8/19/2019 Meer 2010

1/408

OPERA OMNIA DESIDERII ERASMI

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

2/408

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

3/408

OPERA OMNIA  

DESIDERII ERASMI

ROTERODAMI

RECOGNITA ET ADNOTATIONE CRITICA INSTRVCTA 

NOTISQVE ILLVSTRATA 

ORDINIS QVARTI TOMVS QVARTVS

BRILLLEIDEN • BOSTON

2010

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

4/408

Sous le patronage de

L’UNION ACADÉMIQUE INTERNATIONALE

ET DE L’ACADÉMIE ROYALE NÉERLANDAISE DES SCIENCESET DES SCIENCES HUMAINES

© 2010 by K ONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

 All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,

or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 71 89942

ISBN: – Tomus IV, 4: 978-90-04-18173-1

CONSEIL INTERNATIONAL POUR L’ÉDITION DES ŒUVRES

COMPLÈTES D’ÉRASME

Mme M.E.H.N. MOUT, Leyde, Président ; J.K. MCCONICA , Toronto, Vice-président ; C.S.M.

R  ADEMAKER , ss. cc., Bois-le-Duc, Secrétaire-général/Trésorier ; J. TRAPMAN, La Haye, Secrétaire ;

R. BODENMANN, Berne; K.A.E. ENENKEL, Münster; J.-C. M ARGOLIN, Paris-Tours; J.-P. M ASSAUT,

Liège; D. S ACRÉ, Louvain; P.-G. SCHMIDT, Freiburg i. Br.; H. V REDEVELD, Columbus OH

COMITÉ DE RÉDACTION

F. A KKERMAN, Groningue; G.J.M. B ARTELINK , Nimègue; J. BLOEMENDAL, La Haye; J. DOMA NSKI,

Varsovie; C.J. HEESAKKERS, Leyde; H.J. DE JONGE, Leyde; Mme M.L. VAN POLL-VAN DE LISDONK ,

Hellevoetsluis, Secrétaire ; J. TRAPMAN, La Haye, Président 

SECRÉTARIAT DU CONSEIL

Huygens Instituut

Boîte Postale 90754, 2509 LT La Haye, Pays-Bas 

This volume has been printed on acid-free paper

Printed in the Netherlands

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

5/408

IN HOC VOLVMINE CONTINENTVR 

 APOPHTHEGMATVM LIBRI I–IV 

ed. Tineke L. ter Meer

PREFACE VII

INTRODUCTION 3

EPISTOLA NVNCVPATORIA 37

 APOPHTHEGMATVM LIBER I 49

 APOPHTHEGMATVM LIBER II 151

 APOPHTHEGMATVM LIBER III 197

 APOPHTHEGMATVM LIBER IV 285

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 373

INDEX NOMINVM 393

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

6/408

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

7/408

PREFACE

This thirty-eighth volume in Erasmus’ Opera omnia ( ASD ) is the fourth volumewithin ‘ordo’ IV, that is the ordo of the works pertaining to moral instruction(‘moralia continens’). The division into ‘ordines’ – each ‘ordo’ being devoted to a specific literary or thematic category – was laid down by Erasmus himself for theposthumous publication of his works (see general introduction,  ASD  I, pp. x,xvii–xviii, and C. Reedijk, Tandem bona causa triumphat. Zur Geschichte des Gesamtwerkes des Erasmus von Rotterdam. Vorträge der Aeneas-Silvius-Stiftung ander Universität Basel, XVI, Basel/Stuttgart, 1980, p. 12 sqq., 21–22).

The present volume (tom. IV, 4) contains the first part (books I–IV) of the Apophthegmata (ed. Tineke L. ter Meer, Leiderdorp). Her edition is a result of a project funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).In consultation with the Editorial Committee some adaptations in the manu-script (submitted in 2007) have been made by the Secretariat for the Erasmusedition. The Board wishes to thank Lindy Melman for the correction of the Eng-lish text.

The Editorial Board and the editor of the present volume are grateful to all

libraries that kindly put books, photostats, microfilms, and bibliographical mate-rial at their disposal.

Huygens Instituut The Editorial BoardPostbus 907542509 LT Den Haag  April 2010

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

8/408

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

9/408

 Apophthegmatum siue scite dictorum libri sex. Basileae, in officina Frobeniana anno MDXXXI.Ex. Gemeentebibliotheek Rotterdam

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

10/408

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

11/408

 APOPHTEGMATVMLIBRI I–IV 

edited by 

TINEKE L. TER MEER 

Leiderdorp

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

12/408

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

13/408

INTRODUCTION

1 “Creuit sub manibus” 

On 1 July 1529 Erasmus dedicated his declamation De pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis  to the thirteen-year-old William, Duke of Cleves, together with Ambrose’s  Apologia David  and De David interpellatione . Konrad Heresbach, William’s tutor, had asked the great scholar several years before to write some-thing which could be useful to the education of the young duke. In his prefaceErasmus admits that he had not been able to find a subject that matched the

position of the addressee. He stresses that dedicating De pueris to William hedoes not discharge his obligation, but proves his desire to do so.1 This means thatsome other work, tailored to the status of Heresbach’s pupil, would follow. Williamof Cleves thanked Erasmus for the dedication of De pueris on 10 November 1529.2

Two months later, on 31 January 1530, Erasmus wrote to Haio Herman that hewould possibly complete a paraphrase of Plutarch’s apophthegms, intending atthe same time “to emend what has been rendered incorrectly, to explain what isobscure, to indicate the wit of the dictum, which is not recognized by everyone,and to point out its usefulness”.3 This paraphrase developed into the extensivecollection Apophthegmata dedicated to the same William of Cleves.

 Apophthegms can be described as pointed remarks which characterized the per-son who expressed them. Generally these sayings are evoked by a question from orremark made by someone else, or by certain circumstances, but apophthegms may also consist of a saying preceded by nothing else but “x used to say”.

During the summer of 1530 Erasmus suffered from ill health. When recovering and trying to resume his studies, he failed to concentrate on the Ecclesiastes siue de ratione concionandi , actually not published until 1535. Eventually he succeeded in

1 Ep. 2189; ASD I, 2, pp. 21–22.2 Ep. 2234.3 Ep. 2261, ll. 45–49: “Fortassis absoluam paraphrasim in Apophthegmata Plutarchi; simul etemendaturus quae perperam sunt reddita, et explanaturus quae obscure, et argutiam dicti indicatu-rus, quam non omnes sentiunt, et vsum commonstraturus”.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

14/408

working on the apophthegms. By means of this material, which he typifies aspleasant and affinitive to his disposition (“meo genio cognatum”), he tried to

restore his physical and mental vigour.4On 15 December 1530 Erasmus wrote to Hieronymus Froben about the publi-

cation of a collection of apophthegms. Apparently he had brought this up earlier,as he comes straight to the point: “We’re talking not only about the Laconian,but about numerous other ones, not published before. If you print the work inthe same manner as you did De pueris , you will have more than forty quires. … At Christmas I will send you a part of the work, so that you can start. If possi-ble, I would like a large font. For, unless I am very much mistaken, the work willsell.”5 Indeed the first edition of the  Apophthegmata is printed in quarto with a Roman type, 26 lines per page, like De pueris . The eventual number of quires of the first edition, preliminaries and registers left out, is 84. It appears from theintroduction to book V that at an early stage Erasmus had in mind to compileonly four books: “I for my part had decided to confine myself to a selection of a few [men of fame], whom I mentioned in the previous books”.6 Book V starts atpage Ee1v o, which is part of the 51st quire. Although fifty quires accords betterwith Erasmus’ estimation of more than forty, there is still a difference of tenquires. It is possible that Erasmus, writing to Froben, intended to round off thecollection with the sayings of Philip of Macedon, Alexander the Great and Antigonus I Monophthalmos (book IV), as the final sentence of book III just

announces the apophthegms of three kings, as a counterpart to the three philoso-phers who filled the third book. The last saying of Antigonus is found on pageT2v o, halfway through the 42nd quire.

 Writing to Germain de Brie on 30 January 1531 Erasmus says that the  Apo- phthegmata are being composed at that time by himself and the compositors simul-taneously. “You know my method of working. But as I went along it increased somuch that I fully have to concentrate on it.”7 A few weeks later he completed thededicatory letter addressed to William of Cleves. This letter too shows that thesix books resulted from an unexpected expansion.8 On 11 March Erasmusinformed Matthias Kretz that the book will appear within eight days.9 One week 

4 INTRODUCTION

4 Ep. 2422 (to Germain de Brie, 30 January 1531), ll. 98–103; 2442 (to Franciscus Cassander, 6March 1531), ll. 4–11; 2443 (to Jacopo Sadoleto, 7 March 1531), ll. 8–12.5 Ep. 2412, ll. 8–15: “Non sunt Laconica tantum, sed alia innumera non aedita hactenus. Si excu-deris opus ea forma qua excudisti De liberali institutione, erunt quaterniones plus quadraginta. …His feriis nataliciis, mittam operis partem vt possitis incipere. Si fieri posset, cuperem maiusculis.Nam aut me fallit in totum animus, aut opus erit vendibile.”6 LB IV, 229 B: “Equidem statueram aliquot selectis, quos superioribus libris retuli, esse contentus;sed …”.7 Ep. 2422, ll. 102–105: “Tandem in alio [i.e. other than the Ecclesiastes ] quodam argumento coepitvtcunque recalescere, quod nunc pariter et a me cuditur et a typographis excuditur. Agnoscismorem meum. Verum hoc ita creuit sub manibus vt in eo totus esse cogar.”8 Epist. nunc. I–VI , i.e. the dedicatory letter (in this introduction also referred to as ‘preface’) dated26 February 1531 (Ep. 2431) preceding books I–VI, ll. 123–126.9 Ep. 2445, ll. 152–153.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

15/408

later he wrote the letter that accompanied the copy intended for the young duke.10

The title of the first edition mentions Plutarch as the main source of the col-lection. It also draws attention to the explanations added to the apophthegms,which comment on “obscure phrases as well as the meaning and wit of the say-ings, and frequently their usefulness too”, a reminder of the letter to Haio Her-man:

 Apophthegmatum, siue scite dictorum libri sex, ex optimis quibusque vtriusque linguae autoribus Plutarcho praesertim excerptorum, cum breui commodaque explicatione, quae tum lucem addit obscuris, tum dicti sensum argutiamque, nonnunquam et vsum indicat … Opus non minus bonae frugis quam voluptatis allaturum studiosis. Nunc primumexcusum. ( A)

 A survey of the contents of these six books shows that Plutarch plays an impor-tant part indeed. Books I–II consist of his  Apophthegmata Laconica  ( Mor. 208 A–242 D), with a few additions from other sources. Book I consists of sayings of Spartan kings and other Spartans known by name in alphabetical order. Book IIcontains sayings of anonymous Spartans, the Spartan institutions, and sayings of Spartan women. At the end of the book Erasmus added apophthegms of theSpartan ephor Chilon, one of the Seven Sages, taken from, among others, Dio-genes Laertius.

Book III includes apophthegms of Socrates, Aristippus, and Diogenes the

Cynic, largely based on Diogenes Laertius. Book IV opens with the threeMacedonian kings already mentioned (Philip, Alexander, Antigonus). They arefollowed by three Roman counterparts, Augustus, Caesar and Pompey.11

Subsequently the reader is addressed: “Now if you do not feel yet surfeited withthis banquet, we will add a few excellent men of the category of orators too”.12

Erasmus selected Phocion13, Cicero and Demosthenes. All series of anecdotes inbook IV open with the apophthegms from Plutarch’s Regum et imperatorumapophthegmata ( Mor. 172 B–208 A), except for the one about Demosthenes, thisorator not being included in Plutarch’s collection.

The metaphor of the banquet, also used in the dedicatory letter,

14

turns upagain at the beginning of book V. Erasmus says that he intended to compile only four books, but thinking of the inviting abundance of sayings and the appetite of his guest he decided to add a fifth course, resuming the order of Plutarch’sapophthegms.15 Book V consists of a paraphrase of the Regum et imperatorum

INTRODUCTION 5

10 Ep. 2458.11 See the passage following  Apophth. [1060], ll. 779–780, which erroneously mentions Ciceroinstead of Pompey.12 See the passage following Apophth. [1184], ll. 541–542.13 For Phocion considered as an orator see note on ll. 541–542 following  Apophth. [1184].14 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 128–130.15 LB IV, 229 B–C.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

16/408

apophthegmata , except for the persons already dealt with in books I (the Spartans, Mor. 189 D–192 C) and book IV (Philip, Alexander, Antigonus, Phocion,

Pompey, Cicero, Julius Caesar and Augustus, Mor. 177 C–181 F, 182 A–183 A, 187E–189 B, 203 B–208 A). Erasmus added sayings of, among others, Hannibal,Cato Uticensis, Sulla, Mark Antony, Crassus and Brutus, mainly on the basis of Plutarch’s Vitae .

Book VI is entitled Apophthegmata varie mixta . The first part (less than a thirdof the book) consists of sayings of Roman emperors. The second, larger part is a miscellany. In the introductory passage the reader is requested to consider thisbook as the dainties of a dessert. The guest is expected to try some of the food,not to eat everything that is served. Moreover, if some lighthearted sayings areserved, cheerfulness matches especially the last course of a banquet. This infor-mality also accounts for the lack of order.16

Imprint and colophon of the second edition of the  Apophthegmata (1532) donot specify the date of publication. However, on 17 September 1532 Pierre duChastel, who was in Freiburg then, thanked Erasmus for the copy he hadreceived.17 The title informs the reader about additions throughout the six booksalready published and two new books at the end. First of all, however, the titlementions the consulting of a Greek codex of Diogenes Laertius (see section 2, b):

 Apophthegmatum opus cum primis frugiferum, vigilanter ab ipso recognitum autore, e Graeco codice correctis aliquot locis in quibus interpres Diogenis Laertii fefellerat, locu-

 pletatum insuper quum variis per totum accessionibus, tum duobus libris in fine adiec-tis. (B )

Nearly all the sayings in book VII are taken from Laertius’ Vitae philosophorum.Entering on book VIII the reader goes from philosophers to sophists, from horsesto asses,18 as the final book opens with 53 sayings largely taken from Philostratus’Vitae sophistarum. These fill about a fifth part of the book, the rest of which is a miscellany. At the end Erasmus included seventeen sayings of king Alphonsus V of Aragon (1396–1458), which he took from a collection written by Antonio Bec-cadelli, called Il Panormita (1394–1471).19

 Although the reader had already had his dessert in the form of book VI, Eras-mus managed to exploit the metaphor of the banquet again in the additions of the 1532 edition. Books VII–VIII are preceded by a separate dedicatory letter con-cerning the theme of satiation.20 Forensic orations were measured by means of the clepsydra. Philosophers should take the attention span of their audience for a 

6 INTRODUCTION

16 LB IV, 273–274.17 Ep. 2719, ll. 13–15. Castellanus mentions the gift of a “libellum elegantissimum”. It appears fromEp. 2720, ll. 49–59, that he meant the second edition of the Apophthegmata , despite the diminutive(see also section 3, p. 23).18 LB IV, 349–350; cf. Adag. 629 (Ab equis ad asinos), ASD II, 2, p. 154.19 Theodor Verweyen,  Apophthegma und Scherzrede. Die Geschichte einer einfachen Gattungsformund ihrer Entfaltung im 17. Jahrhundert , Bad Homburg v.d. H. [etc., 1970], pp. 93–96.20 Ep. 2711.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

17/408

measure. In the same manner a host should not measure the length of a banquetby means of a sandglass, but tailor the quantity of food to the appetite of the

guests. Erasmus says that, in this book, he adopted the role of host and assumedfive courses and a dessert would do. However, there was much demand for thecollection. So he adds two more books, which the addressee might call “postcoe-nium”, “pomenta”21, or êpidorpísmata. The ‘conuiuator’ makes his final appear-ance at the end of the preface of book VIII, where the question is raised whethera host should praise his own dishes. In the last authorized edition, published in1535, additions are found only within the eight books:

 Apophthegmatum libri octo cum primis frugiferi, denuo vigilanter ab ipso recogniti autore, non sine lucro nouae accessionis. (C )

 After Erasmus wrote to Haio Herman on 31 January 1530 he apparently departedfrom the idea of translating and explaining the apophthegms of Plutarch only.This author, however, remained predominant, as also appears from the preface,the first part of which is entirely focused on the two collections ascribed to him.Erasmus points out that, contrary to earlier translators, Francesco Filelfo and Raf-faele Regio (see section 2, a), he did not aim at a literal translation.22 He stressesthat he made the apophthegms into a work of his own by expressing more clearly what the Greek text says, by interlacing the text with particulars that he found inthe works of other authors, by adding numerous sayings not found in thePlutarchan collections, and by “indicating everywhere, as it were in scholia, thesense of the apophthegm or its use, provided that elucidation is needed, butbriefly, in order not to diverge from the nature of apophthegms”.23 Because of these comments, which apply ancient wisdom to current abuses, Maria Cytowska characterizes the Apophthegmata as a companion to Christian morality.24

Erasmus included all apophthegms of Plutarch.25 The order, however, is “evenmore confused” than in the original, due to the unexpected growth of the work.26

The reader finds the  Apophthegmata Laconica  at the beginning of the book,whereas Plutarch’s collections are usually found in the reverse order, the Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata first. The sayings of Spartans were the starting point

of the collection, which is confirmed by Erasmus’ remark “Non sunt Laconica tantum” in the letter to Froben (see p. 4). As appears from the above survey, theparaphrase of the Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata was not completed untilbook V.

INTRODUCTION 7

21 Hoven (see ‘Abbreviations’) translates both ‘postcoenium’ and ‘pomentum’ as ‘dessert’, with a ref-erence to this letter, mentioning no other instances.22 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 61–66.23 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 117–122. Cf. Erika Rummel, Erasmus as a translator of the classics , Toronto[etc.], 1985, pp. 124–125.24 Maria Cytowska, “Apophthegmata” d’Érasme de Rotterdam: manuel de morale chrétienne du XVIe 

siècle , Eos 61 (1973), pp. 123–133.25 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 59–60, 114–117.26 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 123–126.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

18/408

Plutarch’s apophthegms are based on the principle that each person is charac-terized by his sayings (see section 3). Erasmus adopted this idea and the resulting 

order, classifying by person. However, among the ‘apophthegmata varie mixta’ of books VI and VIII we find sayings of persons already mentioned in previousbooks. Besides, the arrangement of the persons themselves is not clearly defined.They are not arranged alphabetically (except for the Spartans in book I), norchronologically or geographically (except for book V, based on Plutarch’s Regumet imperatorum apophthegmata ). The arrangement is not thematic either. Erasmussays that he compensated for his desultoriness by adding an index, which is rem-iniscent of a similar remark in the preface to the 1508 Adagia .27 He provided hiscollection of apophthegms with an ‘Index sententiarum’, i.e. an index consisting of the marginalia, which typify the dicta or mention the theme with which theanecdote deals. This is followed ( A) or preceded (B , C ) by an ‘Index personarum’,i.e. an index of the persons whose sayings are quoted.

 Writing to Haio Herman about the apophthegms Erasmus adds the following remark: “At least in this work they will find no heresy”.28 These words are in linewith the preface to the translations of Plutarch published in 1525, where Erasmuscommends Plutarch as an author who offers undisputed moral lessons, a haven of refuge in times of religious controversies.29 Erasmus’ appreciation of Plutarch isnot connected with a particular period of his life, nor is his interest in apo-phthegms, many of which he had already quoted in his works long before he pub-

lished the 1531 collection.30

Nevertheless, it is important to note that there are signsof increased interest in the genre about 1525. In February 1526 a new edition of the Adagia (F ) was published, enlarged with several references to Plutarch’s Apophtheg-mata Laconica . These references concern adages originating from Plutarch whichErasmus had taken from Apostolius without indicating their classical source:

 Adag. addition in F : Plut. Mor. Apophth.

 ASD II,2197 (Compendiaria res improbitas) 5, p. 156, ll. 218–222 223 D [217]

2296 (Quid de pusillis magna prooemia?) 5, p. 238, ll. 706–710 224 C [230]

2317 (Brasidas quidem vir bonus) 5, p. 248, l. 186 219 D [162]

2382 (Magnus versator in re pusilla) 5, p. 282, ll. 942–94431 220 F [183]

8 INTRODUCTION

27 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 130–131; cf. Ep. 211, ASD II, 1, p. 24, ll. 48–50: “Ordinis vice (si modo vllusin his ordo) substituimus indicem, in quo prouerbia, quae veluti consimilis monetae confiniaquevidebantur, in suam quaeque tribum digessimus.”28 Ep. 2261, l. 49: “Saltem hic non reperient haeresim”.29 Ep. 1572, ll. 64–71; cf. Rummel, Erasmus as a translator of the classics , pp. 75–76.30 Tineke ter Meer, A true mirror of the mind: some observations on the Apophthegmata of Erasmus ,ERSY 23 (2003), pp. 67–93 (69–80).31 Cf. ASD II, 5, p. 281, n. ll. 938–942: “1526 nach Plutarch umgearbeitet, während die Fassung von1508 ganz auf Apostolius beruhte. Dabei ist Er. die Abhängigkeit des Apostolius von Plutarch offen-bar nicht bewusst geworden”.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

19/408

2385 (Pro eleganti medico malus poeta) 5, p. 283, ll. 977–978 218 F [150]

2389 (Si caseum haberem, non desiderarem 5, p. 284, ll. 4–732 234 E [391]

opsonium)

3152 (Malus ianitor) 7, p. 122, ll. 513–514 221 F [200]

3168 (In sola Sparta expedit senescere) 7, p. 128, ll. 621–623 235 E [406]

3190 (Aut minus animi aut plus potentiae) 7, p. 136, ll. 800– 218 E [147]80333

3214 (Ne vities musicam) 7, p. 148, l. 148 220 C [175]

Interest in the genre of apophthegm also appears from the Lingua , published

in 1525. Parts of this treatise can be read as clusters of apophthegms illustrating themes concerning speech. Finally it should be noted that Erasmus added to theedition of the Colloquia  of September 1529 the dialogue Njfálion sumpósion(The sober feast). In this dialogue the host and his nine guests abstain from foodand drink, but treat each other to anecdotes.34 At the end one of the guests con-cludes: “Surely Apicius (a Roman gourmet) couldn’t have served a more delight-ful dish”.35

2  Main sources: Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius 36

Explaining his method of working in the preface addressed to William of Cleves,Erasmus hints that his apophthegms are not necessarily a literal translation of a single text.37 The intent of the collection allowed the author to compose his ownversions of anecdotes provided that the delineation of character was maintained. As a consequence it is sometimes difficult to establish whether Erasmus renderedfrom memory, deliberately composed his own version, or quoted/translated ver-batim from an unknown source. In many cases, however, it is possible to traceback the apophthegm as a whole to its source(s), as Heribert Philips has done in

INTRODUCTION 9

32 Cf. ASD II, 5, p. 285, n. l. 5: “Bevor Er. 1526 das Apophthegma bei Plutarch fand, hatte er dasangebliche Sprichwort des Apostolius für einen volkstümlichen, nicht antiken Ausspruch gehalten”,as appears from the reading of B–E : “Videtur et hoc eiusdem cum superiori farinae” (this refers tothe final sentence of  Adag. 2388: “Opinor et hoc a vulgo mutuo sumptum, non ex autoribus”).33 Erasmus’ reference is incorrect. See note on Apophth. [349].34  ASD I, 3, pp. 643–646.35  ASD I, 3, p. 646, l. 118: “Profecto nec Apitius potuisset discum suauiorem apponere”; CWE 40,p. 928.36 In the 1535 edition the following ‘Index autorum vnde potissimum collecta sunt apophthegmata’is added to the preliminaries (f. a1v o): “Plutarchi apophthegmata, vitae, moralia; Diogenis Laertiivitae philosophorum; Xenophontis varia opuscula; Athenaei dipnosophistae; M. Tullius; Quinti-lianus; Plinius senior; Plinius iunior; Titus Liuius; Suetonius; Probus Aemylius; Aelius Spartianus

et caeteri sequentes; Macrobius; Herodotus; Seneca; Philostratus; Valerius Maximus; Ammianus;Eutropius”.37 Epist. nunc. I–VI , l. 119.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

20/408

the notes to his recent German translation.38 Philips does not go into differencesbetween the classical source and Erasmus’ version, leaving contemporary editions

and translations aside.39 In this edition I try to explain some particulars of Eras-mus’ paraphrases with the help of those versions which I assume to have been hisdirect sources, confining myself to the works from which the major part of booksI–IV is taken, Plutarch’s collections of apophthegms and Diogenes Laertius’ Vitae  philosophorum.

a  Plutarch’s apophthegms 

The starting point and main source of Erasmus’  Apophthegmata  is Plutarch.Books I and II are largely based on the Apophthegmata Laconica ( Mor. 208 A–242D); many apophthegms of book IV and most of book V are taken from theRegum et imperatorum apophthegmata ( Mor. 172 B–208 A). I will not go into thequestion whether these collections are spurious or not.40 Erasmus considered theRegum et imperatorum apophthegmata  to be genuine and supposed that anunknown person (or persons) composed a separate collection of Laconian apo-phthegms afterwards, arranging them alphabetically.41

Translating the apophthegms ascribed to Plutarch Erasmus had at his disposalthe editio princeps of the Moralia published by Aldus Manutius in March 1509.42

Erasmus witnessed the coming into being of this edition from 1508 on when he

was a guest of Aldus in Venice, lodging at the house of Andrea Torresani of  Asola, associate and father-in-law of the famous printer. When the printing of the 1508 edition of the  Adagia came to an end (the edition was finished in Sep-tember 1508), the printing of the Moralia started.43 The text was corrected by theCretan scholar Demetrius Ducas.44

In his dedicatory letter Aldus complains: “The best things are most difficult toachieve. I may say this is true for many reasons and especially this one: since Istarted to search for Plutarch’s Moralia and collect them from anywhere, in orderto print them and make them available to scholars, so many obstacles came in

10 INTRODUCTION

38 Erasmus,  Apophthegmata: Spruchweisheiten, transl. and annot. Heribert Philips, Würzburg,2001.39 See my review in ERSY 24 (2004), pp. 148–154.40 See Konrat Ziegler in RE  XXI, 1, 863–867; Plutarque, Oeuvres morales , III,  Apophtegmes de roiset de généraux, Apophtegmes Laconiens , ed. and transl. François Fuhrmann, Paris, 1988, pp. 3–15;131–140.41 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 92–96; 106–108.42 Versandliste, no. 208. See Fritz Husner, Die Bibliothek des Erasmus , in: Gedenkschrift zum 400.Todestage des Erasmus von Rotterdam, Basel, 1936, pp. 228–259 (240).43  Adag. 1001 (Festina lente), ASD II, 3, p. 22, ll. 397–398: “… Plutarchi Vitae, eiusdem Moralia,quae sub finem operis mei coepta sunt excudi”.44 Émile Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique ou description raisonnée des ouvrages publiés en grec par des 

Grecs aux XVe et XVIe siècles , I, Paris, 1885, pp. 92–93 (preface by Ducas). On Ducas see D.J.Geanakoplos, Greek scholars in Venice: studies in the dissemination of Greek learning from Byzantiumto Western Europe , Cambridge, Mass., 1962, pp. 223–255.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

21/408

my way, so many troubles, one after another, occurred, that I was often forced toput off the whole enterprise”.45  We can infer from this passage that the editio

 princeps of the Moralia is a compilation of several manuscripts, which means that Aldus did not use a manuscript containing the Planudean corpus, as also appearsfrom the order of the treatises.46 M. Treu identified the Ambrosianus C 195 inf.(gr. 881) as one of Aldus’ sources. In this manuscript, indicated with the siglum Jin recent editions, notes are found, written by Ducas in his own hand.47  As forthe collections of apophthegms, it is uncertain on which sources Aldus andDucas drew.48

In Firmin-Didot’s study  Alde Manuce et l’hellénisme à Venise  the following observation about the editio princeps of the Moralia is found: “Démétrius Dou-cas de Crète, un des membres de l’Académie aldine, en fut l’éditeur, ainsi qu’ilnous en informe dans sa préface en grec. Alde, dit-il, s’est conformé aux textesdes excellents manuscrits appartenant au cardinal Bessarion alors à Venise. Ilfut aidé dans ce travail par Érasme qui s’occupait de la révision des textes dansl’imprimerie d’Alde”.49 No references are added. Nevertheless, the statementthat Erasmus was involved with the correction of the text of the  Moralia dur-ing his stay in Venice is repeated in numerous studies, among which Ziegler’sarticle on Plutarch in RE and Geanakoplos’ Greek scholars in Venice .50 In 1888,however, De Nolhac already expressed his doubts, as he could not find any-thing that justifies the supposition.51 Renouard does not say anything about

Erasmus having a part in the editio princeps of the Moralia , nor does Lowry.52

Itis doubtful too whether the edition benefitted from the manuscripts whichCardinal Bessarion bequeathed in 1468 to the Venetian Republic. Contrary towhat Firmin-Didot says, the 1509 preliminaries do not mention them. Bessa-rion’s library could have provided Aldus with the Planudean corpus, whichwould have made the task of editing the Moralia much easier. But it seems that

INTRODUCTION 11

45 Legrand, Bibliographie hellénique , I, p. 90: “Optima quaeque difficillima factu esse [cf. Adag.1012], cum plurimis aliis, tum vel eo verum dixerim, quod ex quo Plutarchi  Moralia coepi studioseconquirere et colligere undique, ut excusa typis publicarem in manus litteratorum, tot mihi impe-

dimento fuerunt, tot alia ex aliis incommoda acciderunt ut saepe coeptum opus intermittere coac-tus fuerim.”46 Robert Flacelière, Jean Irigoin, Introduction générale , in: Plutarque, Oeuvres morales , I, 1, Paris,1987, p. CCLXXXVIII.47 See Geanakoplos, Greek scholars in Venice , pp. 223–224, n. 1; M.J.C. Lowry, The world of Aldus 

 Manutius , Oxford, 1979, pp. 239–240; Flacelière, Irigoin, Introduction générale , p. CCLXXXIX.48 Flacelière, Irigoin, Introduction générale , p. CCXCI.49  A. Firmin-Didot, Alde Manuce et l’hellénisme à Venise , Paris, 1875, p. 317.50 RE  XLIV, 954; Geanakoplos, Greek scholars in Venice , pp. 229, 246, 275; see also for exampleRobert Aulotte,  Amyot et Plutarque: la tradition des Moralia au XVI e  siècle , Genève, 1965, p. 27;Flacelière, Irigoin, Introduction générale , pp. CCLXXXVII–CCLXXXVIII, n. 2; ASD IV, 2, p. 105;Ep. 1341A (to Botzheim), CWE IX, p. 303, n. l. 56. A. Renaudet, Érasme et l’Italie , Genève, 1954, p.85, modifies the statement by adding “vraisemblablement”.51 P. de Nolhac, Érasme en Italie: étude sur un épisode de la renaissance , Paris, 1888, p. 42, n. 5.52  A.A. Renouard, Annales de l’imprimerie des Alde, ou histoire des trois Manuce et de leurs éditions ,Paris, 18343, pp. 55–56; Lowry, The world of Aldus Manutius , pp. 158–159, 239–240.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

22/408

 Aldus never had access to Bessarion’s manuscripts, even though they were inVenice.53

Manuscripts of classical texts edited by Aldus and his collaborators have beenfound on which editors and compositors left their notes, finger-marks andinkblots, among them the Ambrosianus used by Ducas. They shed light on Aldus’ source material and his method of work. Aldus often made use of infe-rior manuscripts and, judged by modern standards, approached his material ina rather improvisatory manner.54 Erasmus’ judgement of the Aldine editio prin-ceps of Plutarch’s  Moralia was unfavourable too. When mentioning his transla-tions of treatises from the  Moralia in his letter to Botzheim (1523) he remarks:“There was this one inconvenience, that Aldus printed Plutarch’s work from a copy which was corrupt in many places, nor was there any supply of ancientcopies within my reach”.55 He expresses the same criticism in a note on Apophth.[331] added to the errata of the 1535 edition, which also mentions the opinion of  Janus Lascaris, French ambassador in Venice from 1504 until 1509: “As a matterof fact I added this apophthegm on the basis of Plutarch’s collected works inGreek, as it is not found in Filelfo’s translation, nor in Regio’s. I suppose it hasbeen inserted at random into a manuscript of Plutarch, especially because thesame dictum is attributed a few pages above to Antalcidas. Aldus printedPlutarch’s  Moralia  using a copy that has been insufficiently corrected, andtherefore Janus Lascaris proposed that the edition would be put off until they 

came upon a better copy, but his advice fell on deaf ears.”56

Not surprisingly scholars have noted variant readings and conjectures in the margins of theircopy of the Aldine  Moralia , among them Janus Lascaris, Niccolò LeonicoTomeo (1456–1531), Scipione Fortiguerra, called Carteromachus (1466–1515),57

and Erasmus.In 1979 M.H.H. Engels published in De Vrije Fries , a Frisian history and linguis-

tics journal, an article about books from Erasmus’ collection in the former Provin-cial Library of Friesland, now part of Tresoar, Frisian Historical and Literary Centre,at Leeuwarden. Among these is Erasmus’ copy of the editio princeps of the Moralia 

12 INTRODUCTION

53 Nigel Wilson, The book trade in Venice ca. 1400–1515 , in: Hans-Georg Beck, Manoussos Manous-sacas, Agostino Pertusi (eds.), Venezia: centro di mediazione tra oriente e occidente (secoli XV–XVI),II, Firenze, 1977, pp. 381–397, esp. 395–396, referring to M. Treu, who “had the good sense to ques-tion the accessibility of Bessarion’s collection”; Lowry, The world of Aldus Manutius , pp. 229–232,244; Martin Sicherl, Griechische Erstausgaben des Aldus Manutius: Druckvorlagen, Stellenwert, kul-tureller Hintergrund , Paderborn [etc.], 1997, pp. 357–358.54 Lowry, The world of Aldus Manutius , pp. 234–249.55  Allen, Op. ep. I, p. 8, ll. 31–33: “Hoc vnum erat incommodi, quod Aldus hoc opus excudit secu-tus exemplar multis locis deprauatum, nec apud nos vetustorum exemplarium erat copia”; Ep.1341A, CWE IX, p. 303, ll. 260–263.56 The Latin text is quoted in  Apophth. [331], n.ll. 364–366. Strangely enough the apophthegmoccurs in both translations; see the same note on Apophth. [331].57 Flacelière, Irigoin, Introduction générale , p. CCXCVI, n. 2; Marcel Cuvigny, Giannotti, Turnèbe, Amyot: résultats d’une enquête sur quelques éditions annotées des Moralia de Plutarque , Revued’histoire des textes 3 (1973), p. 57–77.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

23/408

(shelf mark 114 Wsbg.), with handwritten marginalia.58 Glancing through the book, we find (an abbreviation of ) paroimía or âpófqegma noted down in the margin of 

many pages. The notes to the Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata and Apophtheg-mata Laconica generally intend to correct the Aldine text; see Apophth. [5], [6], [115],[213], [223], [262], [263], [297], [304], [379], [441], [450], [471], [475], [1219]. Correc-tions are also found with respect to two apophthegms rendered in book V: LB IV,229 C, Cyrus Maior: Ald., p. 150: grjpòn, Ald.Er.: [g]rupòv, LB IV, 254 B, 9, ManiusCurius 9: Ald., p. 169: pólin, Ald.Er.:  poll®n. The other marginalia (see  Apophth.[48], [133], [162], [441], [445], [944], only a few more instances in book V) seem tobe of little importance. Some places are marked by signs only (underlining, index,∴), see Apophth. [17], [18], [23], [108], [182], [1040]. All notes are quoted in full inthe commentary, except for proper names copied from the text,59 and the signs aredescribed. It is not certain in all cases whether it was Erasmus who added the signs.

Erasmus’ notes look incidental rather than the result of thorough study of dif-ferent manuscripts. Some readings he may have deduced from the translations of which he made use (see e.g. Apophth. [263], [304], [450], [471]). Notably in fourcases he noted down variant readings which are not mentioned by Nachstädt andFuhrmann in their editions of Plutarch’s apophthegms (see  Apophth. [5], [6],[262], [304]).60 Nevertheless, it is possible that Erasmus in whatever period after1509 happened upon readings originating from a manuscript or an annotatedcopy of the Aldina. He also modified his translation Quo pacto quis efficiat, vt ex 

inimicis capiat vtilitatem (Plut. Mor. 86 B–92 F) on the basis of a different copy as he himself states. This diuersum exemplar has not been identified.61

In 1521 Dirk Martens of Aalst published a separate edition of Plutarch’s collec-tions of apophthegms.62 The question whether Erasmus made use of this editionor not is irrelevant, as it is a reprint of the Aldine text. This appears from theoccurrence in Martens’ edition of readings characteristic of the Aldina, that is tosay, readings which are not found in (the apparatus criticus of) the editions of Nachstädt and Fuhrmann (see e.g.  Apophth. [46]: t¬n Narqakíwn, [71]: üm⁄n,[115]: m®, [151]: eûmaxoúmenoi, [450]: âxa⁄v).63 The next, Froben, edition of thecollected Moralia was not published until 1542.64

INTRODUCTION 13

58 M.H.H. Engels, Erasmiana in de Franeker academiebibliotheek , De vrije Fries. Jaarboek uit-gegeven door het Fries genootschap van geschied-, oudheid- en taalkunde en de Fryske akademy 59(1979), pp. 65–72. See also id., Erasmiana in the old university library of Franeker , Erasmus in Eng-lish 12 (1983), pp. 19–20; id., Erasmus’ handexemplaren: vijf Griekse Aldijnen in de Franeker collectie van de Provinciale Bibliotheek van Friesland te Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, 19942. I refer to Erasmus’copy with “Ald.Er.”.59 Unless the reading of a name deserves attention, see  Apophth. [231].60 For the editions of Nachstädt and Fuhrmann see ‘Abbreviations’.61 See Erasmus’ marginal note: “Diuersum nactus exemplar mutaui superiorem interpretationem”( ASD IV, 2, pp. 112–113, 173).62 Nijhoff-Kronenberg, no. 1741.63 I checked readings from the Apophthegmata Laconica only.64 I did not see the 1530 Parisian edition of Plutarch’s apophthegms printed by Gerard Morrhy (British Library Catalogue , vol. 191, 659).

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

24/408

Interpreting the Aldine text Erasmus consulted the Latin version of theItalian humanist Francesco Filelfo (1398–1481), whose translation of the Regum

et imperatorum apophthegmata  (1437)65 and  Apophthegmata Laconica  (1454)66were printed together in 1471.67 Since the 1480’s they were added to editions of Filelfo’s Orationes . One of these orations contains the fragment from Euripides’Hecuba  which Erasmus mentions in connection with his own version of thisplay.68  As Calderini observes, Filelfo inserted dozens of Plutarchan apo-phthegms into his letters and other works,69 which undoubtedly contributed tothe spread of these anecdotes in the period before Erasmus published his col-lection.

The other translation available to Erasmus was the one by Raffaele Regio (c.1440?–1520), first printed in Venice in 1508, the year when Erasmus met Regioat Padua.70 Regio dedicated the Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata  to JanLubra nski (1456–1520), bishop of Pozna n and councillor to the King of Poland. As the preface relates, Lubra nski wondered at the obscurity of Plutarch’s apo-phthegms which were read to him during the meals at Padua, especially becausethey were “paucis ante annis” translated by none other than Francesco Filelfo,which means that the translation might have been printed from manuscriptswritten in Filelfo’s own hand, that is to say without the interference of copyists.Lubra nski asked Regio to corrrect the Latin text after collation with a Greek manuscript. Regio decided to translate the apophthegms anew, as he came

across printer’s errors as well as misinterpretations due to inaccuracy of the for-mer translator himself.71 In his preface to the  Apophthegmata  Erasmus admitsthat Regio corrected several mistakes of his predecessor, but not without intro-ducing new ones in other passages.72  Writing to Germain de Brie a few weeksearlier he makes a similar remark. In that context he pays tribute to Filelfo, whoset about the task of translating Plutarch’s apophthegms without the help of any predecessor.73

14 INTRODUCTION

65 See Francesco Filelfo, Epistolarum familiarium libri XXXVII ex eius exemplari transumpti, ex 

quibus vltimi XXI nouissime reperti fuere , Venetiis, 1502, f. 13v o.66 The date is found at the end of the translation in Francesco Filelfo, Orationes cum quibusdamaliis eiusdem operibus , [s.l., s.d.], f. z3ro (Hain *12918; Incunabula in Dutch Libraries 3688). See alsoid., Epistolarum familiarium libri XXXVII , f. 88ro; id., Cent-dix lettres grecques , ed. and transl. ÉmileLegrand, Paris, 1892, pp. 61–62, no. 31.67 For bibliographical details see Filelfo, Cent-dix lettres grecques , pp. 62–63. The 1471 edition,which has no page numbers or signatures, is included in The Printing Revolution in Europe 1455–1500 , unit 10 (microfiche).68 See ASD I, 1, pp. 195–196, 205.69  A. Calderini, Ricerche intorno alla biblioteca e alla cultura greca di Francesco Filelfo, Studi italianidi filologia classica 20 (1913–1914), pp. 204–424 (376–377). See also below, p. 28.70 On Erasmus meeting Regio see Epist. nunc. I–VI , l. 62; Ep. 1347, ll. 231–238.71 Plutarchus, Opuscula quaedam longe utilissima Raphaele ac Ioanne Regio, Nicolao Saguntino, et 

Guarino Veronen. interpretibus , Moguntiae, 1522, p. 5.72 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 62–64.73 Ep. 2422, ll. 62–65.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

25/408

 As the commentary shows, Erasmus’ version is considerably influenced by both Filelfo and Regio.74 Not only their interpretation of the Greek text affected

Erasmus’  Apophthegmata , but also the readings they found in their manuscripts.Via the Aldine edition and the translations of Filelfo and Regio readings origi-nating from different manuscripts are assembled in Erasmus’ version of Plutarch’sapophthegms. Filelfo was the owner of codex Laurentianus LVI, 7.75 This codex belongs to a group represented by manuscripts G and O in recent editions.76

However, on 26 February 1454 he asked Theodorus Gaza for a copy of anothermanuscript of the  Apophthegmata Laconica , if possible, as he found the Greek text corrupt in several places due to the ignorance of the copyist.77 As for Regio,readings from his translation of the Apophthegmata Laconica have been connectedto manuscripts which do not belong to the Planudean tradition.78

Erasmus occasionally draws attention to the divergence of the manuscripts.Illustrating the corruptness of the Greek codices with which interpreters arefaced, he observes in his preface that Filelfo’s translation includes apophthegmswhich Regio did not mention and vice versa.79 In four cases a marginal notepoints out that the apophthegm does not occur in the Greek text, which impliesthat Erasmus’ rendering is based on the translations; see Apophth. [197], [231]80,[288], [397]. A similar comment is found in  Apophth. [475], ll. 823–824. Withrespect to another saying (LB IV, 232 E, Parysatis 30) Erasmus noted in the mar-gin: “Dissident interpretes”, which dissidence probably goes back to their

sources.81

The comment Erasmus added to a saying of Cato Maior shows how hebalanced different readings: “Argutius est quod vertit Philelphus, aliud, utopinor, exemplar sequutus” (LB IV, 261 A–B, Cato Maior 19).82

INTRODUCTION 15

74 In the commentary Filelfo’s translation is quoted from the edition of his Orationes  mentionedabove (n. 66), ff. r4v o– z3ro, except where otherwise specified; Regio’s translation is quoted fromPlutarchus, Opuscula quaedam (see above, n. 71), pp. 3–177 (abbreviations “Filelfo” and “Regio”respectively).75 Calderini, Ricerche intorno alla biblioteca , p. 368.76 Plutarque, Oeuvres morales , III, ed. and transl. Fuhrmann, pp. 18, 140–141.77 Filelfo, Cent-dix lettres grecques , pp. 61–62, no. 31.78 M. Treu, Zur Ueberlieferung der apophthegmata Laconica , Philologus 47 (1889), pp. 617–622.79 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 82–84.80 In this case Erasmus’ observation is incorrect; see Apophth. [231], n.l. 1693.81 Plut. Mor. 174 A, Regum et imp. apophth., Parysatis: Parúsativ … êkéleue tòn basile⁄ (basiléav.l.) méllonta metà parrjsíav (metà p. is omitted in some codd.) dialégesqai bussínoiv xr±sqaiÅßmasin. See Filelfo, f. r6v o: “Parysatis … iubebat: qui rex apparate quippiam et imperiose dicturusesset: uerbis grauissimis atque ornatissimis uteretur”; Regio, p. 14: “Parysatis … iubebat eum quiregem allocuturus esset, byssinis et mollibus uti uerbis”. Erasmus’ version reads: “Parysatis …praecipere solet, vt rex palam ac libere loquuturus verbis byssinis vteretur, hoc est magnificis acmollibus”.82 Plut. Mor. 199 A, Regum et imp. apophth., Cato Maior 19: Tàv dè kalàv prázeiv ∂lege de⁄n kata-lambánein prázesi kala⁄v (lógouv kaloùv v.l., lógoiv kalo⁄v proposed emend.), ÿna m® t±v dózjvâporréwsin. See Filelfo, f. t5v o–t6ro: “Et pulchras actiones pulcherrimis quoque actionibus dicebat

esse occupandas: ne illarum gloria paulatim deflueret”; Regio, p. 72: “Praeclara item gesta praeclarisorationibus indigere, ne gloria defraudarentur, censebat”. Cf. Louis Lobbes, Érasme éditeur de Plu-tarque: les Apophthegmes , Travaux de littérature 14 (2001), pp. 139–148 (145–146).

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

26/408

The commentary in this edition does not offer a continuous analysis of thereadings Erasmus selected from different sources. When the translation is clear in

itself and the corresponding text is similar to the one presented in Fuhrmann’sedition, or can easily be deduced from Fuhrmann’s apparatus criticus, no refer-ence has been made to Erasmus’ sources. In other cases the commentary quotesthe Aldine text and/or the translations by Filelfo and Regio. Sometimes readingsfrom the Aldina are compared to others, in which context the following abbrevi-ations are used: v.l. = a different reading which is, like the Aldine version, foundin the manuscripts; codd. = a reading which is, contrary to the Aldine version,found in the manuscripts; emend. = a correction probably unknown to Erasmus,which renders a modern interpretation of the apophthegm. These indications(v.l., codd., or emend.) are based on the information supplied by the editions of Nachstädt and Fuhrmann.

b Diogenes Laertius 

The end of book II (Chilo), book III (Socrates, Aristippus, Diogenes the Cynic)and – added in 1532 – book VII are largely based on Diogenes Laertius’ Vitae  philosophorum. Paraphrasing Plutarch’s apophthegms Erasmus could easily refer tothe Greek text in Aldus’ edition of the Moralia . In the case of Diogenes Laertiushe was faced with the fact that there was no printed text, as the editio princeps was

not published until 1533. The Latin translation of Ambrogio Traversari, on theother hand, which was still considered worthy of revision in the 19th century,83 wasfrequently printed from circa 1472 on. Enriching his collection of apophthegmswith sayings of philosophers, Erasmus drew on this translation to a large extentindeed, as is evident from dozens of places discussed in the commentary. This sec-tion deals with the editions of Traversari’s Laertius available to Erasmus. It alsotouches upon the relation between Erasmus’ Apophthegmata and the editio princeps of Diogenes Laertius’ Vitae philosophorum. Both works were published by Frobenin Basel within a few years. The title page of the 1532 edition of the Apophthegmata points out that some erroneous interpretations originating from Traversari have

been corrected on the basis of a Greek codex. Notably these corrections coincidedwith the preparation of the first edition of Diogenes Laertius.I will start with Traversari’s translation, focusing on the early printing history,

leaving aside other aspects of this work, however interesting.84 Ambrogio Traver-

16 INTRODUCTION

83  A revised version was published in Diogenes Laertius, De vitis, dogmatis et apophthegmatis claro-rum philosophorum libri decem, ed. H.G. Huebner, II vols., Lipsiae 1828–1831. According to the‘Avis des éditeurs’ in id., De clarorum philosophorum vitis, dogmatibus et apophthegmatibus libri decem, ed. C.Gabr. Cobet, Parisiis, 1850, the translation should be rewritten again, despite Hueb-ner’s corrections.84 See James Hutton, The Greek Anthology in Italy to the year 1800 , Ithaca, N.Y., 1935, pp. 85–91;

Georg Voigt, Die Wiederbelebung des classischen Alterthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humanis-mus , Berlin, 19604, I, pp. 320–322, 354, II, p. 174; C.L. Stinger, Humanism and the church fathers: Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439) and Christian antiquity in the Italian renaissance , Albany, 1977,

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

27/408

sari (1386–1439), who entered the Camaldulensian monastery at Florence at theage of fourteen and became general of his order in 1431, started to work on his

translation of Diogenes Laertius ca. 1424. In 1433 he presented a copy to Cosimode’ Medici. Traversari consulted several manuscripts, hoping for readings whichcould spread light on the text. Especially the epigrams which occur here andthere in the Vitae philosophorum gave him much trouble. Filelfo promised to sup-ply a translation, but he never did. Eventually they were omitted.

Many apographs exist of Traversari’s Laertius, among them the one presentedto Cosimo, as well as an autograph.85 The work was printed circa 1472 in Rome,edited by Francesco Elio Marchese.86 This edition appeared to be less successfulthan the one by Benedetto Brugnoli (1427–1502), which was published only a few years later, in 1475, by the Venetian printer Nicolaus Jenson.87 Brugnoli’s edition,which was often reprinted, also contains translations in verse of the epigrams.Hutton doubts whether these are Brugnoli’s and adds a question mark tohis name in the register of quotations and translations of epigrams from theGreek Anthology at the end of his book.88 In the  Adagia Erasmus quotes fromBrugnoli’s edition the translation of Callimachus’ epigram included in the life of Pittacus. He rightly doubts whether the translator was Traversari himself.89

In 1524 a revised edition of Traversari’s translation was published in Basel by Valentinus Curio.90 In this edition new verse-translations are found, whichreplaced or supplemented those printed by Jenson. Hutton ascribes them to

Michael Bentinus (c. 1495–1527), who is mentioned by Curio in his preface as a collaborator.91 Bentinus corrected the 1520 edition of Erasmus’ Adagia printed by Froben.92 So it might have been Bentinus who adopted Erasmus’ phrase “Postbellum auxilium” ( Adag. 2517) as the translation of Metà tòn pólemon ™ summaxía

INTRODUCTION 17

pp. 71–77; A. Sottili, Il Laerzio latino e greco e altri autografi di Ambrogio Traversari , in: R. Avesania.o. (eds.), Vestigia: Studi in onore di Giuseppe Billanovich, Roma, 1984, II, pp. 699–745; D.Knoepfler, La vie de Ménédème d’Érétrie de Diogène Laërce: Contribution à l’histoire et à la critique du texte des Vies des philosophes , Basel, 1991. See also  ASD II, 2, p. 231, n. ll. 40–41. I did not seeM. Gigante, Ambrogio Traversari interprete di Diogene Laerzio, in: G.C. Garfagnini (ed.), Ambro-

 gio Traversari nel VI centenario della nascita , Firenze, 1988, pp. 367–459.85 Stinger, Humanism and the church fathers , pp. 73, 76–77, 252–253 n. 170, 254 n. 175; Sottili, Il Laerzio latino e greco, pp. 704–707.86 Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke , 8378; Sottili, Il Laerzio latino e greco, p. 701.87 Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke , 8379. This edition has no page numbers or signatures. There-fore references in the commentary are confined to an abbreviation of the title. On Brugnoli seeDizionario biografico degli italiani , XIV, 501–503.88 Hutton, The Greek Anthology in Italy , pp. 87–88, 449 etc.89 Diog. Laert. I, 80, cf. Anth. Pal. VII, 89; Adag. 701 (Aequalem tibi vxorem quaere), ASD II, 2,pp. 230–232. In the 1523 edition of the Adagia the observation on the identity of the translator wasdeleted (see app. crit. in op. cit., p. 231, l. 40).90 Frank Hieronymus, ˆEn Basileíaç pólei t±v Germaníav: Griechischer Geist aus Basler Pressen,Basel, 1992, no. 92. See also http://www.ub.unibas.ch/kadmos/gg, where the preliminary pagesof the works, including the prefaces, are reproduced. On Valentinus Curio see Contemporaries , I,

pp. 371–372.91 Hutton, The Greek Anthology in Italy , pp. 89–90.92 Contemporaries , I, pp. 123–124; Ep. 1437, ll. 160–165.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

28/408

in Diog. Laert. VI, 50, deviating from Brugnoli’s edition.93 Erasmus’ copy of theCurio edition has been traced by Husner. It was sold in Krakau in 1935. 94 Accord-

ing to Heinimann and Kienzle it was in New York in 1948.95In his preface Curio says that he postponed the publication of Traversari’s

translation, because he considered it necessary to consult the Greek text ofDiogenes Laertius. Eventually a Greek codex was available to him thanks to thegenerosity of the Bohemian Hebraist Matthäus Aurogallus (c. 1490–1543), profes-sor at the university of Wittenberg since 1521.96 The effect is visible at a glance:numerous quotations in Greek are added to Traversari’s translation which are notfound in Brugnoli’s edition. On the final preliminary page Curio quotes a com-plete passage from the life of Plato (Diog. Laert. III, 10–11), omitted by Traver-sari, following the Greek exemplar “ad uerbum”.97 Nevertheless, despite the con-sultation of the Greek codex several errors, originating from Traversari, thecopyists or the editors, remained unchanged in Curio’s edition (see e.g. notes on Apophth. [751], [875]).

Probably in the same year 1524 the Bohemian scholar Sigismundus Gelenius(c. 1498–early 1554) came to Basel, where he started working for the Froben press.He remained loyal to this firm during the rest of his life.98 In 1532 he edited theHymns of Callimachus.99 As his preface says, the text was available to the officina Frobeniana  thanks to Aurogallus, the same Hebraist who provided Curio withthe Greek codex of Diogenes Laertius. The codex on which Gelenius based his

edition has been identified. It was part of a collection of manuscripts owned by the Bohemian scholar Bohuslav Hasistejnsk y  z Lobkovic (c. 1461–1510).100  AfterBohuslav’s death the collection fell to his nephew Zikmund (Sigismundus) zLobkovic, rector of the Wittenberg university. Zikmund placed the manuscriptsat the disposal of Aurogallus, professor at the same university. Through the medi-ation of Aurogallus the manuscripts came to the benefit of other scholars.101

18 INTRODUCTION

93  ASD  II, 6, p. 355, n. l. 152: “In der überarbeiteten Ausgabe des Val. Curio (Basel, 1524) ist anStelle der richtigen Wiedergabe “post bellum societas” die ungenaue [?] Übersetzung des Er.  post bellum auxilium (l. 158) getreten.” Cf. Apophth. [806].94 Husner, Die Bibliothek des Erasmus , pp. 254–255. Husner describes the book as “Diogenes Laer-

tius, Basel, Cratander 1524”.95  Adag. 2032 (Panidis suffragium), ASD II, 5, p. 59, n. l. 916.96  ADB , I, pp. 691–692; NDB , I, p. 457; W. Friedensburg, Geschichte der Universität Wittenberg ,Halle, 1917, pp. 125–126.97 “Nos quod habebat exemplar ad uerbum appendimus ne lectorem suspenderet hiatus, et aliquiddeesse merito causaretur.”98 Contemporaries , II, pp. 84–85.99 Griechischer Geist aus Basler Pressen, no. 166.100  Artur Biedl, Eine griechische Handschrift aus der Sammlung des Bohuslaw v. Lobkowicz , Mitteilun-gen des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen 71 (1933), pp. 94–119, 184; J.-M. Olivier,M.-A. Monégier du Sorbier, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs de Tchécoslovaquie , Paris, 1983, pp. 155–159.101 Olivier, Monégier du Sorbier, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs , pp. IX–XIV (‘Avant-propos’, by P.Spunar), XIX–XXV. When this catalogue was composed, the manuscripts were in the National

Library of the Czech Republic in Prague. In the 1990’s the collection was returned to the family.It is now in the Roudnice Lobkowicz Library, Nelahozeves Castle (see e.g. http://www.b2i.de/fabian?Nelahozeves).

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

29/408

In 1533 Hieronymus Froben and Nicolaus Episcopius published the first edi-tion of Diogenes Laertius’ De vitis, decretis, et responsis celebrium philosophorum

libri decem.102 As they point out in their preface, the edition is based on a manu-script provided by, again, Aurogallus. This has been identified as the 15th century codex with the siglum Z, which also belonged to Bohuslav.103 The preface doesnot say who prepared the text for the press, but it has been suggested that it wasGelenius.104 Undoubtedly Gelenius played a part in the connection betweenFroben’s printing house and the university of Wittenberg, because he was a friendof his fellow-countryman Aurogallus.105  Also acquainted with Aurogallus wasIanus Cornarius (c. 1500–1558), who came to Basel in 1528 and was in touch withFroben since then. In 1531 Cornarius admonished Aurogallus to publish textsfrom the manuscripts collected by Bohuslav. In the following years several of these manuscripts were exploited in works printed by Froben.106

 We found that Curio, in the preface to his edition of Traversari’s Laertius,published in 1524, made mention of a manuscript provided by Matthäus Auro-gallus. Froben and Episcopius did the same in 1533, printing the Greek text of Diogenes Laertius. Unless we suppose that two different manuscripts of the Vitae  philosophorum were available to Aurogallus, Curio made use of the same codex Zon which Froben and Episcopius based the editio princeps .107 Moreover, there isthe intriguing fact that codex Z was at Curio’s printing office in 1524, the sameyear in which Gelenius supposedly came to Basel. Was the manuscript handed to

Curio by Gelenius or through his agency?Paraphrasing anecdotes from Diogenes Laertius in books II and III of the  Apo- phthegmata , Erasmus made use of the Curio edition of Traversari’s translation.This appears from translation errors which can be traced back to Curio, but arenot found in Brugnoli’s edition. Erroneous interpretations which correspond, in A or in all the editions, with Curio’s version and differ, at the same time, fromBrugnoli’s are found in e.g. Apophth. [656], [705], [731], [778]. Translation errorswhich occurred already in Brugnoli’s edition and were copied by Curio are foundin e.g. Apophth. [751], [855]–[856], [875].

It is doubtful whether Erasmus, composing the first edition of the Apophtheg-mata  ( A) consulted the Greek text of Diogenes Laertius in any form. I suppose

INTRODUCTION 19

102 Griechischer Geist aus Basler Pressen, no. 93.103 Giuseppina Donzelli, De Diogenis Laertii editione quae princeps vocatur eiusque cum codice Lobkowiciano (Z) cognatione , Maia 10 (1958), pp. 317–323; Olivier, Monégier du Sorbier, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs , pp. 113–120. I leave aside the discussion whether the edition was based on a copy of Z or the manuscript itself (see Donzelli, op. cit.).104 Donzelli, De Diogenis Laertii editione , p. 323; Knoepfler, La vie de Ménédème d’Érétrie , p. 46. Seealso Die Amerbachkorrespondenz IX, 2, ed. A. Hartmann, B.R. Jenny, Basel, 1983, p. 456; BohuslausHassensteinius a Lobkowicz, Opera poetica , ed. M. Vaculi nov a , Monachii [etc.], 2006, p. V.105 Biedl, Eine griechische Handschrift , p. 98, n. 8; Donzelli, De Diogenis Laertii editione , p. 320.106 Olivier, Monégier du Sorbier, Catalogue des manuscrits grecs , pp. XXIV–XXV; Contemporaries , I,pp. 339–340; Friedensburg, Geschichte der Universität Wittenberg , p. 133.107 This is also suggested in Griechischer Geist aus Basler Pressen, no. 92, more definite in no. 93.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

30/408

he did not. One may object that already in  A Greek quotations occur in theapophthegms of philosophers. This is, however, an invalid counter-argument, as

many of them are taken from Curio’s edition of Traversari’s translation. Curio,exploiting Aurogallus’ codex, regularly quotes lines of poetry in Greek and men-tions Greek keywords in the margin, especially in case of wordplay. In thisrespect the 1524 edition differs from Brugnoli’s fundamentally. As for Chilo,Socrates, Aristippus and Diogenes, Brugnoli included only one quotation inGreek: Hom. Il. 8, 95 in Diog. Laert. VI, 53 (cf. Apophth. [825]). In the following cases Erasmus’ Greek quotations in A can be traced back to Curio: [689], [707],[711], [742], [780], [787], [800], [813], [820], [823], [825], [826], [830], [837],[842], [846], [874], [875], [890], [893], [895], [896], [897].

Eighteen apophthegms are left which include Greek words not found inCurio’s edition: [539], [562], [659], [700], [730], [733], [747], [756], [789], [790],[794], [797], [801], [819], [825] (see n.l. 663), [899], [903], [906]. In some casesErasmus could have drawn on his  Adagia ,108 or Arsenius.109 Moreover, in theseapophthegms Greek words or passages are found which do not exactly corre-spond with Diogenes Laertius’ text. Erasmus may have reconstructed Greek phrases on the basis of Traversari’s translation. The most striking cases are Apophth. [700], [730] and [747] (see the discussion in the commentary).

 As for the 1532 edition of the Apophthegmata (B ), on the contrary, there is nodoubt that the Vitae philosophorum were available to Erasmus in Greek. The title

page itself informs us that several passages where Traversari’s translation was mis-leading have been corrected on the basis of a manuscript (see section 1, p. 6).Corrections are found indeed, e.g. in Apophth. [656] and [700], and several Greek quotations are added which do not occur in Curio’s edition.110 The use of a Greek codex is also noticeable in book VII, added in B , which opens with sayings of Thales of Milete. According to Erasmus’ comment three apophthegms of Thaleshave been misinterpreted by Traversari, which is supported by quotations fromthe Greek text (LB IV, 321 E–F, 323 A, C, Thales 2, 9, 17). Despite the consulta-tion of the codex, however, several erroneous interpretations originating fromTraversari himself, copyists or editors recur in books I–VI of the new edition of 

the Apophthegmata , e.g. in Apophth. [751], [855]–[856], [875].Perhaps we can identify the codex Erasmus made use of. The preface of theeditio princeps of Diogenes Laertius is dated 14 March 1533. The second edition of the  Apophthegmata  was published the year before, probably in September (seesection 1, p. 6). I assume that during the preparation of the 1532 edition of Eras-mus’ collection (a copy of) codex Z was already at Froben’s printing house.Therefore it is very likely that this is also the codex to which the title of B refers.

20 INTRODUCTION

108  Apophth. [539], [562], [756], [790].109  Apophth. [659], [733], [797], [903].110  Apophth. [525], [534], [568], [579], [700], [713], [785], [792], [801] in marg., [806], [808], [828],[855].

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

31/408

If so, the manuscript from the collection of Bohuslav z Lobkovic played a part inat least three publications from the period 1524–1533: Curio’s edition of Traver-

sari’s translation, the second edition of Erasmus’  Apophthegmata , and the editio princeps of Diogenes Laertius.

Erasmus’ paraphrases of Diogenes Laertius came to the notice of FrancescoRobortello (1516–1567), who published in his Variorum locorum annotationes (1543) critical notes on 27 sayings of Diogenes the Cynic from the  Apophtheg-mata .111 The opening line is ominous: “Erasmus vir doctissimus, si illius Opera legas, ita alicubi videtur dormitasse, ut mireris”, the conclusion scathing: “Desinedelirare, miser Erasme”.112  Although Robortello sometimes offers a better inter-pretation indeed, his comment is in general of little value, because he ignoresErasmus’ method of working. He expects each apophthegm to be a verbatim ren-dering of a passage from Diogenes Laertius, based on a thorough investigation of a Greek manuscript. He did not ask himself what accounts for Erasmus’ render-ing, with the exception of one apophthegm, where he admits the possibility thatErasmus based himself on a different reading.113 Robortello does not mention thetranslation of Traversari.

The shortcomings of Robortello’s  Annotationes were noticed by Petrus Nan-nius (1500–1557), who devoted chapter VIII of his  Miscellanea  (1548) to thedefence of Erasmus’  Apophthegmata . The first part of this chapter consists of a 

detailed discussion and, if possible, refutation of Robortello’s notes.114

Contrary to Robortello, the Leuven professor shows a clear understanding of Erasmus’intention and method, without being blind to the errors he came across. He doesnot deny that the Italian critic was sometimes right, but he disapproves of theacerbitas  of his tone. Nannius quotes Robortello’s annotations almost in fullbefore discussing them. Sometimes he proves that Erasmus’ interpretation wasright. In other cases he tries to explain why Erasmus rendered the apophthegmas he did, or at least to mitigate the criticism. The second part of chapterVIII, where Nannius corrects Erasmus’ interpretation of nineteen other apo-phthegms,115 departs from the same benevolent attitude.

INTRODUCTION 21

111 Francesco Robortello, Variorum locorum annotationes tam in Graecis, quam Latinis authoribus ,Venetiis, 1543, f. 25v o–26v o, 46ro–52ro; reprinted in LB  VIII, 585–592. Robortello comments on

 Apophth. [708], [709], [721], [722], [732], [737], [740], [749], [751], [759], [775], [776], [777], [778],[791], [799], [813], [828], [830], [844], [848], [855], [856], [857], [880], [905], [907a].112 Cf. Catull. 8, 1.113 LB VIII, 590 D, cf. Apophth. [856]. Erasmus’ paraphrase corresponds with Traversari’s translationas well as the edition of Marcovich (see ‘Abbreviations’).114 Petrus Nannius, Summíktwn, siue Miscellaneorum decas vna. Louanii, 1548, pp. 214–253. Cf. Amédée Polet, Une gloire de l’humanisme belge: Petrus Nannius (1500–1557), Louvain, 1936, pp.161–163.115 Nannius, Miscellanea , pp. 253–269, concerning Apophth. [16], [66], [76], [97], [116], [118], [123],[151], [199], [633], [636], [819], [875], [1222], [1272]; LB  IV, 231 E–F, Cyrus iunior 20; 242 F,Themistocles 4; 247 F–248 B, Alcibiades 8; 245 A, Aristides 3.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

32/408

 Although Nannius sometimes puts forward an explanation which does notsuit the apophthegm under discussion, he draws attention to many factors

which shaped Erasmus’ collection. He expounds that Erasmus did not intend totranslate verbatim only one single passage: “As for this work, in some casesErasmus is a meticulous translator, in others he freely renders in a paraphrasti-cal manner, in others he is a painstaking commentator”.116 “Why, Robortello, ishe mistaken? Because he adds more than you found in your Laertius? At whichtime ever did he swear obedience to Laertius? Whatever he found anywherewith respect to the apophthegm in question, in Greek or in Latin authors, hemakes into one. Is this an error, to add impressiveness and learning? He did notprofess himself to be a translator of Laertius’ text, so that he should have scru-ples about omissions or additions”.117 At the end of his discussion Nannius alsomentions the influence of Traversari’s translation. In Apophth. [855]–[856] Eras-mus did not recognize the names of the centaurs, “because relying on someoneelse’s skill he insufficiently took the Greek text into consideration. For in allrespects he adopts the translation of brother Ambrogio … For I firmly believethat Erasmus sometimes did not consult Laertius in Greek and contented him-self with someone else’s fidelity … What wonder, he concerned himself morewith collecting apophthegms than translating them”.118 This proves to be an aptdescription of Erasmus’ method of working insofar as Diogenes Laertius is con-cerned.

Some of the interpretations of Nannius were discussed, in their turn, in theEmendationum et miscellaneorum libri XX  by his friend Paulus Leopardus(1510–1567), the first volume of which was published in 1568, the second notuntil 1604, when the whole work was included in Gruterus’ Lampas .119 Refer-ences to Leopardus are frequently found in the notes added to the  Apophtheg-mata in LB . The tone of his comments is objective. Before presenting his owninterpretation he refers to other scholars who dealt with the same text. Dis-cussing, for instance, Apophth. [118], Leopardus quotes Erasmus first, then “ami-cus noster Petrus Nannius”, who proposed an emendation in his  Miscellanea ,and finally Regio, whose reading he prefers. In the same way he deals with

22 INTRODUCTION

116 Nannius, Miscellanea , p. 227: “In hoc opere Eras. nunc anxium interpretem, nunc liberum para-phrasten, nunc sedulum commentatorem agit.”117 Nannius, Miscellanea , p. 231–232: “Quur errat Robertelli? an quia plura addit, quam tuus Laer-tius habet, quando unquam Erasmus, in uerba Laertii iurauit? Quicquid ubique inuenit, quod adpraesens Apophthegma spectat, uel in Graecis, uel in Latinis autoribus, in unum congerit, Idneerror, rem ampliorem et instructiorem facere? non est professus, se uerborum Laertii interpretem,ut illi religio sit, quicquam uel detrahere uel addere.”118 Nannius,  Miscellanea , p. 248: “… quod alieno ingenio fretus parum graeca uerba inspexerit.Nam per omnia sequitur fratris Ambrosii translationem … nam prorsus mihi persuadeo, Erasmumaliquoties Graecum Laertium non consuluisse, et aliena fide contentum fuisse. … Nec mirum,magis studuit colligere apophthegmata quam interpretari.”119 Paulus Leopardus, Emendationum et miscellaneorum libri XX: in quibus plurima tam in Graecis quam Latinis auctoribus … emendantur , I (books I–X), Antverpiae, 1568; Lampas, sive Fax artiumliberalium, hoc est, Thesaurus criticus , ed. Ianus Gruterus, III, Francofurti, 1604, pp. 1–408.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

33/408

 Apophth. [151]. Again he disagrees with Nannius, “quantumvis amico”, and fol-lows Regio. In both cases the reading adopted by Leopardus corresponds with

Fuhrmann’s edition of Plutarch’s apophthegms.120

3 The intention of the Apophthegmata 

In Ep. 2442 Erasmus says that apophthegms are affinitive to his disposition (seeabove, p. 4). The letter does not explain why, but supposedly collecting brief,witty texts, which envelop their meaning 121, was familiar to the ‘genius’ of theauthor of the Adagia and the Parabolae . When Erasmus in September 1532, hav-ing enlarged his collection of apophthegms, started working on a new edition of 

the adages, he remarks: “We relapsed, so to speak, from the lime-kiln into thecharcoal-burner’s fire, from apophthegms into proverbs”.122 Pierre du Chastelcalled the second edition of the Apophthegmata a ‘libellus’. Erasmus wonders why he used the dimunitive: does it express affection? He hopes that this ‘booklet’will give students pleasure and profit, as much as the trouble it gave him. “Somepeople think that writing apophthegms or proverbs is easy, but writing books andchiliads is difficult. Here is a distich of mine on this subject:

It is quite easy, I admit, for anyone to write proverbs.But writing chiliads will cost a lot of trouble.”123

 Again both genres are connected with each other.In section ii of the Prolegomena to the Adagia the apophthegm is mentioned as

one of the types of speech from which adages originate. Erasmus quotes in thiscontext ÁOv aûtov aütòn oûk ∂xei, Sámon qélei (Plut. Mor. 233 D), which is both

INTRODUCTION 23

120 Leopardus, Emend. et misc., IX, 7; see Apophth. [118], n.l. 938; [151], n.ll. 139–140.121 Cf. Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 180–182.122 Ep. 2709, ll. 1–3: “Nos quasi de calcaria in carbonarium [sic], ab apophthegmatibus ad prouer-bia reuoluti sumus”. Cf.  Adag. 1396 (De calcaria in carbonariam), ASD II, 3, p. 394: “Quoties fit,vt a re proposita ad aliud quippiam longe diuersum digrediamur, de calcaria in carbonariam decur-

rere dicimur, siue quum ex vno malo in aliud diuersum incidimus. Tertullianus libro De carneChristi Igitur , inquit, de calcaria, quod dici solet, in carbonariam, a Marcione ad Apellem” (cf. CWE 33, p. 420, n. 1: “Marcion and Apelles were noted heretics”). Otto 295 explains the passage fromTertullianus as follows: “etwa: vom Regen in die Traufe, hier: von einer verkehrten Lehre zu eineranderen nicht minder verkehrten”.123 Ep. 2720, ll. 49–59: “Demiror autem quur Apophthegmatum opus octo iustis voluminibusabsolutum libellum appellandum putaris, nisi quod arbitror hoc tibi dictum filik¬v kaì êrwtik¬vm¢llon Æ meiwtik¬v. … Vtinam autem ille libellus tantum voluptatis simul et vtilitatis adferat stu-diosis, quantum mihi sudoris attulit. Sunt quibus facile videtur Apophthegmata aut Prouerbia scribere, sed libros et Chiliadas scribere difficile est: qua de re accipe distichon nostrum [ ASD I, 7,no. 90]:

Perfacile est fateor Prouerbia scribere cuiuis,

 At perdifficile est scribere Chiliadas.”Cf. Mart. VII, 85, 3–4. Defending the Adages against the possible charge of incoherence in Ep. 531(to Guillaume Budé), ll. 288–290, Erasmus also alludes to Martial (XIV, 2, 1–2).

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

34/408

an apophthegm ( Apophth. [369]) and a proverb ( Adag. 683).124 Naturally thegenre of apophthegm is mentioned in section iv too: ‘Quomodo paroemia dif-

ferat ab iis, quae videntur illi confinia’. Here Adag. 683 figures again, being bothan adage and an apophthegm. However, not every apophthegm is a proverb, asErasmus illustrates with sayings of Simonides and Caesar.125 In a similar mannerthe proverb is compared to the loidórion (abuse) and the sk¬mma (jest), closely related to the apophthegm, or rather to be considered as types of apophthegms.126

First a saying is quoted which is a proverb and a loidórion at the same time, fol-lowed by two examples of a sk¬mma which does not function as an adage.127

 At the end of the passage Erasmus states that certain apophthegms are “soaptly put that they can easily be ranked as adages”. He quotes as an exampleMéxri bwm¬n fílov eîmí, i.e. “Vsque ad aras sum amicus”, the answer of Pericleswhen a friend asked him to swear falsely on his behalf ( Apophth., LB IV, 246 D,Pericles 17).128 This phrase was enrolled as an adage indeed ( Adag. 2110). ThereErasmus explains that, although he did not intend to collect apophthegms, hemade an exception in this case because of the proverbial appearance of the saying and the currency great authors gave it.129

Erasmus’ collection of apophthegms has some ground in common with the Adagia , as several adages originate from apophthegms. Moreover, in the explana-tions added to the proper proverbs, Erasmus frequently inserted apophthegmswhich are somehow related as regards content.130 The dedicatory letter to the

 Apophthegmata , however, mentions the adage only once in passing.131

 Writing to William of Cleves Erasmus focuses on the didactic aspect of apo-phthegms, considering them as texts, complete in themselves, to be used for theinstruction of princes. This is in line with Plutarch’s dedicatory letter preceding the Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata . Plutarch points out that the apo-phthegms he offers Trajan are useful because they help us understand the charactersand principles of leaders, which are better reflected in their words than in theiractions. He had already written his biographies of great men, but they includetheir actions, which are often affected by chance, “whereas their statements and

spontaneous remarks commenting their deeds, experiences and fortunes enable

24 INTRODUCTION

124  Adag., ‘Prolegomena’ ii,  ASD  II, 1, p. 48, ll. 77–81. For other examples of adages originating from Plutarch’s apophthegms see section 1, pp. 8–9.125  Adag., ‘Prolegomena’ iv, ASD II, 1, p. 52, ll. 162–167. See Plut. Mor. 644 F, Quaestiones convivales III, 1 (Simonides; cf. Lingua , ASD IV, 1A, p. 54, ll. 907–909; only the dictum itself in Apophth., LB IV, 339 E, Theophrastus 2) and Apophth. [1130] (Caesar).126 See Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 132–134.127  Adag., ‘Prolegomena’ iv,  ASD  II, 1, p. 52, ll. 167–169. See  Apophth. [1239] (“et prouerbium etloidórion”); Apophth. [1093] and [1101] (“sk¬mma quidem est, at non item adagium”).128  Adag., ‘Prolegomena’ iv, ASD II, 1, p. 52, ll. 170–172; CWE 31, p. 9, ll. 51–54.129  ASD II, 5, p. 112, ll. 181–184.130 See e.g. Apophth. [5], [83].131 Epist. nunc. I–VI , l. 183.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

35/408

us to observe clearly, as in so many mirrors, the thinking of each man”.132 In hisLife of Alexander  Plutarch expresses the same idea. “I do not write history, but

lives”, he says, “and not especially in the most impressive actions virtue or vicemanifest themselves, but a minor event, a remark or a joke often reveals more of a person’s character than fights in which thousands fall, the greatest battles andsieges”.133  A similar observation on action and speech is found in De Alexandri  fortuna aut virtute : “In the second place, let us examine his [sc.  Alexander’s]words, for the character and the frame of mind of other kings and rulers tooappear especially from their words”.134

The passage in question from Plutarch’s letter to Trajan is paraphrased in ll.39–48 of Erasmus’ preface. The Plutarchan idea of the genre of apophthegm isalso reflected in ll. 50–52: “Plutarch surpasses all other authors not only in thechoice of subject matter (i.e. the characters of great men in history), but also inthe way he unfolds it (by means of apophthegms). For, apophthegms have a spe-cial property, and a quality of their own, that enables them to express briefly,sharply, humorously and wittily every single person’s mind”.

Plutarch dedicated his Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata  to Trajan, sup-posing that these sayings, contrary to the Vitae , enable the emperor to learnabout men of fame from the past without loss of time. 135  Addressing the young duke Erasmus too stresses the appropriateness of apophthegms for the instructionof princes, who are preoccupied with state affairs and cannot spend their time

reading piles of books.136

This theme recurs in the only passage of the prefacewhere adages are mentioned, comparable to apophthegms because of their com-pactness and attractiveness.137

Erasmus shows his preference for the apophthegm as an instrument for theinstruction of princes in the very first lines of the preface. He also brings up thegenre in the Institutio principis christiani , selecting books which are suitable to a ruler. He advises the tutor to present at first the proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesias-ticus, and the Book of Wisdom (Sapientia Salomonis), next the Gospels, thirdly “the  Apophthegms of Plutarch and then his  Moralia ; for you can find nothing sounder than these, and I would prefer his Lives  to be prescribed rather than

those of anyone else”.138Erasmus published his Institutio in 1516. Probably in 1519 Guillaume Budé

offered Francis I a work in manuscript containing first several quotations fromEcclesiastes and Proverbs and then (by far the largest part) a collection of

INTRODUCTION 25

132 Plut. Mor. 172 C–D.133 Plut. Alex. 1, 2; cf. Verweyen, Apophthegma und Scherzrede , p. 81; Plutarque, Oeuvres morales , III,ed. and transl. Fuhrmann, p. 6; Clive Skidmore, Practical ethics for Roman gentlemen: The work of  Valerius Maximus , Exeter, 1996, pp. 37–38.134 Plut. Mor. 330 E, De Alexandri fortuna aut virtute I, 9.135 Plut. Mor. 172 D–E.136 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 11–27.137 Epist. nunc. I–VI , ll. 183–185.138 CWE 27, pp. 250–251; ASD IV, 1, p. 180, ll. 431–445.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

36/408

anecdotes, mostly taken from the apophthegms of Plutarch. Budé did not trans-late, but paraphrased and extensively commented on the text, so that the brevitas 

of the apophthegm is lost. The manuscript offered to Francis I is the only autho-rized source. Budé apparently did not want to publish it, undoubtedly because itwas written in French. Only in 1547, after his death, the text was printed threetimes with many changes. The work is usually referred to as Institution duPrince .139 There is no indication that Erasmus knew this text, but, hypothetically speaking, he could have heard about one of the manuscript copies.140

Budé modestly offers his gift to the French king, referring to the opening linesof Plutarch’s letter to Trajan about the Persian king Artaxerxes, who considered itkinglike to accept small presents with pleasure, no less than to give great ones, andthe anecdote about the Corinthians, who offered Alexander the Great the status of citizen.141 There was no need for Erasmus to pretend modesty. He knew that his giftwas welcome and would find receptive ground. William of Cleves (1516–1592) grew up in an environment well-disposed towards Erasmus. On 1 September 1523 Kon-rad Heresbach was appointed as tutor to William on the recommendation of Eras-mus; a few months later Johann von Vlatten was named councillor to John III, Williams’s father. Both men were friends of Erasmus. Especially through VlattenErasmian ideas on church reform found their way to the ducal court.142

Erasmus adapted his preface to the Apophthegmata to the position of the addressee,

presenting his collection as a ‘Fürstenspiegel’, in the same manner as Plutarch didwhen dedicating his Regum et imperatorum apophthegmata  to Trajan. Despite thefrequent occurrence of apophthegms in other treatises of the  Moralia , the letterto Trajan does not go into the effect of these anecdotes when used in discourses.Nor does Erasmus’ letter, except for a passage in defence of humorous sayings(ll. 198–201). Moreover, the Apophthegmata are included in volume IV of Erasmus’Opera omnia  (BAS , LB ), “complectens quae ad morum institutionem pertinent”,not in volume I, containing “quae ad institutionem literarum spectant”.

26 INTRODUCTION

139 Louis Delaruelle, Guillaume Budé: Les origines, les débuts, les idées maîtresses , Paris, 1907, pp.199–220; Aulotte,  Amyot et Plutarque , pp. 79–80; Claude Bontems, Léon-Pierre Raybaud, Jean-Pierre Brancourt, Le prince dans la France des XVI e  et XVII e  siècle , Paris, 1965, pp. 1–143 (the text of the manuscript on pp. 77–139).140 Delaruelle, Guillaume Budé , pp. 232–233.141 Bontems a.o., Le prince dans la France des XVI e  et XVII e  siècle , pp. 77–78. Cf. Plut. Mor. 172 B;

 Apophth. [1028].142  Anton Gail, Johann von Vlatten und der Einfluss des Erasmus von Rotterdam auf die Kirchenpoli-tik der vereinigten Herzogtümer , Düsseldorfer Jahrbuch 45 (1951), pp. 1–109; John Patrick Dolan,The influence of Erasmus, Witzel and Cassander in the church ordinances and reform proposals of the united duchies of Cleves during the middle decades of the 16th century , Münster, 1957; August Franzen,Das Schicksal des Erasmianismus am Niederrhein im 16. Jahrhundert: Wende und Ausklang der eras-mischen Reformbewegung im Reformationszeitalter , Historisches Jahrbuch 83 (1964), pp. 84–112; Jean-

Claude Margolin, La politique culturelle de Guillaume, duc de Clèves , in: Franco Simone (ed.), Cul-ture et politique en France à l’époque de l’humanisme et de la Renaissance , Torino, 1974, pp. 293–324.See also the articles on John III and William V of Cleves in Contemporaries  I, pp. 315–317.

8/19/2019 Meer 2010

37/408

Filelfo, on the contrary, dedicating his translation of Plutarch’s Regum et impe-ratorum apophthegmata  to Filippo Maria Visconti (1392–1447), duke of Milan,

mentions expressly the capability of apophthegms to enrich a discourse:By these [sc. Plutarch’s apophthegms] I was extremely delighted, not only because they 

 presented railleries suitable to a free man and the most pleasant witticisms, but alsobecause they apparently would provide and offer a really amazing as well as copious and varied impressiveness of thought which can be used to enrich and embellish eachdiscourse. For there is nothing, so to speak, in human life said or done in an artful,cunning, decent, restrained, noble, steadfast, kind, generous, blameless, honest, friendly manner, in short nothing splendidly, nothing wisely, nothing with virtue and merit said or done, which cannot capture an example from these. This is, however, not the right moment to say how much splendour and dignity the persuasiveness of examples usually 

adds to each discourse as well as each manner of life, especially since this is evident and obvious to anyone.143

In his preface to the Apophthegmata Laconica (1454), addressed to Pope NicholasV, Filelfo points out:

Certainly it [the dedicated work] is of small dimensions if you judge from its size, and  yet it is excellent and useful for scholars, especially for those interested in eloquence. For it is impossible that a discourse stuffed with witty thoughts and impressive as well as attractive examples like these, does not please everybody.144

 When Albrecht von Eyb included a selection from Plutarch’s apophthegms,translated by Filelfo, in his Margarita poetica (1472), he adopted the latter’s viewson the us