Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T00:39:54.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Praise of Folly in Context: The Commentary of Girardus Listrius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

J. Austin Gavin  and
Thomas M. Walsh
J. Austin Gavin
Affiliation:
St. Louis University
Thomas M. Walsh
Affiliation:
St. Louis University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While contemporary scholarship on Erasmus’ Praise of Folly has been unusually productive, it has dealt primarily with structure and theme. It appears, however, that not nearly enough attention has been paid by scholars to the Listrius commentary which, after the 1515 Basel edition, became a standard appendage to the work. A close analysis of the commentary demonstrates that while at times it is ostentatious and irrelevant, its critical and interpretative remarks are often quite valuable. It can be seen not only as an objective statement of Erasmus' satiric method, but also as a kind of humanist courtesy book.

Almost from its inception, printers and translators made use of the commentary.

Type
Research Article
Information
Renaissance Quarterly , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , Summer 1971 , pp. 193 - 209
Copyright
Copyright © Renaissance Society of America 1971

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 Bibliotheca Belgica. Bibliographie géneralé des Pays-Bas, ed. van der Haeghen, F., 2nd ser., vol. XIII (Ghent, 1891-1923)Google Scholar. It should be noted that Edward Surtz, S. J., has found the commentary useful in his annotations on More's Utopia, in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, ed. S.J., Edward Surtz, and Hexter, J. H. (New Haven, 1965), IV Google Scholar.

2 Miller, Clarence H., ed. The Praise of Folie, by Chaloner, Sir Thomas (London, 1965), p. 133 Google Scholar. For further examples see also: p . 133, 7/10-12; p. 140, 17/10-11; p. 142, 22/24- 26; p. 156, 46/9; p. 162, 56/17. Many other examples could be cited.

3 Professor Clarence H. Miller, who is editing the Latin text of the Moria for the forthcoming Amsterdam edition of Erasmus’ complete works, has provided us with this information. We would like to thank him for allowing us to use his personal notes on his collations of the Latin text of the Moria and for his help in translating parts of the commentary. See the ‘Explanatory Notes’ in Professor Miller's dissertation (Harvard, 1955), ‘Sir Thomas Chaloner's Translation of The Praise of Folie, 11, for translations of some parts of Listrius’ gloss.

4 Colie, Rosalie L., ‘Some Notes on Burton's Erasmus,’ Renaissance Quarterly, 20 (Autumn 1967), p. 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Commentaries Girardi Listrii Rhenensis subjunximus, ab erudita Moriae declamatione inseparables, pari doctrinae gressu cum ipso contextu procedentes’ (sig. a7v).

6 Kaiser, Walter, The Praisers of Folly (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), pp. 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 The Listrius commentary on Stultitiae Laus, in Des. Erastni Roterodami Opera Omnia, ed. J. Le Clerc (Leyden, 1703-06), iv, 409, 12. Individual notes in the commentary are cited according to column number and footnote number in Le Clerc's edition. Thus, 409, 12 refers to the twelfth footnote in column 409 in Le Clerc's edition of the Moria. Listrius also notes that Folly organizes her oration according to the regular structure of the Quintilian oration. See 407, 9 and 504, 8.

8 In ‘Current English Translations of The Praise of Folly: Some Corrections,’ Philological Quarterly, 45 (October 1966), 724-725, Clarence H. Miller has cited some places where the commentary might have kept Hudson from going astray. Professor Miller, for example, notes Hudson's misreading of Folly's phrase, at the end of her digression on the inappropriate use of Greek phrases by rhetoricians. Hudson takes Folly's remark to be an implied response by the audience. However, the commentary makes it clear that the remark is Folly's own ‘ipse dixit.’ Listrius translates the Greek phrase into Latin as ‘et haec quidem haec,’ emphasizing that it is Folly who ironically ends her parenthesis by using the very terms she has castigated (409, 9).

9 Maurice Rat (in his commentary on Nolhac's French translation of the Moria, Paris, 1936) tries to identify the Jordanus mentioned by Listrius, as does Kan, I. B., ed., Encomium Moriae (The Hague, 1898)Google Scholar; but Jordanus has not yet been certainly identified.

10 For other useful references, see: 465, 1; 466, 22; 484, 15; 487, 2; 491, 9; 496, 11.

11 Opus Epistolorum Des. Erasmi Roterodami, ed. Allen, P. S. (Oxford, 1906-47), n, 407 Google Scholar, and ix, 449. For a rather thorough discussion of the problem of the authorship of the Listrius commentary, see Bibliotheca Belgica, vol. xni, E884.

12 Bibliotheca Belgica, vol. XIII, describes the editions of the Encomium Moriae which contain the Listrius commentary.

13 Allen, III, 62-63.

14 Allen, II, 93. ‘Nee aliud omnino spectauimus in Moria quam quod in caeteris lucubrationibus, tamesti via diuersa.'

15 Ibid. ‘Nee aliud agitur in Moria sub specie lusus quam actum est in Enchiridio. Admonere voluimus, non mordere; prodesse, non laedere; consulere moribus hominum, non officere. Plato philosophus tarn gravis largiores in compotationibus invitatiunculas approbat, quod arbitretur quaedam vitia per hilaritatem vini posse discuti, quae severitate corrigi non possent.'

16 Allen, II, 482-483. ‘Utopiam Mori si nondum legisti, fac requiras si quando voles ridere, imo si fontes ipsos intueri unde omnia fere reipublicae mala oriuntur.'

17 See Utopia, in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, ed. S.J., Edward Surtz, and Hexter, J. H. (New Haven, 1965), IV, 1 Google Scholar; and Encomium Moriae, introd. Heinrich A. Schmid, tr. Helen H. Tanzer, facsimile edition (Basle, 1515), 2 vols. (Basle: Opperman, 1931), II, [A]. The title pages of both the Moria and the Utopiapoint up this unique blending of seriousness and mirth. Erasmus calls his work ‘libellus nee minus eruditis, & salutaris, quam festivus,’ while More describes the Utopia as ‘nee minus salutaris quam festivus… .’ In ‘Satire in the Utopia,’ PMLA, 48 (1963), 164-165, A. R. Heiserman, while discussing the nature of satire in the Utopia, also cites Erasmus’ letters to Dorp from which we have quoted. He compares Erasmus’ ‘via diversa’ to the similar method in the Utopia and calls attention to More's prefatory remarks on ‘festivus,’ although he does not draw the parallel to Erasmus’ similar remark prefacing the Moria.

18 ‘Vide, lector, ut rem per se mordacem festiviter & citra morsum tractat. Quis nescit, ut singulis hominibus, ita & singulis nationibus sua quaedam vitia esse, de quibus vulgus etiam sua habet proverbia. At hie nihil attingit odiosum, sed tantum ridicula quaedam commemorat ut intelligas ilium candido illo Mercurii sale ludere voluisse. Nam Britannos etiam laudavit, si vindicant sibi, quod & habent, & habere pulcrum est’ (448,11). See also 455, 1.

19 ‘Vide ut data opera caverit, ne alicujus famam laederet. Hie poterat nominare quosdam & locus requirebat, tamen de industria posuit nomina, quae nullus adhuc Scriptorum hujus temporis usurpavit’ (460, 17). Listrius points out another example of Erasmus’ palliative diction when Polly speaks about a certain divine madness (502 D). His note (503, 1, which is misplaced and should go with the phrase ‘quam insaniam quamdam’ on 502 D) indicates that Erasmus added the word ‘quamdam’ so that readers would not conclude the author to be saying that God was mad.

20 Has vulgo vocant indulgentias, quas hie non improbat, si verae sint, sed simulatas ridet, ideoque addidit fictis …’ (444, 14).

21 Ibid. ‘Hoc unum scio, certius esse quod Christus in Evangelio promisit, de remittendis peccatis, quam quod pollicentur homines, praesertim cum haec tota res, recens sit, & nuper inventa. Postremo complures mortalium his condonationibus freti, sibi male blandiuntur, nee cogitant de vita mutanda.'

22 ‘Illud animadverte, lector, quamquam Moriam loquentem facit, tamen hoc cavit, ne usquam laedat Christianam religionem …’ (445, 1).

23 ‘Verum tamen vide quam circumspecte locutus est Erasmus etiam sub aliena persona, ne quis possit offendi’ (456, 16).

24 ‘Haec nihil ad bonos Monachos pertinent… . Audivimus enim saepenumero narrantes, quicquid audiverint a confitentibus, idque non ad aedificationem, sed ridendi causa’ (474, 11).

25 Listrius points out a similar textual error in Erasmus’ dedicatory letter to Thomas More (404, 16). Commenting on ‘Si quid ”. Listrius says that in a past edition a printer had incorporated into the text a marginal translation of the Greek. This kind of textual sensitivity had ramifications in the study of scripture. For example, Listrius, commenting on the phrase, ‘A Babylonio dracone Bel,’ says that this story, found in the book of Daniel, is apocryphal and should possibly be attributed to Theodotion. ‘For it is not found in the Hebrew. Neither is Susanna nor the hymn of the three boys. All of these St. Jerome, by placing slashes in front of them, cut off as spurious’ (475, 6).

26 Yates, Frances A., The Art of Memory (Chicago, 1966), p. 55.Google Scholar It should be pointed out, however, that the authorship of this text was in serious doubt in the last decade of the fifteenth century. Miss Yates mentions that in 1491 ‘Raphael Regius brought the new critical techniques to bear on Ad Herennium and suggested Cornificius as the author’ (p. 125).

27 ‘De his characteribus, neque sacrae litterae, neque veteres Theologi meminerunt. Caeterum quemadmodum Astronomi, non potentes motuum coelestium varietatis causam invenire, eccentricos & epicyclos in orbibus finxerunt: sic neoterici Theologi, ut causam aliquam darent, quare unum Sacramentum non nisi semel, aliud frequenter liceat sumere, hos characteres commenti sunt quibus semel receptis …’ (466, 24).

28 ‘Aperit pestem cerimoniarum, quod his freti complures, contemnant eos qui non eadem faciant, putantes in his esse pietatem, quae Christus & Apostoli adeo non tradiderunt, ut dehortentur etiam’ (472, 7).

29 ‘ … qui nihil non definiunt, qui ulli decretorum refragetur, aut ullum verbum commutet statim odiosum illud nomen haeretici occlamant, cum palam sit, nullum hominum genus longius abesse a vera Christi doctrina’ (463, 8).

30 ‘… cum in primis oportet Theologum ipsos imbibisse fontes, & in lege Domini, noctes ac dies meditatum esse, ut assiduitas vertatur in naturam, ut non solum intelligat humano more, sed etiam afEciatur & rapiatur. Nemo vere intelligit Christum, nisi tractus a Christo… . Novi permultos Theologos, Doctores, ut vocant qui ante quinquagesimum annum nondum evolverant omnes epistolas Paulinas… . Isti quoties ad interpretandum sacras litteras accedunt, Dii boni, quam frigent, quam sordent omnia, quam nihil adferunt Christo dignum’ (468, 11).

31 ‘Est proverbium de re impossibili. Verum hie elegantur detorsit ad id, quod is qui niger est factis, hoc est infamis, ut candidus laudatur, & alius pingitur quam est’ (407, 3).

32 ‘Acies ad animam refertur, cuspis autem non dicitur, nisi de re corporea, data autem opera hie vertit’ (476, 14).

33 ‘Nam a Stultitia laudari, vituperari est’ (486, 6).

34 Praise of Folly, tr. Hudson, Hoyt H. (Princeton, 1941), p. 56 Google Scholar. We have corrected Hudson's mistranslation of Erasmus’ ‘animi causa’ which he had translated ‘for his soul's sake’ to ‘for his own amusement.’ For a discussion of this point see Miller, ‘Current English Translations,’ p. 729.

35 ‘Facete conjunxit pugnantia. Sentit eum, qui sub specie pietatis imposturam facit’ (444, 18). See Miller, ‘Current English Translations,’ p. 729.

36 Hudson, p. III.

37 ‘Emphasis est in nomine crucifixi, quod minime conveniat, eum qui ad crucem usque perpessus est omnia, suos discipulos, quos utique sui imitatores esse jubet, latronum armis instructos, ad praedicationem Euangelii jubere proficisci’ (494, 12).

38 ‘Obiter taxat verbum Theologis familiare, sed non perinde probatum, atque usitatum’ (488, 16). See Miller, ‘Current English Translations,’ pp. 727-728.

39 Hudson, p. 99: ‘This would be inhuman and downright abominable, and, what is more accursed, those very princes of the church and true lights of the world would themselves be reduced to a staff and wallet.'

40 See Miller, , ed., The Praise of Folie, p. 185 Google Scholar (99/8: ‘yea the verie … worlde’), which identifies this hymn.

41 For other examples of such exhortations, see: 446, 12; 465, 4; 469, 9; 470, 15; 485, 4; 494, 7.

42 ‘Nam praeter odium litterarum, ingeniique servilitatem, quam saevitia praeceptorum parit, etiam corpusculis adhuc teneris & crescentibus non parum nocet nimia ilia saevitia & asperitas: quam mirum, quantum stulti non sane pauci, tamquam praeceptoris virtutem mirantur’ (449, 5).

43 ‘Graeca, Latina & Hebraica … quas adeo necessarias veteres ad Sacras litteras judicabant, ut etiam decretis Pontificiis decretum sit, ut linguarum notitia in scholis publice traderetur, quod sine his Sacrarum litterarum mysteria non intelligi posse judicarent’ (491, 6).

44 ‘Omnes Christiani pertinent ad ecclesiam, cujus ministri sunt Sacerdotes. Omnes Christiani religiosi sunt, adstricti voto in Baptismo renunciantes mundo, Satanae, & pompis ejus’ (485, 4).

45 We have again relied upon notes given to us by Professor Clarence H. Miller on the collation of the Latin texts of the Moria.

46 For other examples where Listrius differentiates between Erasmus and his persona, see: 423, 19; 475, 4; 502, 6.

47 Colie, Rosalie, Paradoxia Epidetnica: The Renaissance Tradition of Paradox (Princeton, 1966), pp. 16–17.Google Scholar

48 Apte vocavit declamationem, ut intelligas rem exercendi ingenii causa scriptam, ad lusum ac voluptatem. Porro Moriam fingit veterum more ceu Deam quamdam suas laudes narrantem, idque decore, quod hoc stultis peculiare sit, se ipsos admirari, deque se ipsis gloriose praedicare’ (405, 1).

49 ‘Decorum vocat non simpliciter, quod per se deceat, sed quod Stultitiae personam deceat, veluti non est decorum lenoni loqui de fide’ (406, 13). See also 504, 12.

50 ‘Hanc accipiendum, ut se ipsam digito ostendat’ (405, 2).

51 ‘Et hoc accipiendum, ut floccum aut pilum ostendat’ (406, 12).