Читать книгу: «Notes and Queries, Number 38, July 20, 1850», страница 4

Replies

ULRICH VON HUTTEN AND THE "EPISTOLÆ OBSCURORUM VIRONUM."

(Vol. ii., p. 55.)

I have never seen the article in the Quarterly Review to which your correspondent H.B.C. alludes: he will probably find it by reference to the index, which is not just now within my reach. The neat London edition, 1710, of the Epistolæ was given by Michael Mattaire. There are several subsequent reimpressions, but none worth notice except that by Henr. Guil. Rotermund, Hanover, 1827, 8vo.; and again, with improvements, "cum nova præfatione, nec non illustratione historica circa originem earum, atque notitia de vita et scriptis virorum in Epistolis occurentium aucta," 1830, both in 8vo.

The best edition, however, is that given by Dr. Ernst Münch, Leipsic, 1827, 8vo., with the following title:

"Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum aliaque Ævi Decimi sexti Monimenta Rarissima. Die Briefe der Finsterlinge an Magister Ortuinus von Deventer, nebst andern sehr seltenen Beiträgen zur Literatur-Sitten-und-Kirchengeschichte des xvi'n Jahrhunderts."

This contains many important additions, and a copious historical introduction. Both the editors write in German.

That this admirable satire produced an immense effect at the period of its publication, there can be no doubt; but that it has ever been thoroughly understood and relished among us may be doubted. Mr. Hallam, in his Literature of Europe, vol. i., seems to have been disgusted with the monkish dog-Latin and bald jokes, not recollecting that this was a necessary and essential part of the design. Nor is it strange that Steele, who was perhaps not very well acquainted with the history of literature, should have misconceived the nature of the publication, when we learn from an epistle of Sir Thomas More to Erasmus, that some of the stupid theologasters themselves, who were held up to ridicule, received it with approbation as a serious work:

"Epist. Obs. Viror. operæ pretium est videre quantopere placeant omnibus, et doctis joco, et indoctis serio, qui dum ridemus, putant rideri stylum tantum, quem illi non defendunt, sed gravitate sententiarum dicunt compensatum, et latere sub rudi vagina pulcherrimum gladium. Utinam fuisset inditus libello alius titulus! Profecto intra centum annos homines studio stupidi non sensissent nasum, quamquam rhinocerotico longiorem."⁸

Erasmus evidently enjoyed the witty contrivance, though he affects to disapprove it as an anonymous libel. Simler, in his life of Bullinger, relates that on the first reading Erasmus fell into such a fit of laughter as to burst an abscess in his face with which he was at that time troubled, and which prevented the necessity of a surgical operation.

The literary history of the Epistolæ and the Dialogue is involved in obscurity. That Ulrich von Hutten had a large share in their concoction there can be no doubt; and that he was assisted by Crotus Rubianus and Hermann von Busch, if not by others, seems highly probable. The authorship of Lamentationes Obscurorum Virorum is a paradox which has not yet been solved. They are a parody, but a poor one, of the Epistolæ, and in the second edition are attributed to Ortuinus Gratius. If they are by him, he must have been a dull dog indeed; but by some it has been thought that they are the work of a Reuchlinist, to mystify the monks of Cologne, and render them still more ridiculous; yet, as the Pope's bull against the Epistolæ, and Erasmus's disapproving letter, find a prominent place, and some other well-grounded inculpations occur, it appears to me that some slender-witted advocate of the enemies of learning has here shown his want of skill in handling the weapons of the adversary.

How much Sir Thomas More was pleased with the writings of Hutten we may gather from the opening of a letter which Erasmus addressed to Hutten, giving an interesting account of his illustrious friend, in August, 1519:

"Quod Thomæ Mori ingenium sic deamas, ac penè dixerim deperis, nimirum scriptis illius inflammatus, quibus (ut verè scribis) nihil esse potest neque doctius neque festivius; istue mibi crede, clarissime Huttene tibi cum multis commune est, cum Moro mutuum etiam. Nam is vicissim adeò scriptorum tuorum genio delectatur, ut ipse tibi plopemodum invideam."

The Dialogue (Mire Festivus), which in the edition of 1710 occurs between the first and second parts of the Epistolæ, bears especial marks of Hutten's manner, and is doubtless by him. The interlocutors are three of the illustrious obscure, Magisters Ortuinus, Lupoldus, and Gingolphus, and the first act of the comedy consists in their observations upon the promoters of learning, Reuchlin, Erasmus, and Faber Stapulensis, who afterwards make their appearance, and the discussion becomes general, but no impression can be made upon the stupid and prejudiced monks. The theme is, of course, the inutility of the new learning, Hebrew and Greek and correct Latinity. One short passage seems to me admirable:

"M. Ging. Et Sanctus Ambrosius, Sanctus Augustinus, et alii omnes zelossimi doctores non sciebant ipsi bene tot, sicut iste Ribaldi? M. Ort. Ipsi deberent interponere suis. M. Lup. Non bene indigemus de suo Græco. M. Ging. Videtur eis, qui sciunt dicere tou, tou, logos, monsotiros, legoim, taff, hagiotatos, quod ipse sciunt plus quam Deus. M. Ort. Magister noster Lupolde, creditis, quod Deus curat multum de iste Græco? M. Lup. Certe non, Magister noster Ortuine, ego credo, quod Deus non curat multum."

Ranke, in his History of the Reformation, has very justly estimated the merits and character of these remarkable productions:

"We must not look for the delicate apprehension and tact, which can only be formed in a highly polished state of society, nor for the indignation of insulted morality expressed by the ancients: it is altogether a caricature, not of finished individual portraits, but of a single type;—a clownish sensual German priest, his intellect narrowed by stupid wonder and fanatical hatred, who relates with silly naïveté and gossiping confidence the various absurd and scandalous situations into which he falls. These letters are not the work of a high poetical genius, but they have truth, coarse strong features of resemblance, and vivid colouring."

Ranke mentions another satire, which appeared in March, 1520, directed against John Eck, the opponent of Luther, the latter being regarded in the light of a successor of Reuchlin, under the title of Abgehobelte Eck, or Eccius dedolatus, "which, for fantastic invention, striking and crushing truth, and Aristophanic wit, far exceeded the Literæ Obsc. V., which it somewhat resembled." I have not yet been able to meet with this; but such high praise, from so judicious a critic, makes me very desirous to see and peruse it.

S.W. Singer.

Mickleham, July 3. 1850.

Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum.—Your Querist H.B.C. (Vol. ii., pp. 55-57.) will find, in the 53rd vol. Edinb. Rev. p. 180., a long article on these celebrated letters, containing much of the information required. It is worthy of remark, that in page 195. we are told

"In 1710 there was printed in London the most elegant edition that has ever appeared of these letters, which the editor, Mich. Mattaire, gravely represents as the productions of their ostensible authors."

Now this edition, though neat, has no claim to be termed most elegant, which is hardly to be reconciled with what the reviewer says in a note, p. 210., "that the text of this ed. of 1710 is of no authority, and swarms with typographical blunders."

The work on its first appearance produced great excitement, and was condemned by Pope Leo X. See Dict. des Livres Condamnés, &c., par Peignot, tom. ii. p. 218.

Many amusing anecdotes and notices are to be found in Bayle's Dict. See particularly sub nomine Erasmus. Burton, in his Anatomy of Mel. pt. i. sec. 2. Mem 3 sub 6. citing Jovius in Elogiis, says,

"Hostratus cucullatus adeo graviter ob Reuchlini librum qui inscribitur, Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum dolore simul et pudore sauciatus, et scipsum interfecerit."

See also Nouv. Diction. Historique in the account of Gratius, O.

There is also a good article on these letters in a very excellent work entitled Analectabiblion, or Extraits Critique de divers Livres rares, &c., tiréz du Cabinet du Marq. D. R. (oure). Paris, 1836. 2 tomes 8vo.

F.R.A.

Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum.—The article inquired for by H.B.C. (Vol. ii, p. 55) is probably one in the Edinburgh Review, vol. liii. p. 180., attributed to Sir William Hamilton, the distinguished Professor of Logic in the university of Edinburgh.

CH.

CAXTON'S PRINTING-OFFICE

(Vol. ii., p. 99.)

Mr. Rimbault is wrong in giving to Abbot Milling the honour of being the patron of Caxton, which is due to Abbot Esteney. Mr. C. Knight in his Life of Caxton, which appropriately formed the first work of his series of Weekly Volumes, has the following remarks upon the passage from Stow, quoted by Mr. Rimbault:

"The careful historians of London here committed one error; John Islip did not become abbot of Westminster till 1500. John Esteney was made abbot in 1474, and remained such until his death in 1498. His predecessor was Thomas Milling. In Dugdale's Monasticon we find, speaking of Esteney, 'It was in this abbot's time, and not in that of Milling, or in that of Abbot Islip, that Caxton exercised the art of printing at Westminster.'"—p. 140.

I have no work at hand to which I can refer for the date of Milling's death, but if 1492 be correct, perhaps he may have been promoted to a bishoprick.

With reference to Mr. Rimbault's remark, that Caxton first mentions the place of his printing in 1477, so that he must have printed some time without informing us where, I may be allowed to observe that it seems highly probable he printed, and indeed learned the art, at Cologne. At the end of the third book of his translation of the Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye, Caxton says:

"Thus end I this book which I have translated after mine author, as nigh as God hath given me cunning, to whom be given the laud and praises … I have practised and learned, at my great charge and dispense, to ordain this said book in print, after the manner and form as you may here see."

And on the title-page he informs us:

"Whyche sayd translacion and werke was begonne in Brugis in 1468, and ended in the holy cyte of Colen, 19 Sept. 1471."

This may refer to the translation only; but as Caxton was both translator and printer, it does not seem unreasonable to regard it as indicating when his entire labour upon the work was brought to a close. I might support the view that Caxton printed at Cologne by other arguments which would make the matter tolerably certain (see Life of Caxton, p. 125., &c.); but as the excellent little work to which I am indebted for these particulars is so well known, and so easily accessible, I should not be justified in occupying more of your space, and I will therefore conclude with noting that the parochial library at Shipdham, in Norfolk, is said to contain books printed by Caxton and other early printers. Perhaps some one of your correspondents would record, for the general benefit, of what they consist.

Arun.

Dr. Rimbault has evidently not seen a short article on Caxton's printing at Westminster, which I inserted in the Gentleman's Magazine for April, 1846, nor the reference made to it in the magazine for June last, p. 630., or he would have admitted that his objections to Dr. Dibdin's conjectures on this point had been already stated; moreover, I think he would have seen that the difficulty had been actually cleared up. In truth, the popular misapprehension on this subject has not been occasioned by any obscurity in the colophons of the great printer, or in the survey of Stow, but merely by the erroneous constricted sense into which the word abbey has passed in this country. Caxton himself tells us he printed his books in "th' abbay of Westminstre," but he does not say in the church of the abbey. Stow distinctly says it was in the almonry of the abbey; and the handbill Dr. Rimbault refers to confirms that fact. The almonry was not merely "within the precincts of the abbey," it was actually a part of the abbey. Dr. Rimbault aims at the conclusion that "the old chapel of St. Anne was doubtless the place where the first printing-office was erected in England." But why so? Did not the chapel continue a chapel until the Reformation, if not later? And Caxton would no more set up his press in a chapel than in the abbey-church itself. Stow says it was erected in the almonry. The almonry was one of the courts of the abbey, (situated directly west of the abbey-church, and not east, as Dr. Dibdin surmised); it contained a chapel dedicated to St. Anne, and latterly an almshouse erected by the Lady Margaret. The latter probably replaced other offices or lodgings of greater antiquity, connected with the duties of the almoner, or the reception and relief of the poor; and there need be no doubt that it was one of these buildings that the Abbot of Westminster placed at the disposal of our proto-typographer. There was nothing very extraordinary in his so doing if we view the circumstance in its true light; for the scriptoria of the monasteries had ever been the principal manufactories of books. A single press was now to do the work of many pens. The experiment was successful; "after which time," as Stow goes on to say, "the like was practised in the Abbeys of St. Augustine, at Canterbury, St. Alban's, and other monasteries." The monks became printers instead of scribes; but they would not ordinarily convert their churches or chapels into printing-houses. The workmen, it is true, term the meetings held for consultation on their common interests or pleasures, their chapels; and whether this may have arisen from any particular instance in which a chapel was converted into a printing-house, I cannot say. In order to ascertain the origin of this term these Queries may be proposed:—Is it peculiar to printers and to this country? Or is it used also in other trades and on the Continent?

John Gough Nichols.