Ambiguity in Writings on Humanistic Education: Text Criticism and the Concept of Man:

Supplementary Remarks
Author(s): Otto Herding
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Studies in the Renaissance, Vol. 13 (1966), pp. 220-229
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2857027 .
Accessed: 04/04/2012 17:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Studies in the Renaissance.

http://www.jstor.org

{ MAKEsome supplementary

remarks to my 'rap-

Ambiguity
inWritings
onHumanistic
Education:
extcrltlclsm
ancwt zeconceptoitman:
supplementary
remarks
T.

port'.
By
I understand
less
an expansion
insupplementation
subJect
matterthan
in method,
asfollows.
XV )yx
It iS relatively easyto setupprogrammatic
demands.
It is muchmorediS1cult
to showby examples
how
thesedemands
areto bemet.Withwhateaseit issaid,
forexample,
thatresearch
hasyetbeentoolittleconcerned
withthereceptionof Isocrates
in thefifteenth
andsixteenth
centuries.1
Buthowis
thisto be done?Howto getbeyondmerebibliography,
beyondestablishmentof printings
to a penetration
of theideasandanevaluation
of
thefacts?Or;thereis a demandforgreater
consideration
of theliterary
formsof expression
af thehumanists,
because
throughthem,andthisis
at timesoverlooked,
theideasthemselves,
thecontentcanbe changed.
Buthowdoesthecontribution
of thehistorian
to thisproblemlook?It
is in thisdirection
thatmy supplementation
wantsto go. Forthispurpose,aftera fewfundamental
words,I shouldliketo proceedasspecificallyasI generally
didin therapport,
inaccordance
withtherulesof the
congress
reports.
E

Onemaysay,perhaps,
thattherearethreemainmethods
withwhichto
approach
thecomplicated
phenomenon
of humanism,
threedimensions
at thesametime,theunification
of whichonlyallowsa completepicTheseremarkssupplementthe paper'ZurProblematik
humanistischer
Erziehungsschriften:Textforschung
undMenschenbild'
whichProfessor
Herdingreadat themeeting of the Federation
Internationale
desInstitutsd'Histoirede la Renaissance
in Vienna
I965 andwhichis printed
in theRapportsof theXIIeCongresInternational
desSciences
Historiques
(Wien,I965), III, 87-93.
1 Moreextensiveevidencefor the receptionof Isocrates
will be foundin 'Isocrates,
Erasmus
unddie InstitutioprincipisChristiani',
Festschrittftir Kurt v. Raunler (Munster /
Westf., I966). On Erasmusand Wimpfelingsee the introductionto my editionof
Wimpfeling's
Adolescentia(Munchen,
I965). I therefore
confinemyselftothetextwhich
I readat the collgressin Viennaandgive only a minimumof examples.
[220 ]

OTTO HERDING

221

ture:thebiographical,
thatof generichistory,andthatof thehistoryof
ideasandconcepts.
My rapport
left thefirstdimension
aside,because
biography
isitsownbesthelp,asit were;notsoin thecaseof theother
two dimensions.
Andyet onemightwellplacea historyof themsin
concepts
besidetheschoolof biographies
outof whichoneis bestable
to drawa totalpictureastheresearch
nowstands I amthinking
above
allof German
humanism.
Evenwhenoneconceives
thetopicasgeneral
andbroadasdidthefirstCongresso
internazionale
di studiumanistici
I949: 'Umanesimo
e scienza
politica',
cnemusteverreturnto theusage
of words,to the conceptsconnected
withthem:tyrannus,
respublica,
imperium,
libertas.
Whatis thefunctionof theconceptin itscontextand
underwhatinfluence
is it?Thusverygenerally:
humanitas,
gloria,mors,
studia,
sapientia,
virtus,homo,deus.I needonlyreferto theinteresting
contribution
byRichard
M.Douglasto thiscongress
('Genus
Vitaeand
Vocatio,Rapports
III, 75-86)
to showwhatI mean.Thereareeven
fewerstudies
of thisnatureconcerning
theGerman
situation.
Thatisno
coincidence.
We have,exceptfor theletters,stilltoo few criticaleditionswhichcontainanappropriate
glossary
of concepts,
notjustterms,
andthusonlyallowanapproach
to thematerial.
Now, manyfacsimile
editions
areappearing
atpresent.
Itwouldperhaps
bewellto thinkupa
schemewhichmightserve,likeakindof questionnaire,
asanoutlinefor
an index,so thatno facsimileeditionshouldbe published
withouta
minimum
index-a provisional
aidatanyratewhena critical
editionis
notforthcoming
intheforeseeable
future.
Whereby,
atleastinthenorth,
thelatemedieval
preliminary
stagemustbeincluded-incontrast
with
Italy,no onecansayanything
aboutnorthern
humanism
if heis notat
thesametimea medievalist.
Thusthetaskwouldbe greateryet. But
howisoneto knowtheexactinfluence
of GeilervonKaysersberg
upon
thehumanists
andinturnhisborrowings
fromGerson,
topickonlyone
example?
Of coursetheyaremoralists
whoseemdullto moderntastes.
Butit is a questionof thestructure
of tastesof thattime!Onlyfrom
suchstudies
emerges
thenormative
picturewhichonehadof man,and
atthesametimethesumtotalof thedemands
whichthegreatandthe
smallpedagogues
'letloose'upontheworld.Fromthesealsoemerges
therelationship
of thekeymoralwordsto thepsychological
andaestheticconcepts:
in general,
thus,theinnerworldof man,astype,to be
sure,withoutregardto hisindividuality.
Betweenthesetwo methods,thebiographical
andthatdealingwith
thehistoryof concepts,
a third,whichstartswiththenatureof thema-

222

WRITINGS

ON HUMANISTIC

EDUCATION

terialitselfandasksforitsgenera,thusfora formalelementwhichdoes
stand,however,in no accidental
relationship
to its thoughtcontent.
We touchwiththisa boundary
linebetweenhistoryandphilology.In
thefieldof thehistoryof ideas,in thenorth,thatis,asidefrompolitics,
view
aboveallin therealmof pedagogical
ideas,thisgeneric-historical
mustbe asrelevant
to thehistorian
asto thephilologist
andtheymust
exchange
andunitetheirresultsandmethczds.
Thisisnotto beunderstood
asthoughI removed
thetextsfromtheir
politicalandsocialenvironment:
butin orderto be placedwithinit,
theymustfirsthavebecometextswhichhavebeencorrectly
illuminated, commentated,
thusintellectually
grasped.
I do not deemit superfluous,in thisconnection,
to recallthatthecritical
editionis alsonotan
endin itselfbutmaterial
forinterpretation.
Is all thisobvious?Theoretically
perhaps,
buthow doesone begin
practically?
II

Asananswerto thisquestion
I shouldliketo present
twosampleintertranslapretations.
ThefirstI shalldealwithis a problemof humanistic
tion.I don'tmeaninto a nationalidiom.RatherI am thinkingof a
a text
transfer
fromtheGreekintoLatin.Because
throughlatinization
is appropriated
by thewesternworldof learning.
It is clearthatit is a
questionof a processwhichdidnotceaseentirelyevenin themiddle
ages,nowhoweveris revivedwitha different
intensity
andwithdifferentdemands
altogether.
To themostcelebrated
translations
naturally
belongsthePlatoLatinusof Marsiglio
Ficino,belongs,atleastin ourconnection,
thepseudoPlutarchan
work7repl 7ralg8cov aPywtyrls, Detiberis
educandis,
andbelongtwcz
worksof Isocrates,
the secondpseudo-Isocratic,
for thetimegenuine
however,andatanyratestylistically
andin thoughtcontentnotfarremovedfromIsocrates:
adNicoctem
andadDemonicum.
humanI shouldliketo layspecialstressonIsocrates
because
German
ismplayeda particularly
activerolein hisreception.
Thatis shownalin a
readyby thenumberof printings.
ForItalyVito R. Giustiniani
bookabouttheFlorentine
humanist
Alamanno
Rinuccini
(Koln-Graz,
I965, Studiitaliani
5) hascollected
a seriesof earlier
editions(thebook
hadnotyetbeenpublished
whenI sentoffmyrapport).
TheseIsocrates
translations
areregularly
dedicated
to Italianprinces.I am concerned
now withnorthern
humanists.

OTTO HERDING

223

ThenoblestIsocrates
translator
isof courseErasmus.
Hisrendering
of
theworkad Nicoclemaccompanies
alleditionsof theInstitutioprincipis
Christiani.Evenin thepreface
to theInstitutioitself,to Charles
v, Erasmusrefersto Isocrates.
Asa matterof factheberates
himslightlythere,
although
hehaddeemedhimworthyof translation.
Butheseeshimself
in competition
withtheGreek.Bothareeducators
of princes.
Erasmus,
however,claimstwo advantages
forhimself:theChristian
faithasopposedto theheathenandthe choiceof theaddressee.
Whatwasthis
minorCyprian
kingNikoklesof 374 B.C. asopposedto theHapsburg?
Withtllisdisparagement,
however,whichincidentally
is couchedin
current,
hardlyspecifically
humanistic
terms,Erasmus
upsetsa tradition
whichheastranslator
of Isocrates
hadonlyjustupheld.Hepresses
himselfintoIsocrates'
place;indeed,he placeshimselfabovehimaseducatorof princes!
Thetradition-Iremainat presentwiththeHapsburg
court-goes
backin ourcaseto thesecondvisitto Rome,I468, of Frederick
III, the
Hapsburg
great-grandfather
of Charles.On thatoccasiona friendof
Cardinal
Bessarion,
a professor
of rhetoric
in Rome,oneMartinus
Phileticus,presented
his translation
of ad Nicoclem.We shallnot be concernedatpresentwiththecourtlydedication;
we shallturnratherto a
secondactof theGerman
reception
of Isocrates,
whichis linkedto this
Romangift to the emperor.The manuscript
cameto Germany
and
stirredtheinterestof scholars
andoffi1cials
aroundMaximilian
I. In a
letterdatedNew Year'sEveISI3,theimperial
secretaryJakob
Spiegel
tellsof it (theletteris in theStrasbourg
editionto be mentioned
presently,Johannes
Pruss,I 5 I4, fol. A IV). He describes
thescenevividly.
We seemenlikeVadian,whowasto succeedto thechairof Celtisin
Vienna,orTannstetter,
personal
physician
to Maximilian,
or Nikolaus
Gerbel,who latertaughtin Strasbourg,
all bowedover the codex
whichhadbeensenttoJakobSpiegelby stillanotherimperialoilcial.
Itisdecidedunanimously
thatthebookDegubernandoregnowouldhave
to beprintedandthisin turnundertheauspices
of a diplomat
of Maximilian,Jacobus
Banisius.
Isocrates
himself,thusendsSpiegel's
accounta
bitpoetically,
waswhispering
intohisear:afterhe hadrecentlycome
'traductore
Philetico'fromGreeceto Rome,he wishedfurther'Romanisloquiauribus'.
We haveherean accountof a reception
which
possesses
almostanecdotalconcreteness.
'Romanisloquiauribus'-in
thatliesfirstof allthejoy overthefactthatthistexthadbeenwrested
fromGreekobscurity;
in it liesfurthermore
a pieceof unintentonal

224

WRITINGS

ON HUMANISTIC

EDUCATION

does
intoGerman
thethoughtof a translation
exclusiveness:
humanistic
at themoment.However,no lessa person
not seemto haveoccurred
an
and,furthermore,
didmakeanattempt,
Pirckheimer
thanWillibald
The
imauribus'.
loqui
'Romanis
isimpliedintheexpression
extension
somehowwith'regnum
also,in factallthoseconcerned
perialoffi1cials
by this'mirrorfor princes',
addressed
feelthemselves
gubernandum',
himselfin referviri',asSpiegelexpressed
theyare'regiiet imperatorii
I4
in
Viennaaswell
in
IS
book
appeared
The
Banisius.
encetoJacobus
asin Strasbourg.
for the
whichwas to replaceIsocrates
The Institutioof Erasmus,
evenmorereadilyasthebookfor
wasaccepted
nephewof Maximilian,
muchtransin publiclife.Itwastherefore
of personages
theeducation
LeoJud(Ein nutzlicheunderwisung
translator,
latedat once.A German
Fursten. . ., Zurich,I52I), wholaterbelongsto thecireineschristlichen
andimprove'usefulness
clearoundZwingli,saysin theintroduction:
peoples'thanksto thediligenceof
ment'shallcometo 'theChristian
in
probablycomparable
PaulusHelias,a DanishCarmelite
Erasmus.
translated
Mantuanus,
Baptista
counterpart
to hissouthern
importance
thebookasinstructheInstitutiotwice,in I522 andI534, andconceives
representataskmasters,
tionnotonlyto aprincebutto 'allhisadvisers,
(thusat
and
subjects'
dailyservants,
oS1cials,
overseers,
tives,courtiers,
theendof theprefaceof theeditionof Roskilde,I534). ThislooktoThe
wholedusto Erasmus.
wardsa widerpublicfitsalsoforIsocrates
the
III through
by thecourtof Frederick
threephasesof hisreception
to
of theInstitutiobyErasmus
I to thededication
of Maximilian
oS1cials
withit, mightperandbreaks
thetradition
v, whichconcludes
Charles
and
placedundertheaspectof politicaleducation
hapsbe summarily
ethics.Buthispointof viewis not theonlyone.
. . ., Koln,Joh.
Agricola(Lucubrationes
Rudolfus
Anothertranslator,
to anotherrealmentirely.
Isocrates
p. 227) transfers
I539,
Gymnicus,
ownterminology,
usingIsocrates'
hewritesto hisbrother,
'Weshould',
instinctively
'havea few rulesof life so firmlyin handasthewrestlers
controltheirholds.Ruleswhichdirectouractionsandarefirmlyimof
theboundaries
on ourmemoryandsoforbidusto transgress
pressed
usethejust.To thisenddoesthisbook[adDemonicum]seemespecially
thusfora
on memory,a technique
ful to me.'Rulesfirmlyimpressed
moralityfor everyonewho canreadLatin!Thepolitical
memorized
intothebackground.
recedes
Withthis
withIsocrates?
concerned
instruction
Wasnot university

OTTO HERDING

225

question
we cometo a thirdrealm.Itisseparated
notonlysociallyfrom
thatofthecourtorthatoffree,onlylooselyjoinedspirits
likeAgricola,
butalsofactually.
I ampointingto a translation
of excerpts,
anepitome
with commentary.
It is by VirgiliusWallendorfer,
professor
of the
LeipzigArtsfaculty.Virgilius,
by theway,wasnota namecurrent
in
Leipzig.Butit wasin Salzburg;
he camefromthere.Intheyearof the
Institutioof Erasmus,
ISI6,thereappeared
in Leipzighis Valelogium,a
collection
of rulesof lifefromIsocrates
(adNicoclemin themain).Had
we thetimeforthorough
analysis
I wouldplaceattheendasa summationwhatI shallanticipate
here:Wallendorfer
comesfromAristotle,
St.Thomas,
fromtheDistichaCatonis-one cansayforoncesummarily:
fromthemiddleages;will hiscategories
be appropriate
to Isocrates?
Hardly.Isocrates
is rathercounterfeited
in aninteresting
way.Andthe
typeof counterfeit
servesusasa background
by whichtheconceptof
thehumanists,
asit canbe deduced
fromthemanneroftranslation
and
incidental
commentaries,
issetoffinrelieI selecttherefore
someexamples,adNicoclemc. 35: 'Consider
whatbefallsprivatepersons
aswellas
tyrants',
i.e. here'rulers'
in theneutralsense.'Ifyou keepthepastin
mind,youwill alsothinkaboutthefuturebetter.'
Wallendorfer
transposes
the wordsin thistranslation;
the tyrants
comefirst.No prototype
justifiessucha transposition;
rather,thereasonforthisprocedure
emerges
fromhiscommentary.
He selectsfrom
Aristotlea suitabledefinitionof'tyrant',goeson fromthereto the
assass1natzon
ot tyrants
1nant1qulty,
onto tyrants
ot us owntzme even
if carefully
qualified.
A morallyneutral
rule,thisis thecruxof thematter,becomesa pieceof politicalethics.Stillmoreobviousistllefollowing (adNicoclem,c. 30): 'Ifit shouldoccurto you to enjoysomething
notbeautiful,
keepit secret;
showyourself
onlywhereyoustriveforthe
highest.'Erasmus
hasunderstood
thatverywellin his translation.
The
Latinis important
here:'siquareparumhonestete contingitdelectari,
facclamid facias. . . quotiesautemin maximisversaberis
negotiistum
populumtestemadmitte.'
Concerning
'populus'
thereisnota wordin
theGreekand,moreover,
noneof theothers,neitherAgricola,
norPhileticus,norevenOthmarLuscinius,
theAlsatian
teacher
of Greekwho
alsohadworkedon Isocrates,
hastranslated
thus.The cosmopolitan
noteof thisadviceof Isocrates
is almostoverinterpreted
by Erasmus.
Wallendorfer,
however,asif withraised
indexfinger,contrives
a moral
maximin histranslation.
'Nevershouldhe (theprince)express
joy in
vilethings,butaffectto appear
concerned
onlywithgreatthings.'Only
*

226

WRITINGS ON HUMANISTIC EDUCATION

a verycarefullistenercanstillhearsomething
of theovertonewithin
the framework
of courtlydecorum.Andso the commentary
in the
Valelogium
nowandagainrefersoriginally
to 'Aristoteles
Ethica'or 'ex
rationeCatonis'
or Thomasis calledon to helpout.Inthiswaycomes
aboutnotonlyin thecommentary
butoccasionally
alsoin thetranslationanIsocrates
moralizatus
whoisnotentirely
false,butalsonolonger
genuine.
Itsbasisis theconservative
methodofinterpretation.
Threeintellectual
andsocialspheres,
threetypesof interpretation
of thetext!
Canoneaboveallimaginewhatit wasthatspecially
attracted
Erasmusandhisliketo Isocrates?
Formalreasons
certainly
playa stronger
rolethanourmoderntasteallows.Pirckheimer
for examplehasexpressedit in connection
with Cicero(Orator,
LII, I74):
'quodprimus
verbissolutisnumeros
adiunxit'.
Fortherest,Isocrates
isnotonly'rhetor eloquentissimus'
for him butalso'studiosus
virtutis'(Briefwechsel,
ed. E. Reicke,Munchen,I940, I, 200).Beyondsuchcommonplaces,
however,wasnot themostexplicitjustification
for looselyarranged
collections
of gnomicsayings,'sentences',
adNicoclem,
c. 40? Doesone
notfindsomething
relatedin Demonicus(cc. 44)? Andwasnot this
literary
genreespecially
popularin humanism
andexperienced
therea
newer,finerflowering?
III

Withthisquestion
in mindI turnawayfromtheproblems
of translationsandadda secondinterpretation
whichisconnected
withaformof
expression
thatplayeda considerable
roleevenin the middleages.I
meanthecatalogues
of thevirtuesandvicesandtheremediesremedia
for them.Suchphrases
remindone ratherof Prudentius
or Alcuin
thanthehumanists.
Butthisthemeis exposedto everypsychological,
ethical,
pedagogical
changeandis therefore
suitable
for observation.
Erasmus
shallserveagainasmodelcase,to beprecise,
theEnchiridion
militis
Christiani
of I503. Oneis astonished
at first.Doesnot Erasmus
sayexpressly
in thisbook(madecomfortably
accessible
thanksto Hajo
Holborn)
thathedidnotwantto setupa catalogue
of virtuesandvices
withthecorresponding
remedies?
Butonewillalsoremember
thathe
cannot
altogether
refrainfromdoingso. Afterhe hadrecommended
'communia
adversum
omnevitiosumgenusremedia',
he saysafterthe
22dcanonof his littlebook (Holborn,p. I20),he wouldnow like
'speciatim
quaedam
tradere'.
Whatdoesthismean?Itcanmeannothing
butthathe mustspeakseparately
of angeranditsopposite,of superbia,

OTTO HERDING

227

JakobWimpfeetc.Justso,shortlybefore,forexample,
avaritia,
libido,
ISoo)thoughmostlyin
(Strasbourg,
linghaddonein hisAdolescentia
wherebyheandthelatereditorshadlet
termsof page-longquotations,
PicodellaMirandola,
Giovanni
by Petrarca,
be influenced
themselves
offaftera while(Holborn,
breaks
decidedly
andothers.Only,Erasmus
evencallshimselfto order;he hadonlywantedto show'ratip. I34),
novaemilitiae',thatis, themethod,andfor
onemet artemquandam
Isthatto betakenonlyrhetoriwouldsuffice.
thatwhathehadoffered
aftera few
callyasa stylisticdevicein orderto arriveat a conclusion
To confineoneselfto thisis makingtheanlongchapters?
relatively
in thoughtandimaginethat
swertoo easy.Letusmakeanexperiment
remediaplacesaswellforthe
we hada wordindexforthepertinent
thetwo
andthatonecouldcompare
asfortheEnchiridion
Adolescentia
wouldbeobviousin anycase.I take,to leadup
indices.Onedifference
whichreadsin Latin:'nemolaeditur
to it, a sentenceof Chrysostom
wasfondof it, incorponisia seipso'(Migne,P.G.LII, 459). Erasmus
omnia,856B), in lessprecisewording
ratedit intotheAdagia(Opera
(p.
andalsointotheEnchiridion
(969F),
inexpertis
alsoin Dukebellum
addition:'nemo. . . Christianus
onlyherewitha characteristic
I32),
in anEnchiridion
or appropriate
Coincidence
nisia semetipso'.
laeditur
frequently
Thewordwhichwouldappearespecially
militisChristiani?
is exactlythe
hardlyat allin Wimpfeling;,
in ourregisterof Erasmus,
Whatis thefunctionof Christin the
or 'Christus.'
word'Christianus'
says,with
ThusWimpfeling
vitia?Ira,anger,is senseless.
contra
remedia
in my ed.,p. 3IS):'irafurorbrevis
Horace,Epist.I, ii, 62 (Adolescentia,
est:animumrege',orwithOvid,Arsii, I5I (Adolescentia, p. 30I): 'este
Salomonis
proelialinguae';orwiththeProverbia
proculliteset amarae
orwithEcclesimollisfrangitiram';
p. 3I8): 'responsio
IS (Adolescentia,
Buthow
p. 32I): 'irain sinustultirequiescit'.
astesvii, I0 (Adolescentia,
'Why
p.
80)?
I33,
Adolescentia,
p.
it
(Holborn,
express
doesErasmus
thatI shouldbe sorryfor later;curnon hoc
shouldI do something
curnonimpietas,denique
ratio,curnonimpetret
potiusa meimpetret
Christthus
quodtempusipsumpaulopost impetrabit?'
petretChristus,
at thetipof thepowersactivein man.Thatis, beyondallmoralizing,
hewhofollowswrathis no longera membrum
anthropology:
Christian
personbehaves
orhewouldrepayevilwithgood.Thewrathful
Christi
notasChristdidin
Christi,
in relationto hisfellowman,theconservus
of man,in a
definition
esseliesErasmus'
suum.In thisconservum
servum
or the
bestiam'
et
not in some'interangelum
socialrealmtherefore.

228

WRITINGS ON HUMANISTIC EDUCATION

of
therelationship
like.Aswrathwoundsto theextentthatit disrupts
theverybasisof life.Inthisconnecmanto hisfellowman,it destroys
tion thisfellowmancanbe fellowmanonlybecausehe is conservus
butthisis notin thetext,independ(itseemsto me,moreover,
Christi
Inthisway
entlyofthefactofwhetherornothebelongsto thechurch).
in theEnmakesgoodsense,especially
theadditionof thatChristianus
it wasredundant.
IntheAdagia
chiridion.
doesnotprovidesufficient
thesingleinstance
because
To seekfurther,
in the Enchiridion
prelude
anthropological
an
into
avaritia
proof:
eo,
motif:'quiadhoctantumcreatus
a Christological
comessuddenly
ut summeullobonosemperfruaris. . .' Whythen
in hocredemptus,
p. 8I.) Or:'contrasupp. I25, 3I f., Adolescentia,
(Holborn,
avarice?
factussit
quidChristus
.
.
.
et
sis
in
te
ipse
quid
consideres,
Si
perbiam.
pp. I3I,
(Holborn,
prote . . .' Whatbecomesthenof yoursuperbia?
p. 8I.)
g ff.,Adolescentia,
write:'Oditenimsummuscordasuhadhis students
Wimpfeling
God?The
p. 348). Isthatin facttheChristian
perbadeus'(Adolescentia,
nextverserecallsthefateof Niobe.AndwhenhewarnswithPetrarca:
p. 37I), then
(Adolescentia,
datgratiam'
humilibus
deusresistit,
'superbis
Godis intendedbut it is hardlya specifically
it seemsthe Christian
way.
takenin a sententious
expression
Christian
wantedto talk,to brandthevariousvitiaandtie
Erasmus
'Speciatim'
Butdoeshe trulydo that?He alwaysgoesto the
to themhisremedia.
in thesensethat
generalandthatis thepersonof Christ.Andmoreover
of themoralpowersactive
thehighestintensification
Christrepresents
conin thephilosophical-intellectual
in man,thatwouldbecomparable
Butthenwordslikeredemptus
philosophus.
nectionto Christassummus
in thedogmatic
factussitprotepointto theRedeemer
or quidChristus
exampleof the
impressive
sense.To be sure,wrathwasa particularly
to manasconservus
andtherefore
relationships
damageto interhuman
of thebasicgeneralrelain general,butis therenot something
Christi
contra
tionshipof the morallyactivemanto Christin all the remediis
isinfactthemainthing,no matter
basis communia
Thisgeneral
vitia?
Whythenspeak'speto be speaking.
happens
Erasmus
of whatvitium
ciatim'?It doesnot even work sinceone cannotmoralizewithout
of vitiaandremedia,
breaksoffhiscataloguing
Christ.HenceErasmus
motives.Of
forthisreasonaswellatleast,andnotonlyoutof aesthetic
Not in a collection
witheducation.
course:onlywhereheis concerned
instruor adagia,whichresemblemulti-purpose
of apophthegmata
aims.
mentsandby no meanshaveonlypedagogical-ethical

OTTO HERDING

229

Concluding,
letusaskonceagain:whereandhowdoesChristoccur
in Wimpfeling's
Adolescentia?
In aboutthisfashion:'SpeakLatinoften!''Don'tswear:by God,uponmy soul,uponmy honor. . .' And
betweenthesetwo bitsof adviceit says:'diligeChristum,
qui te in
cruceredemit'(Adolescentia,
p. 365).Certainly,
thisis whatit says,but
the neighbors,
the sentencebeforeandafter,takeall meaningaway
fromthiscommandment.
Or Christbecomesconnected
with devotionalexercises,
asin theremediacontraincendiumcarnis:'timordomini
timorinferni,amorpeculiaris
in crucifixum'(Adolescentia,p. I98).
Sinkingintosuchmoodsis to conqueravarice.
Nothingis comparable
to thedominating
rolewhichChristplaysforthemoralizing
pedagogue
Erasmus;
it is onlyChristwhofullyilluminates
thestructure
of man.
Does tllissignifya difference
in beliefbetweenWimpfelingand
Erasmus,
betweentwo menwho,asis known,knewandvaluedone
another?
To askthequestion
thiswayis already
to answernegatively.
Fromwherewasthisdifference
to come,andin theyearIso3?
ButErasmus
hadto reassure
himselfof Christtimeandagain,even
whenhewantedto educate
by moralizing.
Renascentia
Christiana
! Itisa
nearthingwho stoodon thissideof thedividinglineandwho on the
other.Oneseesat oncetheeffectof thisprinciple
on theformof the
'moralitates',
or rather,speaking
methodically,
the reverse:
fromthe
irregularity
intheformonlydoesonearriveattherevolutionary
change
behindit. Wimpfeling
couldwellenoughhavehismoralsentences
follow oneanother,
leavetheoldgenusquiteundisturbed,
attentive
to all
his youngfriendsbroughtto it fromItaly.ThatChristwouldstand
somewhere
attheendof hismoralsentences,
whether
henamedhimor
not, thatwascertainto him.He stillstoodthtssideof therenascentia
Christiana;thatdoesnot at allmeanon thissideof thechurchreform
movement,
butnevertheless
thissideof a newconceptof manderived
fromChrist,asis indicated
by Erasmus,
notfrominstitutions,
alsonot
froman experience
comparable
to Luther'sone shouldview all attemptsto placeErasmus
closeto Lutherwithskepticismbutfromthe
experience
of thetexts.Thisis whatI understand
by theconnection
of
forminterpretation
andthehistoryof ideas,or:textcriticism
andthe
conceptof man.
Freiburg/ Munster

OTTO HERDING

Translanonby EwaldHaeusser