Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:09:21.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Erasmus, Jean Le Clerc, and the Principle of the Harder Reading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Jerry H. Bentley
Jerry H. Bentley*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholars of history have finally set to work on the history of scholarship. It is strange to report that they have neglected the history of their own intellectual tradition, but it is so. J. E. Sandys’ three-volume History of Classical Scholarship has of course long been available to serve as the basic source of information on the subject. But Sandys’ work presents chiefly a chronological overview of names, dates, titles, and anecdotes bearing on classical scholars and their work. What has been lacking is a survey of the development of scholarly thought and methods, based on an analysis of the principles employed by past scholars in their work. Synthetic studies are now available which suggest the broad outlines along which scholarship developed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Renaissance Quarterly , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1978 , pp. 309 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Renaissance Society of America 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N. G., Scribes and Scholars (2nd ed., Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar; Kenney, E. J., The Classical Text (Berkeley, 1974)Google Scholar; and Pfeiffer, Rudolf, History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968- )Google Scholar. The last cited work promises, upon completion, to be a fundamental, well-nigh definitive study of the subject. At the time of this writing, two volumes have been published, one on the ancient period, the other on the period 1300 to 1800. See also Bolgar, R. R., The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries (Cambridge, 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Rizzo, Silvia, Il lessico filologico degli umanisti (Rome, 1973), pp. 226–235 Google Scholar. See also two short studies by Sesto Prete: ‘Leistungen der Humanisten auf dem Gebiete der lateinischen Philologie,’ Philologus, 109 (1965), 259-269, and Observations on the History of Textual Criticism in the Medieval and Renaissance Periods (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1970).

3 Billanovich, G., ‘Petrarch and the Textual Tradition of Livy ,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 14 (1951), 137–208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 See my own contributions and the literature cited there: ‘Erasmus’ Annotationes in Novum Testamentum and the Textual Criticism of the Gospels,’ Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 67 (1976), 33-53, and ‘Biblical Philology and Christian Humanism: Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus as Scholars of the Gospels,’ Sixteenth Century Journal, 8, no. 2 (1977), 9-28.

5 Reynolds and Wilson, pp. 127-129; Kenney, pp. 5-10. See also Sabbadini, Remigio, Il metodo degli umanisti (Florence, 1922), pp. 56–60 Google Scholar.

6 See Branca, Vittore, ‘Ermolao Barbaro and Late Quattrocento Venetian Humanism,’ in J. R. Hale, ed., Renaissance Venice (Totowa, New Jersey, 1973), pp. 218–243 Google Scholar.

7 Not to mention the contribution of Renaissance historians to the development of modern historical scholarship. See Kelley, Donald R., The Foundations of Modem Historical Scholarship (New York, 1970)Google Scholar; Struever, Nancy S., The Language of History in the Renaissance (Princeton, 1970)Google Scholar; Franklin, Julian, Jean Bodin and the Sixteenth-Century Revolution in the Methodology of Law and History (New York, 1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Huppert, George, The Idea of Perfect History (Urbana, 1970)Google Scholar.

8 See above all Pasquali, Giorgio, Storia delta tradizione e critica del testo (2nd ed., Florence, 1952), pp. 121–126 Google Scholar. See also Maas, Paul, Textual Criticism, tr. B. Flower (Oxford, 1958), p. 13 Google Scholar; and Reynolds and Wilson, pp. 199-200.

9 See especially Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament (2nd ed., New York, 1968), pp. 195–206 Google Scholar, where the author discusses a variety of motives which induced scribes consciously to alter some readings.

10 For Mill and Bentley, see Fox, Adam, John Mill and Richard Bentley (Oxford, 1954), pp. 147–148 Google Scholar. For Wettstein, see Hulbert-Powell, Charles Lacy, James, John Wettstein, 1693—1754 (London, n.d.), pp. 114–121 Google Scholar. For the present day, see Metzger, pp. 112, 209.

11 Metzger, pp. 153-154.

12 See Timpanaro, Sebastiano, La genesi del metodo del Lachmann (Florence, 1963), pp. 20–21 Google Scholar. See also Reynolds and Wilson, p. 248; and Kenney, p. 43.

13 The most recent study of Le Clerc's life and works is Golden, Samuel, Jean Le Clerc (New York, 1972)Google Scholar, which emphasizes Le Clerc's role as a mediator between English and continental (especially Dutch) cultures.

14 ‘Hue pertinet quod quaeri solet, de delectu variarum lectionum quae in MSS. paris vetustatis & aeque emendatis animadvertuntur. Saepe enim variae lectiones occurrunt, quae omnes cum re ipsa, serie orationis, & stylo Scriptoris consentiunt, ex quibus tamen una eligenda est. Si omnia sint paria, non multum quidem interest quae eligatur; sed si una ex iis obscurior sit, ceterae clariores, turn vero credibile est obscuriorem esse veram ceteras glossemata, ut Cap. VII ostendimus. Similiter, si quae sit lectio, quae in uno Codice occurrat, difficultatemque tollat, quae insit loco, prout in ceteris omnibus Codicibus legitur, non illico est admittenda. Verendum enim sit, ne emendatio sit Librarii aut Critici, qui ex conjectura quod non adsequebatur mutaverit, aut quod mendum opinabatur sustulerit.’ As an illustration of this problem Le Clerc refers to the text presented at Matthew 1:2 by MS. D of the New Testament (Codex Bezae), where the genealogy has been so altered as to conform to the genealogy found in the Gospel of Luke. Clerc, Jean Le, Ars critica (Amsterdam, 1697), II, 388–390 Google Scholar. For a critical analysis of this work, see Kenney, pp. 40-44 All translations into English throughout this article are my own.

15 ‘Erasmus’ Annotationes in Novum Testamentum? pp. 47-49; ‘Biblical Philology and Christian Humanism,’ pp. 15-18.

16 I use the critical edition of Erasmus’ Apologia published in H. and Holborn, A., eds., Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus. Ausgewählte Werke (Munich 1933), pp. 166–167 Google Scholar.

17 The standard edition of Erasmus’ Annotations is still that included in vol. 6 of the Opera omnia Des. Erasmi Roterodami, 10 vols., ed. J. Le Clerc (Lugdunum Batavorum, 1703-1706). This edition will generally be cited within the text as LB. For examples of the criticisms mentioned here, see the notes respectively to 1 Corinthians 12:13 (LB VI, 720 F-721 c), John 12:35 (LB VI, 392 F), and 2 Corinthians 4:4 (LB VI, 763 c). Many other examples could be adduced.

18 For references to the Greek text of the New Testament, I rely on Aland, Kurt et al, eds., The Greek New Testament (2nd ed., New York, 1968)Google Scholar. For references to the Latin Vulgate New Testament, I have used Wordsworth, J. and White, H. J., eds., Novum testamentum latine. Editio minor (Oxford, 1911)Google Scholar, which is based on the same editors’ Novum testamentum domini nostri Iesu Christi latine, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1889-1954).

19 LB VI, 126 F-127 D. Most scholars today believe Mark was the first composed of the synoptic gospels. This is a solid and almost indisputable finding of modern scholarship, but it was obviously unavailable to sixteenth-century textual critics.

20 LB VI, 367 F-368 F. Aland et at prefer the easier reading here because it appears in virtually all of the best manuscripts. See Metzger, Bruce M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (3rd ed., New York, 1971), pp. 215–216 Google Scholar. But it is extremely difficult, if they are correct, to see how the harder reading arose. Metzger does not attempt to explain its appearance.

21 Elsewhere Erasmus advanced another, less successful explanation for the occurrence of the Trinitarian formula in Greek manuscripts. He thought the short-lived union in the fifteenth century between the Greek and Roman Churches had been attended by a pact to make the readings in Greek manuscripts conform to those in the Vulgate. Thus he suggested that the formula had been inserted into some Greek manuscripts after the Council of Ferrara-Florence. This argument may be found in two of Erasmus’ apologies, one against Stunica (LB IX, 353 E), the other against the Spanish monks (LB IX, 1031 F-1032 A), and in a letter of 1527—see the Opus epistularum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, ed. P. S. Allen et al. (Oxford, 1906-1958), VII, 177. For more on the early history of the dispute over the Trinitarian formula, see A. Bludau, ‘Der Beginn der Controverse über die Aechtheit des Comma Johanneum (1 Joh. 5, 7.8.) im 16. Jahrhundert,’ Der Katholik, 3rd series, 26 (1902), 25-51, 151-175.

22 See Tracy, James D., Erasmus: The Growth of a Mind (Geneva, 1972), pp. 98–101 Google Scholar, 154-155, and Payne, John B., Erasmus: His Theology of the Sacraments (Richmond, Virginia, 1970), pp. 54–70 Google Scholar.

23 ‘Caeterum quoniam sententia prima specie videtur durior, opinor offensum eruditulum quempiam mutasse scripturam’ (LB VI, 255 DE). Erasmus was probably wrong here. Modern editors would more likely judge (the harder reading) not genuine: it appears to be an unconscious alteration of the correct reading, which has the advantage of making the text repeat the pattern established a few verses earlier, at Luke 6:23.

24 ‘Et quoties Veteres fatentur lectionem esse diversam, semper mihi *suspectior esse solet ea, quae prima specie videtur absurdior; ut consentaneum sit, Lectorem vel parum eruditum, vel parum attentum, ofFensum absurditatis imagine mutasse scripturam’ (LB VI, 742 D).

25 LB VI, 740 F-743 B. Erasmus clung to his view even in the face of harsh adversity. He defended his note against the attacks of two critics (Nicholas Egmondanus and Henry Standish) both in an addition of 1522 to the Annotations (LB VI, 743 BF) and in an Apologia de loco omnes quidem resurgemus (LB IX, 433-442). Though Erasmus deals mainly with theological questions in this Apologia, he again reviews the evidence bearing on the text, and he even adduces the great MS. B of the New Testament (Codex Vaticanus) in his support (LB IX, 435 AF). Cf. also his Liber alter quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Eduardi Lei (LB IX, 218 D-219 E), where Erasmus again defends his note.

26 For ‘*suspectior’ Le Clerc proposed in a footnote: ‘Legendum verior’ (LB VI, 742 F).

27 Erasmus prepared five editions of his Greek New Testament with Latin translation and Annotations; all were published in Basle by Froben. The first edition, called Novum instrumentum, appeared in 1516; the later editions, all called Novum testamentum, appeared in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535. The sentence in question did not appear in the first edition; the later editions all give the reading suspectior. This reading also appears in the Annotations published in the first collected edition of Erasmus’ works: Omnia opera Des. Erasmi Roterodami, 9 vols., ed. Beatus Rhenanus (Basle, 1540-1541).

28 Elegantiae, v, 56. I rely on the edition included in Valla's Opera omnia, 2 vols., ed. E. Garin (Turin, 1962), 1, 182.

29 See the recently published critical edition of Erasmus’ Paraphrase, ed. Heesaakers, C. L. and Waszink, J. H. in the Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami (Amsterdam, 1973), 1:4. 244 Google Scholar.

30 The magnificent Thesaurus linguae latinae has of course not yet been published through the letter S. I am therefore particularly grateful to G. Eder on the Thesaurus’ staff in Munich for a private letter, in which he points out that classical precedent for this use of the adjective suspectus is not entirely lacking. Cf. Vitruvius, IX, praef. 13: ‘Itaque cum in ceteris inventionibus fuerint grati [Archytes et Eratosthenes], in eius rei concitationibus maxime sunt suspecti.’

31 ‘Quod prima fronte absurdius, id maxime depravatur.’ This note is not present in Le Clerc's edition (LB), but it appears in the margin of all editions from 1519 to 1541.

32 Cf. my earlier studies, cited above (n. 5).

33 See preeminently Bailey, J. W., ‘Erasmus and the Textus Receptus,’ Crozer Quarterly, 17 (1940), 271–279 Google Scholar, for this sort of mechanical criticism of Erasmus’ scholarship.

34 A model study of Erasmus as a classical scholar will be found in Trillitzsch, Winfried, ‘Erasmus und Seneca,’ Phihlogus, 109 (1965), 170–193 Google Scholar.