File: D:/web/seedbed/FamewithTongue.htm
<html>
<head>
<title>Fame with Tongue</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
<!--
function MM_reloadPage(init) { //reloads the window if Nav4 resized
if (init==true) with (navigator) {if ((appName=="Netscape")&&(parseInt(appVersion)==4)) {
document.MM_pgW=innerWidth; document.MM_pgH=innerHeight; onresize=MM_reloadPage; }}
else if (innerWidth!=document.MM_pgW || innerHeight!=document.MM_pgH) location.reload();
}
MM_reloadPage(true);
// -->
function MM_swapImgRestore() { //v3.0
var i,x,a=document.MM_sr; for(i=0;a&&i<a.length&&(x=a[i])&&x.oSrc;i++) x.src=x.oSrc;
}
function MM_preloadImages() { //v3.0
var d=document; if(d.images){ if(!d.MM_p) d.MM_p=new Array();
var i,j=d.MM_p.length,a=MM_preloadImages.arguments; for(i=0; i<a.length; i++)
if (a[i].indexOf("#")!=0){ d.MM_p[j]=new Image; d.MM_p[j++].src=a[i];}}
}
function MM_findObj(n, d) { //v3.0
var p,i,x; if(!d) d=document; if((p=n.indexOf("?"))>0&&parent.frames.length) {
d=parent.frames[n.substring(p+1)].document; n=n.substring(0,p);}
if(!(x=d[n])&&d.all) x=d.all[n]; for (i=0;!x&&i<d.forms.length;i++) x=d.forms[i][n];
for(i=0;!x&&d.layers&&i<d.layers.length;i++) x=MM_findObj(n,d.layers[i].document); return x;
}
function MM_swapImage() { //v3.0
var i,j=0,x,a=MM_swapImage.arguments; document.MM_sr=new Array; for(i=0;i<(a.length-2);i+=3)
if ((x=MM_findObj(a[i]))!=null){document.MM_sr[j++]=x; if(!x.oSrc) x.oSrc=x.src; x.src=a[i+2];}
}
//-->
</script>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" onLoad="MM_preloadImages('Logovenus.jpg')">
<div id="Layer1" style="position:absolute; left:38px; top:16px; width:660px; height:410px; z-index:1">
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="+1">Fame with
Tongue</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="+1">(Lingua
verius quam calamo celebrem)</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="+1">or</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="+1">The Gift
of the Gab</font></p>
<p align="center"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Kate Robinson</font></p>
<p align="center"><b><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">NB
For footnotes see publication</font></b></p>
<p align="center"> </p>
<p align="left"><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Timeline:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1431: Lorenzo Valla writes: Philosophy
'is like a soldier or a tribune under the command of oratory, the queen',
<i>De Voluptate</i></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 1469: Desiderius Erasmus born
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1480: Giulio Camillo born </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1488: Erasmus begins work on <i>Antibarbari</i>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1506-9: Erasmus in Italy; meets
Camillo, among others; Good Friday Speech, Rome (1509) </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1516: Publication of Erasmus's
translation of the New Testament </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1520: <i>Antibarbari</i> published
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1527: Erasmus's letter to Vergara
regarding the paganism of the 'Ciceronians' </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1528: Publication of <i>Ciceronianus</i>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1530: Camillo meets King of France
who gives him funds for the Theatre </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1531-2: Zwichem's letters to Erasmus
regarding Camillo - these are read and kept by Erasmus's secretary Gilbertus
Cognatus; Camillo's <i>Trattato dell'Imitazione</i> circulates Paris and Padua
in manuscript </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1535: Erasmus's letter to Johann
Coler in which Camillo is mentioned </font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Erasmus's <i>Ciceronianus</i>,
a satire published in 1528, created a furore from Paris to Rome. It sparked
bitter responses and put Erasmus in a spotlight of condemnation. Ciceronianus,
raises several questions that are difficult to answer. There are questions
of identity; of reality versus fiction; and, crucially, about paganism. The
character of one of the central characters of the book, Nosoponus, for example,
is said by some to be based on Christophe de Longueil, a Northerner, while
others say he is based on the Italian Cardinal Bembo. The identity of a subsidiary
character, who orates a pivotal speech, described at length in<i> Ciceronianus</i>,
is also questionable. Levi believes that the speech in question was on The
Day of the Parasceve, or Good Friday, on the 6th of April, 1509, in the presence
of Pope Julius II. Many commentators suggest that the orator was Cardinal
Tommaso Inghirami of Volterra (1470 - 1516), a Vatican librarian. This paper
puts the case instead for Giulio Camillo Delminio (?1480-1544) whose secret
plans for a model of the cosmos are a complex fusion of Christian and pagan
motifs. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Born in Friuli, Giulio Camillo
studied at the University of Padua and taught at the University of Bologna,
as well as in Venice and Paris. Funded by Fran�ois 1er, he devoted much energy
developing his ideas, secretly, for what he termed a 'Theatre', the arrangement
of which he finally divulged three months before he died. The description
of Camillo's 'Theatre' in <i>L'idea del Theatro</i> (Florence: 1550), in common
with all of Camillo's other texts, was published posthumously. Broadly speaking,
Camillo was a natural philosopher in the same tradition as other northern
Italian thinkers, such as, for example, Pietro d'Abano (ca. 1310), and Giovanni
Pontano (1426-1503). He fuses a vision that is rooted in the body of man with
a conception of the planets and stars, with the influence of the 'heavenly
streams' that animate the universe with the atomic structure of the world.
However, there are two aspects of Camillo's worldview, expressed in <i>L'idea
del Theatro</i> that particularly mark him out. Firstly: his reliance on the
visual sign as a conveyor of meaning. Secondly: the heliocentrism that is
implicit in his metaphysical picture.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Of course it may be that certain
characters and events in <i>Ciceronianus</i> were not <i>actually</i> based
on any particular real occurrence or specific person but were composites,
or fantasies, made up by Erasmus to make a point. Nevertheless, in a book
a good third of which is explicitly concerned with an unambiguous, contemporary
account of the literary and oratorical luminaries of the moment - with 'naming
and shaming'- it does seem worthwhile to consider the hidden identity of those
at its very core.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The paper begins with a pr�cis
of <i>Ciceronianus</i> itself, with particular emphasis on the section regarding
the Good Friday speech in which Camillo is named. Next, the identity of the
orator who gave the speech is discussed. <i>Trattato dell' Imitazione</i>,
Camillo's response to <i>Ciceronianus</i>, is examined. Lastly the paper looks
at the idea of paganism with regard to <i>Ciceronianus</i>, Erasmus and Camillo.
Before any of this, however, an attempt is made briefly to put the idea of
what was meant by 'Ciceronianism' in context. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The issue of Ciceronianism is complex
and broad-ranging; a debate that had rolled on for centuries, an ancient stylistic
and ecclesiastical question. There were several strands to the argument: was
Cicero the paragon of literary virtue or was that honour due to another? If
he was a paragon, should we aim to emulate or imitate him or should we instead
try to forge our own style? Was it in fact possible to create a literary style
without reference to previous authors? And if it was necessary to refer to
an earlier author then should that author be Cicero? </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The debate became further complicated
by the perceived lack of style of the authors of the New Testament. For the
philologists, translators, commentators and critics whose job it was to deal
in words, this question of style was paramount. And yet to be seen to align
oneself overly with stylistics -particularly the sophisticated manner of Cicero
- rather than to appreciate the writings of the New Testament as given and
inspired by God, was seen as a victory of style over content and therefore
worthy of derogation and ridicule: Ciceronianism became an open battle-field
for irony versus piety. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By the early part of the sixteenth
century, as the use of Latin and the vernacular in the universities vied for
dominance, the issue of Ciceronianism got knottier still. Some of the so-called
'Ciceronians', for example Christophe de Longueil who is mentioned at length
in the <i>Ciceronianus</i>, were said to adhere to such a strict regard for
Cicero that they aimed to imitate his every word and turn of phrase. Italy,
as the homeland of Latin, and particularly the Roman Academy, was seen (justifiably
or not) as the greenhouse of this particular strand of literary fanaticism.
Cardinal Bembo, papal secretary to Leo X, was considered to be at the heart
of Ciceronianism in Rome; his creed can be seen in a reply he sent to Pico
on the subject: 'firstly, we must imitate the best models [i.e. the models
of Cicero]; secondly, our aim must be to rival them; and, thirdly, in rivaling
them, we must endeavour to surpass them'. However, by as early as 1513, Bembo
had already dropped the idea of one single model to imitate. Still others
took a far more moderate view. As Levi says, 'The term 'Ciceronian'�covered
a wide range of opinion and practice, and many a 'Ciceronian' was by no means
as rigid and doctrinaire as [the] extremists caricatured by Erasmus'. <i>Ciceronianus</i>,
with its disparaging depiction of a 'Ciceronian' in action, did much to enflame
the dispute. The very term 'Ciceronianism' can be dated to the time of the
publication of Erasmus's work. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>Ciceronianus</i>, itself, relates
the imaginary conversation of the 'Ciceronian' Nosoponus (or Mr. Workmad),
with Bulephorus (Mr. Counsellor) and Hypologus (his Back-up). Bulephorus aims
to direct Nosoponus away from his narrow obsession with Cicero, in which endeavour
of course, at length, he succeeds. The book can be divided, roughly, into
three parts. In the first section, Bulephorus and Hypologus spy Nosoponus
coming towards them, looking ill, 'more like a ghost than a human being'.
They decide to collude together to try to make him feel better, to cure him
of his wasting Ciceronian disease, his '<i>zelodulea</i>, his 'style-addiction''.
They engage him in conversation and Bulephorus himself pretends to be an adherent
of Cicero and to share Nosoponus's infatuation, so that he will be allowed
to become 'an initiate in the same mysteries'. Nosoponus explains the lengths
to which he goes to imbibe the full essence of his master: pictures of Cicero
all over his house; not allowing himself to read anything but Cicero's works;
leading a life of abstinence 'to prevent any gross substance from invading
the seat of the limpid mind'. He has prepared lexicons of the author's characteristic
expressions and phrases in alphabetical order big enough that 'Two strong
pack-horses with proper saddles could hardly carry [them] on their backs'.
The tone of this first section is light and bantering: it is a comedy. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heralded by the description of
the Good Friday speech, the second part of the book turns serious. Bulephorus
turns the table on Nosoponus; now he is 'in earnest'. In several long speeches,
Bulephorus gives forth on his theory that to be a Ciceronian is to be basically
un-Christian: it is inappropriate for a pious Christian to be over-concerned
with using Ciceronian language to discuss Christian themes; it has become
the norm to value Classical allusions over Biblical ones, that to ape Cicero
is to 'behave like a fool'. Ciceronianism is, in short: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">�paganism, believe me, Nosoponus,
sheer paganism� </font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The third part of <i>Ciceronianus</i>,
is devoted to a long discussion between the three main protagonists of who
should be considered Ciceronian, and who should not. The characters trawl
through Europe in a sweeping critical literary overview. An example can be
seen in the treatment of Guillaume Bud�, the great scholar of the French court,
secretary to Fran�ois 1er and instigator of the <i>Biblioth�que Nationale</i>.
Erasmus and Bud�'s relationship had begun around 1516 and their correspondence
over a decade shows a true engagement and meeting of minds. The apog�e of
Erasmus's professed respect for Bud� can be seen in a letter to �tienne Poncher,
Bishop of Paris, in 1517, in which he calls him 'most certainly the glory
of France'. However, in <i>Ciceronianus</i>, Bud� is cited as being inferior
to the printer Josse Bade as a failed Ciceronian, closely followed by a disparaged
Jacques Lef�vre. This of course could be taken as a compliment, as there is
no great accolade in being praised by Nosoponus, however Bud� did not take
it that way. A flurry of letters was written to Erasmus asking him to rethink
his appraisal, but in the end it contributed to the rupture of Bud�'s and
Erasmus's relationship. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Responses by scholars wounded by
Erasmus's appraisal in the third part of <i>Ciceronianus</i> are later discussed.
Before that, I would like to examine the Good Friday Speech in more detail.
The character of Bulephorus describes an impressive oration that he witnessed
in Rome in the presence of the Pope: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> ' I'll tell you a story - not
a bit of hearsay, but something I saw with my own eyes, heard with my own
ears. In Rome at the time the two men with the most distinguished reputation
as speakers were Pietro Fedra and Camillo�.Neither of them though, unless
I'm mistaken was actually Roman by birth. Now a certain person had been appointed
to speak on the death of Christ�in the presence of the pontiff himself. A
few days before the event I received an invitation from the literary community
to go and hear the speech. 'Be sure to be there,' they said. 'Now you will
really hear how the language of Rome sounds in the mouth of a Roman.' </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bulephorus says there were 'rows
of cardinals and bishops and, beside the common crowd, quite a number of scholars
who were staying in Rome'. Eventually he begins to describe the speech itself,
giving a long and unflattering description. At the end he says: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'In short, this Roman spoke so
Romanly that I heard nothing about the death of Christ�The only thing he could
be praised for was for speaking in Roman fashion and recalling something of
Cicero. One could approve of a speech like this as being a demonstration of
ability and intelligence if it were delivered by a schoolboy before his fellow
pupils in class, but what connection, I ask you, did it have with such a day,
such an audience, such a theme?'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Significantly, Bulephorus, asked
for the name of the man whose speech on Good Friday in Rome that he has just
described, says: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'�I prefer to leave the name to
be inferred, as it is not my present purpose to cast aspersions on anyone's
name. What I am doing is to point out an error that should be avoided, one
that under the shadow of a mighty name leads a good many people astray these
days. This is what concerns us, Nosoponus; the name of the man in my story
does not matter�.'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> But of course it does matter!
<i>Ciceronianus</i> is hinged on the Good Friday Speech. It comes at a pivotal
point in the book, after which the tone and content changes from knock-about
banter to critical deconstruction. Not to speak of the fact that casting aspersions
on people's names is exactly what Bulephorus, Hypologus and Nosoponus then
go on systematically to do. To reiterate Bulephorus's description: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'In Rome at the time the two men
with the most distinguished reputation as speakers were Pietro Fedra and Camillo.
Camillo was younger and in actuality the more powerful speaker but the older
man had occupied the citadel first. Neither of them though, unless I'm mistaken
was actually Roman by birth.'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Erasmus lived in Italy around
1506-9, staying in Rome and Venice, and in his letters, he talks about meeting
both Fedra and Camillo in person. It is possible that Erasmus, as part of
the Venetian circle that included Aldus Manutius, Aretin, Aleander, Titian
and Serlio, would have known Camillo there: Erasmus lodged for a period at
Aldus's house, in the Sesti�re San Polo, near where Camillo himself lived.
However, apart from a series of letters that deal with Camillo's work on his
'Theatre' in Venice, Erasmus discusses both men in the context of Rome. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pietro Fedra was Tommaso Fedra
Inghirami of Volterrra. Erasmus met and made friends with Fedra, by then a
canon and Vatican librarian. Erasmus mentions him in a letter to Joost Vroye
(or Jodocus Gaverius) dated 1st 1523. In this long letter, Erasmus mourns
the recent loss of their common friend, Jan de Neve. He says that he is feeling
very mortal and goes on to talk about the people of distinction he has known
in his life, throughout Europe, and the relative times of their demise. Pietro
Fedra, he says, was under fifty when he died. He says that Fedra had earned
his nick-name by playing the part of Phaedra in Seneca's <i>Hippolytus</i>,
in the piazza in front of the palace of Cardinal Raffaele of San Giorgio;
that he was known as an authoritative orator. According to Erasmus, in fact,
Fedra 'won more fame with tongue than with pen, for he was a wonderfully copious
and effective speaker'. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In a letter written twelve years
later, dated August 1535, when Erasmus was approaching his seventies, he describes
his association with Giulio Camillo. This long letter, like the earlier one
to Vroye, is autobiographical. Allen considers it to be a 'biographical document
of some importance'. It was first published in answer to a pamphlet that had
been circulated by Peter Cursius, a poet, titled, <i>Petri Cursii Defensio
pro Italia ad Erasmum Roterodamum</i>. In the pamphlet Cursius had defended
the 'innumerabiles Itali disertissimi' whose talents he thought bore comparison
with those of Erasmus; among them he named Giulio Camillo. Erasmus says:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'<i> Cum Petro Phaedra, cuius eloquentiam
tum Roma pro Cicerone mirabatur, mihi fuit propinqua familiaritas, cum Iulio
Camillo me nonnunquam eadem iunxit culcitra.</i>'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> It seems that Erasmus and Camillo
were on very familiar terms, or at least that that is how Erasmus, in this
late letter, now wanted to portray their relationship. Is it Erasmus's intention
in <i>mentioning Pietro Fedra and Camillo in the same sentence to refer back
to their concurrence in Ciceronianus</i>? Whatever Erasmus's agenda, it is
an intriguing juxtaposition of names.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> After the publication of <i>Ciceronianus</i>,
Erasmus maintained a discreet observation on Camillo, as we can ascertain
through a series of letters between Erasmus and a correspondent named Zwichem,
dating from 1531 to 1532. Zwichem, or Viglius Zuichemus (1507-1577), as he
was otherwise known, was a lawyer, initially a disciple of Alciati. He met
Erasmus in 1531, presenting him with a ring with the signs of the zodiac,
and subsequently struck up a correspondence, in which he often mentions their
common regard for Alciati. Erasmus asked Zwichem to report to him on Giulio
Camillo's work in Venice, and Zwichem was happy to oblige.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> In the first of the Camillo letters,
dated 28th March 1532, Zwichem talks about the fame of the 'Theatre', saying
the Ciceronians in Venice 'were whispering I know not what about a certain
Giulio Camillo'. He has heard that it is 'a work of amazing character', 'in
which the things seen are shown no less clearly than anything which Cicero
could say'. However, although Zwichem had not in fact met with Camillo at
this point, he ends his letter to Erasmus saying disparagingly of Camillo:
'What more can I say? Your Nosoponus could tell it all.' </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>'Quid plura dicam? Omnia illi
cum Nosopono tuo conueniunt.' </i></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By the following June, Zwichem
wrote to Erasmus again, saying that, now, he has met Camillo and seen the
work. According to Zwichem, the Theatre is a 'wooden construction with many
images and caskets all over the place' (<i>Opus est ligneum multis imaginibus
insignitum, multisque vndique capsules refertum </i>) divided into 'orders'
and 'grades' (<i>ordines et gradus</i>). He says that Camillo has many names
for the Theatre, sometimes calling it a 'mind and soul artistically wrought',
or a 'window' (<i>mentem et animum fabrefactum, aliquando fenestratum</i>).
Inside the Theatre, everything that the human mind can conceive is expressed
by 'corporeal signs' (<i>signis deinde quibusdam corporeis</i>). It is because
of this corporeal, or bodily gaze (presumably at the signs) that Camillo calls
the work a Theatre. Zwichem says that the King of France is eager for the
arrival of this 'magnificent work' (<i>magnifico opere</i>), but that he wants
it to be translated into French, which is holding up proceedings. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fate of Zwichem's letters is
interesting. Erasmus's secretary at this time was Gilbertus Cognatus. Cognatus
kept a copy of the letters from Zwichem and was later to pass them off as
his own. Many years later, in a letter to Giovanni Metello in 1558, Cognatus
used Zwichem's description of the wonderful Theatre in an imagined first-hand
account. For Cognatus to bother to keep a copy of the letter for twenty-five
years suggests that in private, Erasmus had shown a great deal of interest
in Giulio Camillo. But perhaps the most surprising of all the references to
Camillo by Erasmus is in a letter to Zwichem dated 5th July 1532. In this,
Erasmus discusses Camillo's Theatre, no less, in terms of it being able to
excite as great a 'tragedy in study' as that which 'Luther produced in religion'.
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>'� vereor ne molitores isti
non leuiorem trageoediam excitent in studiis quam Lutherus excitauit in religione�
' </i> </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The publication of the <i>Ciceronianus</i>,
in 1528, came two years before Camillo's invitation to France by Fran�ois
1st. According to Liruti, Camillo's eighteenth century biographer, Lazare
de Ba�f, Fran�ois's ambassador in Venice, had met Camillo there, some time
in 1529, and would presumably have alerted Fran�ois to Camillo's work. Though,
ironically, it may well have been Ciceronianus itself that helped to bring
Camillo to the attention of the King. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The third part of <i>Ciceronianus</i>
sent waves of scandal throughout Europe, sparking furious responses. One of
the most vitriolic was Jules-C�sar Scaliger's scathing <i>Oratio Pro. M.Tullio
Cicerone Contra Des. Erasmum</i> (Paris, 1531) in which he accuses Erasmus
as culpable of nothing less than parricide, in defaming 'Our Father of Letters'.
�tiene Dolet's angry <i>Erasmianus</i> was published in 1535 and there were
also works from Ortensio Lando and Gaudenzio Merula, among others. Camillo's
much more gentle <i>Trattato dell'Imitazione</i> circulated Paris and Padua
in manuscript. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Camillo's response, in the<i> Trattato</i>
begins with an exhortation to Erasmus: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'What shall I say of you, Erasmus,
man of so much knowledge and virtue�not only� eloquent, but also of good judgement?'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Camillo makes it clear that while
his and Erasmus's views on imitation are different, they are not at odds.
Erasmus advocates imitation based on equivalence of style, while Camillo recommends
an imitation stemming from a judgement of, and identification with, the nature
of the imitated. He reinforces this point, saying: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'I do not believe it can be possible
ever to imitate an author's nature, only the judgement proceeding there from.'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The idea of judgement is central
to the piece. Only from right judgement can correct decisions be made as regard
to the best use of language, stemming from this central core of identification
with an author's sense of literary correctness. Later, Camillo goes on to
say:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">' �my advice would be to fabricate,
be it by artifice�[language]�of our own of equal beauty� transforming it through
composition as does the bee�'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Camillo's tone is mellifluous;
he aims to coax and please, and urges Erasmus to change his opinion: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'Turn, oh unique genius, change
your style, and you yourself will be content to say the opposite of what you
have written, if, as I believe, you feel the opposite.'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> In Camillo's opinion, there was
once a golden age of language, or more specifically a 'golden century', and
this was the century of Cicero. Language, like the rising and the setting
of the sun, has a beginning, a zenith and decline, and it seems only sensible,
in the light of this, to look to the 'most perfect time' for guidance for
the creation of new language. This is not to say that every word and phrase
must originate from here, as after all new concepts and new inventions require
the creation of new words to describe them. Nevertheless, the guiding principles
that informed the underlying structure of the language represented by the
golden century should be adopted to achieve the best approximation not only
for good style but also for the best sense of meaning. However this is not
to say that a new author should slavishly copy the old. Camillo makes the
comparison between language and an ancient edifice. If an architect wanted
to make a new building from old bricks, he would need to dismantle the old
building and recreate it to his own design, using his own sense of judgement.
This sense of judgement can be informed by the sense of beauty or balance
of an old master, and yet the building itself will be wholly new because it
has been re-constructed through the agency of a new vision. Rhetorical flourishes
of the old style will still be visible, just as an architectural piece of
cornice work, or a sculpture, may retain its form as an intact reminder of
the old work, but still the overall work will be a new formation. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In many ways, Camillo and Erasmus
in fact do not diverge in their opinions, but say much the same thing, each
from a different perspective. And as Camillo says in the beginning with his
exhortation to Erasmus, he assumes that Erasmus himself is a man of 'good
judgement' who only needs a little encouragement to admit that they share
the same opinion. Only towards the end of the piece does Camillo venture a
little anger, saying that he is willing to draw his sword to defend his own
opinions; but, even at this point, Erasmus is himself not mentioned by name,
and the episode feels very 'tacked-on', a very muted, if not tongue-in-cheek,
rhetorical flourish. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">For Pigman, who has made a wide
ranging assessment of all of the contemporary responses to <i>Ciceronianus</i>,
it is Camillo's <i>Dell' Imitazione</i> that is 'the most important'. The
form as much as the content of Camillo's reply is responsible for this. Pigman
has posited Erasmus's <i>Ciceronianus</i> in terms of arguments about 'historical
decorum'. 'Even if Erasmus' primary concern in writing the <i>Ciceronianus</i>
is to expose renascent paganism disguising itself as Ciceronian classicism,'
he says, '[Erasmus] does not rely on religious appeals. The force of his attack
comes from his use of the universally accepted criterion of decorum�'. As
Pigman points out, Camillo's response points to the 'internal contradiction'
of Erasmus's position. This contradiction is 'between erecting adaptation
to the demands of the present as the central standard for good style and ignoring
the <i>volgari</i> as the languages of the present.' By answering Erasmus
in Italian, rather than in Latin, and as the only contemporary author to do
so, the political stance of Camillo's response is implicit. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bolzoni on the other hand has interpreted
Camillo's response as representative of his profound cosmic vision: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'Chez Camillo, l'exaltation de
l'unit� est profondement li�e � une vision cyclique du mouvement cosmique.
C'est bien pourquoi imiter Cic�ron prend une signification qui va bien au-del�
de la dimension litt�raire: cela signifie savoir saisir un cycle vital � son
moment culminant, cela implique la possibilit� d'en reproduire artificiellement
la beaut� et la vigueur.'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Bolzoni says that the algebraic
problem of the idea - that is to say the existence of the perfect model of
literary beauty to which everything should refer and which in the last analysis
is the only true criterion of the judgement of valu<i>e - was the meat of
earlier discussions on imitation instigated by Bembo. The royal way (voie
royale</i>) towards the perfect idea is the imitation of the perfect authors
because in their texts, the idea is made incarnate (and is therefore made
visible) in a manner markedly superior to the one (divided and imperfect)
in which the idea is made manifest in the specific beings of nature. Bolzoni
points out that even though Camillo is a man of letters, he does not seem,
as was usually the tradition, to demand the superiority of letters over the
figurative arts. Here, she says, his proximity and also his distance from
Bembo's position can be measured. In the end, at the same moment that Camillo
converges with Erasmus's opinion that it is impossible to imitate individual
nature, he refuses to draw the same consequences. The problem is posed categorically
in terms of rhetoric, or rather on a plan of the philosophy of rhetoric for
which Camillo intends to posit a new and decisive key. This new and decisive
key, which he has discovered, is in the form of a 'natural philosophy' (<i>philosophie
naturelle</i>) based on topical rhetorical figures (<i>la figure topique</i>).
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">That Camillo wrote a response at
all to the <i>Ciceronianus</i> is the strongest evidence that he was implicated
personally in the work. Tommasso Inghirami, or Fedra, of course, was not in
a position to clear his name, having been dead for twelve years before Erasmus
even came to write the book. Despite Fedra's distinction as the 'Cicero of
his generation', is it possible that Erasmus has mentioned him in the context
of the orator of the Good Friday speech as a (conveniently dead) red herring?
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was as orators rather than as
writers that men like Fedra and Camillo won renown. As Erasmus himself said
of Fedra, he '�really won more fame with tongue than with pen�'. Fedra's written
literary output is not substantial. Camillo's work was all in manuscript at
the time that Erasmus wrote the work in 1528. It was thanks to his agent,
Girolamo Muzio, to Ludovico Dolce, the Marchese del Vasto and others that
printed versions of Camillo's writings have survived at all. Camillo clearly
was ambivalent about the power of print - an ambivalence that he shared with
many others. But perhaps this is where we are given a real clue as to why
Erasmus chose these two men at all to illustrate his text: it was that their
very threat lay not so much in the written, or printed, as in their spoken
word. Erasmus was scared of the power of their preaching.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> 'Philosophy,' wrote Lorenzo Valla
(1407-57) in around 1430, 'is like a soldier or a tribune under the command
of oratory, the queen.' Valla, whom Erasmus greatly admired, was instrumental
in placing the idea of philosophy at the service of oratory and rhetoric,
or the art of the word. Oratory, and orators, treated the question of ethics
'much more clearly, weightily, magnificently' than did 'the obscure, squalid
and anaemic philosophers'. This ideal of eloquence was based on a belief in
the persuasive power of the word: the very breath of the word itself an active
agent of change. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As Lorch says '�the rhetor was
not merely a teacher of rhetoric but a master of <i>ars oratoria</i>, or the
art of speech, which �was intended to help man to explore, exploit, and control
the magic power of the word.' It is significant, given the perceived importance
of the orator's power and of the authority of speech, that in Camillo's response
to the <i>Ciceronianus</i>, the <i>Trattato dell' Imitazione</i>, he writes
at length about the definition of a sigh. He begins with the verb, <i>sospirar</i>,
'to sigh'; moving on to <i>mandar sospiri, gittar sospir</i>i: 'to give a
sigh, to heave a sigh'; and then <i>romper l'aere da presso coi sospiri</i>
'to split the surrounding air with sighs'; and finally <i>far coi sospiri
tremar le cose opposte</i>,<i> far mover le frondi, crollare I bosch</i>i,
'to make things opposite tremble with (my) sighs, to move the leaves, to collapse
the woods'. He is making a point about truth and metaphorical language, and
suggests that the 'poet in this natural philosophy of illustrating topically
would be wise to abandon things that are too far beyond the truth'. Like Erasmus,
Camillo was aware of what Barker calls the 'metaphorical force' of language,
a force that is able to give language a 'turn' , and the necessity of using
it judiciously. Nevertheless, he gives us a graphic clue, here, as to the
extent of power that an orator in action was expected to achieve. There was
about an orator the mystique of a magus. The breath of his word effected miracles.
It could move the woods. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Erasmus of course was by no means
oblivious to the power of the word. But there was in Erasmus a tropism for
the written, rather than the spoken word. It was in text itself, for him,
that power resided. He may personally have had difficulty in expressing himself
orally. As he mentions in a letter describing his meeting with William, Archbishop
of Canterbury, in a social setting, he was 'a man of few words, and do not
push myself forward'. He felt most at home in expressing oratio not in speech
but in text. Even in his Adages, proverbs designed for spoken use, '�though
Erasmus is purportedly training a 'speaker' or 'orator,' �the proverb seems
most often to be found within the context of the written document'. But there
was more to Erasmus's antipathy to what he termed 'Ciceronian' than can be
accounted for even by his insecurity over the spoken word. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A year before the publication of
the Ciceronianus, Erasmus had written to Francisco Vergara, professor at the
University of Alcala: </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'�No one denies that Cicero excelled
in the art of speaking, although not every kind of eloquence suits particular
persons or subjects. What does this odious boasting about the term Ciceronian
mean? Let me whisper what I think in a few words. Under this pretence they
hide their paganism, which is dearer to them than the glory of Christ�.'</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The letter to Vergara reveals
that there is a subtext to the <i>Ciceronianus</i>: it may be seen as a handbook
of those whom Erasmus considered tarred with the brush of paganism. If this
was an underlying theme to <i>Ciceronianus</i> it would go some way to explain
why the book aroused such fury and seemed to touch a raw nerve within the
literary community. The idea of paganism itself, however, leads to many questions,
most crucial of which is what precisely Erasmus <i>meant</i> by the term.
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Despite what he was later to say
in <i>Ciceronianus</i>, Erasmus's involvement and fascination with pagan authors
had begun early in his life. It was through his very appreciation of the gifts
of the pagan that Erasmus was himself able to bring depth and colour to his
Christianity. Erasmus was not alone in this of course. Pagan imagery and influence
permeated culture from the new translations of pagan authors to pagan imagery
in the visual arts. Painting and sculpture was awash with a sea of nymphs,
fauns and satyrs. And there were subtle and powerful fusions of pagan with
Christian theological motifs. Da Vinci's <i>Virgin and Child with St. Anne</i>
(c.1508-10), for example, shows an image in which the positioning of the leg
of the lamb across the knee of Jesus 'gives him the impression of a little
hoof, like Pan, the spirit of awakened nature'. Michelangelo's famous sculpture
of Moses depicts him with horns radiating from his head.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> However this may be, Erasmus's
position with regard to 'paganism' changes radically around 1528. There are
many reasons for this that are outwith the scope of this work to address but
I think that two principal causes for the alteration are represented in the
figure of Giulio Camillo. Firstly, Erasmus's reputation was based on the printed
word, and he viewed with suspicion those whose power lay in the spoken word;
this was more than merely a difference in presentation, but crucial to the
depth of persuasion which it was believed that an author or an orator could
attain. Secondly, Erasmus was suspicious of developments in science, specifically
the science propounded by Camillo. Camillo's image based system was a 'divine'
philosophy: he was looking at the stars: an essential image of Camillo's Theatre,
crucial to the idea of its spatial arrangement is Pan, the ancient god of
the flocks. The magus in Erasmus believed profoundly in a philosophy based
on the power of the word and he distrusted this vision of what he branded
as a 'pagan' cosmology. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">'What I call philosophy,' wrote
Erasmus, 'is not a method of analysing first principles, matter, time, motion,
infinity, but that wisdom which Solomon deemed more precious than all riches
and on that account prayed God to give him above all else.' While he is explicit
about what he thinks philosophy is not, Erasmus is gnomic about what it is.
It is not a branch of thinking that deals in matter and measure and time,
in the first principles of Plato, or Aristotle, or Pythagoras. It is not about
the exterior, material world. The implication is that wisdom is an internal,
spiritual attribute; that philosophy is secret, God-given, precious. For all
his rationalism, at the heart of Erasmus's philosophy is a recognition that
wisdom is granted, not grasped. Camillo and Erasmus shared this, at least,
in common. And Erasmus's Adages, for example, - his great profusion and abundance
of proverbs - was not so very far from what Camillo achieved in a visual and
spatial sense with L'idea del Theatro. Where Erasmus created a bricolage of
letters, Camillo intended a collage of imagery and myth. Where Erasmus intended
to collate every known maxim throughout history, Camillo intended a visual
scheme based on a mathematical structuring of language. While Erasmus translated,
interpreted and expounded his numerous sources, Camillo synthesized disparate
philosophies. This is not to say that Camillo matched Erasmus as the seemingly
rational thinker of the age, but that he possessed other knowledge that Erasmus
wanted to undermine. </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">While Camillo was not, like Erasmus,
a political animal, this is not to say that he was unconcerned with power.
Harnessing spiritual, temporal and personal power was precisely what Camillo
cared about and travelled Europe to advocate. Camillo shows us what matters
to him in L'idea del Theatro when he talks about the ability to predict the
time of one's death, or a spiral of love setting everything in the universe
in motion, or the transformation of spirit and matter. Illusion, appearance,
dissimulation, signs, visions and eternity are what interest Camillo, as well
as the skill, Prospero-like, to interpret and orchestrate the symbols and
attributes of the world. It is here, I think, that we begin to find the root
of Erasmus's charge of paganism. For along with preaching the power of transformation,
Camillo also talked about practical steps of how it could be achieved and
this, itself, was influenced by new developments in perspective and Camillo's
understanding of the central position of the sun in the universe. </font></p>
<p align="center"><a href="page3writing.htm" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore()" onMouseOver="MM_swapImage('Image1','','Logovenus.jpg',1)"><img name="Image1" border="0" src="Logo.jpg" width="75" height="79"></a></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bibliography </b></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Baring, Anne & Cashford, Jules,
<i>The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image</i> (London: Arkana, 1991)
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Barker, William, <i>The Adages
of Erasmus</i> (University of Toronto Press, 2001) </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bolzoni, Lina, 'Erasmo e Camillo:
il dibattitio sul'imitazione', <i>Filologia antica e moderna 4</i> (1993)
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Boyle, Marjorie O'Rourke <i>Erasmus
on Language and Method in Theology</i> ( Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1977) </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>Christening Pagan Mysteries;
Erasmus in Pursuit of Wisdom</i>, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Camillo Delminio, Giulio, <i>L'idea
del Teatro e altri scritti di retorica</i>, Ed. Lina Bolzoni (Turin: Edizioni
RES, 1990) </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>De L'Imitation</i>, trans. Francoise
Graziani, with introduction and notes by Lina Bolzoni (Paris: Les Belles Lettres,
1996) </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chomarat, Jacques, <i>Grammaire
et Rhetorique Chez Erasme</i>, vol 2 (Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1981) </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Erasmus, Desiderius, <i>Collected
Works of Erasmus 6: Ciceronianus</i>, Ed. A.H.T. Levi, trans. Betty Knott-Sharpe
(Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1986)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <i>Collected Works of Erasmus
Vol. 23:Antibarbari/Parabolae</i>, Ed. Craig R. Thompson (Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1978)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <i>Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi
Roterdami</i>, Ed. H.M. Allen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937) </font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Halkin, L�on-E., <i>Erasmus</i>
(Blackwell:Oxford, 1994)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Levi, A.H.T. 'The Neoplatonist
Calculus', in <i>Humanism in France</i>, edited A.H.T. Levi (Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1970): 241-244</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Pigman III, G.W. 'Imitation and
the Renaissance Sense of the past: the reception of Erasmus' Ciceronianus'
in <i>Journal for Medieval and Renaissance Studies</i>, 1979 (9): 155-77</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Robinson, S.K. 'Power and Persuasion
in the 'Theatre' of Camillo', Publication of Papers from Polish and English
Art Historians' Conference, University of Leeds, Ed. Urszula Szulakowska.(University
of Warsaw: 2002) In press</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> A Search for the Source of the
Whirlpool of Artifice, (PhD thesis: University of Glasgow, 2003)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Sandys, J.E., <i>Harvard lectures
on the revival of learning</i>,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 1905)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Scaliger, Jules-Cesar, <i>Orationes
Duae Contra Erasmum, Oratio Pro. M. Tullio Cicerone Contra Des. Erasmum</i>
(1531) & <i>Adversus Des. Erasmi Roterod. Dialogum Ciceronianum Oratio Secunda</i>
(1537) Ed. Michel Magnien, (Geneva: Droz, 1999)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Seigel, Jerrold E. <i>Rhetoric
and philosophy in Renaissance humanism: the union of eloquence and wisdom,
Petrarch to Valla</i>, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Stegmann, Andr�, 'Erasme et la
France (1495-1520)' in <i>Colloquium Erasmianum: Actes du Colloque International
r�uni � Mons</i>�(Mons: 1968) :275 - 97</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Valla, Lorenzo <i>De Voluptate</i>,
with intro. by Lorch, trans. A. Kent Hieatt & Maristella Lorch (New York:
Arabis, 1977)</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Walker, Barbara G., <i>The Woman's
Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets</i> (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983)
</font></p>
<p align="center"><a href="page3writing.htm" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore()" onMouseOver="MM_swapImage('Image11','','Logovenus.jpg',1)"><img name="Image11" border="0" src="Logo.jpg" width="75" height="79"></a></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>