” (Matthew 13, 25). When the tares began to grow above ground, the servants asked the landowner if he wanted them to pull them out, but he said no, lest they pull out the wheat with the tares. Instead, they should let them both grow until the harvest, when he would call his harvesters first to gather the tares to be burned and then collect the wheat to put in the storehouse. After the crowd disperses, Jesus is so good as to explain the parable to his disciples in terms that ought to have preempted the ingenuity of future exegetes. The landowner is the Son of Man, the field is the world, the good seed is the elect, the tares are the damned, the enemy is the devil, the harvest is the end of the world, when the Lord will send his angels to punish the unjust and reward the just. Crucially, in this series of correspondences, Jesus leaves out the servi, the slaves or servants, but Erasmus and others obligingly fill in the lacuna. From Augustine’s rebuttal, we can gather that Parmenian identified the Donatists as the wheat and everyone else as the tares or lapsed Christians who had to be shunned in order to preserve the purity of the true believers. Augustine is not impressed by this logic, and he warns the Donatists not to create a schism but to coexist with other Christians in the field, that is the Universal Church.8 The time for the harvest has not come. In this way, in order to rebut Donatist puritanism, Augustine provides a scriptural rationale for tolerance of religious deviance that would be largely debated in the Renaissance. Erasmus returns to this parable when he prepares his Paraphrase on Matthew for publication with Johann Froben in 1522. The episode of Jesus preaching in parables is not without challenges for the paraphrast, since Jesus has already paraphrased his own parable by explaining it to the disciples. What’s left to paraphrase? Erasmus’ solution is to complete the incomplete 8 See Roland Bainton, “The Parable of the Tares as the Proof Text for Religious Liberty to the End of the Sixteenth Century,” Church History 1 (1932) 67–89.

erasmus in the history of religious tolerance

165

gloss offered by Jesus by identifying the servi who are eager to pull out the tares before the harvest and have to be restrained by their master. Here is Erasmus’ contribution to the parable: The slaves who want to collect the cockles before the time is right are those who think that false apostles and heretics should be removed from our midst by the sword and by death, though the householder does not want them to be destroyed, but to be tolerated, if by chance they might come to their senses and repent, and be turned from cockles into wheat. If they do not repent, let them be saved for their judge, to whom they will pay the penalty some day. The time for the harvest is the consummation of the age. The reapers are the angels. Therefore, in the meantime, evil persons mixed with the good must be endured, since they are tolerated with less harm than they could be removed [quando minore pernicie tolerantur, quam tollerentur]. cwe 45: 215

This is the capital and classic expression of religious tolerance in the works of Desiderius Erasmus. The passage does not advocate tolerance as a positive value but rather as the lesser of two evils, “minore pernicie,” and it does so, characteristically, by means of a play on words involving the verbs tollere or to remove and tolerare, to tolerate. Yet, neither does Erasmus advocate tolerance as a provisional measure in view of some future reconciliation or purge. The bad are to be endured among the good until the end of time. There is also a strong hint of skepticism that would appeal to Michel de Montaigne when Erasmus reminds us that only the angels can discern between the wheat and the tares. Persecution requires a certainty that is not available to human faculties. Erasmus’ reading of the parable in the Paraphrase on Matthew was one of the main points of contention in his quarrel with the Parisian theologian Noël Béda, who published his criticisms of the Paraphrases in a composite work entitled Annotationes in May 1526. With customary alacrity, Erasmus published a refutation of Béda within a month, and several more rebuttals followed in a quarrel that lingered in print until 1532. In one of the earliest installments of this quarrel, known as the Divinationes or conjectures, Erasmus defends his treatment of Jesus’ parable of the tares by mustering several patristic authorities for religious tolerance including Augustine, who interceded with the imperial officials on behalf of the Donatists (asd ix-5: 80). Later, in the more extensive rebuttal entitled Supputationes and divided into 198 numbered propositions, proposition 32 addresses Béda’s objection to Erasmus’ paraphrase of

166

macphail

Matthew 13 as “the damned heresy of Luther” and a violation of Church law.9 Erasmus is quick to point out that he was merely paraphrasing Christ’s words and wonders if Béda would consider Christ a heretic. He also explains that the Church has no legal authority to put to death heretics, as Béda seems to believe, nor does Erasmus challenge the authority of secular rulers to punish heretics who disturb public order, “haereticos turbantes publicam tranquillitatem” (asd ix-5: 352), since, he adds menacingly, they can do the same to the orthodox, including, presumably, troublemaking theologians who attack celebrities enjoying the protection of Pope and Emperor. Erasmus enlists the usual patristic authorities on behalf of tolerance including, this time, an apocryphal work of Augustine, whose authenticity Erasmus never doubted, entitled Quaestiones septemdecim in evangelium secundum Matthaeum,10 which forms an important basis for Erasmus’ reading of the parable of the tares (and largely contradicts Augustine’s authentically intolerant views). This whole proposition from the Supputationes was generously excerpted by Sebastian Castellio in his condemnation of the execution of Miguel Servet, the De haereticis an sint persequendi of 1554, which helped to confirm Erasmus’ leading role in the history of tolerance.11 At the end of proposition 32 of the Supputationes, Erasmus concludes that his critics have nothing to say against him except that he did not quote a certain view of Augustine from the Contra epistulam Parmeniani, which says that heretics are only to be tolerated until they can be removed without disturbance to the Church.12 Erasmus did not incorporate this comment of Augustine in his paraphrase firstly because a paraphrase is obviously not a commentary and secondly because he does not think this comment represents Augustine’s real view, which is another way of saying that it does not represent Erasmus’ view. If Erasmus rejects this instrumental view of tolerance as an interim solution or stalling tactic, he must see some intrinsic value, rather than a merely instru-

9

10 11

12

“Assertio haec haeresis est Lutheri damnata … Porro et imperatorum fidelium leges et Ecclesiae decernunt, monunt ac praecipiunt eiusmodi haeresiarchas et pseudoapostolos de terra funditus perdi et ultricibus committi flammis” (asd ix-5: 352 lines 150–151 note). pl 35: 1368 cited in asd ix-5: 352. For Erasmus and Castellio, see Peter Bietenholz, Encounters with a Radical Erasmus. Erasmus’ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early Modern Europe (Toronto, 2009) 95–108, and Kilian Schindler, “Castellio reading Erasmus: The Erasmian presence in De haereticis an sint persequendi” in Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563): Dissidenz und Toleranz (Göttingen, 2018) 203–225. “Nec aliud mihi potest obiici nisi quod non adiecerim commentum Augustini quo docet ferendos haereticos donec citra gravem Ecclesiae concussionem possint tolli” (asd ix-5: 356).

erasmus in the history of religious tolerance

167

mental value, in tolerance. He explains this insight in the last installment of his quarrel with Béda and the Sorbonne, the Declarationes of 1532. Here, under title 23 “On the punishment of heretics,” Erasmus reiterates and elaborates his reading of the parable of the tares in answer to the censures published by the Sorbonne in 1531. To the censors’ claim that the parable only applies to the early history of the Church, Erasmus cites Christ’s promise that the harvest will come at the end of time, not after four hundred years when the Church will be strong enough to kill its enemies. Moreover, neither Paul nor Augustine teaches that heretics are to be tolerated simply because it’s not safe to kill them but rather so that, through their improbitas, the faith and piety of the elect may be tested.13 Tolerance is not a means to an end but a good in itself. Orthodoxy needs heresy to sharpen its faith. While Erasmus was engaged in controversy with the Catholic censors of his Paraphrases, he came under increasing pressure from both sides of the schism to take a firm and unequivocal stand in relation to the nascent Reformation. Already in 1518 he had expressed some guarded sympathy for Martin Luther in a letter to Johann Lang, and the following year he engaged in a somewhat less than cordial exchange of letters with Luther himself. On June 15, 1520 Pope Leo x issued the bull Exsurge Domine threatening Luther with excommunication and declaring his theses heretical, to which Luther responded with his polemic On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Luther was duly excommunicated on January 3, 1521. Writing in September 1520, in the aftermath of the papal bull, Erasmus informed Gerard Geldenhouwer of his intention to remain neutral in this lamentable affair, even though the pope had tried to bribe him with the offer of an episcopal see: “I am having nothing to do with this miserable business. Otherwise, there is actually a bishopric waiting for me, if I will attack Luther in print.”14 His correspondent Geldenhouwer would assume an unanticipated prominence in the later stages of this tragoedia.15 Near the end of 1520, Erasmus would collaborate with the Dominican prior and imperial councilor Johannes Faber to author a plan for resolving the dispute between Luther and the Pope at a court of arbitration, known as the Consilium cuiusdam ex animo cupientis esse consultum et Romani Pontificis dignitati et Christianae religionis tranquillitati, which began to circulate only after it had been rendered obsolete by the rapid turn of events. In January 1521, fresh from excommunicating Luther, Leo wrote to Erasmus to insinuate that he “had formed the idea of recognizing your outstanding mer13 14 15

asd ix-7: 194. Ep. 1141 cwe lines 35–37. Ep. 1141 Allen line 30.

168

macphail

its by some suitable reward” if only he would wield his formidable learning against certain, unidentified impious men. The Pope even invokes the parable of the tares to appeal to Erasmus’ compassion for the “wholesome crop corrupted together with the tares.”16 It is interesting to speculate how this papal rhetoric may have inflected Erasmus’ paraphrase of the gospel parable. Could the Pope be one of the misguided servi who want to uproot the tares before the harvest? In any event, the papal invitation to engage Luther in debate was repeated, more explicitly this time, by Paolo Bombace in a letter of June 1521 urging Erasmus to take up arms in behalf of the Pope “or rather in behalf of truth itself.”17 Ever evasive, Erasmus answers that it is unfair to expect him to author an attack on Luther since he has had neither time nor permission to read Luther’s works. He is, however, at pains to deny, as he should, ever having given Luther any encouragement for his defiance of the Church.18 Eventually Erasmus succumbed to pressure from the papal court and engaged with Martin Luther in a debate over free will.19 First Erasmus published his Diatribe on Free Will in 1524 to which Luther answered in 1525 with his treatise The Enslaved Will, which elicited from Erasmus the Hyperaspistes or Shieldbearer issued in two parts in 1526 and 1527. In this debate, Erasmus was not so much interested in defending the Catholic doctrine of good works against the Lutheran position of justification by faith alone, as he was in leaving the whole invidious question in suspense by invoking the tradition of epistemological skepticism, which is why Richard Popkin dated the advent of modern skepticism from this quarrel. On the other side of the divide, and even after the quarrel with Luther, some adherents of the Reformation tried to enlist Erasmus in their cause, notably on the question of civil tolerance of religious dissent, a maneuver which Erasmus found intolerable. The culprit here is none other than Erasmus’ old friend and correspondent Gerard Geldenhouwer. At the beginning of 1529 Geldenhouwer published, under the seductive title Epistola Erasmi, a bold plea for religious tolerance and freedom from persecution that obliged Erasmus to reassess his own commitment to those noble causes. The Epistola, like the D. Erasmi Roterodami Annotationes that followed in the Spring, consisted of long excerpts from the Apologia that Erasmus had issued the year before against the Spanish monks in defense of his Paraphrase on Matthew. Erasmus showed how little inclined he

16 17 18 19

Ep. 1180 cwe lines 12–14, 20–21, 28–29. Ep. 1213 cwe line 45. Ep. 1236 of September 23, 1521. In a letter to Johannes Fabri, Erasmus explains that he wrote his Diatriba for two reasons: to earn the good will of princes and to make sure that no one would mistake him for a Lutheran. Ep. 1690 Allen lines 52–54.

erasmus in the history of religious tolerance

169

was to tolerate such unauthorized, not to say compromising uses of his name in the letter he published in 1530 under the title Contra Pseudevangelicos. Here Erasmus has the unenviable task of debating himself and trying to neutralize the invidious use to which his own words have been put by opponents of the church to which he remains loyal. Indignantly, he rejects the accusation that he is opposed to the death penalty for heretics, an accusation that we may be inclined to construe, in retrospect, as a well deserved tribute. Yet, Erasmus cannot afford to lose the good will of princes, and so he reaffirms his belief in their “right of the sword” including the right to put to death heretics.20 This concession entails a restriction of the definition of heresy to exclude all those who, like the author, have been harassed by “monks and theologians who, induced by the savagery of their natures, by stupidity, by the delights of glory or gain, or, indeed, by private animosity, make savage indictments.”21 Just because Noël Béda doesn’t like you doesn’t make you a heretic. In fact, religious tolerance now depends on redefining heresy to exempt simple doctrinal errors: “one is not a heretic just because one has slipped up in some article of faith.”22 As far as Erasmus is concerned, there are too many articles of faith: religious reconciliation demands a minimalist credo that minimizes dissent and persecution. Erasmus consistently maintains that there has been a dangerous proliferation of religious norms and doctrines that have no bearing on salvation. As he declares to Jean de Carondelet in the dedicatory epistle to his edition of the works of St. Hilary of Poitiers: The sum and substance of our religion is peace and concord. This can hardly remain the case unless we define as few matters as possible and leave each individual’s judgment free on many questions.23 He gives us a clue to what questions he has in mind in the Spongia against Ulrich von Hutten, which is contemporary with the letter to Carondelet. Erasmus disavows any intention of becoming a martyr for Lutheranism and declares that, in any event, Luther is still basically a Catholic. For the issues in dispute do not count as articles of faith: whether the primacy of the Roman pontiff is from Christ; whether the college of cardinals is an essential member of the church body; whether confession 20 21 22 23

cwe 78: 224. cwe 78: 224–225. cwe 78: 224. Ep. 1334 cwe lines 232–234.

170

macphail

was instituted by Christ; whether the laws of bishops can bind under pain of mortal sin; whether free choice contributes anything to salvation; whether faith alone brings salvation; whether any human works can be called good; and whether the mass can in any way be called a sacrifice.24 From this vantage point, even the dispute over the freedom of the will remains within Catholicism and does not define a boundary of faith. Alas, Erasmus oversimplifies, but his attitude, universally unpopular, derives from the insight that the simpler the credo, the more tolerant the faith. To return to the Pseudevangelicos, Erasmus addresses his own Catholic nemeses and hopes they will find God to be a more lenient judge to them than they have been to others. Above all, he wants to remind them of “christiana mansuetudo.”25 Once again he sees himself in the role of Augustine exerting himself to avert schism and interceding on behalf of heretics with the secular authorities. He also revisits the parable of the tares, which now “applies either to the church in its original, primitive state, or to men of apostolic office, to whom no sword is entrusted other than the sword of the gospel.”26 This restricted application of the parable is what Erasmus resists in his controversies with Catholic critics and is more often associated with the enemies of tolerance. The evasion that the parable only applied to the early church is the position supported by the Sorbonne in its Determinatio of 1531 and energetically refuted by Erasmus in his Declarationes of 1532.27 Perhaps Erasmus’ belief in tolerance is contextual. If so, he is not alone. He complains to Geldenhouwer: But when people who are considered heretics themselves argue that heretics should not be killed, it should be clear even to a blind man that such people are not defending the truth but seeking impunity for evildoers. Would not bandits and pirates want to make a case that a Christian prince has no right to put anyone to death?28 It seems unfair to claim so baldly that pleas for tolerance are self-serving, but Erasmus understands the age he is living in. In the Renaissance most appeals for tolerance are strategic rather than principled. We need only think of the Calvinists, who argue at their convenience for tolerance in France and perse-

24 25 26 27 28

cwe 78: 122. asd ix-1: 288. cwe 78: 225–226. asd ix-7: 193–194. cwe 78: 226.

erasmus in the history of religious tolerance

171

cution in Geneva.29 Erasmus continues with a rather ruthless endorsement of fear, such as persecution inspires in religious minorities, as an instrument of rule: “Fear, if it deters people from crime, is a good thing.”30 Though he appeals to Paul’s advice in Romans 13, 3, he actually looks forward to Jean Bodin and the modern theory of sovereignty. Bodin can never lay enough stress on the role of metus or fear in the administration of the state and the administration of religion.31 By contrast, Sebastian Castellio, in his De haereticis an sint persequendi, which features long excerpts from Erasmus, will dispute the utility of fear, ostensibly against Augustine but perhaps clandestinely against Erasmus as well. For Castellio, fear is not a long term solution.32 The Epistola contra pseudevangelicos proposes finally a sweeping judgment of the Reformation based on a rather ambivalent philosophy of history. The Reformation interprets the history of Christianity as a long history of decline and proposes to return the church to its primitive state, so those opposed to the Reformation must stress the progress which the church has made in its long history. Consequently, Erasmus announces a law of progress: “Time and conditions of events bring much with them and change much for the better.”33 With alternating clauses introduced by the adverbs olim and nunc, he reminds Geldenhouwer how much has changed for the better until he arrives at church music. His exaggerated distaste for contemporary church music leads him temporarily to reverse course and to appeal to a law of decline: “Now, as is the nature of human affairs, the custom has degenerated to such an extent that in many temples virtually nothing is heard except an immense bellowing, or foolish chattering of voices, which provides quicker inducements to lasciviousness than to any emotion of piety.”34 Other practices, besides music, may have tended to excess, such as the use of images in church, but this excess does not vindicate Protestant responses, such as iconoclasm. In sum, Erasmus passes the 29

30 31 32

33 34

This is what Thierry Wanegffelen calls “la liberté de conscience en sens unique” in L’Édit de Nantes. Une histoire européenne de la tolérance (xvie–xxe siècle) (Paris: Librairie Générale Française, 1998) 115. cwe 78: 226. See Eric MacPhail, “Jean Bodin et l’éloge de la superstition” in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Vindiboniensis, ed. Steiner (Leiden: Brill, 2018) 439–447 (443). “Sed non considerabat quam malus sit custos diuturnitatis metus.” Sébastien Castellion, De haereticis an sint persequendi et omnino quomodo sit cum eis agendum, ed. Sape van der Woude (Geneva: Droz, 1954) 160. See Klaus Schreiner, “ ‘Duldsamkeit’ (tolerantia) oder ‘Schrecken’ (terror)” in Religiöse Devianz. Untersuchungen zu sozialen, rechtlichen und theologischen Reaktionen auf religiöse Abweichung im westlichen und östlichen Mittelalter, ed. Dieter Simon (Frankfurt am Main, 1990) 159–210 (195, n. 129). cwe 78: 249. cwe 78: 250.

172

macphail

same judgement on the Reformation that Michel de Montaigne will repeat fifty years later: “le remède est pire que le mal.”35 It appears that Erasmus, in controversy with Lutherans, backtracked from the positions he had staked out in controversy with his Catholic adversaries. Yet Erasmus never renounced his ambition for a peaceful reconciliation of religious differences. This ambition is more readily assimilated to the ideal of concord than to that of tolerance, as Turchetti argues so strenuously, and yet, on at least one occasion, in private correspondence, Erasmus did propose a scheme of civil tolerance or the legal coexistence of different religious confessions within the same territory or civitas. Writing to Archduke Ferdinand’s adviser and later bishop of Vienna Johannes Fabri, not to be confused with the Dominican Johannes Faber, Erasmus broached his plan in 1526, around the time he began in earnest to battle with Noël Béda. Dissuading the harsh repression that his correspondent seems to favor, Erasmus proposes the following idea, that he may have hoped Fabri would transmit to Ferdinand himself. Those who foment sedition should be punished severely, but in such a way that the least possible harm is done to the innocent, that those who are capable of redemption are not driven away, and that the people are spared. Perhaps in those cities where the evil has taken root the best course will be to make room for both parties and to leave every man to his own conscience until the time comes when there is some hope of peace. Meanwhile those who incite rebellion should face stern penalties, and we ourselves should immediately correct those faults that help the evil to flourish. All the rest should be left to a general council.36 Making room for both parties, “ut utrique parti suus sit locus,” while waiting for a general church council to resolve doctrinal disputes, is the classic recipe for pacifying religious discord in sixteenth-century Europe. This recipe would be followed with intermittent success during the French Wars of Religion starting 35

36

asd ix-1: 308: “illud obiter cavendum ne morbo sint atrociora remedia.” Erasmus does not seem to have collected any Latin adage corresponding to the vernacular saying, but we do read in the adage Sileni Alcibiadis a warning against excessive reform of church abuses: “Non erit tentandum remedium quod haud scio an infeliciter tentatum vertat in graviorem perniciem” (asd ii-5: 188). Montaigne prefers the metaphor of the wrong prescription drug to characterize the Reformation: “Il advient de la leur, comme des autres medecines foibles et mal appliquées: les humeurs qu’elle vouloit purger en nous, elle les a eschaufées, exasperées et aigries par le conflict, et si nous est demeurée dans le corps.” Les Essais de Montaigne, ed. Villey-Saulnier (Paris: puf, 1978) 122. Ep. 1690 cwe lines 114–122.

erasmus in the history of religious tolerance

173

with the Edict of St. Germain crafted by Michel de L’Hôpital in January 1562 and culminating in the Edict of Nantes promulgated by King Henry iv in April 1598. In this way Erasmus anticipates the provisional religious tolerance that would eventually bear fruit in France later in the century. In the meantime, Erasmus found himself between a rock and a hard place, “inter sacrum et saxum constrictus,” as he confides in the dedicatory epistle of what has been described as his swan song, the De sarcienda ecclesiae concordia of 1533.37 Erasmus wrote the De sarcienda, which was reissued with his posthumous Opera omnia under the title De amabili ecclesiae concordia liber, as a commentary on psalm 83 “Quam dilecta tabernacula tua Domine.” It represents, in Robert Stupperich’s estimation, “sein Schwanengesang.”38 Yielding to the importunity of his friends, who implored him to exert himself to calm the storm of discord in Christianity, Erasmus, though unequal to such a rigorous task, has found a middle way to placate his friends and correspondents, starting with Julius Pflug, to whom the book is dedicated.39 The phrase “medium quiddam repperi” reminds us of Erasmus’ role as the patron of those religious moderates and conciliators who will be known, later in the century, as the “moyenneurs.” This middle way leads him straight to psalm 83, for this is the psalm that exalts precisely what the present circumstances endanger, namely “the fair and blissful concord of the church.”40 By expounding the letter and the spirit of this psalm, he can at least help people to find the will to solve the problems of the church, provided that Christ deigns to bestow on them the same love of the peace of the church that animates his dedicatee.41 In the pages that follow, Erasmus offers a detailed commentary or enarratio of the Vulgate text of the psalm, before addressing a prayer to God that introduces the concluding section of his work where he gets down to the practical business of healing the rift in the church. This prayer asks God to open the eyes of his worshipers so they may see the difference between his tabernacle, the church, and the tabernacle of impiety: “dignare, quaeso, aperire oculos omnium nostrum” (asd v-3: 300). The only way for Christians to come together is to keep their focus on Christ without 37

38 39

40 41

Ep. 2852 Allen line 16. The allusion is to adage 15 Inter sacrum et saxum, which applies “to those who are in confusion and driven into the greatest danger” (cwe 31: 65). It can also evoke the dilemma of the religious moderate, caught between extremes. asd v-3: 252. Ep. 2852 Allen lines 16–19: “Ipse vero sic inter sacrum, ut aiunt, et saxum constrictus ut quod flagitas nec recusare per te liceat nec ex me praestare valeam, medium quiddam repperi, quo te posthac utar aliquanto placatiore.” cwe 65: 135. Ep. 2852 Allen lines 20–25.

174

macphail

blind favor or even blinder hatred. These few lines introduce the themes of vision and blindness that will permeate the concluding pages of the work. Erasmus is not really seeking a compromise here, but rather he is trying to deter Roman Catholics from defecting from the church and joining Luther. Therefore, he warns against paying too much attention to the shortcomings of popes, priests, and monks, to which he had paid pioneering attention himself since the Enchiridion of 1503, and too little attention to our own faults. He expresses this principle through a series of proverbial images that recall earlier works by Erasmus that need to be reread in the context of religious discord. The very root and source of discord, for the author of the De sarcienda, is the way we look at others’ vices with the left eye only, or from a sinister perspective. We should focus on their virtues instead. Surely, it is unjust to be like Lynceus towards others while we remain blinder than moles towards our own failings. The key to amity between brother and brother or husband and wife is for each to connive at the other’s faults.42 Here Erasmus deploys the rhetorical riches of his own Adagiorum Chiliades including adage 750 Connivere (To wink) and adage 1054 Lynceo perspicacior (More clear-sighted than Lynceus) which came the more readily to his memory as he had already used them in tandem in his Praise of Folly twenty-two years earlier. There the paradoxical narrator identifies herself as the source of prudence, whether prudence consists in experience, since the fool rushes in where others fear to tread, or rather in our judgment of human affairs. In the latter case, Folly invites us to consider that life is like a play. If some importunate wiseman were to get up on stage and pull the masks off the actors, revealing their “true natural faces to the audience,” surely he would be chased right out of the theater.43 A fool knows better than to spoil the play. We should shun such “mistimed wisdom” and remember that “it’s a true sign of prudence … to be willing to overlook things along with the rest of the world or to wear your illusions with a good grace.”44 More succinctly in the Latin: “vel connivere libenter vel comiter errare.”45 By contrast the Stoic sage is unsuited for human company, for “like Lynceus he sees all clear, weighs up everything precisely, and finds nothing to excuse.”46 If we look into adage 1054 about Lynceus, we see that 42 43 44 45

46

cwe 65: 197–198. cwe 27: 103. cwe 27: 103. asd iv-3: 106. As an advocate of connivance, Folly seems to anticipate the role of the “moyenneurs” on the eve of the French Wars of Religion, as described by Estienne Pasquier in his Exhortation aux Princes et Seigneurs when he refers to those who “veulent seulement endurer les Protestans par connivence” refraining both from tolerance and persecution. Pasquier, Écrits politiques, ed. D. Thickett (Geneva: Droz, 1966) 60–61. cwe 27: 104.

erasmus in the history of religious tolerance

175

Erasmus attributes to him, on the authority of Apollonius of Rhodes, the capacity to see through the ground and perceive what was happening in Hell.47 This latter detail, invented by Erasmus, has obvious implications for the religious strife of 1533. Does Luther think he can see who is in Hell and who isn’t? The De sarcienda takes pains to remind us “that the church is invisible.”48 It seems as if Erasmus had grown into the role of Folly by 1533, partly under the pressure of religious discord and partly out of disdain for Luther. If we read the De sarcienda in the light of the Moria, we can say that tolerance is a foolish concession to human failings, and it is also a reciprocal obligation. To achieve reconciliation, each side needs to connive at the other’s faults while inspecting its own. Let everyone remember the proverb Non videmus manticae quod in tergo est (We see not what is in the wallet behind).49 Erasmus is careful to admonish both sides of their wrongs. If the Lutherans must learn to overlook faults whose remedy is worse than the disease, then the pope should realize what would prove to be an essential principle in the history of toleration; namely, persecution only encourages heresy. There are those who by shouting furiously ‘Heresy, heresy! To the fire, to the fire!,’ putting the worse interpretation on words that are ambiguous and slanderously misrepresenting true religious sentiment, have actually provoked much sympathy for those they judged worthy of death.50 In this quarrel we need to find the mean between extremes, and Erasmus is confident that, with the spirit of compromise and copious recourse to prayer, some resolution can still be found. When he has exhausted the resources of moral exhortation, he turns finally to the specifics of his program of reconciliation, passing in review the main points of contention such as free will and justification, the cult of the saints, the role of images and relics, and the interpretation of the holy sacraments, especially the Eucharist. As others have noted, this program relies perhaps too heavily on vagueness and evasion and, 47 48 49

50

asd ii-3: 76. cwe 65: 152. Erasmus refers obliquely to this adage in the De sarcienda: “expedit igitur ut plebs … suam inspiciat manticam a tergo in pectus revolutam” (asd v-3: 302). It is interesting to note that Montaigne remembers this proverb in the essay “De l’art de conferer” (iii, 8): “Noz yeux ne voient rien en derriere” (929). Like Erasmus, Montaigne may indeed be thinking of the need for reconciliation in the midst of religious dissension. For Montaigne’s use of Erasmus’ adages, see Eric MacPhail, “Montaigne et les travaux d’Hercule” in Érasme et la France, ed. Blandine Perona and Tristan Vigliano (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2017) 269–282. cwe 65: 199–200.

176

macphail

as a last recourse, urges patience in view of a general church council.51 In truth, Erasmus clearly prefers to conserve the status quo, or Roman Catholic orthodoxy, and he has little taste for making any significant concession to Luther on doctrinal grounds. Instead, he urges and enacts the principle of συγκατάβασις, which has been variously translated as condescension, indulgence, or accommodation.52 Whether or not it can be translated as tolerance has been vigorously disputed,53 but in either case it seems finally to regard our choice of words rather than our choice of faith. Verbal restraint and a healthy capacity to overlook differences seem to be the best hope Erasmus can offer to an age of increasing intransigence. Erasmus alas was not a very successful advocate of religious or civil peace in his own time. As it turned out, neither Luther nor the pope took any interest in reconciliation. Concord could not compete with confessionalization just as Erasmian pacifism never could deter the monarchs of Europe from waging incessant war. Erasmus himself came under immediate censure by Catholic and Protestant theologians alike for advocating the bizarre idea of religious tolerance. In its boldest outlines, the Erasmian project was a failure. Indeed, his greatest contributions to tolerance were all posthumous. Subsequent generations recognized Erasmus as the invincible champion of moderation and mutual understanding and took unceasing inspiration from his example in their own service to the cause of religious tolerance. In this way, as Peter Bietenholz suggests, Erasmus became more radical in death than in life. Within the scope of this volume, we can only offer a rapid survey of the posthumous influence of Erasmus on the long struggle for religious freedom. The real nodal point in this struggle was the execution of Miguel Servet for heresy in Geneva in 1553 and the subsequent controversy over the right of civil magistrates to restrict religious freedom. Though Erasmus would probably have been no less appalled by Servet’s heterodoxy than by his punishment, the defenders of tolerance all rallied to their cause in the name and the spirit of Erasmus. Bietenholz offers a handy synopsis: Religious toleration became an issue of intensive public debate with the trial and burning of Michael Servetus in 1553 in Geneva …. Also, the pam-

51

52 53

See Erika Rummel, “Erasmus and the Restoration of Unity in the Church” in Conciliation and Confession. The Struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415–1648, ed. Louthan and Zachman (Notre Dame, IN, 2004) 62–72. asd v-3: 304, 311; cwe 65: 201, 213. See Mario Turchetti, “Une question mal posée: Érasme et la tolérance. L’idée de sygkatabasis,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 53 (1991) 379–395.

erasmus in the history of religious tolerance

177

phlets and books occasioned by the burning of Servetus propelled Erasmus’ thoughts to a central position in the toleration debate.54 Here is a rapid chronology of this cause célèbre, which began as a quarrel between the Swiss cities of Geneva and Basel. Servet was burnt at the stake on October 27, 1553. Already on October 1, after Servet’s imprisonment but before his conviction and execution, David Joris issued a letter to the evangelical cities of Switzerland (Zurich, Bern, Basel, Schaffhousen) decrying the persecution and killing of heretics, thus priming public opinion for a swift denunciation of the inevitable execution.55 This first blast from Basel was followed before the end of the year by an anonymous Historia de morte Serveti summarizing events in the most disadvantageous way possible for Calvin and the Geneva consistory.56 Never shy, Calvin composed his own apology that appeared simultaneously in Latin and in French in February 1554 under the titles Defensio orthodoxae fidei and Declaration pour maintenir la vraye foy … Contre les erreurs detestables de Michel Servet Espaignol.57 In March, before he could have read Calvin’s book, Sebastian Castellio published, under the pseudonym Martinus Bellius, an anthology of voices in favor of religious tolerance entitled De haereticis an sint persequendi, issued the following month in French translation as the Traicté des heretiques.58 Among the most eloquent and authoritative is the voice of Erasmus, further amplified by excerpts from other authors copying Erasmus. Later in 1554, David Joris published his Christian Warning to all Magistrates and Authorities High and Low reiterating his firm conviction that no one should be persecuted for his religious beliefs.59 In September 1554, Théodore de Bèze responded to Castellio’s anthology with a very versatile political trea-

54 55 56

57

58

59

Bietenholz, Encounters with a Radical Erasmus 95. The letter, written in Dutch, can be read in abbreviated translation in Eugénie Droz, Chemins de l’hérésie: textes et documents, vol. 2 (Geneva: Slatkine, 1971) 418–423. French translation by Bernard Roussel, “Un pamphlet bâlois: L’histoire de la mort de Servet” in Michel Servet (1511–1553). Hérésie et pluralisme du xvie au xxie siècle, ed. Valentine Zuber (Paris: Champion, 2007) 171–183. Both versions are available in modern editions: Ioannis Calvini Scripta Didactica et Polemica, vol. 5 Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra trinitate contra prodigiosos errores Michaelis Serveti hispani, ed. Joy Kleinstuber (Geneva: Droz, 2009) and Déclaration pour maintenir la vraie foi in Jean Calvin, Œuvres, ed. Francis Higman and Bernard Roussel (Paris: Gallimard, 2009) 893–936. The modern French version is abbreviated. Sébastien Castellion, De haereticis an sint persequendi et omnino quomodo sit cum eis agendum, ed. Sape van der Woude (Geneva: Droz, 1954) and Traité des Hérétiques, ed. A. Olivet (Geneva, 1913). Joris, Avertissement Chrétien à tous les magistrats at autorités de haute ou basse condition, tr. S.L. Verheus in Chemins de l’hérésie, vol. 2, 424–430.

178

macphail

tise De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis defending persecution in Geneva and resistance to persecution in France and anticipating the more momentous expression of his political doctrine which he would publish in the wake of the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, Du droit des magistrats.60 In the meantime, Castellio was preparing his rebuttal of Calvin’s Defensio orthodoxae fidei, the Contra libellum Calvini, which remained in manuscript until 1612 when it was pressed into service by the Dutch Remonstrants in their own battle with Calvinist orthodoxy. Once he had time to read De Bèze, the indefatigable Castellio composed his parting shot, De haereticis non puniendis, completed March 11, 1555 and finally printed in 1971, which brings our chronology to a close.61 Of all these polemics and counter polemics, the one that proved most instrumental in propagating Erasmus’ reputation as the champion of religious tolerance was Castellio’s De haereticis an sint persequendi, of which a facsimile reprint was issued in 1954 in Geneva on the four hundredth anniversary of the Basel imprint. In this anthology, to which the anthologist contributed his own views under three different pseudonyms that didn’t fool anyone, Erasmus is represented by excerpts from his controversies with Noël Béda and the Spanish monks concerning the persecution of heretics and the proper interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the tares from the gospel according to Matthew. The first work from which Castellio drew his excerpts is the Supputationes errorum in censuris Natalis Bedae of 1527, which yields a long, basically unaltered passage from proposition 32: asd ix-5: 350 line 130 to 356 line 254.62 The second is the Apologia adversus monachos quosdam Hispanos of 1528 from which Castellio has chosen four non-contiguous excerpts from title 4, Contra sanctam haereticorum inquisitionem: asd ix-9: 328–330, lines 21–78; asd ix-9: 333, lines 173–183; asd ix-9: 333–334, lines 201–224; asd ix-9: 334–335, lines 228–255.63 The last of these four passages contains a generous excerpt from pseudo-Augustine’s Quaestiones septemdecim in evangelium secundum Matthaeum which will reappear in Castellio’s anthology under the rubric Ex libro Quaestionum Evangelii secundum Matth. ca. 12.64 Moreover, under the

60

61 62 63 64

See Robert Kingdon, “Les idées politiques de Bèze d’après son Traité de l’authorité du magistrat en la punition des hérétiques,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 22 (1960) 566–569. Sébastien Castellion, De l’impunité des hérétiques. De haereticis non puniendis, ed. Becker and Valkhoff (Geneva: Droz, 1971). De haereticis an sint persequendi (Basel, 1554) 74–81. Ibid. 81–88. Ibid. 114–115 = asd ix-9: 335, lines 238–254.

erasmus in the history of religious tolerance

179

rubric Conradus Pellicanus, in Commentario in Matth. cap. 13 in parabola zizaniorum, Castellio has simply transcribed, with minimal adaptation, Erasmus’ own paraphrase of Matthew 13, 37–42, the very text that provoked his quarrel with the Sorbonne and the Spanish inquisition.65 In this way, Castellio conferred a renewed vigor on the legacy of Erasmus while appropriating this legacy for the cause of tolerance of religious dissent, which Erasmus was unwilling to espouse with such candor in his lifetime. Moreover, the afterlife of Castellio’s De haereticis served to broaden the diffusion of Erasmus’ thought and to infuse it in new and wider conflicts. Hans Guggisberg has documented with particular thoroughness the diffusion of Castellio’s influence in the Protestant Low Countries at a time of great social and political upheaval.66 It was in the context of the Dutch revolt of the late sixteenth century that Castellio’s book and Erasmus’ role in it achieved their greatest impact. A crucial figure in this process was the jurist Aggaeus de Albada, who participated in the peace negotiations between Spain and the rebel Low Countries in 1579 and the following year published a documentary account of these negotiations under the title Acta pacificationis, for the second edition of which he composed copious annotations that constitute a discontinuous theory of religious tolerance. Albada’s annotations drew heavily on Castellio’s De haereticis and in turn influenced and encouraged Dirck Coornhert to champion the cause of tolerance in the nascent Dutch Republic.67 Coornhert deploys the excerpts of Castellio he found in Albada in his own controversy with Justus Lipsius over the killing of heretics, a controversy conducted in Latin and the vernacular for a national and European audience. In reaction to what he understood to be Lipsius’ advocacy of state-sanctioned persecution of religious dissent in book four of the Politicorum libri sex of 1589, Coornhert issued his Trial of the Killing of Heretics (1590), which can best be consulted in the Latin version issued posthumously, Epitome processus (1592), which mobilizes all available authorities in favor of religious tolerance in order to denounce the program implied in Lipsius’ citation of the formula ure, seca or “burn, cut” taken 65 66 67

Ibid. 109–110 = lb 7: 80D–81A. Hans Guggisberg, Sebastian Castellio im Urteil seiner Nachwelt vom Späthumanismus bis zur Aufklärung (Basel, 1956) ch. 3. Coornhert may not have realized how much he owed to Castellio, according to Gerhard Güldner, Das Toleranz-Problem in den Niederlanden im Ausgang des 16 Jahrhunderts (Lübeck, 1968) 161: “Dennoch haben durch Albadas Vermittlung Castellios Gedanken in Coornherts Toleranzschriften Eingang gefunden, allerdings ohne dass Coornhert wusste, dass in den von ihm übernommenen Anmerkungen aus Albadas kommentierter Ausgabe der Kölner Friedensverhandlungen von 1579 weitgehend Zitate aus Castellios De haereticis verarbeitet waren.”

180

macphail

from Cicero’s Philippics (8.5).68 We can note from Coornhert’s title that the trial of the heretic had inevitably become and would remain the trial of the persecutor: Coornhert prosecutes those who, in the wake of Calvin, prosecute heretics. In their immediate quarrel, it was actually Lipsius who came closer to Erasmus’ position than did Coornhert, as we can see from the formula that Lipsius proposes in the Politica to cope with the outbreak of religious divisions: “Tolerandi interdum ut melius tollas.”69 This is a clever adaptation of Erasmus’ memorable formula, “Interim igitur mali bonis admixti ferendi sunt, quando minore pernicie tolerantur, quam tollerentur” from his Paraphrase on Matthew. Though Lipsius was the better reader, or more attuned to Latin word play, it was Coornhert who successfully appropriated the spirit of Erasmus for the cause of tolerance. In the last installment of their quarrel, the Defense of the Trial of Not Killing Heretics, Coornhert declares to his adversary that Erasmus was “a miracle of all of Europe, in whose footsteps you are not fit to tread.”70 Posterity has borne him out. 68 69 70

Justus Lipsius, Politica, book 4, chapter 3, ed. Waszink (Assen, 2004) 392: “Clementiae non hic locus. Ure, seca, ut membrorum potius aliquod, quam totum corpus intereat.” Ibid. 392. Quoted from Coornhert’s Wercken, vol. 3 (Amsterdam, 1630) 480 by Gerrit Voogt, Constraint on Trial. Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert and Religious Freedom (Kirksville, MO, 2000) 224.

chapter 10

Erasmus and the Other Terence J. Martin

“One of the dramatic intellectual discoveries in the last several decades,” Richard B. Miller observes, is “the idea of otherness.” This is the notion, positively put, that other persons—no matter how alien they may appear or how lowly they have been made—make a vital claim upon our attention to be known for who they are and who they aspire to be, while simultaneously presenting themselves as people “to whom [we are] responsible.” Attending openly to the claims of the “Other,” Miller continues, can shatter the parochial assumption that “what it means to be human” might fit into “a single, preestablished mold,” even while it offers “a more expansive grasp” of the great variety of ways of being human.1 This is a weighty challenge, and it promises ample reward; but it is not entirely new, nor has it ever been easy, especially for those who inhabit dominant cultures which have effectively ostracized and subjugated so many people. With this in mind, this chapter looks back to the works of Erasmus of Rotterdam, with an eye on his struggle to recognize and respond to the various Others of his day—including, above all, Turks, Jews, women, and those deemed heretics. What we will find, in a nutshell, is that his regard for them often is shaped by the biases of social convention and the hostilities embedded in Christian tradition; though his retrieval of an ethical vision at the scriptural roots of this same tradition—what he calls the “philosophy of Christ”—points toward a more humane stance toward these peoples and their traditions; and it often does so, surprisingly enough, in a way that taps the imagined perspectives of these Others in order to critically highlight the significant short-comings of Western Christendom itself.

1

An Erasmian Pattern

When speaking of church matters, Erasmus dutifully echoes the long-standing tradition that restricts salvation to the faith and practice of the Catholic 1 Richard B. Miller, Friends and Other Strangers: Studies in Religion, Ethics, and Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016) 1–3.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_012

182

martin

church.2 When speaking more freely, however, in a manner that reflects his extensive scholarship on classical and biblical literature, he often writes more broadly and with an evangelical flavor that redemptive peace is offered to all who embrace that “truly salvific and efficacious philosophy” taught by Christ and recorded in Christian Scriptures.3 Indeed, Erasmus tell us, the redeemed life—that “amazing reversal of human affairs”4—is an ideal possibility for renewed life made manifest in Christ’s life and teachings as a living goal (scopus) held up for imitation throughout all human activity. As “true children of God,” consequently, people are called to the imitation of God’s abundant mercy, which means they are to aspire to “perfect virtue” by being “generous not only to our friends, relations, and supporters, but also to strangers, and even to our enemies and rivals.”5 Of course Erasmus is keenly aware that such a virtuous existence—especially with regard to strangers and enemies—is not often on display among Christians, even as it sometimes can be found beyond the institution of the Christian religion. Consider, for instance, Erasmus’ effusive praise of Cicero: “what justice, what purity, what sincerity, what truth in his rules for living,” and “how many lessons he teaches, and how like a saint—almost a deity!—on how we should do good to all men even without reward.”6 And reminiscent of the broad and inclusive vision of Justin Martyr, Erasmus has the lead character in “The Godly Feast” exclaim, “perhaps the spirit of Christ is more widespread than we understand, and the company of saints includes many not in our calendar,” as surely the souls of Socrates, Virgil, and Horace are among those “sanctified.”7 When Erasmus reflects on the otherness of classical poets and philosophers, therefore, a two-fold pattern appears: beginning with an inherited sense of exclusion from the peace offered by Christ, he offsets this negative judgment with a gracious respect that includes these virtuous pagans of the 2 See, among many other places, Erasmus, An Explanation of the Apostles’ Creed, cwe 70: 236; The Evangelical Preacher, cwe 68: 1093; On the Christian Widow, cwe 66: 218; “A Fish Diet,” cwe 40: 687; and “An Inquiry Concerning Faith,” cwe 39: 429. 3 Erasmus, Paraphrase on Matthew, cwe 45: 30. 4 Erasmus, Paraphrase on Luke, cwe 48: 138. 5 Erasmus, Sermon on the Immense Mercy, cwe 70: 98 and 132–133. 6 Ep. 1013, lines 50–56 cwe. See also Erasmus’ preface to Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations, Ep. 1390, lines 55–65 cwe. That “many statements in the books of the pagans” agree with the “philosophy of Christ,” see Erasmus, Paraclesis, cwe 41: 415–416; and “On Gospel Philosophy,” cwe 41: 730–731. 7 Erasmus, “The Godly Feast,” cwe 39: 192–194. That the “communion of saints” includes “all godly people from the beginning of the world even to the end,” see Erasmus, “An Examination Concerning the Faith,” cwe 39: 429. See also Erasmus, A Warrior Shielding A Discussion of Free Will (Hyperaspistes) 2, cwe 77: 672 and 734–738.

erasmus and the other

183

ancient world within the scope of redemptive life.8 At once daring, though not unprecedented in Christian tradition, Erasmus affirms the wisdom and virtue of these figures who lived outside the pale of Christian life, even while he continues to frame his judgment in the Christian terms with which he was familiar. Erasmus also knew of Others in his own day—common folk (vulga), for instance, especially lowly peasants who endured a subjugated life near at hand; but also far away peoples, like the Lapps to the north, as well as those who inhabit what Erasmus calls the “regions hitherto unknown” that are “being discovered every day.”9 Both groups were alien for Erasmus, as they dwelt far from his everyday experience—one due to class differences and the other from sheer physical distance; and in both cases, the same two-fold pattern appears, where negative sentiment is offset with sympathetic regard, but without entirely erasing it. It is true, for instance, as Willis Goth Regier writes, that Erasmus “kept a healthy Horatian distance from those he called plebs and vulgus,” by which Erasmus meant the “common herd” with whom he had little in common and did not wish to associate.10 Of course, his discomfort with common folk was much inflamed by the peasant revolt against the princes, something he feared would turn the entire world upside-down.11 But as with so many things Erasmian, there is another side to be considered, and with this turn we find a positive moment of respect for a group of people so long repressed. Always astute to the way things are not as they appear, for example, he warns his readers “not to despise salutary advice” just because it comes from “a man of lowly position and of no account.”12 Nor should they be unduly impressed when a philosopher or theologian wraps up what “any woman or … cobbler” knows in “extraordinary language in order to appear learned.”13 What is more, Erasmus expresses sympathy for ordinary people when reflecting on the brutal fallout from the 8 9 10 11 12 13

For a muted statement of this pattern, though tilting toward a negative conclusion, see Erasmus, On Mending the Peace of the Church, cwe 65: 170. Erasmus, Evangelical Preacher 1, cwe 67: 358. See Jan van Herwaarden, “Erasmus and the non-Christian World,” ersy 32 (2012) 69–83. Willis Goth Regier, “Adages as Insults: Erasmus Against the Barbarians,” Erasmus Studies 40 (2020) 58. See Ep. 1590, lines 24–26 cwe, for example. Erasmus, “Even a gardener oft speaks to the point,” adage i. vi. 1, cwe 32: 3. See also “Do not despise a country speaker,” adage ii. vi. 45, cwe 33: 314. Erasmus, “More roughly and more plainly,” adage i. 1. 39, cwe 31: 88. Erasmus is ready to take the proverbial counsel to “close your doors” to the “unconsecrated crowd” ironically, not as advice to shut out the “vulgar crowd” (as Horace has it in Odes 3. 1. 1–4), but as something foolishly said by a “sophistic Scotist” who thinks his “quibbling” too good for those not in the know. See Erasmus, “Shut the door, ye profane,” adage iii. v. 18, cwe 35: 76–77.

184

martin

wars of princes; and he speaks with regret about the “violent remedies” used by archduke Ferdinand against the peasants.14 And, in fact, Erasmus shows that he understands the socio-economic interests which cause the peasants’ plight, when he suggests that “there are additional causes” of the peasants’ revolt “of a more fundamental kind which it would not be safe to put in a letter.”15 So Erasmus recognizes the humanity of common folk, he sympathizes with their condition, and he quietly calls attention to the responsibility of the nobility for the injustices they suffer; though, once again, these positive moments never entirely displace the negative sentiments Erasmus felt with the close proximity of lowly peoples. When it comes to the far-away peoples of whom Erasmus has heard, he speaks in a kindly tone. The Lapps to the north are “an extremely simple and harmless people,” he is told by Damião de Gois;16 and the people of the “new islands” recently discovered are said to lead a “most civilized life” filled with little work but much virtue.17 Though Erasmus speaks positively of these peoples, what is striking is how little he knows about them; and, surprisingly enough, he shows no interest in learning more about their lives or traditions. Here is a moment of apathy in Erasmus’ response to the challenge of otherness, an expression not of disdain but of simple disinterest that we will see again when he speaks of Turks and Jews. At the same time, though Erasmus endorses the missionary task of bringing Christ to these peoples, he is fully aware that this religious project is inextricably bound up with “conquest and domination.”18 Thus Erasmus has the butcher in “A Fish Diet” say that he has heard of the discovery of new lands, though he also “learned that plunder had been carried away from there; but [he] did not hear that Christianity had been brought in.”19 Similar complaints are made by Erasmus concerning “the fate of the Lapplanders” who, he reports, are being “stripped of their secular possessions without being enriched by evangelical wealth.”20 With these points we come upon one of the primary Erasmian gains in the encounter with foreign peoples—in a word, their otherness provides a foil against which the failures of Christian culture can be exposed and criticized.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Ep. 1608, lines 30–36 cwe. See also Ep. 1635, lines 11–20 cwe. Ep. 1581, lines 830–832 cwe. Ep. 2826, lines 43–46 cwe. Erasmus, “The Soldier and the Carthusian,” cwe 39: 330; and “The Well-to-do-Beggars,” cwe 39: 479. Erasmus, Evangelical Preacher 1, cwe 67: 360. Erasmus, “A Fish Diet,” cwe 40: 686. See also Erasmus, Evangelical Preacher 1, cwe 67: 360. Erasmus, Evangelical Preacher 1, cwe 67: 359–360.

erasmus and the other

2

185

Turks and Turkishness

There was no more ominous Other for the Christian world inhabited by Erasmus than the forces of the Ottoman empire led by Suleiman ii. Here was the most powerful military of the day that in less than eighty years—under various leaders—had taken Constantinople, seized the Balkans, swept across Hungary, and then lay siege to Vienna in 1529. To be sure, this was a long and bloody case of mutually hostile cross-cultural conflict, with the expansionist designs of both sides consecrated by their respective religious traditions.21 In response to the threat posed to the Christian world, Pope Leo x called for a crusade against the Turks in 1513 to be funded by church taxes and a market for indulgences; though religious divisions and political conflicts across Europe undercut the prospects for a coherent military response. For his part, Erasmus was well aware of the threats posed by Ottoman forces, as he kept abreast of their serial victories; he lamented the suffering of those under assault; and he was not naive about what Turkish rule would mean for the studies of language and literature to which he was so dedicated. “Fear of the Turks is universal,” the humanist Juan Luis Vives reports; and Erasmus certainly absorbed some of the common enmity for the “cruel and bloody Turk,” as they often were cast, though there is little to support the idea that he hated the Turks.22 In fact, Erasmus was firmly opposed to proposals for a crusade against the Turks—in part, no doubt, because of his aversion to war generally; but also because he suspected that popes and princes were using war with the Turks as a pretext for political advantage within Europe, even as they employed this campaign as an “excuse to fleece the Christian people.”23 It was true, of course, that the “ignorant mob”—egged on by fiery crusade preachers—would “fly into a rage and clamour for blood,” screaming for “war on the Turks” without ever considering the devastating consequences of such a war.24 What is most strik-

21

22

23

24

On holy wars in Christianity and Islam, see Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Christianity, and Islam (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008); and Paul M. Cobb, The Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). For the point of Vives, see Ep. 1362, lines 81–82 cwe. On the depiction of the Turkish invaders during the Renaissance, see C.A. Patrides, “ ‘The Bloody and Cruell Turk’: The Background of a Renaissance Commonplace,” Studies in the Renaissance 10 (1963) 126– 135. Erasmus, Education of a Christian Prince, cwe 27: 287; and “War is a treat for those who have not tried it,” cwe 35: 434. That war with the Turks was being used for political advantage against European foes, see Ep. 775, lines 6–8 cwe; Ep. 781, lines 25–31 cwe; Ep. 785, lines 22–23 cwe; and Ep. 786, lines 26–28 cwe. Erasmus, Useful Discussion, cwe 64: 232–233.

186

martin

ing in Erasmus’ response to this fury is that he consistently turns his attention away from the military threat posed by the Ottoman Turks to dwell instead on the ethical failings of the Christian world. The pressing task at hand, in short, was not a military operation but the rejuvenation of Christian life; and besides, a campaign against the Turks, as Erasmus sees it, would not be an expression of authentic Christian life. For that reason, he suggests with evangelical audacity, it would be wiser to overcome the Turks with the “piety of our lives”—that is, with a shining display of gospel virtues—than with “our wealth, our armies, [and] our strength.”25 Considering the vast scope of his scholarly studies, it is surprising how little interest Erasmus shows for learning about the lives, culture, and religion of the Ottoman Turks.26 Some interpreters conclude that this makes the stance of Erasmus deeply Eurocentric, and that is as true as it is inevitable, given his place in Western history. At the same time, however, there are moments of generosity where he stretches imaginatively to recognize the humanity of the Turks,27 and with that to exhort his contemporaries to respond to them not with animosity and violence but with respect and kindness. In the wellknown letter to Paul Volz, for instance, Erasmus suggests that the Turks be won over by “letters and pamphlets” written with “fatherly affection” and filled with Christ’s teaching and example.28 With this statement Erasmus casts the Turks as reasonable people who are open to kindly persuasion; though if the entire truth be told, he also is taking a critical swipe at the Christian world which—far less reasonably—prefers to rely on bellicose rhetoric and lethal armaments. Along the same lines, Erasmus observes, those we “call Turks are in large part half-Christian and perhaps nearer to true Christianity than most of our own folk.”29 That Erasmus heavily qualifies his words shows that this is not an idle remark, but a carefully-crafted statement that speaks provocatively in two directions at once. On the one hand it affirms that those who are considered alien (the Turks) may well be less other than thought, since there is common 25 26

27 28 29

Ep. 335, lines 189–192 cwe; and Erasmus, “War is a treat,” cwe 35: 431. Erasmus uses the De origine Turcarum of Giambattista Egnazio, the Venetian humanist and long-time acquaintance of Erasmus, to bolster his argument that Turkish victories were not due to their piety or valor, but to God’s judgment against the sins of Christians. See Erasmus, Useful Discussion, cwe 64: 219–233. See also Michael Heath, “Erasmus and the Infidel,” ERSY 16 (1996) 30–32. The Turks are “at least human beings,” Erasmus concedes; and again, he declares forthrightly, they are “human beings as we are.” See Ep. 858, lines 91–92 and 158–160 cwe. Ep. 858, lines 139–144 cwe. Erasmus, “War is a treat,” cwe 35: 432–433.

erasmus and the other

187

ground between the traditions; but also, on the other hand, it challenges those who—while calling themselves Christians—may sadly be no more than, and perhaps less than, half-Christian themselves. So habitual apathy with respect to Turkish life and culture is punctuated with apparent moments of respect, each of which allows Erasmus to render the Turks as less other than commonly conceived, while in the same breath taking an indirect dig at his fellow Christians who are in large part other than they would like to think. What is more, Erasmus offers up some clever suggestions, each of which serves to turn attention away from the actual Turks in order to focus on the corruption and hypocrisy of Christian life and culture. So he observes in an especially graphic example, “we spit on the Turks and think we are by this action fine Christians, when perhaps we are more detestable to God than the Turks themselves.”30 This is not to say outright that the Turks are beloved by God, but it certainly does suggest the possibility—qualified with the “perhaps” so often used by Erasmus—that those who consider themselves to be good Christians may be less beloved by God than they like to think. With this in mind, Erasmus starkly declares, he “would rather have a genuine Turk than a fake Christian,” as it is “a lesser evil to be openly Turk or Jew than to be a Christian hypocrite.”31 Indeed, he adds with an often used refrain designed to magnify his point, it would be “more tolerable to live under the tyranny of the Turks” than to suffer the “endless perfidity” of his native Germans, as “things are more reasonable among the Turks, they tell me, than in our world.”32 To support this startling inversion of customary expectation, Erasmus invites his readers to imagine what the Turks must think when they hear that “Christian princes rage so wildly against one another” for the most trivial of reasons.33 With this move Erasmus capitalizes on the distant perspective of the Other—somewhat like Lucian did by allowing Menippus to survey the course of human life from the lofty perch of the heavens—in order to offer stern judgment on the barbarity of supposedly civilized Christian society.34 What Erasmus imagines, in

30 31 32

33 34

“War is a treat,” cwe 35: 432. “War is a treat,” cwe 35: 434. Ep. 936, lines 90–91 cwe; Ep. 1437, lines 105–106 cwe; and Ep. 1039, lines 91–92 cwe. See also Ep. 786, lines 29–31 cwe. See also Ep. 785, lines 64–66 cwe. Erasmus reverses this comparison when it suits his rhetorical purposes to accent the Turk’s “savagery.” See Erasmus, Useful Discussion, 257–258. Ep. 188, lines 119–121 cwe. See also Erasmus, Education of a Christian Prince, cwe 27: 286. Lucian, “Icaromenippus, or the Sky-Man,” Lucian, vol. 2, trans. A.M. Harmon (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988) 267–323. See also Erasmus, “War is a treat,” cwe 35: 418–419, where Erasmus appeals to the view of a “strange visitor” from another planet.

188

martin

brief, is that the Turks are quite happy to see the Christian world laid waste in the “suicidal strife” between the “most prosperous” monarchs of Europe.35 For Erasmus, finally, the ultimate question has nothing to do with the actual Turks, but rather concerns what he calls the “Turkishness” of those who unjustifiably claim to be Christians. To speak of such a quality of character—a negative description extracted from the common European enmity toward the invading Turks—admittedly is not respectful to the Turks themselves, though it is used by Erasmus entirely to critically slam Western Christians. When, for instance, Erasmus expresses fear that “while fighting the Turks,” Christians will “become Turks” themselves, he clearly does not mean this literally;36 but rather that they will “have fought the Turks in a Turkish frame of mind,”37 and with that, they will have adopted a collective way of being and acting marked by ferocity, inhumanity, and tyranny.38 It is not uncommon, for example, to find Erasmus referring to “Turkish ferocity,” as he does when speaking of the infamous mercenaries who ravaged the town of Asperen in 1517; nor to hear him speaking of “Turkish tyranny,” when suspecting that a group of unpaid troops are maintained “by the powers that be” in order to “oppress the common people.”39 What is most important to note in these and similar comments is that, for Erasmus, the truly dangerous Other is not so much the armies of the Ottoman Turks, as the barbarity of Christian life and culture. In this sense, though it is true that Erasmus does not show serious interest in the traditions of the Turks, their great value—curiously enough—is to provide western Christians with the opportunity for critical self-knowledge; that is, that they come to see how far short they fall from the ideals they profess.

3

Jews and Judaizing

Jewish people and Jewish tradition represented a much more complicated challenge for Erasmus; and his responses, in turn, have become the subject of intense controversy in recent scholarship.40 Unlike the Ottoman Turks, the 35 36 37 38 39 40

Ep. 549, lines 29–34 cwe; and Ep. 1400, lines 33–34. See also Erasmus, Complaint of Peace, cwe 27: 310 and 319; and “War is a treat,” cwe 35: 421. Ep. 2485, lines 23–25 cwe. “Would that it were too daring rather than too true,” Erasmus exclaims in “War is a treat,” cwe 35: 431, but “we are Turks fighting with Turks.” Erasmus, Useful Discussion, cwe 64: 220. See Norman Housley, Religious Warfare in Europe, 1400–1536 (Oxford University Press, 2002) 150–152. Ep. 643, lines 31–33 cwe and Ep. 1001, lines 73–85 cwe. That Erasmus is basically anti-Semitic, see Guido Kisch, Erasmus’ Stellung zu Juden and

erasmus and the other

189

Jews of Europe were a population long present within the world of Christendom. What is more, the religious heritage of Jewish people was the foundation from which Christianity sprang and over against which it struggled, with Hebrew Scriptures remaining essentially—though awkwardly—within the pool of canonical texts used by Christians. So the otherness of Jews and their traditions posed a distinctive set of challenges to the Christian world; and the responses have been infamously colored by prejudice and violence. It is not surprising, therefore, that the attitudes of Erasmus toward Jewish people and their religious traditions reflect the anti-Semitism of sixteenth century German culture, even as they are chiefly forged through interpretive struggle with the biases embedded in Christian Scriptures. At the same time, Erasmus manages to temper this inherited negativity with appeals for courtesy and toleration; and he typically turns anti-Judaic polemics not against living Jews and actual Judaism, but against the legalism and ceremonialism of his Catholic tradition. Still there are a number of comments from Erasmus that are openly hostile to Jews; and though their sharp tone is an exception to his standard—and wellpracticed—courteous manner, they illustrate the extent to which he absorbed the anti-Semitic sentiments of his society. There is, to begin with, a series of letters where Erasmus lashes out against Johann Pfefferkorn, a converted Jew and the Dominican adversary of Johann Reuchlin, the German humanist who had opposed the suppression of Hebrew books. Though Erasmus had hesitated to publicly support Reuchlin, he now attacks Pfefferkorn as a “poisonous fellow” and “Jew in disguise” who seeks to throw “peace among Christians” into confusion.41 Similar outbursts—driven by suspicion and laced with contempt—are directed at Girolamo Aleandro, a one-time friend of Erasmus but later someone he rightly suspected of conspiring against him in Rome.42 Here again, harshness designed for an adversary is seasoned with the caustic insistence that

41 42

Judentum (Tübingen, 1969). For more measured readings, see Shimon Markish, Erasmus and the Jews, trans. Anthony Olcot (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), first published as Érasme et les Juifs (Lausanne, 1979); and Cornelis Augustijn, “Erasmus und die Juden,” Erasmus: Der Humanist als Theologe und Kirchenreformer (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 94– 111. Consider also the “Afterword” to Markish’s volume by Arthur A. Cohen that places Erasmus “within a grand tradition of contempt and supersession that leads … straight to the death camps.” Erasmus and the Jews, 154. For a less severe discussion that still indicts Erasmus for anti-Semitism, see Nathan Ron, Erasmus and the “Other”: On Turks, Jews, and Indigenous Peoples (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019). Ep. 697, lines 14–20 cwe. See also Ep. 694, lines 35–58 cwe; Ep. 697, lines 14–19 cwe; Ep. 700, lines 15–45 cwe; Ep. 701, lines 19–43 cwe; and Ep. 703, lines 17–19 cwe. See, for example, Ep. 2042, lines 19–21 cwe; and Ep. 2329, lines 103–104 cwe.

190

martin

Aleandro is a Jew, “the blood-brother of Judas” who will betray “the future of the gospel.”43 Naturally enough, the same slur was considered useful against various critics, as we see in Erasmus’ blistering response to the Spanish Franciscan Luis de Carvajal. Whether Erasmus truly believes that this adversary is “not a Franciscan, nor even a Christian, but a Jew” writing under a false name, or whether he more subtly aims to embarrass the superiors of the Franciscan order, he nonetheless takes up this common slur to smear his adversary.44 Shimon Markish rightly notes that these “judeo-phobic eruptions” and “antiSemitic jibes” do not reflect the characteristic world view of Erasmus, though it cannot be denied that these remarks show the continued presence of negative sentiments, even if they are rarely expressed.45 Late in his life, for instance, while agonizing over the possibility of a civil war in Germany, he continues to warn that “under cover of this war the world will be inundated by Jews and heretics.”46 Despite the vehemence of these comments, Erasmus had very little contact with Jewish people, and he showed no interest in their lives or traditions. When the occasion arose, however, he counseled a “courteous” approach,47 rather than the hatred so often shown to Jews by supposedly “good Christians.”48 Indeed, Erasmus insists, “we should be careful not to find fault with a people or a city or an entire social class,” and to be sure Jews were defined by their national identity, even when they had converted to Christianity.49 What should be opposed is some vice, not the person; or, put positively in a way that reflects the ethical core of the philosophy of Christ, “the Christian should be sincerely well disposed towards all men, pray duly for all, do good to all,” regardless of their national affiliation.50 This kind of positive regard is on display in miniature when Erasmus praises the Jewish convert Paulus Ricius for his character,

43 44 45 46 47

48 49 50

Erasmus, “Acts of the University of Louvain against Luther,” cwe 71: 103–104. “The Answer of Desiderius Erasmus to the Pamphlet of a Certain Fever-Ridden Individual,” cwe 71: 203 and 211. See also Ep. 2275, lines 9–15 cwe. Markish, Erasmus and the Jews, 143. Ep. 2448, lines 84–85 cwe. Erasmus cites the Jews as a limit case to show the length to which love should be taken, saying “I could love even a Jew, provided he were in other respects an agreeable person to live with and friendly …” Ep. 1341a, lines 641–644 cwe. If it is Christian to detest the Jews, he writes facetiously, then “on this count we are all good Christians, and to spare.” Ep. 1006, lines 102–104 and 146–150. Erasmus, The Evangelical Preacher 3, cwe 68: 1015. Erasmus, The Handbook of the Christian Soldier, cwe 66: 94. On the place of “common courtesy” in “conversing with heretics, Jews, and Turks,” see Erasmus, On the Christian Widow, cwe 66: 198.

erasmus and the other

191

learning, and moderation.51 But the same ethic of kindness and courtesy is more broadly evident where Erasmus puts forth both practical and theological reasons for the toleration of Jews and Judaism. On the one hand, he argues, no one should be forced to accept Christian baptism, as doing so will make no significant impact on the recipient’s character, but only make yet more false Christians.52 And besides, we are told, the Jews “cause very little trouble,” so unless they “break the laws of the princes,” they should be allowed to persist in “their own caves.”53 On the other hand, Erasmus reasons, Christians should show tolerance for Jews in imitation of “God’s remarkable patience,” that “wonderful example of gentleness” that God has shown for pagans, Jews, and the many Christians “who often relapse into all kinds of offences.”54 With these statements we find the Erasmian counterpoint to the expressions of hostility sprinkled in the more heated moments of controversy. A good deal of the negative comments pertaining to Jews and Judaism arise directly from the biblical sources to which Erasmus gave his scholarly energy, though these same sources yield positive lessons as well. But there is no shortage of derisive material in Christian Scriptures pointed at Jews and their traditions, and much of this naturally finds its place in the Paraphrases of Erasmus, including comments on their stubborn unbelief, proud self-satisfaction, and the murder of Christ.55 With respect to Hebrew Scriptures, Erasmus normally follows an orthodox path by insisting upon their essential harmony with Christian Scriptures—affirming, that is, their common call for repentance, their shared promise of mercy, and the same ethic of love and peace.56 On occasion, however, he claims with striking—though typically hedged—language

51 52

53

54

55 56

See Ep. 549, lines 41–52. See also Ep. 1160 cwe. Consider also Ep. 686, lines 7–25 cwe on Matthaeu Adrianus, a Jewish convert to Christianity and an expert in Hebrew literature. Erasmus, Divinationes ad Notata per Bedam, asd ix—5: 314–315, lines 290–302. See also Erasmus, Annotationes in Matthaeum, asd vi—5, 302–303, lines 790–804. For an example of Erasmus’ efforts to advance the cause of toleration of Jews in Portugal, see Ep. 1800. See Joseph A. Klucas, “Erasmus and Erasmians on the Jews in Sixteenth-Century Portugal,” Luso-Brazilian Review, vol. 17, not. 2 (Winter 1980) 152–170. Erasmus, A Devout Explanation of Psalm 85 in the Form of a Sermon, cwe 64: 107; and Erasmus, Clarifications Concerning the Censures Published at Paris in the Name of the Theology Faculty There, cwe 82: 218. Erasmus, Devout Explanation of Psalm 85, cwe 64: 94–95. Thus, Erasmus writes, “Christian gentleness tolerates this stubborn race of men in the hope that they would recover their senses.” Erasmus, Evangelical Preacher 3, cwe 68: 966. Erasmus, “A Sermon on Psalm 4,” cwe 63: 238; Paraphrase on John, cwe 46: 114; and Paraphrase on Mark, cwe 49: 170–171. Erasmus, Sermon on Mercy, cwe 70: 110–111 and 117–118; “On Gospel Philosophy,” cwe 41: 731–734; and Complaint of Peace, cwe 29: 303.

192

martin

that Christian Scriptures are of much greater value, so much so that “they can almost suffice even by themselves.”57 Supporting this suggestion are the standard contrasts—flesh and spirit, darkness and light, and slavery and freedom— with which early Christian writers subordinated the authority of Hebrew tradition to Christian revelation. This ambivalent response persists in the works of Erasmus, though he is less severe than many reformers of his day in asserting a strict gulf between Hebrew law and Christian gospel; and yet, at the same time, he is not averse to co-opting the Hebrew Psalms for allegorical references to Christ.58 So an awkward regard for Jews and their scriptural books cuts across the works of Erasmus, just as it does in most Christian theology over the ages. More positively, however, his concentration on the virtues of the philosophy of Christ lead him to affirm the inclusive nature of salvation; and his scholarly habits guide him to at least register the simple fact that Jesus most certainly was a Jew.59 While much of what Erasmus says about Jewish tradition has its textual reference in the Jews of biblical times, he often extracts biblical material to criticize a new form of Judaism that he felt was corrupting the Catholic church of his own day. To be sure, Erasmus speaks of Judaism in negative terms as a “counterfeit religion” that puts “the essence of godliness in external things” under “the pretext of false godliness.”60 With its fixation on petty regulations concerning diet and dress and its obsession with ritual observances, Erasmus writes fiercely, Judaism is “the most pernicious plague and bitterest enemy that one can find to the teaching of Christ.”61 But while these judgments are derived from early Christian polemics, they are aimed by Erasmus not at Judaism of his day, but against the legalism and ritualism of Catholic Christianity. For Erasmus, as Dominic Baker-Smith observes, “the blindness of the chosen people serves as a metaphor for all human obduracy,”62 and Erasmus energetically turns his pen against this new and contemporary “kind of Judaism” that reigns again in

57 58 59

60 61 62

Erasmus, System of True Theology, cwe 41: 693. See, for instance, Erasmus, An Exposition of Psalm 38, cwe 65: 9–123 on Christ as the “most excellent of all lyre players” and “the foremost and greatest of leapers.” That salvation includes the Jews, see Erasmus Hyperaspistes 2, cwe 77: 522 and 649, for example. On the Jewishness of Jesus, see Erasmus, Paraphrase on John, cwe 46: 55, 58–59; and more clearly in Erasmus, Explanation of the Creed, cwe 70: 287; and Ep. 337, line 530 cwe. See also Erasmus, On Mending the Peace of the Church, cwe 65: 143. Erasmus, Paraphrase on Matthew, cwe 45: 231–236. Ep. 541, lines 154–155 cwe. Dominic Baker-Smith, “Introduction,” cwe 63: li. Judaism for Erasmus, is “first and foremost a moral category, not a historical one,” Markish writes; and thus it becomes “an antonym for ‘Christ’s philosophy.’” Markish, Erasmus and the Jews, 26 and 45.

erasmus and the other

193

Catholic institutions.63 When, for example, Erasmus declares with alarm that he sees “a Jewish legalism taking over almost everywhere,” this clearly is not meant literally but is used as a coded statement about the corruption of Christendom.64 And the brunt of this criticism is directed at the ecclesial agents of this “Judaizing” of Christianity (Galatians 2: 14)—the “rabbis” (theologians) and the “pharisees” (monks, among others)—for “the selfsame things which stirred up the Pharisees against Christ continue to rouse the world against the Gospel message,” only now it comes from within the church.65 Admittedly, talk of “Judaizing” is not respectful of living Judaism, though Erasmus in fact is transferring what was a biblical polemic (Acts 15) to a contemporary venue that has nothing to do with Jewish life and institutions. Having turned his critical eye inward at the sorry condition of Christendom, he returns to his more familiar usage of the Other to challenge Christians to live godly and virtuous lives. Thus he asks, yet again, “what do the Jews and pagans say when they see certain Christians leading” such wicked lives?66 And he answers his own question by saying that it is “our conduct” that is part of the reason why so many peoples “do not join Christ’s fold”; and thus it is why “the Jews do not recover from that blindness in which they have lived for so many centuries.”67 The ultimate point for Erasmus, once again, is an ethical imperative for Christians to be a better “example and pattern” of virtuous life for Turks and Jews.68

4

Women’s Presence and Absence

How unique is the otherness of women when compared with those peoples already considered in this chapter. Women are neither adherents of a rival religion, nor are they ominous invaders, newly discovered peoples, or socially

63

64 65

66 67 68

Ep. 164, line 130 cwe. He wrote The Handbook of the Christian Soldier, Erasmus says, “solely in order to counteract the error of those who make religion in general consist in rituals and observances of an almost more than Jewish formality, but who are astonishingly indifferent to matters that have to do with true godliness.” Ep. 181, lines 53–57 cwe. Ep. 1744, lines 97–98 cwe. See Ep. 1597, lines 7–8 cwe; and Erasmus, “A Commentary on the Second Psalm: ‘Why did the Nations Rage?’,” cwe 63: 99, where he declares that “there has been no period, there will be no period, without its Pharisees, its Caiaphas, its Herod, its Pilate …” Erasmus, Devout Explanation of Psalm 85, cwe 64: 112. Ep. 1800, lines 255–259 cwe. If the “Turks and Jews” were to see “our good works,” he continues, they would “be eager to be members of such company.” Ep. 1800, lines 293–295. Ep. 1800, lines 292–295 cwe.

194

martin

subjugated peasants; but rather, they are residents of every class, continent, and tradition. To speak of women as the Other, therefore, requires adjustment to the sense in which we speak of otherness, as they are at once the least other (since they are foreign to no world) and the most other (as they are so pervasively and persistently subordinated in each of these androcentric spheres). The attitudes of Erasmus roughly follow the pattern we have seen throughout this chapter—at once echoing the disparaging attitudes toward women he inherits from literary sources, but also deploying more humane judgment (sometimes from the same sources) which affirms the dignity and intelligence of women. Erasmus knows a great deal about women, or so it would seem from reading what he writes; and, in any case, he writes abundantly about women, often following the conventional treatment of women’s lives in their roles as daughters, wives, mothers, and widows. And yet, as William Barker notes, Erasmus lived in a world of men—one “organized around male friendships, male colleagues at work, male patrons, male students, male secretaries, [and] male servants.”69 Aside from a handful of women corespondents and his formidable housekeeper Margarete Büsslin, what he knows about women arises almost exclusively from his reading of classical and biblical literature. Of course this does not mean that Erasmus was drawing from a small reservoir of information, since he collected and presented material from a vast array of sources. This penchant for collecting, collating, and transmitting elements of literary tradition is famously on display in the Adages and the Apophthegmata, but it also plays a major part in manuals (like the Institution of Christian Matrimony), rhetorical exercises (as in Praise of Marriage), and some colloquies that pertain to women. What results from this procedure is an assemblage of conflicting remarks about women, often presented without a settled resolution, and sometimes without a clear indication as to the opinion of Erasmus.70 Still it frequently is possible to discern his voice, no matter how subtly expressed—as, for example, when he recites the commonplace that women are by nature more given to “talkativeness” than men, while quickly cautioning that this should be taken only “as a general statement,” and then mostly citing cases of men with loose tongues.71 So care and caution are needed to cope with the complexities of his many and varied remarks.

69 70 71

William Barker, Erasmus of Rotterdam: The Spirit of a Scholar (London: Reaktion Books, 2021) 28. On the difficulties of deciphering the voice of Erasmus, see Erika Rummel, Erasmus on Women (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996) 3–5. Erasmus, The Tongue, cwe 29: 377–379.

erasmus and the other

195

Some of Erasmus’ most interesting discussions regarding women concern their place in marriage and family; though he admits that he may be “just as silly as that celebrated philosopher whom Hannibal judged mad for holding forth about war, of which he had no personal experience.”72 A great deal of what Erasmus has to say on these matters is strictly conventional, as when he declares that “both nature and scriptural authority lay down that the wife should obey her husband rather than the opposite”; though he adds the equally traditional stipulation that the husband should rule by “persuading not compelling her, guiding her willingly, not dragging her along by force.”73 Still Erasmus offers some creative twists to traditional thinking about the relative value of married and celibate life;74 and he does so again when he praises “a marriage that is restrained, modest and chaste, and, as far as possible, like the state of virginity.”75 But fully traditional advice is found where Erasmus has another character advise an unhappy wife to “put up with your husband, whatever he’s like,” since nature and Scripture teach that “woman [is] entirely dependent on man.”76 Then again, showing sympathy for women trapped in abusive marriages, Erasmus gives the best lines to the incisive Xanthippe, who protests that “wives have an unhappy lot for sure if they must simply put up with husbands who are angry, drunk, and whatever else they please.”77 As a practical response, Erasmus suggests that the church provide clearer rules for marriage, as well as “some relaxation” of the laws concerning divorce, as a “way to help many thousands now struggling in the toils of disastrous marriages.”78 Erasmus is at his most humane, however, where he is most outraged—as he is, for instance, about the “monstrous” case where a “very young girl is married to a septuagenarian”; or, worse yet, where parents give their young daughter to an older nobleman with syphilis.79 72 73 74

75 76 77 78 79

Ep. 1751, lines 30–32 cwe. See Cicero, De oratore 2: 75–76. Erasmus, Institution of Christian Matrimony, cwe 69: 340 and 343. See also cwe 69: 363– 364, 377–381, and 398. In one colloquy, for instance, Erasmus has a character counsel a girl intent on joining “a community of holy virgins” against “throwing [herself] rashly into something there’s no escape from afterwards.” Erasmus, “The Girl with no Interest in Marriage,” cwe 39: 286– 287 and 293. See also Erasmus, “The Repentant Girl,” cwe 39: 302–305. Erasmus, Institution of Christian Matrimony, cwe 69: 387. See also Erasmus, “Courtship,” cwe 39: 265; and Erasmus, “The Defense of the Declamation of Marriage,” cwe 71: 93. Erasmus, “Marriage,” cwe 39: 314 and 320. Compare with similarly harsh declarations in Erasmus, Institution of Christian Matrimony, cwe 69: 303, 336–337, 368–369, and 401. Erasmus, “Marriage,” cwe 39: 312. Erasmus, Institution of Christian Matrimony, cwe 69: 278–279 and 301. Erasmus, Institution of Christian Matrimony, cwe 69: 325–329; and Erasmus, “A Marriage in Name Only, or The Unequal Match,” cwe 40: 842–859. See also Erasmus, System of True Theology, cwe 41: 544.

196

martin

Erasmus demonstrates more constructive regard for women when he affirms the value of their education, though there are limits to what he can envisage. It is true, after all, that he wrote a great deal on education, but those pieces were intended entirely for boys. Still, as Erasmus writes to Guillaume Budé, his eyes were opened to the value of “liberal education” for girls and women, something he credits to Thomas More and his well-read daughters. “Nothing so occupies a girl’s whole heart,” Erasmus writes, “as the love of reading”; and that “love of literature” protects her against “idleness and improper amusements.”80 Then again, he adds, there are nobler benefits—beyond the prevention of “pernicious idleness,” that is—for studious reading is “the way to absorb the highest principles, which can both instruct and inspire the mind in the pursuit of virtue.” That means, we are told, that educated young women will be able to independently “recognize good and just reasons for what they are,” and thereby to “perceive what conduct is proper and what is profitable.”81 In a word, they can become full-fledged moral agents, capable of thoughtfully and responsibly proceeding through the challenges of adult life. Indeed, Erasmus quips, they will come to know how to listen intelligently to a sermon, judging it critically where appropriate and perhaps even “making fun” of it if warranted. “One can really enjoy the society of girls like this,” Erasmus adds, though that means more than they have “entertainment value” for men, as Rummel suggests.82 A woman’s literary education, in fact, will make possible a “mutual affection of minds” between a husband and wife; and that possibility—of regular and engaging conversation—will create “far stronger bonds” than any “physical passion,” we are told.83 The value of education for women, as Erasmus sees it, lies partly in her personal development as an intelligent and virtuous human being; but then also in what it will contribute to a strong marriage, which is exactly why Erasmus emphasizes the husband’s obligation to instill in his wife a “love of study and of true virtue.”84 It remains true, however, as J.K. Sowards notes, that Erasmus cannot imagine a practical purpose in the larger society for the education of women, which is why his remarks

80 81 82 83 84

Ep. 1233, lines 121–122 and 115–117 cwe. Ep. 1233, lines 123–125 and 130–134 cwe. Ep. 1233, lines 149–150 cwe. See Rummel, Erasmus on Women, 9–10. Ep. 1233, lines 135–139 cwe. Erasmus, Institution of Christian Matrimony, cwe 69: 373. For this reason, Erasmus writes, it is better to have “a girl intent on her books,” than manifesting skill in managing a household. cwe 69: 319.

erasmus and the other

197

on the education of women must seem “somewhat unsatisfactory and truncated.”85 In the “Godly Feast,” Erasmus imagines a gathering of friends at the country villa of Eusebius for lunch and conversation. Rather than wasting their time with “foolish yarns,” the guests share their readings of one or another passage from biblical literature, yielding a rich and well-rounded discussion that was “equally learned and devout.”86 Until, that is, Timothy wonders why the wife of Eusebius has been excluded from their company; to which Eusebius replies that she would be “but a mute” in their company, since “as a woman, she prefers to gossip (garrit) with women.”87 But what a shocking proposal, that is; as Erasmus has made perfectly clear that absolutely everything—natural creatures, works of art, and even the wine cups—is “saying something” from which we might learn.88 And this is why Timothy adds with a note of self-criticism that it is often the fault of men “that our wives are bad, either because we choose bad ones or make them such, or don’t train and control ( formamus et instituimus) them as we should.”89 It is true, of course, that Erasmus affirms that women have the capacity to speak, though he also insists in strictly conventional terms that “she must cut out idle noise and chatter.”90 That is not the case, however, in “The Abbot and the Learned Lady,” where Erasmus has the learned but modest Magdalia cleverly turn the tables on the doltish but arrogant Antronius.91 Perhaps it is true, as Rummel suggests, that Magdalia is not held up as a role model, but her unassuming yet astute intelligence does represent an affirmation of women’s capabilities, even as it rebukes the ignorance and arrogance of this agent of patriarchal culture.92 It is true as well that Erasmus does not advocate for social change on behalf of women, but he does manage to indicate—through a character like Magdalia and with appeal to other learned women of the day in Europe93—that the world is turn-

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

J.K. Sowards, “Erasmus and the Education of Women,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 13 (1982) 87. Erasmus, “The Godly Feast,” cwe 39: 183 and 204. Erasmus, “The Godly Feast,” cwe 39: 187. Erasmus, “The Godly Feast,” cwe 39: 190 and 189. Erasmus, “The Godly Feast,” cwe 39: 187. Erasmus, Institution of Christian Matrimony, cwe 69: 382–383. Erasmus, “The Abbot and the Learned Lady,” cwe 39: 499–519. See Rummel, Erasmus on Women 10. Erasmus, “The Abbot and the Learned Lady,” cwe 39: 504; and Ep. 2133, lines 109–117 cwe. On the identity of these women, all of whom enjoyed high social standing, see Sowards, “Erasmus and the Education of Women” 80–83.

198

martin

ing “full circle,” so that “now monks are illiterate, and women devote themselves to books.”94 So change on behalf of women at least appears on the horizon.

5

Heretics and Other Christians

There is another case of otherness in the world of Erasmus, and that is comprised of those Christians who are made other because of their doctrinal dissent or deviation in practice from the reigning model of Christian life. Those deemed “heretics,” after all, are Christians who, because of their nonconforming views or practices, are cast out by the intolerance of orthodox authorities. Orthodoxy and heresy—no doubt each is other to the other— though one is persecuted and the other is the persecutor, and that difference makes all the difference in the world. When Erasmus speaks of heretics, he uses a traditional definition where heresy stands for “the willful malice that disturbs the peace of the church with perverse dogmas for the sake of some advantage.”95 And in turn he dutifully echoes the orthodox imperative that “all heresy which is combined with obstinacy … must be abhorred by pious minds.” But beyond that point, Erasmus moves away from the venom often shown by the defenders of orthodoxy for those suspected of heresy. For starters, he writes, “the man who makes an honest mistake is deserving of mercy,” not harassment or persecution.96 Besides, he adds, “all error is not heresy without more ado,” so everyone should be slow to hurl the charge of heresy, as this is “the most odious word one Christian can bring against another.”97 Moreover, he observes with the care and nuance expected of a scholar, not all heresies are of a piece—as some are simply “grotesque” in what they concoct; others teach things that openly conflict with “the authority of Scripture”; while some show an “excessive zeal for the full rigour of the Gospel,” and these latter are said to be the “least far removed from true religion.”98 The most disruptive of all classical heresies, however, is said to be that of the Arians, for their teachings were not “palpably absurd”

94 95 96 97 98

Ep. 2133, lines 116–117. Compare with Erasmus, “The Abbot and the Learned Lady,” cwe 39: 505. Erasmus, The Evangelical Preacher, cwe 68: 1048. Compare with Erasmus, “Epistle Against the False Evangelicals,” cwe 78: 226. Ep. 1232, lines 29–32 cwe. Ep. 939, lines 85–86 cwe; and Ep. 1212: lines 15 cwe. Ep. 1232, lines 31–76 cwe.

erasmus and the other

199

and they could be supported with Scriptural evidence.99 What is more, Erasmus notes, they enjoyed widespread support, so “it was long in doubt which way the uncommitted church would turn.”100 All in all, he concludes, it would have been far better to “admonish and instruct” the Arians, rather than brand them as “Satan or Antichrist.” And it is precisely this more measured approach that Erasmus advises for current conflicts, for if someone appears to have erred, “he should not at once be subjected to our wrath, since everyone errs, but an effort should be made to eliminate the error without hurting the person concerned.”101 Here, yet again, we find the familiar Erasmian pattern, where hostility inherited from the tradition in which he lives and breathes is faithfully repeated, even while its certitude and harshness are replaced with notes of humility and patience. For starters, he reminds those who are tempted to measure the “rule of Christ” by “their own desires,” doctrinal purity and authentic virtue are not simply matters of personal taste. Or, differently put, “ ‘whatever we wish is not necessarily holy,’ so whatever we do not like is not necessarily heretical.”102 In fact, Erasmus writes, “no one has to know whether this man or that is a living member of the church,” for “to look into the depths of hearts belongs to God alone,” and “human judgments [on such matters] frequently happen to be uncertain.” Indeed, Erasmus adds paradoxically to underscore the fallibility of human judgment, “someone dragged to the fire as a heretic may be a victim most pleasing to God, but those who dragged him deserve to be burned.”103 Matters of this kind are topsy-turvy, to say the least, so there is every good reason to be dubious of such lethal claims to certainty. What must the victim of orthodox violence think when assailed with “uncontrolled spite” by the selfprofessed teachers of Christ’s gospel of love? Interestingly enough, Erasmus answers this question by appealing to the “intelligence and good will” of “common folk”—including “bargemen, carters, and uneducated women [mulierculis]”—who see clearly the madness of those preachers who hurl stones at

99

100 101 102 103

Ep. 1232, lines 84–88 cwe. On Erasmus’ respect for Arian learning, see Responding to the Annotations of Edward Lee, cwe 72: 401 and 409; Ep. 1451, lines 40–41 cwe; and Ep. 1334, lines 526–530 cwe. Ep. 1451, lines 40–47 cwe. Ep. 1334, lines 534–536 and 608–611 cwe. Erasmus, “Defence of the Declamation of Marriage,” cwe 71: 94. See also Erasmus, “Our wish is for what is holy,” adage iv. vii. 16, cwe 36: 289–290. Erasmus, Explanation of the Creed, cwe 70: 338–339.

200

martin

purported heretics.104 What Erasmus manages, in any case, is to reverse the perspective in order to undercut the persecutors’ sense of certainty; and upon that more modest basis, to undermine the rationale for violence against those accused of heresy. In the hands of Erasmus, therefore, the representatives of orthodoxy might come to see themselves as other than they thought, or at least as less self-certain; and thus perhaps they might be slower to shun other Christians from their fold, since it may be themselves who deserve to be shunned. Erasmus frequently combines various Others in a brief list, perhaps indicating his sense that these groups pose similar challenges. So he warns of the threats posed by “schisms, heresies, wars, paganism, Judaism”; and he bemoans the “fact that some are now defecting to the Jews, Turks, or heretics.”105 Then again, Rummel observes, Erasmus “regularly lumps women together with other undesirable or marginalized segments of society”—such as “silly women [stultis mulierculis], the uneducated, and the superstitious.”106 Of course, some contend that Erasmus is hostile to all types of otherness; though as we have seen, negative regard for these groups is what he inherits and naturally absorbs, while he often proposes respect, sympathy, and tolerance. It is true that Erasmus does not come to know these others for who they are and who they aspire to be, and that fact remains a surprising limitation to his otherwise extensive scholarly interests. What he does accomplish, however, is to turn attention critically on the dominant culture of western Christendom and its elite, male leadership, for he pushes them relentlessly to recognize their own corruption and hypocrisy. Indeed, he writes, there is another heresy—one which usually is “not thought worthy of the name”—that does “the greatest harm to our human life” and is a “major obstacle to the authority of the Gospel.” That heresy, we are told, is found where the “supreme leaders and chiefs of all Christian people”— while professing the “philosophy of Christ”—“openly in all their way of life, all their purposes, and all their efforts” teach nothing but unremitting “ambition, insatiable greed, inexhaustible appetite for pleasures, mad love of war,” and so much else that is “an abomination to Holy Scripture.”107 Here is the most treacherous heresy—the consummate Other in the mind of Erasmus, for hypocrisy is its own form of otherness—and it is found by Erasmus not in other cultures, religions, or classes, but in the heart of Christendom. 104

105 106 107

Ep. 1196: lines 395–438 cwe. As Ann Dalzell notes, Erasmus often uses a diminutive for “woman” (mulierculis) to refer, not to all women, but to women of “less fortunate” social status. Erasmus, Paraclesis, cwe 41: 411, note 40. Erasmus, Evangelical Preacher 1, cwe 1: 413; and Evangelical Preacher 3, cwe 68: 873. See Markish, Erasmus and the Jews 108–109 for numerous examples. Rummel, Erasmus on Women 283. See Ep. 1167, lines 491–492 cwe. Ep. 1232, lines 99–108 cwe.

chapter 11

Erasmus in Translation (16th–17th Centuries) Paul J. Smith

Few single authors can have been as much translated, at such different times and for such different purposes as Erasmus.1

∵ The international fame of most writers can be measured, to a large extent, by the number of translations of their works. If we now look at the Erasmus translations in early modern Europe—the subject of this chapter—, this assumption turns out to be only partially true: in Erasmus’ case, translation is not a reliable indicator of his reputation. The overwhelming amount of translations is merely a faint echo of his real reputation, first of all because of the large number of his humanistically trained readers, who did not need a translation. Another problematic point lies in the definition of the notion of “translation.” In the early modern period, by no means all translations, of Erasmus and others, are translations in the modern sense of the word. This becomes apparent, for example, when we look at the early modern translations made of Erasmus’ most famous work: the Praise of Folly. As we will show further on in this chapter, several of them were “naturalized,” that is to say: more or less adapted to the intended audience, not only in content but also in form. There are rhymed “translations” of the Praise of Folly, and adaptations in the form of a dialogue, just as there are rhymed versions of the Apophthegmata and the Colloquies. Therefore, it is often difficult to draw clear lines of demarcation between translation, adaptation, and imitation. The problem of what a translation is, incidentally, already arises in the work of Erasmus himself: in addition to integral translations of complete texts from the Greek into Latin (New Testament, Euripides, Plutarch, Lucian), Erasmus’

1 Margaret Mann Phillips, “Erasmus and Propaganda: A Study of the Translations of Erasmus in English and French,” The Modern Language Review 37 (1942) 1.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_013

202

smith

work has numerous Latin paraphrases and quotations of varying length from these authors. Should these textual borrowings also be counted as translations? And, a Latin paraphrase of a Greek Bible text, whether or not accompanied by annotations, is that another translation? And what about a vernacular translation of a Latin translation by Erasmus of a Greek text (as can be seen in a number of Lucian translations in the vernacular, which are based on the translations by Erasmus and Thomas More)? A special case is Erasmus’ Latin translation of the New Testament, published in 1516 under the title Novum Instrumentum, and in later editions under the title Novum Testamentum. According to Henk Jan de Jonge, Erasmus’ translation “was the most widely used Latin text of the New Testament next to the Vulgate. Erasmus’ translation was printed in about 220 editions and reprints in several countries in Europe.”2 For Bible translations into the vernacular, this Novum Testamentum is of exceptional importance, as it led many in Europe to make their own translations of the Bible, which may or may not be based on the translation of Erasmus. We find such (partial) translations for the first time in German (1521), and then in Dutch (1522), English (1525), Swedish (1526) and Czech (1533).3 Most of these translations are more or less inspired by Erasmus (although it is usually not clear whether the Erasmus translation is the only source) and often of Lutheran nature (and therefore immediately condemned in Catholic circles). In short, also in the case of the derivatives of the Novum Testamentum, it is often problematic to speak of “Erasmus translations.” This brings us to a provisional, practical delineation of our corpus: by “Erasmus translation” we mean a substantial piece of text by Erasmus himself that has been transferred from Erasmus’ Latin to another language and that is presented as a separate, demarcatable text. In this chapter we limit ourselves to the period preceding the major Erasmus editions and French translations published by the Leiden publisher Pieter van der Aa in the early 18th century—publications that had a major impact in the European Erasmus reception. In order to gain insight into this immense and complex area, we base ourselves on the extensive literature on Erasmus translations, which is mostly language specific. Basic bibliographic works are the publications by Heinz Holeczek and Christoph Galle for the German language

2 H.J. de Jonge, “The character of Erasmus’ translation of the New Testament as reflected in his translation of Hebrews 9,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 14 (1984) 81. 3 Simon Willem Bijl, Erasmus in het Nederlands tot 1617 (Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1978) 10– 13.

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

203

area,4 S.W. Bijl and A.J.E. Harmsen for the Dutch translations,5 E.J. Devereux and Christoph Galle for the English,6 Margaret Mann Phillips and the bibliography by Andrew Pettegree and his collaborators for the French,7 Silvana Seidel Menchi for the Italian,8 Marcel Bataillon and Jorge Ledo for the Spanish.9 There are two useful reference works that provide an overview of the entire area: the monumental, but understandably very outdated Bibliotheca Erasmiana,10 with many columns of Erasmus editions, and the above-mentioned work by Bijl, devoted to the Dutch Erasmus translations. For each Dutch translation he studies, Bijl provides a brief overview of the non-Dutch translations. A major disadvantage of all these studies is that, insofar as quantitative data is provided at all, it is not obtained and presented in a comparable and unambiguous manner—that is why the reader cannot expect a comprehensive quantification of all early modern Erasmus translations in this chapter. After a brief overview of how Erasmus himself felt about translations of his work into the vernacular, we start with the translations into Dutch—not only because Dutch is Erasmus’ mother tongue (although he never seems to have written in Dutch), but also because the Dutch translations form a clear cor4

5

6

7

8 9

10

Heinz Holeczek, Erasmus Deutsch, Bd. 1: Die volkssprachliche Rezeption des Erasmus von Rotterdam in der reformatorischen Öffentlichkeit 1519–1536 (Stuttgart—Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1983); Christoph Galle, “Katalog deutschsprachiger Übersetzungen erasmischer Texte im 16. Jahrhundert” in Erasmus-Rezeption im 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Christoph Galle and Tobias Sarx (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012) 177–188. Bijl, Erasmus in het Nederlands tot 1617; A.J.E. Harmsen, Desiderius Erasmus, database https://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/Dutch/Latijn/Erasmus.html. Another useful database is set up by the Rotterdam Public Library: https://www.erasmus.org/index.cfm?itm_name=eras musonline‑EN. E.J. Devereux, Renaissance English Translations of Erasmus. A Bibliography to 1700 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983); Christoph Galle, “Katalog englischsprachiger Übersetzungen erasmischer Texte im 16. Jahrhundert” in Erasmus-Rezeption im 16. Jahrhundert 189–196. Margaret Mann Phillips, Érasme et les débuts de la Réforme française (1517–1536) (Paris: Champion, 1933); Andrew Pettegree, Malcolm Walsby, and Alexander Wilkinson, French vernacular books: books published in the French language before 1601 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Silvana Seidel Menchi, Erasmo in Italia 1520–1580 (Torino: Bollati Boringhieri, 1987). Marcel Bataillon, Érasme et l’Espagne. Nouvelle édition en trois volumes, ed. Daniel Devoto and Charles Amiel (Geneva: Droz, 1991); Jorge Ledo, “Which Praise of Folly Did the Spanish Censors Read? The Moria de Erasmo Roterodamo (c. 1532–1535) and the Libro del muy illustre y doctíssimo Señor Alberto Pio (1536) on the Eve of Erasmus’ Inclusion in the Spanish Index,” Erasmus Studies 38 (2018) 64–108, Appendix 3 “Sixteenth-century translations of Erasmus into Spanish.” Ferdinand van der Haeghen, “Bibliotheca Erasmiana. Bibliographie des œuvres d’Érasme” in Bibliotheca Belgica. Bibliographie Générale des Pays-Bas, ed. Marie-Thérèse Lenger, vol. 2 (Brussels: Culture et civilisation, 1964) 272–1049.

204

smith

pus: starting from Harmsen’s database, we arrive for the Northern and Southern Netherlands at a total of 28 works by Erasmus that were translated before 1585 (the year of the Fall of Antwerp), published in 102 editions,11 a corpus that can be used as a point of comparison for the other language areas. We continue our overview with the translations into German, as this language area has the most translations of all countries: in his overview Erasmus Deutsch, Holeczek counts no less than 80 translated works of Erasmus in 275 editions for the first half of the 16th century. Then it is the turn of the translations into English and French, in this order, because the English situation resembles the Dutch and German more than the French, and because of the German-English situation there is a recent comparative bibliographic overview by Christoph Galle.12 In the next part of our overview, we focus on Spain and Italy, countries where the growing production of Erasmus translations came to an abrupt halt around 1550, when Erasmus’ work was put on the Index. We end our overview with a brief consideration of Erasmus translations into Czech, Polish and the Scandinavian languages.

1

Erasmus on the Translations of His Works13

Although Erasmus spent his entire life, in theory and practice, translating from Greek, and regularly reflected on this in his writings,14 he is taciturn about translations into the vernacular. Only the translation of the Holy Scriptures into the vernacular receives a lot of his attention in his Paraclesis ad lectorem pium (1516) and especially in the preface to the edition of his Matthew Paraphrase (1522): the Holy Scriptures should be accessible to everyone in all languages, not only to professional theologians, with the restriction that the vernacular reader take a humble and pious attitude. Erasmus is always aware of the danger of interpretations not intended by the translator—a danger which, however, does not outweigh the importance of making translations. He constantly had to defend his views against attacks from the Parisian theologians, notably Noël

11 12 13

14

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/Dutch/Latijn/ErasmusVertalers.html Galle, “Erasmus-Rezeption im Reich und in England: Ein diachroner Vergleich volkssprachlicher Übersetzungen” in Erasmus-Rezeption im 16. Jahrhundert 23–37. Most of the information in this section comes from Egbertus van Gulik, Erasmus and His Books, tr. J.C. Grayson, ed. James K. McConica and Johannes Trapman (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018) and Bijl, Erasmus in het Nederlands tot 1617 377–398. See for instance Erika Rummel, Erasmus as a Translator of the Classics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985).

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

205

Béda and Petrus Sutor—the latter he answered in his much-quoted Apologia adversus debacchationes Sutoris (1525). Erasmus is remarkably silent about the translations of his own work, and he appears to be only partially aware of them. This is understandable, not only because of the large number of translations spread over vast linguistic areas, but also because most translations were published anonymously, without mentioning the name of the author, translator, or printer. Erasmus’ silence on translations of his work, especially those from the early 1520s, can also be interpreted as a sign of approval.15 Erasmus does not comment on them in his printed works; his opinions on these translations can only be found in his correspondence, which is often informative both on specific translations and on general translation topics. For example, in a letter of 1527 addressed to Jan Laski, he claims that the monks fear they will lose their reputation among the people through his criticism-in-translation.16 There is one translation known to which Erasmus probably actually contributed, namely the French translation of Exomologesis by Claudius Cantiuncula, which was published in the same year 1524, two months after the publication of the original, under the title Manière de se confesser. According to Allen,17 in view of the short time between the publication of the original and the translation, Cantiuncula must have had access to the manuscript of Exomologesis. An indication of the strong connection between original and translation is that both books were bound in a joint binding to be given as a gift by Erasmus to the influential François du Moulin, the spiritual adviser to the French king.18 Another example is Erasmus’ sharp reactions to what he sees as a distorted interpretation of his work by the Swiss translator Leo Jud.19 According to Jud’s interpretation, Erasmus would agree with Luther that the altar sacrament would be nothing more than a memorial meal. Jud’s misinterpretations were in German (1526); in the same year, Erasmus replied sharply in the Detectio praestigiarum, and made sure that this writing was immediately followed by a translation into German.20 15

16 17 18 19 20

Heinz Holeczek, “Erasmus von Rotterdam und die volkssprachliche Rezeption seiner Schriften in der Deutschen Reformation 1519–1536,” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 11 (1984) 158. Ep. 1821 Allen lines 33–42. See Ep. 1426 and Allen’s commentary, quoted by Van Gulik, Erasmus and His Books 38. asd v-8: 326–328. See Van Gulik 38. Jud translated much of Erasmus: all his Paraphrases (1535) as well as the Enchiridion, Querela pacis, and Institutio principis christiani. See Christine Christ-von Wedel, “Erasmus und die Zürcher Reformatoren […]” in Erasmus in Zürich. Eine verschwiegene Autorität, ed. Christine Christ-von Wedel and Urs B. Leu (Zurich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung Verlag, 2007) 125–134.

206

smith

In his correspondence with his admirer and translator Louis de Berquin, Erasmus warns of the danger that may lie in translation of his work—danger coming from the repressive Catholic corner, of whom the aforementioned Noël Béda is one of the most polemic representatives. Erasmus not only fears bad consequences for Berquin but is also apprehensive of uncontrollable and harmful animosity against himself.21 Erasmus’ warnings turned out to be justified: Berquin was sentenced to the stake in 1529, and Erasmus’ entreaties to François i and his sister Marguerite (later Marguerite de Navarre, Erasmianminded author of the Heptaméron) were to no avail.22 Occasionally Erasmus speaks about the quality of the translation, including in the case of the French translation of the Praise of Folly, as we will see later. Sometimes Erasmus also gives good advice. In a letter from 1529, for example, he advises Emilio de’ Migli (Aemilius de Aemiliis) to omit his letter to Paul Volz, which was published as a preface in the Latin original of the Enchiridion, because it turned out to be too controversial for many readers.23 Erasmus feared commotion if this letter appeared in an Italian translation. Migli followed this advice: his Italian translation appeared in 1531 without the preface in question. This is the only translation of which it can be established with certainty that Erasmus had a copy in his library.24 Erasmus was so satisfied with Migli that he advised him in the same letter about six other works that could be considered for translation, remarkably enough exclusively works of an edifying nature, which conducunt ad pietatem.25 Erasmus apparently felt the need to give some direction to his translators. In 1528 he drew up a similar list in his letter to Alonso Fernández, the Spanish translator of the Enchiridion.26 In later letters, Erasmus states that several translations of his books are in the works. He does not elaborate on this, except that he insists once again on the ultimate goal of these translations: the promotion of piety among the readership. Remarkable and understandable is the caution with which Erasmus expresses himself: as said, he only speaks about his religious writings, not about his educational, satirical and literary works.

21 22 23 24 25

26

Ep. 1599. See especially Ep. 1722 to François i, Allen lines 80–81. Ep. 2165 Allen lines 30–32. See the so-called Versandliste, analysed in Van Gulik, Erasmus and His Books, chap. 2. Ep. 2165 Allen lines 38–41: Commentarii in quinque Psalmos, Comparatio Virginis et Martyris, De misericordia Dei, De matrimonio Christiano, Vidua christiana, Paraphrases. Quoted and commented on by Bijl, Erasmus in het Nederlands tot 1617 392. Ep. 1969 Allen lines 24–31.

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

2

207

Erasmus in Dutch

The corpus of Erasmus translations into Dutch is quite large, but well-organized, and excellently documented, first by W. de Vreese,27 then by Bijl, who gives an overview of the Erasmus translations up to 1617 (this end point was chosen because a collection of ten translations published by Matthijs Bastiaans in Rotterdam marks a new period),28 and recently by Harmsen, who includes all translations up to now in his database. Harmsen mentions 317 editions for the period 1620–1700 (it should however be noted that no copies are known of a number of editions mentioned by him). Harmsen’s database beautifully shows the clear division between the Northern and the Southern Netherlands. The editions of the Southern Netherlands (mostly from Antwerp) stop abruptly in the year 1585 with the Fall of Antwerp. And this while the production of Erasmus translations in the Southern Netherlands was larger than in the Northern Netherlands (56 editions against 37). Only one Antwerp edition is known from after 1585: namely De Civilitate morum puerilium from 1587, printed by Jan van Waesberghe, who by the way had already fled to the North by then. There appear to be no significant differences between North and South in the choice of the translated works. What are those translated works? Until 1585 it turned out to be 28 works. The seven most frequently printed translations are the following, in order of the number of editions: Enchiridion (13 editions), De praeparatione ad mortem (12), De immensa Dei misericordia (9), the paratexts to the Novum Testamentum (8), De civilitate morum puerilium (7), Lingua (6) and Adagia (6 not counting the separately published Sileni Alcibiadis). Let’s take a closer look at these seven translated works. Apart from the abovementioned Novum Testamentum, it is striking that these are mainly works of a practically oriented, edifying and educational nature. Most of these works are not offensive because of their content, are acceptable to most religious denominations, and are therefore printed in both the Northern and Southern Netherlands. An example of this is De immensa Dei misericordia: the Delft translation from 1526 was printed in Leiden, Amsterdam and Kampen as well as in Antwerp and Louvain.29 It is remarkable that two translations of the Enchiridion were published simultaneously independently of each other in 1523, one in Amster-

27 28 29

W. de Vreese, “De Nederlandse vertalingen van Desiderius Erasmus,” Het Boek 24 (1936– 1937) 71–100. Opuscula Desiderii Erasmi […] (Rotterdam: Matthijs Bastiaans, 1616). Bijl 123–124.

208

smith

dam and one in Antwerp. According to Bijl, the simultaneous appearance does not seem to be a sign of financial competition or religious contradiction, but rather of cooperation between the printers from North and South. Bijl shows that the Amsterdam translation is somewhat freer, and that of Antwerp more faithful to the text. The Kampen printer printed both versions: the Amsterdam version four times and the Antwerp version only once.30 Two other Northern Netherlandish translations appeared in the 17th century, those by Dirk Pietersz. Pers (1636) and Frans van Hoogstraten (1677). In his preface, Pers criticized the freedoms that the Amsterdam translation of 1523 afforded itself. In the case of Lingua, it is also a translation that will be corrected later. In 1555 a translation by the rhetorician Cornelis van Ghistele was published, which, however, left many church-critical passages untranslated. In 1583 a translation was published based on that by Van Ghistele, but which translated the untranslated passages. Bijl rightly remarks about the Adagia that a real “complete translation” has never been published in Dutch. Less rightly, he asserts that “only in the 17th century” separate adages appear in Dutch—this in contrast to the situation in Germany and England, among others.31 Harmsen’s database, however, shows a different picture: around 1520 a Dutch translation, now lost, of Sileni Alcibiadis is said to have been published in Zwolle. This could even be the very first Dutch translation of Erasmus’ work. And from the 1540s, some adages appear in Dutch translation in the Southern Netherlands. In the 17th century several adages appear separately (notably Dulce bellum inexpertis and Sileni Alcibiadis), in anthologies, or in more or less complete editions of the Adagia. The Praise of Folly is certainly not one of the seven works most published in Dutch up to 1583. Nevertheless, the translations of this work occupy an exceptional place, especially in the 17th century. The first translation appears quite late: in 1560 by Johan Geillyaert, a southern Dutchman who had fled to Emden. In his monograph devoted to the Dutch translations of the Praise of Folly, Hans Trapman32 shows how Geillyaert used the German translation from 1534 by Sebastian Franck for his translation from Latin (about Franck, see below). Geillyaert’s translation is reprinted 9 times up to 1666.

30 31 32

Bijl 74–75. Bijl 180. Hans Trapman, Wijze dwaasheid. Vijfhonderd jaar Lof der Zotheid in Nederland (Amsterdam: Balans, 2011) 53–54. The information in this and the next paragraph, devoted to the Praise of Folly, is largely taken from Trapman’s study.

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

209

figure 11.1 Cornelis Huyberts, Fontispiece of Erasmus, Moriae Encomium. Of de Lof der Zotheid, tr. Frans van Hoogstraten (Amsterdam: Willem Linnig van Koppenol, 1700).

The translation by the Catholic Rotterdam printer Frans van Hoogstraten is published in 1676. In his Preface the translator argues that the Praise of Folly is acceptable to both Catholic and Protestant readers.33 He does so by including a translation of the correspondence on the topic between Erasmus and Jacopo Sadoleto (February–May 1530). Van Hoogstraten’s translation was successful, as it was reprinted until 1738. The 1700 edition is important for the image of Praise of Folly, as it is the first Dutch edition of the Praise to be illustrated, and in which Folly gets a face (Fig. 11.1). The engravings, by Cornelis Huyberts, were made independently of the well-known drawings that Hans Holbein made in his personal copy of the Praise of Folly, and which have been used extensively since the 1676 Basel edition of the Praise, among others in the Leiden editions of Van der Aa from the early 18th century.

33

Trapman 116–118.

210

smith

While the translations by Geillyaert and Van Hoogstraten can be called literal, the three other early modern Dutch translations of the Praise of Folly are characterized by the aforementioned tendency towards “naturalization” and adaptation: all three are in fact rhymed.34 The first of these translations was by the translator and poet Jacob Westerbaen (1659), who transcribed Erasmus’ Latin in 5500 Dutch alexandrines, while keeping thematically close to the original. In 1689 the rhymed translation by Adriaen Stikke appeared posthumously, which was written independently of Westerbaen and probably before his translation. Trapman demonstrates how Stikke’s translation is freer and more personal than Westerbaen’s: in particular the themes of war, love, scholastic ingenuity, monks and greed are elaborated by Stikke satirically. In 1706 the third rhymed adaptation appeared, by a certain Cornelis van der Port, who is otherwise unknown. This work does not excel in its poetic quality, but is nevertheless interesting because of the very numerous elaborations, for which a large number of 17th-century sources are used, which the translator is proud to mention in the preliminary work: from the poets Constantijn Huygens and Willem Godschalck van Focquenbroch to the physician Johan van Beverwijck. And later in his translation, Rabelais is also mentioned. Under the translator’s pen, not only Folly, but also four of her companions are given the floor: Self-love, Lust, Flattery and Abundance—Lust even gets a 30-page monologue. Another interesting aspect is that this adaptation made use of the illustrations taken from the 1700 edition of Van Hoogstraten’s translation. The reception and image of Erasmus in the 17th-century Republic have not been systematically investigated. Some notable things should be mentioned here. The 17th century, for example, sees some specific developments in the range of Erasmus translations. While in the 16th century the attention to the Paraphrases in translation is rather limited, its translation, published by Ellert de Veer, is extremely successful, partly because this translation was used in ministerial training. Also interesting are the five translations which Jan Hendriksz Glazemaker produced in 1651 and in 1663, among others the Annotationes (1663)—Glazemaker was the first one in the world to have translated the complete Annotationes. Glazemaker has the reputation of translating difficult authors such as Montaigne, or authors heralding the Radical Enlightenment, including Spinoza and Descartes. It is, however, unlikely that with his translations Glazemaker wanted to place Erasmus in the corner of Montaigne, Descartes or Spinoza—it was probably a translation assignment.

34

About these verse translations, see Trapman chap. 5.

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

211

The image of Erasmus in the 17th century is reflected in the illustrations. Many 17th-century Erasmus editions and translations published in the Netherlands have an illustrated title page. Paula Koning demonstrates how these title pages provide insight into the reception of Erasmus in the 17th century.35 Further and broader research on this iconographic perspective would provide an interesting entrance to the reception of Erasmus in the Netherlands and beyond.

3

Erasmus Deutsch

In accordance with the Dutch situation, the majority of German Erasmus translators are anonymous, and the choice of the translated work often coincides with a particular theological, socio-educational and / or political view. The importance of Erasmus translations in this respect is shown by a fiercely antiCatholic pamphlet from 1521 with a long title, quoted by Bijl:36 Why Erasmus of Rotterdam is translated. Why Luther and Ulrich von Hutten write in German. How useful and necessary it is that these matters are made available to the common man.37 An important difference with the Dutch situation is that, as far as non-anonymous translators are concerned, these are often persons of name, such as Leo Jud, Conradus Pellicanus, and Georgius Spalatinus—who, among other things, tried to take a stand in the rapidly changing relationships between Luther, Zwingli and Erasmus. In order to get a grip on the enormous amount (approx. 270) of German-language editions that were published during Erasmus’ lifetime, Heinz Holeczek makes the following thematic subdivision, with the corresponding numbers of editions—a classification of which Holeczek is the first to admit that this cannot always be done consistently. 1. Bible translations, including the Paraphrases and the Annotationes: 110 editions; 2. Position within the Reformation movement and the church-political situation: 45 editions; 3. The life of the Christian citizen: 100 editions; 4. Political Writings: 15 editions.

35 36 37

Paula Koning, Erasmus op de markt (Rotterdam: Ad. Donker, 2009). Bijl 366. Johann Eberlin von Günzburg, Warumb man herr Erasmus von Roterodam in Teütsche sprach transeriert. Warumb doctor Luther und herr Ulirich von Hutten teütsch scriben. Wie nuss un not es sy das sollich ding den gemeinen man für kom […] (Basel: Pamphilus Gengenbach, 1521).

212

smith

Ad 1. This primarily concerns the four Gospels, which are published both separately and together, plus the Epistles. This production is only shortlived because of the publication of the German translation of Luther’s New Testament (1522). The Annotationes in Novum Testamentum were published separately or bundled in the form of pamphlets (Holeczek counts 34 editions from 1521–1523). The Paraphrases were also partially translated from 1520–1523 on. The chief translator of the Paraphrases was Leo Jud, who published his work from 1521 in Zurich at the printer Froschauer before publishing the collected Paraphrases in 1542. Ad 2. The second group distinguished by Holeczek also appeared largely in pamphlets. In the first instance, these are Erasmus’ positions about Lent and the Christian holidays, and a little later, from 1525, the freedom of the will and the sacrament of the Eucharist—a position criticizing the translators Conradus Pellicanus and Jud—and a little later again, after the Speyer protestation (1529), his position about the persecution of heretics. Ad 3. This is a group that is so heterogeneous that it forces Holeczek to make a further subdivision into no fewer than 5 subgroups: 1. Texts relating to Christian doctrine—in this, as in the Netherlands, the Enchiridion is the most successful: in 1520 a translation by Joannes Adelphus was published, which was revised by Jud (1521). In 1543 a new translation by Onnoferus Pirchinger appeared—all these translations and adaptations took place in Reformed circles. 2. An edifying text, such as the Expostulatio, also appeared in two translations, again by Jud and by Hieronymus Ernser. 3. German translations of the Lord’s Prayer, one of which is illustrated. Furthermore, some separately translated colloquies on the theme of marriage. 4. The education of children, such as De civilitate with a dozen editions alone between 1530 (the year of the original Latin edition) and 1542. Lingua was also published in the 1540s. 5. On the theme of dying, in particular De praeparatione ad mortem, published in Latin in 1534, and translated into German in the same year by Caspar Hedio, and later retranslated by Jacob Salwechtern (1546). Ad 4. The political writings include the two peace texts, the adage Dulce bellum and Querela pacis—the latter again in two translations, and the Institutio principis christiani also in two translations, again by Spalatin (Augsburg) and Jud (Zurich).

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

213

Due to its anti-Lutheran attitude, it is not surprising that De libero arbitrio hardly led to a German translation in the 16th century. To avoid escalation, Erasmus forbade the publication of the translation in preparation by Cochlaeus and Emser, two Roman Catholic theologians. The only German translation appeared in 1526. Although rarely translated, the work was often quoted in Latin as part of the debate on free will between Lutherans and Catholics.38 In his quantitative bibliographic study, Galle observes that the years 1520– 1521 saw an explosive increase in the number of Erasmus translations, followed by a sharp decrease. An important part of the increase lies in the translation of those Annotationes that can be related to the papal bull Exsurge Domine and Luther’s subsequent excommunication in 1520. An anonymous pamphlet published in 1521 in five different editions, of which Holeczek and Galle suspect that the text is by Erasmus,39 certainly plays a role in Erasmus’ increasing popularity in the early 1520s. Because no data comparable to that of Holeczek and Galle is available on Erasmus’ reception after the sixteenth century, it is difficult to obtain a general picture. From the important but outdated data of the Bibliotheca Belgica, one may conclude that in both Lutheran and Roman Catholic Germany the theological writings of Erasmus are much less translated and reprinted. However, a work like the Praise of Folly gets continuous attention. The Praise of Folly was translated by Sebastian Franck, and embedded in a number of other paradoxical eulogies, some by Franck himself, others paraphrased, such as Henricus Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim’s De incertitudine et vanitate omnium scientiarum et artium. The whole translation was published in 1534 and reprinted until 1696. It was not until 1719 that a second translation of the Praise of Folly appears, which incidentally is based more on the French translation of Gueudeville (see below) than on the Latin original.

4

Erasmus in England

The general history of Erasmus translations in England and France is briefly summarized by Margaret Mann Phillips as follows:

38 39

See Bijl 310–311. Holeczek, Erasmus Deutsch 135; Galle, “Erasmus-Rezeption” 31–32. The anonymous pamphlet in question is [Johannes Faber?], Consilium cuiusdam ex animo cupientis esse consultum et Romani Pontificis dignitati et christiani religionis tranquillitati (Basel: Johann Froben, 1520). Text in Ferguson 352–361.

214

smith

[…] The translators call on all these [i.e., Erasmus’ works, subdivided by Mann Phillips in “devotional works, classical learning, social and religious reform, and light literature”]. As a general rule, it may be said that the interest of the sixteenth century was centred on the devotional side and on those writings which should be used as weapons by the reformers; that the seventeenth century used Erasmus for vulgarization of learning and the Colloquies as a school book, but also roped him into their religious and political controversies, and on opposing sides; that the readers of the eighteenth century found the Praise of Folly exactly the sort of gilded pill they liked, and enjoyed the Colloquies for their funny side; and that the early nineteenth century gave great publicity to Erasmus pacifist.40 This general observation is correct, but of course requires some nuance, which will be given in this section on the English translations and in the next section on the French translations. As Devereux, Dodds, and Galle demonstrate, the Erasmus translations are a reflection of the great political upheavals in early modern England. At the time of Henry viii, it is mainly Erasmus’ short writings which are translated, because they lend themselves easily to use in pamphlets. For example, the use of Erasmus in pamphletary publications was promoted by the translator and publisher Richard Taverner, who was financially supported in his advertising activities by Thomas Cromwell. Some Colloquies and Adagia in particular lend themselves to publication in pamphlet form. A well-known example of this is the anonymous translation Pilgrimage of Pure Devocyoun, probably printed in 1536 by order of Thomas Cromwell. The situation in this colloquy was recognizable to the English reader, as the colloquy tells in dialogue form the plans for a pilgrimage to Walsingham and to Canterbury. The two main characters are Erasmus himself and a second person who is probably John Colet.41 In his study, Dodds shows the importance of the English translation of Erasmus’ Paraphrases in the changing political-religious contexts under Edward vi, Mary i, Elizabeth i and the Restoration respectively. During the reign of Edward vi, the Paraphrases were made a legalized part of the English Reformation, with the underlying idea of preventing uncontrolled Bible reading. In 1547 it was decreed that in every parish church the Paraphrases should be accessible, both in the Latin version and in the English translation. It goes without

40 41

Mann Phillips, “Erasmus and Propaganda” (note 1 above) 2. Mann Phillips, “Erasmus and Propaganda” 4, referring to H. de Vocht, The Earliest English Translations of Erasmus’ Colloquia, 1536–1566 (Louvain, 1928).

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

215

saying that in this Anglican context Erasmus was not seen as a Roman Catholic writer, and that Luther’s criticism of the Paraphrases went unmentioned. During the Catholic reign of Mary i, there was a ban on Protestant literature, which logically, given the preceding period, should also include Erasmus. However, Erasmus was somewhat of an exception, partly because his friend Thomas More, who was put to death by Henry viii, was rehabilitated. Moreover, at the instigation of Catherine Parr, Henry viii’s last wife, Mary herself had begun to translate Erasmus’ Paraphrase of the Gospel of John. Unlike in the Catholic countries of Southern Europe, Erasmus continued to be read by the English Catholics. For example, Catholic-minded Thomas Payne dedicated Erasmus’ Complaint of Peace to Elizabeth at the inception of her government, hoping for a tolerant regime.42 At the time of Elizabeth i, the Paraphrases were restored; in 1559 the Royal Injunction of 1547 was renewed. However, it is remarkable that between 1580 and 1606 hardly any more translations of Erasmus were published.43 According to Dodds, this is because Elizabeth developed more and more towards Calvinism over time, which ruled out any form of official Erasmianism. In fact, the decline in Erasmus translations applies to the entire period from Elizabeth’s accession to the throne up to the Restoration. The few translations from that time concern works that can be used in education, such as certain colloquies and adages. Only from 1660 there is a turnaround. New translations of Erasmus are appearing, but now mainly because of their literary value. Remarkable, in this respect, is the number of translations and editions of the Praise of Folly. The first translation by Thomas Chaloner, published in 1549, and reprinted the same year and in 1577, was due for renewal in the 17th century. A translation by Thomas Wilson was published in 1668 and one by White Kennett in 1683. The latter was reprinted in 1709 and provided with illustrations based on the Holbein-inspired illustrations from the Basel edition of 1676. In addition to the literary value of the work, the political motivation of the translators also played a role. As Devereux succinctly summarizes: “Both seventeenth-century translations were clearly inspired by the sectarian squabbling of the age, as Chaloner’s had been directed against the religious tendencies of the reign of Edward vi.”44 Erasmus’ writings were also translated in the second half of the 17th century to serve as carrier of political-religious messages. Julius exclusus e coelis (1673) was thus translated as an anti-Catholic pamphlet. And Roger

42 43 44

Gregory Dodds, Exploiting Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009) 62. Galle, “Erasmus-Rezeption” 30; Dodds 64. Devereux, Renaissance English Translations of Erasmus 134.

216

smith

L’Estrange translated a number of colloquies (1680), according to Devereux, “in an effort to restore order and some sense of toleration,”45 not without success because they were reprinted several times.

5

Erasmus in French Dress

We are well informed about the general reception of Erasmus in France and the place of the translations therein thanks to Margaret Mann Phillips’ thesis (1933) and her additional articles from 1942 and 1971.46 It is regrettable, however, that they do not provide a clear bibliographic overview of the translations and editions found by her. For example, she mentions in her 1971 article that she found 21 French editions, which appeared between 1539 and 1574—but without unambiguously describing all these editions. Be that as it may, these figures have now turned out to be outdated. The bibliographic survey French vernacular books: books published in the French language before 1601 by Andrew Pettegree, Malcolm Walsby, and Alexander Wilkinson lists 114 editions of French Erasmus translations and, in comparison with the 21 editions of Mann Phillips, 80 editions that were published between 1539 and 1574. These figures do not include manuscript translations. A recent general bibliographic overview for the sixteenth (and seventeenth) centuries, as it exists for England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain (see below), is missing for France.47 Despite their bibliographically outdated nature, Mann Phillips’ publications are still of great value to the overall picture of Erasmus translations in France. In the 1520s, the reception of Erasmus’ writings was strongly determined by his relationships with Luther—at least as they were perceived by the Sorbonne, 45 46

47

Devereux 17. The thesis is Érasme et les débuts de la Réforme française (1517–1536) (note 7 above), and the articles are “Erasmus and Propaganda” (note 1 above) and “Erasmus in France in the Later Sixteenth Century,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 34 (1971) 246– 261. In the supplementary articles, Mann Phillips used some publications that zoom in on the translations of specific works by Erasmus: James Hutton, “Erasmus in France: the Propaganda for Peace,” Studies in the Renaissance 8 (1961) 103–127 about the translations of Dulce bellum and Querela pacis, and Dietmar Fricke, Die französischen Fassungen der Institutio Principis Christiani (Geneva: Droz, 1967). There are, however, a number of articles that discuss the translations of specific works. For example, five French translations of the Paraphrases were recently identified and analyzed by Sarah Cameron-Pesant and Jean-François Cottier, “Les traductions françaises manuscrites des Paraphrases d’Érasme au xvie siècle” in Érasme et la France, ed. Blandine Perona and Tristan Vigliano (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2017) 355–381. See also G. Bedouelle, “Les Paraphrases d’Érasme en français,” Moreana 39 (2002) 7–20.

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

217

especially Béda, and the French king. The most tragic proof of this is provided by Berquin, who brought out translations of both Luther’s and Erasmus’ work, and despite previous condemnations he persisted in this. After his books were burned, he himself ended up at the stake. Erasmianism and Lutheranism were lumped together. This explains why, unlike in Germany or in England, at that time hardly any satirical writings of Erasmus appeared in translation in contemporary France. The only exceptions are the 1520 translation of the Praise of Folly (more on that later) and three colloquies, which were translated by the poet Clément Marot, who was also suspected of Lutheran sympathies. Marot himself was never able to see these translations in print: two translations were published posthumously in 1549, the third not until the 19th century.48 This does not mean that Erasmus remained untranslated. For example, a devout work such as De praeparatione ad mortem had a translation that was reprinted five times, and in 1592 there is a second translation by B. de Troney. Mann Philips demonstrates how politically biased this last translation was.49 That is, the Catholic Troney deleted some irenic passages from the end of the De praeparatione ad mortem, to replace them in his translation by a virulent anti-Protestant passage. There were also translations of some politically harmless works, such as the two educational pieces De pueris and De civilitate morum puerilium by Pierre Saliat, secretary to the influential cardinal Odet de Châtillon (1537). Saliat’s version was reprinted several times, as well as new translations of De civilitate.50 Antoine Macault published a translation of the Apophthegmata in 1539, preceded by a poem by his friend Marot. This was followed by two rhymed translations of the Apophthegmata by Guillaume Haudent (1557) and Gabriel Pot (1570). Mann Phillips points to the large share of the printing city of Lyon in the publications of Erasmus’ work and of French translations. Lyon is at a relatively safe distance from the Paris Sorbonne. The printer Gryphius played an important role in this Erasmian production, especially in the Latin editions of Erasmus. In the 1530s, François Rabelais worked as a print corrector for Andreas Gryphius. Although Rabelais did not directly translate Erasmus, Mann Phillips sees in him an exceptionally Erasmian writer, who “understood Erasmus, not patchily but as a whole.”51 As an example of this, we can mention Rabelais’ use of the Ada-

48 49 50 51

Jean Céard, “Marot, traducteur d’Érasme” in Clément Marot ‘Prince des poëtes françois’ 1496–1996, ed. Gérard Defaux and Michel Simonin (Paris: Champion, 1997) 107–120. Mann Phillips, “Erasmus in France” 258–260. Bijl 187–188. See also Herman de la Fontaine Verwey, “The first ‘book of etiquette’ for children. Erasmus’ De civilitate morum puerilium,” Quaerendo 1 (1971) 19–30. Mann Phillips, “Erasmus in France” 248.

218

smith

gia. M.A. Screech counted some 45 borrowings from the Adagia alone.52 In his thesis, Raphaël Cappellen arrives at a total of more than 200 borrowings from the Adagia.53 After Gryphius, there were other Lyon publishers who published translations of Erasmus, including some well-known names: Jean de Tournes, Guillaume Rouille, Benoît Rigaud. A special case is the Lyon printer and publisher Étienne Dolet: he was a fierce opponent of Erasmus in the Ciceronian quarrel around Erasmus’ Ciceronianus. However, after Erasmus’ death, he changed his position and became an Erasmus translator and publisher. In 1543 he was almost convicted in Paris for his publication of “heretical” books, including translations of the Enchiridion and the Exomologesis. He was acquitted, but in 1546 he was sentenced to death and hanged for spreading heresy. In French, but outside France, some bilingual translations (French-Dutch) of the Colloquies were published which served as pedagogical materials for teaching French. A lost edition from Antwerp is known from 1559.54 In 1592 the Antwerp publisher, bookseller, and poet Zacharias Heyns, who had fled to Amsterdam, published a translation of the dialogue Coniugium, intended for education at the girls’ school of his father Peeter Heyns at Staden in Northern Germany.55 In the 17th century, Erasmus was hardly read anymore for his theological or political ideas, but rather for his pedagogical and grammatical work, which was appreciated for its literary qualities. This is especially true of the Colloquies and the Praise of Folly. The great driver of Erasmus’ popularity was the prolific man of letters Samuel Chappuzeau, who anonymously translated a first selection from the Colloquies in 1653 during his wanderings in Europe. The Leiden publisher Adrien Vingart (Van Wijngaarden) mentions that, according to him, the Colloquies had not been published in French before (which is not entirely correct). In the 1660s Chappuzeau published the complete Colloquies. This translation continued to be read until it was replaced by the translation of Nicolas Gueudeville, who, strengthened by the enormous success of his trans-

52 53

54 55

M.A. Screech, Rabelais (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1979) 443–444, 487. Raphaël Cappellen, “Feueilleter papiers, quoter cayers”. La citation au regard de l’eruditio ludere des fictions rabelaisiennes, Thèse de doctorat, Université François-Rabelais de Tours, 2013, 57–61. Bijl 293. Bijl 282–282 and J.M.J.L. Noël, “L’école des filles et la philosophie du mariage dans les PaysBas du xvie et du xviie siècle” in Werkgroep Achttiende Eeuw, Onderwijs en opvoeding in de Achttiende Eeuw / Enseignement et éducation dans les Pays-Bas au dix-huitième siècle (Amsterdam—Maarssen: apa—Holland University Press, 1983) 137–153 (151–152).

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

219

lation of the Praise of Folly (1715), published his translation with the Leiden publisher Van der Aa in 1720.56 As in the Netherlands, the Praise of Folly has an eventful history in France. The Praise of Folly was translated three times in 16th-century France.57 The first translation, or rather adaptation, is by Jean Thenaud, attached to the court as précepteur of Louise de Valois’ two children, the future king François Ier and his sister Marguerite. Around 1517, Thenaud was commissioned to write a long allegorical pedagogical treatise, entitled Triumphe de Prudence.58 The ending of this treatise contains a partial translation of the Praise of Folly. Relative to the Latin text, its last part, in which Erasmus elevates Folly to the mystical level of Pauline folly and the Folly of the Cross, is rewritten into a blunt condemnation of Folly. Folly is thus presented as unambiguously negative: she is expelled by Dame Prudence. This translation did not appear in print, but came to us in three splendid manuscripts, one with illustrations. The second translation, published in 1520 under the title De la Declamation des louenges de follie,59 is also shortened at the end: the Pauline wisdom is twisted into a song of praise to Francis and his teachings. This version is also illustrated, with the woodcuts of the Narrenschiff or the Ship of Fools by Sebastian Brant—which shows how closely the names of Erasmus and Brant are linked for the contemporary readers. Brant’s woodcuts have been specially adapted for this translation. The third translation is only known to us from Erasmus’ correspondence. It is a translation by Joris van Halewijn (Georges d’Haloin), which Erasmus had seen, and about which he was not at all satisfied.60 For a long time it was thought that this translation must be identical to the anonymous translation of 1520, but this appears to be incorrect, as has

56 57 58 59 60

Aubrey Rosenberg, Nicolas Gueudeville and his work (1652–172?) (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982) 114–116. See Paul J. Smith, “The First French Translations of the Praise of Folly,” Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook 32 (2012) 7–26. See Jean Thenaud, Le Triumphe des Vertuz. Premier traité. Le Triumphe de Prudence, ed. Titia J. Schuurs-Janssen and René E.V. Stuip (Geneva: Droz, 1997). See Blandine Perona, “De la declamation des louenges de Follie. Une illustration de la réception de l’Éloge de la Folie en France,” Babel 25 (2012) 171–195. See Ep. 739 to Antoon van Bergen, cwe lines 5–10: “Afterwards I heard from various people something that greatly troubled me—that your Lordship was somewhat displeased with me, I suppose on account of my Moria, which a distinguished man, Joris van Halewijn, in spite of my reluctance and my threats, has turned into French; in other words, has made it his book instead of mine, adding, subtracting, and altering at his good pleasure.”

220

smith

been convincingly demonstrated by Constant Matheeussen.61 The 17th century has two translations.62 The first, the most literally translated, was created by the French Huguenot Héli Poirier. This translation was printed in 1642 in the Netherlands, and partly as a result of this it went virtually unnoticed by contemporaries. The second translation is by a certain “Monsieur Petit,” about whom nothing else is known. Here too we are dealing with an adaptation rather than with a translation: Dame Folie transforms into a (male) Parisian flaneur, inserting observations pertaining to the follies of 17th-century Parisians—a critique that is reminiscent of the satirical works of Molière or La Bruyère, without ever approaching the wit of these authors. This translation is also unsuccessful— only one edition is known. The great success comes with the above-mentioned translation by Gueudeville from 1715, which is illustrated with engravings based on the Basel 1676 edition of the Praise of Folly. Gueudeville’s translation would be reprinted 22 times, in pirated editions or otherwise, with continuous adaptations in language and style, and accompanied from 1751 by new, fashionable, and elegant illustrations by Charles Eisen.

6

Italy and Spain: Erasmus before the Index

The impact of the Papal Index of 155563 on Erasmus editions in Latin and in the vernacular in Italy and Spain is evident from the figures. In her overview study, Seidel Menchi arrives at the impressive number of 55 editions from 1520 to 1524 and 37 more from 1525 to 1529. The figures for the period 1530 to 1554 are on average 20 editions per five years, including translations. Focused on the translations, Seidel Menchi notes one translation in Italian for the period 1530–1534, and 27 for the period 1535–1554.64 This production of both the Latin editions and the Italian translations comes to an abrupt end: in the period 1555–1559 only one publication is noted, which is still a translation. A notable highlight is the Enchiridion, in the 1531 translation by Emilio de’ Migli, which, printed 61

62

63

64

Constant Matheeussen, “La traduction française de L’Éloge de la folie par Georges d’Halluin et la traduction anonyme parisienne de 1520,” Humanistica Lovaniensia 28 (1979) 187–198. On these translations and the one by Gueudeville, see Paul J. Smith, “Folly goes French. The French Translations of the Praise of Folly in the 17th and 18th Centuries,” Erasmus Studies 35 (2015) 35–60. For a general survey of Erasmus’ presence on this and other Indexes, see Marcella and Paul Grendler, “The Survival of Erasmus in Italy,” Erasmus in English 8 (1976) 2–22. For the situation in Spain, see Bataillon, Érasme et l’Espagne. Seidel Menchi, Erasmo in Italia 1520–1580 340.

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

221

with the aforementioned exhortation by Erasmus, was edited five times.65 The Praise of Folly is widely read in Italy. Although the first Italian translation dates from 1539, there are many partial translations and imitations.66 One of them is by Faustino Perisauli, who gives a rhymed translation of the Praise of Folly in Latin: De triumpho stultitiae (Venice, 1524).67 Another is by the polygraph Antonio Brucioli, who turns the Praise of Folly into a dialogue in his Dialogo della sapientia e della stultitia (1526, second edition 1538). Reinier Leushuis argues that this dialogue format fits in with the general interest in this literary genre in Italy in the 1520s.68 The situation in Spain is similar, only here the numbers of translations and imprints are higher: according to Marcel Bataillon, the number of Spanish Erasmus translations was even higher than anywhere else in Europe during Erasmus’ lifetime.69 From the recent survey that Jorge Ledo gives,70 we can conclude that there were approximately 25 translated works, in 31 different translations, published in 67 editions between 1516 and 1556. It should be noted here that most of the editions from 1555 and 1556, that is, after the Index, are published in Antwerp—Antwerp being home to many Spanish-speaking people at that time. The rupture was therefore a little less abrupt here than in Italy. But it was equally important: after 1556, no translations of Erasmus were published in Spain. The most successful Erasmus translation into Spanish is the 1526 translation of the Enchiridion by Alonso Fernández which is printed 8 times. Bataillon reconstructs the lost version of a letter sent by Fernández to Erasmus—a version so enthusiastic that it was toned down by an intermediary, Alfonso de Valdés, who feared Erasmus would receive the panegyric with suspicion:71 At the Emperor’s court, in towns, in churches, in convents, even in inns and on the roads, everyone has the Enchiridion in Spanish. Until then it had been read in Latin by a minority of Latinists; still they did not quite

65 66 67 68

69 70 71

Seidel Menchi 388, n. 70. See B. Croce, “Sulle traduzioni e imitazione italiane del’ ‘Elogio’ e dei ‘Colloqui’ di Erasmo” in Aneddoti di varia letteratura (Bari: Laterza, 1953) 411–414. Seidel Menchi 39. Reinier Leushuis, “Antonio Brucioli and the Italian Reception of Erasmus: The Praise of Folly in Dialogue” in Karl A.E. Enenkel, The reception of Erasmus in the Early Modern Period (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2013) 237–259. Bataillon i, 301. Ledo, “Which Praise of Folly Did the Spanish Censors Read?” For the adapted version of the letter that Erasmus eventually received, see Ep. 1904 and Allen’s introduction.

222

smith

understand it. It is now read in Spanish by people of all kinds, and those who before had never heard of Erasmus learned of his existence from this simple book.72 Erasmus is satisfied with Fernández’s translation, which is also apparent from the above-mentioned list of other works that Erasmus found eligible for translation. Also successful is the 1531 translation of Lingua by Bernardo Pérez de Chinchón, which is published six times. Alonso Ruiz de Virués translated a number of colloquies from 1529, accompanied by an enthusiastic foreword.73 Also striking is the gap between 1537 and 1545, in which some works are still being reprinted, but in which no new translations were published. As in other languages, the translation of the Praise of Folly plays a special role in Spanish. The first translation originates, quite unexpectedly, from the translation of an anti-Erasmian author. The Praise of Folly is quoted extensively in a Latin work by the anti-Erasmian Alberto Pio entitled Twenty-three books against passages in the works of Erasmus of Rotterdam (Paris, 1531). Jorge Ledo shows that in the Spanish translation of this work, the passages from the Praise of Folly are substantially extended to become a (partial) translation.74 Moreover, in 2012 a 17th-century manuscript Spanish translation of the Praise of Folly was discovered by Ledo.75 This turned out to be a transcription of a now lost printed edition of a Spanish translation from 1532–1535, of which Bataillon and other scholars already suspected the existence.76

7

Erasmus Elsewhere

In addition to the languages discussed above, Erasmus was also translated into Czech and Polish, and more sparingly in the Scandinavian countries. The most notable of these cases is Czech.77 The data from the Bibliotheca Erasmiana and Bijl show that Erasmus was not only translated into Czech frequently, but also at a very early stage. Czech, for example, has a world first with the translation of 72 73 74 75

76 77

Bataillon i, 302 (my translation from the French). For a contextualization of the Spanish translations of Lingua and the Colloquies, see Bataillon i, 309–335, 337–339. Ledo, “Which Praise of Folly Did the Spanish Censors Read?” Jorge Ledo and Harm den Boer, ed., Moria de Erasmo Roterodamo. A Critical Edition of the Early Modern Spanish Translation of Erasmus’s Encomium Moriae (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2014). See Bataillon iii, 429. Most information about the Czech translations comes from Bijl.

erasmus in translation (16th–17th centuries)

223

the Praise of Folly by Gregor Hruby of Jeleni in 1513—although this translation was not published in print. Czech translations of Enchiridion (1519), Precatio dominica (1526), and the Colloquies (many translations from 1534) are also early. And in 1534, 1542 and 1571 partial translations of the Paraphrases appear. Translations also appear later in the century: De praeparatione ad mortem (1563, four reeditions until 1579), De immensa Dei misericordia (1558 and 1573) and Vidua (1595). The explanation of the Czech interest in Erasmus lies in the correspondence that Erasmus had with some Czechs, including Jan Šlechta and Arkleb of Boskovice. It is not impossible that the Czechs saw something in Erasmus of their 15th-century reformer Jan Hus—from whom however Erasmus always distanced himself. Erasmus also had warm and early relations with Polish humanists, particularly with Jan Laski, who lived with him in Basel. These relationships probably formed the basis of some Polish translations: Precatio Dominica (1533), Lingua (1542), Querela pacis (1545, translated by Laski). And in the commentary accompanying his translation of the New Testament (1574), Szymon Budny refers to Erasmus’ Annotationes as an unquestionable authority on issues such as text corruption and interpolation: “But in such a clear case, it is a pity to waste one’s time and one’s words; therefore, let us listen to what a wise and reasonable man thinks, Erasmus of Rotterdam.”78 In Scandinavia Erasmus was translated quite late, probably because his work could be read in Latin or German, or because the prevailing Lutheranism made reading Erasmus suspicious. Exceptional are the two early translations into Danish of Institutio principis christiani and De sarcienda ecclesiae concordia, both from 1534. For Swedish, the translations of Enchiridion (1592) and Paraclesis (1620) can be mentioned. A number of bilingual editions (1693) of De civilitate appeared in the 17th century with the introductory title Libellus aureus. Very special is the edition of the Latin text with a threefold translation (in Swedish, German and Finnish) from 1670. The long subtitle of this work expressly indicates what the target group of the book was, namely the school class: Libellus aureus, […] in usum scholarum et poedagogiorum.

78

Quoted in French by Claude Backvis, “La fortune d’Érasme en Pologne” in Colloquium erasmianum. Actes du Colloque international réuni à Mons du 26 au 29 octobre 1967 à l’occasion du cinquième centenaire de la naissance d’Érasme (Mons: Centre universitaire de l’État, 1968) 191.

224 8

smith

By Way of Conclusion

As mentioned, the field of Erasmus translations is endless, especially because not only iconic works such as the Colloquies or the Praise of Folly, but each translated work of his has its own context and follows its own path. While logically our knowledge of the topic is greater than it was in the days of Mann Phillips, we are left with the same sense of helplessness, as she so beautifully expressed it: “I hope no one will expect these notes to be exhaustive: they can be nothing but straws in the wind, sporadic indications of that partial survival which is the fate of even the greatest.”79 What emerges from the above overview is that Erasmus was usually translated to express the translator’s own ideology, usually political or religious, and in this respect translations do not differ from the publishing of Latin editions of Erasmus. The content of the text is regularly altered, parts are omitted or rewritten, and guiding paratexts are added. The translations therefore often say more about the translator than about Erasmus. Translation becomes difficult if not impossible once the ideology falls into “totalitarianism.”80 Translations, in some cases also the translator or publisher himself (Berquin, Dolet), can end up at the stake. And the Index makes it virtually impossible to translate Erasmus in Spain, Italy and the Southern Netherlands after 1555. Elsewhere in Europe, Erasmus lives on through translations in the 17th century and into later centuries: especially as the admired literary author of the Colloquies and the Praise of Folly, but also for the translations of his pedagogical and edifying writings. To quote the words of Jean-Claude Margolin, Erasmus endures as the “précepteur de l’Europe.”81 79 80 81

Mann Phillips, “Erasmus in France” 246. Term used by Mann Phillips, “Erasmus in France” 247. Jean-Claude Margolin, Érasme précepteur de l’Europe (Paris: Julliard, 1995).

Catalogue of the Works of Erasmus of Rotterdam Joan Tello

1

Preface

Some years ago, Valentina Sebastiani stressed the need to make “a complete bibliography of the printed works of Erasmus of Rotterdam,” which “has long been a desideratum of international scholarship in Renaissance and Reformation studies.”1 Indeed, much has been accomplished in the field of Erasmian studies, but nonetheless information is still scattered through different sources, and not always easily reachable. Therefore, the catalogue included in this Companion to Erasmus attempts to humbly answer Sebastiani’s call by methodically providing the following information for each work of Erasmus: entry number Short-title | Abbreviation Title as it appears in the title page of the editio princeps | Place of publication of the editio princeps: its printer, (day, month) year | ustc number; eol number | er (Erasmus’ reference to his own works, followed by his succinct remarks, if any)2 ‖ Ep. (dedicatory epistle or preface in Allen, cwe, or asd) | lb, asd, Ferguson, Holborn, Telle (1968), or Walter (1910) | cwe (English translation) ¶ Complementary note(s), if needed. In addition to consulting firsthand hundreds of printed editions in the archives of the most important European libraries (either physically or in digital format), the following bibliographical instruments, studies and collections (arranged chronologically) have been useful in the making of each entry of the catalogue: Iseghem 1852; Haeghen 1893; Allen (1906–1958); Nijhoff and Kronenberg 1923–1971;3 Flower and Rosenbaum, “Index of Erasmus’ Writings” in Allen 12 (1958) 16–34; asd (1969–); cwe (1974–); Bezzel 1979; Chomarat 1981; Meyers 1982; Rummel 1985; coe (1985–1987); Pettegree and Walsby 2012; Vanautgaerden 2012; Gulik 2018; and Sebastiani 2018. Three modern databases have also proved valuable: ustc (Universal Short Title Catalogue | www.ustc.ac.uk),

1 Sebastiani (2016) 4. 2 Ep. 2283 to Hector Boece, 15 March 1530, “Index omnium Erasmi Roterodami lucubrationum.” Cited by line number in Allen. 3 nk is used henceforth to refer to this bibliographical resource.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004539686_014

226

tello

eol (Erasmus Online Database | www.bibliotheek.rotterdam.nl/eol), and vd16 (Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des 16. Jahrhunderts | www.vd16.de). As far as the content of this catalogue is concerned, some considerations need to be taken into account: (1) Erasmus’ works have been arranged chronologically, that is, by the date of the editio princeps. Those works without month of publication have been allocated at the end of the corresponding year, and have in turn been arranged according to the date of the prefatory epistle. Places, printers and dates conjectured by modern scholars are displayed between square brackets. (2) Short-titles of Erasmus’ works are those provided by asd (“List of abbreviations,” section C), with a few exceptions and, occasionally, slight change in word order. If not, asd running heads or the short-titles listed at the end of cwe volumes are used. In the event that none of these sources provides a satisfactory item, a short-title is devised from the title page of the editio princeps, the running heads of the editio princeps or Erasmus’ own preference (er). Regarding abbreviations, Erasmus’ works are usually (but not always) displayed according to the aforementioned “List of abbreviations,” section C; authors prior to the 16th century and biblical texts are abbreviated according to asd (“List of abbreviations,” sections A–B). When no abbreviation was available, I have devised my own. Regarding the Latin used, what is said in (4) applies with two exceptions: I edit Clichthoveus (not Clithoveus), and I edit Paraphrases (not Paraphrasis) when the term refers to more than one. (3) The title of a particular work is the one found in the title page of the editio princeps, either in the recto page or in the verso page, which sometimes incorporates a summary. The title usually includes additional information such as statement of responsibility, allusion to contents, marketing phrases and other writings included in the same book. I have not included in the title of the work literary and visual ornaments (e.g. mottoes, short poems, embedded emblems, or the printer’s device) or information about publication (imprint). Works that contain multiple writings (or have relevant sections) display their inner titles as established by the critical edition or (if not available in lb) by the editio princeps; they are followed by its corresponding abbreviation, if already existent or important to incorporate. When the title page contains anaphoric elements, the alluded word is made explicit in square brackets; for example, obsecratio ad eadem [= ad virginem Mariam].

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

227

(4) Bearing in mind that editing is always a compromise and that the result may not satisfy all readers,4 I have decided to edit all title-pages as follows. Regarding orthography, intervention has been limited to distinguish u and v, edit i in all positions, and expand every abbreviation of the Latin text. Capital letters have been applied only to proper nouns and adjectives derived from them (e.g. Christus, Christianus) and to the key element of the title of a work embedded within another title (e.g. Paraphrasis in Evangelium Ioannis). Some proper nouns which very frequently appear in lowercase (such as deus, dominus, ecclesia) have also been capitalized (Deus, Dominus, Ecclesia), but their adjectives have been kept in lowercase (divinus, dominicus, ecclesiasticus). Inconsistencies found in the printed editions have been kept (e.g. Herasmus, Erasmus). Concerning punctuation, although I have usually maintained the one found in the editio princeps, I have introduced slight changes to improve comprehension and avoid unforeseen misunderstandings, difficult readings, or awkward links between sentences. For example, I have tried to avoid what a modern reader may interpret as an excessive usage of commas. When a title includes a quotation (e.g. the beginning of a Psalm), single quotation marks (‘…’) are used. (5) Tracing the history of a particular work through all the printed editions during Erasmus’ life is not a feasible task here. The scholar interested in doing so can find valuable information by looking into the corresponding critical edition, cwe introductory notes, the instruments mentioned a few paragraphs before, and those listed in the final Bibliography of the Companion. However, some works (such as the Adagia, the Colloquia, the Enarrationes in Psalmos, or the translations of Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Plutarch and Lucian) have multiples entries (indicated as i, ii … and so forth) due to the fact that Erasmus kept adding new pieces in later editions, especially the Colloquia. (6) Regarding the numbering used in this catalogue, it should be noted that, in some works, inner sections have been numbered, because they act or can be conceived as independent works. This is the case, for example,

4 See R.B. McKerrow, An Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students (Oxford, 1951) 147: “[The researcher] should take care never to elaborate his work beyond need, for if he does he will almost certainly, sooner or later, land himself in difficulties; and he should remember that a transcript of a title, however full and careful, is but a compromise. He cannot, whatever he does, give all the information that may be derived from an examination of the book itself; nor can he foresee exactly what information may be needed by a worker who consults his book.”

228

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

tello

with Erasmus’ translations of Lucian, Plutarch, and the New Testament, his paraphrases of the New Testament, and the dialogues gathered in the Colloquia. When a book has dual pagination (both letters and Arabic numerals), preference has been given to the one which does not contain errors. If both are correct, Arabic numerals take precedence. Names of printers are displayed in agreement with coe. In complementary notes and footnotes, first names have been abbreviated. The same applies to months of the year. er covers up to 15 March 1530. Therefore, works after this date will not display this information. Works prior to this date may not display this data either, if Erasmus did not make any comment on that particular work. This catalogue references both lb and the available modern critical editions (asd, Ferguson, Holborn, Telle, and Walter). Volumes signalled with an asterisk (*asd, *cwe) have not yet been published. Concerning Erasmus’ epistles that act as prefaces to a particular work, a section has been made (Ep.), in which reference to Allen 1–11 and cwe 1–21 is given. This section includes all the introductory epistles related to a particular work, irrespective of the year of publication. Pagination of lb, asd (and other critical editions), and cwe includes these prefatory epistles. In those few cases when a prefatory epistle introduces a group of writings, the lb and asd pagination are included within the first writing. However, I have treated some letters as independent works, either because they were published as independent writings (with or without Erasmus’ approval) or because Erasmus highlighted them in his catalogue sent to Hector Boece and thus somehow expressed an inclination for them be conceived as independent works. This is the case of the Epistola apologetica ad Dorpium, the Epistola ‘Quid de obscuris sentiat’, the Epistola de Luthero, the Epistola apologetica de interdicto esu carnium, the Epistola consolatoria in adversis, the Epistola apologetica adversus Stunicam, and the Epistola ad fratres Inferioris Germaniae. I have also decided to give an independent entry to Ep. 2018 (Epistola apologetica de Termino), endorsed by the fact that lb edited it detached from the corpus of letters. When Erasmus is not the author but the translator, the editor, a contributor or only the writer of a simple preface or dedicatory epistle, then (tr.), (ed.), (contr.) or (pr.) is added at the beginning of the entry. In most cases, (ed.) and (contr.) also imply (pr.), because Erasmus usually prefaced the work in question. The catalogue number of the ustc website provides access in digital format to almost all the first editions of Erasmus’ works. When this is not the case, alternative digital sources have been referenced in footnotes.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

229

ustc also provides the link to consult most of Erasmus’ works in vd16. On the other hand, the catalogue number (id) of the eol website is also given, since it provides relevant information about Erasmus’ works (first editions included) as well as various bibliographic references. The reader should be warned that, in some instances, information regarding a first edition is only available in Sebastiani (2018) or the reproductions included in the critical editions of asd, and that some ustc numbers forward to digital editions in which the actual referenced work is bound together with other writings or even with other entirely independent books. This catalogue does not display void items. If, in a particular entry, data regarding ustc, eol, er, Ep., lb, asd or cwe is not available or simply non extant, then these items are not displayed, in order to avoid a superfluous presence of long dashes. When, occasionally, a long dash has been deemed necessary, it conveys “not edited,” “not translated,” or “not available.” As far as the Fathers of the Church are concerned, Erasmus’ editions of the complete works of Jerome (119), Cyprian (191), Hilary (244), Ambrose (330), Augustine (346), and Origen (434) have been referenced without indexing the works included. Instead, only relevant information about Erasmus’ own contribution is given (e.g. prefatory letters, argumenta, censurae, scholia, subsequent revised editions). The inventory of Augustine’s works edited by Erasmus is now available in my article in Erasmus Studies 42 (2022) 122–156; and Sebastiani (2018) has catalogued Jerome (221–236, 646–647), Cyprian (425–428, 502–504, 618–619), Hilary (552–554), and Ambrose (688–691). However, since her methodology (a quasi-facsimile edition) differs significantly from that employed in this present catalogue and the aforementioned published article, I may produce a complementary inventory of the works of Jerome, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, and Origen in the near future. Erasmus’ books of letters and Erasmus’ books of poems are not listed separately but summarized all together in the last entries of the catalogue: Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (442) and Carmina (444). An “Alphabetical index of short-title forms,” an “Alphabetical index of abbreviations,” a “Critical index,” and an “Index of printers and places of publication” can be found at the end of this catalogue, for the convenience of the user. The numbers given in these indexes refer to entries, not to pages. In a few cases—and in order to provide a better alphabetical sorting—the short-title of a work (especially those of the New Testament)

230

tello

appears in the “Alphabetical index of short-title forms” with its word order slightly rearranged, or with the addition or the deletion of a word. (16) Finally, it should be acknowledged that, despite all the enormous efforts, the amount of information to be processed has been so considerable that some unintentional mistakes might, unfortunately, remain. Therefore, if needed, emendations or updated information regarding this catalogue will be made available in forthcoming articles or notes to be published in Erasmus Studies. In addition, scholars are invited to notify the editorin-chief of this journal of any errors that they may find.

2

The Catalogue

erasmus’ birthday: 28 october 1469 ¶ Erasmus was born during the night of 27–28 Oct. According to Allen (1: 578– 584), the most probable year is 1466, while Schoeck (1990) 260–263 is in favor of 1467. Recent evidence provided by Goudriaan (2019) establishes Erasmus’ birthday in 1469. 1495 1 (pr.) Gaguini de origine et gestis Francorum compendium | Gag. comp. [Roberti Gaguini] de origine et gestis Francorum compendium, [136r–v] | Paris: Pierre Le Dru, 30 September 1495 | ustc 760882; eol 5495 ‖ Ep. 45 (Allen 1: 149–152; cwe 1: 87–91) ¶ This letter is the first publication hitherto known of Erasmus, at the age of 25 years old, if we accept his birthdate as 28 Oct. 1469. Haeghen (1893) 3: 23 states that “l’épitre adressée à R. Gaguin est la première œuvre imprimée d’Érasme. Elle est reproduite dans les éditions suivantes.” Schoeck (1990) 188 confirms that “Erasmus’ complimentary public letter … was inserted to fill an unnumbered blank leaf at the end of Gaguin’s Compendium, and it provided the eager Erasmus with the chance to appear in print.” The letter was indeed added at the end of the book, without page number. In the second edition (Lyon: J. Trechsel, 24 Jun. 1497 | ustc 760883), it was placed at the beginning of the book (a3v– a4r). Date of publication of the editio princeps is 1495, in agreement to what is said in the errata [138r]: “folio ultimo, ubi positum est nonagesimonono dic nonagesimoquinto.” Robert Gaguin (see coe 2: 69b–70b) had been an important patron of Erasmus during his stay in Paris. ¶ Erasmus’ second publication consisted of a recollection of poems (numbers 5, 6, 42 and 50, according to asd i-7), issued not before 1496: De casa

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

231

natalitia Iesu et paupere puerperio dive virginis Marie carmen | Paris: A. Denidel, [Jan. 1496?] | ustc 201328 ‖ Ep. 47 (Allen 1: 155–158; cwe 1: 94–97). See 444 (Carmina). 1497 2 (ed.) Guielermi Goudensis sylva odarum | Goud. sylv. od. Guielermi Hermani Goudensis, theologi ac poetae clarissimi, sylva odarum | Paris: Guy Marchand, 20 January 1497 | ustc 761019; eol 4275 ‖ Ep. 49 (Allen 1: 161–164; cwe 1: 99–105) ¶ Regarding Erasmus and Willem Hermans, see Allen 1: 160 (Ep. 49, intr.); coe 2: 185a. 1500 3 Collectanea adagiorum (i) | Collect. Desyderii Herasmi Roterdami veterum maximeque insignium paroemiarum, id est, adagiorum collectanea: opus qum novum tum ad omne vel scripture vel sermonis genus venustandum insigniendumque mirum in modum conducibile. Id quod ita demum intelligetis adolescentes optimi, si huiusmodi deliciis et litteras vestras et orationem quotidianam assuescetis aspergere. Sapite ergo et hunc tam rarum thesaurum tantillo nummulo venalem vobis redimite: multo prestantiora propediem accepturi, si hec boni consulueritis. Valete [adagia 1–818] | Paris: Johannes Philippi, [ca. June–July] 1500 | ustc 201899; eol 12 | er 89– 90: Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ Ep. 126 (Allen 1: 290–297; cwe 1: 255–266) | asd ii-9: 37–272 | cwe 30: 87–358 ¶ As J.N. Grant (cwe 30: 4, n. 3) explains, “the colophon gives no date of publication.” The terminus post quem of Jun. 15, 1500 is provided by the date of Fausto Andrelini’s letter that begins the volume (Ep. 127). At Ep. 133 (Allen lines 4– 6), written at the end of September, Erasmus says that a youth whom he had sent to England with copies of the Collectanea in the hope of generating some money has been gone for eight weeks (cf. Ep. 128 Allen lines 1–2; Ep. 129 Allen lines 51–53). 1501 4 (ed.) Ciceronis officia | Cic. off. Officia Ciceronis solertissima cura Herasmi Roterdami ex multis exemplaribus exactissime castigata, appositis ad singula capita argumentis commodissimis crebrisque in marginibus annotamentis ceu compendiario commento sic illus-

232

tello

trata ut et pro enchiridio manibus commode gestari possint et citra verbosa glossemata intelligi | [Paris]: Jean Philippi, [1501] | ustc 142761; eol 5722 | er 114: Officia Ciceronis non infeliciter recognita, anno 15285 ‖ Ep. 152 (Allen 1: 356– 357; cwe 2: 30–32), Ep. 1013 (Allen 4: 65–67; cwe 7: 71–73, 369) ¶ Title page as reported by Allen (1: 355; Ep. 152, intr.). Year of publication as established by the catalogue of Herzog August Bibliothek and ustc. Ep. 152 was not included in the editio princeps but published for the first time in ustc 437058 (Louvain: D. Martens, [late 1519]) together with Ep. 1013. J. Froben reprinted both prefaces in his edition of Aug. 1520 (ustc 679327). ¶ The final approved edition of 1528 (ustc 675042) includes a preliminary section of annotated words and phrases from De officiis (Voces aliquot annotatae ex Officiis Marci Tullii per Erasmum Roterodamum, Aa4v–Dd1r), De amicitia (In librum de amicitia annotationes, Dd1r–Dd3r), De senectute (In librum de senectute annotationes, Dd3r-Ee2v), and Paradoxa (In Paradoxa Ciceronis, Ee2v-Ee3r). Further, it includes an argumentum before book 1 (p. 1) and book 2 (73), and many notes either embedded in the text or in the margin. According to Erasmus, Cicero’s De amicitia, De senectute and Paradoxa were not annotated by him but by Fausto Andrelini. See Ep. 2951 Allen lines 28–30: “In Catonem Ciceronis nihil a me notatum. Tantum annotavi in Officia, idque ante annos triginta sex; reliqua adiecit Faustus, me in patriam reverso.” However, Erasmus did place a note at the end of Laelius seu de amicitia (210), as well as at the end of De somnio Scipionis (279), this last one being quite long. He was also the author of the aforementioned sections of annotated words and phrases devoted to De amicitia, De senectute and Paradoxa, as the running heads indicate (“Erasmi Roterodami annotationes”). 1503 5–10 Lucubratiunculae aliquot Lucubratiunculae aliquot Erasmi, canonici ordinis divi Augustini, perquam utiles adolescentibus: Epistola exhortatoria ad capessendam virtutem ad generosissimum puerum Adolphum, principem Veriensem; Precatio qum erudita tum pietatis plena ad Iesum, Dei virginisque filium; Paean in genere demonstrativo virgini matri dicendus; Obsecratio ad eandem semper gloriosam; Oda de casa natalicia pueri Iesu; Enchiridion militis Christiani, saluberrimis praeceptis refertum contra omnia viciorum irritamenta efficacissimis, et ratio quaedam veri Christianismi; Disputatiuncula de pavore, tedio, moesticia Iesu, quam habuit instante passio-

5 Erasmus alludes to ustc 675042 (Basel: J. Herwagen and H. Froben).

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

233

nis hora. Cum non nullis aliis | Antwerp: Dirk Martens, 15 February 1503 | ustc 400246; eol 2411 ¶ Data of 5–10 referenced from nk 835, and collated with the 1509 edition (ustc 440880), which does not introduce any change. According to S. Ryle (cwe 69: 2), “the Lucubratiunculae were reprinted by Martens in Nov. 1509 and again in 1514, using the same forms but with a few errors corrected.” Same evidence stated in asd v-8: 41. It includes: 5 Oratio de virtute amplectenda | Orat. de virt. Epistola exhortatoria ad capessendam virtutem ad generosissimum puerum Adolphum, principem Veriensem. In Lucubratiunculae aliquot … (as in 5–10), A2r–A7v ‖ Ep. 93 (Allen 1: 230–232; cwe 1: 181–185) | lb 5: 65–72; *asd v-9 | cwe 29: 3–13, 424–426 6 Precatio ad virginis filium Iesum | Precat. ad Iesum Precatio qum erudita tum pietatis plena ad Iesum, Dei virginisque filium. In Lucubratiunculae aliquot … (as in 5–10), A7v–B4r | er 146: Precatio ad Iesum servatorem ‖ lb 5: 1210–1216; *asd v-9 | cwe 69: 4–16 7 Paean virgini matri dicendus | Paean virg. Paean in genere demonstrativo virgini matri dicendus. In Lucubratiunculae aliquot … (as in 5–10), B4r–C3v | er 144: Virginis matris paean ‖ lb 5: 1227–1234; *asd v-9 | cwe 69: 20–38 8 Obsecratio sive oratio ad virginem Mariam in rebus adversis | Obsecratio Obsecratio ad eandem [= ad virginem Mariam] semper gloriosam. In Lucubratiunculae aliquot … (as in 5–10), C3v–C8r | er 145: Ad eandem obsecratio [= Ad virginem matrem obsecratio] ‖ lb 5: 1233–1240; *asd v-9 | cwe 69: 41– 54 9 Enchiridion militis Christiani | Enchir. Enchiridion militis Christiani, saluberrimis praeceptis refertum contra omnia viciorum irritamenta efficacissimis, et ratio quaedam veri Christianismi. In Lucubratiunculae aliquot … (as in 5–10), D1r–N4r | er 120: Enchiridion militis Christiani ‖ Ep. 164 (Allen 1: 374–375; cwe 2: 52–53), Ep. 858 (Allen 3: 362–377; cwe 6: 72–91) | lb 5: 1–66; asd v-8: 59–303 | cwe 66: 8–127, 271–301 ¶ Ep. 858 to Paul Volz is the preface to the revised and enlarged edition: ustc 649351 (Basel: J. Froben, Aug. 1518); see 140. Erasmus published some notes to this work in 1527 (see 329).

234

tello

10 Disputatiuncula de tedio, pavore, tristicia Iesu | Disputatiunc. Disputatiuncula de pavore, tedio, moesticia Iesu, quam habuit instante passionis hora. In Lucubratiunculae aliquot … (as in 5–10), N4r–R4r ‖ Ep. 108 (Allen 1: 246–249; cwe 1: 202–206) | lb 5: 1263–1294; asd v-7: 209–278 | cwe 70: 9–67 11 (pr.) Iacobi Middelburgensis de praecellentia potestatis imperatoriae | Anthon. de praecell. Elegans libellus ac nunc primum impressus de praecellentia potestatis imperatoriae, in quo plurima lectu vehementer tum utilia tum amoena ex variis authoribus: de ortu, gradibus et discrimine dignitatum civilium et ecclesiasticarum conscriptus a viro undecumque doctissimo Iacobo Middelburgensi, iuris pontificii professore, Henrici de Bergis episcopi Cameracensis vicario generali, a1r–a2r | Antwerp: Dirk Martens, 1 April [1503] | ustc 436667; eol 5723 ‖ Ep. 173 (Allen 1: 382–384; cwe 2: 60–65) ¶ Year according to Ferguson (cwe 2: 60; Ep. 173, intr.). Colophon reads “anno Domini millesimo quingentesimo secundo calendis Aprilibus.” Regarding Iacobus Middelburgensis (Jacob Anthoniszoon), see coe 1: 61b–62a. 1504 12 Panegyricus ad Philippum Austriae ducem | Panegyr. ad Phillip. Ad illustrissimum principem Philippum, archiducem Austriae, ducem Burgundiae etcetera, de triumphali profectione Hispaniensi deque foelici eiusdem in patriam reditu gratulatorius panaegyricus, in quo obiter non pauca de laudibus ipsius ac maiorum eius. Conscriptus ac eidem principi exhibitus a Desyderio Erasmo Roterodamo, canonico ordinis divi Aurelii Augustini | Antwerp: [Dirk Martens, February 1504] | ustc 415544; eol 2751 | er 105–106: Panegyricus gratulans Philippo, patri Caroli nunc Caesaris, ex Hispania reduci ‖ Ep. 179 (Allen 1: 396–397; cwe 2: 77–79), Ep. 180 (Allen 1: 398–403; cwe 2: 79–85) | lb 4: 507–556; asd iv-1: 23–93 | cwe 27–28: 6–75, 453–465 ¶ Printer and date of publication according to B. Radice (cwe 27–28: 4). Ep. 180 was inserted at the end of the book (lb 4: 549–554), together with a poem in honour of Archduke Philip on his return from Spain (lb 4: 553–554; asd i-7: 226–231, poem 64 | cwe 85–86: 138–147, 532–533). 1505 13 (ed.) Vallae in Novi Testamenti interpretationem adnotationes | Vallae adnot. in nt Laurentii Vallensis, viri tam Graecae quam Latinae linguae peritissimi, in Latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem ex collatione Graecorum exemplarium

235

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

adnotationes apprime utiles | Paris: Josse Bade and Jean Petit, 13 April 1505 | ustc 143044; eol 5132 ‖ Ep. 182 (Allen 1: 407–412; cwe 2: 89–97) 1506 14–15 (tr.) Euripidis Hecuba et Iphigenia in Aulide | Euripides Euripidis, tragici poetae nobilissimi, Hecuba et Iphigenia Latinae factae, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete. De quibus earum impressor Ascensius loqui Latine nesciebat antea tragoediarum scriptor excultissimus, qui nunc Camoenis eloquens Erasmicis Varronianae certat eloquentiae | Paris: Josse Bade, [13 September] 1506 | ustc 143156; eol 4204 | er 83: Euripidis Hecuba et Iphigenia versae ‖ Ep., lb, asd (see below) It includes: 14 Euripidis tragici poetae Hecuba Latina facta, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete | Ep. 188 (Allen 1: 418–420; cwe 2: 107–110) | lb 1: 1129–1150; asd i-1: 215–268 15 Euripidis Iphigenia in Aulide e Graeco in Latinum traducta, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete | Ep. 198 (Allen 1: 430; cwe 2: 121), Ep. 208 (Allen 1: 439–440; cwe 2: 133–135) | lb 1: 1153–1186; asd i-1: 269–359 ¶ Month and day of publication according to J.H. Waszink (asd i-1: 212). Ep. 208 (item 15) is the new preface to Iphigenia in ustc 828497 (Venice: Aldo Manuzio, Dec. 1507).

•

•

16–22 (tr.) Luciani dialogi aliquot (i) | Lucianus Luciani viri quam disertissimi compluria opuscula longe festivissima ab Erasmo Roterodamo et Thoma Moro interpretibus optimis in Latinorum linguam traducta, hac sequentur serie. Ex Erasmi interpretatione: Toxaris sive de amicitia Luciani dialogus; Alexander qui et Pseudomantis eiusdem; Gallus sive somnium eiusdem quoque Luciani; Timon seu misanthropus; Tyrannicida seu pro tyrannicida eiusdem declamatio, cum declamatione Erasmica eidem respondente; De iis qui mercede conducti degunt dialogus eiusdem; et quaedam eiusdem alia. Ex Mori traductione: Tyrannicida Luciani, Moro interprete; Declamatio Mori de eodem; Cynicus Luciani a Moro versus; Menippus seu necromantia Luciani, eodem interprete; Philopseudes seu incredulus Luciani ab eodem Moro in Latinam linguam traductus, Aa1v–xxixv, xliiir–lir | Paris: Josse Bade, 13 November 1506 | ustc 143129; eol 4478 | er 52: Omnia versa ex Luciano, quorum tituli sunt: (see below) ‖ Ep., lb, asd (see below) It includes: 16 Toxaris sive amicitia | er 59: Toxaris | Ep. 187 (Allen 1: 416–417; cwe 2: 101–103) | lb 1: 213–230; asd i-1: 423–448 17 Alexander seu pseudomantis | er 53: Pseudomantis | Ep. 199 (Allen 1: 430–431; cwe 2: 122) | lb 1: 229–244; asd i-1: 449–469 18 Somnium sive gallus | er 54: Somnium sive gallus | Ep. 193 (Allen 1: 424–426; cwe 2: 115–117) | lb 1: 243–256; asd i-1: 470–487 19 Timon sive

•

•

•

•

236

tello

misanthropus | er 55: Timon | Ep. 192 (Allen 1: 423–424; cwe 2: 114) | lb 1: 255– 266; asd i-1: 488–505 20 Tyrannicida | er 57: Tyrannicida | lb 1: 267–272; asd i-1: 506–513 21 Libellus de iis qui mercede conducti in divitum familiis vivunt | er 58–59: De mercede conductis in aulis potentum | Ep. 197 (Allen 1: 429–430; cwe 2: 121) | lb 1: 297–312; asd i-1: 552–571 22 Dialogi varii (i) | er 60: Dialogi varii | Ep. 205 (Allen 1: 434–435; cwe 2: 126–128) | lb 1: 311–314; asd i-1: 572–578 ¶ According to Chr. Robinson (asd i-1: 370), “the first set of dialogues for printing were given to Badius by Erasmus on 1 Nov. 1506.” As far as individual prefaces for Lucian’s translations are concerned, Erasmus (er 73) clearly remarked that “I should not wish the prefaces to these, which make clear to whom each is dedicated, to be omitted.” Therefore, as in the rest of Erasmus’ writings, introductory epistles have been referenced. ¶ Item 22 contains the following short pieces: 22.1 Cnemonis ac Damippi dialogus (er 61: Cnemonis et Damippi | lb 1: 311; asd i-1: 574); 22.2 Zenophantae et Callidemidae dialogus (er 62: Zenophantae et Callidemi[dae] | lb 1: 312–313; asd i-1: 574–575); 22.3 Menippi et Tantali dialogus (er 63: Menippi et Tantali | lb 1: 313; asd i-1: 575–576); 22.4 Menippi ac Mercurii dialogus (er 64: Menippi et Mercurii | lb 1: 313; asd i-1: 576–577); 22.5 Menippi, Amphilochi, Trophonii discrepatio (er 65: Menippi et Amphilochi et Trophonii | lb 1: 313–314; asd i1: 577); 22.6 Charontis ac Menippi dialogus (er 66: Charontis et Menippi | lb 1: 314; asd i-1: 577–578)

•

•

•

23 Declamatio contra Tyrannicidam | Declam. Tyrann. Cum declamatione Erasmica eidem respondente = Declamatio Desyderii Erasmi non illa quidem versa sed quae superiori declamationi e Luciano versae respondeat.6 In Luciani viri quam disertissimi compluria opuscula … (as in 16–22), xxxr–xliiir | Paris: Josse Bade, 13 November 1506 | ustc 143129; eol 4478 | er 77: Declamatio contra Tyrannicidam, Lucianicae respondens ‖ Ep. 191 (Allen 1: 422–423; cwe 2: 112–113) | lb 1: 265–266, 271–298; asd i-1: 514–551 | cwe 29: 77– 123, 443–451 24 Collectanea adagiorum (ii) | Collect. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami veterum maxime insignium paroemiarum, id [est], adagiorum collectanea rursus ab eodem recognita atque aucta; et ab Ascensio eorundem indicio ac repertorio ad finem ponendo inventu quam facillima reddita et diligentissime impressa [adagia 1–838] | Paris: Josse Bade and Jean Petit, 24 December 1506–8 January 1507 | ustc 143316; eol 14 | er 89–90: Opus ada-

6 Second title as found in xxxr.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

237

giorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ asd ii-9: 37–272 | cwe 30: 87–358 New work added: adagia 819–838 1508 25 Adagiorum chiliades (i) | Adag. Erasmi Roterodami adagiorum chiliades tres ac centuriae fere totidem [adagia 1–3260] | Venice: Aldo Manuzio, September 1508 | ustc 828220; eol 18 | er 89– 90: Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ Ep. 211 (Allen 1: 444–447; cwe 2: 140–144) | lb 2; asd ii 1–8 | cwe 31–36 1511 26 Concio de puero Iesu | Conc. de puero Iesu Desiderii Erasmi Rotterdami utriusque linguae doctissimi concio de puero Iesu, a puero in schola Coletica nuper Londini instituta pronuncianda | [Paris: Robert de Keysere and Joris Biermans], 1 September [1511] | ustc 403659;7 eol 5724 | er 136: Concio de puero Iesu ‖ Ep. 175 (Allen 1: 389; cwe 2: 69–70) | lb 5: 599–610; asd v-7: 171–188 | cwe 29: 56–70, 438–442 ¶ E. Kearns (asd v-7: 162) claims that “it is almost certain that the year of publication must be 1511, when de Keyzere was working in Paris; the illustration of Ghent on the title page would then allude to de Keyzere’s origin, rather than showing the place of publication […] The actual printer may have been Joris Biermans, probably as de Keyzere’s associate in Paris.” R.A.B. Mynors, D.F.S. Thomson and W.K. Ferguson (cwe 2: 69; Ep. 175, intr.) admit that “though without place or date, the type and printer’s mark identify it [i.e. this edition] as printed by Robert de Keyzere at Ghent, probably on 1 Sept. 1511 (nk 2887), since Colet’s school was opened only in 1510.” 27 De ratione studii | De rat. stud. Augustini Dathi Senensis pancarpie epistolae, in quibus maxime observantur eius elegantiarum praecepta nuper et nunquam antea Parrhisiis impressae: Vita Augustini Dathi a Tito Suttino habita; Tabula epistolarum continens argumenta earundem. Praeterea Herasmi Roterdami ratio studii ac legendi interpretandique iuvenibus apprime utilis, xxxixr–f3v | Paris: Georges Biermant and Jean

7 Copy consulted (digital format): Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 76.B.85.

238

tello

Granjon, 20 October 1511 | ustc 180591;8 eol 3445 | er 45: Ratio studiorum, ad Petrum Viterium ‖ Ep. 66 (Allen 1: 194; cwe 1: 142–143) | lb 1: 519–530; asd i-2: 111–146 (enlarged edition), 148–151 (editio princeps) | cwe 24: 665–691 ¶ According to J.-Cl. Margolin (asd i-2: 108), “la première version était tombée entre les mains de William Thale, qui la fit imprimer frauduleusement à Paris par Biermant de Bruges aux frais de Jean Granjon.” On 24 Sept. 1512 (Louvain: Dirk Martens, A2r–B3r | ustc 400310)9 an unauthorized enlarged edition was printed. Two years later, Matthias Schürer (Strasbourg, Aug. 1514, iv–xir | ustc 653251) published the first authorized edition of the revised and considerably enlarged version of this work. 28 Moriae encomium | Moria Moriae encomium. Erasmi Roterodami declamatio | Paris: Gilles de Gourmont, [1511]; Paris: Jean Petit, [1511] | ustc 183100; eol 2645, 5190 | er 104: Moriae encomium ‖ Ep. 222 (Allen 1: 460–462; cwe 2: 161–164) | lb 4: 401–504; asd iv-3: 67–195 | cwe 27–28: 83–153, 466–489 ¶ Regarding the separate editions of Gourmont and Petit, C.H. Miller states (asd iv-3: 40) that “these two publications actually constitute only one edition: both are made up of the same sheets, one differing from the other in the title-page only.” lb edits Moria with drawings of Hans Holbein, and adds four additional items (lb 4: 385–400): Praefatio Caroli Patini; Vita Ioannis Holbenii, pictoris Basiliensis; Index operum Ioannis Holbenii; and Epistola Gerardi Listrii ad Ioannem Paludanum. ¶ A letter to Maarten van Dorp was later “added” at the end of Moria as from ustc 667428 (Basel: J. Froben, [September 1516?]), but not considered to be genuinely a part of the work. See 57. 1512 29 De copia verborum ac rerum | De cop. verb. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami de duplici copia rerum ac verborum commentarii duo; De ratione studii et instituendi pueros commentarii totidem; De puero Iesu concio scholastica, et quaedam carmina ad eandem rem pertinentia, 1–2, ir– lxviv | [Paris]: Josse Bade, 15 July 1512 | ustc 143923;10 eol 1413 | er 43: De copia

8 9 10

Copy consulted (digital format) at Google Books: Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele ii, sbn code (https://opac.sbn.it): IT\ICCU\TO0E\076133. Copy consulted (digital format): kbr Royal Library of Belgium, kw 228 E 72. Copy consulted (digital format): Staatliche Bibliothek Regensburg, 999/Patr.637.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

239

libri duo ‖ Ep. 260 (Allen 1: 510–512; cwe 2: 226–229), Ep. 311 (Allen 2: 32; cwe 3: 42–43) | lb 1: 1–110; asd i-6: 21–281 | cwe 24: 284–659 ¶ Ep. 311 is the preface to ustc 635633, the second authorized edition (Strasbourg: M. Schürer, Dec. 1514); see 54. 1513 30 (tr.) Aesopi fabulae | Aesop. Fabularum, quae hoc libro continentur, interpretes atque authores sunt hi: Guilielmus Goudanus, Hadrianus Barlandus, Erasmus Roterodamus … | Strasbourg: Johann Knobloch (i), 1 July 1513 | ustc 709381; eol 3664 ¶ Title page and date of publication as reported by Haeghen (1893) 2: 3. ustc diplays the title of Fabulae moralisatae. Apparently, Erasmus was not involved in the making of this book and the publisher took the liberty to insert verbatim quotations from the Adages. See Rummel (1985) 168–169, n. 12. 31 (tr.) Ex Plutarcho versa (i) | Ex Plut. versa Plutarchi Chaeronensis de tuenda bona sanitate precepta, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete | London: Richard Pynson, 28 July 1513 | ustc 501246; eol 5725 | er 95, 98: E Plutarcho versa … de tuenda bona valetudine ‖ Ep. 268 (Allen 1: 520–521; cwe 2: 239–241) | lb 4: 29–42; asd iv-2: 187–213 32 (tr.) Luciani dialogi aliquot (ii) | Lucianus Gervasii Ameni Drucensis lucubratiunculae quaedam non invenustae: Hymni Panegyrici ad sacrosanctam semperque venerandam Trinitatem tum collectim tum divisim; Odae in genere demonstrativo, nec non cataplus elegiacus cum carmine quodam Sapphico ad virginem Deiparam; Elegiae quum de mutuis inter Christianos bellis tum aliis argumentum; Oratio suasoria ad capescendas litteras Graecas; Vita Luciani Samosatensis rhetoris e Graeco in Latinum traducta; Historia longaevorum eiusdem Luciani etiam Latio donata; Institutio liberorum optima nec prius impressa, c7v–d2v | [Paris]: Josse Bade, [October 1513] | ustc 183279;11 eol 5677 ‖ asd (see below) New work added: Longaevi | asd i-1: 623–627 ¶ Year of publication according to Pettegree and Walsby (2012) 148 (#55343). Month of publication according to Vanautgaerden (2012) 503. Erasmus did not mention Longaevi in his personal catalogue (er).

11

Copy consulted (digital format): Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 40.E.61.

240

tello

33 De constructione octo partium orationis | De construc. Libellus de constructione octo partium orationis | London: Richard Pynson, 1513 | ustc 501251; eol 5161 | er 51: Syntaxis ‖ Ep. 341 (Allen 2: 118–120; cwe 3: 145–147) | lb 1: 167–180; asd i-4: 119–143 ¶ Erasmus undertook a revised edition of this work of William Lily, which was published later by J. Froben (Basel, Aug. 1515 | ustc 608332). 1514 34–42 (tr.) Luciani dialogi aliquot (iii) | Lucianus Luciani, Erasmo interprete, dialogi et alia emuncta. Quorum quaedam recentius, quaedam annos abhinc octo sunt versa sed nuper recognita, ut indice ad finem apponendo declarabimus; quaedam etiam a Thoma Moro Latina facta, et quaedam ab eodem concinnata | Paris: Josse Bade, 1 June 1514 | ustc 144272; eol 4481 | er 52: Omnia versa ex Luciano, quorum tituli sunt … (see below) ‖ Ep. 261 (Allen 1: 512–513; cwe 2: 229), Ep. 550 (Allen 2: 503; cwe 5: 282) | lb, asd (see below) New works added: 34 Saturnalia | er 53: Saturnalia | lb 1: 183–196; asd i-1: 381–398 35 Abdicatus | er 56: Abdicatus | lb 1: 197–205; asd i-1: 399–409 36 Icaromenippus sive Hypernephelus | er 58: Icaromenippus | lb 1: 205–214; asd i-1: 410–422 37 Praefatio seu Hercules Gallicus | er 70: Hercules Gallicus | lb 1: 321–323; asd i-1: 591–593 38 Eunuchus sive Pamphilus | er 71: Eunuchus | lb 1: 323–325; asd i-1: 594–597 39 De sacrificiis | er 72: De sacrificiis | lb 1: 325–328; asd i-1: 598–602 40 Convivium seu Lapithae | er 70: Lapithae | lb 1: 329–337; asd i-1: 603–617 41 De astrologia | er 71: De astrologia | lb 1: 337–340; asd i-1: 618–622 42 Dialogi varii (ii) | er 60: Dialogi varii | lb 1: 314–321; asd i-1: 578– 590 ¶ Ep. 550 was added as a preface to item 40 in a later edition: ustc 689404 (Basel: J. Froben, Dec. 1517); see 126. De astrologia was meant to have Ep. 267 (Allen 1: 519–520; cwe 2: 238–239) as a preface, but it was not finally published “possibly because of Erasmus’ quarrel with Boerio at about that time” (cwe 2: Ep. 267, intr.). ¶ Item 34 contains the following short pieces: 34.1 Cronosolon, id est, Saturnalium legum lator (er 55–56: Cronosolon, id est, leges Saturnaliciae | lb 1: 187–189; asd i-1: 385–388); 34.2 Epistolae Saturnales (er 54: Epistolae Saturnales | lb 1: 189–194; asd i-1: 388–394); 34.3 De luctu (er 57: De luctu | lb 1: 194–196; asd i-1: 394–398). ¶ Item 42 contains the following short pieces: 42.1 Cratetis ac Diogenis dialogus (er 67: Cratetis ac Diogenis | lb 1: 314–315; asd i-1: 578–579); 42.2 Nirei ac Thersitae dialogus (er 68: Nirei ac Thersitae | lb 1: 315; asd i-1: 580); 42.3 Diogenis

•

•

•

•

• •

•

• •

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

241

ac Mausoli dialogus (er 69: Diogenis ac Mausoli | lb 1: 315–316; asd i-1: 580– 581); 42.4 Simyli ac Polystrati dialogus (er 61: Simyli ac Polystrati | lb 1: 316–317; asd i-1: 581–583); 42.5 Veneris et Cupidinis dialogus (er 62: Veneris et Cupidinis | lb 1: 317; asd i-1: 583–584); 42.6 Martis ac Mercurii dialogus (er 63: Martis ac Mercurii | lb 1: 317–318; asd i-1: 584); 42.7 Mercurii et Maiae dialogus (er 64: Mercurii et Maiae | lb 1: 318; asd i-1: 584–585); 42.8 Veneris et Cupidinis dialogus (er 65: Veneris et Cupidinis | lb 1: 318–319; asd i-1: 585–586); 42.9 Doridis et Galateae dialogus (er 66: Doridis et Galateae | lb 1: 319–320; asd i-1: 586– 587); 42.10 Diogenis et Alexandri dialogus (er 67: Diogenis et Alexandri | lb 1: 320–321; asd i-1: 587–589); 42.11 Menippi et Chironis dialogus (er 68: Menippi et Chironis | lb 1: 321; asd i-1: 589–590); 42.12 Menippi et Cerberi dialogus (er 69: Menippi et Cerberi | lb 1: 321; asd i-1: 590) 43–49 (tr.) Ex Plutarcho versa (ii) | Ex Plut. versa Opuscula Plutarchi nuper traducta, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete: Quo pacto quis dignoscere possit adulatorem ab amico; Quo pacto quis efficere possit ut capiat utilitatem ab inimico; De tuenda bona valetudine praecepta; In principe requiri doctrinam; Cum principibus maxime philosophum debere disputare; Utrum graviores sint animi morbi quam corporis; Num recte dictum sit λάθε βιώσας, id est, sic vive ut nemo te sentiat vixisse; De cupiditate divitiarum | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1514 | ustc 679814; eol 4589 | er 95: E Plutarcho versa: (see below) ‖ Ep., lb, asd (see below) New works added: 43 Quo pacto possis adulatorem ab amico dignoscere Plutarchi, Erasmo interprete | er 96: De discrimine adulatoris et amici, ad regem Angliae | Ep. 272 (Allen 1: 529–530; cwe 2: 250–252), Ep. 657 (Allen 3: 77–79; cwe 5: 109–113) | lb 4: 1*3v–22; asd iv-2: 119–163 44 Quo pacto quis efficiat ut ex inimicis capiat utilitatem Plutarchi Chaeronensis, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete | er 97: Quomodo possit utilitas capi ex inimico | Ep. 284 (Allen 1: 518–549; cwe 2: 275–276), Ep. 297 (Allen 1: 573–574; cwe 2: 303–305), Ep. 658 (Allen 3: 80–81; cwe 5: 113–115) | lb 4: 23–30; asd iv-2: 169–184 45 In principe requiri doctrinam Plutarchi commentarium, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete | lb 4: 43–46; asd iv-2: 217–222 46 Cum principibus maxime philosophum debere disputare Plutarchi, Erasmo interprete | er 99: Principi maxime philosophandum | lb 4: 45–48; asd iv-2: 225–231 47 Utrum graviores sint animi morbi quam corporis Plutarchi, Erasmo interprete | er 100: An graviores sint animi morbi quam corporis | lb 4: 49–50; asd iv-2: 235–238 48 Num recte dictum sit λάθε βιώσας, id est, sic vive ut nemo te sentiat vixisse | er 102: Num recte dictum sit ab Epicuro λάθε βιώσας | lb 4: 51–54; asd iv-2: 241–247 49 Plutarchi Chaeronei de cupiditate divitiarum, Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo interprete | er 101: De cupiditate divitiarum | lb 4: 53–58; asd iv-2: 251–259

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

242

tello

¶ According to Ferguson (cwe 2: 275), Ep. 284 “is the preface to a bound Ms. copy in Erasmus’ own hand of his translation of Plutarch’s De utilitate capienda ex inimicis, now in the university library at Basel.” The epistle was later revised and published (Ep. 297). On 9 Sept. 1517, Erasmus wrote two more dedicatory prefaces: one for item 43 (to king Henry viii), one for item 44 (to Tomas Wolsey). These manuscript letters (not included in any printed edition) were edited by Allen as Ep. 657 and Ep. 658. 50 (ed.) Disticha Catonis | Cato Opuscula aliquot, Erasmo Roterodamo castigatore et interprete, quibus primae aetati nihil prelegi potest neque utilius neque elegantius: Libellus elegantissimus, qui vulgo Cato inscribitur, complectens sanctissimae vitae communis praecepta; Mimi Publiani; Septem sapientum celebria dicta; Institutum Christiani hominis carmine pro pueris ab Erasmo compositum. Parenesis Isocratis, Rodolpho Agricola interprete, castigatore Martino Dorpio, A1v–D4v | Louvain: Dirk Martens, September 1514 | ustc 403362;12 eol 2708 | er 113: Cato cum aliis ‖ Ep. 298 (Allen 2: 1–3; cwe 3: 3–4), Ep. 1725 (Allen 6: 366–367; cwe 12: 253–255) | asd ix-10: 201–249 ¶ Ep. 1725 is a postface added in a later edition, ustc 620823 (Basel: J. Froben, Jun. 1526, l2v–l3v). Similar to the format displayed in the Collectanea or the Adages, Erasmus added a note after each sentence of Cato, ranging from a brief comment to an analysis of the content phrase by phrase. ¶ Opuscula aliquot was later reprinted by Martin von Werden (Cologne, Nov. 1514 | ustc 679789) and by Dirk Martens (Louvain, Sept. 1515 | ustc 403368). See Allen 2: Ep. 298 (intr.); cwe 3: 2 (Ep. 298, intr.); “Census of Printings of Erasmus’ Commentary 1514–1536” in asd ix-10: 187–197. 51 (ed.) Septem sapientum dicta | Septem sap. dicta Septem sapientum celebria dicta. In Opuscula aliquot … (as in 50), D4v–E5r | Louvain: Dirk Martens, September 1514 | ustc 403362; eol 2708 | er 113: Cato cum aliis ‖ Ep. 298 (Allen 2: 1–3; cwe 3: 3–4) ¶ This edition includes a selection of the sentences of the seven Greek sages from two sources: a direct translation from the Greek, and the Latin version as rendered by Ausonius. Erasmus seems to have added notes to Ausonius’ versions of Periander and Bias (E1v–E2r). 52 (ed.) Mimi Publiani | Publil. Syr. Mimi Publiani. In Opuscula aliquot … (as in 50), E5r–H1v | Louvain: Dirk Mar12

Copy consulted (digital format): kbr Royal Library of Belgium, kw 228 E 80.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

243

tens, September 1514 | ustc 403362; eol 2708 | er 113: Cato cum aliis ‖ Ep. 298 (Allen 2: 1–3; cwe 3: 3–4), Ep. 678 (Allen 3: 100–101; cwe 5: 139) ¶ Ep. 678 was included in a later edition, ustc 403125 (Louvain: D. Martens, 1517); see 128. Similar to Disticha Catonis, the editio princeps of Publilius Syrus’ sentences include explanatory notes about the content of each aphorism, usually of between one and three lines, only a few being slightly longer. 53 (contr.) Senecae tragoediae | Sen. trag. Lucii Annei Senecae tragoediae pristinae integritati restitutae per exactissimi iudicii viros post [Hieronymum] Avantium et philologum Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, Gerardum Vercellanum, Aegidium Maserium, cum metrorum praesertim tragicorum ratione ad calcem operis posita; explanatae diligentissime tribus commentariis G. Bernardino Marmita Parmensi, Daniele Gaietano Cremosensi, Iodoco Badio Ascensio | Paris: Josse Bade, 5 December 1514 | ustc 144361; eol 4658 ¶ Erasmus got more involved later in the edition of the rhetorical and philosophical works of Seneca the Elder and Seneca the Younger. See er 116; also 56a, 56b. 54 Parabolae sive similia | Parab. Desyderii Erasmi Roterodami de duplici copia verborum ac rerum commentarii duo, ab authore ipso diligentissime recogniti et emaculati atque in plerisque locis aucti. Item epistola Erasmi Roterodami ad Iacobum Vuymphelingium Selestatinum. Item Erasmi Roterodami parabolae sive similia e physicis pleraque ex Aristotele et Plinio. Lector eme, lege et gaudebis, A1v–I8r | Strasbourg: Matthias Schürer, December 1514 | ustc 635633; eol 2766 | er 80: Similium liber unus ‖ Ep. 312 (Allen 2: 33–35; cwe 3: 43–46) | lb 1: 559–624; asd i-5: 87–332 | cwe 23: 130–277 ¶ Erasmus gathered a selection of thoughts chiefly taken from the works of Plutarch, Seneca, Lucian, Xenophon, Demosthenes, Aristotle, Pliny the Elder, and Theophrastus. As R.A.B. Mynors points out (cwe 23: 124), “the source itself is treated with great freedom.” Many passages are paraphrased rather than edited or translated verbatim, which may have impelled Haeghen (1893) 1: 137 to include this work in the section of Erasmus’ own works and not the section of authors that Erasmus edited, translated or annotated. 1515 55 Adagiorum chiliades (ii) | Adag. Ioannes Frobenius studiosis omnibus salutem dicit. Accipito, candide lector, Erasmi Roterodami proverbiorum chiliadas rursum ab ipso non aestimandis sudori-

244

tello

bus recognitas et ex probatissimis autoribus sic locupletatas, ut superioris aeditionis summae fere quarta pars accesserit. Nos neque sumptui neque labori pepercimus ut tam eruditum opus tam copiosum, ut vere flumen aureum vocare possis, quam emendatissimum e nostra officina prodiret in lucem plane novum et hactenus a nemine excusum. Eme, fruere et vale [adagia 1–3411] | Basel: Johann Froben, [February?] 1515 | ustc 667049; eol 30 | er 89–90: Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ Ep. 269 (Allen 1: 521–525; cwe 2: 241–246) | lb 2; asd ii 1–8 | cwe 31–36 New work added: adagia 3261–3411 ¶ Month of publication according to Sebastiani (2018) 202. 56a (ed.) Senecae lucubrationes omnes | Sen. lucubr. Ioannes Frobenius verae philosophiae studiosis salutem dicit. En tibi, lector optime, Lucii Annaei Senecae sanctissimi philosophi lucubrationes omnes additis etiam nonullis Erasmi Roterodami cura, si non ab omnibus certe ab innumeris mendis repurgatae; in his evolvendis, si diligenter versaberis et linguam tuam reddent expolitiorem et vitam emendatiorem. Bene vale et nostram industriam tuo favore vicissim adiuva | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1515 | ustc 667432; eol 4659 | er (see 56b) ‖ Ep. 325 (Allen 2: 51–54; cwe 3: 64–68) ¶ Date of publication according to the postface written by Froben in the colophon: “mense Augusto.” Title page reads “mense Iulio.” ¶ Following a common practice inherited from the Middle Ages, Erasmus gathered under the name of “Seneca” the works of both Seneca the Elder (ca. 54bc– 39ad), author of the Controversiae and the Suasoriae (Declamationes, in Erasmus’ edition), and Seneca the Younger (ca. 4bc–65ad), his son, a renowned Stoic philosopher and dramatist author. ¶ Erasmus’ dissatisfaction with the 1515 edition (see Allen 1: 13, line 14: “parum feliciter”; Ep. 1341a) led him to publish a new one, enlarged with notes (annotationes) and new prefaces: 56b (ed.) Senecae opera | Sen. op. Lucii Annei Senecae opera et ad dicendi facultatem et ad bene vivendum utilissima per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Ex fide veterum codicum tum ex probatis autoribus, postremo sagaci non nunquam divinatione, sic emendata ut merito priorem aeditionem ipso absente peractam nolit haberi pro sua. Confer et ita rem habere comperies. Adiecta sunt eiusdem scholia nonnulla | Basel: H. Froben and J. Herwagen, Mar. 1529 | ustc 671333; eol 4663 | er 116: Opera Senecae oratoris vix credibili studio recognita, anno 1528 ‖ Ep. 2091 (Allen 8: 26–39; cwe 15: 43–65); Ep. a (Allen—; cwe—), Ep. b (Allen—; cwe—), Ep. 2092 (Allen 8: 40–41; cwe 15: 65–68), Ep. 2132 (Allen 8: 105; cwe 15: 162– 163)

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

245

¶ Erasmus’ annotations in this revised edition can be found in the following pages (names of Seneca’s writings as given by Erasmus): 7–8, 18–19, 29–30, 42, 52–53, 64–65, 75, 271–273 (De beneficiis); 85–86, 94–95, 104, 116, 122–123, 130, 162, 174, 182, 191, 211–212, 218, 226, 230–231, 236, 244, 249–250, 258, 268–271 (Epistolae ad Lucilium); 318–319 (De ira); 330, 333 (De clementia); 348 (De vita beata); 360, 368 (De tranquillitate vitae); 378 (De brevitate vitae); 387 (De consolatione ad Polybium); 400 (De consolatione ad Martiam); 411 (De consolatione ad Albinam); 422–423, 435–436, 448–449, 457 (Q1r), 463 (Q4r) (Naturalium quaestionum libri); 492 (Declamationes). Erasmus wrote a preface to the reader for: Epistolae ad Lucilium, 75 (Ep. a); Declamationes, 485 (Ep. b); Epistolae Senecae et Pauli, 679 (Ep. 2092); and Proverbia Senecae, 683 (Ep. 2132). This last title is devised from running heads. This recollection of sentences is, in fact, by Publilius Syrus. 57 Epistola apologetica ad Dorpium | Epist. apolog. ad Dorp. Erasmi Roterodami … ad eximium sacrae theologiae doctorem Martinum Dorpium Hollandum epistola apologetica de suarum lucubrationum aeditione. In Iani Damiani Senensis ad Leonem x, pontificem maximum, de expeditione in Turcas elegeia cum argutissimis doctissimorum virorum epigrammatibus …, I4v– O3r | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1515 | ustc 664881; eol 1913 | er 196–197: Ad Martinum Dorpium theologum epistola, quae fuit hactenus adiecta Moriae ‖ Ep. 337 (Allen 2: 91–114; cwe 3: 111–139; cwe 71: 7–30, 142–147) | lb 9: 1–16. ¶ This letter to Maarten van Dorp was later “added” (in Erasmus’ words) at the end of Moria (see 28) as from ustc 667428 (Basel: J. Froben, [September 1516?], z1v–C6r). However, the fact that Erasmus did not consider the letter as a genuine part of Moria must have led bas and lb to edit it among the Apologiae in vol. 9. Accordingly, asd (iv-3) did not include the letter in the critical edition of Moria. 58 Enarrationes in Psalmos (i) | Enarrat. in Ps. 1 Enarratio allegorica in primum Psalmum ‘Beatus vir’. In Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami viri undecunque doctissimi lucubrationes, quarum index positus est facie sequenti, 237r–285r | Strasbourg: Matthias Schürer, September 1515 | ustc 626074; eol 2415, 3284 | er 125: Commentarii in Psalmos primum et secundum ‖ Ep. 327 (Allen 2: 61–62; cwe 3: 78–79) | lb 5: 171–198; asd v-2: 31–80 | cwe 63: 6–63 1516 59–85 59a (tr.) Novum Instrumentum | Nov. Instr. Novum Instrumentum omne, diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum, non solum ad Graecam veritatem verumetiam ad multorum utrius-

246

tello

que linguae codicum eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem et interpretationem praecipue Origenis, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Vulgarii, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini; una cum Annotiationibus, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam lege, cognosce ac deinde iudica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit, aaa2r–t5v | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1516 | ustc 678727; eol 4840 ‖ Ep. 384 (Allen 2: 184–187; cwe 3: 221–224) | lb, asd (see below) It includes: Paraclesis (see 86) Methodus (see 87, 144) Apologia (see 88) 59 Evangelium secundum Matthaeum | Mt.13 | lb 6: 1–148; *asd vi-1 60 Evangelium secundum Marcum | Mc. | lb 6: 151–216; *asd vi-1 61 Evangelium secundum Lucam | Lc. | lb 6: 217–332; *asd vi-1 62 Evangelium secundum Ioannem | Ioh. | lb 6: 335–422; asd vi-2: 13–210 63 Acta apostolorum | Act. | lb 6: 433– 541; asd vi-2: 211–500 64 Epistola Pauli apostoli ad Romanos | Rom. | lb 6: 553–656; asd vi-3: 21–186 65 Epistola Pauli ad Corinthios prima | 1 Cor. | lb 6: 661–748; asd vi-3: 187–336 66 Epistola Pauli ad Corinthios secunda | 2 Cor. | lb 6: 751–798; asd vi-3: 337–446 67 Epistola Pauli apostoli ad Galatas | Gal. | lb 6: 801–828; asd vi-3: 447–494 68 Epistola Pauli apostoli ad Ephesios | Eph. | lb 6: 831–860; asd vi-3: 495–550 69 Epistola Pauli apostoli ad Philippenses | Phil. | lb 6: 863–880; asd vi-3: 551–588 70 Epistola Pauli ad Colossenses | Col. | lb 6: 883–898; asd vi-3: 589–624 71 Epistola Pauli ad Thessalonicenses prima | 1Thess. | lb 6: 901–912; asd vi-3: 625–656 72 Epistola Pauli ad Thessalonicenses secunda | 2Thess. | lb 6: 915–922; asd vi-3: 657–674 73 Epistola Pauli ad Timotheum prima | 1Tim. | lb 6: 925–948; asd vi-4: 115–158 74 Epistola Pauli ad Timotheum secunda | 2Tim. | lb 6: 951–962; asd vi-4: 159–190 75 Epistola Pauli ad Titum | Tit. | lb 6: 965–974; asd vi-4: 191–209 76 Epistola Pauli ad Philemonem | Phm. | lb 6: 977–980; asd vi-4: 210–218 77 Beati Pauli apostoli epistola ad Hebraeos | Hebr. | lb 6: 983–1024; asd vi-4: 219–348 78 Epistola beati Iacobi | Iac. | lb 6: 1025–1038; asd vi-4: 349–386 79 Epistola beati Petri apostoli prima | 1 Petr. | lb 6: 1041–1058; asd vi-4: 387–432 80 Epistola Petri apostoli secunda | 2 Petr. | lb 6: 1057–1068; asd vi-4: 433–462 81 Epistola Ioannis apostoli prima | 1 Ioh. | lb 6: 1071–1084; asd vi-4: 463–488 82 Epistola beati Ioannis secunda | 2 Ioh. | lb 6: 1083–1086; asd vi-4: 489–492 83 Epistola catholica beati Ioannis theologi iii | 3 Ioh. | lb 6: 1085–1088; asd vi-4: 493–496 84 Epistola catholica beati Iudae apostoli | Iud. | lb 6: 1089–1092; asd vi-4: 497–512 85 Apocalypsis beati Ioannis theologi | Ap. Ioh. | lb 6: 1093–1126; asd vi-4: 513–670 Annotationes in

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

•

•

•

•

•

13

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

Either Nov. Instr. or Nov. Test. should be placed before the abbreviations given in 59–85.

•

247

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

Novum Testamentum (see 89–115) As from the second edition published as: 59b (tr.) Novum Testamentum | Nov. Test. Novum Testamentum omne, multo quam antehac diligentius ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum ac translatum, non solum ad Graecam veritatem verum etiam ad multorum utriusque linguae codicum eorumque veterum simul et emendatorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationem, emendationem et interpretationem praecipue Origenis, Athanasii, Nazianzeni, Chrysostomi, Cyrilli, Theophylacti, Hieronymi, Cypriani, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Augustini; una cum Annotiationibus recognitis ac magna accessione locupletatis, quae lectorem doceant, quid qua ratione mutatum sit. Quisquis igitur amas veram theologiam lege, cognosce ac deinde iudica. Neque statim offendere, si quid mutatum offenderis, sed expende, num in melius mutatum sit. Nam morbus est non iudicium, damnare quod non inspexeris. Salvo ubique et illabefacto Ecclesiae iudicio. Addita sunt in singulas apostolorum epistolas argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1519 | ustc 678736; eol 4845 | er 151–152: Novum Testamentum cum annotationibus quarto recognitis et auctis, anno 152714 ‖ Ep. 1010 (Allen 4: 58–59; cwe 7: 64–65, 368; cwe 41: 718–719), Ep. a (Allen—; cwe 41: 720–725), Ep. b (Allen—; *asd vi-11; cwe 41: 726), Ep. c (see 233) | lb, asd (see below) New works added: Capita (see 170) Indexes locorum (see 171–177) In Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos 2.7 annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (see 107, 124) | asd ix-3: 225–239; asd vi-10: 244(line 155)–270(line 528) ¶ New prefaces were incorporated in editions later than Mar. 1519, which contained the Latin translation only, without the Greek text: Ep. 1010 (Antwerp: D. Martens, [autumn?] 1519, [A1v–A2r] | ustc 400404), Ep. a (Basel: A. Cratander, Aug. 1520, a2r–a5v | ustc 678354), Ep. b (Basel: J. Froben, Jul. 1522, α1v | ustc 696204), Ep. c (Basel: J. Froben, Jul. 1522, α3v-α7v | ustc 696204). ¶ Later bilingual Greek-Latin editions. Third: ustc 678737, eol 4855 (Basel: J. Froben, Feb. 1522). Fourth: ustc 667431, eol 4884 (Basel: J. Froben, Feb. 1527). Fifth and last one: ustc 678735, eol 4900 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, Mar. 1535). ¶ lb edited Erasmus’ translations of the New Testament accompanied with his annotations. Further, it included the lives of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John according to Jerome (lb 6: 6*1r–6*3r) and Sophronius (lb 6: 6*3v, 149–150, 215– 216, 333–334), which had been first printed in the 1519 (Mar.) edition and also printed in bas 6.

•

14

•

Erasmus alludes to ustc 667431 (Basel: J. Froben, Feb. 1527).

•

248

tello

86 Paraclesis | Paracl. Erasmi Roterodami paraclesis ad lectorem pium. In Novum Instrumentum omne … (as in 59a), aaa3v-bbb1r | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1516 | ustc 678727; eol 4840 | er 123: Paraclesis ‖ lb 5: 137–144; lb 6: 1*3r–1*4v; asd v-7: 287–298 | cwe 41: 404–422 87 Methodus | Meth. Erasmi Roterodami methodus. In Novum Instrumentum omne … (as in 59a), bbb1r-bbb5v | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1516 | ustc 678727; eol 4840 | er 122: Methodus verae theologiae | Holborn 150–162; *asd vi-11 | cwe 41: 424– 454 88 Apologia Erasmi | Apolog. Er. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami apologia. In Novum Instrumentum omne … (as in 59a), bbb5v-bbb8v | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1516 | ustc 678727; eol 4840 ‖ lb 6: 2*2r–2*3r; Holborn 163–174; *asd vi-11 | cwe 41: 456–477 89–115 Annotationes in Novum Testamentum | Annot. in nt In Novum Testamentum, primum ad Graecam veritatem, deinde vetustissimorum Latinae linguae codicum fidem, postraemo ad probatissimorum scriptorum citationem et enarrationem diligenter recognitum, Adnotationes Erasmi Roterodami, in quibus ratio redditur veteris aeditionis aliquot locis imutatae. Quod depravatum erat, emendatur; quod obscurum, explanatur; quod anceps et impeditum, expeditur. Et non solum id agitur, ut castigata sit lectio, sed ne in posterum quoque facile depravari possit.15 In Novum Instrumentum omne … (as in 59a), t6r-Ff6r | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1516 | ustc 678727; eol 4840 | er 151–152: Novum Testamentum cum annotationibus quarto recognitis et auctis, anno 1527 ‖ Praefatio (lb 6: 3*4r–4*1r; asd vi-5: 53–63) = Ep. 373 (Allen 2: 166–172; cwe 3: 198–205; cwe 41: 782–792) | lb,16 asd, cwe (see below) It includes: 89 Annotationes in Matthaeum17 | Annot. in Mt. | lb 6: 1–148; asd vi-5: 65–349 | *cwe 51 90 In Evangelium Marci annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Mc. | lb 6: 151–216; asd vi-5: 351–437 | *cwe 52 91 In Evangelium Lucae annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Lc. |

•

15 16 17

•

•

Title as it appears in u3r. lb edits Erasmus’ annotations on the New Testament as footnotes to the Latin text. Therefore, pagination is the same as 59–85. asd, running heads. This section lacks a clear heading.

249

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

•

lb 6: 217–332; asd vi-5: 439–605 | *cwe 53 92 In Evangelium Ioannis annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Ioh. | lb 6: 335–422; asd vi-6: 29–176, 349 | *cwe 54 93 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami annotationes in Acta apostolorum | Annot. in Act. | Ep. 1789 (Allen 6: 466–467; cwe 12: 464–467) | lb 6: 433–542; asd vi-6: 177–347, 351–354 | *cwe 55 94 Annotationes in Romanos18 | Annot. in Rom. | lb 6: 553–656; asd vi-7: 33–372 | cwe 56: 2–437 95 In Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios priorem annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 1Cor. | lb 6: 661–748; asd vi-8: 39–325 | *cwe 57 96 In Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios secundam annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 2Cor. | lb 6: 751–798; asd vi-8: 327–474 | *cwe 57 97 In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Gal. | lb 6: 801–828; asd vi-9: 53–161 | cwe 58: 2–108 98 In Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Eph. | lb 6: 831–860; asd vi-9: 162–273 | cwe 58: 110–225 99 In Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Phil. | lb 6: 863–880; asd vi-9: 272–333 | *cwe 59 100 In Epistolam Pauli ad Colossenses annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Col. | lb 6: 883–898; asd vi-9: 332–391 | *cwe 59 101 In Epistolam Pauli ad Thessalonicenses priorem annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 1Thess. | lb 6: 901–912; asd vi-9: 390–429 | *cwe 59 102 In Epistolam Pauli ad Thessalonicenses secundam annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 2Thess. | lb 6: 915–922; asd vi-9: 428–451 | *cwe 59 103 In Epistolam Pauli ad Timotheum priorem annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 1Tim. | lb 6: 925–948; asd vi-10: 1–120 | *cwe 59 104 In Epistolam Pauli ad Timotheum secundam annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 2Tim. | lb 6: 951–962; asd vi-10: 121–172 | *cwe 59 105 In Epistolam Pauli ad Titum annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Tit. | lb 6: 965–974; asd vi-10: 173–216 | *cwe 59 106 In Epistolam Pauli ad Philemonem annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Phm. | lb 6: 977–980; asd vi-10: 217–228 | *cwe 59 107 In Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Hebr. | lb 6: 983–1024; asd vi-10: 229–385 | *cwe 60 108 In Epistolam Iacobi annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Iac. | lb 6: 1025–1038; asd vi-10: 387–428 | *cwe 60 109 In Epistolam Petri apostoli priorem annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 1 Petr. | lb 6: 1041–1058; asd vi-10: 429–488 | *cwe 60 110 In Epistolam Petri apostoli secundam annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 2 Petr. | lb 6: 1057–1068; asd vi-10: 489–519 | *cwe 60 111 In Epistolam Ioannis

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• • •

• •

•

•

•

•

•

•

18

asd, running heads.

250

tello

apostoli primam annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 1 Ioh. | lb 6: 1071–1084; asd vi-10: 521–558 | *cwe 60 112 In Epistolam Ioannis secundam annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 2 Ioh. | lb 6: 1083–1086; asd vi-10: 559–561 | *cwe 60 113 In Epistolam Ioannis tertiam annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in 3 Ioh. | lb 6: 1085–1088; asd vi-10: 563– 565 | *cwe 60 114 In Epistolam Iudae annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Iud. | lb 6: 1089–1092; asd vi-10: 567–579 | *cwe 60 115 In librum Apocalypseos Ioannis annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Annot. in Ap. Ioh. | lb 6: 1093–1126; asd vi-10: 581–619 | *cwe 60 ¶ In the fourth edition of the New Testament (Basel: J. Froben, Feb. 1527 | ustc 667431; see 59–85, complementary note), Erasmus included a short passage on p. 710 (Nn7v) concerning his annotations on John (item 92). See asd vi-1: 349, appendix i. In this edition, Ep. 1789 (Oo1r–v) prefaced some new annotations to the Acts of the apostles (item 93). See asd vi-6: 351–354, appendix ii. ¶ Item 94 lacks a visible title and it is introduced by a general summary (mm3r): “Annotationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami in Epistolas Pauli apostoli diligenter recognitas ab eodem, primum ad Graecam veritatem, deinde ad vetustissimorum exemplarium Latinorum fidem, postremo ad probatissimorum autorum citationes simul et interpretationes.”

•

•

•

•

116 Institutio principis Christiani | Inst. princ. Christ. Institutio principis Christiani saluberrimis referta praeceptis per Erasmum Roterodamum cum aliis nonnullis eodem pertinentibus, quorum catalogum in proxima reperies pagella, a2r–a3v, c2v–q6v | Basel: Johann Froben, May 1516 | ustc 666674; eol 2254 | er 107: Institutio principis Christiani, ad Carolum Caesarem ‖ Ep. 393 (Allen 2: 205–208; cwe 3: 248–250), Ep. 853 (Allen 3: 350–352; cwe 6: 54–56) | lb 4: 555–612; asd iv-1: 133–219 | cwe 27–28: 203–288, 509–534 ¶ Ep. 853 is the new preface added in a later edition: ustc 666726 (Basel: J. Froben, Jul. 1518), which lb (4: 555–558) edits before Ep. 393. 117 (tr.) Isocratis ad Nicoclem regem de institutione principis | Isocr. Nic. Praecepta Isocratis de regno administrando ad Nicoclem regem, eodem interprete [= Erasmo Roterodamo interprete]. In Institutio principis Christiani … (as in 116), a2r–c2r | Basel: Johann Froben, May 1516 | ustc 666674; eol 2254 | er 108: Isocratis de regno, ad eundem [= ad Carolum Caesarem] ‖ Ep. 393 (Allen 2: 205–208; cwe 3: 248–250) | lb 4: 611–616; asd iv-7: 37–46 118 (tr.) Theodori Gazae Thessalonicensis grammaticae institutiones libri duo (i) | Gaza Primus liber grammaticae institutionis Theodori Gazae sic translatus per Erasmum Roterodamum ac titulis et annotationunculis explanatus, ut citra negocium

251

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

et percipi queat et teneri | Louvain: Dirk Martens, July 1516 | ustc 403371; eol 4258 | er 50: Theodoricae grammatices libri duo versi ‖ Ep. 428 (Allen 2: 264– 266; cwe 3: 319–321) | lb 1: 115–132 (book 1) 119 (ed.) Hieronymi opera omnia | Hier. op. omn. Omnium operum divi Eusebii Hieronymi Stridonensis tomus primus. Παραινετικά, videlicet ea quae ad vitam recte instituendam pertinent complectens una cum argumentis et scholiis Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, cuius opera potissimum emendata sunt, quae ante hac erant depravatissima, et instaurata ea quae prius erant mutila […] Tomus nonus operum divi Hieronymi Eusebii Stridonensis complectens commentarios in Matthaeum et Marcum et in divi Pauli epistolas, videlicet ad Galatas, Ephesios, Titum, Philemonem; necnon commentarios in omnes Pauli epistolas sed incerto authore, postremo Didymi de spiritu sancto librum a Hieronymo versum | Basel: Johann Froben, 25 August 1516 (9 vols.; only vols. 1–4 edited by Erasmus) | ustc 679364; eol 4282 | er 214: Totus Hieronymus cum scholiis iterum recognitus, anno 152619 ‖ Ep. 396 (Allen 2: 211–221; cwe 3: 255–266; cwe 61: 3–14, 243–244), Ep. a (Allen—; cwe 61: 67–82, 256–258), Ep. b (Allen—; cwe—), Ep. 326 (Allen 2: 55–59; cwe 3: 68–72; cwe 61: 83–97, 258– 261), Ep. c (Allen—; cwe—), Ep. d (Allen—; cwe—); Ep. 1465 (Allen 5: 493; cwe 10: 301–302), Ep. 1451 (Allen 5: 465–468; cwe 10: 270–277; cwe 61: 99–103, 261), Ep. 1453 (Allen 5: 471–473; cwe 10: 280–282), Ep. 1504 (Allen 5: 561–562; cwe 10: 400–402); Ep. 2758 (Allen 10: 145–147; cwe 19: 239–241) | *asd viii-2 | cwe (see below) ¶ A thorough description of the nine volumes can be found in Sebastiani (2018) 221–236. Complete set of volumes can be downloaded at www.e‑rara.ch. Since only “the first four … were Erasmus’ chief responsibility” (cwe 61: xi), I have only taken into account these. Regarding the date of publication, colophon of vol. 8 (appendix) reads “viii calendas Septembreis,” whereas vol. 9 reads “mense Maio.” ¶ Erasmus wrote a preface to the reader in vol. 1 (α2r-α4v, Ep. 396), vol. 2/1 (2r– 4v, Ep. a), vol. 2/2 (101r, Ep. b), vol. 2/3 (189r–191v, Ep. 326), vol. 3 (1v, Ep. c) and vol. 4 (1v, Ep. d). ¶ tomus primus. Erasmus added both an argumentum and scholia to almost all works. Available translations: Hieronymus Heliodorum sodalem ad Eremum invitat, 1r–5r (cwe 61: 109–133, 263–266) Hieronymus ad Nepotianum de vita clericorum et sacerdotum, 5r–9v (cwe 61: 134–154, 266–268) Hieronymus ad Eustochium de custodia virginitatis, 60r–69r (cwe 61: 155–193, 269–272) ‖

•

19

•

Erasmus alludes to ustc 691788 (see complementary note).

•

252

tello

tomus secundus. In part 1, he incorporated a censura to each work of Jerome, except Augustini et Alipii ad Iulianam, Demetriadis virginis matrem. In part 2, he only wrote a censura before 121. In part 3, each work of Jerome is introduced by a censura except De nativitate sanctae Mariae ‖ tertius tomus. He added an argumentum to all works, and wrote scholia at the end of the majority. Available translations: Hieronymus Damaso, 59v–60v (cwe 61: 194–200, 272– 274) Hieronymus magno oratori Romano, 148v–149v (cwe 61: 201–206, 274) ‖ tomus quartus. Out of the 61 works included in this volume, 27 have both an argumentum and scholia, 17 have only scholia, 3 have only an argumentum, and 14 have neither argumentum nor scholia. Available translations: Hieronymus Paulino, 2r–5v (cwe 61: 207–227, 274–278). ¶ Ep. 1465, Ep. 1451, Ep. 1453 and Ep. 1504 are the new prefaces to volumes 1–4 of the revised edition published between Aug. 1524 and Feb. 1526 in 10 vols. (Basel: J. Froben | ustc 691788), out of which vols. 1–3 (Aug. 1524) and vol. 4 (1525) were actually edited by Erasmus. As summarized by J.F. Brady and J.C. Olin (cwe 61: xxix–xxx), “a revised edition in nine folio volumes was published by Johann Froben in 1524–6. Its general title-page informs us that the massive work ‘has been emended more carefully than before by Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam’ and that the annotations have been enriched. Some alterations and deletions in the latter have also been made. The major change that occurred in the new edition, however, is that the spurious writings attributed to Jerome and other materials that constituted volume ii in the 1516 edition have become volume iv in the revised edition. Volumes i, ii, and iii of the new edition then contain the genuine works of Jerome and follow the order of contents of volumes i, iii, and iv of the earlier edition. The first three volumes of the new edition were published in the summer of 1524. There is a name and topic index compiled by Conradus Pellicanus at the end of volume iii […] Volumes iv–viii came off the press in 1525, and volume ix was published in Feb. 1526. This last volume contains an extensive index to the entire edition also compiled by Conradus Pellicanus.” Complete set of volumes of the 1516 edition can be downloaded at www.e‑rara.ch. ¶ Ep. 2758 is the new preface (vol. 1: 2r–v) to the second revised edition published between 1533 and 1534 in 9 vols. (Paris: C. Chevallon), out of which vols. 1–4 (1533) were actually edited by Erasmus. As J.F. Brady and J.C. Olin (cwe 61: xxx) summarize, the French printer “revised the previous Froben edition with the aid of manuscripts borrowed from St Victor, and Erasmus, who was now residing in Freiburg im Breisgau, cooperated by correcting and revising his annotations in volumes i–iv and writing a new general preface.” Complete set of volumes can be downloaded at www.e‑rara.ch. ¶ Erasmus projected the Letters of Jerome to be included in volume nine of his complete works, a wish that was never actually accomplished. In Ep. 1341a, he

•

•

•

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

253

commented that “I have expended so much labour [on them] that I can without impudence add this work to my own list” (cwe 9: 356). 120 Vita divi Hieronymi Stridonensis | Vita Hier. Eximii doctoris Hieronymi Stridonensis Vita ex ipsius potissimum litteris contexta per Desyderium Erasmum Roterodamum. In Omnium operum divi Eusebii Hieronymi … (as in 119), vol. 1: α5r-β8v | (Autograph, ca. 1516)20 Basel: Johann Froben, 25 August 1516 | ustc 679364; eol 4282 ‖ asd viii-1: 21–79 | cwe 61: 19–62, 244–256 121 (ed.) Gennadii catalogus | Genn. cat. Gennadii illustrium virorum catalogus. In Omnium operum divi Eusebii Hieronymi … (as in 119), vol. 2.2: 156v–162v | Basel: Johann Froben, 25 August 1516 | ustc 679364; eol 4282 ¶ Erasmus prefaced this work with a censura (156v). 122 (contr.) Plinii Secundi naturalis historia | Plin. nat. (Nicolas Bérault, ed.) Caii Plynii Secundi naturalis historiae libri xxxvii nuper studiose recogniti atque impressi, adiectis variis Antonii Sabellici, Raphaelis Volaterrani, Beroaldi, Erasmi, Budei, Longolii adnotationibus, quibus mundi historia locis plaerisque vel restituitur vel illustratur | Paris: Regnault Chaudière, 16 November 1516 | ustc 144613; eol 4579 ‖ Ep. 1544 (Allen 6: 17–21; cwe 11: 26–31) ¶ Ep. 1544 is the prefatory epistle for ustc 604743 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1525), an improved edition of Pliny. In addition to Erasmus’ editorial work, Beatus Rhenanus and Segismundus Gelenius contributed significantly. 1517 123 Iulius exclusus e coelis | Iul. exclus. Fausti Andrelini Foroliviensis, poete regii, libellus de obitu Iulii, pontificis maximi, anno Domini mdxiii21 | (Autograph, ca. 1514) Mainz: Peter Schöffer, [summer] 1517 | ustc 657044; eol 1086 ‖ asd i-8: 223–297 | cwe 27–28: 168–197, 494–508 ¶ According to Seidel Menchi (asd i-8: 132), Erasmus left the manuscript of Iul. exclus. in England in the hands of Thomas Lupset. Another important auto-

20 21

Universitätsbibliothek Basel, Handschriftenmagazin, ubh Erasmuslade A ix 56 (see Ferguson 131). This manuscript is named Scholia in epistulas Hieronymi. Name of the poet abridged as f.a.f. in the printed edition.

254

tello

graph is a copy of the work transcribed and signed by Bonifacius Amerbach (5 Aug. 1516; Ms. Basiliensis A ix 64). ¶ Approximate date of publication of the editio princeps according to Seidel Menchi (asd i-8: 178–179). M.J. Heath (cwe 27: 156) claims that “the earliest dated edition of the dialogue was printed at Louvain in Sept. 1518, but was preceded by several undated editions, going back probably to the early months of 1517.” Cf. Ferguson 41–42, 55–57. 124 Apologia ad Iacobum Fabrum Stapulensem | Apolog. ad Fabr. Stap. Apologia Erasmi Roterodami ad eximium virum Iacobum Fabrum Stapulensem, cuius argumentum versa pagella demonstrabit, title page verso-k4v | Louvain: Dirk Martens, [ca. 23–28 August 1517] | ustc 400368; eol 233 | er 180: Ad Iacobum Fabrum Stapulensem de Eloim ‖ lb 9: 17–66; asd ix-3: 79–196 | cwe 83: 4–107 ¶ Approximate date of publication according to G. Bedouelle (cwe 83: xviii) and A.W. Steenbeek (asd ix-3: 46–47). This work was published together with Disputatio Fabri adversus superiorem annotationem Erasmi Roterodami ex eiusdem Fabri commentariis in secundum caput Epistolae ad Hebraeos (lb 9: 67–80; asd ix-3: 206–224). In it, Levèfbre d’Étaples argued against Erasmus’ annotations to the second chapter of 2Hebr (see asd ix-3: 203–205). asd edits one complementary writing of Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples (Annotatio Iacobi Fabri Stapulensis in Psalmum 8.6; Annotatio Iacobi Fabri Stapulensis in Hebraeos 2.7 | asd ix-3: 197–202), and one of Erasmus: Summa totius disputationis contracta in articulos, additis duobus verbis eorum quae obiiciuntur solutionibus (asd ix-3: 225–239). This Summa first appeared in ustc 436985 (Louvain: D. Martens, [Feb.–Mar.] 1518, m4r–o3r); month of publication according to A.W. Steenbeek (asd ix-3: 53, 78). It was later inserted in Annot. in Hebr., as part of ustc 678736 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1519; see 59b, complementary note). 125 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos | Paraphr. in Rom. In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Romanos paraphrasis per Erasmum Roterodamum, ad reverendissimum cardinalem Grymanum | Louvain: Dirk Martens, [November] 1517 | ustc 400364; eol 2906 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 152422 ‖ Ep. 710 (Allen 3: 137–140; cwe 5: 195–199) | lb 7: 771–832; *asd vii-4 | cwe 42: 1–90, 136–160

22

Erasmus alludes to ustc 698719 (Basel: J. Froben, 1524), a folio volume which gathered all the paraphrases of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the Acts of the apostles.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

255

¶ Month of print according to P.G. Bietenholz (cwe 5: 195; Ep. 710, intr.). lb (7: 777–780) prints Vita sancti Pauli per divum Hieronymum, not included in the editio princeps. 126 Querela pacis | Querela Querela pacis undique gentium eiectae profligataeque, autore Erasmo Roterodamo. Cum quibusdam aliis, quorum catalogum proxima reperies pagella, a2r– 50 | Basel: Johann Froben, December 1517 | ustc 689404; eol 3374 | er 110: Querimonia pacis ‖ Ep. 603 (Allen 3: 14–15; cwe 5: 23–25) | lb 4: 625–642; asd iv-2: 59–100 | cwe 27–28: 292–322, 534–541 127 Declamatio de morte | Declam. de morte Eiusdem [= Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami] declamatio de morte. In Querela pacis undique … (as in 126), 54–70 | Basel: Johann Froben, December 1517 | ustc 689404; eol 3374 | er 109: Consolatio de morte filii ‖ Ep. 604 (Allen 3: 16–17; cwe 5: 26–27) | lb 4: 617–624; asd i-2: 441–455 | cwe 25–26: 156–164 ¶ This letter of consolation to Antoon Sucket was later included in De conscribendis epistolis (Basel: J. Froben, 1522 | ustc 625966; see 216) under the section “Aliud exemplum consolationis” (250–266). bas (4: 479–483) and lb (4: 617–624) edited it again as an independent work. 128 (ed.) Isocratis paraenesis ad Demonicum | Isocr. paraen. Haec nunc damus lector, partim locupletiora castigatioraque partim nova: Disticha moralia titulo Catonis cum scholiis auctis Erasmi Roterodami; Mimi Publiani cum eiusdem scholiis auctis recogniti; Institutum hominis Christiani carmine per eundem Erasmum Roterodamum; Isocratis paraenesis ad Demonicum, denuo cum Graecis collata per Erasmum; Erudita iuxta ac salutaris epistola clarissimi viri Eucherii, episcopi Lugdunensis, ad Valerianum propinquum de philosophia Christiana, recognita et scholiis illustrata per Erasmum Roterodamum, k2r–m1r | Louvain: Dirk Martens, 1517 | ustc 403125;23 eol 5672 ‖ Ep. 677 (Allen 3: 100; cwe 5: 139) ¶ Erasmus edited Agricola’s Latin translation of Isocrates’ Ad Demonicum paraenesis, and placed a preface to the reader (k2r). This translation had been edited earlier by Maarten van Dorp and published in Opuscula aliquot (Louvain: D. Martens, Sept. 1514 | ustc 403362), I2r–K6v. See Rummel (1985) 162 n. 3, 172.

23

Copy consulted (digital format): kbr Royal Library of Belgium, kw 229 E 26.

256

tello

129 (ed.) Eucherii de contemptu mundi | Euch. cont. mundi Erudita iuxta ac salutaris epistola clarissimi viri Eucherii, episcopi Lugdunensis, ad Valerianum propinquum de philosophia Christiana, recognita et scholiis illustrata per Erasmum Roterodamum. In Haec nunc damus lector … (as in 128), m1v–o6r | Louvain: Dirk Martens, 1517 | ustc 403125; eol 5672 ‖ Ep. 676 (Allen 3: 98–100; asd viii-1: 269–270; cwe 5: 137–139) 1518 130 Encomium matrimonii | Encom. matrim. Declamationes aliquot Erasmi Roterodami: Querimonia pacis undique profligatae; Consolatoria de morte filii; Exhortatoria ad matrimonium; Encomium artis medicae. Cum caeteris adiectis, l2v–o4r | Louvain: Dirk Martens, 30 March 1518 | ustc 400389; eol 1557 | er 79: Encomium matrimonii, 152924 ‖ asd i-5: 385–417 ¶ Exhortatoria ad matrimonium was reprinted later the same year by Froben as Encomium matrimonii (ustc 650527). In Aug. 1522, it became part of De conscribendis epistolis (Basel: J. Froben, 1522 | ustc 625966; see 216), under the section “Exemplum epistolae suasoriae” (lb 1: 414–424; asd i-2: 400–429 | cwe 25–26: 129–145, 528–534). Ep. 604 alludes to this work in passing (Allen line 10, cwe line 12). ¶ Erasmus wrote an apology of this work in 1519 (see 169). 131 Encomium medicinae | Encom. medic. Encomium artis medicae. In Declamationes aliquot … (as in 130), o4r–r4v | Louvain: Dirk Martens, 30 March 1518 | ustc 400389; eol 1557 | er 78: Laus medicinae ‖ Ep. 799 (Allen 3: 253; cwe 5: 348) | lb 1: 535–544; asd i-4: 163–186 | cwe 29: 35–50, 430–437 132 Declamatiuncula | Declamatiunc. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami declamatiuncula: oratio episcopi respondentis iis qui sibi nomine populi grautali essent et omnium nomine obedientiam, quam vocant, detulissent. In Declamationes aliquot … (as in 130), s1r–s3r | Louvain: Dirk Martens, 30 March 1518 | ustc 400389; eol 1557 ‖ lb 4: 623–624; asd iv-7: 17–19

24

Erasmus alludes to ustc 672688 (Basel: H. Froben, J. Herwagen and N. Episcopius, Sept. 1529); see 361.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

257

133 Epistola ‘Quid de obscuris sentiat’ | Epist. ‘Quid de obsc’. Lamentationes obscurorum virorum non prohibitae per sedem apostolicam Ortwino Gratio auctore; Apologeticon eiusdem cum aliquot epigrammatibus citra cuiuscumque offensionem. Epistola Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami ‘Quid de obscuris sentiat’, cum ceteris quibusdam non minus lectu iucundis quam cognitu necessariis, a4v–a5r | Cologne: Heinrich Quentel (heirs of), March 1518 | ustc 671511;25 eol 2052 ‖ Ep. 622 (Allen 3: 44–46; cwe 5: 66–67) ¶ According to P.G. Bietenholz (cwe 5: 65), Erasmus “made it clear that the publication was unauthorized”; cf. Ep. 967 Allen lines 167–169. 134 (pr.) Mori Utopia | More De optimo reipublicae statu deque nova insula Utopia libellus vere aureus nec minus salutaris quam festivus clarissimi disertissimique viri Thomae Mori, inclytae civitatis Londinensis civis et vicecomitis; Epigrammata clarissimi disertissimique viri Thomae Mori pleraque e Graecis versa. Epigrammata Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, 1v | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1518 | ustc 630792; eol 1860 ‖ Ep. 635 (Allen 3: 56–57; cwe 5: 82–83) 135 (tr.) Theodori Gazae Thessalonicensis grammaticae institutiones libri duo (ii) | Gaza Theodori Gazae de linguae Graecae institutione liber secundus, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete | Louvain: Dirk Martens, [March] 1518 | ustc 403381; eol 4261 | er 50: Theodoricae grammatices libri duo versi ‖ Ep. 771 (Allen 3: 215; cwe 5: 297) | lb 1: 133–164 (book 2) ¶ Title page as reported by nk 3052. Month of publication according to P.G. Bietenholz (cwe 5: 296; Ep. 771, intr.). Book 1 of Grammaticae institutiones had been just reissued by Martens on 1 Mar. See Rummel (1985) 128, 172. 136 Adagiorum chiliades (iii) | Adag. Ex tertia autoris recognitione. Ioannes Frobenius studiosis omnibus salutem dicit. Accipito, candide lector, Erasmi Roterodami proverbiorum chiliadas iam tertium ab ipso non aestimandis sudoribus recognitas et ex probatissimis autoribus sic locupletatas, ut cui superioris aeditionis summae ferme quarta pars ab hinc biennium accesserat, huic nunc haud multo minus sit adiectum. Nos neque sumptui neque labori pepercimus ut tam eruditum opus tam copiosum, ut vere flumen aureum vocare possis, quam emendatissimum e nostra officina prodiret in lucem plane novum et hactenus a nemine excusum. Eme, fruere et vale [adagia 1–3422]

25

Copy consulted (digital format): Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, *35.F.165.

258

tello

| Basel: Johann Froben, [March?] 1518 | ustc 655041; eol 39 | er 89–90: Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ lb 2; asd ii 1–8 | cwe 31–36 New work added: adagia 3412–3422 ¶ The title page bears the year 1518, while the colophon reads “mense viiiibri [i.e. Septembri] anno 1517.” Month of print according to Sebastiani (2018) 303; Vanautgaerden (2012) 507 suggests August. Some adages had recently been issued as independent books: Bellum (Adag. 3001, iv i 1; Basel: J. Froben, Apr. 1517 | ustc 615748); Sileni Alcibiadis cum scholiis Ioannis Frobenii pro Graecarum vocum et quorundam locorum apertiori intelligentia ad calcem adiectis (Adag. 2201, iii iii 1; Basel: J. Froben, Apr. 1517 | ustc 693955); Scarabeus cum scholiis, in quibus Graeca potissimum, quae passim inserta sunt, exponuntur (Adag. 2601, iii vii 1; Basel: J. Froben, May 1517 | ustc 693955). 137 (ed.) Iosephi de imperio rationis | Ios. imp. rat. Flavii Iosepi, viri Iudaei, περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ. Hoc est de imperatrice ratione, deque inclyto septem fratrum Macabaeorum ac fortissimae eorum matris divae Solomonae martyrio liber, a Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo diligenter recognitus ac emendatus. Id quod ipse testatur suo in liminari hac pagina epistolio. Praeposita tamen huic sunt libello quae de ipsis Macabaeis in Veteri Instrumento leguntur. Annexa vero quae de iisdem scripsere Cyprianus, Ambrosius, Chrysostomus, Hieronymus, Prudentius, Usuardus, Leo iii, Rabanus, Bernardus, Petrus Comestor, Alcimus, Ioannes Beleth, Hugo cardinalis, Antoninus. Addita his praeterea sunt alia quoque nonnulla nec ea quodem scitu indigna, quae lector facile suis locis invenerit, A1v–A2r, B1v–E1v | Cologne: Eucharius Cervicornus, [May 1518] | ustc 657577; eol 4443 ‖ Ep. 842 (Allen 3: 311–312; asd viii-1: 278– 279; cwe 6: 2–3) ¶ According to Allen (3: 311), this book may have been issued around May 1518, “when Erasmus passed through Cologne on his way to Basle.” Cf. Ep. 846 Allen line 3. According to P.G. Bietenholz (cwe 6: 2; Ep. 842, intr.), “the book may, however, have been published at any time after Jun. 1517.” In the index of editions (asd viii-1: 277), C.S.M. Rademaker concludes that this edition was most probably printed in 1518. Erasmus’ intervention seems to have been limited to writing the preface and editing the already existing Latin version of the original Greek text, as we can infer from Ep. 842 Allen lines 4–5: “Graecus codex ad manum non erat.” 138 (ed.) Suetonius et Historiae Augustae scriptores | Suet. et Hist. Aug. scrip. Ex recognitione Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami: Caius Suetonius Tranquillus, Dion Cassius Nicaeus, Aelius Spartianus, Iulius Capitolinus, Aelius Lampridius, Vul-

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

259

catius Gallicanus V. C., Trebellius Pollio, Flavius Vopiscus Syracusius. Quibus adiuncti sunt: Sextus Aurelius Victor, Eutropius, Paulus Diaconus, Ammianus Marcellinus, Pomponius Laetus Romanus, Ioannes Baptista Egnatius Venetus | Basel: Johann Froben, June 1518 | ustc 655032; eol 4322 ‖ Ep. 586 (Allen 2: 579–586; cwe 4: 373–383), Ep. 648 (Allen 3: 69–71; cwe 5: 98–99) ¶ Passages annotated by Erasmus are listed in Annotata in Caium Suetonium Tranquillum per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum (α5v-β6r) and Annotata in Aelium Spartianum, Aelium Lampridium et caeteros per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum (β6v–β7v). 139 (ed.) Quinti Curtii de rebus gestis Alexandri Magni | Curt. Quintus Curtius de rebus gestis Alexandri Magni, regis Macedonum, cum annotationibus Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Strasbourg: Matthias Schürer, June 1518 | ustc 689523; eol 4162 ‖ Ep. 704 (Allen 3: 129–131; cwe 5: 185–186) 140 (tr.) Ex Basilio versa (i) | Ex Basil. versa Enchiridion militis Christiani saluberrimis praeceptis refertum, autore Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo, cui accessit nova mireque utilis praefatio; et Basilii in Esaiam commentariolus, eodem interprete. Cum aliis, quorum catalogum pagella sequentis elenchus indicabit, 218–230 | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1518 | ustc 649351; eol 1700 | er 178: Ex Basilio Principium Esaiae ‖ Ep. 229 (Allen 1: 469–470; asd viii-1: 286–287; cwe 2: 173) | lb 8: 483–490 It includes: Basilii in Esaiam commentariolus | Basil. in Es. 141–143 Colloquia (i) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum formulae et alia quaedam per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum | Basel: Johann Froben, November 1518 | ustc 657249; eol 693 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus: extrema aeditio fuit anno 152926 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below and footnotes) It includes: 141 Colloquiorum familiarium formulae | asd i-3: 29–61 | cwe 39: 6–34, 118–131 142 Brevis de copia praeceptio | asd i-3: 62–67 | cwe 39: 165–170 143 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami de ratione studii ad amicum quendam epistola protreptica | asd i-3: 68–70 ¶ Item 141 was revised and enlarged in later editions: ustc 403077 (Louvain: D. Martens, 1 Mar. 1519 | asd i-3: 76–104), ustc 657257 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1522 | lb 1: 629–639a, 654e–660a(line 12); asd i-3: 125–146, 184(line 1937)–

•

26

•

•

Erasmus alludes to ustc 657251 (Basel: H. Froben and J. Herwagen, Sept. 1529); see 362– 364.

260

tello

196(line 2311)). See 221–231; C.R. Thomson (cwe 39: xx–xxv, 5–6, 118). Item 142 was also revised in later editions: ustc 403077 (Louvain: D. Martens, 1 Mar. 1519 | asd i-3: 105–109); ustc 657257 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1522 | lb 1: 670a–672b; asd i-3: 216–220). See 221–231. Item 143 became part of De conscribendis epistolis (Basel: J. Froben, 1522 | ustc 625966; see 216) under the section “De monitoria epistola: aliud exemplum” (lb 1: 446f–447f; asd i-2: 492–496 | cwe 25: 192–194, 543–544). 144 Ratio verae theologiae | Rat. ver. theol. Ratio seu methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam per Erasmum Roterodamum; Argumenta in omneis Epistolas apostolorum per eundem copiosius explicata, p2r–r3v (= a2r–r3v) [first book bound] | Louvain: Dirk Martens, November 1518 | ustc 437017; eol 3441 | er 122: Methodus verae theologiae ‖ Ep. 745 (Allen 3: 176–178; cwe 5: 249–251), Ep. 1365 (Allen 5: 286–289; cwe 10: 18–22) | lb 5: 73–138; Holborn 175–305; *asd v-9 | cwe 41: 488–713 ¶ Title page, date of publication (see cwe 41: 659 n. 897, 667 n. 941) and foliation according to kn 2973. A rare edition (kn 864) was printed by D. Martens without date (but most probably Nov. 1518 too), which included only the Ratio verae theologiae, without the Argumenta. A copy is kept at ku Leuven, TabulariumMagazijn, R3A23419. ¶ In the “Translator’s Note” (cwe 41: 484), Sider points out that “the Holborns found that the text printed in the Novum Testamentum (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1519 [see 59b]) was identical to the original text printed by the Martens Press in Nov. 1518, and was thus justifiably used as their base text.”Ratio, the revised and enlarged version of Methodus (see 87), was published later by Froben (Basel, Jan. 1519 | ustc 689837, 689838) as Ratio seu compendium verae theologiae, and included in Novum Testamentum (as in 59b), 13–62. ¶ According to J.M. Estes (cwe 10: 18), Ep. 1365 should be the preface for a new edition of the Ratio verae theologiae published by M. Hillen (see Allen 1: 40, lines 29–30), but no such edition has been identified with certainty. 145–163 Argumenta in omneis Epistolas apostolorum | Arg. in Epist. apost. Argumenta in omneis Epistolas apostolorum per eundem copiosius explicata. In Ratio seu methodus … (as in 144), a1v–e5v [second book bound] | Louvain: Dirk Martens, November 1518 | ustc 437017; eol 3441 ‖ Ep. 894 (Allen 3: 432–434; cwe 6: 174–175) | lb, asd, cwe (see below); *asd vi-11 It includes: 145 In Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Rom. | lb 6: 547–552; lb 7: 773–778; *asd vii-4 | cwe 42: 6–14, 137–140 146 In Epistolam ad Corinthios priorem argumentum per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in 1Cor. | lb 6: 657–660; lb 7: 855–

•

•

261

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

•

858; *asd vii-4 | cwe 43: 19–26 147 In posteriorem ad Corinthios Epistolam argumentum per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in 2 Cor. | lb 6: 749– 750; lb 7: 913–914; *asd vii-4 | cwe 43: 200–203 148 In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas argumentum per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Gal. | lb 6: 799–800; lb 7: 941–944; *asd vii-4 | cwe 42: 94–96, 161 149 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Ephesios argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Eph. | lb 6: 829–830; lb 7: 971–972; asd vii-5: 61–63 | cwe 43: 298–301 150 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Philippenses argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Phil. | lb 6: 861–862; lb 7: 991–992; asd vii-5: 141–143 | cwe 43: 358–360 151 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Colossenses argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Col. | lb 6: 881–882; lb 7: 1003–1004; asd vii-5: 193–195 | cwe 43: 394–396 152 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Thessalonicenses priorem argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in 1 Thess. | lb 6: 899–900; lb 7: 1017–1018; asd vii-5: 247–248 | cwe 43: 434–435 153 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Thessalonicenses posteriorem argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in 2Thess. | lb 6: 913–914; lb 7: 1027–1028; asd vii-5: 287–288 | cwe 43: 460–461 154 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Timotheum priorem argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in 1 Tim. | lb 6: 923–924; lb 7: 1033–1034; asd vii-5: 317–318 | cwe 44: 4, 266 155 In Epistolam ad Timotheum posteriorem argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in 2 Tim. | lb 6: 949–950; lb 7: 1057–1058; asd vii-5: 405 | cwe 44: 40, 279 156 In Epistolam ad Titum argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Tit. | lb 6: 963–964; lb 7: 1067–1068; asd vii-5: 451–452 | cwe 44: 56, 285–286 157 In Epistolam Pauli ad Philemonem argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Phm. | lb 6: 975–976; lb 7: 1075–1076; asd vii-5: 489–490 | cwe 44: 70, 293 158 In Epistolam ad Hebraeos argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Hebr. | lb 6: 981–982; lb 7: 1065–1066; asd vii-6: 41–42 | cwe 44: 214, 354 159 In Epistolam Iacobi argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Iac. | lb 6: 1025–1026; lb 7: 1117–1118; asd vii-6: 121 | cwe 44: 135, 321 160 In Epistolam Petri priorem argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in 1 Petr. | lb 6: 1039–1040; lb 7: 1081–1082; asd vii-6: 184–185 | cwe 44: 79–80, 298–299 161 In Epistolam Petri apostoli posteriorem argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in 2 Petr. | lb 6: 1057–1058; lb 7: 1101–1102; asd vii-6: 216 | cwe 44: 110, 309 162 In Epistolam Iudae argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in Iud. | lb 6: 1087–1088; lb 7: 1109–1110; asd vii-6: 231 | cwe 44: 124, 315 163 In Epistolam Ioannis primam argumentum per Erasmum Roterodamum | Arg. in 1 Ioh. | lb 6: 1069–1070; lb 7: 1141–1142; asd vii-6: 256 | cwe 44: 173, 337 ¶ Title page, date of publication (see cwe 41: 659 n. 897, 667 n. 941) and foliation according to kn 2973. Other title (second book bound): Argumenta in omneis Epistolas apostolicas noua per Erasmum Roterodamum (a1r).

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

• •

•

•

•

•

262

tello

¶ Erasmus’ summaries were later placed before each corresponding piece of the bilingual Greek-Latin edition of the New Testament, as from the second edition: ustc 678736 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1519; see 59b). bas edited these summaries not only before the Latin version of the New Testament (bas 6) but also before each paraphrase (bas 7). This practice was kept in lb 6–7. Due to this dual placement, while asd vii 4–7 collate the summaries placed before the Paraphrases (see 125, 166–167, 180, 185–188, 192–196, 203–205, 208, 211, 214), *asd vi-11 collates those placed before each piece of the New Testament. 164 (pr.) Uldarici Zasii lucubrationes | Zas. lucubr. Excellentissimi viri Uldarici Zasii, legum doctoris earundemque in percelebri Friburgensium academia professoris ordinarii, lucubrationes aliquot sane quam elegantes nec minus eruditae, videlicet: In legem secundam ff. de origine iuris; In l. frater a fratre ff. de condictione indebiti; In §. Cato ff. de verborum obligationibus scholia, in quibus praeter stili nitorem rara quaedam iucunda et grata invenias. Praeter haec, antinomiarum aliquot acutissimae simul et eruditissimae dissolutiones. Item orationes aliquot vario genere: panegyrica una; funebris una; legales duodecim perquam doctae, α2r–v | Basel: Johann Froben, December 1518 | ustc 652728;27 eol 5150 ‖ Ep. 862 (Allen 3: 384–385; cwe 6: 99– 103) ¶ Month of publication according to a variant edition reported by Sebastiani (2018) 349. ¶ In the title page, l., ff., and §. are technical abbreviations that refer to the initial words (l., §.) of a particular chapter ( ff.) of one of the 50 books of the Digesta seu pandectae, the second part (out of four) of the Corpus iuris civilis issued at the request of emperor Justinian between 529 and 534. 1519 165 Catalogus lucubrationum omnium | Cat. lucubr. Lucubrationum Erasmi Roterodami index | Louvain: Dirk Martens, 1 January 1519 | ustc 442241; eol 2420 ‖ Ep. 1341a (bas 1: B*2v–D*2v; lb 1: 4*5r–6*2v; Allen 1: 1–46; cwe 9: 293–364), Ep. 2283 (bas 1: D*3r–D*5v; lb 1: 6*3r–6*4v; Allen 8: 372– 377; cwe 16: 210–218) ¶ The first catalogue of Erasmus’ works was published by D. Martens on 1 Jan. 1519 (see Ep. 870 Allen line 9, cwe line 12), and reprinted with additions a

27

Copy consulted (digital format): Zentralbibliothek Zürich, Alte Drucke rara (bestellbar—1 Std. Lieferfrist) 4.30,2.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

263

few months later by J. Froben bearing the same title (Basel, 29 Mar. 1519 | ustc 673187; eol 2419). The second catalogue was written in a letter to Johann von Botzheim (30 Jan. 1523) and published by Froben in Apr. 1523: Catalogus omnium Erasmi Roterodami lucubrationum ipso autore. Cum aliis nonnullis, a2r–c3v (ustc 619677; eol 537). A third catalogue, which consisted of the aforementioned letter and a division of Erasmus’ entire works into nine volumes (ten, “if Christ grants me life and strength enough to finish my commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans”), was issued by Froben in Sept. 1524 as Catalogus novus omnium lucubrationum Erasmi Roterodami cum censuris et digestione singularum in suos tomos (ustc 619961; eol 540 | see Ep. 1341a). Six years later, Erasmus sent an updated catalogue to Hector Boece (Ep. 2283), which was published in Utilissima consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo … (as in 382), 111–118. bas and lb included this last catalogue at the beginning of the first volume, and added the beginning words of each work for the sake of easier location. ¶ The schematic list of Erasmus’ works in Ep. 1341a is found in bas 1: C*6r–D*1v; lb 1: 6*1v–6*2r; Allen 1: 38–42; cwe 9: 352–356; cwe 24: 694–697. In Ep. 2283, it is found in bas 1: D*3v–D*5v; lb 1: 6*3v–6*4v; Allen 8: 373–377; cwe 16: 212–218; cwe 24: 697–702. 166–167 Paraphrases in duas Epistolas Pauli ad Corinthios | Paraphr. in 1–2 Cor. Paraphrasis in duas Epistolas Pauli ad Corinthios per Erasmum Roterodamum, recens ab illo conscripta et nunc primum typis excusa ad Christi Paulique gloriam. Catalogum reperies in proxima pagella | Louvain: Dirk Martens, [30 January–19 February] 1519 | ustc 403386; eol 2957 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 916 (Allen 3: 480–491; cwe 6: 236–250) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) It includes: 166 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios priorem per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in 1 Cor. | lb 7: 849–914; *asd vii4 | cwe 43: 1–197 167 In Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios posteriorem paraphrasis per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in 2 Cor. | lb 7: 913–942; *asd vii-4 | cwe 43: 200–282 ¶ At the end of Paraphr. in 2Cor., Erasmus states that the paraphrase was finished by 30 Jan.; and according to Ep. 918 to Erard de la Marck, by 19 Feb. 1519 the editio princeps of this work had already been printed. R.A.B. Mynors and D.F.S. Thomson (cwe 6: 236; Ep. 916, intr.) argue that this work was “first published in Louvain by Martens with the colophon date of 30 Jan. 1519. Some copies of the Paraphrasis in Corinthios were joined together with Erasmus’ Apologia pro declamatione de laude matrimonii [see 169], which was published by Martens with the date of 1 Mar. 1519.”

•

•

264

tello

168 Colloquia (ii) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum formulae et alia quaedam per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1519 | ustc 655634; eol 697 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus: extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ Ep. 909 (Allen 3: 464–466; asd i-3: 73–75; cwe 6: 217–220), Ep. 1041 (Allen 4: 120–122; cwe 7: 129–130, 383–384) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) New work added: Quis sit modus repetendae lectionis | asd i-3: 115–120 ¶ Ep. 909 and Ep. 1041 are the new prefatory letters published in two revised editions printed by Dirk Martens: ustc 403077 (1 Mar. 1519), ustc 403077 (Oct.–Dec. 1519). Quis sit modus repetendae lectionis became part of De conscribendis epistolis (Basel: J. Froben, 1522 | ustc 625966; see 216), in a section that kept the same name (lb 1: 447f–448e; asd i-2: 496–498 | cwe 25–26: 194– 195, 544). 169 Apologia pro declamatione de laude matrimonii | Apolog. pro declam. laud. matrim. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami apologia pro declamatione de laude matrimonii. In Paraphrasis in duas Epistolas Pauli ad Corinthios per Erasmum Roterodamum, recens ab illo conscripta et nunc primum typis excusa ad Christi Paulique gloriam. Catalogum reperies in proxima pagella, 121r–126r | Louvain: Dirk Martens, [March–May] 1519 | ustc 403386; eol 5223 | er 187–188: Ad Ioannem Briardum Atensem, quondam Lovaniensis Academiae cancellarium, pro Encomio matrimonii liber unus ‖ lb 9: 105–112; asd ix-10: 15–23 | cwe 71: 89–95, 159–161 ¶ The editio princeps bears no date and no colophon (see nk 844), but Erasmus states that this writing was finished by 1 Mar. 1519. A.G. Wiler (asd ix-10: 12) considers that publication “muss nach dem 1. März 1519 entstanden sein.” Given the fact that the editio princeps precedes ustc 635402 (Basel: J. Froben, May 1519), it can be inferred that the month of publication ranges between March and May. ¶ This apology takes part in the quarrel over the Encomium matrimonii (see 130). 170 Capita argumentorum contra morosos quosdam ac indoctos | Capita Capita argumentorum contra morosos quosdam ac indoctos.28 In Novum Testamentum omne … (as in 59b), 69–82 | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1519 | ustc 678736; eol 4845 ‖ lb 6: 2*3v–3*4r; *asd vi-11 | cwe 41: 799–863

28

Running heads. Title reads De hac posteriori aeditione. Erasmus Roterodamus lectori salutem dicit.

265

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

171–177 Indexes locorum | Index. loc. In Novum Testamentum omne … (as in 59b), 83–97 | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1519 | ustc 678736; eol 4845 ‖ Ep. a (Allen—; cwe 41: 779–780), Ep. b (Allen—; cwe 41: 781) | lb, cwe (see below); *asd vi-11 It includes: 171 Soloecismi per interpretem admissi manifestarii et inexcusabiles, e plurimis pauci decerpti (lb 6: 1*5r–v | cwe 41: 875–883) 172 Loca obscura et in quibus lapsi sint magni nominis interpretes: ex innumeris pauca decerpta ut sit ad manum quod obiiciatur eis, qui dicunt superfuisse quod nostris annotationibus foret explicandum (lb 6: 1*6r–v | cwe 41: 888–900) 173 Loca manifeste depravata sed ex infinitis, ut occurrebant, pauca decerpta (lb 6: 1*6v–1*7r | cwe 41: 905–915) 174 Ad placandos eos, qui putant in sacris libris nihil neque superesse neque deesse, quaedam excerpsimus, quae manifestius depravata sunt in hoc genere quam ut negari possit (lb 6: 1*7v | cwe 41: 919–922) 175 Quae sint addita in nostris exemplaribus (lb 6: 1*7v–2*1r | cwe 41: 925–939) 176 Quae per interpretem commissa (lb 6: 2*1r | cwe 41: 943–944) 177 Ubi interpres ausus sit aliquid immutare de verbis apostolorum aut evangelistarum (lb 6: 2*1v | cwe 41: 947–948) ¶ Ep. a, Ep. b are two prefatory letters added in later editions: ustc 667431 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1527, Oo1r), ustc 678735 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, Mar. 1535, Uu1r).

•

•

•

•

•

• •

178 (pr.) Titus Livius historicus | Liv. Titus Livius Patavinus historicus duobus libris auctus cum Lucii Flori Epitome, indice copioso et annotatis in libros vii belli Macedonici, a3r | Mainz: Johann Schöffer, [ca. March 1519] | ustc 695789; eol 4470 ‖ Ep. 919 (Allen 3: 494–496; cwe 6: 253–256), Ep. 2435 (Allen 9: 143–145; cwe 17: 228–231) ¶ According to P.G. Bietenholz (cwe 6: 253), this work was published “only after the death of Maximilian,” which took place 12 Jan. 1519. Date of colophon reads Nov. 1518; date of Erasmus’ preface reads 23 Feb. 1519; postface of Nikolaus Carbach reads 15 Mar. 1519. ¶ Ep. 2435 is the preface to ustc 649950 (Basel: Officina Frobeniana, Mar. 1531), a new edition of Livy which incorporated new materials from the manuscript of the first five books of the fifth decade that Simon Grynaeus had discovered in 1527 at the abbey of Lorsch. 179 Apologia contra Iacobi Latomi dialogum de tribus linguis | Apolog. c. Iac. Latomi dialog. Erasmi Roterodami apologia refellens suspiciones quorundam dictitantium dialogum domini Iacobi Latomi de tribus linguis et ratione studii theologici, conscriptum fuisse adversus ipsum | Antwerp: Jean Thibault, [ca. April 1519] | ustc

266

tello

403212;29 eol 262 | er 182: Ad Iacobum Latomum de linguis liber unus ‖ lb 9: 79–106; *asd ix-11 | cwe 71: 37–84, 149–159 ¶ According to M. Lowry (cwe 71: 36), “the Apologia in Latomum was printed once by Thibault in Antwerp shortly after its completion on 28 Mar., and once by Froben in May of the same year.” 180 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas | Paraphr. in Gal. In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas paraphrasis per Erasmum Roterodamum, recens ab illo conscripta et nunc primum typis excusa ad Christi Paulique gloriam | Louvain: Dirk Martens, May 1519 | ustc 400399; eol 2912 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 956 (Allen 3: 560–561; cwe 6: 333–336) | lb 7: 941–968; *asd vii-4 | cwe 42: 92–130 181–183 (tr.) Libanii aliquot declamatiunculae | Liban. declam. Aliquot declamatiunculae Graecae eaedemque Latinae per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum | (Autograph, November 1503) Louvain: Dirk Martens, July 1519 | ustc 400408; eol 4458 | er 75–76: Declamatiuncula versa e Graeco Libanio, cum thematiis aliquot versis ‖ Ep. 177 (Allen 1: 390–393; cwe 2: 71–75) | lb, asd (see below) It includes: 181 Declamatio Libanii sophistae sub persona Menelai pro concione Troianorum Helenam et res repetentis, ni reddant, armis iniuriam ulturum se denunciantis; Latina facta, Erasmo Desiderio interprete | lb 1: 547–553; asd i-1: 181–190 182 Quae dixerit Medea suos mactatura filios. Declamatio | lb 1: 553–554; asd i-1: 190–192 183 Quae dixerit Andromache, interfecto Hectore. Declamatio | lb 1: 554–556; asd i-1: 192 ¶ The last pages of this edition are filled with Epigramma Cratetis philosophi de incommodis humanae vitae per Erasmum Roterodamum and Metrodori epigramma in diversam sententiam.

•

•

•

184 Chonradi Nastadiensis dialogus bilinguium ac trilinguium | Chonr. Nastad. dial. Eruditi adulescentis Chonradi Nastadiensis Germani dialogus sanequam festivus bilinguium ac trilinguium sive de funere Calliopes | [Paris: Henri Estienne and Konrad Resch, ca. July 1519] | ustc 183960; eol 5726 ‖ Ferguson 205–224; *asd ix-11 | cwe 7: 334–347, 431–436 ¶ Title page as reported by Ferguson 204 (#1). P.G. Bietenholz and P. Pascal (cwe 7: 330, 332) claim that “probably in Jul. 1519 the Paris publisher Konrad Resch

29

Copy consulted (digital format): ku Leuven, Tabularium-Magazijn, R4A7753.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

267

issued a short piece attributed to one Konrad Nesen” and that “Erasmus repeatedly complained that some works were attributed to him merely because they were in ‘rather better Latin’ and this satirical dialogue may be a case in point.” Regarding the authorship, Ferguson 191 seems to be in favor of attributing the work to Erasmus: “The Dialogus bilinguium ac trilinguium stands as a literary monument to one of the sharper crises in Erasmus’ life-long battle against obscurantism in the fields of education and theology.” Pettegree and Walsby (2012) 1229 (#80620) attribute the work to Konrad Nesen. According to Ferguson 197, “the first edition was published in Paris at Conrad Resch’s shop (“sub scuto Basilensi”), in the late spring or early summer of 1519.” 185–188 Paraphrases in Epistolas Pauli ad Timotheum, Titum et Philemonem | Paraphr. in Tim., Tit., Phm. Paraphrases in Epistolas Pauli ad Timotheum duas, ad Titum unam et ad Philemonem unam per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, recens ab illo conscriptae et nunc primum typis excusae ad Christi Paulique gloriam. Catalogum reperies in proxima pagella | Antwerp: Michaël Hillen, December 1519 | eol 290530 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1043 (Allen 4: 123–124; cwe 7: 132–134, 385; cwe 44: 2–3, 265–266) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) It includes: 185 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Timotheum priorem Erasmi Roterodami paraphrasis | Paraphr. in 1Tim. | lb 7: 1031–1056; asd vii-5: 311–402 | cwe 44: 4–38, 266–279 186 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Timotheum secundam paraphrasis Erasmi Roterodami | Paraphr. in 2 Tim. | lb 7: 1057–1066; asd vii-5: 405–448 | cwe 44: 40–54, 279–285 187 In Epistolam Pauli ad Titum paraphrasis Erasmi Roterodami | Paraphr. in Tit. | lb 7: 1067–1076; asd vii-5: 451–486 | cwe 44: 56–68, 285–293 188 In Epistolam Pauli ad Philemonem paraphrasis Erasmi Roterodami | Paraphr. in Phm. | lb 7: 1075–1078; asd vii-5: 489–500 | cwe 44: 70–74, 293–296 ¶ According to R.A.B. Mynors (cwe 42: xxi), “Allen dates the dedicatory letter to Philip of Burgundy (Ep. 1043) provisionally in Nov. 1519, and Hillen’s edition (nk 0442) in Nov.–Dec.” M. van Poll-van de Lisdonk (asd viii-5: 7, 58) provides a thorough examination of the editio princeps, with colophon reading “anno mdxix mense Decembri.”

•

•

•

•

189 Epistola de Luthero | Epist. de Luth. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami presbyteri theologi ad reverendissimum cardinalem Moguntinum epistola, in qua de Luthero quid ipse sentiat declarat | [Cologne?: 30

Copy consulted (in eol): Trento Biblioteca Comunale, Via Roma Secondo Piano, t-G 2 g 284 (Trentino Code: Bib B Clesio 116). Cf. ustc 682536, 682549 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1520).

268

tello

Konrad Caesar?, end of 1519?] | ustc 626052;31 eol 5727 ‖ Ep. 1033 (Allen 4: 99–107; cwe 7: 109–116, 379–381) | lb 3: 513–517 (Ep. cccclxxvii) ¶ Title page, place and printer of the editio princeps according to Allen’s introduction to Ep. 1033. He concludes that it “may be dated conjecturally in the end of 1519 and the beginning of 1520.” Vanautgaerden (2012) 509 suggests 1520. Ep. 1033 is dated 19 October 1519. It was printed as a separate work in several unauthorized editions, many of them without a printer’s name, in Cologne, Wittenberg, Nürnberg, Augsburg, Basel, and Sélestat. Cf. cwe 78: 125, n. 527. 1520 190 Conficiendarum epistolarum formula | Formula Brevissima maximeque compendiaria conficiendarum epistolarum formula per Desyderium Erasmum Roterodamum | Erfurt: Mathes Maler, [January] 1520 | ustc 617034;32 eol 1140 ‖ cwe 25–26: 258–267, 559–562 ¶ According to J.-Cl. Margolin (asd i-2: 165), “en janvier 1520, paraît à Erfurt (Erphordiae) une Brevissima maximeque compendiaria conficiendarum epistolarum formula, ‘ex aedibus Matthei Maler’, opuscule de 12 à 15 feuillets doubles. Ce compendium a paru sans l’autorisation d’Érasme, comme toutes les réimpressions qui en seront faites la même année (une édition de Schoeffer à Mayence, en septembre; une ou plusieurs éditions à Leipzig) et les années suivantes.” Ch. Fantazzi (cwe 25: 257) considers the first edition to have been printed by Adam Petri (Basel, ca. late 1519—early 1520). This edition (of which no copies have survived) would have been the source of the three German printings of 1520. In Mar. 1536 Th. Platter and B. Lasius reissued the Formula (ustc 667576) adding an epistle to the reader (Ep. 3099) at the end. According to J.M. Estes (cwe 21: 471), “Erasmus may not actually have written it for their volume.” ¶ The unauthorized print of Formula must have encouraged Erasmus to write De conscribendis epistolis (see 216; cwe 25: 256–257). In Ep. 1193 cwe lines 6–9, Erasmus complains about what “someone (I know not who) has recently done in publishing a book about a method of letter-writing, none of which is mine except for a few stolen words. Nor have I ever been acquainted with anyone called Petrus Paludanus.” The unauthorized edition of the Formula was prefaced with a letter closely resembling Ep. 71 and allegedly addressed to Petrus Paludanus.

31 32

Other editions (available in digital format): ustc 635546, 635558. Copy consulted (digital format): Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, G 348 D res.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

269

191 (ed.) Cypriani opera | Cypr. op. Opera divi Caecilii Cypriani, episcopi Carthaginensis, ab innumeris mendis repurgata, adiectis nonnullis libellis ex vetustissimis exemplaribus, quae hactenus non habebantur, ac semotis iis, quae falso videbantur inscripta, una cum annotatiunculis. Atque haec omnia nobis praestitit ingenti labore suo Erasmus Roterodamus, vir iuvandis optimis studiis natus | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1520 | ustc 679667; eol 4173 | er 216–217: Cyprianus saepe recognitus, cui in postrema editione accessit Liber de duplici martyrio antea non excusus, anno 152933 ‖ Ep. 1000 (Allen 4: 24–29; asd viii-1: 331–339; cwe 7: 26–31, 357–359) ¶ Erasmus wrote some Annotatiunculae in Cyprianum (a4r–b2r | asd viii-1: 329–330) and Verba peculiaria Cypriano (b2r–v) at the beginning of the volume. Further, he placed an annotatiuncula (b5v) before Passio beati Cypriani, episcopi Carthaginensis, per Pontium eius diaconum aedita; and a succint argumentum before each letter included in the four books of epistles (1–140). He also wrote an argumentum for each treatise of Divi Caecilii Cypriani, episcopi Carthaginensis, varii tractatus (141–178) and each sermon of Divi Caecilii Cypriani, episcopi Carthaginensis, varii sermones (178–245). There is abundance of notes in the margin throughout the book, mainly of biblical sources. Cyprian’s works were published again by J. Froben in Nov. 1521 (ustc 679668) and Feb. 1525 (“iam tertium … a mendis repurgatiora”; ustc 679684). In Jan. 1530, H. Froben, J. Herwagen and N. Episcopius published a fourth and final edition of Cyprian’s works (“iam quartum accuratiori vigilantia a mendis repurgata”; ustc 640566), in which an index was added to list the new works edited (b3v). It should be noted that, in the title page, it was highlighted the addition of Divi Caecilii Cypriani martyris liber ad Fortunatum de duplici martyrio (508– 527). This work has been recently accepted as genuinely written by Erasmus (see Seidel Menchi’s introduction, in asd viii-1: 197–215) and, therefore, it has been given an entry (see 370). ¶ Erasmus projected the works of Cyprian to be included in volume nine of Erasmus’ complete works, a wish that was never fulfilled. In Ep. 1341a he commented that “Hilary too cost me a lot of work, and so did Cyprian” (cwe line 1635). 192–196 Paraphrases in Epistolas Pauli ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses et Tessalonicenses | Paraphr. in Eph., Phil., Col., Thess. Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios per Erasmum Roterodamum | Antwerp: Michäel Hillen, February 1520 | ustc 443787;34 eol 2895 | er 153: Para33 34

Erasmus alludes to ustc 640566 (see complementary note). Copy consulted (in asd vii-5): Trento, Biblioteca Comunale, Via Roma Secondo Piano, tG 2 g 284 (Trentino Code: Bib B Clesio 117).

270

tello

phrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1062 (Allen 4: 180–186; cwe 7: 196–201; cwe 43: 284–297, 476–478) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) It includes: 192 Paraphrasis Epistolae Pauli apostoli ad Ephesios per Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in Eph. | lb 7: 967–990; asd vii-5: 49–138 | cwe 43: 298– 356, 476–478 193 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Philippenses per Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in Phil. | lb 7: 991–1004; asd vii-5: 141–190 | cwe 43: 358–392 194 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Colossenses paraphrasis per Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in Col. | lb 7: 1003–1016; asd vii-5: 193–243 | cwe 43: 394–431 195 In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Thessalonicenses paraphrasis per Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in 1 Thess. | lb 7: 1017–1026; asd vii-5: 247–284 | cwe 43: 434–458 196 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Thessalonicenses posteriorem per Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in 2 Thess. | lb 7: 1027–1032; asd vii-5: 287–307 | cwe 43: 460–474 ¶ M. van Poll-van de Lisdonk (asd viii-5: 7, 11) provides a thorough examination of the editio princeps, with colophon reading “mdxx mense Februario.” According to R.A.B. Mynors (cwe 42: xxi), Allen suggested that there may have been an edition issued by Dirk Martens around Feb. 1520, since the dedication to Cardinal Lorenzo Campeggi is dated 5 Feb. 1519 (according to asd vii-5: 58), or 1520. See M. O’ Mara and E.A. Phillips Jr, in cwe 43: 297, n. 139: “Although the dedicatory letter for the Paraphrases in Ephesios … Thessalonicenses (Ep. 1062) appears with the date Nones [5th] of Feb. 1519 in all Froben editions from 1520 to 1540, the correct date is Feb. 1520.” This anomaly is previously explained by Ferguson (cwe 2: xii–xiii): “The dating of letters published under Erasmus’ supervision, particularly those written before 1517 or 1518, presents a difficult problem … he seldom bothered to append a year date … A further confusion is occasionally introduced by the practice, common at this time in parts of Europe and in England, of dating the beginning of the year not from 1 Jan. but from the feast of the Annunciation … thus letters written between 1 Jan. and 25 Mar. are frequently given the date of what according to the modern calendar would be the preceding year.”

•

•

•

•

•

197 Apologia de ‘In principio erat sermo’ | Apolog. de ‘In princip. erat sermo’ Apologia Erasmi Roterodami palam refellens quorundam seditiosos clamores apud populum ac magnates, quibus ut impie factum iactitant, quod in Evangelio Ioannis verterit ‘In principio erat sermo’ | Louvain: Dirk Martens, February 1520 | ustc 404714;35 eol 288 | er 185–186: Adversus quorundam clamores quod verteram ‘In principio erat sermo’ liber unus ‖ Ep. 1072 (Allen 4: 195; cwe 7: 212,

35

Other copies (digital format): ustc 404711, 611146.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

271

400–401) | lb 9: 111–122; asd ix-9: 17–47 | cwe 73: 2–12 (editio princeps), 14–40 (Basel: Johann Froben, August 1520) ¶ Title page as reported by nk 780, and asd ix-9: 11. J. Bloemendal (asd ix9: 8) states that “Erasmus published his Apologia de ‘In principio erat sermo’ in a shorter version in Feb. 1520 at the printing house of Thierry Martens in Leuven, and in a longer version in August of the same year at Froben’s printing office in Basle.” According to D.L. Drysdall (cwe 73: xli), “there appear to have been six booksellers involved in this edition, Dirk Martens (Louvain), Froben (Basel), E. Cervicornus (Cologne with colophon date Mar. 1520), F. Peypus (Nuremberg), M. Hillen (Antwerp) and J. Schöffer (Mainz with colophon date Jun. 1520).” 198 Apologia qua respondet duabus invectivis Eduardi Lei | Apolog. resp. invect. Ed. Lei Apologia Erasmi Roterodami nihil habens neque nasi neque dentis neque stomachi neque unguium, qua respondet duabus invectivis Eduardi Lei. Nihil addo qualibus, ipse iudicato lector | Antwerp: Michaël Hillen, [March] 1520 | ustc 400415; eol 309 | er 181: Ad Eduardum Leum libri duo ‖ asd ix-4: 23–70 | cwe 72: 3–65 ¶ Month of publication according to Rummel (cwe 72: xix). In er 181, “libri duo” allude to 198 and Responsio ad annotationes Eduardi Lei (200 and 202). 199 (pr.) Vivis declamationes Syllanae quinque | Viv. declam. Syll. Ioannis Lodovici Vivivs Valentini declamationes Syllanae quinque: prima ad Lucium Cornelium Syllam ne deponat dictaturam; secunda ad eundem ut deponat; tertia verbis ipsius Syllae deponentis dictaturam pro Concione; quarta contra Syllam iam privatum; quinta contra acta Syllae iam mortui. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami epistola ad dominum Hermannum, comitem Novae Aquilae, A1v– A2r | Antwerp: Michaël Hillen, April 1520 | ustc 402979; eol 5728 ‖ Ep. 1082 (Allen 4: 208–209; cwe 7: 227–229, 404–405) 200 Responsio ad annotationes Eduardi Lei (i) | Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei Erasmi Roterodami responsio ad annotationes Eduardi Lei, quibus incessit loca quaedam ex annotationibus eius, quibus ille explanavit quatuor Evangelia iuxta priorem aeditionem. Ex his interim coniecturam facito, lector, reliquum operis propediem accepturus | Antwerp: Michaël Hillen, April 1520 | ustc 400417; eol 3534 | er 181: Ad Eduardum Leum libri duo36 ‖ lb 9: 123–200; asd ix-4: 75–201 | cwe 72: 69–238 36

See 198, complementary note.

272

tello

201 Antibarbari | Antibarb. Antibarbarorum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami liber unus, quem iuvenis quidem adhuc lusit: caeterum diu desideratum, demum repertum non iuvenis recognovit et velut postliminio studiosis restituit. Ex quo reliquorum, qui diis propiciis propediem accedent, lector coniecturam facias licebit | Basel: Johann Froben, May 1520 | ustc 611838; eol 221 | er 199–200: Liber antibarbarorum unus; nam secundus ac tertius periit quorundam perfidia ‖ Ep. 1110 (Allen 4: 278– 280; cwe 7: 305–306, 423) | lb 10: 1691–1744; asd i-1: 35–138 | cwe 23: 16– 122 ¶ As stated in er 199–200, Erasmus had planned two books more on this subject, but “the second and the third perished through the dishonesty of certain men” (cwe 16: 217). 202 Responsio ad annotationes Eduardi Lei (ii) | Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei Liber tertius Erasmi Roterodami, quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Eduardi Lei | Antwerp: Michaël Hillen, May 1520 | ustc 403688; eol 3536 | er 181: Ad Eduardum Leum libri duo ‖ lb 9: 199–284; asd ix-4: 202–335 | cwe 72: 238– 419 ¶ In August of the same year, Johann Froben reprinted the complete Responsio along with Lee’s commentary on Erasmus’ translation of the New Testament. Erasmus added a short preface (Ep. 1100; Allen 4: 259; cwe 7: 281) to Eduardi Lei annotationes in Novum Testamenti Erasmi, A1v (Basel: J. Froben, Aug. 1520 | ustc 653209). 203–205 Paraphrases in duas Epistolas Petri et in unam Iudae | Paraphr. in 1–2 Petr., Iud. Paraphrases in duas Epistolas Petri, apostolorum principis, et in unam Iudae per Erasmum Roterodamum, quas antehac nullus excudit | Louvain: Dirk Martens, [June–July 1520] | ustc 400403; eol 2968 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1112 (Allen 4: 284–286; cwe 7: 310–312, 424–425) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) It includes: 203 Paraphrasis in Epistolam apostoli Petri priorem per Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in 1 Petr. | lb 7: 1079–1100; asd vii-6: 179–215 | cwe 44: 76–108, 296–308 204 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Petri apostoli posteriorem per Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in 2 Petr. | lb 7: 1101–1110; asd vii-6: 216– 230 | cwe 44: 110–122, 309–315 205 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Iudae apostoli per Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in Iud. | lb 7: 1109–1114; asd vii-6: 231–239 | cwe 44: 124–130, 315–319 ¶ Date of publication according to cwe 42: 172. R.A.B. Mynors (cwe 42: xxii) explains that “Peter and Jude, with a dedication to Cardinal Wolsey (Ep. 1112,

•

•

•

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

273

conjecturally dated by Allen Jun. 1520), was published by Dirk Martens in Louvain some time that year.” Cf. Iseghem (1852) 303 (#149); nk 842. ¶ lb prints Vita sancti Petri apostoli per divum Hieronymum (lb 7: 1081–1082) and Vita sancti Iudae apostoli per divum Hieronymum (lb 7: 1109–1110); not included in the editio princeps. 206 Adagiorum chiliades (iv) | Adag. Ioannes Frobenius studiorum liberalium mystis salutem dicit. Quo saepius hoc opus vobis redit, optimi iuvenes, hoc debet esse gratius. Redit enim subinde cum emendatius tum locupletius. Qui novam aeditionem emunt lucrum faciunt, qui veteribus contenti sunt certe nihil faciunt damni. In hac non ita multum accessit paginarum sed rerum non poenitendum auctarium. Valete et nostrae favete industriae. Ex quarta autoris recognitione [adagia 1–3442] | Basel: Johann Froben, October 1520 | ustc 667040; eol 47 | er 89–90: Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ lb 2; asd ii 1–8 | cwe 31– 36 New work added: adagia 3423–3442 207 Acta Academiae Lovaniensis contra Lutherum | Act. Acad. Lov. c. Luth. Acta Academiae Lovaniensis contra Lutherum | [Basel: Andreas Cratander, ca. October–November 1520] | ustc 608605; eol 1 ‖ Ferguson 316–328; asd ix-10: 95–103 | cwe 71: 101–105, 162–164 ¶ The editio princeps bears neither authorship, printer, place, or date. D.P.H. Napolitano (asd ix-10: 86, 90, 94) concludes that A. Cratander was the printer of this opusculum in Basel in the autumn of 1520, because he was known to have worked with Erasmus. Ferguson 311 notes that it “was published in all probability at Cologne about the end of Oct. or beginning of Nov. 1520.” 208 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Iacobi | Paraphr. in Iac. In Epistolam Iacobi, episcopi Hierosolymitani, paraphrasis per Erasmum Roterodamum | Louvain: Dirk Martens, December 1520 | ustc 437127;37 eol 2898 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1171 (Allen 4: 416– 418; cwe 8: 126–128, 391) | lb 7: 1113–1140; asd vii-6: 117–160 | cwe 44: 132–170, 319–337 ¶ lb (7: 1115–1118) prints Vita sancti Iacobi apostoli per divum Hieronymum, not included in the editio princeps.

37

Copy consulted (in asd vii-6): Stadtbibliothek Köln, gbiv3787.

274

tello

209 Consilium cuiusdam ex animo cupientis esse consultum | Consilium Consilium cuiusdam ex animo cupientis esse consultum et Romani pontificis dignitati et Christianae religionis tranquillitati | [Basel: Johann Froben, 1520] | ustc 624956, 624957; eol 1269 ‖ Ferguson 352–361; asd ix-10: 109–115 | cwe 71: 108– 112, 164 ¶ Date of publication and printer according to D.P.H. Napolitano (asd ix-10: 91). Sebastiani (2018) 469 dates this edition “1520/1521?” According to Ferguson 343, “the Consilium cuiusdam was first published at Cologne, shortly after Erasmus’ departure in Nov. 1520.” On p. 350, he admits the difficulty in establishing the chronological order (and thus the editio princeps) among the editions of this work, since most of them bear no place, no printer and no date. Other possible first edition: ustc 624853 (Cologne: Eucharius Cervicornus, ca. 1520). J.K. Sowards (cwe 71: xliv) explains that this short writing “was presented not by Erasmus but by Johannes Faber, a distinguished German Dominican prior and theologian, confessor and imperial councillor to the emperor Maximilian.” 210 (tr.) Ex Athanasio versa (i) | Ex Athan. versa Divi Athanasii, Alexandrini archiepiscopi, de passione Domini ac de cruce liber optimus per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Nunc primum versus | [Cologne?: Servas Kruffter?, 1520?] | ustc 640381; eol 5503 | er 166, 171: Ex Athanasio verti … de passione Domini homiliam unam ‖ lb 8: 365–384 It includes: Athanasii de passione Domini ac de cruce ¶ The editio princeps bears no place, no printer, and no date. According to A. Goudriaan (asd viii-1: 456), this work should be dated 1520, whereas ustc and eol suggest 1530. 1521 211–213 Paraphrases in treis Epistolas Ioannis | Paraphr. in 1–3 Ioh. Paraphrasis in treis Epistolas canonicas Ioannis apostoli per Erasmum Roterodamum. Nunc primum excusa typis | Louvain: Dirk Martens, January 1521 | eol 293438 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1179 (Allen 4: 434–435; cwe 8: 144, 397) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) It includes: 211 In Epistolam Ioannis primam paraphrasis per Erasmum Roterodamum | Paraphr. in 1 Ioh. | lb 7: 1141–1160; asd vii-6: 255–288 | cwe 44: 172–201, 337–351 212 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami in secundam Ioannis Epistolam paraphrasis | Paraphr. in 2 Ioh. | lb 7: 1161–1162; asd vii-6: 289–291 | cwe 44: 204–205,

•

•

38

Copy consulted (in asd vii-6): Stadtbibliothek Köln, gbiv3787.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

275

•

351–352 213 In tertiam Ioannis Epistolam paraphrasis | Paraphr. in 3 Ioh. | lb 7: 1163–1164; asd vii-6: 292–294 | cwe 44: 208–209, 352–353 214 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos | Paraphr. in Hebr. In Epistolam Pauli apostoli ad Hebraeos paraphrasis per Erasmum Roterodamum extraema. Nunc primum excusa | Louvain: Dirk Martens, January 1521 | ustc 437170;39 eol 2931 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1181 (Allen 4: 436–437; cwe 8: 147–148, 397–398) | lb 7: 1165–1198; asd vii-6: 39–106 | cwe 44: 212–260, 353–378 215 Apologia respondens ad ea quae Stunica taxaverat | Apolog. resp. Stun. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami apologia respondens ad ea quae Iacobus Lopis Stunica taxaverat in prima duntaxat Novi Testamenti aeditione | Louvain: Dirk Martens, [September 1521] | ustc 410691; eol 282 | er 189: Ad taxationes Stunicae in Novum Testamentum ‖ lb 9: 283–356; asd ix-2: 59–267 | *cwe 74 ¶ According to H.J. de Jonge (asd ix-2: 49), “the first edition … was printed by Dirk Martens at Louvain in Sept. 1521 and published before 10 Oct. of that year.” 216 De conscribendis epistolis | De conscr. ep. Libellus de conscribendis epistolis, autore Desiderio Erasmo. Opus olim ab eodem coeptum sed prima manu, mox expoliri coeptum sed intermissum, nunc primum prodit in lucem | Cambridge: John Siberch, October 1521 | ustc 501641; eol 1166 | er 44: Ratio conscribendi epistolas ‖ Ep. 71 (Allen 1: 198–199; cwe 1: 147), Ep. 1284 (Allen 5: 63–65; cwe 9: 91–93) | lb 1: 343–484, lb 4: 617–624; asd i-2: 205– 579 | cwe 25–26: 10–254, 494–559 ¶ Unauthorized edition. The first authorized edition is ustc 625966, eol 1168 (Basel: J. Froben, Aug. 1522): Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opus de conscribendis epistolis, quod quidam et mendosum et mutilum aediderant, recognitum ab autore et locupletatum; Parabolarum sive similium liber ab autore recognitus, a1v-Ff4v. ¶ Ep. 71, unauthorized preface. Ep. 117 (Allen 1: 271–273; cwe 1: 233–234) is possibly a previous draft of Ep. 1284, the preface of the authorized edition. 217 De contemptu mundi | De cont. mundi Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami de contemptu mundi epistola, quam conscripsit adolescens in gratiam ac nomine Theodorici Harlemei, canonici ordinis divi Augustini. Ex ipsius autoris recognitione | Louvain: Dirk Martens, 1521 | ustc

39

Copy consulted (in asd vii-6): Stadtbibliothek Köln, gbiv3787.

276

tello

410161;40 eol 1382 | er 121: De contemptu mundi ‖ Ep. 1194 (Allen 4: 457–458; cwe 8: 169, 406) | lb 5: 1239–1262; asd v-1: 39–86 | cwe 66: 134–175, 302– 319 218 Axiomata pro causa Martini Lutheri | Axiom. pro causa Luth. Contenta in hoc opusculo: Axiomata Erasmi Roterodami pro causa Martini Lutheri; Friderichi ducis, Saxoniae Electoris, datum responsum legatis pontificis Romanorum; Eiusdem litere misse docto Petro, rectori Vuitembergensi; Per Henricum priorem Gundensem quorundam super Mar. collata iuditia; Oecolampadii iudicium; Viginti nobilium iuvenum Emsero indictum bellum, A2r–v | [Leipzig: Valentin Schumann, 1521] | ustc 625071; eol 5729 ‖ Ferguson 336–337; asd ix10: 105–106 | cwe 71: 106–107 ¶ According to Ferguson 333 and P.G. Bietenholz (cwe 8: 78), the events narrated in Ep. 1155 (Cologne, 8 Nov. 1520) and Ep. 1166 (Louvain, ca. Dec. 1520) led to the publication of this opusculum soon afterwards. The editio princeps bears no place, no printer and no date. Ferguson 333–334 believes the work to be issued in Leipzig in 1521. D.P.H. Napolitano (asd ix-10: 86, 91, 104) concludes that “the text was first published in Leipzig in 1521” and he attributes this edition to V. Schumann. 1522 219 Apologia de loco ‘Omnes quidem resurgemus’ | Apolog. de loco ‘Omn. resurg.’ Apologiae Erasmi Roterodami omnes adversus eos, qui illum locis aliquot in suis libris non satis circunspecte sunt calumniati: In Iacobum Lopim Stunicam apologia i; In quendam de loco qui est apud Paulum ad Corinthios i cap. xv ‘Omnes quidem resurgemus’ et caetera, quae recens ab autore profecta, nunc primum omnium in lucem prodiit apologia ii; In Iacobum Fabrum Stapulensem apologia iii; In Iacobi Latomi dialogum apologia iiii; In quendam pro declamatione matrimonii apologia v; De ‘In principio erat sermo’ apologia vi; In Eduardum Leum apologia vii, Hh2v–a1v | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1522 | ustc 612527; eol 321 | er 183–184: Adversus Nicolaum Ecmondanum de loco Pauli ‘Omnes quidem resurgemus’, etc. ‖ lb 9: 433–442; asd ix-9: 69–84 | cwe 73: 43–62 ¶ Date of publication according to the title page; colophon reads “mense Octobri mdxxi.” See Sebastiani (2018) 509.

40

Copy consulted (digital format): Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, BV011403871.

277

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

220 Paraphrasis in Evangelium Matthaei | Paraphr. in Mt. Epistola nuncupatoria ad Carolum Caesarem; Exhortatio ad studium Evangelicae lectionis; Paraphrasis in Evangelium Matthaei per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, nunc primum nata et aedita; Epistola ad reverendissimum dominum Matthaeum, cardinalem Sedunensem | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1522 | ustc 651159; eol 1877 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1255 (Allen 5: 5–7; cwe 9: 6–11), Ep. 1248 (Allen 4: 609–610; cwe 8: 330–332, 452–453) | lb 7: 2*1v–148; *asd vii-1 | cwe 45: 2–383 221–231 Colloquia (iii) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum formulae per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum non tantum ad linguam puerilem expoliendam utiles verum etiam ad vitam instituendam | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1522 | ustc 657257;41 eol 718 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ Ep. 1262 (Allen 5: 26; cwe 9: 37–38) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 221 De votis temere susceptis | lb 1: 639–640; asd i-3: 147–150 | cwe 39: 37–43 222 De captandis sacerdotiis | lb 1: 640–641; asd i-3: 150–154 | cwe 39: 45–52 223 Militaria | lb 1: 641–643; asd i-3: 154–158 | cwe 39: 55–63 224 Herilia | lb 1: 643–644; asd i-3: 158–161 | cwe 39: 65–69 225 Monitoria | lb 1: 644–645; asd i-3: 161–163 | cwe 39: 71–73 226 De lusu | lb 1: 645–648; asd i3: 163–171 | cwe 39: 75–87 227 Confabulatio pia | lb 1: 648–653; asd i-3: 171–181 | cwe 39: 90–108 228 Venatio | lb 1: 653–654; asd i-3: 181–182 | cwe 39: 109– 112 229 Euntes in ludum | lb 1: 654a–e; asd i-3: 182–184 | cwe 39: 114–117 230 Convivium profanum | lb 1: 660a(line 12)–670; asd i-3: 196(line 2312)–215 | cwe 39: 134–163 231 Convivium religiosum | lb 1: 672–673a(line 1); asd i-3: 221–222 | cwe 39: 175–176 ¶ Items 221, 222 and 230 bore these titles (devised from running heads) as from ustc 657295 (Basel: J. Froben, Aug.–Sept. 1524, pp. 32–33, 36–37, 90; see 272– 277). In the editio princeps, these items begin under a different heading (Alia in congressu; Alia) or simply have no heading at all (see C.R. Thomson, in cwe 39: 132–133). Item 231 was substantially enlarged in ustc 657220 (Basel: J. Froben, [Jul.-Aug.] 1522; see 234 | lb 1: 672–689; asd i-3: 231–266 | cwe 39: 175–243).

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

232 (tr.) Ex Athanasio versa (ii) | Ex Athan. versa De libris utriusque Testamenti partim reiectis aut non sine contradictione admissis partim aprocryphis. Ex Athanasio, tametsi mihi suspectus est titulus, Erasmo

41

Copy consulted in Sebastiani (2018) 516–518 (#207): Universitätsbibliothek Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, 04/1 B viii 494.

278

tello

Roterodamo interprete. In Testamentum Novum totum ex Graecorum codicum fide iuxta tertiam aeditionem Erasmi Roterodami diligenter recognitum et emendatum, cum aliis nonnulis novis, quorum titulos reperies a tergo huius pagellae, α2r-α3r | Basel: Johann Froben, July 1522 | ustc 696204; eol 4895 New work added: Athanasii fragmentum de libris utriusque Testamenti ¶ See 59b, complementary note. A. Cratander reprinted this translation a few weeks later, in his edition of the Vetus Testamentum omne (Basel, 31 Aug. | ustc 700994). 233 De philosophia evangelica | De philos. evang. Praefatio nova de philosophia evangelica. In Testamentum Novum … (as in 232), α3v-α7v | Basel: Johann Froben, July 1522 | ustc 696204; eol 4895 ‖ lb 6: 1*4v– 1*5r; *asd vi-11 | cwe 41: 729–737 ¶ This brief work was written in the form of a letter “to the pious reader,” and it preceded Erasmus’ translation of the New Testament (Latin version only, without the Greek text). See 59b (Ep. c), and complementary note. Cf. Allen 4: 58 (Ep. 1010, intr.); A. Dalzell, in cwe 41: 715, 728. 234 Colloquia (iv) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum formulae per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, multis adiectis non tantum ad linguam puerilem expoliendam utiles verum etiam ad vitam instituendam | Basel: Johann Froben, [July–August] 1522 | ustc 657220; eol 5314 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New work added: Apotheosis Capnionis. De incomparabili heroe Ioanne Reuchlino in divorum numerum relato | lb 1: 689–692; asd i-3: 267–273 | cwe 39: 246–255 ¶ Month of publication according to L.-E. Halkin, F. Bierlaire and R. Hoven (asd i-3: 10, 223). 235 Epistola apologetica de interdicto esu carnium | De interd. esu carn. Ad reverendum in Christo patrem et illustrem principem Christophorum, episcopum Basiliensem, epistola apologetica Erasmi Roterodami de interdicto esu carnium deque similibus hominum constitutionibus. Cum aliis nonnullis novis, quorum titulos reperies in proxima pagella, a2r–d2r | Basel: Johann Froben, 6 August 1522 | ustc 609056; eol 1890 | er 194: De delectu ciborum, ad Christophorum episcopum Basiliensem ‖ lb 9: 1197–1214; asd ix-1: 19–50 | cwe 73: 64–101 ¶ Erasmus wrote some notes (scholia) to this work; see 408.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

279

236 Apologia ad Sanctium Caranzam | Apolog. ad Sanct. Caranz. Apologia Erasmi Roterodami de tribus locis quos ut recte taxatos a Stunica defenderat Sanctius Caranza theologus. In Ad reverendum in Christo … (as in 235), d6r–k5r | Basel: Johann Froben, 6 August 1522 | ustc 609056; eol 1890 | er 192: Ad Sanctium Caranzam theologum de tribus locis ab illo [= ab Stunica] notatis ‖ lb 9: 401–432; asd ix-8: 25–101 | *cwe 74 ¶ Other title: Apologia Erasmi Roterodami, qua refellit Sanctium quondam Caranzam theologum, qui libello Romae aedito conatus est defendere tres annotationes Stunicae, quibus Erasmus responderat (a1v). Stunica’s text defended by Carranza (Annotatio Iacobi Lopidi Stunicae in annotationem Erasmi ex Ioannis capite i) is printed right before Erasmus’ apology: d2v–d5v (asd ix-8: 21–25). lb does not include it. 237 Apologia adversus Stunicae Blasphemiae et impietates | Apolog. adv. Stun. Blasph. et imp. Apologia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami adversus libellum Stunicae, cui titulum fecit Blasphemiae et impietates Erasmi. In Ad reverendum in Christo … (as in 235), q4v–t7r | Basel: Johann Froben, 6 August 1522 | ustc 609056; eol 1890 | er 190: Adversus libellum Blasphemiarum eiusdem [= Stunicae] ‖ lb 9: 355– 375; asd ix-8: 119–169 | *cwe 74 ¶ Other title: Apologia Erasmi adversus palam insanum libellum Stunicae, quem Romae contra cardinalium aedictum clam aedidit, cui titulum fecit Blasphemiae et impietates Erasmi (a1v). 238 Apologia ad Prodromon Stunicae | Apolog. ad Prodr. Stun. Appendix. In Ad reverendum in Christo … (as in 235), t7v–u8r | Basel: Johann Froben, 6 August 1522 | ustc 609056; eol 1890 | er 191: Appendix adversus eiusdem [= Stunicae] Πρόδρομον ‖ lb 9: 375–381; asd ix-8: 187–206 | *cwe 74 ¶ Succinctly called Appendix in the editio princeps, this work bore the running titles of Apologia ad Prodromon Stunicae in bas (9: 312–313ff.), probably because Erasmus himself referred to this work as such (see er 191). ¶ Other title: Appendix adversus alterum eiusdem libellum, quo tractat idem argumentum quod tractaverat sanctius sed illo etiam indoctius; eum appellat praecursorem, ut expectes his etiam insaniora (a1v). 239 (ed.) Arnobii commentarii in Psalmos | Arnob. comm. in Ps. Ioannes Frobenius pio lectori salutem dicit. En, optime lector, rarum damus thesaurum et nihil non novum: Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami praefationem ad nuper electum pontificem Romanum Adrianum huius nominis sextum; Arnobii Afri, vetusti pariter ac laudatissimi scriptoris, commentarios pios iuxta ac eruditos in

280

tello

omnes psalmos sermone Latino sed tum apud Afros vulgari per Erasmum Roterodamum proditos et emendatos; Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami commentarium in Psalmum ‘Quare fremuerunt gentes’, a2r–t6r | Basel: Johann Froben, September 1522 | ustc 667042; eol 3847 ‖ Ep. 1304 (Allen 5: 100–111; asd viii-1: 346–358; cwe 9: 144–159) 240 Enarrationes in Psalmos (ii) | Enarrat. in Ps. 2 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami commentariu[s] in Psalmum ‘Quare fremuerunt gentes’. In Ioannes Frobenius pio lectori … (as in 239), u1r–B6r | Basel: Johann Froben, September 1522 | ustc 667042; eol 3847 | er 125: Commentarii in Psalmos primum et secundum ‖ lb 5: 197–232; asd v-2: 95–158 | cwe 63: 71– 146 241 (pr.) Augustini de civitate Dei | Aug. civ. Dei Ioannes Frobenius lectori salutem dicit. En habes, optime lector, absolutissimi doctoris Aurelii Augustini opus absolutissimum de civitate Dei magnis sudoribus emendatum ad priscae venerandaeque vetustatis exemplaria per virum clarissimum et undequaque doctissimum Ioannem Lodovicum Vivem Valentinum, et per eundem eruditissimis planeque divo Augustino dignis commentariis sic illustratum ut opus hoc eximium, quod antehac et depravatissimum habebatur et indoctis commentariis miserabiliter contaminatum, nunc demum renatum videri possit. Fruere, lector, ac fave tum illius non aestimandis vigiliis tum nostrae industriae, cuius officina semper aliquid parit maiore profecto fructu publicorum studiorum quam privato meo compendio; simulque agnosce quantum etiam theologia debeat bonis literis. Vale, aa1v | Basel: Johann Froben, September 1522 | ustc 667041; eol 3865 | cf. er 226: Omnia opera divi Augustini non aestimandis sudoribus recognita, anno 1529 ‖ Ep. 1309 (Allen 5: 118–121; asd viii-1: 362–365; cwe 9: 169–173) ¶ This work was entirely edited and annotated by Valencian humanist Joan Lluís Vives (commonly known as Juan Luis Vives). His notes were so profuse and, in some passages, remarkably large that Erasmus complained heavily in Ep. 1531 Allen lines 36–38. As a result, the edition of the complete works of Augustine edited by Erasmus (346) did not include Vives’ annotations, but C. Chevallon (1531–1532) added them again in a new version revised by the author. A complete catalogue of Vives’ works can be found in the Latin-English edition of Vives’ Satellitium sive symbola by J. Tello (Geneva: Droz, 2023).

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

281

1523 242 Adagiorum chiliades (v) | Adag. Ioannes Frobenius politioris literaturae cultoribus salutem [dicit]. Adnisi sumus aeditione proxima ut hoc opus cum primis frugiferum quam emendatissimum prodiret in lucem, nec arbitror quenquam inficiaturum id nos infeliciter fuisse conatos: nunc quicquid in arte mea possunt promittere curae, id totum expromptum est. Accessit et autoris opera, qui multa vel auxit vel reddidit meliora. Atque utinam hoc diu illi liceat in studiorum lucrum potius quam meum. Sed vereor ne hanc recognitionem ab illo simus habituri postremam. Qui literario gaudent lucro habent hic lucrum non aspernandum: quibus res est angustior domi quam ut identidem idem opus mercentur, habent postremam, ni fallor, autoris recognitionem simul et locupletationem. Bene valete et nostrae industriae, si promereor, favete. Ex autoris recognitione postrema [adagia 1–3482] | Basel: Johann Froben, January 1523 | ustc 667048; eol 57 | er 89–90: Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ lb 2; asd ii 1–8 | cwe 31–36 New work added: adagia 3443–3482 243 Paraphrasis in Evangelium Ioannis | Paraphr. in Ioh. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami paraphrasis in Evangelium secundum Ioannem ad illustrissimum principem Ferdinandum, nunc primum excusa | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1523 | ustc 625982; eol 2988 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1333 (Allen 5: 164–172; cwe 9: 232–245) | lb 7: 489–652; *asd vii-3a | cwe 46: 2–228, 230–348 ¶ lb (7: 495–496) prints Vita sancti Ioannis per divum Hieronymum, not included in the editio princeps. 244 (ed.) Hilarii lucubrationes | Hil. lucubr. Ioannes Frobenius pio lectori salutem dicit. Divi Hilarii, Pictavorum episcopi, lucubrationes per Erasmum Roterodamum non mediocribus sudoribus emendatas formulis nostris operaque nostra, quantum licuit, ornavimus. Priorem aeditionem non damnamus sed quid intersit ipse cognosces ex collatione, lector optime, simulque valebis. Catalogum reperies in proxima pagella | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1523 (2 vols.) | ustc 667081; eol 4315 | er 219: Hilarius incredibili labore recognitus, anno 1523 ‖ Ep. 1334 (Allen 5: 173–192; asd viii-1: 428–454; cwe 9: 245–274) ¶ tomus primus. Erasmus wrote an argumentum before book 1 (p. 1 | asd viii-1: 424) of Divi Hilarii, Pictavorum episcopi, de Trinitate (1–261). Succinct summaries are also included before each canon of Divi Hilarii, Pictavorum episcopi, in Evangelium Matthaei canones seu commentarius (326–435) ‖ tomus

282

tello

secundus. Almost each of the 148 enarrationes of the psalms is introduced by a short heading or phrase in which the main content is summarized. ¶ In Aug. 1535 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius | ustc 626450), a revised edition was published with the addition of a new work: Divi Hilarii, Pictavorum episcopi, de patris et filii unitate et aliquot locorum sacrae scripturae interpretatio, 743–760. A selection of marginal notes can be found in asd viii-1: 424–425. As noted by C.S.M. Rademarker (asd viii-1: 419), this second edition is actually the editio princeps of the works of the bishop of Poitiers. 245 Virginis et martyris comparatio | Virg. et mart. comp. Erasmus Roterodamus veneratissimo collegio virginum Macabeiticarum apud Colonam Agrippinam salutem [dicit] in Christo Iesu, virginis filio, ac virginum omnium corona. In Ratio seu methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam per Erasmum Roterodamum, postremum ab ipso autore castigata et locupletata, cui exactior castigatio cum nova elengatique praefatione accessit; Paraclesis, id est, exhortatio ad studium evangelicae philosophiae per eundem, O4v–O8r | [Basel: Johann Froben / Michaël Hillen, June 1523] | ustc 438101; eol 3427 | er 139–140 Comparatio virginis et martyris ad virgines Maccabeiticas Coloniae ‖ Ep. 1346 (Allen 5: 236–237; cwe 9: 411–412), Ep. 1475 (Allen 5: 510; cwe 10: 324) | lb 3: 778–780 (Ep. dclxvi); lb 5: 589–600; asd v-7: 121–155 | cwe 69: 158–182 ¶ According to C.S.M. Rademaker (asd v-7: 103–104), “there is no imprint mentioning place and time of publication, but it was almost certainly printed by Johann Froben for Michäel Hillen in Basel in Jun. 1523 […] The letter can also be found at the end of the reprint of the new Ratio, which appeared with the Cologne printer Hero Alopecius in Dec. 1523.” Rademaker (asd v-7: 104, n. 15) claims that a copy of the alleged Froben-Hillen edition is kept at the City Library of Rotterdam (shelf mark 5 F 49), but nk 2974 (which ustc 438101 and eol 3427 follow) argues that this copy was, in fact, issued by Joannes Crinitus in Antwerp in 1540. In any case, the short text of Virg. et mart. comp. was reprinted a few months later in ustc 689845, eol 3423 (Cologne: H. Alopecius, Dec. 1523, O5r–O8r). ¶ Ep. 1475 is the new preface for the extended version: ustc 630026 (Basel: J. Froben, Sept. 1524); see 278, and complementary note. 246 Paraphrasis in Evangelium Lucae | Paraphr. in Lc. In Evangelium Lucae paraphrasis Erasmi Roterodami nunc primum nata et aedita | Basel: Johann Froben, 30 August 1523 | ustc 665710; eol 3000 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1381 (Allen 5: 313–322; cwe 10: 59–74) | lb 7: 271–488; asd vii-2: 41–585 | cwe 47: 2–279, cwe 48: 2–279

283

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

¶ The life of Luke included in the editio princeps (Vita sancti Lucae per divum Hieronymum) is edited in lb 7: 279–280. 247–256 Colloquia (v) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum formulae per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, multis adiectis, non tantum ad linguam puerilem expoliendam utiles verum etiam ad vitam instituendam, nuper recognitae ab autore et locupletatae | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1523 | ustc 657218; eol 723 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 247 Proci et puellae | lb 1: 692–697; asd i-3: 277–288 | cwe 39: 257–278 248 Virgo μισόγαμος | lb 1: 697–701; asd i-3: 289–297 | cwe 39: 285– 301 249 Virgo poenitens | lb 1: 701–702; asd i-3: 298–300 | cwe 39: 302–305 250 Coniugium | lb 1: 702–708; asd i-3: 301–313 | cwe 39: 309–327 251 Militis et Cartusiani | lb 1: 708–710; asd i-3: 314–319 | cwe 39: 329–343 252 Pseudochei et Philetymi | lb 1: 710–712; asd i-3: 320–324 | cwe 39: 344–350 253 Naufragium | lb 1: 712–715; asd i-3: 325–332 | cwe 39: 352–367 254 Diversoria | lb 1: 715–718; asd i-3: 333–338 | cwe 39: 370–380 255 Adolescentis et scorti | lb 1: 718–720; asd i-3: 339–343 | cwe 39: 382–389 256 Convivium poeticum | lb 1: 720–727; asd i-3: 344–359 | cwe 39: 391–418

•

•

•

• •

•

• •

•

•

257 Spongia adversus aspergines Hutteni | Spongia Spongia Erasmi adversus aspergines Hutteni | Basel: Johann Froben, September 1523 | ustc 694505; eol 3597 | er 198: Spongia adversus Ulrichum Huttenum ‖ Ep. 1378 (Allen 5: 310–311; cwe 10: 54–56), Ep. 1389 (Allen 5: 335–336; cwe 10: 91–95) | lb 10: 1631–1672; asd ix-1: 117–210 | cwe 78: 30–145 ¶ Ep. 1389 is the preface of the second edition: ustc 694507 (Basel: J. Froben, Oct. 1523). 258 Precatio dominica | Precat. dominica Precatio dominica in septem portiones distributa per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus recens ac modo natum et mox excusum | [Basel]: Johann Froben, [ca. October–November 1523] | ustc 686283; eol 3208 | er 134: Paraphrasis in precationem dominicam ‖ Ep. 1393 (Allen 5: 344–345; cwe 10: 103–104) | lb 5: 1217–1228; *asd v-9 | cwe 69: 57–77 ¶ Without date and place of print. According to J.N. Grant (cwe 69: 56), it was probably printed “in late 1523.” Sebastiani (2018) 586 remarks “not before Oct. 1523.” eol suggests between October and November. The introductory epistle to Iustus Ludovicus Decius is dated 24 Oct. 1523.

284

tello

259 (ed.) Ciceronis Tusculanae quaestiones | Cic. Tusc. Marci Tullius Ciceronis Tusculanae quaestiones per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum diligenter emendatae et scholiis illustratae | Basel: Johann Froben, November 1523 | ustc 674076; eol 4054 ‖ Ep. 1390 (Allen 5: 338–341; cwe 10: 96–101) ¶ The word scholia of the title page presumably refers to the notes in the margin (often keywords) that can be found throughout the printed edition. However, Erasmus did not annotate Cicero’s Tusculans as copiously as the Officia (see 4). 260 Virginis matris apud Lauretum cultae liturgia | Liturg. Virg. Lauret. Virginis matris apud Lauretum cultae liturgia per Erasmum Roterodamum | Basel: Johann Froben, November 1523 | ustc 701367; eol 3641 | er 147: Liturgia virginis Lauretanae cum concione ‖ Ep. 1391 (Allen 5: 342; cwe 10: 101–102), Ep. 1573 (Allen 6: 73; cwe 11: 106–107) | lb 5: 1327–1336; asd v-1: 95–109 | cwe 69: 83–108 ¶ Ep. 1573 is the preface to the enlarged edition: ustc 701366 (Basel: J. Froben, May 1525). 261 Paraphrasis in Evangelium Marci | Paraphr. in Mc. In Evangelium Marci paraphrasis per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, nunc recens et nata et formulis excusa | Basel: Johann Froben, December 1523–February 1524 | ustc 662621 (in-2º),42 665708 (in-8º); eol 3015 (in-2º) | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1400 (Allen 5: 352–361; cwe 10: 113–126) | lb 7: 149–272; *asd vii-1 | cwe 49: 2–176, 179–218 ¶ R.A.B. Mynors (cwe 42: xxv) explains that “by the middle of December [Froben] had set up and printed Mark in its folio format,” but “Erasmus, anxious no doubt to make an offering to his royal patron without delay, seems to have persuaded Froben when he came to print the preliminaries, which would normally be done last, to pull a title page with the date 1523 instead of 1524, so that a complete set of sheets of Mark bearing that date could be rapidly bound up and despatched to Paris by special messenger with a covering note (Ep. 1403). The volume [in-2º], with an inscription dated in December, is still in the Bibliothèque Nationale,43 and constitutes the first state of the first edition of Mark, normally 1524.” Mynors (cwe 42: 172) establishes the approximate date of publication in Dec. 1523–Feb. 1524. According to Rummel (cwe 49: xi), “work on

42 43

Copy consulted (digital format): Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 2 Th Ex 150. Bibliothèque Nationale Française, Tolbiac (Rez-de-jardin), A-1138 (notice nº frbnf 30402893).

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

285

the paraphrase began in the fall of 1523 and was completed in November of the same year. The dedicatory epistle (Ep. 1400) is dated 1 Dec. 1523.” ¶ The two lives of Mark included in the editio princeps (Vita sancti Marci per divum Hieronymum and Vita sancti Marci ex Eusebio) are edited in lb 7: 155– 156. 1524 262 Paraphrasis in Acta apostolorum | Paraphr. in Act. In Acta apostolorum paraphrasis Erasmi Roterodami, nunc primum recens et nata et excusa, Aaa2r-Aaa3v, Aa1r-Qq7v | Basel: Johann Froben, [February] 1524 (in-8º) | ustc 665335; eol 3003 | er 153: Paraphrasis in Novum Testamentum, anno 1524 ‖ Ep. 1414 (Allen 5: 390–391; cwe 10: 163–166) | lb 7: 651–654, 659–770; *asd vii-3b | cwe 50: 2–151, 155–332 ¶ Month of publication according to cwe 42: xxv–xxvi, 172. ¶ the complete paraphrases. Froben had printed Erasmus’ Paraphrases between 1519 and 1524 (see 125, 166–167, 180, 185–188, 192–196, 203–205, 208, 211–213, 214, 220, 243, 246, 261, 262). In June 1522, he issued a volume with the Paraphrases in omnes apostoli Pauli germanas epistolas, una cum canonicis et ad Hebraeos una per Erasmum Roterodamum … (ustc 667032, a1v). It was reissued in 1523 as: Tomus secundus continens paraphrasim Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami in omneis epistolas apostolicas …, first in-8º (ustc 698671) and then in-2º (ustc 698737). Cf. Sebastiani (2018) 525–527 (#211), 578–583 (#242, #243); R.A.B. Mynors, in cwe 42: xxvi–xxvii. In 1524, Froben gathered the remaining paraphrases in Tomus primus paraphraseon in Novum Testamentum, videlicet in quatuor Evangelia et Acta apostolorum …, published in-2º (ustc 698719, eol 4877) and 8º (ustc 698723), most probably “in the spring of 1524.” Cf. Sebastiani (2018) 608–612 (#262, #263); R.D. Sider, in cwe 41: 227. 263 Peregrinatio apostolorum Petri et Pauli | Peregrin. apost. Peregrinatio apostolorum Petri et Pauli cum ratione temporum per Erasmum Roterodamum. In In Acta apostolorum paraphrasis … (as in 262), Aaa3v-Bbb6v | Basel: Johann Froben, [February]44 1524 (in-8º) | ustc 665335; eol 3003 ‖ lb 6: 425–432; lb 7: 653–660; *asd vii-3b | cwe 41: 952–977 264 Apologia ad Stunicae Conclusiones | Apolog. ad Stun. Concl. Conclusiones principaliter suspectae et scandalosae, quae reperiuntur in libris Erasmi Roterodami, per Iacobum Lopidem Stunicam excerptae. Desiderii Erasmi 44

See 262, complementary note.

286

tello

Roterodami brevis ac erudita adversus Stunicam confutatio nuper ad dominum Ioannem Fabrum missa atque nunc primum aedita, A1v, A3v–A6r | [Nuremberg: Friedrich Peypus, February 1524] | ustc 624253; eol 5694 | er 189: Ad taxationes Stunicae in Novum Testamentum ‖ Ep. 1428 (Allen 5: 415; cwe 10: 198) | lb 9: 383–392; asd ix-8: 223–233, 237–248, 260–290 | *cwe 74 ¶ According to H.J. de Jonge (asd ix-8: 212–213), Peypus published a first provisional draft of the Apologia in Feb. 1524 (asd ix-8: 223–233), and a second draft was kept in manuscript copy (ms. Città del Vaticano, Archivum Secretum Vaticanum, Arm. lxiv 17, 196r–201v; edited in asd ix-8: 237–248). Probably in March of the same year, Froben published an enlarged edition: Apologia ad Stunicae conclusiones (title page, verso), as part of Exomologesis sive … (as in 269), H3v–I8r. Ep. 1428 is the preface of this new edition. This version was the one published by lb (9: 383–392) and edited in asd ix-8: 260–290. Stunica’s remarks, against which Erasmus defends himself, are edited in lb 9: 381b–382f and asd ix-8: 253–260. 265–268 Colloquia (vi) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum formulae per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum non tantum ad linguam puerilem expoliendam utiles verum etiam ad vitam instituendam, cum accessione non contemnenda per ipsum autorem | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1524 | ustc 657296; eol 726 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 265 Inquisitio | lb 1: 728–732; asd i-3: 363–374 | cwe 39: 421–447 266 Γεροντολογία sive ὄχημα | lb 1: 732–738; asd i-3: 375–388 | cwe 39: 449–467 267 Πτωχοπλούσιοι | lb 1: 739–744; asd i-3: 389–402 | cwe 39: 469–498 268 Abbatis et eruditae | lb 1: 744–746; asd i-3: 403–408 | cwe 39: 501–519 ¶ Item 265 bore the title Inquisitio de fide as from ustc 657294 (Basel: H. Froben and J. Herwagen, Mar. 1529); see 352–360.

•

• •

•

269 Exomologesis sive modus confitendi | Exomolog. Exomologesis sive modus confitendi per Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus nunc primum et natum et excusum cum aliis lectu dignis, quorum catalogum reperies in proxima pagella, A2r–D1v | Basel: Johann Froben, [March] 1524 | ustc 655449; eol 2157 | er 124: Exomologesis, aucta anno 152945 ‖ Ep. 1426 (Allen 5: 412; cwe 10: 193–194) | lb 5: 145–170; asd v-8: 343–419 | cwe 67: 16–75

45

Erasmus alludes to the enlarged version: ustc 655447 (Basel: H. Froben, J. Herwagen and N. Episcopius, Mar. 1530).

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

287

¶ According to H.J. de Honge (asd ix-2: 42), Exomologesis was published “between 1 Mar. and the beginning of July, probably in March.” M.J. Heath (cwe 67: 2, 14) also establishes March as the month of publication and adds that this work was also printed by M. Hillen at Antwerp (ustc 403722). J.P. Massaut and A. Godin (asd v-8: 342) give 24 Feb. 1524 as the date of publication, based on the dedicatory epistle (asd v-8: 344, line 25): “Basileae, sexto Calend. Mart. Anno a Christo nato m.d.xxiiii.” 270 Enarrationes in Psalmos (iii) | Enarrat. in Ps. 3 Paraphrasis in tertium Psalmum ‘Domine quid multiplicati’. In Exomologesis sive … (as in 269), D2r–E7r | ustc 655449; eol 2157 ‖ Basel: Johann Froben, [March] 152446 | er 130: Paraphrasis in Psalmum tertium ‖ Ep. 1427 (Allen 5: 413–415; cwe 10: 195–197) | lb 5: 233–242; asd v-2: 163–179 | cwe 63: 151–168 271 (contr.) Dictionarius Graecus | Dict. Graec. Dictionarius Graecus praeter omnes superiores accessiones, quarum nihil est omissum, ingenti vocabulorum numero locupletatus per utriusque literaturae non vulgariter peritum Iacobum Ceratinum. Ac ne libellorum quidem ac fragmentorum, quae superiores adiecerant, hic quicquam desiderabis | Basel: Johann Froben, July 1524 | ustc 636372; eol ‖ Ep. 1460 (Allen 5: 484–485; cwe 10: 290– 292) ¶ The dictionary was edited by Iacobus Ceratinus, with contributions from Erasmus: “Though I too have added a number of words, and would have added a great many, had I been blessed with even a few days’ leisure” (Ep. 1460 cwe lines 33–35). 272–277 Colloquia (vii) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum formulae per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum non tantum ad linguam puerilem expoliendam utiles verum etiam ad vitam instituendam, nunc postremum auctae per autorem | Basel: Johann Froben, August–September 1524 | ustc 657295; eol 5328 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ Ep. 1476 (Allen 5: 510–511; cwe 10: 324–325) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 272 Epithalamium Petri Aegidii | lb 1: 746–749; asd i-3: 411– 416 | cwe 39: 521–530 273 Exorcismus sive spectrum | lb 1: 749–752; asd i-3: 417–423 | cwe 39: 533–544 274 Alcumistica | lb 1: 752–756; asd i-3: 424–429 | cwe 39: 546–556 275 Hippoplanus | lb 1: 756–757; asd i-3: 430–432 | cwe 39:

•

•

46

•

•

See 269, complementary note.

288

tello

•

•

558–561 276 Πτωχολογία | lb 1: 757–759; asd i-3: 433–437 | cwe 39: 564–570 277 Convivium fabulosum | lb 1: 759–766; asd i-3: 438–449 | cwe 39: 574–589 ¶ Regarding the month of publication, the colophon bears “mense Augusto,” whereas the title page reads “mense Septembri.” 278 De immensa Dei misericordia concio | De imm. Dei misericord. De immensa Dei misericordia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami concio; Virginis et martyris comparatio per eundem. Nunc primum et condita et aedita, 3–156 | Basel: Johann Froben, September 1524 | ustc 630026; eol 1576 | er 137– 138: Libellus concionalis de misericordia Domini, ad Christophorum quondam episcopum Basiliensem ‖ Ep. 1474 (Allen 5: 509; cwe 10: 323–324) | lb 5: 557– 588; asd v-7: 31–97 | cwe 70: 76–139 ¶ Both works are marketed as “nunc primum et condita et aedita,” because the first version of Virginis et martyris comparatio was only a short letter which bore no title (see 245). 279 De libero arbitrio diatribe | De lib. arbitr. De libero arbitrio διατριβὴ sive collatio Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami. Primum legito, deinde iudicato | Basel: Johann Froben, September 1524 | ustc 630368; eol 428 | er 202: De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio, liber unus ‖ lb 9: 1215– 1248; Walter (1910); *asd ix-12 | cwe 76: 5–89 ¶ As J.M. Estes points out (cwe 10: 179–180; Ep. 1419, intr.), “three editions of De libero arbitrio were published in Sept. 1524: by Froben at Basel, Hillen at Antwerp, and Cervicornus at Cologne. Despite Epp 1385: 15–17 [cwe 10] and 1430: 19–22 [cwe 10], Froben’s edition was evidently the original.” 280 Modus orandi Deum | Mod. orandi Deum Modus orandi Deum per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus nunc primum et natum et excusum typis | Basel: Johann Froben, October 1524 | ustc 676363; eol 2425 ‖ Ep. 1502 (Allen 5: 559–560; cwe 10: 398–399) | lb 5: 1099– 1132; asd v-1: 121–176 | cwe 70: 147–230 281 Commentarius in Nucem Ovidii | Comm. in Ov. Commentarius Erasmi Roterodami in Nucem Ovidii ad Ioannem Morum, Thomae Mori filium; Eiusdem commentarius in duos hymnos Prudentii ad Margaretam Roperam, Thomae Mori filiam, A2r–D4v | Basel: Johann Froben, 1524 | ustc 623244; eol 4541 | er 86: Commentarius in Nucem Ovidii ‖ Ep. 1402 (Allen 5: 363–365; cwe 10: 128–131) | lb 1: 1189–1210; asd i-1: 145–174 | cwe 29: 127–169, 451–457

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

289

282–283 Commentarius in duos hymnos Prudentii | Comm. in hymn. Prud. Commentarius in duos hymnos Prudentii ad Margaretam Roperam, Thomae Mori filiam. In Commentarius Erasmi Roterodami in Nucem … (as in 281), D5r– G8r | Basel: Johann Froben, 1524 | ustc 623244; eol 4541 | er 135: Commentarii in duos hymnos Prudentii ‖ Ep. 1404 (Allen 5: 366–367; cwe 10: 133–135) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) It includes: 282 Commentarius in hymnum Prudentii de natali puero Iesu | lb 5: 1337–1348; asd v-7: 313–334 | cwe 29: 173–195, 458–461 283 Erasmi Roterodami commentariolus in hymnum Prudentii de epiphania Iesu nati | lb 5: 1349–1358; asd v-7: 337–354 | cwe 29: 196–218, 462–464

•

•

1525 284 Enarrationes in Psalmos (iv) | Enarrat. in Ps. 4 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami in primum et secundum Psalmum exactissimae enarrationes, in tertium paraphrasis, iam denuo per autorem recognitae. His accessit in Psalmum quartum concio, opus modo recens et natum et excusum, a1v–i7v [second book bound] | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1525 | ustc 626036; eol 3301 | er 131: Concio in Psalmum quartum ‖ Ep. 1535 (Allen 6: 2; cwe 11: 2–3) | lb 5: 241–292; asd v-2: 191–276 | cwe 63: 174–275 285 (tr.) Ex Chrysostomo versa (i) | Ex Chrys. versa Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi de orando Deum libri duo, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete. Adiuncti sunt iidem Graece, ut lector conferre possit | Basel: Johann Froben, April 1525 | ustc 640614; eol 4395 | er 156, 162: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus … de orando Deum homilias duas ‖ Ep. 1563 (Allen 6: 58–59; asd viii-1: 496–498; cwe 11: 85–87) | lb 8: 125–136 It includes: Chrysostomi de orando Deum, a2r–c8r ¶ Erasmus wrote a short postface to the reader (c8r), after which the original Greek text of Chrysostom was added (d1r–e8r). 286 (ed.) Chrysostomi opera | Chrys. op. Basel: Johann Froben / Officina Frobeniana, May 1525–1529 Under this general heading are gathered the publications (four editiones principes) in which Erasmus presented his edition of the Greek text of different works of Chrysostom: 286a Ἰωάννου Χρυσοστόμου περὶ τοῦ ὅτι πολλοῦ μὲν ἀξιύματος δύσκολον δὲ ἐπισκοπεῖν διάλογοι ἕξ. Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi quod multae quidem dignitatis sed difficile sit episcopum agere dialogi sex | Basel: J. Froben, May 1525 | ustc 667916; eol 4396 ‖ Ep. 1558 (Allen 6: 45–52; asd viii-1: 481–491; cwe 11: 65–75)

290

tello

286b Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi conciunculae perquam elegantes sex de fato et providentia Dei | Basel: J. Froben, Feb. 1526 | ustc 640613; eol 4398 ‖ Ep. 1661 (Allen 6: 253; asd viii-1: 502–503; cwe 12: 16–18) 286c Ioannes Frobenius studioso lectori salutem dicit. Tria nova dabit hic libellus: Epistolam Erasmi de modestia profitendi linguas; Libellum per quamque elegantem divi Ioannis Chrysostomi Graecum de Babyla martyre; Epistolam Erasmi Roterodami in tyrologum quendam impudentissimum calumniatorem. Fruere bonis avibus ac vale, α4r-η5v | Basel: J. Froben, Aug. 1527 | ustc 667039; eol 2050 ‖ Ep. 1856, Ep. 1858 286d Aliquot opuscula divi Chrysostomi Graeca, lectum dignissima, cum praefatione Erasmi Roterodami, cuius studio sunt aedita | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1529 | ustc 608511; eol 4405 ‖ Ep. 2093 (Allen 8: 42–45; asd viii-1: 548–552; cwe 15: 68–72) ¶ The month of publication of 286a is according to Allen 6: 44; cwe 11: 65. Dialogi sex refer to De sacerdotio. ¶ In 286c De Babyla martyre was prefaced (Ep. 1856) and postfaced (Ep. 1858) by two letters that were considered independent works under the names of Epistola de modestia profitendi linguas (see 331) and Epistola in tyrologum quendam (see 332). ¶ The Greek works included in 286d are (Latin titles from Greek as established in asd viii-1: 545): Epistola ad episcopos inclusos, 1–3 Epistolae ad Innocentium i et ii, 4–14 Epistola ad Cyriacum, 14–20 Homilia adversus vituperantes extensionem prooemiorum, 20–42 Homilia in nominum mutationem, 43–59 Homilia ‘Elevatus est cor Oziae’, 59–71 De mansuetudine, 71–80 De anathemate, 81–89 In Eliam, 89–95. ¶ Claude Chevallon published in 1536 a revised edition of Chrysostom’s works (see 433).

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

287–288 (tr.) Ex Plutarcho versa (iii) | Ex Plut. versa Plutarchi Chaeronei libellus perquam elegans de non irascendo; Eiusdem de curiositate; uterque Latinus, Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo interprete. Adiecti sunt iidem Graeci, quo vel praelegi possint vel certe legi a Graecanicae literaturae studiosis | Basel: Johann Froben, May 1525 | ustc 684281; eol 4605 ‖ Ep. 1572 (Allen 6: 70–72; cwe 11: 102–105) | lb, asd (see below) New works added: 287 De cohibenda iracundia dialogus Syllae et Fundani, auctore Plutarcho Chaeroneo, interprete Erasmo Roterodamo | lb 4: 57–70; asd iv-2: 263–287 288 Eiusdem de curiositate, eodem interprete | lb 4: 69–76; asd iv-2: 291–303 ¶ The original Greek text of Plutarch is added after Erasmus’ translation: g5r– k6v.

•

•

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

291

289 (pr.) Calcagnini libellus elegans de libero arbitrio | Calcag. lib. arbitr. Coelii Calcagnini libellus elegans de libero arbitrio ex philosophiae penetralibus, a1r–v | Basel: Johann Froben, June 1525 | ustc 622858; eol 5730 ‖ Ep. 1578 (Allen 6: 80–81; cwe 11: 116–117) 290 Apologia adversus debacchationes Petri Sutoris (i) | Apolog. adv. debacch. Petr. Sutor. Adversus Petri Sutoris, quondam theologi Sorbonici nunc monachi Cartusiani, debacchationem apologia Erasmi Roterodami | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1525 | ustc 609311; eol 239 | er 201: Adversus Petrum Sutorem Cartusianum liber unus ‖ Ep. 1591 (Allen 6: 131–133; cwe 11: 210–213) | lb 9: 737–804; asd ix-9: 95–207 | *cwe 79 291 Lingua | Ling. Lingua per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus novum et hisce temporibus aptissimum | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1525 | ustc 673008; eol 2367 | er 112: Lingua ‖ Ep. 1593 (Allen 6: 135–139; cwe 11: 216–222) | lb 4: post 656–754; asd iv-1: 233–370; asd iv-1a: 19–179 | cwe 29: 257–412, 478–518 1526 292 Adagiorum chiliades (vi) | Adag. Adagiorum opus Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami per eundem exquisitissima cura recognitum et locupletatum, correctis ubique citationum numeris ac restituitis indicibus. Hanc supremam manum putato et securus emito. Si plura cupis nosse, verte paginam et lege autoris epistolam [adagia 1–3535] | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1526 | ustc 609175; eol 69 | er 89–90: Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ Ep. 1659 (Allen 6: 247–249; cwe 12: 6–9) | lb 2; asd ii 1–8 | cwe 31–36 New work added: adagia 3483–3535 293 (tr.) Ex Plutarcho versa (iv) | Ex Plut. versa Lingua per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, diligenter ab autore recognita. Libellus elegans nec minus utilis Plutarchi Chaeronei de immodica verecundia: recens opus nec antehac usquam excusum; quoniam autem argumentum cum Lingua convenit, adiunximus, a2r–b7r [second book bound] | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1526 | ustc 673003; eol 2371 | er 103: De inutili verecundia ‖ Ep. 1663 (Allen 6: 257; cwe 12: 23–25) | lb, asd (see below) New work added: Plutarchus Chaeroneus de vitiosa verencundia, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete | lb 4: 77–84; asd iv-2: 307–322

292

tello

¶ lb and asd reproduce the name of the work as found in the second title page (a2r). 294–297 Colloquia (viii) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum opus multis nominibus utilissimum, nunc postrema cura ab autore Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum magnaque accessione auctum | Basel: Johann Froben, February 1526 | ustc 657297; eol 734 | er 81– 82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 294 Puerpera | lb 1: 766–774; asd i-3: 453–469 | cwe 39: 591–618 295 Peregrinatio religionis ergo | lb 1: 774–787; asd i-3: 470–494 | cwe 40: 621–674 296 Ἰχθυοφαγία | lb 1: 787–810; asd i-3: 495–536 | cwe 40: 677–762 297 Funus | lb 1: 810–817; asd i-3: 537–551 | cwe 40: 764–795

•

•

•

•

298–300 (tr.) Galeni tractatus tres | Galenus Galeni, medicorum principis, exhortatio ad bonas arteis praesertim medicinam; De optimo docendi genere; et Qualem oporteat esse medicum, Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo interprete | Basel: Johann Froben, May 1526 | ustc 602693; eol 4238 | er 87: Prooemia Galeni versa, ad Antoninum medicum ‖ Ep. 1698 (Allen 6: 325–326; cwe 12: 174–175) | lb, asd, cwe (see below) It includes: 298 Galeni paraphrastae Menodoti exhortatio ad artium liberalium studia | lb 1: 1047–1058; asd i-1: 637–657 | cwe 29: 225–239, 466–471 299 Galeni de optimo docendi genere | lb 1: 1057–1062; asd i-1: 659–664 | cwe 29: 240–244, 471–474 300 Galeni quod optimus medicus idem sit et philosophus | lb 1: 1061–1064; asd i-1: 665–669 | cwe 29: 245–248, 474–475

•

•

•

301 Detectio praestigiarum | Detect. praestig. Erasmi Roterodami detectio praestigiarum, cuiusdam libelli Germanice scripti ficto autoris titulo cum hac inscriptione: Erasmi et Lutheri opiniones de coena Domini | Basel: Johann Froben, June 1526 | ustc 653189; eol 1615 ‖ lb 10: 1557– 1572; asd ix-1: 233–262 | cwe 78: 163–205 302–304 Colloquia (ix) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum opus multis nominibus utilissimum, nunc postrema cura ab autore Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum magnaque accessione auctum | Basel: Johann Froben, June 1526 | ustc 657259; eol 5337 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 302 Echo | lb 1: 817–818; asd i-3: 555–558 | cwe 40: 797–801 303 Aliquot loca in colloquiis explicata brevissimis scholiis, in quibus lector non

•

•

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

293

•

admodum peritus haerere poterat, Z6r–Cc4r 304 Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus de utilitate colloquiorum ad lectorem | lb 1: 901–908; asd i-3: 741–752 | cwe 40: 1097–1117 ¶ The digital copy used by me (at www.e‑rara.ch) lacks the last pages. Sebastiani (2018) 657 provides data from the colophon; see also asd i-3: 11–12, 554. According to C.R. Thompson (cwe 39: xxvi), the scholia (item 303) “were anonymous. Some of them may have come from Erasmus, but it is thought that most were supplied by Sigismundus Gelenius of the Froben staff. Important editions of the 1530s (Lyon: Gryphius, 1531; Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, 1531; Cologne: Gymnicus, 1532; Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, 1533; Cologne: Gymnicus, 1533, 1534, 1535, 1537) printed them and added a few new ones.” The scholia are included neither in lb nor in asd. 305 Elenchus in Natalis Bedae censuras | Elench. in Nat. Bed. cens. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami in censuras erroneas Natalis Bedae elenchus | Basel: Johann Froben, [June 1526] | ustc 626035;47 eol 3614 | er 205–206: Adversus Natalem Beddam theologum Parisiensem elenchus, divinationes et supputationes ‖ lb 9: 495–514; asd ix-5: 161–208 | *cwe 80 ¶ Date of publication according to E. Rabbie (asd ix-5: 14, 160). 306 Hyperaspistes (i) | Hyperasp. 1 Hyperaspistes diatribae adversus Servum arbitrium Martini Lutheri per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum ab autore recognitus | Basel: Johann Froben, July 1526 | ustc 664562; eol 2230 | er 203–204: Adversus Martini Lutheri Servum arbitrium Hyperaspistae libri duo ‖ Ep. 1667 (Allen 6: 263; cwe 12: 41–42) | lb 10: 1249–1336; *asd ix-12 | cwe 76: 93–297 ¶ Sebastiani (2018) 672 (#308) considers ustc 664563 (Basel: J. Froben, 1526; without month) a reprint of the editio princeps (ustc 664562). Conversely, eol (2209) considers ustc 664563 the editio princeps, possibly issued in Mar. 307 Institutio Christiani matrimonii | Inst. Christ. matrim. Christiani matrimonii institutio per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus nunc primum et natum et excusum | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1526 | ustc 621133; eol 2241 | er 126–127: De matrimonio Christiano, ad inclytam Angliae reginam Catharinam ‖ Ep. 1727 (Allen 7: 369–370; cwe 12: 258–259) | lb 5: 613– 724; asd v-6: 57–252 | cwe 69: 214–438

47

Copy consulted (digital format) at www.e‑rara.ch: Universitätsbibliothek Basel, ubh fl x 16:2.

294

tello

308 (tr.) Ex Chrysostomo versa (ii) | Ex Chrys. versa Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi in Epistolam ad Philippenses homiliae duae, versae per Erasmum Roterodamum additis Graecis; Eiusdem Chrysostomi libellus elegans Graecus, in quo confert verum monachum cum principibus, divitibus ac nobilibus huius mundi | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1526 | ustc 640615; eol 4399 | er 156, 161: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus … in Epistolam ad Philippenses homilias duas ‖ Ep. 1734 (Allen 6: 379; asd viii-1: 508–509; cwe 12: 277–278) | lb 8: 319–326 New work added: Chrysostomi in Epistolam ad Philippenses homiliae, a2r–c4v ¶ Erasmus translated two out of the three homilies of the original Greek text, added in f. α1r-γ4r. 309 (ed.) Irenaei adversus haereses | Iren. adv. haer. Opus eruditissimum divi Irenaei, episcopi Lugdunensis, in quinque libros digestum, in quibus mire retegit et confutat veterum haereseon impias ac portentosas opiniones, ex vetustissimorum codicum collatione quantum licuit emendatum opera Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, ac nunc primum in lucem editum opera Ioannis Frobenii. Additus est index rerum scitu dignarum | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1526 | ustc 679869; eol 4343 | er 220: Ireneus ex vetustissimis codicibus iterum recognitus, anno 152848 ‖ Ep. 1738 (Allen 6: 384–390; asd viii-1: 586–597; cwe 12: 290–305) ¶ In the prefatory epistle, Erasmus admits that “I am not yet certain whether he wrote in Greek or in Latin. I am inclined to think that he wrote in Latin, but was more at home in Greek. This explains why in his Latin he makes free use of Greek idioms” (cwe 12: 293). As a matter of fact, Irenaeus wrote Adversus haereses in Greek but only book 1 and some fragments of the other books are extant (see Migne, pg 7: 437–1118; Allen 6: 386, note to line 74). In any case, Erasmus had only access to the Latin versions of this work and proceeded accordingly. In his edition, Erasmus placed an argumentum at the beginning of book 2 (62 | asd viii-1: 581–582), book 3 (138 | asd viii-1: 582), book 4 (206 | asd viii-1: 583), and book 5 (293 | asd viii-1: 579–581). These prefaces were revised in later editions: ustc 679871 (Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1528), ustc 679870 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, Mar. 1534). He also added marginalia throughout the five books, and edited succinct headings for inner sections of each book.

48

Erasmus alludes to ustc 679871 (see complementary note).

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

295

310 Prologus in supputationem calumniarum Natalis Bedae | Prol. supp. error. Bedae Prologus Erasmi Roterodami in supputationem calumniarum Natalis Bedae; Responsiunculae ad propositiones a Beda notatas; Appendix de antapologia Petri Sutoris et scriptis Iodoci Clithovei. Quibus addatur elenchus erratorum in censuris Bedae, iampridem excusus, a2r-α4v | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1526 | ustc 687356;49 eol 3606 | er 205–206: Adversus Natalem Beddam theologum Parisiensem elenchus, divinationes et supputationes ‖ lb 9: 441–450; asd ix-5: 19–40 | *cwe 80 ¶ Foliation of 310–313 according to Sebastiani (2018) 670. As from ustc 695220 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1527), this work was known as Prologus supputationis errorum in censuris Bedae (second book bound: 1r). 311 Divinationes ad notata per Bedam | Div. ad not. Bedae Responsiunculae ad propositiones a Beda notatas. In Prologus Erasmi Roterodami … (as in 310), b1v–i4v | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1526 | ustc 687356; eol 3606 | er 205–206: Adversus Natalem Beddam theologum Parisiensem elenchus, divinationes et supputationes ‖ Ep. 1664 (Allen 6: 258–259; cwe 12: 27–30) | lb 9: 451–496; asd ix-5: 44–157 | *cwe 80 ¶ As from ustc 695220 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1527), this work was known as Divinationes ad propositiones a Beda notatas (first book bound: 1v) or Divinationes Erasmi ad notata per Bedam (second book bound: 15v). The Calumniae Bedae are edited before Ep. 1664, both in lb (9: 451–452) and asd (ix-5: 43–44). 312 Apologia adversus debacchationes Petri Sutoris (ii) | Apolog. adv. debacch. Petr. Sutor. Appendix de antapologia Petri Sutoris. In Prologus Erasmi Roterodami … (as in 310), i4v–k6r | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1526 | ustc 687356; eol 3606 ‖ er 201: Adversus Petrum Sutorem Cartusianum liber unus ‖ lb 9: 805–812; asd ix-9: 209–222 | *cwe 79 313 Appendix de scriptis Iodoci Clichthovei | App. Clichthov. Appendix de … scriptis Iodoci Clithovei. In Prologus Erasmi Roterodami … (as in 310), k6r–k8r | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1526 | ustc 687356; eol 3606 ‖ lb 9: 811–814; asd ix-10: 71–73 | cwe 83: 112–115

49

Copy consulted (digital format) at ProQuest: kbr Royal Library of Belgium, kw 232 H 14 [3], fourth book bound.

296

tello

314 Consilium in caussa evangelica | In caussa ev. Consilium Erasmi Roterodami in caussa evangelica | [Leipzig?: Michael Blum?] 1526 | ustc 623273; eol 5731 ‖ Ep. 1539 (Allen 6: 7–11; cwe 11: 11–16) ¶ This private letter to the Town Council of Basel (ca. Jan. 1525, according to Allen) was printed as an unauthorized pamphlet in 1526, without name of place or printer. ustc suggests Michael Blum as its possible printer. 1527 315–319 (tr.) Ex Chrysostomo versa (iii) | Ex Chrys. versa Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi, archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, et divi Athanasii, Alexandrini archiepiscopi, lucubrationes aliquot non minus elegantes quam utiles, nunc primum versae et in lucem aeditae per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Catalogum singularum reperies in proxima pagina, a2r–304 | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1527 | ustc 640621; eol 4400 | er (see below) ‖ Ep. 1800 (Allen 6: 483–491; asd viii-1: 516–526; cwe 12: 504–518), Ep. 1801 (Allen 6: 491; asd viii-1: 570; cwe 12: 518) | lb (see below) New works added: 315 Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi adversus Iudaeos oratio prima, interprete Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo […] Eiusdem adversus Iudaeos oratio quinta | er 156–157: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus adversus Iudaeos homilias quinque | lb 8: 1–58 316 Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi homilia post calendas de iis qui eius diei postridie inebriantur, deque iis qui commeant ad cauponas ac propinas quique choreas ducunt per civitatem; praeterea, quod non oporteat praeceptorem desperare de discipulis, etiamsi non protinus obtemperent; postremo de Lazaro mendico ac divite [conciones 1–4] | er 156, 158: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus … de Lazaro et divite homilias quatuor | lb 8: 57–94 317 Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi homilia in laudem eorum qui comparuerunt in ecclesia, quaeque moderatio sit servanda in laudando. Item de hoc quod scripsit Esaias: ‘Vidi Dominum sedentem in throno excelso’, etc. [homiliae 1–5] | er 156, 159: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus … de visione Esaiae homilias quinque | lb 8: 93–120 318 Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi oratio de beato Philogonio, qui fuit ex patrono causarum factus episcopus, et quod nihil aeque reddit nos Deo probatos, atque si studiosi simus earum rerum quae publicae conducunt utilitati, et quod negligenter adeuntes mysteria gravissime puniuntur, etiamsi semel tantum in anno scelus hoc commiserunt. Dicta est autem quinque diebus ante natalem Christi | er 156, 160: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus … de Philogonio martyre [homiliam] unam | lb 8: 119–126 319 Sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi commentarium in Acta apostolorum, Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo interprete [homiliae 1–3] | er 156, 163: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus … in Acta apostolorum homilias quatuor | Ep. 1801 | lb 8: 189–212

•

•

•

•

•

297

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

¶ Item 319 later added a fourth homily in ustc 626163 (Basel: Officina Frobeniana, Aug. 1530; see 374). 320–327 (tr.) Ex Athanasio versa (iii) | Ex Athan. versa Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi … et divi Athanasii, Alexandrini archiepiscopi, lucubrationes aliquot … (as in 315–319), 305–435 | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1527 | ustc 640621; eol 4400 | er (see below) ‖ Ep. 1790 (Allen 6: 467–470; asd viii-1: 462–465; cwe 12: 467–474), Ep. a (Allen—; asd viii-1: 458–459) | lb (see below) New works added: 320 De sancto spiritu sancti Athanasii, archiepiscopi Alexandrini, epistola ad Serapionem episcopum, Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo interprete [epistolae 1–2] | er 166–167: Ex Athanasio verti: epistolas de Spiritu sancto duas | lb 8: 327–335 321 Quod Nicena synodus cum vidisset malitiam Eusebii merito pieque promulgavit qua erant adversum Arianam haeresim decreta | er 166, 168: Ex Athanasio verti … epistolam contra Eusebium de Niceno synodo | lb 8: 335–354 322 Athanasii apologeticus adversus eos qui calumniabantur quod in persecutione fugisset | er 166, 169–170: Ex Athanasio verti … apologeticum adversus eos qui calumniabantur quod in persequutione fugisset | lb 8: 353–365 323 Athanasii opus de hoc quod scriptum est Luc. xix 30: ‘Euntes in vicum qui contra vos est invenietis pullum alligatum’ | er 166, 172–173: Ex Athanasio verti … de eo quod scriptum est: ‘Euntes in castellum quod contra vos est’, etc. | lb 8: 385–389 324 Athanasii opus de virginitate sive de exercitatione | er 166, 174: Ex Athanasio verti … de virginum instituto | lb 8: 389–397 325 Athanasii opus de hoc quod dictum est in Evangelio, Matth. xii 32: ‘Quicunque dixerit verbum adversus filium hominis remittetur ei; qui vero dixerit contra spiritum sanctum non remittetur ei nec in hoc seculo nec in futuro’ | er 166, 175: Ex Athanasio verti … de peccato in Spiritum sanctum | lb 8: 397–404 326 De spiritu sancto | er 166, 176: Ex Athanasio verti … de Spiritu sancto librum illi inscriptum | Ep. a | lb 8: 404–424 327 Adversus omnes haereses | lb 8: 424 ¶ Erasmus wrote notes to the text mainly in p. 355 (lb 8: 365d; asd viii-1: 458, 459), 382 in the margin (lb 8: 385a, in the margin; asd viii-1: 459), 387 (lb 8: 389c; asd viii-1: 459), 410 (lb 8: 405e; asd viii-1: 457), 435 (lb 8: 424b; asd viii1: 458).

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

328 Supputationes errorum in censuris Natalis Bedae | Supputat. error. N. Bedae Supputatio errorum in censuris Natalis Bedae per Erasmum Roterodamum cum aliis, quorum catalogum reperies versa pagina, 2r–237r [first book bound] | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1527 | ustc 695220; eol 3608 | er 205–206: Adversus Natalem Beddam theologum Parisiensem elenchus, divinationes et supputationes ‖ lb 9: 515–698; asd ix-5: 211–587 | *cwe 81

298

tello

329 Ex Enchiridio notata quaedam | Ex Enchir. notata Ex Enchiridio militis Christiani notata quaedam. In Supputatio errorum … (as in 328), 237v–241v [first book bound] | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1527 | ustc 695220; eol 3608 ‖ lb 9: 699–702; *asd ix-11 ¶ Notes included in this work refer to 9. 330 (ed.) Ambrosii opera omnia | Ambr. op. omn. Divi Ambrosii, episcopi Mediolanensis, omnia opera per eruditos viros ex accurata diversorum codicum collatione emendata Graecis, quae vel aberant vel erant corruptissima plerisque in locis feliciter restitutis in quatuor ordines digesta: quorum primus habet mores; secundus pugnas adversus haereticos; tertius orationes, epistolas et conciones ad populum; quartus explanationes voluminum Veteris et Novi Testamenti. Inscipe, lector, et comperies alium Ambrosium quam antehac habuisti […] Divi Ambrosii episcopi Mediolanensis operum tomus quartus continens explanationes, hoc est, ea quae faciunt ad interpretationem divinarum scripturarum Veteris Testamenti denique Novi | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1527 (4 vols.) | ustc 640428; eol 3757 | er 222: Ambrosius ex parte per me recognitus, anno 1527 ‖ Ep. 1855 (Allen 7: 119–126; asd viii-1: 620–631; cwe 13: 235–246), Ep. a (Allen—; cwe—), Ep. b (Allen—; cwe—), Ep. c (Allen— ; cwe—), Ep. d (Allen—; asd viii-1: 633; cwe—); Ep. 2190 (Allen 8: 219; asd viii-1: 640–642; cwe 15: 336–337) ¶ tomus primus. Erasmus wrote a preface to the reader (AA1v, Ep. a) and a long censura (AA5r) before Divi Ambrosii, Mediolanensis episcopi, vita titulo Paulini episcopi ad beatum Augustinum conscripta, AA5v–A6r. Works included in volume 1 have almost all their inner chapters and sections introduced by a succinct heading or a summary of no more than five lines. Some are slightly longer (see pp. 258, 262) ‖ tomus secundus. Erasmus wrote a preface to the reader (a1v, Ep. b). Works included in volume 2 have their inner chapters and sections introduced by a succinct heading or a summary of no more than five lines. Some are slightly longer (see pp. 25, 87, 89, 131, 136, 223, 239, 243) ‖ tomus tertius. Erasmus wrote a preface to the reader (Aa1v, Ep. c). The 85 letters (69–280) and 92 sermons (282–410) included in this volume are all introduced by a succinct heading or a summary of no more than five lines. Some are slightly longer (see pp. 182, 242, 244) ‖ tomus quartus. Erasmus wrote a preface to the reader (A1v, Ep. d). Works included in volume 4 have their inner chapters and sections introduced by a succinct heading or a summary of no more than five lines. Some are slightly longer (see pp. 52, 95, 120, 121, 123, 127, 128, 135, 204, 213, 226, 236, 263, 316). A censura is placed on p. 762 (asd viii-1: 633), right after the preface of Divi Ambrosii, Mediolanensis episcopi, commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

299

Tiny notes in the margin are found throughout the four volumes; they mostly reference biblical texts. ¶ Ep. 2190 is the preface of a later edition: ustc 672688 (Basel: H. Froben, J. Herwagen and N. Episcopius, Sept. 1529 | er 223–224: Huius edidi duos novos libellos, Apologiam David et Interpellationem David, anno 1529; see 361). On pp. 409–487, Erasmus included the edition of Divi Ambrosii liber de apologia David and Divi Ambrosii de David interpellatione liber. 331 Epistola de modestia profitendi linguas | Epist. profit. ling. Ioannes Frobenius studioso lectori salutem dicit. Tria nova dabit hic libellus: Epistolam Erasmi de modestia profitendi linguas; Libellum per quamque elegantem divi Ioannis Chrysostomi Graecum de Babyla martyre; Epistolam Erasmi Roterodami in tyrologum quendam impudentissimum calumniatorem. Fruere bonis avibus ac vale, a2r-α3v | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1527 | ustc 667039; eol 2050 ‖ Ep. 1856 (Allen 7: 126–127; asd viii-1: 541–544; cwe 13: 247–249) ¶ This letter was placed as a preface to the Greek text of Chrysostom’s De Babyla martyre (see 286c). 332 Epistola in tyrologum quendam | Epist. in tyrol. [Epistola] Erasmi Roterodami in tyrologum quendam impudentissimum calumniatorem. In Ioannes Frobenius studioso lectori … (as in 331), η6r-ι8r | Basel: Johann Froben, August 1527 | ustc 667039; eol 2050 ‖ Ep. 1858 (Allen 7: 129– 141; cwe 13: 252–275) ¶ This letter was placed as a postface to the Greek text of Chrysostom’s De Babyla martyre (see 286c). 333 Hyperaspistes (ii) | Hyperasp. 2 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Hyperaspistae liber secundus adversus librum Martini Lutheri, cui titulum fecit Sevum arbitrium. Opus nunc primum excusum | Basel: Johann Froben, [summer-fall] 1527 | ustc 635401; eol 2236 | er 203– 204: Adversus Martini Lutheri Servum arbitrium Hyperaspistae libri duo ‖ Ep. 1853 (Allen 7: 116–117; cwe 13: 229–232) | lb 10: 1335–1536; *asd ix-13 | cwe 77: 337–749 ¶ Approximate months of publication according to C.H. Miller and Ch. Trinkaus (cwe 77: xi). 334 (tr.) Ex Chrysostomo versa (iv) | Ex Chrys. versa Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi, archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete. Opus novum et nunc primum natum atque excusum | Basel: Johann Froben, 1527 | ustc 640616; eol

300

tello

4401 | er 156, 164: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus … commentarium in totam Epistolam ad Galatas ‖ Ep. 1841 (Allen 7: 96–98; asd viii-1: 532–536; cwe 13: 192–198) | lb 8: 265–318 New work added: Chrysostomi commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas 335–336 Colloquia (x) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opus multis nominibus utilissimum, adiectis aliquot colloquiis antehac non excusis | Basel: Johann Froben, 1527 | ustc 657243; eol 739 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 335 Πολυδαιτία, dispar convivium | lb 1: 818–820; asd i-3: 561–565 | cwe 40: 802–808 336 De rebus ac vocabulis | lb 1: 820–822; asd i-3: 566–571 | cwe 40: 810–817

•

•

337 (tr.) Origenis fragmentum in Matthaeum | Orig. frag. in Mt. Fragmentum commentariorum Origenis in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum, Erasmo Roterodamo interprete. Opus antehac non excusum | Basel: Johann Froben, [1527] | ustc 657943; eol 4531 | er 177: Ex Origine vertimus Fragmentum in Matthaeum ‖ Ep. 1844 (Allen 7: 101–103; asd viii-1: 604–607; cwe 13: 203– 208) | lb 8: 439–484 ¶ This fragment was later enlarged in ustc 681736 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, Sept. 1536); see 434. 1528 338 Epistola consolatoria in adversis | Epist. consolat. Erasmi Roterodami epistola consolatoria in adversis | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, [January–March] 1528 | ustc 653241; eol 2017 | er 148: Consolatio ad virgines Claranas in Anglia ‖ Ep. 1925 (Allen 7: 283–285; cwe 13: 516–517) | lb 3: 1874–1879 (Ep. ccccxcvii); lb 5: 609–614; asd iv-7: 53–63 | cwe 69: 189–201 ¶ Printer’s mark is that of Froben. Regarding month of publication, E. Rabbie (asd iv-7: 49, n. 1) comments that “the fact that the Cracow reprint [eol 2018] has a preface dated 5 Jul. 1528 shows that the Basel edition is from the first months of 1528. Allen (Ep. 1925, intr.) supposes that it was published for the March fair at Frankfurt.” 339 De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione | De pronunt. De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami dialogus; Eiusdem dialogus cui titulus Ciceronianus sive de optimo genere dicendi. Cum aliis nonnullis, quorum nihil non est novum, 3–214 | Basel: Officina

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

301

Frobeniana, March 1528 | ustc 631329; eol 1644 | er 47: De recte pronunciando ‖ Ep. 1949 (Allen 7: 327–328; cwe 14: 73–74) | lb 1: 911–968; asd i-4: 11–103 | cwe 25–26: 365–475, 583–625 ¶ from “ioannes froben” to “officina frobeniana.” After Johann Froben’s death (26 Oct. 1527), the printing business was run by his son, Hieronymus Froben (see coe 2: 58b–60b), in association with Johann Herwagen (see coe 2: 185a–187b) and Nicolaus Episcopius (see coe 1: 437b–438a). Books were usually printed under the collective name of “Officina Frobeniana.” At the end of Dialogus Ciceronianus (see 340, pp. 423–431), there were added a letter of Erasmus to Jan of Heemstede (Ep. 1900, Nov. 1527 | Allen 7: 225–229; cwe 13: 420–426), in which he lamented the death of Johann Froben, and two epitaphs of Erasmus in honour of his beloved friend (see 444, poems 73– 74). 340 Dialogus Ciceronianus | Ciceron. Eiusdem [= Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami] dialogus cui titulus Ciceronianus sive de optimo genere dicendi. In De recta Latini Graecique … (as in 339), 215–422 | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, March 1528 | ustc 631329; eol 1644 | er 48: Ciceronianus ‖ Ep. 1948 (Allen 7: 326–327; cwe 14: 71–72), Ep. 2088 (Allen 8: 17–21; cwe 15: 29–35) | lb 1: 971–1026; asd i-2: 599–710 | cwe 27–28: 337–448, 544–603 ¶ A passage of Ciceron. (asd i-2: 679[line 14]–680[line 6]; cwe 28: 424) in which Saxo, a grammarian of the 12th century, is mentioned was later printed in the title page of Saxonis, grammatici Danorum, Historiae libri xvi … (Basel: J. Bebel, 1534 | ustc 692137), under the heading “Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami de Saxone censura.” ¶ Ep. 2088 was added as a postface in the second edition (Basel: H. Froben and J. Herwagen, Mar. 1529 | ustc 657294). In this revised edition, a section was added to include Vives among the humanists reviewed in this work; see asd i-2: 691, apparatus; cwe 28: 429; also 241, complementary note. Vives seems to have complained and Erasmus responded in Ep. 2040 cwe lines 14–18: “I passed you over in the Ciceronianus [because] it was a simple matter of forgetfulness. If they think it cannot be condoned in consideration of my old age, certainly it should have been condoned because of what might better be called the turmoils rather than the toils of my studies.” In a subsequent letter (Ep. 2061 cwe lines 21–23), Vives again remarked that “I would have been very pleased if you had mentioned my name. But I readily pardon this slip of your old age even if you purposely passed over my name, since I am certain you did not do it out of personal enmity.”

302

tello

341 Enarrationes in psalmos (v) | Enarrat. in Ps. 85 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami concionalis interpretatio plena pietatis in Psalmum lxxxv. Recens opus, nunc primum et natum et excusum, 3–241 | Basel: Johann Herwagen and Hieronymus Froben, August 1528 | ustc 635427; eol 3304 | er 132: Concio in Psalmum octuagesimum quintum ‖ Ep. 2017 (Allen 7: 429–430; cwe 14: 239–240) | lb 5: 507–556; asd v-3: 329–427 | cwe 64: 10–118 342 Epistola apologetica de Termino | Epist. apolog. de Term. Erasmus Roterodamus ornatissimo viro Alfonso Valdesio, Caesareae maiestatis secretario, salutem dicit. In Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami concionalis … (as in 341), 241–247 | Basel: Johann Herwagen and Hieronymus Froben, August 1528 | ustc 635427; eol 3304 ‖ Ep. 2018 (Allen 7: 430–432; cwe 14: 241–245) | lb 10: 1757–1760 ¶ Other title (lb 10: 1757): Desiderii Erasmi epistola apologetica de Termini sui inscriptione ‘Concedo nulli’. Erasmus defends himself from those who accuse him of being arrogant because his motto Concedo nulli means “I yield to no one.” 343 Adagiorum chiliades (vii) | Adag. Adagiorum opus Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami per eundem exquisitiore quam antehac unquam cura recognitum nec parum copioso locupletatum auctario. Quid actum sit in indicibus cognosces ex ipsius in hos praefatione [adagia 1– 3658] | Basel: Johann Herwagen and Hieronymus Froben, September 1528 | ustc 609173; eol 73 | er 89–90: Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ Ep. 2022 (Allen 7: 438–440; cwe 14: 254–256), Ep. 2023 (Allen 7: 440–441; cwe 14: 257–258) | lb 2; asd ii 1–8 | cwe 31– 36 New work added: adagia 3536–3658 344 Apologia adversus monachos quosdam Hispanos | Apolog. adv. monach. Hisp. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami apologia adversus articulos aliquot per monachos quosdam in Hispaniis exhibitos | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1528 | ustc 635489; eol 242 | er 208: Adversus calumnias monachorum Hispaniensium, anno 152950 ‖ Ep. 1967 (Allen 7: 348–354; cwe 14: 103–112), Ep. 1879 (Allen 7: 181–184; cwe 13: 342–346) | lb 9: 1015–1094; asd ix-9: 257–399 | cwe 75: 2–183

50

Allusion to the third edition: ustc 635437 (Basel: H. Froben, J. Herwagen and N. Episcopius, 1529); see 367.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

303

¶ Of the two prefaces, Erasmus decided to place Ep. 1967 (the latest) before Ep. 1879. A first draft of the Apolog. adv. monach. Hisp. can be found in Ep. 1877. 345 (pr.) Fausti de gratia Dei | Faust. Fausti episcopi de gratia Dei et humanae mentis libero arbitrio opus insigne cum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami praefatione. Item Faustini episcopi ad Flaccillam imperatricem de fide adversus Arianos et de propositis quaestionibus Arianorum. Pervetustus uterque sed iam primum in lucem aediti, A2r–A3v | Basel: Johannes Faber Emmeus, 1528 | ustc 657365; eol 4898 ‖ Ep. 2002 (Allen 7: 406–408; asd viii-1: 649–653; cwe 14: 204–207) ¶ According to J.M. Estes (cwe 14: 204), “Erasmus’ contribution to the project appears to have been limited to the writing of this preface.” 346 (ed.) Augustini opera omnia | Aug. op. omn. Divi Aurelii Augustini, Hipponensis episcopi, omnium operum primus tomus summa vigilantia repurgatorum a mendis innumeris per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, ut optimo iure tantus Ecclesiae doctor renatus videri possit. Inspice lector et fateberis hanc non vanam esse pollicitationem: quod si gratus etiam esse voles, non patieris tantum laboris tantumque impensarum frustra sumptum esse. Addito indice copiosissimo […] Decimus tomus operum divi Aurelii Augustini, Hipponensis episcopi, continens reliqua tractata apud populum, quorum summam indicabit haec pagina versa | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1528–1529 (10 vols.) | ustc 625902; eol 3866 | er 226–227: Omnia opera divi Augustini non aestimandis sudoribus recognita, anno 1529 ‖ Ep. 2157 (Allen 8: 147–161; asd viii-1: 402–418; cwe 15: 221–241); Ep. 1895a (Allen—; asd viii1: 373–375; cwe 13: 407–411), Ep. a (Allen—; asd viii-1: 377; cwe—), Ep. b (Allen—; asd viii-1: 387; cwe—), Ep. c (Allen—; asd viii-1: 392–393; cwe—), Ep. d (Allen—; asd viii-1: 393; cwe—), Ep. e (Allen—; asd viii-1: 398; cwe—) ¶ The complete set of volumes can be downloaded at www.e‑rara.ch. The total amount of pages surpasses 8000, thus the explicit phrase of Erasmus “sudoribus recognita” (see er 226). In 1528, the Froben press printed volumes 2– 3 (1528), 4 (May 1528), 6–7 (Oct. 1528); in 1529, it printed volumes 1 (1529, title page; 1528, colophon), 8 (Mar. 1529), 9 (Apr. 1529), 10 (May 1529) and 5 (Dec. 1529). Claude Chevallon published a revised edition in 11 volumes (Paris, 1531 [vols. 1–10], 1532 [vol. 11 “Index”] | ustc 187025, 187026, 203436), with the aid of manuscripts borrowed from the monastery of Saint Victor in Paris. ¶ Erasmus wrote a preface for vol. 1 (3–12, Ep. 2157), vol. 2 (2, Ep. 1895a), vol. 3 (2, Ep. a), vol. 6 (2, Ep. b), vol. 8 (2, Ep. c), vol. 9 (2, Ep. d) and vol. 10 (2, Ep. e). As he states in Ep. 2157 (Allen lines 499–502; cwe lines 508–512), he took

304

tello

“the burden [sarcina]” to edit the complete works of Augustine because he did not want Froben “to reprint the complete Augustine, whatever its quality,” referring to the previous editions of Johann Amerbach, whose work he also praises (see Allen lines 347–359). Erasmus’ chief aim was to purge the text of Augustine from errors and interpolations (see Allen lines 377–379), and to add critical notes (censurae) to warn about spurious or problematic works (see Allen lines 474–475). ¶ Erasmus wrote introductory notes—some indicated with the word censura, some with a call to the reader (ad lectorem; lectori), some without any mark— before or after many works. They are clearly found in vol. 1: 44–45, 358, 519, 591–592 (see asd viii-1: 368–373); vol. 2: 333–334, 429, 518, 521 (see asd viii-1: 375–376); vol. 3: 138, 148, 340, 500, 603, 644, 739 (see asd viii-1: 377–380); vol. 4: 256, 377, 431, 480, 495–496, 660, 673, 688, 695, 701, 703, 717, 725, 737, 750, 774 (see asd viii-1: 381–386); vol. 6: 22, 35, 46, 54, 119, 363, 470, 535, 601 (see asd viii-1: 387–389); vol. 7: 332, 399, 433, 840, 883, 885, 925, 965 (see asd viii-1: 390–392); vol. 9: 3, 446, 474, 505, 516, 542, 554, 558, 563, 570, 576, 595, 607, 618, 643, 646, 649, 650, 653, 662, 665, 667, 672, 677, 683, 689, 694, 707, 716, 720, 786, 801, 806, 810, 811, 815, 816 (see asd viii-1: 393–398); vol. 10: 387 in the margin, 909, 994, 998, 999, 1018 in the margin (see asd viii-1: 398–399). Further, all Augustine’s letters edited in vol. 2 (Epistola 1–204) incorporate a brief note or introduction about the sender and the content, usually of between one and five lines, some being slightly longer (see pp. 184, 422, 530; asd viii-1: 375, n. 33). Furthermore, notes in the margin are found throughout the ten volumes, of various types. Principally, they reference biblical texts (passim) and constitute brief summaries of a particular subsection or chapter (passim). They also display textual variants (as in vol. 1: 280; vol. 3: 175), explanations (as in vol. 2: 247, 443), keywords (as in vol. 3: 272–273, 343; vol. 6: 15–17) and cross-references to other works (as in vol. 10: 402, 508, 533). ¶ Nonetheless, Erasmus’ edition benefited from previous editorial work published by Johann Amerbach (sometimes in association with Johann Petri of Langendorf and Johann Froben) between 1489 and 1506. Unless signaled with censura or an indisputable textual mark, many of the short summaries that precede each enarratio, tractatus, sermo or homilia are identical or very similar to those printed by Amerbach in his editions, which in turn may have originated in the codices that preserved the works of Augustine. However, Erasmus did label the inner sections of, for example, some enarrationes (“explanations”) in vol. 8 using terms and phrases (enarratio, concio) that diverged from Amerbach’s editions (expositio, sermo). To compare Erasmus’ edition with the editions of Amerbach, see ustc 743124 (Enarrationes in Psalmos, 1489); ustc 743122 (Epistolae, 1493); ustc 743150 (Sermones and Homiliae, 1494–1495), istc

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

305

ia0130800051 (Sermones de tempore and Sermones de sanctis, 1494–1495); ustc 686497 (Opera omnia, 1505–1506). ¶ A collection of aphorisms (sententiae) from all books of Augustine gathered by an anonymous scholar (per studiosum aliquem) is placed at the end of vol. 3 (743–767). Vives’ edition of Augustine’s De civitate Dei (see 241) is printed in vol. 5, but with neither his commentary nor Ep. 1309. In 1531, Chevallon reintroduced Vives’ annotations (vol. 5) in a new version revised by the author. 1529 347 Responsio ad epistolam paraeneticam Alberti Pii | Resp. ad ep. Alb. Pii Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami responsio ad epistolam paraeneticam clarissimi doctissimique viri Alberti Pii, Carponum principis; Eiusdem notatiunculae quaedam extemporales ad naenias Bedaicas. Nihil horum non novum est, a2r–80 | Basel: Johann Froben, March 1529 | ustc 635453; eol 3561 | er 207: Ad epistolam Alberti Pii, Carporum principis, liber unus ‖ Ep. 1634 (Allen 6: 201–203; cwe 11: 328–332) | lb 9: 1093–1122; asd ix-6: 71–74, 79–235 | cwe 84: 3–103 348 Responsio ad notulas Bedaicas | Resp. ad not. Bed. Eiusdem [= Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami] notatiunculae quaedam extemporales ad naenias Bedaicas. In Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami responsio … (as in 347), 81–127 | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, March 1529 | ustc 635453; eol 3561 ‖ cf. er 205–206: Adversus Natalem Beddam theologum Parisiensem elenchus, divinationes et supputationes ‖ lb 9: 701–720; asd ix-5: 591–638 | *cwe 81 349 Vidua Christiana | Vidua Christ. Vidua Christiana per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum ad serenissimam pridem Hungariae Booemiaeque reginam Mariam, Caroli Caesaris ac Ferdinandi regis sororem. Opus recens natum et nunc primum excusum. Liber Lactantii Firmiani de opificio Dei per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, accurate recognitus et additis scholiis illustratus. Novum et hoc, 3–207 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Johann Herwagen, March 1529 | ustc 701055; eol 3615 | er 128– 129: Vidua Christiana, ad Mariam quondam Ungariae reginam, Caroli Caesaris sororem ‖ Ep. 2100 (Allen 8: 55–56; cwe 15: 88–89) | lb 5: 723–766; asd v-6: 263–332 | cwe 66: 184–257, 319–331

51

istc = Incunabula Short Title Catalogue (http://data.cerl.org/istc).

306

tello

350 (ed.) Lactantii de opificio Dei | Lact. opif. Dei Liber Lactantii Firmiani de opificio Dei per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, accurate recognitus et additis scholiis illustratus. Novum et hoc. In Vidua Christiana … (as in 349), 209–318 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Johann Herwagen, March 1529 | ustc 701055; eol 3615 | er 225: Lactantius de opificio Dei recognitus cum scholiis ‖ Ep. 2103 (Allen 8: 61–62; asd viii-1: 660–662; cwe 15: 95–96) ¶ A selection of scholia can be found in asd viii-1: 658–659. 351 Responsio adversus febricitantis cuiusdam libellum | Resp. adv. febricit. lib. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami adversus febricitantis cuiusdam libellum responsio | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, March 1529 | ustc 635486; eol 3567 ‖ lb 10: 1673– 1684; *asd ix-11 | cwe 75: 191–211 352–360 Colloquia (xi) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opus multis nominibus utilissimum, nuper ab autore correctum cum accessione colloquiorum aliquot, quae nunc primum nova prodeunt. Item Ciceronianus eiusdem per eundem emendatus et auctus cum nonnullis aliis | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Johann Herwagen, March 1529 | ustc 657294; eol 5350 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 352 Charon | lb 1: 822–824; asd i-3: 575–584 | cwe 40: 821– 830 353 Synodus grammaticorum | lb 1: 824–826; asd i-3: 585–590 | cwe 40: 832–841 354 Ἄγαμος γάμος sive coniugium impar | lb 1: 826–830; asd i-3: 591– 600 | cwe 40: 844–859 355 Impostura | lb 1: 830–831; asd i-3: 601–602 | cwe 40: 861–862 356 Cyclops sive evangeliophorus | lb 1: 831–833; asd i-3: 603–609 | cwe 40: 864–876 357 Ἀπροσδυόνυσα sive absurda | lb 1: 834; asd i-3: 610–611 | cwe 40: 877–879 358 Ἱππεὺς ἄνιππος sive ementita nobilitas | lb 1: 834–837; asd i-3: 612–619 | cwe 40: 881–890 359 Ἀστραγαλισμός sive talorum lusus | lb 1: 838– 841; asd i-3: 620–628 | cwe 40: 892–904 360 Senatulus sive γυναικοσυνέρδιον | lb 1: 842–844; asd i-3: 629–634 | cwe 40: 906–915 ¶ Item 352 was originally published as an independent work in the second edition of Catalogus lucubrationum omnium (Basel: J. Froben, Apr. 1523 | ustc 619677), l4v–l7v. See 165, complementary note.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

361 De pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis | De pueris Libellus novus et elegans Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami de pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis cum aliis compluribus, quorum catalogum indicabit versa pagella, α2r–109 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben, Johann Herwagen and Nicolaus Episcopius, September 1529 | ustc 672688; eol 3326 | er 46: De pueris statim

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

307

ac liberaliter instituendis, anno 1529 ‖ Ep. 2189 (Allen 8: 217–218; cwe 15: 333– 335) | lb 1: 487–516; asd i-2: 21–78 | cwe 25–26: 295–346, 568–580 362–364 Colloquia (xii) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opus ab autore diligenter recognitum, emendatum et locupletatum, adiectis aliquot novis | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Johann Herwagen, September 1529 | ustc 657251; eol 745 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 362 Diluculum | lb 1: 844–847; asd i-3: 637–642 | cwe 40: 917–924 363 Νηφάλιον συμπόσιον | lb 1: 847–849; asd i-3: 643–646 | cwe 40: 925–930 364 Ars notoria | lb 1: 849–850; asd i-3: 647–649 | cwe 40: 932–937

• •

•

365 Responsio ad collationes cuiusdam iuvenis gerontodidascali | Resp. ad collat. iuv. geront. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami ad collationes cuiusdam [responsio]. Opus recens | Antwerp: Petrus Sylvius, 15 October 1529 | ustc 410719;52 eol 3540 ‖ lb 9: 965e– 1016; *asd ix-11 | cwe 73: 138–262 ¶ Regarding the date of publication, the title page bears “vii Octobris,” while the colophon bears “xv Octobris.” 366 Paraphrasis in Elegantias Laurentii Vallae | Paraphr. in Eleg. Laur. Vallae Paraphrasis luculenta, iuxta ac brevis, in Elegantiarum libros Laurentii Vallae de lingua Latina optime meriti, scripta quondam Luttetiae a Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo, literarium Latinarum et omnis pietatis uindice. Cui addita est et farrago sordidorum verborum siue augiae stabulum repurgatum per Cornelium Crocum, haud vulgarem formandae pueritiae artificem apud religiosum Hollandiae Amstelredamum | Cologne: Johann Gymnich, [earlier than 21 November] 1529, 4v–96r | ustc 682554;53 eol 3084 ‖ Ep. 2416 (Allen 9: 98–99; cwe 17: 157– 159) | lb 1: 1067–1126; asd i-4: 207–351 ¶ Approximate date of publication of this unauthorized edition according to C.L. Heesakkers and J.H. Waszink (asd i-4: 203). Ep. 2416 is the preface to ustc 682653, eol 3089 (Freiburg im Breisgau: J. Faber Emmeus, Mar. 1531), the first authorized edition: Paraphrasis seu potius epitome inscripta Desiderio Erasmo

52 53

Copy consulted (digital format) at Google Books: kbr Royal Library of Belgium, kw 231 G 20. Copy consulted (digital format) at Google Books: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, BV 009113872.

308

tello

Roterodamo luculenta, iuxta ac brevis, in Elegantiarum libros Laurentii Valla ab ipso iam recognita. Cui addita est et farrago sordidorum verborum sive Augiae stabulum repurgatum per Cornelium Crocum, A1v–L7r. 367 Loca quaedam emendata | Loca emend. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami apologia adversus articulos aliquot per monachos quosdam in Hispaniis exhibitos, ab autore recognita et aucta. Item loca quaedam in aliquot Erasmi lucubrationibus per ipsum emendata, 223–251 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben, Johann Herwagen and Nicolaus Episcopius, 1529 | ustc 635437; eol 244 ‖ Ep. 2095 (Allen 8: 48–50; cwe 15: 77–80) ¶ As J.M. Estes summarizes (cwe 15: 76; Ep. 2095, intr.), the Loca “consisted of 26 octavo pages of corrigenda for some of Erasmus’ works: the revised edition of Jerome of 1524–1526 (Ep. 1465), Psalm 85 of 1528 (Ep. 2017), the 1527 edition of the New Testament, and the 1524 composite volume of the Paraphrases on the Gospels and Acts.” Erasmus managed to incorporate many of these emendations in subsequent editions. 368 Epistola apologetica adversus Stunicam | Epist. apolog. adv. Stun. Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami per auctorem diligenter recognitum et adiectis innumeris locis fere ad trientem auctum, 861–869 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben, Johann Herwagen and Nicolaus Episcopius, 1529 | ustc 679866; eol 2083 ‖ Ep. 2172 (Allen 8: 185–187; cwe 15: 277–282) | lb 9: 391–400; asd ix8: 305–339 | *cwe 74 369 Annotationes in leges pontificias et Caesareas | Annot. in leg. pont. et Caes. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami annotationes in leges pontificias et Caesareas, de haereticis. Epistolae aliquot Gerardi Noviomagi, de re evangelica et haereticorum poenis: ad Carolum Quintum, imperatorem Caesaris Augustae; ad Germanorum principes in conventu Spirensi; ad Carolum, Gelriorum ducem; ad Philippum, Hessorum principem, A1v–A2v | Strasbourg: Christian Egenolff, 1529 | ustc 626005; eol 216, 5488 1530 370 De duplici martyrio | De dupl. mart. Divi Caecilii Cypriani, episcopi Carthaginensis et martyris, opera iam quartum accuratiori vigilantia a mendis repurgata per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Accessit liber eiusdem apprime pius ad Fortunatum de duplici martyrio, antehac nunquam excusus, 508–527 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben, Johann Herwagen and Nicolaus Episcopius, January 1530 | ustc 640566; eol | er 216–217:

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

309

Cyprianus saepe recognitus, cui in postrema editione accessit Liber de duplici martyrio antea non excusus, anno 1529 ‖ asd viii-1: 219–247 ¶ Regarding the authorship, see 191, complementary note. 371 Epistola contra pseudoevangelicos | Epist. c. pseudoevang. Epistola Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami contra quosdam qui se falso iactant evangelicos | Freiburg im Breisgau: Johannes Faber Emmeus, [January 1530] | ustc 651263; eol 202854 | er 212: Contra pseudevangelicos epistola una, anno 1530 ‖ lb 10: 1573–1590; asd ix-1: 283–309 | cwe 78: 218–253 ¶ Date of publication according to C. Augustijn (asd ix-1: 279, #1a). The date written by Erasmus at the end of the work is 4 Nov. 1529. Ep. 2238 (Allen 8: 304; cwe 16: 95) was printed in an unauthorized edition, possibly ustc 625144 (Strasbourg: Chr. Egenolff, [1530]). J.M. Estes (cwe 16: 94–95) explains that “Erasmus’ Epistola contra pseudevangelicos, his reaction to Geldenhouwer’s unauthorized publication and tendentious interpretation of passages from the Apologia adversus monachos quosdam Hispanos, was now in press and about to be published.” 372 Epistola ad gracculos | Epist. ad grac. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami epistola ad quosdam impudentissimos gracculos | [Freiburg im Breisgau: Johannes Faber Emmeus, February? 1530] | ustc 635435; eol 5732 ‖ Ep. 2275 (Allen 8: 364–366; cwe 16: 196–199) | lb 10: 1745–1746 ¶ Allen dates the epistle tentatively to Feb. 1530. According to J.M. Estes (cwe 16: 196), “the Epistola was published as a pamphlet, without indication of place or date, by Johann Faber Emmaeus at Freiburg. Allen assigned his conjectural date on the basis of evidence that Carvajal’s Dulcoratio had reached Erasmus ‘in the latter part of February’ and that Erasmus had hastily dashed off the Epistola so that it would be ready for the spring fair at Frankfurt.” 373 De civilitate morum puerilium | De civil. De civilitate morum puerilium per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum libellus, nunc primum et conditus et aeditus | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, [ca. March] 1530 | ustc 629206; eol 559 | er 49: De civilibus puerorum moribus ‖ Ep. 2282 (Allen 8: 372; cwe 16: 209) | lb 1: 1033–1044; asd i-8: 315–341 | cwe 25–26: 273– 289, 562–567

54

According to C. Augustijn (asd ix-1: 279), eol 2028 displays the title page of the editio princeps (#1a), while ustc 651263 actually corresponds to a copy (#1b) equivalent to the editio princeps but posterior to it.

310

tello

¶ Approximate date of publication devised from the last line of the work— which reads (asd i-8: 340): “Datum apud Friburgum Brisgoiae, mense Martio, anno mdxxx.”—and the fact that, according to J.M. Estes (cwe 16: 208), “the first edition … was prepared in haste for the spring book fair.” ¶ the book fairs in frankfurt took place twice a year, once in spring (March) and once in autumn (August–September). See Ep. 326a cwe lines 16– 18; cwe 12: 10, n. 4; cwe 13: 496, n. 16. According to J.W. Thompson, “the fairs became the places where, at fixed seasons in the spring (Lent, Easter Fair) and autumn (Michaelmas Fair) especially, the various parties concerned met to transact their business.”55 The autumn fair usually fell between the Assumption (August 15) and the Nativity (September 8) of the Virgin Mary, whereas the spring fair usually fell between the third Sunday in Lent and the second Sunday before Easter. 374–375 (tr.) Ex Chrysostomo versa (v) | Ex Chrys. versa Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi, archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, opera quae hactenus versa sunt omnia ad Graecorum codicum collationem multis in locis per utriusque linguae peritos emendata. Accessere non pauca hactenus non vulgata, velut commentarii in utranque ad Corinthios epistolam et aliquot homiliae in Acta apostolorum. Nihil autem admixtum est usquam quod quenquam offendat novitate dogmatum. Neque nostra conquiescet industria donec universum Chrysostomum Latinis auribus dederimus, vol. 1: A2r–B2r, 1–148, 384–426; vol. 3: 473 | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, August 1530 (5 vols. + index) | ustc 626163;56 eol 4406 | er (see below) ‖ Ep. 2359 (Allen 9: 4–6; asd viii-1: 560– 563; cwe 17: 6–9), Ep. 2359a (Allen—; asd viii-1: 557–558; cwe 17: 9–12) | lb (see below) New works added: 374 Sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi Commentarium in Acta apostolorum, Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo interprete [homilia 4] | er 156, 163: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus … in Acta Apostolorum homilias quatuor | lb 8: 212–218 375 Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi, archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani, Commentarium in secundam ad Corinthios Epistolam, Desiderio Erasmo interprete [homilae 1–7] | er 156, 165: Ex Chrysostomo vertimus … in secundam ad Corinthios homilias decem | lb 8: 217–266 ¶ As R.D. Sider summarizes (cwe 41: 327, n. 1393), “this five-volume Chrysostom represented by no means the work of only Erasmus, who provided some of the

•

•

55 56

See J.W. Thompson, The Frankfort Book Fair: The Francofordiense Emporium of Henri Estienne (Chicago: The Caxton Club, 1911) 20. Copy consulted (digital format) at Google Books: Národní knihovna České republiky (Incunabula, Early Printed Books and Maps 1450–1800), system number 104412.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

311

translations, while Germain de Brie and Oecolampadius provided others. Even the editorial work was evidently light, but it was no doubt advantageous to the publisher that the work should go out under Erasmus’ name.” Ep. 2359a is the preface to the reader for Eruditi commentarii in Evangelium Matthaei, incerto autore (vol. 3: 474–752). ¶ In this edition, Erasmus translated a fourth homilia (item 374; see the previous three in 319) of Chrysostom’s commentary of the Acts of the apostles. Homiliae 5–55 were translated by Oecolampadius and published later in ustc 2213840 (Basel: H. Froben, J. Herwagen and N. Episcopius, May 1531), after Erasmus’ translation of homilies 1–4. ¶ Later, in Mar. 1533 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius | ustc 640619), Germanus Brixius (Germain de Brie) published the first eight sermons of Chrysostom’s In Epistolam divi Pauli ad Romanos homiliae. After his preface to the reader, the French humanist honored Erasmus’ support when he acknowledged that “I am publishing, with your encouragement and sponsorship, the first eight sermons, a quarter of the whole work, both in Chrysostom’s Greek and in my translation” (Ep. 2727 cwe lines 83–85). 376 Vita Chrysostomi | Vita Chrys. Vita divi Ioannis Chrysostomi ex historiae, quam tripartitam vocant, libro decimo magna ex parte concinnata per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. In Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi … opera … (as in 374–375), vol. 1: A2v–B2r | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, August 1530 | ustc 626163;57 eol 4406 ‖ lb 3: 1332–1347 (Ep. mcl); asd viii-1: 103–133 ¶ Other title: Vita divi Ioannis Chrysostomi ex historiae, quam tripartitam vocant, libro decimo magna ex parte concinnata, nonnullis adiectis ex dialogo Palladii, episcopi Helenopolitani, qui fuerat Chrysostomi discipulus et Theodori, Romanae Ecclesiae diaconi, per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum (bas 3: 1133). 377 Epistola ad fratres Inferioris Germaniae | Epist. ad fratr. Infer. Germ. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami responsio ad epistolam apologeticam incerto autore proditam, nisi quod titulus forte fictus habebat ‘Per ministros verbi Ecclesiae Argentoratensis’ | Freiburg im Breisgau: Johannes Faber Emmeus, [September] 1530 | ustc 635419; eol 3554 ‖ lb 10: 1589–1632; asd ix-1: 329–425 | cwe 78: 265–368 ¶ Month of publication according to C. Augustijn (asd ix-1: 326). Last line of the work reads: “Apud Friburgum Brisgoiae Cal. Augu. anno mdxxx.”

57

See previous note.

312

tello

¶ The title alludes to the following work: Epistola apologetica ad syncerioris Christianismi sectatores per Frisiam orientalem et alias Inferioris Germaniae regiones, in qua Evangelii Christi vere studiosi, non qui se falso evangelicos iactant, iis defenduntur criminibus, quae in illos Erasmi Roterodami epistola ad Vulturium Neocomum intendit. Per ministros Evangelii Ecclesiae Argentoratensis (Strasbourg: P. Schöffer and J. Schwintzer, 1530 | ustc 651226). 378 Enarrationes in Psalmos (vi) | Enarrat. in Ps. 22 Enarratio triplex in Psalmum xxii per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus novum nec antehac excusum | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1530 | ustc 649987; eol 3305 | er 133: Concio in Psalmum vigesimum secundum ‖ Ep. 2266 (Allen 8: 350; cwe 16: 175–176) | lb 5: 311–346; asd v-2: 327–382 | cwe 64: 124– 199 379 (tr.) Xenophontis rhetoris Hieron | Xen. Hier. Xenophontis, Socratici rhetoris, Hieron sive tyrannus, liber utilissimus his qui rempublicam administrant, Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo interprete. Opus recens, 3–58 | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1530 | ustc 707481; eol 5135 | er 118: Xenophontis tyrannus versus, anno 1530 ‖ Ep. 2273 (Allen 8: 361–362; cwe 16: 192– 194) | lb 4: 643–654; asd iv-7: 187–208 380 (pr.) Georgii Agricolae Bermannus | Georg. Agric. Berm. Georgii Agricolae medici Bermannus sive de re metallica, a2r–v | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1530 | ustc 600316; eol 5733 ‖ Ep. 2274 (Allen 8: 363; cwe 16: 194– 195) 381 (ed.) Algeri de veritate corporis et sanguinis dominici in eucharistia | Alger. Divi Algeri quondam ex scholastico monachi Benedictini de veritate corporis et sanguinis dominici in eucharistia, cum refutatione diversarum circa hoc haereseon. Opus pium iuxta ac doctum, nunquam antehac excusum. Ex recognitione Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Freiburg im Breisgau: Johannes Faber Emmeus, 1530 | ustc 640422; eol 3750 | er 228: Algerus De eucharistia, recognitus ‖ Ep. 2284 (Allen 8: 378–382; asd viii-1: 669–676; cwe 16: 218–225) ¶ This is Erasmus’ edition of Alger’s De sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Domini. 382 Enarrationes in Psalmos (vii) | Enarrat. in Ps. 28 Consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo et obiter enarratus Psalmus xxviii | Consult. de bell. Turc. Utilissima consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo et obiter enarratus Psalmus xxviii per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus recens et natum et

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

313

aeditum, 3–107 | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1530 | ustc 704709; eol 1373 | er 149: De bello Turcico, anno 1530 ‖ Ep. 2285 (Allen 8: 382–385; cwe 16: 226–232) | lb 5: 345–368; asd v-3: 31–82 | cwe 64: 211–266 ¶ In the last pages of this edition (108–118) there can be found Ep. 2283, which includes the last version of the catalogue of Erasmus’ works written by himself. See 165, complementary note. 383 Admonitio adversus mendacium et obtrectationem | Admon. adv. mendac. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami adversus mendacium et obtrectationem utilis admonitio | Freiburg im Breisgau: [Johannes Faber Emmeus], 1530 | ustc 626004; eol 212 ‖ lb 10: 1683–1692; asd ix-9: 423–435 | cwe 78: 379–394 ¶ Printer according to J. Trapman (asd ix-9: 419). 384 (contr.) Plauti comoediae | Plaut. Maccii Plauti Sarsinatis comici festivissimi comoediae xx, iam denuo diligentius recognitae: restituta in mensum suum non pauca carmina a nemine hactenus animadversa; cum indice verborum, quibus paulo abstrusioribus Plautus utitur; argumenta singularum comoediarum; Graecarum dictionum tralatio; autoris vita. Additis in omnes comoedias brevissimis scholiis, in quibus annotantur quaecunque aut castigavit aut annotavit in Plautum Desiderius Erasmus, Guilielmus Budaeus, Angelus Politianus, Georgius Alexandrinus caeterique eiusdem notae scriptores | Cologne: Johann Gymnich, 1530 | ustc 674262; eol 4574 ¶ During his stay in Venice (1507–1508), Erasmus assisted Aldo Manuzio and Andrea Torresani in the preparation of the Latin text of Terence (published later in Nov. 1517 | ustc 858679) and Plautus (published later in Jul. 1522 | ustc 849863). But those contributions were minimal, and Erasmus’ name was not mentioned. See Ep. 1341a cwe lines 441–443: “here my avowed purpose was no more than the rearrangement of the lines, which were in great confusion, wherever it might have been possible.” 1531 385 Enarrationes in Psalmos (viii) | Enarrat. in Ps. 33 Enarratio pia iuxta ac docta in Psalmum xxxiii per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, modo recens et nata simul et excusa typis | Basel: Hieronymus Froben, Johann Herwagen and Nicolaus Episcopius, March 1531 | ustc 650046; eol 3306 ‖ Ep. 2428 (Allen 9: 122–123; cwe 17: 194–195) | lb 5: 367–416; asd v-3: 93– 160 | cwe 64: 273–373

314

tello

386 (tr.) Apophthegmata (i) | Apophth. Apophthegmatum sive scite dictorum libri sex, ex optimis quibusque utriusque linguae autoribus Plutarcho praesertim excerptorum cum brevi commodaque explicatione, quae tum lucem addit obscuris tum dicti sensum argutiamque nonnunquam et usum indicat, per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus non minus bonae frugis quam voluptatis allaturum studiosis. Nunc primum excusum [libri 1–6] | Basel: Hieronymus Froben, Johann Herwagen and Nicolaus Episcopius, March 1531 | ustc 612545; eol 322 ‖ Ep. 2431 (Allen 9: 126–133; cwe 17: 200–211) | lb 4: 87–380; asd iv-4: 37–372; *asd iv 5–6 | cwe 37–38: 3– 967 387 (pr.) Aristotelis opera omnia | Aristot. op. omn. Simon Grinaeus (ed.), Ἀριστοτέλους ἅπαντα. Aristotelis, summi semper viri et in quem unum vim suam universam contulisse natura rerum videtur, opera quaecunque impressa hactenus extiterunt omnia summa cum vigilantia excusa per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum […] Ὁ τῶν τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους βιβλίων δεύτερος τόμος ταῦτα περιέχει. Secundus tomus haec habet, vol. 1: α2r-α5r | Basel: Johann Bebel, 13 May 1531 (2 vols.) | ustc 612987; eol 3842 ‖ Ep. 2432 (Allen 9: 133–142; cwe 17: 213–222) ¶ Date of publication in Greek: thirteenth day of the month Thargelion, that is, 13 May. According to J.M. Estes (cwe 17: 211), “the letter is Erasmus’ sole contribution to the edition,” even though the title-page indicates that the production of the work was carefully supervised by Erasmus. 388 (pr.) Gregorii Nazianzeni orationes | Greg. Naz. orat. Divi Gregorii Nazianzeni orationes xxx, Bilibaldo Pirckheimero interprete, nunc primum editae, quarum catalogum cum aliis quibusdam post epistolam Desideri Erasmi Roterodami videbis, α2r-α3r | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, September 1531 | ustc 626434; eol 4276 ‖ Ep. 2493 (Allen 9: 266– 268; asd viii-1: 683–687; cwe 18: 39–43) ¶ The Latin translation of Gregory’s Orationes had been made by Erasmus’ friend Willibald Pirckheimer, who died 22 Dec. 1530. This posthumous edition was prepared by Erasmus and Hans Straub, Pirckheimer’s son-in-law. See asd viii-1: 680–681. 389–393 Colloquia (xiii) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opus ab autore postremum diligenter recognitum, emendatum et locupletatum, adiectis aliquot lectu dignis colloquiis. Cum indice | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, September 1531 | ustc 657261; eol 748 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber

315

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 389 Concio sive merdardus | lb 1: 850–857; asd i-3: 653– 666 | cwe 40: 940–962 390 Philodoxus | lb 1: 857–862; asd i-3: 667–675 | cwe 40: 964–978 391 Opulentia sordida | lb 1: 862–866; asd i-3: 676–685 | cwe 40: 982–995 392 Exequiae seraphicae | lb 1: 866–873; asd i-3: 686–699 | cwe 40: 999–1032 393 Amicitia | lb 1: 873–878; asd i-3: 700–709 | cwe 40: 1036–1055

•

• •

•

•

394 Apologia adversus rhapsodias Alberti Pii | Apolog. adv. rhaps. Alb. Pii Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami apologia adversus rhapsodias calumniosarum querimoniarum Alberti Pii, quondam Carporum principis, quem et senem et moribundum et ad quidvis potius accommodum homines quidam male auspicati ad hanc illiberalem fabulam agendam subornarunt | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, 1531 | ustc 635481; eol 249 ‖ lb 9: 1123–1196; asd ix-6: 241–662 | cwe 84: 107–360 1532 395–397 Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae vulgatas | Declarat. ad cens. Lutet. Declarationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami ad censuras Lutetiae vulgatas sub nomine facultatis theologiae Parisiensis | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, [January-Febuary] 1532 | ustc 632043; eol 1570 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) It includes: 395 Declarationes Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami ad censuras Lutetiae vulgatas sub nomine facultatis theologiae Parisiensis, vigilanter recognitae per autorem et auctae | lb 9: 813–923; asd ix-7: 25–227 | cwe 82: 3–256 396 Sequuntur quaedam propositiones Erasmicae censura eiusdem facultatis theologicae qua superiore notatae sed per describentis oscitationem impressori non traditae, quas, quia suis locis nunc apponi non poterant, ad calcem duxit apponendas | lb 9: 923–928; asd ix-7: 229–238 | cwe 82: 257–268 397 Determinatio facultatis sacrae theologiae in academia Parisiensi super familiaribus colloquiis Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, conclusa mense Maio anno mdxxvi | lb 9: 928– 954; asd ix-7: 239–286 | cwe 82: 269–326 ¶ According to C.H. Miller and J.K. Farge (cwe 82: x–xi, n. 3), “it must have appeared either in Jan. or early Feb., because Erasmus wrote to Bishop Piotr Tomicki on 4 Feb. 1532 that he was sending him a copy of it (Allen 9: Ep. 2600).” Miller (asd ix-7: 19, n. 78) insists again that “this first edition was in press in Dec. 1531 and was in print before Feb. 4, 1532. See Ep. 2579, line 57; and 2600, lines 23–25.”

•

•

•

316

tello

398 (contr.) Terentii comoediae | Ter. Habes hic, amice lector, Publii Terentii comoedias, una cum scholiis ex Donati, Asperi et Cornuti commentariis decerptis, multo quam antehac unquam prodierunt emendatiores, nisi quod in Ἑαυτὸν τιμωρούμενον scripsit vir apprime doctus Ioannes Calphurnius Brixiensis licet recentior. Indicata sunt diligentius carminum genera, et in his incidentes difficultates correcta quaedam et consulum nomina, idque studio et opera Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami non sine praesidio veterum exemplariorum. Ad haec accessit index accuratus vocum a commentatoribus declaratarum | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, March 1532 | ustc 661434; eol 4798 ‖ Ep. 2584 (Allen 9: 401–403; cwe 18: 255– 258) ¶ See 384, complementary note. 399 De metris | De metris Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus de metris. In Habes … Publii Terentii comoedias … (as in 398), α3r-α4v | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, March 1532 | ustc 661434; eol 4798 ¶ This short writing is an independent item placed after the prefatory epistle to Eramus’ edition of the works of Terence. It succintly explains the metres used by the playwright. 400 Enarrationes in Psalmos (ix) | Enarrat. in Ps. 38 Enarratio Psalmi trigesimioctavi multum ab enarratione veterum differens per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus nunc recens et natum et aeditum | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, March 1532 | ustc 650051; eol 3308 ‖ Ep. 2608 (Allen 9: 432–433; cwe 18: 304–306) | lb 5: 415–468; asd v-3: 169–243 | cwe 65: 9–123 401 (pr.) Basilii opera omnia | Basil. op. omn. En, amice lector, thesaurum damus inaestimabilem divum Basilium vere magnum sua lingua dissertissime loquentem, quem hactenus habuisti Latine balbutientem. Unum hunc dedit nobis Graecia numeris omnibus absolutum sive pietatem animi spectes sive sacrae pariter ac prophanae philosophiae peritiam sive divinitus afflatam eloquentiam. Mihi crede: reddet te tibi meliorem, quisquis hunc familiarem habere voles. Operum catalogum et Erasmi Erasmi Roterodami praefationem versa pagina monstrabit, ✝2r-✝4r | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, March 1532 | ustc 649931; eol 3908 ‖ Ep. 2611 (Allen 9: 435–440; asd viii-1: 293–301; cwe 18: 309–317) ¶ Apparently, Erasmus only suggested to H. Froben the publication of Basil’s complete works, and he was not further involved except for the prefatory epis-

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

317

tle, as the title page indicates. See Ep. 2526 cwe line 14: “At my suggestion Hieronymus Froben will print a complete Greek Basil”; Ep. 2611 cwe lines 3–5: “I had thoroughly made up my mind, Sadoleto, glory of this age, and had decided for the future to refuse absolutely, no matter how relentless the demands of the printers, to contribute prefaces to the works of others.” For Chomarat (1981) 455, “c’est Érasme qui a conseillé à Froben cette édition (Allen nº 2526, l. 12–13),” but “Érasme ne semble pas avoir participé à l’établissement du texte.” 402 (tr.) Ex Basilio versa (ii) | Ex Basil. versa Duae homiliae divi Basilii de laudibus ieiunii, Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo interprete; Xenophontis tyrannus ab eo recognitus. Cum aliis nonnullis, 2r–23v | Freiburg im Breisgau: Johann Faber Emmeus, [March?] 1532 | ustc 641722; eol 3255 ‖ Ep., lb, cwe (see below) New work added: Duae homiliae divi Basilii de laudibus ieiunii | Basil. De laud. ieiun. | Ep. 2617 (Allen 9: 458–459; asd viii-1: 319–320; cwe 18: 352–353) | lb 8: 535–546 ¶ Approximate month of publication devised from Ep. 2618 (see 403, complementary note). 403 Precatio ad Iesum pro pace Ecclesiae | Precat. pro pace Eccl. Precatio ad Dominum Iesum pro pace Ecclesiae. In Duae homiliae divi Basilii … (as in 402), 47r–51v | Freiburg im Breisgau: Johann Faber Emmeus, [March?] 1532 | ustc 641722; eol 3255 ‖ Ep. 2618 (Allen 9: 459–460; cwe 18: 353) | lb 4: 653–656; lb 5: 1215–1218; *asd v-9 | cwe 69: 111–116 ¶ Title of work as found in 47v. Approximate month of publication devised from Ep. 2618, which is dated 5 Mar. 1532. 404 (tr.) Ex Basilio versa (iii) | Ex Basil. versa Divi Basilii, magni episcopi Caesareae Cappadociae, opus argutum ac pium de Spiritu sancto ad Amphilochium, Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo interprete. Nunc primum et versum et excusum | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, May 1532 | ustc 649931; eol 3909 ‖ Ep. 2643 (Allen 10: 13–16; asd viii-1: 307–313; cwe 19: 21–29) | lb 8: 489–534 New work added: Basilii de Spiritu sancto | Basil. Spir. sanct. 405 (contr.) Demosthenis orationes duas et sexaginta | Demosth. orat. Δημοσθένους λόγοι δύο καὶ ἑξήκοντα. Habes lector Demosthenis, Graecorum oratorum omnium facile principis, orationes duas et sexaginta; et in easdem Ulpiani commentarios quantum extat, Libanii argumenta. Tum collectas a studioso quodam ex Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, Guilhelmi Budaei atque aliorum lucubra-

318

tello

tionibus annotationes. Ad haec ipsius Plutarcho Libanioque authoribus vitam et lectionem denique variam adiectam, ss3v-yy3v | Basel: Johann Herwagen, September 1532 | ustc 632401; eol 4193 ‖ Ep. 2695 (Allen 10: 73–75; cwe 19: 122–125) It includes: Annotationes in Demosthenis orationes | Annot. in Demosth. ¶ As f. ss3v indicates, the edition of the Greek text of Demosthenes’ speeches consists of 53 pages of notes (annotationes), written by Budé, Erasmus, and other scholars (aliorumque eruditorum), which have been gathered by a certain scholar (per studiosum quendam diligenter collectae). No futher details are given. 406 Responsio ad disputationem cuiusdam Phimostomi de divortio | Resp. ad disp. Phimost. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami epistolae palaeonaeoi; ad haec responsio ad disputationem cuiusdam Phimostomi de divortio, 154–164 | Freiburg im Breisgau: Johannes Faber Emmeus, September 1532 | ustc 635553; eol 3548 ‖ lb 9: 955– 965d; asd ix-4: 375–398 | cwe 83: 152–177 407 Dilutio eorum quae Iodocus Clichthoveus scripsit | Dilut. Clichthov. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami dilutio eorum quae Iodocus Clithoveus scripsit adversus declamationem suasoriam matrimonii; Epistola eiusdem de delectu ciborum cum scholiis per ipsum autorem recens additis; In Elenchum Alberti Pii brevissima scholia per eundem Erasmum Roterodamum, 3–60 | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1532 | ustc 626028; eol 1665 ‖ Telle (1968) 69–100; asd ix-10: 41– 69 | cwe 83: 116–148 408 Scholia in Epistolam apologetica de interdicto esu carnium | Scholia in De interd. esu carn. In Epistolam Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami de delectu ciborum ad Christophorum, episcopum Basiliensem, scholia eiusdem defensoria. In Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami dilutio … (as in 407), 129–178 | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1532 | ustc 626028; eol 1665 ‖ asd ix-1: 65–89 | cwe 73: 104–134 ¶ Title as found in p. 129. Title page only reads “Epistola … de delectu ciborum cum scholiis.” Content included in this work refers to 235. 409 Scholia brevissima in Elenchum Alberti Pii | Scholia in Elench. Pii In Elenchum Alberti Pii brevissima scholia per eundem Erasmum Roterodamum. In Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami dilutio … (as in 407), m2r–n8r | Basel: Officina Frobeniana, 1532 | ustc 626028; eol 1665 ‖ asd ix-6: 667–689 | cwe 84: 363– 385

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

319

410 (tr.) Apophthegmata (ii) | Apophth. Apophthegmatum opus cum primis frugiferum vigilanter ab ipso recognitum autore e Graeco codice correctis aliquot locis in quibus interpres Diogenis Laërtii fefellerat, locupletatum insuper quum variis per totum accessionibus tum duobus libris in fine adiectis per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum [libri 1–8] | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, 1532 | ustc 612553; eol 325 ‖ lb 4: 87–380; asd iv-4: 37–372; *asd iv 5–6 | cwe 37–38: 3–967 New work added: apophthegmata, libri 7–8. ¶ Erasmus revised and improved books 1–6 and added 7–8. In 1535 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius | ustc 635470), he published a revised edition with some corrections and particularly some additions at the end of book 8 (306– 319, according to the numbering of cwe 38: 963–967). After Erasmus’ death, Francesco Robortello wrote some Annotationes in Apophthegmata (lb 8: 585– 592). 1533 411 Explanatio symboli apostolorum sive catechismus | Explan. symboli Dilucida et pia explanatio symboli, quod apostolorum dicitur decalogi praeceptorum, et dominicae precationis per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Opus nunc primum et conditum et aeditum, a2r–193 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, March 1533 (In-4º) | ustc 637594; eol 2175 ‖ Ep. 2772 (Allen 10: 165–166; cwe 19: 272) | lb 5: 1133–1196; asd v-1: 203–320 | cwe 70: 235–387 412 Adagiorum chiliades (viii) | Adag. Adagiorum opus Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami per eundem exquisitiore quam antehac unquam cura recognitum, cui praeter multa in medio vel utiliter addita vel vigilanter emendata accesserunt ferme quinque centuriae. Quid actum sit in indicibus cognosces ex ipsius in hos praefatione [adagia 1–4146] | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, March 1533 | ustc 609174; eol 82 | er 89–90: Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ Ep. 2773 (Allen 10: 166–169; cwe 19: 273–277) | lb 2; asd ii 1–8 | cwe 31–36 New work added: adagia 3659–4146 ¶ This edition includes an opening epigram composed by Erasmus (title page, verso) that conveys all the toil hitherto undertaken: “Perfacile est, aiunt, proverbia scribere cuivis / Haud nego, sed durum est scribere chiliadas / Qui mihi non credit, faciat licet ipse periclum / Mox fuerit studiis aequior ille meis” (poem 91, in asd i-7: 263; cwe 85–86: 176–177, 565–566).

320

tello

413–414 Colloquia (xiv) | Coll. Familiarium colloquiorum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami opus ab autore postremum diligenter recognitum, emendatum et locupletatum, adiectis aliquot lectu dignis colloquiis. Cum indice | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, March 1533 | ustc 657252; eol 753 | er 81–82: Colloquiorum liber unus, sed frequenter auctus; extrema aeditio fuit anno 1529 ‖ lb, asd, cwe (see below) New works added: 413 Problema | lb 1: 879–882; asd i-3: 713–719 | cwe 40: 1059–1069 414 Epicureus | lb 1: 882–890; asd i-3: 720–733 | cwe 40: 1073–1094

•

•

415 (pr.) Ptolemaei de geographia | Ptol. geogr. Κλαυδίου Πτολεμαίου Ἀλεξανδρέως φιλοσόφου ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα πεπαιδευμένου περὶ τῆς γεωγραφίας βιβλία ὀκτὼ μετὰ πάσης ἀκριβείας ἐντυπωθέντα. Claudii Ptolemaei Alexandrini philosophi cum primis eruditi de geographia libri octo, summa cum vigilantia excusi, 2r–3v | (Autograph, 1 February 1533)58 Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, September 1533 | ustc 604939; eol 4654 ‖ Ep. 2760 (Allen 10: 148–150; cwe 19: 244–247) ¶ According to Allen (10: 148), “neither the title-page nor the contents suggest that Erasmus had anything to do with the editing.” However, Haeghen (1893) 2: 49 claims that Erasmus is the editor of this work (“edente Erasmo”). 416 (pr.) Haymonis explanatio in omnes Psalmos | Haym. expl. in Ps. Pia, brevis ac dilucida in omnes Psalmos explanatio sanctissimi viri divi Haymonis, olim episcopi Halberstattensis, quam ille veluti spiritualis apicula ex omnium veterum hortis ac pratis florentissimis decerpsit, quo simplicibus et occupatis esset parata saluberrimi mellis copia. Opus antehac nunquam excusum, 2r–3r | Freiburg im Breisgau: Johannes Faber Emmeus, 1533 | ustc 684045; eol 4280 ‖ Ep. 2771 (Allen 10: 162–165; asd viii-1: 693–697; cwe 19: 266–270) ¶ As J.M. Estes points out (cwe 19: 266), “there is nothing to indicate whether Erasmus undertook to publish this work on his own initiative or merely provided an introduction at the request of someone else, perhaps the dedicatee or the publisher.” 417–421 (tr.) Ex Chrysostomo versa (vi) | Ex Chrys. versa Aliquot homiliae divi Ioannis Chrysostomi ad pietatem summopere conducibiles, nunc primum et versae et editae per Erasmum Roterodamum | Basel: Officina

58

Det Kongelige Bibliotek (Manuscripts Collection), gks 95 folio, fº 188. This manuscript is named Volumen adversariorum autographorum.

321

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

Frobeniana, 1533 | ustc 608510; eol 4407 ‖ Ep. 2774 (Allen 10: 169–171; asd viii1: 574–577; cwe 19: 277–280) | lb (see below) New works added: 417 Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi, episcopi Constantinopolitani, de David et Saule deque tolerantia et quod oportet inimicis parcere nec de absentibus male loqui: ‘Domine miserere’ [homiliae 1–3] | lb 8: 135–162 418 Quum presbyter esset designatus de se ac de episcopo, deque populi multitudine sermo | lb 8: 162–166 419 In Psalmum ‘Cantate Domino canticum novum, cantate Domino omnis terra’ | lb 8: 165–174 420 Beati Ioannis Chrysostomi homilia, quum Sartoninus et Aurelianus acti essent in exilium et Gainas egressus esset a civitate; et de avaritia | lb 8: 173–178 421 De fide Annae deque philosophia, hoc est, animi moderatione, de humanitate, de honore deferendo sacerdotibus et quod tum in initio tum in fine prandii sit orandum [homiliae 1–2] | lb 8: 177– 190

•

•

•

•

•

422 Enarrationes in Psalmos (x) | Enarrat. in Ps. 83 De sarcienda Ecclesiae concordia | De sarc. Eccles. concord. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami liber de sarcienda Ecclesiae concordia deque sedandis opinionum dissidiis, cum aliis nonnullis lectu dignis. Omnia recens nata et nunc primum typis excusa, a2r–114 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, 1533 (In-4º) | ustc 635452; eol 2341 ‖ Ep. 2852 (Allen 10: 281; cwe 20: 117) | lb 5: 469–506; asd v-3: 257–313 | cwe 65: 134–216 1534 423 (pr.) Ioannis Agricolae scholia in Galeni therapeuticam methodum | Ioan. Agric. scholia in Gal. Scholia copiosa in therapeuticam methodum, id est, absolutissimam Claudii Galeni Pergameni curandi artem. Qui liber hoc nomine magni habetur, quod consummationem totius medicinae complectatur sive indicationes curativas sive theorematum enarrationes respicias, authore Ioanne Agricola medicinae et Graecae linguae professore. Cum praeliminari epistola Desideri Erasmi Roterodami, A2r–A3r | Augsburg: Philipp Ulhart, March 1534 | ustc 692400; eol 5734 ‖ Ep. 2803 (Allen 10: 213–215; cwe 20: 3–5) 424 Purgatio adversus epistolam non sobriam Lutheri | Purg. adv. ep. Luth. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami purgatio adversus epistolam non sobriam Martini Luteri | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, April 1534 | ustc 635432; eol 3349 ‖ lb 10: 1537–1558; asd ix-1: 443–483 | cwe 78: 412–464

322

tello

425 De praeparatione ad mortem | De praep. ad mort. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami liber cum primis pius de praeparatione ad mortem, nunc primum et conscriptus et aeditus. Accedunt aliquot epistolae seriis de rebus, in quibus item nihil est non novum ac recens, 2–80 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, 1534 | ustc 635487; eol 3147 ‖ Ep. 2884 (Allen 10: 327; cwe 20: 193–195) | lb 5: 1293–1318; asd v-1: 337–392 | cwe 70: 392–450 1535 426 Iudicium de apologia Petri Cursii | Iudic. de apolog. P. Cursii Iudicium Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami de apologia Petri Cursii | [Rome: s. n., 29 June 1535] | ustc 828284; eol 204959 ‖ Ep. 3015 (Allen 11: xxiii–xxiv, 130; cwe 21: 220–224) | asd ix-10: 129–131 ¶ The autograph (ca. May 1535?, see Allen 11: 129) was presumably first printed in a broadsheet without any information regarding the date of publication or printer, and it is kept inside a manuscript at the Vatican Library (Vat.lat.6159, f. 66r). A handwritten note was added at the bottom of the broadsheet (asd ix-10: 126, n. 73): “Excussum fuit Romae in die S. Petri et Pauli anno 1535.” In a reprint of the same year at Rome (ustc 828284) Petri Cursii iudicium de Erasmi epistola was added, which bears the date “tertio kalendis Septembris” (30 Aug.). 427 Ecclesiastes sive de ratione concionandi | Eccles. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami ecclesiastae sive de ratione concionandi libri quatuor. Opus recens nec antehac a quoquam excusum | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, August 1535 | ustc 635475; eol 1679 ‖ Ep. 3036 (Allen 11: 190–193; cwe 21: 324–330), Ep. 3044 (Allen 11: 209–210; cwe 21: 355–356) | lb 5: 767–1100; asd v 4–5 | cwe 67–68: 242–443, 466–1104 428–429 Precationes aliquot novae | Precat. nov. Precationes aliquot novae, quibus adolescentes assuescant cum Deo colloqui; item eiaculationes aliquot e scripturae canonicae verbis contextae per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, 3–39, 122–140 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, [August] 1535 | ustc 685777;60 eol 3265 ‖ Ep. 2994 (Allen 11: 70; cwe 21: 120–121) | lb, cwe (see below); *asd v-9

59

60

Copies consulted (digital format): original broadsheet accessed at https://digi.vatlib.it/​ mss/ (shelfmark, vat.lat.6159); reprint (ustc 828284; eol 2049) accessed at Universiteit Gent, bib.acc.014081. Copy consulted (digital format): Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main, Ms. germ. oct. 99 Nr. 3.

323

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

•

•

It includes: 428 Precationes aliquot | lb 5: 1197–1206 | cwe 69: 120–142 429 Eiaculationes aliquot | lb 5: 1207–1210 | cwe 69: 143–151 ¶ Month of publication according to Allen 11: 70 (Ep. 2994, intr.) and S. Ryle (cwe 69: 118). As a matter of fact, the Eiaculationes aliquot begin in p. 130 of the edito princeps, after the Praefatio in sequentes preces (129–130). But the content seems to have been rearranged in a later edition, after Erasmus’ death (Cologne: J. Gymnich, 1537 | ustc 686287). Pages 130–140 of the editio princeps (1537 edition: 60–72) were placed before pp. 122–129 (1537 edition: 72–80), and thus the work began with the Praefatio ad Davidem Paungartnerum in sequentes preces (1537 edition: 59–60). bas and lb maintained this rearrangement. 430 Responsio ad Petri Cursii defensionem | Resp. ad P. Cursii defens. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami responsio ad Petri Cursii defensionem, nullo adversario bellacem | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, 1535 | ustc 635442; eol 3544 ‖ Ep. 3032 (Allen 11: 172–186; cwe 21: 296–320) | lb 10: 1747– 1758; asd ix-10: 133–147 1536 431 Enarrationes in Psalmos (xi) | Enarrat. in Ps. 14 De puritate tabernaculi | De purit. tabernac. De puritate tabernaculi sive Ecclesiae Christianae per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum, cum aliis nonnullis lectu non indignis. Nova omnia, 3–56 | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, [February–March?] 1536 | ustc 631190; eol 3359 ‖ Ep. 3086 (Allen 11: 272; cwe 21: 450–451) | lb 5: 291–312; asd v-2: 285–317 | cwe 65: 224–267 ¶ This work has often been given the publication date of January 1536 (asd v2: 279; cwe 65: 218), but it was issued together with Aliquot epistolae selectae, whose prefatory letter (Ep. 3100; Allen 11: 287–290) bears the date 20 February 1536. 432 Adagiorum chiliades (ix) | Adag. Typographus lectori. Adagiorum chiliades Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami toties renascispero aequis lectoribus esse gratissimum, quando semper redeunt tum auctiores tum emendatiores. In hac aeditione non magna quidem adiuncta est accessio, quod opus prope ultra iustam magnitudinem excrevisse videtur. Attamen loca quaedam vigilantiore cura pensitata sunt. Pulcherrimum victoriae genus usque seipsum vincere. Vale et fruere [adagia 1–4151] | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, March 1536 | ustc 699884; eol 86 | er 89–90:

324

tello

Opus adagiorum saepe recognitum et auctum, novissime anno 1528 ‖ Ep. 3093 (Allen 11: 279–280; cwe 21: 461–462) | lb 2; asd ii 1–8 | cwe 31–36 New work added: adagia 4147–4151 ¶ adages with long commentary. These are the adages with the longest commentary, ranging from 990 to 36 lines (numbering and length according to asd): Dulce bellum inexpertis (3001, iv i 1, 990 lines | asd ii-7: 11–44); Scarabeus aquilam quaerit (2601, iii vii 1, 816 lines | asd ii-6: 395–424); Sileni Alcibiadis (2201, iii iii 1, 646 lines | asd ii-5: 159–190); Festina lente (1001, ii i 1, 507 lines | asd ii-3: 7–28); Herculei labores (2001, iii i 1, 499 lines | asd ii-5: 23–41); Aut regem aut fatuum nasci oportere (201, i iii 1, 275 lines | asd ii-1: 303–314); Ne bos quidem pereat (3401, iv v 1, 267 lines | asd ii-7: 235–244); Risus Sardonius (2401, iii v 1, 223 lines | asd ii-5: 289–297); Spartam nactus es, hanc orna (1401, ii v 1, 205 lines | asd ii-3: 397–406); Homo bulla (1248, ii iii 48, 171 lines | asd ii-3: 256–264); Esernius cum Pacidiano (1498, ii v 98, 129 lines | asd ii-3: 472– 478); A mortuo tributum exigere (812, i ix 12, 102 lines | asd ii-2: 330–335); Ut fici oculis incumbunt (1765, ii viii 65, 82 lines | asd ii-4: 189–192); Auris Batava (3535, iv vi 35, 50 lines | asd ii-8: 36–44); Ollas ostentare (1140, ii ii 40, 46 lines | asd ii-3: 156–158); Illotis manibus (855, i ix 55, 41 lines | asd ii-2: 376–378); Virum improbum uel mus mordeat (796, i viii 96, 37 lines | asd ii-2: 318); Ignavis semper feriae sunt (1512, ii vi 12, 36 lines | asd ii-4: 26–28). 433 (tr.) Ex Chrysostomo versa (vii) | Ex Chrys. versa Divi Ioannis Chrysostomi archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani opera, quatenus in hunc diem Latio donata, noscuntur omnia cum ad collationem Latinorum codicum mirae antiquitatis tum ad Graecorum exemplarium fidem innumeris pene locis nativae integritati restituta, vix ulli aestimandis laboribus virorum linguae utriusque insigniter callentium, quae in quinque digessimus tomos, quorum: primus ea complectitur, quae ad explicationem faciunt Veteris Instrumenti; secundus habet quae pertinent ad elucidationem Matthaei, Marci et Lucae; tertius enarrationes continet in Ioannem, Acta apostolorum et alia aliquot; quartus omnes Pauli epistolas aureo Chrysostomi ore explicat; quintus συμμικτὸς est, quod miscellaneam contineat argumentorum varietatem. Quae nunc primum in lucem exeunt nec usquam habentur in antehac Latine aeditis exemplaribus, contiguae paginae elenchus te docebit | Paris: Claude Chevallon, [July] 1536 (5 vols.) | ustc 185635;61 eol 5735 New work added: Missa beati Ioannis Chrysostomi ab Erasmo versa, vol. 5: 350r– 354r 61

Copy consulted (digital format): Bibliothèque de Genève, Bf 183. Complete set of volumes 1–5 can be downloaded at www.e‑rara.ch.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

325

¶ Month of publication according to Vanautgaerden (2012) 525; title of the work as found in the table of contents. Erasmus had sent a manuscript translation of the Greek text of Chrysostom’s Missa to John Colet on 13 Sept. 1511 (see Ep. 227 Allen line 1: “Mitto … Officium Chrysostomi”), but it was not published until 1536. The second title in p. 350r clearly conveys this fact: Missa sancti Ioannis Chrysostomi supra complures annos ab Erasmo Roterodamo, in gratiam episcopi Roffensis, versa. erasmus’ death: 12 july 1536 ¶ Erasmus died at the age of 66 years old, if we accept his birthdate as 28 Oct. 1469. Epitaphs mourning his death can be found in lb 1: 7*1v–10*2v. From Erasmus’ death to the present 434 (ed., tr.) Origenis opera omnia | Orig. op. omn. (Beatus Rhenanus, ed.) Origenis Adamantii eximii scripturarum interpretis opera, quae quidem extant omnia, per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum partim versa partim vigilanter recognita, cum praefatione de vita, phrasi, docendi ratione et operibus illius, adiectis epistola Beati Rhenani nuncupatoria, quae pleraque de vita obituque ipsius Erasmi cognitu digna continet et indice copiosissimo […] Origenis Adamantii operum pars secunda | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, September 1536 (2 vols.) | ustc 681736; eol 4532 ‖ Ep. 3131 (Allen 11: 338; asd viii-1: 611–612; cwe 21: 551–552) New work added: Commentarii Origenis Adamantii in Evangelium Matthaei cum accessione duorum ac dimidiati tomi, Desiderio Erasmo interprete, 41–240 [tractatus 1–35] | Orig. comm. in Mt. ¶ This two-volume set includes Erasmus’ edition of the works of Origen in Latin, which was published under the supervision of Beatus Rhenanus, after Erasmus’ death. Rhenanus wrote the introductory letter to the Opera and he also devised the preface to the reader at the beginning of vol. 2 (Ep. 3131) by reusing a previous preface written by Erasmus (Ep. 1844; see 337). As C.S.M. Rademaker summarizes (asd viii-1: 599), “for Erasmus the three greatest writers of the early Church were Augustine, Jerome and Origen, but the greatest of these three was Origen, as Erasmus wrote in 1518.” Cf. Ep. 844 cwe lines 272– 274: “I find good reason to say that I learn more of Christian philosophy from a single page of Origen than from ten of Augustine.” ¶ Erasmus finished his translation of Origen’s commentary of Matthew by adding treatises 1–35 to his previous Fragmentum (see 337). The rest of the Latin versions included in the Opera were rendered by Jerome of Stridon, Rufinus of Aquileia or Christophorus Persona. When necessary, Erasmus expressed his

326

tello

doubt about the authorship of the translation. He also added short summaries of between one and four lines to chapter or section headings of a particular work. Compared to previous editions supervised by Erasmus (i.e. Jerome and Augustine), Origen’s Opera do not contain many notes in the margin displaying biblical references or keywords. Erasmus’ comments can be found mainly in the following pages of vol. 1 (an asterisk indicates “in the margin”): 1, *324, 415, 563, *764, *782, *805, 865, 895. It is unclear whether the argumentum placed before Origenis Adamantii in Iob (vol. 1: 415) was written by Erasmus. 435 Vita Origenis | Vita Orig. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami de vita, phrasi, docendi ratione et operibus Origenis, cum singulorum librum censuris. In Origenis Adamantii … opera … (as in 434), vol. 1: α4r-β6r | Basel: Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius, September 1536 | ustc 681736; eol 4532 ‖ lb 3: 1846–1852 (Ep. cccclvii); lb 8: 425–440; asd viii-1: 161–193 436 Compendium rhetorices | Comp. rhet. Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami compendium rhetorices ad Damianum a Goes, equitem Lusitanum | Louvain: Rutgerus Rescius, August 1544 | eol 106662 ‖ Allen 10: 398–405 ¶ In a letter addressed to Damian a Goes (Ep. 2987 Allen lines 11–12), Erasmus had forbidden publication of this work. 437 Compendium vitae Erasmi | Comp. vitae Vita Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami ex ipsius manu fideliter repraesentata comitantibus, quae ad eandem, aliis. Additi sunt epistolarum, quae nondum lucem aspexerunt, libri duo; quas conquisivit, edidit, dedicavit senatui populoque Roterodamo Paullus G.F.P.N. Merula, 9–14 | (Autograph, 2 April 1524)63 Leiden: Thomas Basson, 1607 | ustc 1011441; eol 364864 ‖ lb 1: 3*4v–4*1r; Allen 1: 47–52 | cwe 4: 403–410; cwe 10: 230–238 ¶ According to Allen (1: 46), “Merula’s text, printed from Erasmus’s original autograph, has equal authority with this manuscript,” that is, the manuscript kept in the Imperial Library at Vienna (see n. 63). Merula’s transcription is pre-

62 63 64

Copy consulted (digital format): Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal, res. 4354//1 P. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (Manuscripts and estates), call number: cod. 9058 han mag. This manuscript is named Autobiographia ad Conradum Coclenium. Copy consulted (digital format): Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, bv011670063.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

327

ceded by the following heading: Compendium vitae Erasmi Roterodami, cuius ipse in epistola praecedente facit mentionem. As J.M. Estes summarizes (cwe 10: 220), this autobiographical sketch (Ὁ βίος λάθρα is the title found in Erasmus’ manuscript; see Allen 1: 47) should be placed right after Ep. 1437. It was written at the request of Conradus Goclenius (see Ep. 1209), who was professor of Latin at the Collegium Trilingue and Erasmus’ close friend and confidant. Complementary epistles: Ep. 296 (Allen 1: 565–573; cwe 2: 294–303), Ep. 1437 (Allen 5: 431–438; cwe 10: 221–230). ¶ The first volume of lb contains complementary materials about Erasmus: a selection of passages written by eminent people in which the Dutch humanist is praised (lb 1: [9]–[14]), laudatory poems (lb 1: [15]–[24]), and epitaphs mourning Erasmus’ death (lb 1: 7*1v–10*2v). lb 8 (591–652) includes a speech in defense of Erasmus called Philopseudes seu declamatio pro Erasmo, written by Johann Basilius Herold. The last volume of lb contains an Apologia pro Desiderio Erasmo Roterodamo, written by Martinus Lydius (lb 10: 1759– 1780); an Index expurgatorius of all works of Erasmus (lb 10: 1781–1844); and an Oratio funebris in obitum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, by Gulielmus Insulanus Menapius (lb 10: 1847–1860). ¶ Beatus Rhenanus wrote two sketches of Erasmus’ life. The first is found in the prefatory epistle of Origenis Adamantii … opera … (as in 434), vol. 1: α2v(line 36)α4r. Other edition: Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami viri incomparabilis vita et epitaphia quaedam. Antwerp: W. Vorsterman, A2r–A4r (ustc 437833 | lb 1: 4*2r–v | Allen 1: 53–56). The second one is found in the prefatory epistle addressed to emperor Charles v in bas, vol. 1: A*2r(line 36)-B*1v(line 20). Other editions: lb 1: 3*1r(line 27)–3*3r(line 40); Allen 1: 56–71. English translation: “The Life of Erasmus by Beatus Rhenanus” in Christian Humanism and The Reformation 32–54. 438 Conflictus Thaliae et Barbariei | Confl. Thal. et Barbar. Conflictus Thaliae et Barbariei, authore Desiderio Erasmo. Dat is, Stryd tussen Thalie (eene der Zang-godinnen) en Barbaries (de Woestheid, of Bastaardy) door Desiderius Erasmus | Rotterdam: Ioannes Borstius, 1684 | eol 573665 ‖ lb 1: 889– 894; asd i-8: 357–367 ¶ The Conflictus Thaliae et Barbariei is kept in a manuscript copied by Bonaventura Vulcanius in 1570, which came into the possession of Petrus Scriverius (1576–1660). Ms. Scriverius khs D 141 is kept at Tilburg University (Katholieke

65

Copy consulted (digital format) at Google Books: kbr Royal Library of Belgium (Original location: Athenaeumbibliotheek Deventer, 19 E 92).

328

tello

Universiteit Brabant). See asd i-7: 46, 51–52, 433; asd i-8: 345–354; asd iv-7: 77– 153 (“Appendix: The so-called manuscript of Scriverius, its origin, name, copyist and the relation to the editions of the texts it contains”). 439 Oratio de pace et discordia | Orat. de pace Erasmi Roterodami, poetae, oratoris ac theologi, viri undecunque doctissimi, oratio de pace et discordia contra factiosos ad Cornelium Goudanum | (Autograph, ca. 1488–1490)66 Leiden: Pieter van der Aa, 1706 | eol 2707 (facsimile) ‖ lb 8: 545–552; asd iv-7: 155–162 ¶ M. van der Poel (asd i-8: 68) supposes that “the Oratio de pace et discordia was written during Frans van Brederode’s revolt, i.e. some time between 18 Nov. 1488, when Frans van Brederode seized Rotterdam, and 23 Jul. 1490, when he was defeated in a naval battle near Bouwershaven.” 440 Oratio funebris Bertae de Heyen | Orat. funebr. Bert. de Heyen Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami oratio funebris in funere Bertae de Heyen, Goudanae viduae probissimae, ad filias eius superstites, Moniales in oppido eodem | (Autograph, ca. 1489–1490)67 Leiden: Pieter van der Aa, 1706 | eol 2707 (facsimile) ‖ lb 8: 551–560; asd iv-7: 165–178 | cwe 29: 17–30, 427–430 ¶ M. van der Poel (asd i-8: 69) concludes that “the Oratio funebris must have been written between 28 Oct. 1489 and 27 Oct. 1490. Thus, if 8 Oct. was indeed the day of Berta’s death, the year must have been 1490. The Oratio funebris, having been written after Berta’s funeral …, must then have been written in the short time between the funeral and Erasmus’ birthday on 28 Oct. 1490.” 441 Voluntas Erasmi | Voluntas Er. first will. Copy by Boniface Amerbach from Erasmus’ autograph, 22 January 152768 | L. Sieber (ed.), Das Testament des Erasmus vom 22. Januar 1527. Basel: Schweighauserische Buchdruckerei, 1889 | Allen 6: 503–506; cwe 12: 540–550 ‖ second will. 1533 (non extant) ‖ third will. Autograph, 12 February 153669 | M. Besso (ed.), L’Encomium Morias di Erasmo di Rotterdam. Rome: Biblioteca Besso Editrice, 1918 | lb 1: 4*2v; Allen 11: 363–365; cwe 21: 594–596 ¶ Short title devised from the first lines of both manuscripts (see editions).

66 67 68 69

Ms. Scriverius khs D 141; see 438, complementary note. Ms. Scriverius khs D 141; see 438, complementary note. Universitätsbibliothek Basel, Handschriftenmagazin, ubh Erasmuslade Bb 4. The manuscript is named Testament des Erasmus in erster Fassung. Universitätsbibliothek Basel, Handschriftenmagazin, ubh G2 | 16:10–11. The manuscript is named Testament.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

329

According to Ch.G. Nauert jr (cwe 12: 538), “the earliest of Erasmus’ three wills, which was sealed in the presence of witnesses in Basel on 22 Jan. 1527, survives at Basel in a copy written in the hand of the heir or trustee (that is, the person selected to take charge of administering the estate), Bonifacius Amerbach, who as a jurist may well have advised Erasmus on its form. Ludwig Sieber was the first to edit it: Das Testament des Erasmus vom 22. Januar 1527 (Basel, 1889). The will was never formally put into effect, since Erasmus drew up a second will (of which no copy survives) in 1533 while living at Freiburg and a third, drawn up at Basel on 12 Feb. 1536 (Allen 11: 362–365). The third will was the one actually executed after Erasmus’ death. Nevertheless, Amerbach as trustee seems to have carried out the bequests made in the first will whenever possible; above all, he proceeded with the plan for a full edition of the collected works of Erasmus, a plan outlined in this document but missing from the final will of 1536.” Cf. Schoeck (1993) 384–386; Allen 11: 362–363. 442 Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami | Allen Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906–1958 (12 vols.) | er 92: Volumen epistolarum plus quam tertia parte auctum, anno 152970 ‖ Ep. 2203 (Allen 8: 249–250; cwe 15: 377–379) | lb 3.1–3.2; Allen 1–12 (Ep. 1–3141); asd71 | cwe 1–22 ¶ Out of the 3141 epistles gathered by P.S. Allen, with the assistance of H.M. Allen and H.W. Garrod, around 1990 were sent by Erasmus; and, out of these, barely 15%, according to Schoeck (1990) 62, were written before mid-1514, since Erasmus only began to preserve copies of his letters after he reached middle age. The first written letter (Ep. 1) was addressed to Pieter Winckel (Gouda, end of 1484), when Erasmus was about 15 years old—if we accept his birth year as 1469—, while the last one (Ep. 3130) was sent to Conradus Goclenius (Basel, 28 Jun. 1536). In his personal catalogue (er 210–211), Erasmus drew attention to Ep. 1823 (Allen 7: 70; cwe 13: 137–138): “Ad quendam Franciscanum, qui notarat aliquot in Annotationes meas ad Romanos liber unus.” Cf. Ep. 1837a (cwe 13: 172–177). Ep. 2203 is the preface to the reader of Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami per auctorem diligenter recognitum et adiectis innumeris locis fere ad trientem auctum (Basel: H. Froben, J. Herwagen and N. Episcopius, 1529 | ustc 679866). In it (cwe lines 2–3), Erasmus proclaims that “none of my works gives me less satisfaction than my letters.” ¶ Allen (1: 599–602) lists the 17 most important printed editions including Erasmus’ epistles during his lifetime: ustc 664881 (Basel: J. Froben, Aug. 1515), ustc 70 71

Erasmus alludes to ustc 679866. See complementary note. Critical editions of prefatory letters have already been included in asd references of all works of this catalogue.

330

tello

400350 (Louvain: D. Martens, Oct. 1516), ustc 400369 (Louvain: D. Martens, Apr. 1517), ustc 610775 (Basel: J. Froben, Jan. 1518), ustc 614696 (Basel: J. Froben, Aug. 1518), ustc 614697 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1519), ustc 657310 (Basel: J. Froben, Oct. 1519), ustc 651629 (Basel: J. Froben, Aug. 1521), ustc 693039 (Basel: H. Froben and J. Herwagen, [ca. Sept.] 1528), ustc 679866 (Basel: H. Froben, J. Herwagen and N. Episcopius, 1529), ustc 635480 (Basel: J. Herwagen, Sept. 1531), ustc 635553 (Freiburg: J. Faber, Sept. 1532), ustc 635487 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, [ca. Jan.] 1534), ustc 631190 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, [ca. Feb.] 1536). To this list of editions there should be added bas 3; lb 3.1–3.2; Haeghen (1893) 1: 87–103; and the introductory study of cwe 1: ix– xxiii. See also Vanautgaerden (2012) 21–22. 443 Manifesta mendacia | Manif. mend. Manifesta mendacia | (Autograph, ca. 1530–1535?) E. Rummel (ed.), “An unpublished Erasmian Apologia in the Royal Library of Copenhagen,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 70 (1990) 210–229 ‖ asd ix-4: 338–355 | cwe 71: 116–131, 165–171 ¶ Rummel (asd ix-4: 17) points out that “Cornelis Reedijk has traced that manuscript to Gilbert Cousin, Erasmus’ secretary from 1530–1535.” 444 Carmina | Carm. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1995 | er 84–85: Carmina diversi generis, praeter ea quae faciunt ad pietatem; nam haec suae classi servabimus (see below) ‖ Ep., lb, asd, cwe (see below) ¶ Given the fact that all the 144 poems composed by Erasmus (published and unpublished; authorized and unauthorized) have been thoroughly catalogued and examined by H. Vredeveld in his critical edition (asd i-7), and also translated and copiously annotated by C.H. Miller and H. Vredeveld in cwe 85–86, it suffices to reference here those poems that Erasmus himself or the editors of asd consider to be the most significant. Numbering of asd, which cwe maintains, has been kept. Dates in parentheses convey approximate time of composition.

•2

Carmen de senectute | Carm. de senect. | Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami carmen ad Guilielmum Copum Basileiensem de senectutis incommodis, heroico carmine et iambico dimetro catalectico. In Luciani viri quam disertissimi compluria opuscula … (as in 16–22), lir–liiiv | (Aug. 1506) Paris: J. Bade, 13 Nov. 1506 | ustc 143129 | er 111: Carmen de senectute, ad Copum medicum ‖ lb 4: 755–758; asd i-7: 75–97 | cwe 85–86: 12–25, 412–439 4 Carmen de laudibus Britanniae | Ode Erasmi Roterodami de laudibus Britanniae regisque Henrici sep-

•

331

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

timi ac regiorum liberorum, carmine hexametro et iambico trimetro acatalectico. In Desyderii Herasmi Roterdami … adagiorum collectanea … (as in 3), i5r–i8r | (late Sept.? 1499) Paris: J. Philippi, [ca. Jun.-Jul.] 1500 | ustc 201899 ‖ Ep. 104 (Allen 1: 239–241, cwe 1: 195–197) | lb 1: 1213–1217; asd i-7: 100–114 | cwe 85–86: 30–41, 440–454 5 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami ad Gaguinum nondum visum carmen hendecasyllabum. In De casa natalitia Iesu et paupere puerperio dive virginis Marie carmen | (ca. Sept. 1495) Paris: A. Denidel, [Jan. 1496?]72 | ustc 201328 ‖ Ep. 47 (Allen 1: 155–158; cwe 1: 94–97) | asd i-7: 115–116 | cwe 85–86: 40–43, 454–455 6 In annales Gaguini et egloglas Faustinas, eiusdem carmen ruri scriptum et autumno. In De casa natalitia … (Publication, ustc and Ep. as in poem 5) | (autumn 1495) ‖ asd i-7: 117–121 | cwe 85–86: 42–47, 455–458 42 Carmen de casa natalitia | Ode dicolos, distrophos, altero versu heroico hexametro, altero iambico dimetro. De casa natalitia pueri Iesu deque paupere puerperio virginis deiparae Mariae. In De casa natalitia … (Publication, ustc and Ep. as in poem 5) | (ca. Christmas 1490?) | er 142: Casa natalitia, carmine ‖ lb 5: 1317–1319; asd i-7: 164–168 | cwe 85–86: 80–83, 493–497 43 Expostulatio Iesu cum homine | Expost. | Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami expostulatio Iesu cum homine suapte culpa pereunte. In Desiderii Erasmi Rotterdami … concio de puero Iesu … (as in 26), b3v–b5r | (late 1499?) [Paris: R. de Keysere and J. Biermans], 1 Sept. [1511] | ustc 403659 | er 141: Expostulatio Iesu, carmine ‖ lb 5: 1319–1320; asd i-7: 170–174 | cwe 85–86: 84–89, 497–501 49 Institutum hominis Christiani | Inst. hom. Christ. | Christiani hominis institutum Erasmi Roterodami. Ad Galatas quinto ‘Valet in Christo fides, quae per dilectionem operatur’. In Opuscula aliquot … (as in 50), H1v–I2r | (1514) Louvain: D. Martens, Sept. 1514 | ustc 403362 ‖ lb 5: 1357–1359; asd i-7: 180–189 | cwe 85– 86: 93–107, 505–509 50 Carmen in laudem Michaelis | In laudem Michaelis et angelorum omnium ode dicolos hendecasyllaba sapphica, suffigenda in templo Michaeli sacro. In De casa natalitia … (Publication, ustc and Ep. as in poem 5) | (early spring 1491?) | er 143: Michaelis archangeli encomium, carmine ‖ lb 5: 1321–1325; asd i-7: 191–204 | cwe 85–86: 108–121, 510–520 73–74 Epitaphii Ioannis Frobenii | Epitaphium Ioannis Frobenii per Erasmum Roterodamum; Eiusdem in eundem Graece. In De recta Latini Graecique … (as in 339), 431 | (ca. Nov. 1527) Basel: Officina Frobeniana, Mar. 1528 | ustc 631329 ‖ Ep. 1900 (Allen 7: 225–229; cwe 13: 420–426) | asd i-7: 242 | cwe 85–86: 156–157, 548 ¶ H. Vredeveld (asd i-7: 55–59) mentions the following fundamental editions containing Erasmus’ poems: ustc 201328 (Paris: A. Denidel, [Jan. 1496?]), ustc

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

72

Date of publication according to asd i-7: 55 (#1).

332

tello

400246 (Antwerp: D. Martens, Feb. 1503),73 ustc 182701 ([Paris]: J. Bade, J. Petit, Jan. 1507), ustc 403659 ([Paris: R. de Keysere and J. Biermans], 1 Sept. [1511]),74 ustc 143923 ([Paris]: J. Bade, Jul. 1512), ustc 653252 (Strasbourg: M. Schürer, Aug. 1513), ustc 653251 (Strasbourg: M. Schürer, Aug. 1514), ustc 420403 (Gouda: A. Gauter, Jun. 1513), ustc 626074 (Strasbourg: M. Schürer, Sept. 1515), ustc 630792 (Basel: J. Froben, Mar. 1518), ustc 649351 (Basel: J. Froben, Aug. 1518), ustc 630793 (Basel: J. Froben, Dec. 1518), ustc 407320 / 442258 (Louvain: D. Martens, 1521), ustc 631329 (Basel: Officina Frobeniana, Mar. 1528), ustc 679866 (Basel: H. Froben, J. Herwagen and N. Episcopius, 1529); bas 1–5, 9 (Basel: H. Froben and N. Episcopius, 1539–1540 | ustc 678376); lb 1: 1–5, 8, 10 (Leiden: P. van der Aa, 1703–1706 | eol 2707). ¶ To the aforementioned list of editions, there should be added three manuscripts of poems (see asd i-7: 50–52) and some lost compositions (see asd i-7: 53–55). Poems in lb are particularly to be found in vol. 1: 1213–1226; vol. 4: 755– 758; vol. 5: 1317–1326, 1357–1360; and vol. 8: 561–584.

3

Indexes

3.1

Alphabetical Index of Short-Title Forms

Acta Academiae Lovaniensis contra Lutherum 207 Acta apostolorum 63 Adagiorum chiliades 25, 55, 136, 206, 242, 292, 343, 412, 432 | Adages with long commentary, 432 note Admonitio adversus mendacium et obtrectationem 383 Aesopi fabulae 30 Algeri de veritate corporis et sanguinis dominici in eucharistia 381 Ambrosii opera omnia 330 Annotationes in Acta apostolorum 93

73 74

Annotationes in Demosthenis orationes 405 Annotationes in Epistolam Iacobi 108 Annotationes in Epistolam Ioannis primam 111 Annotationes in Epistolam Ioannis secundam 112 Annotationes in Epistolam Ioannis tertiam 113 Annotationes in Epistolam Iudae 114 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Colossenses 100

Cf. the 1509 edition (ustc 440880); 5–10, complementary note. See 26, complementary note.

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios priorem 95 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Corinthios secundam 96 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios 98 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas 97 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos 107 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Philemonem 106 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses 99 Annotationes in [Epistolam Pauli ad] Romanos 94 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Thessalonicenses priorem 101 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Thessalonicenses secundam 102 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Timotheum priorem 103 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Timotheum secundam 104 Annotationes in Epistolam Pauli ad Titum 105 Annotationes in Epistolam Petri priorem 109 Annotationes in Epistolam Petri secundam 110 Annotationes in Evangelium Ioannis 92 Annotationes in Evangelium Lucae 91 Annotationes in Evangelium Marci 90 Annotationes in [Evangelium] Matthaeum 89 Annotationes in leges pontificias et Caesareas 369

333

Annotationes in librum Apocalypseos Ioannis 115 Annotationes in Novum Testamentum 89–115 Antibarbari 201 Apocalypsis beati Ioannis theologi 85 Apologia ad Iacobum Fabrum Stapulensem 124 Apologia ad Prodromon Stunicae 238 Apologia ad Sanctium Caranzam 236 Apologia ad Stunicae Conclusiones 264 Apologia adversus debacchationes Petri Sutoris 290, 312 Apologia adversus monachos quosdam Hispanos 344 Apologia adversus rhapsodias Alberti Pii 394 Apologia adversus Stunicae Blasphemiae et impietates 237 Apologia contra Iacobi Latomi dialogum de tribus linguis 179 Apologia de ‘In principio erat sermo’ 197 Apologia de loco ‘Omnes quidem resurgemus’ 219 Apologia Erasmi 88 Apologia pro declamatione de laude matrimonii 169 Apologia qua respondet duabus invectivis Eduardi Lei 198 Apologia respondens ad ea quae Stunica taxaverat 215 Apophthegmata 386, 410 Appendix de scriptis Iodoci Clichthovei 313

334 Argumenta in omneis Epistolas apostolorum 145–163 Argumentum in Epistolam Iacobi 159 Argumentum in Epistolam Ioannis primam 163 Argumentum in Epistolam Iudae 162 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Colossenses 151 Argumentum in Epistolam [Pauli] ad Corinthios posteriorem 147 Argumentum in Epistolam [Pauli] ad Corinthios priorem 146 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios 149 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas 148 Argumentum in Epistolam [Pauli] ad Hebraeos 158 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Philemonem 157 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses 150 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos 145 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Thessalonicenses posteriorem 153 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Thessalonicenses priorem 152 Argumentum in Epistolam [Pauli] ad Timotheum posteriorem 155 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Timotheum priorem 154 Argumentum in Epistolam Pauli ad Titum 156 Argumentum in Epistolam Petri posteriorem 161

tello

Argumentum in Epistolam Petri priorem 160 Aristotelis opera omnia 387 Arnobii commentarii in Psalmos 239 Augustini de civitate Dei 241 Augustini opera omnia 346 Axiomata pro causa Martini Lutheri 218 Basilii opera omnia 401 Calcagnini libellus elegans de libero arbitrio 289 Capita argumentorum contra morosos quosdam ac indoctos 170 Carmina 444 Catalogus lucubrationum omnium 165 Chonradi Nastadiensis dialogus bilinguium ac trilinguium 184 Chrysostomi opera 286 Ciceronis officia 4 Ciceronis Tusculanae quaestiones 259 Collectanea adagiorum 3, 24 Colloquia 141–143, 168, 221–231, 234, 247–256, 265–268, 272–277, 294–297, 302–304, 335–336, 352–360, 362–364, 389–393, 413–414 Commentarius in duos hymnos Prudentii 282–283 Commentarius in Nucem Ovidii 281 Compendium rhetorices 436 Compendium vitae Erasmi 437 Concio de puero Iesu 26 Conficiendarum epistolarum formula 190 Conflictus Thaliae et Barbariei 438

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

Consilium cuiusdam ex animo cupientis esse consultum 209 Consilium in caussa evangelica 314 Consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo et obiter enarratus Psalmus xxviii 382; see Enarrationes in Psalmos Cypriani opera 191 De civilitate morum puerilium 373 De conscribendis epistolis 216 De constructione octo partium orationis 33 De contemptu mundi 217 De copia verborum ac rerum 29 De duplici martyrio 370 De immensa Dei misericordia concio 278 De libero arbitrio diatribe 279 De metris 399 De philosophia evangelica 233 De praeparatione ad mortem 425 De pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis 361 De puritate tabernaculi 430; see Enarrationes in Psalmos De ratione studii 27 De recta Latini Graecique sermonis pronuntiatione 339 De sarcienda Ecclesiae concordia 422; see Enarrationes in Psalmos Declamatio contra Tyrannicidam 23 Declamatio de morte 127 Declamatiuncula 132 Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae vulgatas 395–397 Demosthenis orationes duas et sexaginta 405 Detectio praestigiarum 301

335

Dialogus Ciceronianus 340 Dictionarius Graecus 271 Dilutio eorum quae Iodocus Clichthoveus scripsit 407 Disputatiuncula de tedio, pavore, tristicia Iesu 10 Disticha Catonis 50 Divinationes ad notata per Bedam 311 Ecclesiastes sive de ratione concionandi 427 Elenchus in Natalis Bedae censuras 305 Enarrationes in Psalmos 58, 240, 270, 284, 341, 378, 382, 385, 400, 422, 431 Enchiridion militis Christiani 9 Encomium matrimonii 130 Encomium medicinae 131 Epistola ad fratres Inferioris Germaniae 377 Epistola ad gracculos 372 Epistola apologetica ad Dorpium 57 Epistola apologetica adversus Stunicam 368 Epistola apologetica de interdicto esu carnium 235 Epistola apologetica de Termino 342 Epistola beati Iacobi 78 Epistola [beati] Ioannis prima 81 Epistola beati Ioannis secunda 82 Epistola beati Ioannis iii 83 Epistola beati Iudae 84 Epistola beati Petri prima 79 Epistola beati Petri secunda 80 Epistola consolatoria in adversis 338 Epistola contra pseudoevangelicos 371

336 Epistola de Luthero 189 Epistola de modestia profitendi linguas 331 Epistola in tyrologum quendam 332 Epistola Pauli ad Colossenses 70 Epistola Pauli ad Corinthios prima 65 Epistola Pauli ad Corinthios secunda 66 Epistola Pauli ad Hebraeos 77 Epistola Pauli ad Philemonem 76 Epistola Pauli ad Thessalonicenses prima 71 Epistola Pauli ad Thessalonicenses secunda 72 Epistola Pauli ad Timotheum prima 73 Epistola Pauli ad Timotheum secunda 74 Epistola Pauli ad Titum 75 Epistola Pauli apostoli ad Ephesios 68 Epistola Pauli apostoli ad Galatas 67 Epistola Pauli apostoli ad Philippenses 69 Epistola Pauli apostoli ad Romanos 64 Epistola ‘Quid de obscuris sentiat’ 133 Eucherii de contemptu mundi 129 Euripidis Hecuba et Iphigenia in Aulide 14–15 Evangelium secundum Ioannem 62 Evangelium secundum Lucam 61 Evangelium secundum Marcum 60 Evangelium secundum Matthaeum 59 Ex Athanasio versa 210, 232, 320– 327

tello

Ex Basilio versa 140, 402, 404 Ex Chrysostomo versa 285, 308, 315–319, 334, 374–375, 417–421, 433 Ex Enchiridio notata quaedam 329 Ex Plutarcho versa 31, 43–49, 287– 288, 293 Exomologesis sive modus confitendi 269 Explanatio symboli apostolorum sive catechismus 411 Fausti de gratia Dei 345 Gaguini de origine et gestis Francorum compendium 1 Galeni tractatus tres 298–300 Gennadii catalogus 121 Georgii Agricolae Bermannus 380 Gregorii Nazianzeni orationes 388 Guielermi Goudensis sylva odarum 2 Haymonis explanatio in omnes Psalmos 416 Hieronymi opera omnia 119 Hilarii lucubrationes 244 Hyperaspistes 306, 333 Iacobi Middelburgensis de praecellentia potestatis imperatoriae 11 Indexes locorum 171–177 Institutio Christiani matrimonii 307 Institutio principis Christiani 116 Ioannis Agricolae scholia in Galeni therapeuticam methodum 423 Iosephi de imperio rationis 137 Irenaei adversus haereses 309 Isocratis ad Nicoclem regem de institutione principis 117 Isocratis paraenesis ad Demonicum 128 Iudicium de apologia Petri Cursii 426

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

Iulius exclusus e coelis 123 Lactantii de opificio Dei 350 Libanii aliquot declamatiunculae 181–183 Lingua 291 Loca quaedam emendata 367 Luciani dialogi aliquot 16–22, 32, 34–42 Manifesta mendacia 443 Methodus 87 Mimi Publiani 52 Modus orandi Deum 280 Mori Utopia 134 Moriae encomium 28 Novum Instrumentum 59a, 59–85 Novum Testamentum 59b, 59–85 Obsecratio sive oratio ad virginem Mariam in rebus adversis 8 Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami 442 Oratio de pace et discordia 439 Oratio de virtute amplectenda 5 Oratio funebris Bertae de Heyen 440 Origenis commentarii in Matthaeum 434 Origenis fragmentum in Matthaeum 337 Origenis opera omnia 434 Paean virgini matri dicendus 7 Panegyricus ad Philippum Austriae ducem 12 Parabolae sive similia 54 Paraclesis 86 Paraphrases, complete 262 note Paraphrases in duas Epistolas Pauli ad Corinthios 166–167 Paraphrases in duas Epistolas Petri et in unam Iudae 203–205

337

Paraphrases in Epistolas Pauli ad Ephesios, Philippenses, Colossenses et Tessalonicenses 192–196 Paraphrases in Epistolas Pauli ad Timotheum, Titum et Philemonem 185–188 Paraphrases in treis Epistolas Ioannis 211–213 Paraphrasis in Acta apostolorum 262 Paraphrasis in Elegantias Laurentii Vallae 366 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Iacobi 208 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas 180 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli ad Hebraeos 214 Paraphrasis in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos 125 Paraphrasis in Evangelium Ioannis 243 Paraphrasis in Evangelium Lucae 246 Paraphrasis in Evangelium Marci 261 Paraphrasis in Evangelium Matthaei 220 Peregrinatio apostolorum Petri et Pauli 263 Plauti comoediae 384 Plinii Secundi naturalis historia 122 Precatio ad Iesum pro pace Ecclesiae 403 Precatio ad virginis filium Iesum 6 Precatio dominica 258 Precationes aliquot novae 428–429 Prologus in supputationem calumniarum Natalis Bedae 310 Ptolemaei de geographia 415

338

tello

Purgatio adversus epistolam non sobriam Lutheri 424 Querela pacis 126 Quinti Curtii de rebus gestis Alexandri Magni 139 Ratio verae theologiae 144 Responsio ad annotationes Eduardi Lei 200, 202 Responsio ad collationes cuiusdam iuvenis gerontodidascali 365 Responsio ad disputationem cuiusdam Phimostomi de divortio 406 Responsio ad epistolam paraeneticam Alberti Pii 347 Responsio ad notulas Bedaicas 348 Responsio ad Petri Cursii defensionem 430 Responsio adversus febricitantis cuiusdam libellum 351 Scholia brevissima in Elenchum Alberti Pii 409 Scholia in Epistolam de interdicto esu carnium 408 Senecae lucubrationes omnes 56a Senecae opera 56b Senecae tragoediae 53 Septem sapientum dicta 51

3.2

Spongia adversus aspergines Hutteni 257 Suetonius et Historiae Augustae scriptores 138 Supputationes errorum in censuris Natalis Bedae 328 Terentii comoediae 398 Theodori Gazae Thessalonicensis grammaticae institutiones libri duo 118, 135 Titus Livius historicus 178 Uldarici Zasii lucubrationes 164 Vallae in Novi Testamenti interpretationem adnotationes 13 Vidua Christiana 349 Virginis et martyris comparatio 245 Virginis matris apud Lauretum cultae liturgia 260 Vita Chrysostomi 376 Vita divi Hieronymi Stridonensis 120 Vita Erasmi see Compendium vitae Erasmi Vita Origenis 435 Vivis declamationes Syllanae quinque 199 Voluntas Erasmi 441 Xenophontis rhetoris Hieron 379

Alphabetical Index of Abbreviations

1 Cor. 65 1 Ioh. 81 1 Petr. 79 1 Thess. 71 1 Tim. 73 2 Cor. 66 2 Ioh. 82 2 Petr. 80 2 Thess. 72

2Tim. 74 3 Ioh. 83 Act. 63 Act. Acad. Lov. c. Luth. 207 Adag. 25, 55, 136, 206, 242, 292, 343, 412, 432 Admon. adv. mendac. 383 Aesop. 30 Alger. 381

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

Allen 442 Ambr. op. omn. 330 Annot. in 1Cor. 95 Annot. in 1 Ioh. 111 Annot. in 1 Petr. 109 Annot. in 1Thess. 101 Annot. in 1Tim. 103 Annot. in 2Cor. 96 Annot. in 2 Ioh. 112 Annot. in 2 Petr. 110 Annot. in 2Thess. 102 Annot. in 2Tim. 104 Annot. in 3 Ioh. 113 Annot. in Act. 93 Annot. in Ap. Ioh. 115 Annot. in Col. 100 Annot. in Demosth. 405 Annot. in Eph. 98 Annot. in Gal. 97 Annot. in Hebr. 107 Annot. in Iac. 108 Annot. in Ioh. 92 Annot. in Iud. 114 Annot. in Lc. 91 Annot. in leg. pont. et Caes. 369 Annot. in Mc. 90 Annot. in Mt. 89 Annot. in nt 89–115 Annot. in Phil. 99 Annot. in Phm. 106 Annot. in Rom. 94 Annot. in Tit. 105 Anthon. de praecell. 11 Antibarb. 201 Ap. Ioh. 85 Apolog. ad Fabr. Stap. 124 Apolog. ad Prodr. Stun. 238 Apolog. ad Sanct. Caranz. 236 Apolog. ad Stun. Concl. 264

339

Apolog. adv. debacch. Petr. Sutor. 290, 312 Apolog. adv. monach. Hisp. 344 Apolog. adv. rhaps. Alb. Pii 394 Apolog. adv. Stun. Blasph. et imp. 237 Apolog. c. Iac. Latomi dialog. 179 Apolog. de ‘In princip. erat sermo’ 197 Apolog. de loco ‘Omn. resurg.’ 219 Apolog. Er. 88 Apolog. pro declam. laud. matrim. 169 Apolog. resp. invect. Ed. Lei 198 Apolog. resp. Stun. 215 Apophth. 386, 410 App. Clichthov. 313 Arg. in 1 Cor. 146 Arg. in 1 Ioh. 163 Arg. in 1 Petr. 160 Arg. in 1 Thess. 152 Arg. in 1 Tim. 154 Arg. in 2 Cor. 147 Arg. in 2 Petr. 161 Arg. in 2 Thess. 153 Arg. in 2 Tim. 155 Arg. in Col. 151 Arg. in Eph. 149 Arg. in Epist. apost. 145–163 Arg. in Gal. 148 Arg. in Hebr. 158 Arg. in Iac. 159 Arg. in Iud. 162 Arg. in Phil. 150 Arg. in Phm. 157 Arg. in Rom. 145 Arg. in Tit. 156 Aristot. op. omn. 387 Arnob. comm. in Ps. 239 Aug. civ. Dei 241

340 Aug. op. omn. 346 Axiom. pro causa Luth. 218 Basil. op. omn. 401 Calcag. lib. arbitr. 289 Capita 170 Carm. 444 Cat. lucubr. 165 Cato 50 Chonr. Nastad. dial. 184 Chrys. op. 286 Cic. off. 4 Cic. Tusc. 259 Ciceron. 340 Col. 70 Coll. 141–143, 168, 221–231, 234, 247–256, 265–268, 272–277, 294–297, 302–304, 335–336, 352–360, 362–364, 389–393, 413–414 Collect. 3, 24 Comm. in hymn. Prud. 282–283 Comm. in Ov. 281 Comp. rhet. 436 Comp. vitae 437 Conc. de puero Iesu 26 Confl. Thal. et Barbar. 438 Consilium 209 Consult. de bell. Turc. 382 Curt. 139 Cypr. op. 191 De civil. 373 De conscr. ep. 216 De construc. 33 De cont. mundi 217 De cop. verb. 29 De dupl. mart. 370 De imm. Dei misericord. 278 De interdicto esu carn. 235 De lib. arbitr. 279 De metris 399

tello

De philos. evang. 233 De praep. ad mort. 425 De pronunt. 339 De pueris 361 De purit. tabernac. 430 De rat. stud. 27 De sarc. Eccles. concord. 422 Declam. de morte 127 Declam. Tyrann. 23 Declamatiunc. 132 Declarat. ad cens. Lutet. 395–397 Demosth. orat. 405 Detect. praestig. 301 Dict. Graec. 271 Dilut. Clichthov. 407 Disputatiunc. 10 Div. ad not. Bedae 311 Eccles. 427 Elench. in Nat. Bed. cens. 305 Enarrat. in Ps. 58, 240, 270, 284, 341, 378, 382, 385, 400, 422, 431 Enarrat. in Ps. 1 58 Enarrat. in Ps. 2 240 Enarrat. in Ps. 3 270 Enarrat. in Ps. 4 284 Enarrat. in Ps. 14 431 Enarrat. in Ps. 22 378 Enarrat. in Ps. 28 382 Enarrat. in Ps. 33 385 Enarrat. in Ps. 38 400 Enarrat. in Ps. 83 422 Enarrat. in Ps. 85 341 Enchir. 9 Encom. matrim. 130 Encom. medic. 131 Eph. 68 Epist. ad fratr. Infer. Germ. 377 Epist. ad grac. 372 Epist. apolog. ad Dorp. 57 Epist. apolog. adv. Stun. 368

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

Epist. apolog. de Term. 342 Epist. c. pseudoevang. 371 Epist. consolat. 338 Epist. de Luth. 189 Epist. in tyrol. 332 Epist. profit. ling. 331 Epist. ‘Quid de obsc’. 133 Euch. cont. mundi 129 Euripides 14–15 Ex Athan. versa 210, 232, 320–327 Ex Basil. versa 140, 402, 404 Ex Chrys. versa 285, 308, 315–319, 334, 374–375, 417–421, 433 Ex Enchir. notata 329 Ex Plut. versa 31, 43–49, 287–288, 293 Exomolog. 269 Explan. symboli 411 Faust. 345 Formula 190 Gag. comp. 1 Gal. 67 Galenus 298–300 Gaza 118, 135 Genn. cat. 121 Georg. Agric. Berm. 380 Goud. sylv. od. 2 Greg. Naz. orat. 388 Haym. expl. in Ps. 416 Hebr. 77 Hier. op. omn. 119 Hil. lucubr. 244 Hyperasp. 1, 2 306, 333 Iac. 78 In caussa ev. 314 Index. loc. 171–177 Inst. Christ. matrim. 307 Inst. princ. Christ. 116 Ioan. Agric. scholia in Gal. 423 Ioh. 62

Ios. imp. rat. 137 Iren. adv. haer. 309 Isocr. Nic. 117 Isocr. paraen. 128 Iud. 84 Iudic. de apolog. P. Cursii 426 Iul. exclus. 123 Lact. opif. Dei 350 Lc. 61 Liban. declam. 181–183 Ling. 291 Liturg. Virg. Lauret. 260 Liv. 178 Loca emend. 367 Lucianus 16–22, 32, 34–42 Manif. mend. 443 Mc. 60 Meth. 87 Mod. orandi Deum 280 More 134 Moria 28 Mt. 59 Nov. Instr. 59a, 59–85 Nov. Test. 59b, 59–85 Obsecratio 8 Orat. de pace 439 Orat. de virt. 5 Orat. funebr. Bert. de Heyen 440 Orig. comm. in Mt. 434 Orig. frag. in Mt. 337 Orig. op. omn. 434 Paean virg. 7 Panegyr. ad Phillip. 12 Parab. 54 Paracl. 86 Paraphr. in 1–2 Cor. 166–167 Paraphr. in 1–3 Ioh. 211–213 Paraphr. in Act. 262 Paraphr. in Eleg. Laur. Vallae 366

341

342

tello

Paraphr. in Eph., Phil., Col., Thess. 192–196 Paraphr. in Gal. 180 Paraphr. in Hebr. 214 Paraphr. in Iac. 208 Paraphr. in Ioh. 243 Paraphr. in Lc. 246 Paraphr. in Mc. 261 Paraphr. in Mt. 220 Paraphr. in 1–2 Petr., Iud. 203–205 Paraphr. in Rom. 125 Paraphr. in Tim., Tit., Phm. 185–188 Peregrin. apost. 263 Phil. 69 Phm. 76 Plaut. 384 Plin. nat. 122 Precat. ad Iesum 6 Precat. dominica 258 Precat. nov. 428–429 Precat. pro pace Eccl. 403 Prol. supp. error. Bedae 310 Ptol. geogr. 415 Publil. Syr. 52 Purg. adv. ep. Luth. 424 Querela 126 Rat. ver. theol. 144 Resp. ad annot. Ed. Lei 200, 202 3.3

Resp. ad collat. iuv. geront. 365 Resp. ad disp. Phimost. 406 Resp. ad ep. Alb. Pii 347 Resp. ad not. Bed. 348 Resp. ad P. Cursii defens. 430 Resp. adv. febricit. lib. 351 Rom. 64 Scholia in De interd. esu carn. 408 Scholia in Elench. Pii 409 Sen. lucubr. 56a Sen. op. 56b Sen. trag. 53 Septem sap. dicta 51 Spongia 257 Suet. et Hist. Aug. scrip. 138 Supputat. error. N. Bedae 328 Ter. 398 Tit. 75 Vallae adnot. in nt 13 Vidua Christ. 349 Virg. et mart. comp. 245 Vita Chrys. 376 Vita Hier. 120 Vita Orig. 435 Viv. declam. Syll. 199 Voluntas Er. 441 Xen. Hier. 379 Zas. lucubr. 164

Critical Index

Erasmus’ own works 3, 5–10, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 54, 55, 57, 58, 86, 87, 88, 89–115, 116, 120, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 141–143, 144, 145–163, 165, 166–167, 168, 169, 170, 171–177, 179, 180, 184, 185– 188, 189, 190, 192–196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203–205, 206,

207, 208, 209, 211–213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221–231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247–256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265–268, 269, 270, 272–277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282–283, 284, 290, 291, 292, 294–297, 301, 302–304, 305, 306, 307, 310, 311, 312, 313,

catalogue of the works of erasmus of rotterdam

314, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 335– 336, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 347, 348, 349, 351, 352–360, 361, 362–364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 376, 377, 378, 382, 383, 385, 389–393, 394, 395–397, 399, 400, 403, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413–414, 422, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428–429, 430, 431, 432, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444 Erasmus as a translator (Greek) 14–15, 16–22, 30, 31, 32, 34–42, 43–49, 59–85, 117, 118, 135, 140, 181–183, 210, 232, 285, 287–288, 293, 298–300, 308, 315–319,

343

320–327, 334, 337, 374–375, 379, 386, 402, 404, 410, 417–421, 433, 434 Erasmus as an editor (Greek) 286 Erasmus as an editor (Latin) 2, 4, 13, 50, 51, 52, 56a, 56b, 119, 121, 128, 129, 137, 138, 139, 191, 239, 244, 259, 309, 330, 346, 350, 381, 434 Erasmus as only a prologuist (other than his own works; see preface [10]) 1, 11, 134, 164, 178, 199, 241, 289, 345, 380, 387, 388, 401, 415, 416, 423 Erasmus as a contributor 53, 122, 271, 384, 398, 405

3.4 Index of Places of Publication with Printers Only editiones principes during Erasmus’ lifetime (1–433) Antwerp | Hillen, Michaël; Martens, Dirk; Sylvius, Petrus; Thibault, Jean 5–10, 11, 12, 179, 185–188, 192–196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 365 Augsburg | Ulhart, Philipp 423 Basel | Bebel, Johann; Cratander, Andreas; Episcopius, Nicolaus (Bischoff, Nicolaus); Faber Emmeus, Johannes; Froben, Hieronymus; Froben, Johann; Herwagen, Johann 43–49, 55, 56a, 56b, 57, 59a, 59b, 59–85, 86, 87, 88, 89–115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 126, 127, 134, 136, 138, 140, 141–143, 164, 168, 170, 171– 177, 191, 197, 201, 206, 207?, 209?, 219, 220, 221–231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247–256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263,

265–268, 269, 270, 271, 272–277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282–283, 284, 285, 286, 287–288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294–297, 298–300, 301, 302–304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 315–319, 320–327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335–336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352–360, 361, 362–364, 367, 368, 370, 373, 374–375, 376, 378, 379, 380, 382, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389–393, 394, 395–397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 404, 405, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413–414, 415, 417–421, 422, 424, 425, 427, 428–429, 430, 431, 432 | Johann Froben and Officina Frobeniana, 339 note Cambridge | Siberch, John 216

344 Cologne | Caesar, Konrad; Cervicornus, Eucharius; Gymnich, Johann; Kruffter, Servas; Quentel, Heinrich (heirs of) 133, 137, 189?, 210?, 366, 384 Erfurt | Maler, Mathes 190 Frankfurt, book fairs in 373 note Freiburg im Breisgau | Faber Emmeus, Johannes 371, 372, 377, 381, 383, 402, 403, 406, 416 Leipzig | Blum, Michael; Schumann, Valentin 218?, 314? London | Pynson, Richard 31, 33 Louvain | Martens, Dirk 50, 51, 52, 118, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 135, 144, 145–163, 165, 166–167, 169, 180, 181–183, 197, 203–205, 208, 211–213, 214, 215, 217

tello

Mainz | Schöffer, Johann; Schöffer, Peter 123, 178 Nuremberg | Peypus, Friedrich 264 Paris | Bade, Josse; Biermans, Joris; Biermant, Georges; Chaudière, Regnault; Chevallon, Claude; Estienne, Henri; Gourmont, Gilles de; Granjon, Jean; Keysere, Robert de; Le Dru, Pierre; Marchand, Guy; Petit, Jean; Philippi, Johannes; Resch, Konrad 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14–15, 16–22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34–42, 53, 122, 184, 433 Rome | (s. n.) 426 Strasbourg | Egenolff, Christian; Knobloch, Johann (i); Schürer, Matthias 30, 54, 58, 139, 369 Venice | Manuzio, Aldo 25

Bibliography In addition to the standard editions listed in the Abbreviations at the front of this volume, the contributors have also consulted the following modern editions and translations of works by Erasmus, listed in alphabetical order by title. Christian Humanism and the Reformation. Selected Writings of Erasmus. Ed. John C. Olin. New York: Fordham University Press, 1987. De libero arbitrio διατριβή sive collatio per Desiderium Erasmum Roterodamum. Ed. J. von Walter. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1910. Dilutio eorum quae Iodocus Clithoveus scripsit adversus Declamationem Des. Erasmi Roterodami suasoriam matrimonii. Ed. Emile Telle. Paris: Vrin, 1968. Érasme: Les préfaces au Novum Testamentum (1516) avec des textes d’accompagnement. Ed. Yves Delègue and J.-P. Gillet. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1990. Érasme: Vie de saint Jérôme. Ed. and tr. André Godin. Turnhout: Brepols / Bibliothèque de Genève, 2013. Erasmus and Luther: The Battle over Free Will. Ed. Clarence H. Miller, tr. Clarence H. Miller and Peter Macardle. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2012. Erasmus on Literature: His Ratio or ‘System’ of 1518/519. Ed. Mark Vessey. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2021. Erasmus on Women. Ed. Erika Rummel. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. Moria de Erasmo Roterodamo. A Critical Edition of the Early Modern Spanish Translation of Erasmus’s Encomium Moriae. Ed. Jorge Ledo and Harm den Boer. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

Secondary Sources Adam, Renaud and Alexandre Vanautgaerden. Thierry Martens et la figure de l’humaniste imprimeur (une nouvelle biographie). Nugae humanisticae sub signo Erasmi, vol. 11 / 2. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009. Allen, P.S. Erasmus: Lectures and Wayfaring Sketches. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1934. Aujac, Germaine. “La culture classique à Bâle au temps d’Érasme d’après trois frontispices.” Anabases 10 (2009) 161–180. Augustijn, Cornelis. Erasmus: His Life, Works, and Influence. Tr. J.C. Grayson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991. Augustijn, Cornelis. Erasmus: der Humanist als Theologe und Kirchenreformer. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Authority Revisited: Towards Thomas More and Erasmus in 1516. Ed. Wim François, Violet Soen, Anthony Dupont, and Andrea Robiglio. Turnhout: Brepols, 2020.

346

bibliography

Avarucci, Giuseppe. “Due codici scritti da ‘Gerardus Helye’ padre di Erasmo.” Italia medioevale e umanistica 26 (1983) 215–255. Bainton, Roland. “The Parable of the Tares as the Proof Text for Religious Liberty to the End of the Sixteenth Century.” Church History 1 (1932) 67–89. Baker-Smith, Dominic. “Uses of Plato by Erasmus and More.” In Platonism and the English Imagination. Ed. Anna Baldwin and Sarah Hutton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. 86–99. Balavoine, Claudie. “Principes de la parémiographie érasmienne.” In Richesse du proverbe. Ed. François Suard and Claude Buridant. Vol. 2. Lille: Diffusion p.u.l., 1984. 9–23. Barker, William. Erasmus of Rotterdam: The Spirit of a Scholar. London: Reaktion Books, 2021. Barker, William. “Implied Ethics in the Adagia of Erasmus: An Index of Felicitas.” Renaissance and Reformation 30.1 (2006) 87–102. Basel 1516: Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament. Ed. Martin Wallraff, Silvana Seidel Menchi, Kasper von Greyerz. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2016. Bataillon, Marcel. Érasme et l’Espagne. Nouvelle édition en trois volumes. Ed. Daniel Devoto and Charles Amiel. 3 vols. Geneva: Droz, 1991. Bedouelle, Guy. “Les Paraphrases d’Érasme en français.” Moreana 39 (2002) 7–20. Bejczy, István. Erasmus and the Middle Ages: The Historical Consciousness of a Christian Humanist. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Béné, Charles. Érasme et saint Augustin ou influence de saint Augustin sur l’humanisme d’Érasme. Geneva: Droz, 1969. Bénévent, Christine. La correspondance d’Érasme entre République des Lettres et lettres secrètes. Pour une étude du rapport entre privé et public au xvie siècle. Unpublished doctoral thesis. 2003. Bénévent, Christine. “Érasme épistolier: un modèle pluriel.” In L’exemplarité épistolaire. Ed. M.C. Panzera. Bordeaux, 2013. 175–204. Bénévent, Christine. “Le De Conscribendis epistolis d’Érasme: un De Civilitate morum puerilium avant la lettre?” In Les rituels épistolaires. Ed. Cécile Lignereux. Paris: Classiques Garnier, forthcoming. Bénévent, Christine and Steven Van Impe. “Rethinking the publication history of Erasmus’s Formula: three unknown editions in the Erfgoedbibliotheek Hendrik Conscience.” De Gulden Passer (2013–1) 37–48. “Rethinking the publication history of Erasmus’s Formula: addendum.” De Gulden Passer (2013–2) 247–248. Bénévent, Christine and Michel Magnien. “Comment justifier la publication d’une correspondance privée? Érasme dans la première lettre des Epistolae ad diuersos (1522) / Juste Lipse dans la Première Centurie de ses Lettres (1586).”Revue de l’aire, “Quand l’écrivain publie ses lettres,” 35 (2009) 13–36. Bentley, Jerry H. Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983.

bibliography

347

Bezzel, I. Erasmusdrucke des 16. Jahrhunderts in Bayerischen Bibliotheken: ein Bibliographisches Verzeichnis. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1979. Bierlaire, Franz. “Érasme, les imprimeurs et les ‘Colloques’.” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch (1978) 106–114. Bietenholz, Peter. Encounters with a Radical Erasmus. Erasmus’ Work as a Source of Radical Thought in Early Modern Europe. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Bijl, Simon Willem. Erasmus in het Nederlands tot 1617. Nieuwkoop: B. de Graaf, 1978. Blair, Ann. L’entour du texte. La publication du livre savant à la Renaissance. Conférences Léopold Delisle. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale de France, 2021. Blair, Ann and Maryam Patton. “A Quantitative Study of the Paratexts in ErasmusFroben Imprints.” Erasmus Studies 41 (2021) 99–181. Bloemendal, Jan. “Erasmus and His Paraphrases on the New Testament: What Kind of Enterprise?” Erasmus Studies 40 (2020) 34–54. Bloemendal, Jan. “Erasmus Online.”Erasmus Studies 34 (2014) 65–66 and 42 (2022) 161– 163. Boeft, Jan den. “Erasmus and the Church Fathers.” In The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists. Ed. Irena Backus. Vol. 2. Leiden: Brill, 1997. 537–572. Bolgar, R.R. The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954. Boyle, Marjorie O’Rourke. Erasmus on Language and Method in Theology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977. Brown, Andrew J. “The Date of Erasmus’s Latin Translation of the New Testament.” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society (1984) 351–380. Cave, Terence. The Cornucopian Text. Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979. Céard, Jean. “Marot, traducteur d’Érasme.” In Clément Marot ‘Prince des poëtes françois’ 1496–1996. Ed. Gérard Defaux and Michel Simonin. Paris: Champion, 1997. 107– 120. Céard, Jean. “Le proverbe selon Érasme.” Seizième Siècle 1 (2005) 17–20. Chomarat, Jacques. Grammaire et rhétorique chez Érasme. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981. Christ-von Wedel, Christine. Erasmus of Rotterdam: Advocate of a New Christianity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013. Christ-von Wedel, Christine. “Erasmus und die Zürcher Reformatoren.” In Erasmus in Zürich. Eine verschwiegene Autorität. Ed. Christine Christ-von Wedel and Urs B. Leu. Zurich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung Verlag, 2007. 77–165. Christian Humanism: Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt. Ed. Han van Ruler et al. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Clausi, Benedetto. Ridar voce all’ antico Padre: L’edizione erasmiana delle Lettere di Gerolamo. Rubbettino: Soveria Mannelli, 2000.

348

bibliography

Colloquium erasmianum. Actes du Colloque international réuni à Mons du 26 au 29 octobre 1967 à l’occasion du cinquième centenaire de la naissance d’Érasme. Mons: Centre universitaire de l’État, 1968. Croce, Benedetto. “Appunti bibliografici sulle traduzioni italiane del’ ‘Elogio’ e dei ‘Colloqui’ di Erasmo.” In Aneddoti di varia letteratura. Bari: Laterza, 1953. 411–424. Crousaz, Karine. Erasmus et le pouvoir de l’imprimerie. Lausanne: Antipodes, 2005. Cummings, Brian. Grammar and Grace: The Literary Culture of the Reformation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Cummings, Brian. “Erasmus and the Invention of Literature.” ersy 33 (2013) 22–54. Cummings, Brian. “Erasmus on Literature and Knowledge.” In Literature, Belief and Knowledge in Early Modern England: Knowing Faith. Ed. Subha Mukherji and Tim Stuart-Buttle. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. 39–61. Cytowska, Maria. “Erasme et la philosophie antique.” Živa Antika / Antiquité vivante 26 (1976) 453–462 Das bessere Bild Christi: Das Neue Testament in der Ausgabe des Erasmus von Rotterdam. Ed. Ueli Dill and Petra Schierl. Basel: Schwabe Verlag, 2016. Dealy, Ross. The Stoic Origins of Erasmus’s Philosophy of Christ. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017. Devereux, E.J. Renaissance English Translations of Erasmus. A Bibliography to 1700. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983. Diu, Isabelle. “Enjeux du pouvoir dans la République des lettres: Préfaces et dédicaces d’Érasme pour ses éditions et traductions d’œuvres classiques et patristiques.” In Le pouvoir des livres à la Renaissance. Ed. Dominique de Courcelles. Paris: École des chartes, 1998. 65–76. Diu, Isabelle and Alexandre Vanautgaerden. “Le jardin d’abondance d’Érasme: le De copia et la lettre sur les Adages non éditée par P.S. Allen.” In La varietas à la Renaissance. Ed. Dominique Courcelles. Paris: École des chartes, 2001. 43–55. Dodds, Gregory. Exploiting Erasmus: The Erasmian Legacy and Religious Change in Early Modern England. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Dolfen, Christian. Die Stellung des Erasmus von Rotterdam zur scholastischen Methode. Osnabrück: Meinders & Elstermann, 1936. Eden, Kathy. Friends Hold All Things in Common. Tradition, Intellectual Property, and the Adages of Erasmus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Eden, Kathy. The Renaissance Rediscovery of Intimacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. Eisenstein, Elizabeth. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Elliott, J.K. “‘Novum Testamentum editum est’: The Five-Hundredth Anniversary of Erasmus’s New Testament.” The Bible Translator 67 (2016) 9–28.

bibliography

349

Engammare, Max. “John Calvin’s Use of Erasmus.” Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 176–192. Érasme et la France. Ed. Blandine Perona and Tristan Vigliano. Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2017. Erasmo da Rotterdam e la cultura europea / Erasmus of Rotterdam and European Culture. Atti dell’incontro di Studi nel v Centenario della Laurea di Erasmo all’Università di Torino. Ed. Enrico Pasini and Pietro B. Rossi. Florence: Sismel, 2008. Erasmus and the Renaissance Republic of Letters: Proceedings of a Conference to Mark the Centenary of the Publication of the First Volume of Erasmi Epistolae by P.S. Allen, Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 5–7 September 2006. Ed. Stephen Ryle. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Erasmus of Rotterdam: The Man and the Scholar: Proceedings of the Symposium Held at the Erasmus University, Rotterdam, 9–11 November 1986. Ed. Jan Sperna Weijland and Willem Th.M. Frijhoff. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Erasmus-Rezeption im 16. Jahrhundert. Ed. Christoph Galle and Tobias Sarx. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012. Erasmus’ Vision of the Church. Ed. Hilmar M. Pabel. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1995. Erasmus von Rotterdam. Vorkämpfer für Frieden und Toleranz, Ausstellung zum 450. Todestag des Erasmus von Rotterdam veranstaltet vom Historischen Museum Basel. Ed. Hans-Georg Oeri, Therese Wollmann, Heidi Neuenschwander. Basel: Historisches Museum, 1986. Faber, Riemer. “The Argumentum as Paratext: Editorial Strategies in the Novum Testamentum.” Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 161–175. Fantazzi, Charles. “The Evolution of Erasmus’ Epistolary Style.” Renaissance and Reformation 13 (1989) 263–288. Farge, James K. “Erasmus, the University of Paris, and the Profession of Theology.”ersy 19 (1999) 18–46. Febvre, Lucien and Henri-Jean Martin. The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing 1450–1800. Tr. David Gerard, ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith and David Wootton. London: nlb, 1976. Fontaine Verwey, Herman de la. “The first ‘book of etiquette’ for children. Erasmus’ De civilitate morum puerilium.” Quaerendo 1 (1971) 19–30. Fricke, Dietmar. Die französischen Fassungen der Institutio Principis Christiani. Geneva: Droz, 1967. Galle, Christoph. Hodie nullus–cras maximus: Berühmtwerden und Berühmtsein im frühen 16. Jahrhundert am Beispiel des Erasmus von Rotterdam. Munich: Aschendorff, 2013. Gedenkschrift zum 400. Todestage des Erasmus von Rotterdam. Ed. Historische und Antiquarische Gesellschaft zu Basel. Basel: Braus-Riggenbach, 1936.

350

bibliography

Godin, André. Érasme lecteur d’Origène. Geneva: Droz, 1982. Gorce, Denys. “La patristique dans la réforme d’Érasme.” In Festgabe Joseph Lortz. Ed. Erwin Iserloh and Peter Manns. 2 vols. Baden-Baden: Bruno Grimm, 1958. 1: 233–276. Goudriaan, Koen. “New Evidence on Erasmus’ Youth.” Erasmus Studies 39 (2019) 184– 216. Grafton, Anthony. Commerce with the Classics: Ancient Books and Renaissance Readers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1997. Grafton, Anthony and Lisa Jardine. From Humanism to the Humanities: Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth and Sixteenth-Century Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Greene, Thomas. “Erasmus’ ‘Festina lente’: Vulnerability of the Humanist Text.” In The Vulnerable Text: Essays on Renaissance Literature. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. 1–17. Grendler, Paul F. “The Survival of Erasmus in Italy.” Erasmus in English 8 (1976) 2–22. Grendler, Paul F. “How to Get a Degree in Fifteen Days: Erasmus’ Doctorate of Theology from the University of Turin.” ersy 18 (1998) 40–69. Gulik, Egbertus van. Erasmus and His Books. Tr. J.C. Grayson, ed. James K. McConica and Johannes Trapman. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018. Gulizia, Stefano. “The Ethics of Typography in the Erasmian Festina lente.” Erasmus studies 37 (2017) 68–108. Haeghen, Ferdinand van der. Bibliotheca Erasmiana: Répertoire des oeuvres d’Érasme. 3 vols. Ghent: Bibliothèque de l’Université de l’État, 1893. Haeghen, Ferdinand van der. Bibliotheca Erasmiana. Bibliographie des œuvres d’Érasme. Adagia. Ghent: C. Vyt, 1897. Halkin, Léon. Erasmus ex Erasmo: Érasme éditeur de sa correspondence. Aubel: P.M. Gason, 1983. Halkin, Léon. “Érasme docteur.” In Mélanges André Latreille. Lyon: Audin, 1972. Halkin, Léon. “Matthias Schürer imprimeur d’Érasme.” In Boek, bibliotheek en geesteswetenschappen. Mélanges offerts à Cornelis Reedijk. Hilversum: Verloren, 1986. 124– 131. Heath, Michael J. “Erasmus and the Infidel.” ersy 16 (1996) 19–33. Heinimann, Felix. “Zu den Anfängen der humanistischen Paroemiologie.” In Catalepton. Festschrift für Bernhard Wyss. Ed. Christoph Schäublin. Basel: Seminar für Klassische Philologie der Universität Basel, 1985. 158–182 Henderson, Judith Rice. “Despauterius’ Syntaxis (1509): The Earliest Publication of Erasmus’ De Conscribendis epistolis.” Humanistica Lovaniensia 37 (1988) 175–210. Henderson, Judith Rice. “The Enigma of Erasmus’ Conficiendarum epistolarum formula.” Renaissance and Reformation 13 (1989) 313–330. Hieronymus, Frank. “Beatus Rhenanus und das Buch. Bio-biographische Flickstücke.” Annuaire des Amis de la Bibliothèque humaniste de Sélestat 36 (1986) 63–114.

bibliography

351

Hoffmann, Manfred. Erkenntnis und Verwirklichung der wahren Theologie nach Erasmus von Rotterdam. Tübingen: Mohr, 1972. Hoffmann, Manfred. Rhetoric and Theology: The Hermeneutic of Erasmus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994. Holeczek, Heinz. Erasmus Deutsch, Bd. 1: Die volkssprachliche Rezeption des Erasmus von Rotterdam in der reformatorischen Öffentlichkeit 1519–1536. Stuttgart—Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, 1983. Holeczek, Heinz. “Erasmus von Rotterdam und die volkssprachliche Rezeption seiner Schriften in der Deutschen Reformation 1519–1536.” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 11 (1984) 129–163. Holy Scripture Speaks: The Production and Reception of Erasmus’ Paraphrases on the New Testament. Ed. Hilmar M. Pabel and Mark Vessey. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. Hutton, James. “Erasmus in France: the Propaganda for Peace.” Studies in the Renaissance 8 (1961) 103–127. Images of Erasmus. Ed. P. van der Coelen. Rotterdam: Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, 2008. Iseghem, A.F. van. Biographie de Thierry Martens d’Alost: premier imprimeur de la Belgique, suivie de la bibliographie de ses éditions. Malines: P.J. Hanicq; Alost: SpitaelsSchuermans, 1852. Jardine, Lisa. Erasmus, Man of Letters. The Construction of Charisma in Print. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. Jardine, Lisa. “Penfriends and Patria: Erasmian Pedagogy and the Republic of Letters.” ersy 16 (1996) 1–18. Jeanneret, Michel. Perpetuum mobile. Métamorphoses des corps et des œuvres à la Renaissance. Paris: Macula, 1997. Jolidon, Alain. “Histoire d’un opuscule d’Érasme: la Breuissima maximeque compendiaria conficiendarum epistolarum formula.” In Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Sanctandreani. Binghamton, NY: mrts, 1986. 229–243. Jolidon, Alain. “L’évolution psychologique et littéraire d’Erasme d’après les variantes du De Conscribendis Epistolis.” In Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Amstelodamensis. Munich: Fink, 1979. 571–582. Jonge, Henk Jan de. “Novum Testamentum a nobis versum: The Essence of Erasmus’ Edition of the New Testament.” Journal of Theological Studies 35 (1984) 394–413. Jonge, Henk Jan de. “The character of Erasmus’ translation of the New Testament as reflected in his translation of Hebrews 9.” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 14 (1984) 81–87. Jonge, Henk Jan de. “The Date and Purpose of Erasmus’s Castigatio Novi Testamenti: A Note on the Origins of the Novum Testamentum.” In The Uses of Greek and Latin:

352

bibliography

Historical Essays. Ed. A.C. Dionisotti, Anthony Grafton, and Jill Kraye. London: The Warburg Institute, 1988. 97–110. Jonge, Henk Jan de. “Erasmus’ Novum Testamentum of 1519.” Novum Testamentum 61 (2019) 1–25. Koning, Paula. Erasmus op de markt. Rotterdam: Ad. Donker, 2009. Krans, Jan. Beyond What is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Kraye, Jill. “Erasmus and the Canonization of Aristotle: The Letter to John More.” In England and the Continental Renaissance. Ed. Edward Chaney and Peter Mack. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1990. 37–52. Kroeker, Greta Grace. Erasmus in the Footsteps of Paul: A Pauline Theologian. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2011. Kroeker, Greta Grace. “Erasmus: Humanist and Theologian.” In Martin Luther in Context. Ed. David Whitford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. 290–298. Kroeker, Greta Grace. “Erasmus the Theologian.” Church History and Religious Culture 96 (2016) 498–515. La Correspondance d’Erasme et l’épistolographie humaniste: colloque international tenu en novembre 1983. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1985. La Garanderie, Marie-Madeleine de. “Recueils parisiens de lettres d’Érasme.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 31 (1969) 449–465. Le bonheur selon Érasme. Ed. Brenda Dunn-Lardeau. Special issue, Renaissance and Reformation / Renaissance et Réforme 30.1 (2006). Lecler, Joseph. Histoire de la tolérance au siècle de la Réforme. 2 vols. Paris: Aubier, 1955. Lecointe, Jean. L’Idéal et la différence. Geneva: Droz, 1993. Ledo, Jorge. “Which Praise of Folly Did the Spanish Censors Read? The Moria de Erasmo Roterodamo (c. 1532–1535) and the Libro del muy illustre y doctíssimo Señor Alberto Pio (1536) on the Eve of Erasmus’ Inclusion in the Spanish Index.” Erasmus Studies 38 (2018) 64–108. Leushuis, Reinier. “Antonio Brucioli and the Italian Reception of Erasmus: The Praise of Folly in Dialogue.” In The reception of Erasmus in the Early Modern Period. Ed. Karl A.E. Enenkel. Leiden: Brill, 2013. 237–259. Mack, Peter. A History of Renaissance Rhetoric, 1380–1620. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Mack, Peter. “Erasmus’ Contribution to Rhetoric and Rhetoric in Erasmus’ Writing.” ersy 32 (2012) 27–45. MacPhail, Eric. The Sophistic Renaissance. Geneva: Droz, 2011. MacPhail, Eric. Dancing around the Well: The Circulation of Commonplaces in Renaissance Humanism. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Mann Phillips, Margaret. Érasme et les débuts de la Réforme française (1517–1536). Paris: Champion, 1933.

bibliography

353

Mann Phillips, Margaret. The ‘Adages’ of Erasmus. A Study with Translations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Mann Phillips, Margaret. “Erasmus and Propaganda: A Study of the Translations of Erasmus in English and French.” The Modern Language Review 37 (1942) 1–17. Mann Phillips, Margaret. “Erasmus in France in the Later Sixteenth Century.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 34 (1971) 246–261. Margolin, Jean-Claude. Érasme précepteur de l’Europe. Paris: Julliard, 1995. Markish, Shimon. Erasmus and the Jews. Tr. Anthony Olcot. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Matheeussen, Constant. “La traduction française de L’Éloge de la folie par Georges d’Halluin et la traduction anonyme parisienne de 1520.” Humanistica Lovaniensia 28 (1979) 187–198. McDonald, Grantley. Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. McSorley, Harry J. Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical-Theological Study of Luther’s Major Work, The Bondage of the Will, by a Roman Catholic Scholar. New York: Newman Press, 1969. Meyers, J.J.M. Authors edited, translated or annotated by Desiderius Erasmus: A shorttitle catalogue of the works in the City Library of Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Gemeentebibliotheek, 1982. Monfasani, John. “Erasmus and the Philosophers.” ersy 32 (2012) 47–68. Moss, Ann. Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Moss, Ann. Printed Commonplace Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Nellen, Henk and Jan Bloemendal, “Erasmus’s Biblical Project: Some Thoughts and Observations on Its Scope, Its Impact in the Sixteenth Century and Reception in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” Church History and Religious Culture 96 (2016) 595–635 Nijhoff, W. and M.E. Kronenberg, ed. Nederlandsche Bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540. 8 vols. The Hague: 1923–1971. Ocker, Christopher. Biblical Poetics Before Humanism and Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Pabel, Hilmar M. Herculean Labours: Erasmus and the Editing of St. Jerome’s Letters in the Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Pabel, Hilmar M. “Credit, Paratexts, and Editorial Strategies in Erasmus of Rotterdam’s Editions of Jerome.” In Cognition and the Book: Typologies of Formal Organisation of Knowledge in the Printed Book of the Early Modern Period. Ed. Karl Enenkel and Wolfgang Neuber. Leiden: Brill, 2005. 217–256.

354

bibliography

Payne, John B. “Erasmus and Lefèvre d’Étaples as Interpreters of Paul.” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 65 (1974) 54–83. Perona, Blandine. “De la declamation des louenges de Follie. Une illustration de la réception de l’Éloge de la Folie en France.” Babel 25 (2012) 171–195. Pettegree, Andrew and M. Walsby. French Books iii & iv: Books published in France before 1601 in Latin and Languages other than French. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Poel, Marc G.M. van der. “For Freedom of Opinion: Erasmus’ Defense of the Encomium matrimonii.” ersy 25 (2005) 1–17. Poll-van de Lisdonk, Miekske L. van. “Humanists, Letters, and proverbia: Some Aspects of Erasmus’ First Collection of Proverbs.” ersy 26 (2006) 1–15. Popkin, Richard. The History of Scepticism. From Savonarola to Bayle. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Post, R.R. “Quelques précisions sur l’année de la naissance d’Érasme (1469) et sur son éducation.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 26 (1964) 489–509. Rabil, Albert. Erasmus and the New Testament: The Mind of a Christian Humanist. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1972. Reedijk, Cornelis. Erasmus en onze Dirk. De vriendschap tussen Erasmus en zijn drukker Dirk Martens van Aalst. Haarlem: Het hof van Johannes, 1974. Regier, Willis Goth. “Erasmus’ uncollected adages.” Erasmus Studies 41 (2021) 62–79. Regier, Willis Goth. “Adages as Insults: Erasmus Against the Barbarians.” Erasmus Studies 40 (2020) 55–64. Renaudet, Augustin. Études Érasmiennes (1521–1529). Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1981. Revolución en el Humanismo cristiano: La edición de Erasmo del Nuevo Testamento (1516). Ed. Miguel Anxo Pena González and Inmaculada Delgado Jara. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca, 2016. Reynolds, L.D. and N.G. Wilson. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Rice, Eugene F. Jr. Saint Jerome in the Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985. Ron, Nathan. Erasmus and the “Other”: On Turks, Jews, and Indigenous Peoples. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. Rummel, Erika. Erasmus as a Translator of the Classics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985. Rummel, Erika. Erasmus and His Catholic Critics. 2 vols (i, 1515–1522; ii, 1523–1536). Nieuwkoop: De Graaff, 1986. Rummel, Erika. Erasmus’ Annotations on the New Testament: From Philologist to Theologian. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986. Rummel, Erika. “An unpublished Erasmian Apologia in the Royal Library of Copenhagen.” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 70 (1990) 210–229. Rummel, Erika. Erasmus. London and New York: Continuum, 2004.

bibliography

355

Rummel, Erika. “Erasmus and the Restoration of Unity in the Church.” In Conciliation and Confession. The Struggle for Unity in the Age of Reform, 1415–1648. Ed. Howard Louthan and Randall Zachman. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004. 62–72. Saffrey, H.D. “Trois avis au lecteur de Matthias Schürer.” Gutenberg-Jahrbuch (1979) 143– 145. Schindler, Kilian. “Castellio reading Erasmus: The Erasmian presence in De haereticis an sint persequendi.” In Sebastian Castellio (1515–1563): Dissidenz und Toleranz. Ed. Barbara Mahlmann-Bauer, Sonja Klimek, and Daniela Kohler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. 203–225. Schoeck, R.J. Erasmus of Europe: The Making of a Humanist, 1467–1500. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990. Schoeck, R.J. Erasmus of Europe: The Prince of Humanists, 1501–1536. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1993. Scrinium Erasmianum. Ed. Joseph Coppens. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Sebastiani, Valentina. Johann Froben, Printer of Basel: A Biographical Profile and Catalogue of His Editions. Leiden: Brill, 2018. Sebastiani, Valentina. “Sales Channels for Bestsellers in Sixteenth-Century Europe.” In International Exchange in the Early Modern Book World. Ed. M. McLean and S.K. Barker. Leiden: Brill, 2016. 1–14. Seidel Menchi, Silvana. Erasmo in Italia (1520–1580). Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1987. Shuger, Debora. The Renaissance Bible: Scholarship, Sacrifice, and Subjectivity. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1998. Sider, Robert. “Erasmus and Ancient Christian Writers: The Search for Authenticity.” In Nova & Vetera: Patristic Studies in Honor of Thomas Patrick Halton. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998. 235–254. Smith, Paul J. “The First French Translations of the Praise of Folly.” ersy 32 (2012) 7–26. Smith, Paul J. “Folly goes French. The French Translations of the Praise of Folly in the 17th and 18th Centuries.” Erasmus Studies 35 (2015) 35–60. Smith, Preserved. Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals and Place in History. New York: Harper, 1923. Reprint Dover Publications, 1962. Sola, Francesca. “Filologia come ideologia: Un quindicennio di studi su Erasmo editore di Gerolamo.” Adamantius 23 (2017) 500–517. Suringar, W.H.D. Erasmus over Nederlandsche spreekwoorden en spreekwoordlijke uitdrukkingen von zijnen tijd. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1873. The Unfolding of Words: Commentary in the Age of Erasmus. Ed. Judith Rice Henderson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Tracy, James D. Erasmus of the Low Countries. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.

356

bibliography

Traninger, Anita. “Erasmus’personae between Rhetoric and Dialectics.”Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 5–22. Traninger, Anita. “Libertas philosophandi.” In Neue Diskurse der Gelehrsamkeit in der frühen Neuzeit. Ed. Herbert Jaumann and Gideon Stiening. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. 269–318. Trapman, Hans. Wijze dwaasheid. Vijfhonderd jaar Lof der Zotheid in Nederland. Amsterdam: Balans, 2011. Turchetti, Mario. Concordia o tolleranza? François Bauduin (1520–1573) e i « moyenneurs ». Geneva: Droz, 1984. Turchetti, Mario. “Une question mal posée: Érasme et la tolérance. L’idée de sygkatabasis.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 53 (1991) 379–395. Vaillancourt, Luc. La Lettre familière au xvie siècle. Rhétorique humaniste de l’épistolaire. Paris: Champion, 2003. Vanautgaerden, Alexandre. Érasme typographe: Humanisme et imprimerie au début du xvie siècle. Geneva: Droz / Académie royale de Belgique, 2012. Vanautgaerden, Alexandre. Self-portraits of Erasmus: Dürer-Holbein-Metsys-Froben. Nugae humanisticae sub signo Erasmi, vol. 14. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Vanautgaerden, Alexandre. “Érasme, Alde Manuce et l’édition d’Euripide de 1507.” In Italia Belgica. Ed. Nicole Dacos and Cécile Dulière. Brussels-Rome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome, 2005. 85–101. Vanautgaerden, Alexandre. “Érasme chez Richard Pynson (1513), imprimeur du Roi.” Moreana 176 (2009) 191–213. Vanautgaerden, Alexandre. “L’index thématique des ‘Adages’ d’Érasme.” In Les Instruments de travail à la Renaissance. Ed. Jean-François Gilmont and Alexandre Vanautgaerden. Turnhout: Brepols, 2009. 241–280. Vessey, Mark. “Erasmus’ Jerome: The Publishing of a Christian Author.” ersy 14 (1994) 62–99. Vessey, Mark. “Erasmus’s Lucubrationes: Genesis of a Literary Œuvre.” In Author, Reader, Book: Medieval Authorship in Theory and Practice. Ed. Stephen Partridge and Erik Kwakkel. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. 232–262. Vessey, Mark. “A More Radical Renaissance: Erasmus’ Novum instrumentum (1516) in Its Time and Ours.” Erasmus Studies 37 (2017) 23–44. Vessey, Mark. “Erasmus (1515) between the Bible and the Fathers: Threshold of a Hermeneutic.” In Crossing Traditions: Essays on the Reformation and Intellectual History in Honour of Irena Backus. Ed. Maria-Cristina Pitassi and Daniela Solfaroli Camillocci. Leiden: Brill, 2018. 133–148. Vocht, Henry de. The Earliest English Translations of Erasmus’ Colloquia, 1536–1566. Louvain: Librairie Universitaire, 1928. Voogt, Gerrit. Constraint on Trial. Dirck Volckertsz Coornhert and Religious Freedom. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2000.

bibliography

357

Vredeveld, Harry. “The Ages of Erasmus and the Year of His Birth.” Renaissance Quarterly 46 (1993) 754–809. Vredeveld, Harry. “Toward a Critical Edition of Erasmus’s De Conscribendis Epistolis.” Humanistica Lovaniensia 48 (1999) 8–69. Vreese, Willem de. “De Nederlandse vertalingen van Desiderius Erasmus.” Het Boek 24 (1936–1937) 71–100. Walter, Peter. Theologie aus dem Geist der Rhetorik. Zur Schriftauslegung des Erasmus von Rotterdam. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1991. Walter, Peter. “‘Nihil enim huius praeceptis sanctius.’ Das Seneca-Bild des Erasmus von Rotterdam.” In Stoizismus in der europäischen Philosophie, Literatur, Kunst und Politik. Eine Kulturgeschichte von der Antike bis zur Moderne. Ed. Barbara Neymeyr, Jochen Schmidt and Bernhard Zimmermann. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008. 501–524. Walter, Peter. “Erasmus von Rotterdam und der mehrfache Schriftsinn.” In Syngrammata: Gesammelte Schriften zu Humanismus und katholischer Reform. Ed. G. Wassilowsky. Münster: Aschendorf, 2015. 99–112. Walter, Peter. “Ad fontes: Humanistische Schriftauslegung am Beispiel des Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples und des Erasmus von Rotterdam.” Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie 31 (2016) 203–223. Whitford, David M. “Yielding to the Prejudices of his Times: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum.” Church History and Religious Culture 95 (2015) 19–40. Winkler, Gerhard B. Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Einleitungsschriften zum Neuen Testament. Formale Strukturen und theologischer Sinn. Münster: Aschendorff, 1974.

Index Adrian vi 94 Aeschylus 11 Agricola, Rodolphus 10 Agrippa, Henricus Cornelius 213 Albada, Aggaeus de 179 Alcibiades 48–49, 105 Aldridge, Robert 50 Aleandro, Girolamo 189–190 Allen, Helen Mary 119–122 Allen, Percy Stafford 26–27, 31–33, 37, 119– 122, 127, 142, 205 Ambrose, Saint 24–25, 29, 38, 40–41 Amerbach, Bonifacius 120–121, 144 Amerbach, Bruno 153 Amerbach, Johann 153 Apollonius of Rhodes 175 Aquinas, Thomas 81 Archias 114 Aristotle 12–13, 17, 20, 31, 56, 58–60, 62, 65 Athanasius 87 Augustine, Saint 20, 24–25, 29, 33, 36, 38– 41, 73, 82, 86, 96, 101, 122, 148, 162–167, 170–171

Bèze, Théodore de 71, 177–178 Bietenholz, Peter 136, 176 Bijl, Simon Willem 203, 207–208, 211, 222 Boccaccio, Giovanni 84 Bodin, Jean 171 Boece, Hector 5, 142 Boeft, Jan den 33, 35 Boethius 12, 19 Bolgar, R.R. 4, 8 Bombace, Paolo 168 Botzheim, Johann von 4 Bracciolini, Poggio 18 Brandenburg, Albert of 163 Brant, Sebastian 154, 219 Brie, Germain de 19 Brown, Andrew 75–76 Brucioli, Antonio 221 Bruni, Leonardo 59 Bucer, Martin 159 Budé, Guillaume 19, 156, 196 Budny, Szymon 223 Burke, Peter 4 Büsslin, Margarete 194

Backus, Irena 99 Bacon, Francis 11 Bade, Josse 5, 10, 13–14, 148–149, 151–152, 159 Baechem, Nicolaas 21 Baker-Smith, Dominic 192 Barbaro, Ermolao 46, 48 Barbier, Pierre 144 Barker, William 117, 194 Barlandus, Adrianus 132–134 Basil of Caesarea 40, 44, 87 Bataillon, Marcel 203, 221–222 Batt, Jacob 8, 17, 40, 58 Beatus Rhenanus 6, 77, 120, 127–128, 143, 150–151, 153–154 Béda, Noël 165–167, 169, 172, 178, 205–206, 217 Bembo, Pietro 18 Béné, Charles 33 Bergen, Hendrik van 147 Berquin, Louis de 206, 217, 224 Bessarion, Cardinal 6

Calvin, Jean 177, 180 Campeggi, Lorenzo 163 Cantiuncula, Claudius 205 Cappellen, Raphaël 218 Carondelet, Jean de 169 Carvajal, Luis de 190 Castellio, Sebastian 166, 171, 177–179 Cave, Terence 5, 8 Céard, Jean 112 Cervantes, Miguel de 9 Chaloner, Thomas 215 Chappuzeau, Samuel 218 Charles v 94, 152, 154, 160 Chomarat, Jacques 7 Chrysostom, Saint John 29, 40, 44, 87 Cicero 5, 10–11, 18–20, 24–25, 39, 49, 52, 54– 56, 71, 84, 115, 124, 128, 131, 133–135, 146, 180 Clement vii 94 Cles, Bernhard von 120 Clichtove, Josse 65–66 Colet, John 6, 10, 76, 214

index Coornhert, Dirck 179–180 Cousturier, Pierre (Petrus Sutor) 205 Croke, Richard 151 Cromwell, Thomas 214 Cyprian, Saint 29, 82 Defoe, Daniel 20 Denidel, Antoine 146 Descartes, René 210 Despauterius, Johannes 122 Devereux, E.J. 203, 214–216 Diderot, Denis 22 Diogenes Laertius 59 Dodds, Gregory 214–215 Dolet, Étienne 218, 224 Donatus, Aelius 44 Donatus, Bishop of Carthage 164 Dorne, John 7, 21 Dorp, Maarten van 62–63, 126 Du Moulin, François 205 Dürer, Albrecht 4 Eck, Johann Maier of 64 Edward vi, King of England 214–215 Eisen, Charles 220 Elizabeth i, Queen of England 215 Erasmus, Desiderius Adagiorum Chiliades 6, 21, 36–37, 39– 40, 46–47, 62–63, 103–118, 158, 160, 173–175, 185–188, 194, 207–208, 212, 214, 218 Annotations on the New Testament 38, 42–43, 80–83, 86, 92–94, 101, 157, 210, 212–213, 223 Antibarbari 8, 35, 39, 47, 58 Apologia adversus debacchationes Petri Sutoris 205 Apologia adversus monachos quosdam hispanos 163, 168, 178 Apologia de In principio erat sermo 80 Apologia de loco Omnes quidem resurgemus 81 Apologia qua respondet duabus invectivis Eduardi Lei 157 Apophthegmata 194, 201, 217 Appendix de scriptis Iodoci Clithovei 65– 66 Ciceronianus 17–20, 122, 218 Collectanea adagiorum 103

359 Colloquies 5–6, 9, 20–23, 54–55, 63, 156, 182, 184, 195, 197–198, 201, 214, 216–218, 222–224 Consilium cuiusdam ex animo cupientis esse consultum et Romani pontificis dignitati et christianae religionis tranquillitati 167 Consultatio de bello Turcis inferendo 185–188 De civilitate morum puerilium 17, 207, 212, 217, 223 De conscribendis epistolis 8, 21, 121–126, 129, 132, 137–141 De contemptu mundi 53, 92 De copia 5–14, 18, 21, 40, 122 De immensa Dei misericordia concio 207, 223 De libero arbitrio 92, 95, 97–101, 157, 168, 213 De praeparatione ad mortem 207, 212, 217, 223 De pueris 16–17, 217 De puritate tabernaculi 136, 160 De ratione studii 10, 14–17, 21, 24, 40, 60 De recta pronuntiatione 17–18 De sarcienda ecclesiae concordia 173– 176, 223 Declarationes ad censuras Lutetiae vulgatas 167, 170 Detectio praestigiarum 122, 205 Dilutio eorum quae Iodocus Clithoveus scripsit adversus declamationem Des. Erasmi Roterodami suasoriam matrimonii 66 Divinationes ad notata per Bedam 165 Ecclesiastes 159–160 Enchiridion militis Christiani 36–43, 88, 92, 174, 206–207, 212, 218, 220–221, 223 Encomium matrimonii 65, 194 Epistola contra pseudevangelicos 169–171 Exomologesis sive modus confitendi 205, 218 Expostulatio Iesu cum homine 212 Hyperaspistes 100–101, 168 Institutio christiani matrimonii 194–196 Institutio principis christiani 212, 223 Iulius exclusus e coelis 215 Lingua 207, 212, 222–223 Methodus 42, 73, 83

360 Novum Testamentum 28–31, 34, 41–43, 57, 68–89, 92–93, 126, 154, 156–158, 161, 202, 207, 223 Opus epistolarum 119–144 Paraclesis 41–42, 57, 73, 80, 83, 204, 223 Paraphrases on the New Testament 38, 43, 70, 86, 94, 101, 157, 164–168, 179–180, 191, 204, 210, 212, 214–215, 223 Praise of Folly 5, 20, 40–41, 46, 62, 126, 151, 154, 158, 160, 174–175, 201, 206, 208– 210, 213–215, 217–224 Precatio dominica 223 Querela pacis 212, 215, 223 Ratio verae theologiae 34–35, 42–44, 73 Supputationes errorum in censuris Natalis Bedae 165–166, 178 Epicurus 52–55 Episcopius, Nicolaus 159 Estienne, Robert 17, 70–71 Euripides 5, 13, 20, 149–150, 155, 201 Faber, Johannes 167 Faber Emmeus, Johannes 159, 172 Fabri, Johannes 168, 172 Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria 184 Fernández, Alonso 206, 221–222 Ficino, Marsilio 46 Fisher, John 20 Fisher, Robert 123 Foucault, Michel 31–32 Francis i, King of France 206, 219 Franck, Sebastian 208, 213 Froben, Hieronymus 5, 130 Froben, Johann 17, 21, 27, 35, 41–42, 49– 50, 68–73, 77, 87, 105, 127, 152–159, 161, 164 Fumaroli, Marc 32, 44 Gaguin, Robert 146 Galen 158–159 Galle, Christoph 202–204, 213–214 Gaza, Theodorus 14 Geillyaert, Johan 208, 210 Geldenhouwer, Gerard 159, 167–171 Gellius, Aulus 20, 112 George, Duke of Saxony 94 Gerard, Cornelis 20 Gerbel, Nikolaus 77, 160

index Gillis, Pieter 126–127, 134 Glazemaker, Jan 210 Goclenius, Conradus 120, 144 Godin, André 33, 43 Gois, Damião de 184 Gorce, Denys 32–35, 42 Gourmont, Gilles de 151 Graf, Urs 103, 153 Grafton, Anthony 7–9 Gregory of Nazianzus 87 Gregory the Great 41 Grey, Thomas 14 Gromors, Pierre 134 Grynaeus, Simon 59 Guarini, Guarino 148 Gueudeville, Nicolas 218, 220 Guggisberg, Hans 179 Gutenberg, Johann 27 Halewijn, Joris van 219 Halkin, Léon 135 Halmale, Jaspar van 126 Hannibal 195 Haudent, Guillaume 217 Hedio, Caspar 212 Hegius, Alexander 10 Henry iv, King of France 173 Henry viii, King of England 150, 152, 214– 215 Hermans, Willem 146 Herwagen, Johann 159 Hesiod 103 Heynlin von Steyn, Johann 154 Heyns, Zacharias 218 Hilary of Poitiers 29, 41, 169 Hillen, Michael 157 Hoffmann, Manfred 51 Holbein, Hans 4, 69, 153, 157, 209, 215 Holeczek, Heinz 202, 204, 211–213 Homer 31, 49, 103, 110 Hondt, Jan de 144 Horace 20, 39, 112, 128–129, 182 Hruby, Gregor 223 Huizinga, Johan 6 Hus, Jan 223 Hutten, Ulrich von 169, 211 Huyberts, Cornelis 209 Huygens, Constantijn 210

361

index Jardine, Lisa 7–8, 33, 136 Jerome, Saint 20, 24–26, 29, 32–36, 40–41, 44, 68–69, 71, 74, 77, 84, 122, 126, 154, 158 Jiménez de Cisneros, Francisco 78 Jonge, Henk Jan de 83 Jonson, Ben 20 Joris, David 177 Jud, Leo 205, 211–212 Justin Martyr 182 Kennett, White 215 Keysere, Robert de 151 Knott, Betty 11 Koning, Paula 211 Krans, Jan 82 Kraye, Jill 59 Lachner, Gertrud 153, 159 Lachner, Wolfgang 153 Lang, Johann 167 Lascaris, Janus 14, 19 Łaski, Jan 62, 223 Latimer, William 147 Lecler, Joseph 162 Le Clerc, Jean 5, 120 Ledo, Jorge 203, 221–222 Lee, Edward 157 Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques 75, 81, 86 Leo x 73, 78, 94, 167–168, 185 L’Estrange, Roger 216 Leushuis, Reinier 221 L’Hôpital, Michel de 173 Linacre, Thomas 147 Lipsius, Justus 17, 136, 179–180 Livy 19 Lovati, Lovato dei 84 Lucian 55, 152, 187, 201–202 Lucretius 20 Luther, Martin 11, 18, 53, 56, 64–65, 71, 90– 102, 157, 162–163, 166–169, 174–176, 211–213, 216–217 Macault, Antoine 217 Mack, Peter 7–8 MacPhail, Eric 113 Manetti, Gianozzo 86 Mann Phillips, Margaret 59, 203, 213, 216– 217, 224

Manrique, Alonso 143 Mantuanus, Baptista 148 Manutius, Aldus 13, 17, 39–40, 59, 147–150, 152–161 Margolin, Jean-Claude 224 Marguerite de Navarre 206, 219 Markish, Shimon 190 Marot, Clément 217 Marso, Pietro 146 Martens, Dirk 126, 132–133, 147–148, 154– 155, 159 Mary i, Queen of England 214–215 McGrath, Alister 95–96 McLuhan, Marshall 27 McSorley, Harry J. 99 Melanchthon, Philipp 7 Metsys, Quentin 4 Migli, Emilio de’ 206, 220 Miller, Richard B. 181 Molière 220 Monfasani, John 45, 53 Montaigne, Michel de 9, 165, 172, 210 More, Thomas 11, 20, 47, 55, 101, 144, 196, 202, 215 Morel, Thierry 134 Mussato, Albertino 84 Nauert, Charles 91 Nebrija, Antonio de 17 Nowell, Alexander 7 Oecolampadius, Johannes 28, 78 Olahus, Nicolaus 120, 144 Origen 20, 29, 32–33, 38, 40–41, 43–44, 86 Ovid 5, 11, 15, 20 Paludanus, Petrus 122 Parmenian 164 Paul, Saint 37, 39, 41, 81, 101, 163, 167, 171 Payne, Thomas 215 Pellicanus, Conradus 211–212 Perisauli, Faustino 221 Perotti, Niccolò 14 Pers, Dirk 208 Petrarch 7, 18, 28, 84, 125 Petri, Johannes 153 Pettegree, Andrew 203, 216 Pfefferkorn, Johann 189 Pflug, Julius 173

362 Philippi, Johannes 146 Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius (Pope Pius ii) 11, 128 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni 19, 46–49, 52 Pilato, Leonzio 84 Pio da Carpi, Alberto 145, 222 Pirckheimer, Willibald 121, 144 Plato 15, 20, 22, 46–52, 105, 111–112 Plautus 112 Pliny 115, 124, 128, 146, 150 Plutarch 114, 201 Poirier, Héli 220 Poliziano, Angelo 7, 18, 46, 124 Pollio, Gaius Asinius 129 Popkin, Richard 56, 168 Pot, Gabriel 217 Queneau, Raymond 12 Quintilian 5, 12, 19, 24–25, 134 Rabelais, François 9, 20, 210, 217–218 Regier, Willis Goth 183 Renaudet, Augustin 32 Reuchlin, Johann 79, 153–154, 189 Rice, Eugene 33 Ricius, Paulus 190 Ruistre, Nicolas 147 Rummel, Erika 45, 94, 196, 200 Sadoleto, Jacopo 209 Saliat, Pierre 217 Salutati, Coluccio 124 Schade, Peter (Petrus Mosellanus) 7 Schets, Erasmus 120–121, 144 Schürer, Matthias 150–151, 153 Screech, Michael 218 Seidel Menchi, Silvana 203, 220 Seneca 11, 26, 49–52, 60, 77, 116–117, 152 Seneca Rhetor 63 Sepúlveda, Juan Ginés de 120 Servet, Miguel 166, 176–177 Shakespeare, William 9, 14, 20 Siberch, John 123 Šlechta, Jan 223 Smith, Preserved 101 Socrates 22, 48, 182 Solomon 60, 103

index Sowards, J.K. 196 Spalatinus, Georgius 211–212 Spinoza, Baruch 49, 65, 210 Sterne, Laurence 22 Stewart, Alexander 150 Stikke, Adriaen 210 Stupperich, Robert 173 Swift, Jonathan 22 Tacitus 19 Taverner, Richard 214 Terence 24–25, 28–29, 40, 43–44 Thale, William 14 Thenaud, Jean 219 Theophylact 29, 79 Theseus 14 Thucydides 84 Torresani, Gianfrancesco 158–159 Tracy, James 98 Trapman, Hans 208, 210 Traversari, Ambrogio 87 Turchetti, Mario 162, 172 Tyndale, William 71 Ulysses 110 Valdés, Alfonso de 221 Valla, Lorenzo 6, 10, 15, 18, 54, 63–64, 76, 78, 84–87, 148 Van der Aa, Pieter 202, 209, 219 Van Ghistele, Cornelis 208 Van Hoogstraten, Frans 208–210 Vergil, Polydore 151 Virgil 11, 15, 182 Virués, Alonso Ruiz de 222 Vitré, Pierre 14 Vives, Juan Luis 64, 185 Volz, Paul 186, 206 Vreese, Willem de 207 Walter, Peter 51 Weltkirchius, Johannes 7 Westerbaen, Jacob 210 William of Cleves 16 Wilson, Thomas 215 Zwingli, Huldrych 4, 211