Thomae Mori verissima laus: Erasmus’s use of topics
in his epistolary portrait of Thomas More
Research master thesis HLCS (Literary Studies) Radboud University Nijmegen
Name: Astrid Linschoten
Submission date: 02-11-2020
Supervisor: Prof. dr. Marc van der Poel Second reader: Prof. dr. Bé Breij
1
Front cover: Erasmus portrayed in profile by Hans Holbein the Younger (1523). Now in Musée du Louvre, Paris. Image retrieved from
2
Abstract
This thesis seeks to shed a new light on Erasmus’s epistolary portrait of Thomas More (ep. 999). Up until now, letter 999 has primarily been read from a biographical perspective, because of its genuinely interested and accurate description of More. In his treatise on letter-writing, however, Erasmus himself frames descriptive letters like letter 999 as distinctly rhetorical texts. Therefore, this thesis examines letter 999 from a rhetorical point of view, asking the question: “How does Erasmus use topics in letter 999?” The body of the thesis consists of a comparison between Erasmus’s instructions on the use of topics in his Compendium rhetorices and his own use of these topics in letter 999. Based on this comparison, we can say that letter 999 is, in fact, almost entirely written according to Erasmus’s own instructions on topics. Moreover, Erasmus’s use of these topics – especially his selection of subtopics and his use of subtopics that are not virtues in themselves, such as ‘appearance’ or ‘wealth’ – constructs an idealised image of More, the Christian scholar. This conclusion does not counter the view that letter 999 is a sincere and accurate portrayal of More: in the eyes of Erasmus and his readers, descriptive texts like letter 999 can be rhetorical, truthful and sincere at once.
3
Table of contents
Introduction ... 5
Status quaestionis ... 6
Letter 999 as a rhetorical text ... 8
Approach ... 11
Structure of the thesis ... 13
I: Theory ... 14
1 Topics in ancient rhetoric ... 14
1.1 Aristotle ... 14
1.2 Cicero ... 17
1.3 Quintilian ... 18
1.4 Concluding remarks ... 20
2 The topics of demonstrative rhetoric in Erasmus’ rhetorical theory ... 21
2.1 Erasmus’s general ideas on topics: De copia ... 21
2.2 Practical guidelines: Compendium rhetorices ... 22
2.3 The topics of demonstrative rhetoric in the Compendium rhetorices ... 24
2.3 Concluding remarks ... 28
II: Practice ... 29
3 Thomas More’s bona corporis ... 29
3.1 Summary of letter 999 ... 29
3.2 The bona corporis in letter 999 ... 32
3.3 Appearance (forma) ... 33
3.4 Sonorous voice (vocalitas) ... 37
3.5 Concluding remarks ... 39
4 Thomas More’s bona externa... 40
4.1 Wife and children (uxor, liberi) ... 41
4.2 Honorary offices (honores) ... 44
4.3 Wealth (opes) ... 47
4.4 Concluding remarks ... 49
5 Thomas More’s bona animi ... 50
5.1 Actions ... 51
5.1.1 Intellectual capabilities (ingenii dexteritas) ... 51
4
5.2. Attitude towards others ... 56
5.2.1 Kindness (comitas) ... 56
5.3 Concluding remarks ... 57
III: Interpretation ... 59
6 Interpretation ... 59
6.1 How does Erasmus use topics in letter 999? ... 59
6.2 Biography or encomium? ... 63
Conclusion ... 65
I: Theory ... 66
II: Practice ... 67
III: Interpretation ... 69
Recommendations for further research ... 70
Bibliography ... 71
5
Introduction
This thesis revolves around one of Erasmus’s best-known letters, which is dated on the 23d of July, 1519, and is numbered 999 in Percy Allen’s edition.1 In letter 999, Erasmus offers a highly
detailed description of one of his friends, the famous English humanist Thomas More.2 The letter was sent to another of Erasmus’ acquaintances, the young German knight and scholar Ulrich von Hutten. According to Erasmus, Von Hutten had asked him to “depict Thomas More in full” for him, “like in a portrait”, but it is unclear whether Von Hutten actually made such a request.3 It is clear, however, that letter 999 was not written for an audience of one: Erasmus published it almost immediately after it was sent in his Farrago nova epistolarum and continued to revise the text for many years. The letter was reprinted two more times in the Epistolae ad diversos and the Opus epistolarum, and eventually became one of Erasmus’s most celebrated letters.4
Of course, letter 999 is not the only descriptive text in Erasmus’s oeuvre. One important example in this respect is Erasmus’s Life of Jerome (Hieronymi Stridonensis Vita, 1516), which was published as a preface to the Sancti Hieronymi Stridonensis Opera Omnia and offered an elaborate description of the life of the eminent church father.5 Erasmus also portrayed several of his contemporaries. In her article Erasmus and biography, Margaret Mann Phillips lists a number of notable examples, such as Erasmus’s descriptions of John Colet and Jean Vitrier (1521, letter 1211), Alexander Stewart (1515, Adagia) and William Warham (loose passages, 1533).6 Especially Erasmus’s portrait of John Colet and Jean Vitrier is similar to letter 999,
with the only difference that in letter 1211, Erasmus describes two lives, which he compares in Plutarchian fashion at the end of the letter.
Although Erasmus’s letter about Thomas More is not the only portrait Erasmus has written, it is his most influential one. Letter 999 was already widely read during More’s life,
1 The Latin text of letter 999 can be found in the fourth volume of Percy Allen’s Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi
Roterodami (Allen 1922). References to this edition will be given as follows: volume, page, line(s) (for instance:
Allen 4, 16, 105). Germain Marc’hadour has published an edition, translation and commentary in his volume
Thomas More vu par Érasme: Lettre du 1519 à Ulrich von Hutten (Marc’hadour 1969). The letter has also been
translated to English by R.A.B. Mynors and annotated by P. Bietenholz (CWE 7).
2 Because of its descriptive character, letter 999 is often characterised as a ‘literary portrait’ or ‘word portrait’ in secondary literature. (Bietenholz 1969, 92; Phillips 1973, 185). It is also called a Vita Mori (Marc’hadour 1987, 2; Bietenholz 1969, 93).
3 CWE 7, 354, n.1.
4 See Marc’hadour 1987, 2 and Marc’hadour 1969, v for more details on the publication history of letter 999. 5 See also Maguire 1973, 167.
6
and gained an even wider readership after More’s execution in 1535. In 1536, for instance, the letter was already included in Johann Fichard’s Illustrium virorum vitae, “Lives of illustrious men”.7 Thus, the letter had a considerable influence on the reception of Thomas More; even
today, it is hard to find a sourcebook on Thomas More which does not assign a prominent position to letter 999. The letter’s important position in modern research into Thomas More is also clearly visible in, for instance, the title of Bernard Basset’s volume Born for Friendship: The Spirit of Thomas More, which is literally derived from Erasmus’s characterisation of More as ad amicitiam natus factusque, “born and made for friendship”.8
To a lesser extent, letter 999 also influenced the reception of Erasmus himself, both in the sixteenth century and today. One indication of the letter’s influence in the sixteenth century can be found in Beatus Rhenanus’s obituary of Erasmus, which cites entire lines from letter 999 to describe Erasmus’s own physical appearance.9 Today, the letter is mostly read as a sign of
Erasmus’s quality as a biographer; especially the accuracy of his account and his attention for More’s individuality have contributed to the idea that letter 999 is a biography ahead of its time.
In this thesis, I will examine the letter from a different angle. Rather than reading letter 999 as a biography, I will read it as a rhetorical text. I will ask the following main research question: “How does Erasmus use topics in letter 999?” In the remainder of this introduction, I will first provide a status quaestionis of letter 999. Then, I will explain why it makes sense to read letter 999 from a rhetorical perspective and introduce the concept of topics, which forms the theoretical framework of my thesis. Lastly, I will describe my method and give an overview of the structure of my thesis.
Status quaestionis
Erasmus’s description of Thomas More was an important topic of debate during the 60s and 70s, when there was a surge of interest in Erasmus’s biographical writings. One of the first studies into letter 999 can be found in History and Biography in the Work of Erasmus of Rotterdam, which was written by Pieter Bietenholz and published in 1966. Bietenholz discusses the letter in conjunction with letter 1211, which, as I have mentioned above, narrates the lives of John Colet and Jean Vitrier. Based on his reading of these two letters, Bietenholz highlights two aspects of Erasmus as a biographer. The first aspect is the uniqueness of Erasmus’s 7 Marc’hadour 1987, 3, n.8.
8 See Basset 1985. For the Latin prhase in letter 999, see Allen 4, 16, 97. The reference was noted by Marc’hadour (Marc’hadour 1987, 17).
9 See Marc’hadour 1987, 20 for a full comparision between Rhenanus’s description of Erasmus and Erasmus’s description of More.
7
portraits, which, in his eyes, is caused by Erasmus’s “highly developed sense of individuality”.10 According to Bietenholz, Erasmus’s portraits of More, Colet and Vitrier “strike the reader as the perfect presentations of three thoroughly different characters”.11 In
Bietenholz’s view, their structure does not follow a “stereotype literary recipe”, but is entirely determined by the amount of information that was available to Erasmus at the time of writing.12 The second aspect of Erasmus as a biographer is related to the first: according to Bietenholz, these portraits are indications of Erasmus’s personal connection with the people who are portrayed.13 As he formulates it, “each of them reveals the special and personal relation between the biographer and his object (...)”.14
These two characteristics of Erasmus as biographer – his respect for the uniqueness of personalities and his close relationship with the person he is describing – also return in Margaret Mann Phillips’s influential article Erasmus and Biography, which was published in 1973. In her discussion of these word portraits, Phillips attributes an important position to letter 999. She acknowledges that the rules of classical rhetoric seem to have played a significant role in the construction of letter 999, which is a remarkable deviation from Bietenholz’s statement that Erasmus’s portraits did not follow a stereotype literary recipe. However, she eventually characterises letter 999 as a biography. In fact, she sees letter 999 as a biography ahead of its time, although she does warn that we should not “pull Erasmus too much in our direction”.15
This biographical perspective on the letter is again based on Erasmus’s close relationship with his object, and his sincere interest in More’s individuality. As Phillips formulates it: “No classical writer ever produced a sketch like that of More, with that immediacy of contact, that sense of unique personality”.16
Another scholar who has pointed out the biographical aspects of letter 999 is Germain Marc’hadour, who has extensively examined the letter for his research into Thomas More. In 1969, he published Thomas More vu par Erasme: Lettre du 23 juillet à Ulrich von Hutten, which provided an edition, translation and commentary of the text.17 Although Marc’hadour highlights a wide variety of aspects of letter 999, such as intertextual references or stylistic figures in the text, he also attributes a lot of weight to the question whether or not Erasmus’s
10 Bietenholz 1966, 94. 11 Ibidem. 12 Ibidem. 13 Ibidem. 14 Ibidem. 15 Phillips 1973, 199. 16 Phillips 1973, 189.
8
comments on More’s life are true. In a 1987 lecture, which is titled Erasmus: First and Best Biographer of Thomas More, Marc’hadour even provides an list of occasions where Erasmus’s letter is our only source of information on More’s life, or where the information in the letter is confirmed by other, contemporary sources.18 This interest in the accuracy of letter 999 is also visible in a more recent article by Clare Murphy, which is titled Erasmus as Biographer of Thomas More and his Family and uses letter 999 as its main point of departure for describing Thomas More’s life and family. 19
All in all, the existing secondary literature on letter 999 gives three reasons why letter 999 should be read from a biographical point of view: Erasmus’s close relationship with More, his appreciation of More’s unique personality, and the remarkable historical accuracy of his account.
Letter 999 as a rhetorical text
I would suggest, however, that there are also good grounds to examine letter 999 from a rhetorical perspective. First, it seems that Erasmus’s contemporary readers considered letter 999 a rhetorical text: Bishop John Fisher, for instance, noted in the margin of his edition that letter 999 was Thomae Mori verissima laus: “a most truthful praise of Thomas More”.20 The most notable word in this description is, of course, verissima, but Fisher does characterise the letter as a laus, a praise.
Another indication that letter 999 should be read as a rhetorical text can be found in the letter itself. The letter’s programmatic passage, for instance, contains several sentences that indicate the use of rhetoric in this letter. The passage reads as follows:
Caeterum quod a me flagitas, ut tibi totum Morum velut in tabula depingam, utinam tam absolute praestare queam quam tu vehementer cupis! Nam mihi quoque non iniucundum fuerit interim in amici multo omnium suavissimi contemplatione versari. Sed primum οὐ παντὸς ἀνδρός ἐστιν omnes Mori dotes perspexisse. Deinde haud scio an ille laturus sit a quolibet artifice depingi sese. Nec enim arbitror levioris esse operae Morum effingere quam Alexandrum magnum aut Achillem, nec illi quam hic noster immortalitate digniores erant. Tale argumentum prorsus Apellis cuiuspiam manum desyderat; at vereor ne ipse Fulvii Rutubaeque similior sim quam Apellis. Experiar tamen tibi totius hominis simulachrum deliniare verius quam exprimere, quantum ex diutina domesticaque consuetudine vel animadvertere licuit vel meminisse.21
18 Marc’hadour 1987, 22-25. 19 Murphy 2014.
20 Marc’hadour 1987, 1. 21 Allen 4, 13, 17-29.
9
Be that as it may, what you urge me to do – namely to depict the whole Thomas More for you, like in a portrait – I wish I could deliver as skilfully as you desire ardently! For me too it would be a pleasure to contemplate my dearest friend for a while. However, it is not for every man to have a full view of all More’s gifts. I also doubt if he would endure to be depicted by any mere artist. In fact, I suspect it is no easier to draw a portrait of More than one of Alexander the Great or Achilles, nor were they more worthy of immortality than our More. In sum, such a sitter calls for the hand of an Apelles; and I fear I resemble a Fulvius or Rutuba more than an Apelles. Nevertheless, I will try to sketch rather than paint a portrait of the whole man for you, as far as I can observe or remember from a long-standing and intimate acquaintance.22
There is much to be said about this highly stylised paragraph, but one of the things that immediately stand out is the sheer number of references to painting, sketching and drawing. These references contribute to more than just style; they also clearly establish this letter as a text in the demonstrative class of rhetoric.
In order to see how, we should consult Erasmus’s treatise on letter-writing, De conscribendis epistolis. The treatise describes a number of categories in which letters can be divided. The first three of these categories are based on the three traditional classes of rhetoric: judicial, deliberative and demonstrative rhetoric. If we look at the Erasmus’s description of demonstrative letters, which revolve around ‘demonstration’ or description, we see that he uses the same metaphor of painting and sketching:
Quoties autem per se adhibitur, totum est delectationem accomodatum. Quare ut in pictura, ita in demonstratione conveniet adhibere sermonis varietatem, verborum apparatum, exornationum festivitatem, annominationes, membra, comparia, contraria, verba poetica.23
Every time it is employed on its own, demonstration is solely meant to give pleasure. Thus, just like in painting, it will be appropriate in demonstration as well to use variation of diction, a wide range of vocabulary, liveliness of decoration, paronomasia, rhetorical clauses, analogies, oppositions, and poetical words.
According to Erasmus, the writing of demonstrative letters can be compared with the act of painting. Given the emphasis letter 999 laid on painting in its programmatic passage, the letter seems to fall in this category of letters. This thought is confirmed when Erasmus continues his passage on demonstrative letters with a description of a type of letter which exactly resembles letter 999, namely the letter that entirely revolves around the description of individual persons:
22 All translations in this thesis are mine, unless noted otherwise, In translating letter 999, I have regularly consulted the CWE translation by R.A.B. Mynors and Germain Marc’hadour’s French translation (Marc’hadour 1969).
10
Si personam describimus, ut regis, reginae, principis, alteriusve, ei cui ea sit ignota rhetorum super hac re notissimas praeceptiones ignorare non oportebit. In epistola satis erit vultus totiusque corporis habitum, figuram, gestum, motumque tanquam pictura exprimere; deinde ad animi fortunaeque commoda veniemus. Quod satis luculenter a rhetoribus praeceptum, neque cognitu difficile, prudens praetereo.24
If we are describing a character, like that of a king, queen, prince, or anyone else, to someone who is not familiar with it, we should not ignore the very well-known lessons of the rhetoricians on this subject. In a letter it will suffice to sketch, like in a painting, the features, posture, shape, gestures, and way of moving; then we will come to the favourable conditions of mind and fortune. I intentionally pass over what has already been taught quite brilliantly by the rhetoricians, and what is not difficult to understand.
Here, we encounter the theoretical blueprint for letter 999.25 Erasmus sees it as evident that this type of letter is written according to rhetorical rules. In fact, he does not even feel the need to explain these rules in depth, referring his readers to the “very well-known lessons of the rhetoricians on this subject”. In his summary of these lessons, he says that the author should sketch, like in a painting, a person’s “features, posture, shape, gestures, and way of moving”. Then, he should continue to the “favourable conditions of mind and fortune”.
These summarising sentences are important, because they direct us to the concept of topics (τόποι in Greek, loci in Latin). Briefly put, topics are ancient lines of reasoning which help the orator to find material for his arguments. There were three topics for demonstrative rhetoric: the bona externa (external circumstances), the bona corporis (physical qualities), and the bona animi (mental qualities). This means that traditionally, an orator could dwell on someone’s physical qualities (such as his physical strength), his circumstances (such as his reputation or financial situation), or his mental qualities (such as his temperament) to praise or criticise someone. These three topics are also visible in Erasmus’s summary of the ‘lessons of the rhetoricians’: when Erasmus recommends to describe someone’s “features, posture, shape, gestures, and way of moving”, he seems to be referring to the topic of bona corporis (physical qualities). Similarly, his advice to describe someone’s “favourable conditions of mind” reminds of the bona animi (mental qualities), and his advice to describe someone’s “favourable conditions (...) of fortune” of the bona externa (external circumstances). Thus, this passage in De conscribendis epistolis, which describes exactly the category of letters letter 999 falls into, not only firmly establishes this type of letter as a rhetorical text, but also recommends the use of topics for this type of letter.
24 ASD I.2, 514, 1-6.
11
There are two scholars who have already mentioned the potential presence of topics in letter 999, but for several reasons, this has not resulted in a systematic study. In 1930, Marie Schütt indicated the presence of topoi or topics in letter 999, but this option was dismissed by Peter Bietenholz: “The structural pattern which she delineates is not convincing”.26 Margaret
Mann Phillips has also paid attention to the potential role of topics in letter 999 in her article on Erasmus and Biography.27 In fact, she cites the paragraph on demonstrative letters in De conscribendis epistolis, draws the conclusion that Erasmus must have referred to topics in this paragraph, and compares a number of theoretical remarks on topics with letter 999.28 However, even though she finds clear parallels between the remarks of the ancient rhetoricians and letter 999, she seems to de-emphasise the importance of these parallels: “The expanding spiral of the rhetorical method has served Erasmus well, but he is also free. In his portrait of his incomparable friend, enthusiasm has taken the first place”.29
In sum, even though there are strong indications that Erasmus has used topics in letter 999 – an insight which would offer a new, rhetorical perspective on a letter which is usually read as a biography – this has not yet been systematically investigated. Therefore, the purpose of my thesis is provide such a systematic investigation of Erasmus’s use of topics in letter 999, based on the main research question: “How does Erasmus use topics in letter 999?”
Approach
My investigation of Erasmus’s use of topics in letter 999 will resemble Margaret Mann Phillips’s article in that it will compare theory on and practice of topics. The difference between Margaret Mann Phillips’s approach and my thesis, however, lies in the primary literature that is used for the theoretical part of the comparison. Whereas Phillips uses ancient theoretical remarks on topics, I will inquire into Erasmus’s own theory on topics and compare it with his practice in letter 999. I have chosen to do so because I think it is important to take into account that Erasmus may have had his own interpretation of ancient theoretical sources.30
The next question is, of course, which text or texts should be read to examine Erasmus’s own theory on topics. Erasmus has written a wide variety of rhetorical treatises, many of which
26 Schütt 1930, 33-35; Bietenholz 1966, 94. 27 Phillips 1973, 190-191.
28 Phillips 1973, 190-191 and 195-197. 29 Phillips 1973, 197.
30 Recent studies which have used or proposed the same approach of comparing contemporary theory and practice, are Ter Meer 2014, Kilpatrick 2014, Van der Poel 2016.
12
touch on the nature and use of topics.31 I have chosen to take his Compendium rhetorices as my main point of departure. The Compendium is an overview of the main rhetorical rules and concepts which Erasmus had compiled in his early years, when he was still tutoring individual students, and which has received very little attention up until now. In fact, after its posthumous publication in 1544, the Compendium has never been published again until 1941, when the editors of Allen’s Opera omnia decided to include it in their edition as an appendix.32 In the
accompanying introduction, the editors present the Compendium as a rather unattractive and irrelevant source: “...the Notes themselves cannot be thought useful – for the most part, indeed, they are not intelligible – except as expounded and amplified by a teacher or lecturer; or to a student who, using them, recalled the exposition given by his teacher.”33 They conclude:
“Nothing about the book, in fact, is interesting except that it was put together by Erasmus”.34
It is true that the Compendium lists the main rules and concepts of rhetoric only very briefly and without connecting these concepts or providing any context, but in my opinion, that does not make it a useless or uninteresting text. In fact, we could also argue that both the work’s early composition date and its remarkable brevity render it a very useful source, because – in contrast to, for instance, De Copia or Ecclesiastes – this text is likely to provide a relatively unedited insight in what Erasmus considered essential information. Using the Compendium also has an additional, practical advantage: because it is an overview of rhetorical rules, rather than an elaborate text, it allows for a very precise comparison with letter 999. Thus, the Compendium will be my main point of departure for examining Erasmus’s theory on topics.
As I have said, my main project in this thesis is to compare Erasmus’s guidelines on the topics of demonstrative rhetoric in the Compendium with his application of these guidelines in letter 999. There is also a number of things I will not do. First, I will not focus on the question whether or not Erasmus’s remarks about Thomas More’s life and character are historically accurate. Secondly, I will not take other passages Erasmus has written about Thomas More into account, since that would result in a corpus that does not correspond with the size and scope of this thesis. Lastly, my theoretical chapters will not give an exhaustive overview of ancient and sixteenth-century theory on topics.
31 For a general overview of Erasmus’ rhetorical theory and practice, see Schoeck 1993. For an overview of most occasions where Erasmus uses the term ‘topic’ (locus), see Chomarat 1981.
32 See Allen 10, 400-405 (appendix XXII). This is the only available modern edition of the Compendium
rhetorices. The work has never been translated, but it has received some attention in Richard Schoeck’s
overview of Erasmus’s rhetorical theory and practice (Schoeck 1993). 33 Allen 10, 396.
13
Structure of the thesis
My thesis will be divided into three sections: theory, practice, and interpretation. The first section will contain two chapters, which go into more detail on my theoretical framework, that is, topics. Chapter 1 will discuss ancient theories on topics, specifically those of Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian. As I have said, the aim is not to give an exhaustive overview, but to give some background to Erasmus’s reference to “the very well-known lessons of the rhetoricians”. In chapter 2, I will examine what Erasmus himself says on topics. I will briefly touch on his discussion of the subject in De copia, before continuing with his section on the topics of demonstrative rhetoric in the Compendium. The second section of my thesis will comprise three chapters: chapters 3 to 5. These chapters will examine Erasmus’s use of each main topic of demonstrative in letter 999. Thus, chapter 3 will examine Erasmus’s description of More’s bona corporis, chapter 4 his description of More’s bona externa, and chapter 5 his description of More’s bona animi. The third and final section of this thesis will consist of one chapter (chapter 6), which will offer an interpretation of my analyses in chapters 3-5. After my conclusion and bibliography, I will also provide an appendix, which contains the Latin text and my translation of all the passages I have used of the Compendium. I have decided to create this appendix because the Compendium is not as easily accessed as letter 999, and because it may be useful to have such an overview in the reading of this thesis.
14
I: Theory
1 Topics in ancient rhetoric
In this first chapter, I will discuss a variety of ancient comments on topics, selected from the authors and works most likely to have been familiar to Erasmus: Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian. It will start with Aristotle, who is one of the first sources on topics, and continue with Cicero and Quintilian. 35 The aim is not to provide an exhaustive overview of all their
views on topics, but to create a succinct point of departure for chapter 2, which discusses Erasmus’s own comments on the subject.
1.1 Aristotle
The Greek term for a topic is ‘τόπος’, which literally means “place”. Topics were traditionally seen as ‘places’ where an orator could find the material for arguments. As such, they played an important role in the first stage of the rhetorical process, namely the ‘finding’ of arguments (‘εὑρησις’ or ‘heurēsis’, later ‘inventio’). Aristotle commented on topics in two texts: the Topics (Greek: Τοπικά, Latin: Topica) and the Rhetoric (Greek: Τέχνη ῥητορική, Latin: Ars rhetorica). The Topics is one of Aristotle’s earlier treatises and deals with logical reasoning within a philosophical context, or dialectic. As such, it is quite different from the Rhetoric, which in Aristotle’s own words deals with “possible means of persuasion about any subject whatsoever”.36 Thus, Aristotle presents rhetoric as applying slightly more flexible rules to a different array of subjects than dialectic does. Nevertheless, and as he also emphasises in the opening sentences of the Rhetoric, both dialectic and rhetoric are engaged with logical forms of thinking and reasoning.37 Therefore, both disciplines are interested in topics.
What is a topic exactly? We might expect the Topics to provide some form of definition of a topic, but surprisingly, it does not do so, possibly because Aristotle assumed that his audience was already familiar with the term.38 This means that we have to turn to the Rhetoric
for a definition, which is provided in the form of a rather technical comment at the end of book 2:
35 Aristotle was of course not the first to use topics: they can also be linked to Protagoras, Gorgias and Isocrates. (Rapp 2002, paragraph 7. Accessed online (see bibliography).) However, Aristotle’s work does form the starting point for many studies into topics and commonplaces, like Lechner 1962, 1; Moss 1996, 3-5.
36 Rhetoric 1.2.1. ...περὶ ἕκαστον (...) τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον πιθανόν. 37 Rhetoric 1.1.1.
15
τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ λέγω στοιχεῖον καὶ τόπον: ἔστιν γὰρ στοιχεῖον καὶ τόπος εἰς ὃ πολλὰ ἐνθυμήματα ἐμπίπτει.39
I mean the same thing with ‘element’ and ‘topic’, for an element and a topic is that under which many enthymemes fall.40
This definition is formulated in a section that deals with the ‘enthymeme’ (ἐνθύμημα). Enthymemes, Aristotle explained earlier, are a kind of syllogism, that is, a piece of reasoning based on two or more propositions.41 These enthymemes are presented as ‘falling under’ (ἐμπιπτειν) the topic (τόπος) or element (στοιχεῖον). Thus, based on this passage, a topic is a general principle, overarching many enthymemes. In fact, topics are the means by which an enthymeme can be constructed. This is made clear when Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of topics, common topics and specific topics:
Καθάπερ οὖν καὶ ἐν τοῖς Τοπικοῖς, καὶ ἐνταῦθα διαιρετέον τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων τά τε εἴδη καὶ τοὺς τόπους ἐξ ὧν ληπτέον. Λέγω δ᾽ εἴδη μὲν τὰς καθ᾽ ἕκαστον γένος ἰδίας προτάσεις, τόπους δὲ τοὺς κοινοὺς ὁμοίως πάντων.42
Just like in the Topics, so here we must distinguish between the specific and common topics, from which enthymemes may be constructed. With specific topics I mean propositions peculiar to each class of things, with common topics those common to all classes alike.
From both types of topics, enthymemes or arguments can be constructed. However, the scope of the argument’s applicability is determined by the kind of topic that is used. The specific topics, or the idia, produce arguments that are peculiar to a specific type of rhetoric or to a specific type of discipline. For instance, Aristotle explains, some topics facilitate the construction of arguments within the discipline of physics, but these are useless for argumentation within the discipline of ethics, and vice versa.43 Common topics, however, help to construct arguments that can be used in any context. Aristotle seems to prefer the specific
39 Rhetoric 2.26.1.
40 All translations in this thesis are mine. I did, however, consult several literary translations, which I will list here. Aristotle: Pickard-Cambridge 1928 (Topics), Rhys Roberts 1946 (Rhetoric), Freese 1926 (Rhetoric, Loeb edition). Cicero: Hubbell 1949 (Topics and De inventione, Loeb edition). Rhetorica ad Herennium: Caplan 1954 (Loeb edition). Quintilian: Russell 2002 (Loeb edition).
41 Rhetoric 1.1.11. ...τὸ δ᾽ ἐνθύμημα συλλογισμός τις. 42 Rhetoric 1.2.22.
16
topics, as they equip an orator with knowledge.44 He also says that most enthymemes or arguments are based on these specific topics.45 Nevertheless, both in the Topics and in the Rhetoric Aristotle devotes a lot of space to both specific and common topics, providing lists of examples for each type of topic. These lists are not always consistent, but recurring examples of common topics, for instance, are genus, species, more or less, and similarity.
The question remains, however, how these topics exactly work. How do they lead to the construction of an argument? Aristotle actually provides an example at the end of the second book of the Rhetoric, when he introduces the topic of ‘opposition’.46 This topic goes as follows:
δεῖ γὰρ σκοπεῖν εἰ τῷ ἐναντίῳ τὸ ἐναντίον ὑπάρχει, ἀναιροῦντα μὲν εἰ μὴ ὑπάρχει, κατασκευάζοντα δὲ εἰ ὑπάρχει (...).47
It is necessary that [the orator] considers whether the opposite quality [of a concept] is present in its opposite, destroying [the argument] if it is not, and constructing [the argument] if it is (...).
Although there is no standard form or outline for all topics, most of them suggest certain ‘steps’ to be taken in order to construct an effective argument.48 For instance, if an orator wants to argue that self-control is good, he can consult the topic of ‘opposition’ cited above. There, Aristotle gives two steps: first, the orator should think about the opposite of self-control, which is intemperance, and consider whether that is opposite to ‘good’. If it is, he should construct the argument based on this opposition. The result of this process would be the argument “Self-control is good, for intemperance is harmful”.49
Of course, this is only one example of how an orator can use the topic of opposition to generate arguments. Aristotle provides many other arguments that can be constructed with this topic, like “If the war is the cause for the present evils, they need to be repaired with peace”.50
In other words, the topics do not provide the content of the orator’s arguments, but rather logical lines of reasoning on which these arguments can be based. As we will see, this quality is preserved in Cicero’s discussion of topics.
44 Rhetoric 1.2.21. 45 Rhetoric 1.2.22.
46 Rhetoric 2.23.1. ἔστι δὲ εἷς μὲν τόπος τῶν δεικτικῶν ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων. The example has been given by Quandahl 1986, 131.
47 Rhetoric 2.23.1.
48 Rapp 2002, paragraph 7.3. Accessed online (see bibliography).
49 Rhetoric 2.23.1. τὸ σωφρονεῖν ἀγαθόν: τὸ γὰρ ἀκολασταίνειν βλαβερόν.
17
1.2 Cicero
In the first paragraphs of his Topics (Latin: Topica), Cicero explains his reason for writing the treatise by telling a short story.51 One day, Cicero and his friend Trebatius were reading in Cicero’s library when Trebatius found a copy of Aristotle’s Topics. After Cicero had explained that the work revolved around Aristotle’s system of topical invention, Trebatius excitedly asked Cicero to teach him this system. Apparently, Trebatius had previously tried to learn the system himself, but Aristotle’s language had been too difficult for him and he had not been able to find teachers of rhetoric who were familiar with Aristotle’s topics. Eventually, Cicero agreed to explain Aristotle’s Topics to Trebatius, which resulted in Cicero’s very own Topics.
Whether this anecdote is true or not does not really matter.52 The story is relevant because Cicero uses it to make two implicit claims. First, he states that up until that moment, Aristotle’s theory of topical invention had been largely overlooked by other rhetoricians. Secondly, Cicero suggests that his Topics, which are meant to explain Aristotle’s system to Trebatius, remains rather close to Aristotle’s Topics. Both suggestions need a bit of nuancing. It is true that Cicero, who had a great interest in philosophy, made a considerable effort to re-introduce Aristotle’s system of topical invention. At the same time, however, he did make several adjustments, such as adding new material.53 Moreover, he narrowed down the contexts in which topics could be used. Whereas in Aristotle’s work, topics were useful in both dialectic and rhetoric, Cicero made topical invention a tool of rhetoric, especially judicial rhetoric.54 Thus, Cicero’s treatment of topics is not just a continuation of Aristotle’s theories and deserves to be discussed separately.
Let us start with the aspects of Aristotle’s work that Cicero did preserve in his discussion of topics. Cicero adopted the spatial connotation of the term τόπος (“place”) by translating it to Latin (locus). He also continued to emphasise the association between topics and the stage of inventio, the finding of arguments.55 This is clearly visible in his famous definition of the locus, which he formulates in the first book of the Topics:
51 Topics, 1.1-5.
52 The story is generally considered to be true, as it also occurs in Cicero’s letters. (Hubbell 1949, 377.)
53 See Moss 1996, 5-6 on Cicero’s attitude towards Aristotle’s theory of topical invention. On the addition of the
status theory, see Bloomer 2001, 281.
54 Moss 1996, 6. 55 Bloomer 2001, 281.
18
Ut igitur earum rerum quae absconditae sunt demonstrato et notato loco facilis inventio est, sic, cum pervestigare argumentum aliquod volumus, locos nosse debemus; sic enim appellatae ab Aristotele sunt eae quasi sedes, e quibus argumenta promuntur. Itaque licet definire locum esse argumenti sedem, argumentum autem rationem, quae rei dubiae faciat fidem.56
So, just like it is easy to find things that are hidden when their hiding place is pointed out and marked, we need to know the places if we want to track down some argument; for that is what these ‘seats’, as it were, from which arguments are brought forth, are called by Aristotle. Thus, we can define a topic as the seat of an argument, and an argument as a line of reasoning that gives credibility to a matter about which some doubt exists.
Cicero starts by introducing a comparison to explain the function of topics in the process of invention: they are like pointers or markers leading the orator to the desired argument. This also means that reversely, arguments can be ‘tracked down’ (pervestigare) or led back to their topics. After this comparison, Cicero explains that the loci are the sedes, e quibus argumenta promuntur, “the ‘seats’ from which arguments are brought forth”, a phrase that builds up to his actual definition of the locus: Itaque licet definire locum esse argumenti sedem, “Thus, we can define a topic as the seat of an argument”.
Cicero uses quite an odd word to characterise the topic: sedes, which literally means “seat”, but can also mean “dwelling-place”. With that word, Cicero indicates that topics are containers of arguments rather than arguments in themselves. This is even better expressed in De finibus, in which Cicero partially repeats his description of topics as ‘seats from which arguments are drawn’, but replaces ‘seats’ (sedes) with thesauri, “store houses”.57 Cicero’s loci,
then, are very similar to the topics in Aristotle’s work, as they are containers of arguments, not arguments themselves.
1.3 Quintilian
About 140 years after the writing of Cicero’s Topica, Quintilian published his Institutio oratoria, a rhetorical treatise which was highly appreciated during the Renaissance. Part of the work’s success was caused by its sensational ‘rediscovery’ in a monastery library in 1416, but it mostly appealed to the Renaissance humanists because of its distinctly educational point of departure.58 Rather than discussing only one part of rhetoric – like Cicero’s Topics or De
56 Topica 1.7.
57 De finibus bonorum et malorum 4.10, ...e quibus locis quasi thesauris argumenta depromerentur..., “...from which loci, like store-houses, arguments are drawn, ...”.
19
inventione – the Institutio revolves around all stages of the orator’s education. It is also within this context that Quintilian discusses the tools of topical invention.
One of the first things that stands out in Quintilian’s treatment of topics and loci communes is his concern for terminological precision. In several instances throughout his treatise, he feels the need to clearly separate topics (loci) from the very different loci communes. For instance, when he proceeds from discussing loci communes to treating topics, he says: “Let us now thoroughly investigate the topics (locos) of arguments, although to some people, these seem identical to the loci I have discussed above”.59 As a result of this concern for terminology, Quintilian’s definition of topics also revolves around distinguishing topics from loci communes:
Locos appello non, ut vulgo nunc intelleguntur, in luxuriem et adulterium et similia, sed sedes argumentorum, in quibus latent, ex quibus sunt petenda.60
With ‘topics’ (locos) I do not mean [arguments] against luxury and adultery and the like, as they are now commonly understood, but the seats of arguments, in which [arguments] hide and from which they need to be extracted.
Topics are sedes argumentorum, the “seats” or “dwelling places” of arguments, a choice of words which directly reiterates Cicero’s definition (argumenti sedes). Loci communes, on the other hand, are arguments in themselves, and therefore quite different from topics.
Although Quintilian usually adheres to Cicero’s definition of topics as sedes argumenti/argumentorum, there is one notable passage which discusses topics in a very different tone: 61
Nam ut in terra non omni generantur omnia, nec avem aut feram reperias, ubi quaeque nasci aut morari soleat ignarus, et piscium quoque genera alia planis gaudent, alia saxosis, regionibus etiam litoribusque discreta sunt, nec helopem nostro mari aut scarum educas: ita non omne argumentum undique venit ideoque non passim quaerendum est. Multus alioqui error et, exhausto labore, quod non ratione scrutabimur non poterimus invenire nisi casu. At si scierimus ubi quodque nascatur, cum ad locum ventum erit, facile quod in eo est pervidebimus.62
59 Institutio oratoria 5.10.20. Excutiamus nunc argumentorum locos, quamquam quibusdam hi quoque, de quibus
supra dixi, videntur.
60 5.10.20.
61 Besides 5.10.20, passage 5.12.17 also uses the word combination ‘sedes argumentorum’. 62 5.10.21-22.
20
For just as not all things are grown in every country, you would not find a bird or animal if you were unaware of the place where it tends to be born and live, and even some kinds of fish enjoy level ground whereas others remain close to a rocky bottom, or particular regions and coasts, and you would not produce a sturgeon or parrot-fish from our sea: just like that, not every argument comes from everywhere, and thus it should not be looked for far and wide. Otherwise, there will be many mistakes and, after our efforts will have been wasted, we will not be able to find – unless, perhaps, by chance – that which we do not search for methodically. But if we know where every [argument] is born, it will be easy for us to see what is in a place, when we will have arrived at it.
In terms of style, this passage forms a remarkable contrast with the instances where Quintilian describes topics as sedes argumentorum. Whereas that definition is formulated in a succinct and technical vocabulary, this passage revolves around a highly elaborate comparison.63 Content-wise, Quintilian makes the point that invention by topics resembles the hunt for extraordinary animals. The hunter needs to know which animal he wants to hunt specifically, and where this animal tends to breed and live. Otherwise, he will waste his efforts trying to catch the animal. The same goes for topics: for each argument, the orator needs to know which topic is likely to ‘contain’ this argument, so that he can conduct his search efficiently. In other words, this passage emphasises that topical invention is a method.
1.4 Concluding remarks
The aim of his chapter was to discuss a variety of ancient remarks on topics in order to create a succinct point of departure for the following chapter, which examines Erasmus’s own thoughts on topics. In antiquity, topics were an important tool for the ‘finding’ of arguments (invention). They are most prominently discussed in the work of Aristotle, who divides them into two types: common topics and specific topics. Whereas specific topics apply to specific disciplines or specific types of rhetoric, common topics produce arguments that can be used in any context. They do so by suggesting general lines of reasoning on which an argument can be based: thus, rather than providing the content of an argument, they provide its structure. Cicero articulated this aspect of topics by calling them sedes, “seats” or “dwelling-places” of arguments, a metaphor that continued into the work of Quintilian. Quintilian generally adhered to Cicero’s discussion of topics, although he did emphasise that invention by topics is a methodical process, not a random search.
21
2 The topics of demonstrative rhetoric in Erasmus’ rhetorical theory
In the previous chapter, we have seen how Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian generally commented on topics. This chapter will examine how Erasmus himself thought about topics. Since Erasmus has written extensively on this subject, this chapter again does not claim to be exhaustive.64 As I have explained in my introduction, it will mainly focus on the Compendium rhetorices, because this work is likely to give a relatively unedited insight in what Erasmus considered essential information. Moreover, it will pay most attention to Erasmus’s remarks about the topics of demonstrative rhetoric, because that is the class of rhetoric letter 999 falls in. Before this close reading of the Compendium, I will first make some brief comments on Erasmus’s general ideas on topics, which he mainly expressed in De copia.
2.1 Erasmus’s general ideas on topics: De copia
For a first indication of Erasmus’s general ideas on topics, I will turn to De copia, or in full, De duplici copia verborum ac rerum. Published in 1511, this treatise became Erasmus’s most famous rhetorical work, which he continued to revise throughout his career. As its full title suggests, the treatise consists of two books, one on copia verborum, abundance in vocabulary, and the second on copia rerum, abundance in thought or subject-matter. In book 2, Erasmus reflects on the material we have seen in chapter 1, that is, the treatment of topics in ancient rhetoric. He says the following:
...neque de ordine, neque de numero, neque de vocabulis satis convenit inter scriptores. Scripserunt autem de his copiosissime Aristoteles ac Boetius, satis accurate M. Tullius sed subobscure, brevissime Quintilianus.65
...neither on their order, nor on their number, nor on their names is there sufficient agreement between authors. Aristotle and Boethius have written about them in great abundance, Cicero detailed enough but rather unclear, Quintilian very briefly.
Erasmus starts with the witty remark that Aristotle and his commentator Boethius treated the subject of topics copiosissime, “in great abundance’, which of course refers to the main subject of De copia. However, Erasmus is also critical: according to him, Cicero and Quintilian are
64 To my knowledge, an in-depth study of Erasmus’s theoretical remarks on topics is yet to be written. Jacques Chomarat provides a brief overview in Chomarat 1981, 524, n.80.
22
respectively unclear and brief in their treatment of topics. Thus, in his brief review of ancient scholarship on topics, Erasmus seems to prefer Aristotle’s approach to topics. This appreciation of Aristotle may have inspired his own treatment of the subject as well, as his own list of topics strongly resembles Aristotle’s common topics, naming, among other things, “genus, species, proprium, differentia, partition, division, (...) contraries, incompatible things, consequences, causes, outcomes, comparisons (...)”.66 Unlike Aristotle, however, Erasmus’s does not provide specific topics, that is, topics for judicial, deliberative or demonstrative rhetoric, in De copia. Moreover, his list of common topics in De copia is not set in stone. In his conclusion on topics, he remarks:
Oportebit autem eum qui semet exercet ad eloquentiam singulos excutere locos ac velut ostiatim pulsare, si quid possit elici; usus efficiet, ut deinceps sponte occurrant.67
He who is working towards eloquence will need to check all the individual topics, knocking from door to door, so to say, to find out if anything can be lured outside; experience, however, will ensure that one after another, they present themselves spontaneously.
So, in De copia, Erasmus provides his readers with an overview of topics which is inspired by Aristotle’s common topics, but he does not provide topics that are specific to the three classes of rhetoric. Moreover, he also downplays the necessity of learning all topics by heart, emphasising the importance of practice and the weight of experience instead.
2.2 Practical guidelines: Compendium rhetorices
In his early Compendium rhetorices, Erasmus seems to opt for a different approach. He does not spend many words introducing the subject of topics. Under the heading “Topics of arguments”, he immediately provides a list of topics:
66 genere, specie, proprio, differentibus, partitione, divisione (...), a contrariis, repugnantibus, consequentibus; a
relativis; a causis; ab eventis; a comparatione (...). Erasmus, De copia, ASD I-6, 825-828.
23 Loci argumentorum.68
1. Definitio, descriptio, et etymologia. 2. Genus, Virtus.
3. Species, Iustitia.
4. Proprium, Sermo in homine. 5. Differentia, Rationale.
6. Divisio, Partitio. Reip. formae 4.
Reip. partes, Senatus, Ordo equestris et Populus. 7. Totum falsum, aut unum confirmatur etc.
Dilemma, ut propositis duobus utrumque retorqueatur in adversarium. Antistrophon et βιαίου telum retortum.
Simile. Dissimile. Inductio insidiosa. 8. Repugnantia.
Contraria, sapiens, stultus. Privativa, caecus, videns.
Contradictoria, doctus, non doctus. Relativa, pater, filius, locator, conductor. 9. Consequentia, Qui laesit sciens, non erat amicus. 10. Causae – Effecta, Si gloriam petis, expecta invidiam. 11. Eventa, Vicit, meliorem igitur causam habuit.
12. Autoritas.
Topics of arguments69
1. Definition, description, and etymology. 2. Genus, “Virtue”.
3. Species, “Justness”.
4. Proprium, “Human speech”. 5. Differentia, “Rational”.70
6. Division, Partition. “Four types of government”.71
“Parts of the republic: the senate, the order of knights and the people”.72
7. Entirely false, or one is confirmed, etc.
Dilemma, that one of two propositions is turned into to its opposite. Antistrophon and the retorted argument of the violent.73
The similar. The dissimilar. Insidious induction. 8. Incompatible things.
Contraries, “the wise man, the foolish man”. Lacking things, “the blind man, the sighted man”.
Contradicting terms, “the educated man, the uneducated man”. Things that refer to each other, “father, son”, “landlord, tenant”. 68 Erasmus, Compendium rhetorices, Allen 10, 401-402, 92-114.
69 I have added a few details in the formatting of my translation which are not present in the formatting of the original Latin text. First, I have used quotation marks to indicate when Erasmus is giving practical examples to illustrate the terms he is listing. Additionally, I have used italics to indicate specialised rhetorical terms. 70 The example seems to refer to the Aristotelian definition of man as animal rationale. The word rationale, “rational” is the factor that distinguishing humans from other types of animals.
71 That is, the classical four types of government: democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, and aristocracy. 72 The three demographic categories in which the Roman republic was divided.
73 I have translated βιαίου quite literally with ‘of the violent’. Perhaps Erasmus is trying to indicate that using an
24
9. Consequences, “Someone who hurt [another person] willingly, was not a friend”. 10. Causes – effects, “If you strive for glory, expect envy”.
11. Outcomes, “He won, so he had a better case”. 12. Authority.
The difference with De Copia’s treatment of the subject is remarkable. Since De Copia was written in a later stage of Erasmus’s career and was meant for a rather wide audience, Erasmus could afford to provide only a number of possible topics and then de-emphasise the need to learn everything by heart. The Compendium, on the other hand, was meant to be learnt by heart by Erasmus’s students, whom he tutored when he was still unknown. Thus, the Compendium presents us with a very different picture: a brief but definite list of topics, without analysis or commentary, but supplemented with examples to clarify potentially unfamiliar terms.
If we look beyond presentation, however, the Compendium displays the same appreciation of Aristotle which Erasmus expressed in De Copia. Many of the terms that were mentioned in De Copia are also listed in the Compendium, like genus, species, proprium, differentia, division, contraries, consequences, causes and outcomes. Almost all of these terms are derived from dialectic: genus, species, proprium and differentia, for instance, are the famous instruments Aristotle used to construct definitions, and under number 7 several options are listed to judge the soundness of propositions on which a syllogism is based. In contrast to De Copia, however, the Compendium does expand this Aristotelian list of common topics with topics specific to two types of rhetoric, namely deliberative and demonstrative rhetoric. What is remarkable in the Compendium’s treatment of these specific topics, is the fact that Erasmus elaborates on their nature and application. Whereas his list of general topics was not introduced or explained, his overviews of the specific topics are accompanied by one or more explanatory paragraphs.
2.3 The topics of demonstrative rhetoric in the Compendium rhetorices
What, then, does Erasmus say about specific topics in these paragraphs, and what kind of examples does he give? Since our corpus, letter 999, belongs to the demonstrative class, it is most relevant to examine the topics Erasmus provides for this type of rhetoric. Erasmus begins with the following list:
25
On the laudatory class
External circumstances. Physical qualities. Mental qualities.
External
Fatherland, Descent,
Wealth, Honorary offices, Real-estate, Wife, children, etc.
Of the body
Age, Appearance, Dignity, Strength, Sobriety, Sonorous voice, Clear pronunciation, etc.
Of the mind
Docility, Intellectual capabilities, Reliable memory, Sanity,
Piety, Fortitude, Prudence, Moderateness, Justness, Kindness, etc. De genere laudatorio74 Bona externa. Bona corporis. Bona animi. Externa Patria, Genus, Opes, Honores,
Edificia, Uxor, Liberi etc.
Corporis
Aetas, Forma, Dignitas, Vires, Salubritas, Vocalitas, Plectrum articulatum, etc.
Animi
Docilitas, Ingenii dexteritas, Memoria fidelis, Sanitas, Pietas, Fortitudo, Pru- dentia, Moderatio, Iusti- cia, Comitas, etc.
Under the heading De genere laudatorio, “On the laudatory class”, Erasmus first lists the three main topics for demonstrative rhetoric: bona externa (literally “external qualities”, but I will translate it as “external circumstances”), bona corporis (“physical qualities”), and bona animi (“mental qualities”). Then, he connects a number of subtopics to each topic. After giving his lists of subtopics, Erasmus continues to illustrate these subtopics in a short commentary. In the remainder of this section, I will discuss Erasmus’s lists of subtopics and his commentary on these subtopics in more depth, because both will be compared with Erasmus’s practice in letter 999 in chapter 3, 4, and 5.
According to Erasmus, the first topic, bona externa or “external circumstances”, can be subdivided into the subtopics “fatherland, descent, wealth, honorary offices, real-estate” and “wife, children etc”.75 In his commentary, he acknowledges that “external circumstances do not
particularly pertain to praise”, possibly because matters like descent or inherited wealth are
74 Erasmus, Compendium rhetorices, Allen 10, 403, 164-178.
26
circumstantial factors rather than products of virtuous behaviour. Therefore, Erasmus emphasises, these subtopics need to be implemented with skill.76 He gives several examples:
Si patriam illustrem sua virtute reddidit illustriorem, aut obscuram reddidit claram. Idem dicendum de genere. Si opes sine fraude paravit, aut a maioribus acceptis, aut a fortuna sponte oblatis bene usus. Si divitiae et honores illum nec corruperunt nec reddiderunt insolentem. Si uxorem elegit et comiter habuit. Si filios sancte educavit. Si patriae felix est magis quam sibi.77
If someone has rendered his illustrious fatherland even more illustrious by his virtue, or has rendered an unknown fatherland famous. The same should be said about his descent. If he has acquired wealth without deceit, or has made good use of wealth inherited from his ancestors or obtained spontaneously and by chance. If riches and honorary offices have neither corrupted him nor made him immoderate. If he has chosen a wife and lived with her on friendly terms. If he has raised his sons piously. If he takes delight in his fatherland rather than in himself.
In this passage, several of the subtopics we have seen in Erasmus’s list are expanded into rough material for arguments. In fact, if we consider all the examples that are given, we can deduce two strategies for praising someone for his bona externa. The first is to show that the person who is praised has used or approached his circumstances with virtue. When illustrating the subtopic of “wife, children, etc.”, for instance, Erasmus suggests to praise a person for developing a good relationship with his wife and raising his children well. Similarly, he advises to praise a person for acquiring wealth in an honest way, or making good use of wealth that he receives. The second strategy recommended by Erasmus is to show that, even though the person who is praised lives in fortunate circumstances, like wealth or public esteem, these have not corrupted his character. We can see this clearly in Erasmus’s illustration of the subtopic of “wealth”: “If riches and honorary offices have neither corrupted him nor made him immoderate”. In sum, the external circumstances can be turned into grounds for praise in two ways: one, by showing that the person who is praised has used or approached his circumstances with virtue, and two, by showing that his virtue has not been compromised by his fortunate circumstances.
For the bona corporis, the physical qualities, Erasmus gives a slightly longer list of subtopics: “Age, appearance, dignity, strength, sobriety, sonorous voice, clear pronunciation”.78
76 Externa quoniam ad laudem proprie non pertinent, arte huc sunt accommodanda. “Since external
circumstances do not particularly pertain to praise, they need to be adjusted to it with skill”. (Allen 10, 403, 179-180.)
77 Allen 10, 403, 180-186.
27
What immediately stands out, is that two of these subtopics, namely “dignity” (dignitas) and “sobriety” (sobrietas) are moral characteristics rather than physical traits. Apparently, someone’s outward appearance was perceived as closely related to his character. This correlation seems to be confirmed by Erasmus’s commentary on the physical qualities. He starts by recommending the same strategies as for the external circumstances, namely, to show that the person to be praised has used his qualities well or was not corrupted by it.79 Then, Erasmus adds a third strategy:
Si dignitas, animi gravitas in vultu relucet. Vires et salubritatem corporis parit et auget industria, ac vitae sobrietas.80
If there is dignity, the weight of the mind is reflected on the face. Strength and physical well-being are produced and promoted by diligence and sobriety in life.
In these sentences, Erasmus creates a strong connection between mind and appearance. In fact, it is the mind that influences someone’s appearance: a dignified mind literally ‘shines’ (relucet) on the face, and inner excellence produces physical qualities like strength and general well-being.81 It seems, in conclusion, that according to Erasmus, the topic of bona corporis provides fertile ground for praise. The orator can choose for three strategies in total: showing that the person praised has used his physical qualities well, showing that he is not corrupted by them, and lastly, showing that physical qualities like appearance and strength are in fact signs of moral excellence.
The last topic for praise listed by Erasmus is the bona animi, the ‘mental qualities’. In the Compendium, Erasmus lists the following subtopics: “Docility, capability of the intellect, reliable memory, sanity, piety, fortitude, prudence, moderateness, justness, kindness, etc”.82 In
his commentary on this list, Erasmus deviates from his earlier approach. Instead of recommending a few strategies for implementing these subtopics, Erasmus shifts emphasis to the context in which these subtopics should be embedded.
79 Idem faciendum in bonis corporis. “The same should be done with the physical qualities”. (Allen 10, 404, 188.) Based on the examples Erasmus gives, he seems to prefer the second strategy (i.e. showing that the person praised was not corrupted by his fortune) within the context of bona corporis: In adolescente sobrietas, in
formoso pudicitia. “In a young man, sobriety should be praised, in a handsome one, chastity”. (Allen 10, 404,
188-189.)
80 Allen 10, 404, 189-191.
81 Interesting to note is that this inner excellence is articulated by the terms dignitas and sobrietas, which we have already seen in Erasmus’s list of subtopics for the bona corporis.
82 Docilitas, Ingenii dexteritas, Memoria fidelis, Sanitas, Pietas, Fortitudo, Prudentia, Moderatio, Iusticia,
28
Bona animi per omnis aetatis gradus tractanda sunt. Quid puer, quid adolescens, quid iuvenis, quid vir, quid senex gesserit. Qualis in patriam, in parentes, in uxorem, in liberos, in amicos, in cives, et hostes.83
The mental qualities need to be examined in all stages of his life. What he has done as a boy, as a youngster, as a young man, as a man, as an old man. What kind of man he has been towards his fatherland, his parents, his wife, his children, his friends, his fellow citizens, his enemies.
As it turns out, the subtopics of bona animi can be found in two specific contexts: “what he has done” (quid...gesserit) in his walk through life and “what kind of man [he has been]” (qualis[...fuerit]) towards others. Within these contexts, the orator can look for signs of piety, fortitude, prudence, kindness, and the like.
2.3 Concluding remarks
The aim of this chapter was to examine Erasmus’s own thoughts on topics, specifically his thoughts on the topics of demonstrative rhetoric. At the beginning of the chapter, I paid some attention to one of Erasmus’s best known rhetorical treatises, De copia. In De copia, Erasmus offers a brief review of ancient remarks on topics and gives a list of topics that strongly resemble Aristotle’s list of common topics. Then, he de-emphasises the need to learn all these topics by heart, emphasising the importance of practice and the weight of experience. In the Compendium, however, Erasmus gives a clear list of common topics, which is supplemented with examples to explain potentially unfamiliar terms. The Compendium also differs from De copia in that it treats the specific topics as well. In his treatment of the topics for demonstrative rhetoric, Erasmus lists a number of subtopics for each topic, and illustrates the use of these subtopics in a brief commentary. I have examined these lists of subtopics and the commentary in a bit more depth, because they will be my point of reference in chapter 3, 4, and 5. When it comes to bona externa or external circumstances, Erasmus suggests two ways to turn these circumstances into matters of virtue: either the person to be praised has made good use of his fortune, or he was not corrupted by it. The bona corporis or physical qualities work along the same lines, but there, it is also possible to present these physical qualities as signs of inner virtue. Lastly, and in the context of the bona animi, the mental qualities, Erasmus suggests to examine both a person’s deeds (quid...gesserit) and his attitude towards the people around him (qualis...[fuerit]).
