Erasme et le pouvoir de l’imprimerie

Presse

Dans Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook

To accompany Karine Crouzas in her discovery of the workshops of Erasmus’ printers at the beginning of the sixteenth century is to pursue an increasingly enthralling account of the relationship between Erasmus and print. Writing while still a doctoral student at Lausanne University, Crouzas offers an Erasmus who was a man of his day: not only a writer bound by the new techniques of print but also a witty, clever, and polemical author who played with the prospects offered by this new typographical tool. A preface by Jean-François Gilmont, a leading authority on the history of the book, provides a brief
and clear introduction to the problematics of the work. With Erasmus’ correspondence serving as its main source, this is a study that sets out to discover what Erasmus thought of print and how he estimated and evaluated the power of a new medium.
The first part of the book, “L’imprimerie, un outil parfaitement maîtrisé,” is divided into six chapters and opens with an examination of the contacts between Erasmus and the printers of his time. If chapter one introduces nothing new, it must be said to its credit that it usefully locates Erasmus within the chronology of his century, providing details of his biography, including his travels throughout Europe. Not only does it bring into focus Erasmus’ connections with printers – Thierry Martens in Louvain, Aldus Manutius in Venice, Johann Froben in Basel – but it also draws attention to the absence of other connections. For instance, there is no trace of a link between Erasmus and Parisian printer Antoine Denidel, who printed Erasmus’ first poems in 1495.
In the second chapter, Crouzas considers the recipients of Erasmus’ printed works and notes that the humanist wanted to achieve the widest possible distribution for them – geographical but also socio-cultural and temporal. Erasmus was extremely concerned with his fame in the present but even more so for the centuries to come. In pursuit of “la gloire” (p. 36), he deployed the instruments of typography with enthusiasm. In a brief but stimulating third chapter, Crouzas deftly studies Erasmus’ typographical concerns, which she classifies under two headings: the accuracy of the text and its aesthetic quality. Erasmus is revealed as someone who is worried that these concerns be addressed and who, rather than leave Froben’s printing house, chooses as early as 1522 to give up the benefits of an imperial allowance. Any author concerned with the correction of his texts had no choice but to live near his printer (p. 42).
Erasmus’ financial arrangements with his printers, including contracts, advertising, circulation, and the importance of the book fair at Frankfurt, are dealt with in chapter four. Here Crouzas offers a fascinating picture of Erasmus making the business of publishing his business. He was fully aware, for example, that the name “Erasmus” was itself a selling-point (p. 60), and, as a result, he would speculate on it in the course of making financial arrangements with his printers. The humanist was also fully acquainted with the marketing of books. Even if he did not earn a great amount of money from the sale of his books, Erasmus managed to secure gifts of cloth from Froben, who was also obliged to put a house at his disposal and even to buy him a garden.
This exciting chapter tells us much about the importance of the Frankfurt fair in the rhythm of the writing and printing of the Erasmian book. In 1525, for instance, Erasmus obtained a copy of Luther’s De servo arbitrio and wrote a response in record time, compelling Froben to print his first Hyperaspistes some ten days before the opening of the Frankfurt fair in the summer of 1526. Well aware of commercial laws, Erasmus strategized about the printing of not only his books but also his pamphlets, 132 of which against conservative Catholics, Lutherans and Ciceronians were published under his alert eye between 1517 and 1536. Sometimes, on the other hand, Erasmus allowed some of his texts to circulate in a handwritten form for a more limited readership.
If the first half of this book introduces an Erasmus who was fully aware of the power that print gave him and who could therefore manipulate it, the second part, “Le contrôle des livres,” is more fascinating still as it reveals how quickly Erasmus came to understand the dangers of the typographical medium and tried to limit them. Crouzas takes the reader to the very heart of the questions raised by print: questions of intellectual property, of brutal competition between printers with no business training and no professional organization, and of censorship. Erasmus often raised these questions himself and in a rather disillusioned tone. Protective of his publications, he could not abide their being plagiarized or abbreviated, and he was among the first authors to advocate a legal deposit for books.
According to Crouzas, Erasmus had “une conscience très aiguë de la propriété intellectuelle” (p. 99). Extremely concerned by his present and future reputation, he often appealed to the authorities for the prohibition of publications that he regarded as defamatory. Depending on the places where his works were printed, he addressed his complaints to local authorities in Zurich, Basel, Strasbourg, the Swiss Confederation, as well as the dukes of Saxony and Milan, the Parliament of Paris, King Francis I of France, the Holy Roman Emperor, and a succession of popes. Vengeful in his protests, Erasmus favoured severe punishment for those who maligned him in print, going as far as to liken libel to a crime, like murder, worthy of capital punishment, especially if done anonymously.
Not only did Erasmus complain to the authorities of his time; he also tried to mobilise his own connections against the publication of some of these libels. Crouzas draws a distinction here between two kinds of texts whose printing or publication Erasmus was determined to prevent: those aimed directly at him and those aimed at Christendom or the study of ancient texts. Bolstered by those who exercised authority over publications at this time, Erasmus effectively acquired the status of a censorial counsellor to a great many of his contemporaries. For instance, when the town of Basel solicited his opinion after De verbis Cenae Domini by Johannes Oecolampadius was published in 1525, Erasmus advised its interdiction. More often than not, however, Erasmus was himself the victim of censorship, especially in December 1527, when the Sorbonne banned all of his publications. As a consequence, the humanist went through an acute period of despair, expressing great bitterness towards the medium of print (p. 161). Crouzas rightly concludes that, in spite of what is commonly claimed among Erasmian specialists, Erasmus was not an unwavering advocate of free speech: “Jamais on n’assiste à un plaidoyer en faveur d’une liberté d’expression généralisée” (p. 157). In his view, censorship was appropriate for any document that posed a threat to the society of his time by impugning either someone’s honour or Christendom or the studia humanitatis or morality in general. In religious matters, however, he was prepared to be much more tolerant. According to Erasmus, censorship in doctrinal matters should always aim at improving knowledge, not at destroying an author.
The brief but stimulating conclusion to this book brings into focus some of Erasmus’ famous contemporaries, including Savonarola, Luther, and Calvin, in their own relationship with “the typographical tool.” If, on the whole, Erasmus’ acquaintance with the dealings of book business emerges as not much different from that of his contemporaries, Crouzas points out that he nonetheless differed in his constant efforts to meet tight budgets and in his choice to live next door to the printer of his books. Even so, it is a matter for regret that a chapter was not devoted to explaining why Erasmus chose specific printers and why, even in the course of a close collaboration with Froben, he still provided other printers with copy.
Easy to handle, this book supplies a rich critical apparatus at the end of the volume: a chronology of Erasmus’ life, a clarification of the technical Latin vocabulary of print, a bibliography, and a table of contents; an index is strangely missing. A series of six illustrations taken from Erasmus’ books punctuates the chapters of the work, but these illustrations are never analysed, even though Crouzas’ study would have benefited (as did Lisa Jardine’s Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print [1993]) from examining such crucial sources. Nevertheless, Crouzas’ brief but careful study remains a welldocumented and refreshing synthesis which deserves to be required reading for all neophytes in Erasmian studies. Specialists of the great humanist, meanwhile, might also discover Erasmus to be not only a noble mind but a man who was deeply involved in the world of his time.

Marie Barral-Baron, Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook, 2008, pp. 139-142

Le seigneur des typos

Un livre de Karine Crousaz, publié chez Antipodes, met à jour l’influence exercée par Erasme sur le monde des lettres européennes.

Dans le domaine des sciences humaines ou de la littérature, les publications universitaires semblent parfois bien ésotériques. On ne peut donc que saluer la publication aux Editions Antipodes de l’ouvrage de Karine Crousaz, Erasme et le pouvoir de l’imprimerie. Voilà un sujet aride qui se lit comme ces histoires à succès dont raffole la presse économique: tout sur les secrets de l’entrepreneur qui réussit.

Car Erasme était à sa manière un chef d’entreprise moderne qui gérait une sorte de société virtuelle dont les imprimeurs étaient les partenaires. Karine Crousaz s’attache surtout à un imprimeur de Bâle, Johann Froben qui travaillait presque exclusivement pour l’humaniste hollandais. Erasme est d’ailleurs décédé au domicile des Froben. A cette époque déjà, la foire de Francfort était le principal rassemblement du monde du livre.

La stratégie des auteurs à succès du XVIe siècle, et Erasme était le principal d’entre eux, consistait à présenter de nouveaux ouvrages en maintenant le plus grand secret afin d’éviter que leurs adversaires en aient eu connaissance à l’avance et présentent leur propre réplique lors de la foire.

Un réseau de correspondants

Erasme était un expert dans l’obtention d’ouvrages de ses concurrents avant publication, si bien que la foire de Francfort présentait parfois un ouvrage écrit contre la pensée du résident bâlois en même temps que sa propre réplique. Il est vrai qu’Erasme disposait en Europe d’un vaste réseau de correspondants et d’amis qui s’arrangeaient pour lui transmettre à l’avance les bonnes feuilles des livres de ses adversaires obtenues par des voies détournées. Il arrivait parfois que les imprimeurs lui transmettent en cachette les livres qu’ils étaient en train d’imprimer afin de se faire bien voir de celui qui était le « patron » des lettres européennes.

Erasme n’hésitait pas à user de la menace. Karine Crousaz cite la lettre fort civile envoyée à un auteur qui faisait circuler-sous forme manuscrite-un libelle contre lui. Notre humaniste signala à l’auteur que s’il avait la mauvaise idée de vouloir imprimer son texte, lui, Erasme, se sentirait obligé à une réplique immédiate sous forme d’un libelle vengeur. Ce genre de manoeuvre semblait fort dissuasif.

Erasme est aussi le quasi inventeur du dépôt légal. Il souhaitait que les textes établis soient déposés une fois pour toutes dans des bibliothèques. Ces exemplaires de référence seraient les seuls à faire foi, manière d’éviter les interpolations et les ajouts courants à une époque qui ne connaissait pas le droit d’auteur.

Pour le meilleur et pour le pire, les méthodes du monde de l’édition ne donnent pas l’impression d’avoir beaucoup changé depuis la Renaissance. En tout cas, le nom de Johann Froben, imprimeur-éditeur bâlois soucieux de perfection typographique, d’élégance formelle avec des frontispices souvent dessinés par Hans Holbein, homme d’affaires retors et astucieux, mérite de rester avec plus d’éclat dans l’histoire du pays.

Jg, Domaine public, 1er juillet 2005, no 1652

Bulletin critique du livre en français, no 672, juillet-août 2005

Erasme et l’imprimerie

Le célèbre humaniste Erasme (1467-1536) est pratiquement né en même temps que l’imprimerie. Avec une estimation de 1,2 million d’exemplaires édités avant sa mort, l’érudit hollandais est assurément un personnage-clé du paysage éditorial du XVIe siècle.

Comment cet homme de lettres a-t-il appréhendé une invention qui révolutionna le monde du livre? La considérait-il, avec Rabelais, comme quasi divine, ou au contraire comme une technique au pouvoir dangereux? Karine Crousaz, assistante à la Section d’histoire de l’UNIL, a tenté de répondre à ces questions en analysant la relation d’Erasme avec l’imprimerie, dans cet ouvrage qui est une version retravaillée de son mémoire de licence, dirigé par le professeur Alain Dubois et défendu à l’UNIL en juin 2001.

M.R, Allez savoir, octobre 2005

Quels étaient les rapports d’Erasme, l’un des plus grands succès de librairie de son temps, avec une imprimerie en plein essor au début du XVIe siècle? On découvre dans cette étude les contacts étroits et intenses que le « Prince des humanistes » entretient avec les imprimeurs et que l’imprimerie est un outil qu’il maîtrise parfaitement. Il s’attelle à toucher un public aussi large et varié que possible, et se montre très exigeant tant envers la qualité éditoriale de ses ouvrages qu’envers leur beauté esthétique. Erasme considère cette invention comme un magnifique moyen de diffusion du savoir mais il est conscient que ce pouvoir peut se retourner contre lui-même et plus largement contre la science et la société. Aussi, l’imprimerie n’est pas seulement pour lui un outil mais un instrument qu’il essaie de contrôler afin, par exemple, d’en limiter l’accès à ses adversaires. Enfin, à travers les relations d’Erasme avec l’imprimerie, cet ouvrage remarquablement écrit nous offre un pan riche et inédit de l’épopée du livre dans une période clef de son histoire. Livres que nous avons souvent entre les mains mais dont nous ne connaissons peu ou pas la longue et passionnante trajectoire à travers les siècles.

Isabelle Paccaud, Le Temps, 15 octobre 2005

The present work is a revision of a dissertation submitted in June 2001 to the University of Lausanne, where Crousaz is currently an assistant and candidate for a doctorate in history, for a licentiate in Letters. There is a preface by Jean-François Gilmont, who calls, justifiably, Crousaz’s study a captivating chapter in the history of the book. Crousaz focuses almost exclusively on statements about editing and printing found in Erasmus’s correspondence and in the adage Festina lente.

Crousaz divides her study into two parts. The first is concerned with discovering the extent to which Erasmus understood the printing press and its power to disseminate knowledge and ideas, both good and bad. The latter possibility lead to the second part in which she explores the ways Erasmus sought to control the publication of his own work as well as thar of others. Crousaz begins with a brief survey of Erasmus’s contacts with the main printers with whom he worked: Josse Bade in Paris, Aldus Manutius in Venice, Dirk Martens in Louvain, and, above all, Johann Froben and his successors in Basel. Little is said about Erasmus’s five-year cooperation with Dirk Martens, though useful information may be found in the prefaces of some of the books printed by Martens. Other printers are only mentioned in passing.

After this brief survey, Crousaz organizes her material in part 1 into a serie of topics designed to show Erasmus’s mastery of the printing business: the diffusion of books and their various readerships, correction of the text, aesthetic qualities, contracts between author and printer, publicity, press-runs, the spring and autumn book fairs at Frankfurt am Main, Erasmus’s weapons in his quarrels with critics, and the circulation of manuscripts prior to printing. Part 2 cover intellectual property (authors’ rights, plagiarism, publication rights), printing and philology (a somewhat skimpy treatment), and, in the longest and most original chapter, Erasmus’s efforts to control other men’s publications. Crousaz sums up her findings in a conclusion and, as a good conclusion should, raises several new questions for investigation. There are two appendices: a chronology of select event and publications in Erasmus’s life, and a glossary of Latin terms pertinent to printing. There is a detailed bibliography but no index.

The lack of an index is partially ameliorated by the detailed table of content that allows one to locate the treatment of a given topic. There are, however, a few subjects which for some reason are scattered here and there. Mention is made of the controversy with Edward Lee in at least four different places, but there is no comprehensive discussion, not even in the long chapter on « censorship ». The Lee case, though limited in time and space, offers the most detailed account we have of Erasmus’s efforts, for the most part underhanded, to deal with a pesky critic. Crousaz has apparently not seen the new edition of Erasmus’s Apologia and other Responses in the Amsterdam Opera Omnia (ix-4). The concentation on the Letters leads to other omissions. Erasmus’s observations on printers can turn up in unexpected places. For example, the Dialogue on the Pronunciation of Latin and Greek contains an exchange devoted to punctuation and spelling, which, as Erasmus says, is the province of the printers (they still are). He wished they could agree on a standard system. Other major subjects such as the examination of printer copy (quite a bit survives), the bibliographic analysis of Erasmus’s printed works, and his editorial activities are passed over. There is a certain disconnect between what Erasmus says about printing and what he himself actually did. There is little evidence that Erasmus actually proofread his own publications though he harps on the author’s need to do so. There is some evidence for stop-press correction but in the absence of bibliographic examination it is difficult, if not impossible, to surmise whether the corrections came from him. Erasmus constantly complains about the faults of printers, but nowhere is there a word about the brutal working conditions which underlay them. We still do not have a comprehensive study of Erasmus in or on printing, but Crousaz has occupied and carefully mapped our a large part of the terrirory.

                    JOHN J. BATEMA (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Renaissance Quarterly, Eté 2005

La « force intrinsèque de l’idée vraie » ne suffit pas à diffuser les productions culturelles, même les plus brillantes: voilà le point majeur qui ressort de l’ouvrage de Karine Crousaz. Car il s’agit avant tout d’une contribution à l’histoire des conditions sociales de circulation des idées: si Érasme est, dès le XVIe siècle et jusqu’à aujourd’hui, l’humaniste par excellence, c’est aussi parce qu’il maîtrise avec raffinement l’art de publier, c’est-à-dire de rendre public, de faire traduire et circuler ses idées. Le « métier de savant » requiert ainsi la maîtrise de stratégies inséparablement scientifiques et sociales. Aussi est-ce l’idée de « maîtrise » qui organise l’ouvrage de K. Crousaz, divisé en deux parties: la première consacrée à la maîtrise de l’imprimerie par Érasme; l’autre au contrôle exercé par ce dernier sur sa « propriété intellectuelle » mais aussi sur la production des autres auteurs, en particulier de ses adversaires. Les humanistes ont aimé se représenter en hommes de cabinet, génies créateurs isolés: qu’on pense aux portraits d’Érasme-en-cabinet, par Hans Holbein ou par Quentin Metsys. Qu’on pense aussi à la galerie de figures des penseurs à jamais solitaires du studiolo d’Urbino. L’ouvrage montre combien cette représentation doit plus à l’idéologie professionnelle du milieu qui l’a produite qu’à la réalité: Érasme consacre une part importante de son temps aux activités « extra-intellectuelles », en particulier à veiller à la diffusion de ses œuvres, à s’informer sur ses adversaires, à se procurer des soutiens, techniques et politiques.

On savait déjà Érasme homme de réseaux (Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print, 1993), K. Crouzas le montre homme de terrain, n’hésitant pas à séjourner des mois à proximité de l’officine de l’imprimeur, chez Josse Bade ou Jean Froben. Sans relâche, il veille à l’exactitude du texte, effectue les corrections et s’assure de la qualité de l’édition. Inlassablement, il veille à la réédition et à la traduction de ses œuvres, originellement écrites en latin, afin qu’elles soient diffusées dans tous les pays et dans tous les milieux. L’humaniste est ému lorsqu’au hasard d’un voyage, en 1518, un douanier le reconnaît: « il m’entraîne chez lui; sur une petite table, parmi les formulaires de douane, s’étalaient les livres d’Érasme. Il crie son bonheur, appelle ses enfants, appelle son épouse, fait venir tous ses amis… » Érasme veut aussi léguer ses œuvres à la postérité et désigne dans son testament de 1527 huit lieux de conservation qui recevront à sa mort ses œuvres complètes, rééditées pour l’occasion.

Pour ce travail de terrain, il renonce à la vie de cour: il n’ira pas enseigner au futur Collège de France comme le lui propose François 1er. Cette indépendance ne va pas de soi et explique qu’Érasme se préoccupe avec attention des questions économiques. Contre une idée reçue qui voudrait que les auteurs du XVIe siècle aient refusé d’accepter de l’argent, ne comptant que sur les mécènes et non sur les imprimeurs pour vivre, K. Crousaz montre qu’Érasme attend d’être payé pour ses manuscrits, au moins en livres, et qu’il touche de l’argent sur les ventes. Se libérer du mécénat en veillant au succès de ses ouvrages, c’est aussi aménager la liberté du savant, c’est-à-dire l’autonomisation du champ scientifique. Érasme sait combien la qualité esthétique des livres influe sur leur vente, sur la diffusion de ses idées et par ricochet, sur les revenus de l’imprimeur et donc sur sa propre liberté d’écriture. Au demeurant, plus sa notoriété augmente, moins il participe lui-même à la mise de fonds initiale et à la distribution de ses œuvres: on voit combien le temps que les savants consacrent à la recherche de leurs moyens de production est fonction de leur position dans la hiérarchie intellectuelle. Aussi importe-t-il de ne pas laisser à l’état d’impensé les présupposés de la pensée: c’est parce qu’Érasme fait vendre qu’on lui prend ses manuscrits sans discuter. Il est alors libre de moins se prêter à la comédie sociale des œuvres de commande et des flatteries de l’esprit.

Le croyait-on pur homme de savoir, peu soucieux du devenir de ses idées à la sortie de la plume? Si Érasme triomphe souvent dans la polémique, ce n’est pas seulement grâce à la supériorité de ses arguments: l’humaniste connaît bien les contingences matérielles, celles en particulier des foires de Francfort, qui rythment la vie des idées et des controverses de l’époque. Il sait écrire au rythme du marché, quitte à aller trop vite, pour ne pas laisser l’adversaire seul présent à la foire. Grâce à son réseau, il se procure à l’avance les ouvrages critiques, parfois encore manuscrits, qu’on avait pris soin de lui cacher pour ne pas qu’il puisse répondre à temps (c’est le cas du serf arbitre de Luther). Il n’hésite pas à recourir aux « coups bas », s’adressant aux puissants pour faire interdire les ouvrages de ses adversaires (il mobilise le pape Clément VII contre Jacobus Stunica qui discutait ses Annotations au Nouveau Testament), intimidant les auteurs ou les imprimeurs tentés de publier les critiques mais lorgnant sur les best sellers érasmiens. On savait Érasme censuré, c’est un Érasme censeur, profitant de sa position dans le monde des idées, qui apparaît. L’ouvrage de K. Crousaz nous fait pénétrer dans un décor rarement montré, cette cuisine d’Érasme dont les effiuves font vaciller les prétentions des intellectuels à penser hors du monde. Depuis cet observatoire, les stratégies intellectuelles sont toujours duales: dotées certes d’une fonction et d’une visée purement scientifiques, elles ont aussi une fonction sociale, celle de faire taire les adversaires, d’asseoir sa position, par le biais parfois de méthodes extrascientifiques. Pour dresser ce portrait, l’auteur n’a pas eu recours aux ragots ni aux médisances, pourtant nombreux, des adversaires d’Érasme: ces vérités n’étaient pas cachées mais il fallait déplacer le regard, fouiller dans les parties les moins « nobles» de la correspondance du philosophe, citées en français dans le texte et en latin dans les nombreuses notes.

Le livre est, il est vrai, un peu scolaire (il s’agit de la version retravaillée d’un mémoire de licence en lettres soutenu à Lausanne en 2001) et manque parfois de problématiques affirmées avec vigueur. Le passage sur la propriété intellectuelle, assez neuf et iconoclaste, mériterait par exemple d’être plus largement développé, car il illustre la tension qui règne au sein du monde des idées entre désintéressement et appropriation intellectuelle. Mais l’ouvrage, mené avec rigueur et érudition, constitue une description innovante de la genèse de ces mondes sociaux spécifiques où naît la raison et s’engendre la lutte pour la vérité. À ce titre, il constitue un bon outil de désenchantement du monde des idées.

Jérémie Foa, Genèses no 65, 2006.

Amid the steady flood of publications about Erasmus, why did no one before undertake this study? The concept is a simple as the execution is convincing.

Karin Crousaz has attentively read the three thousand-and-some letters that form the correspondence of Erasmus (and also sorne texts found in his Praise of Folly, his Colloquies and his Adages). She relies on the translations in La Correspondance d’Erasme, ed. A. Gerlo, but is careful to add in her footnotes the Latin text of every quotation. Her objective was to analyze aIl statements that could throw sorne light on Erasmus’ place in the world of the printed book. Book printing in Europe was only a little older than Erasmus himself, but despite its relative novelty it had revolutionized writing as weIl as reading by the time he reached adulthood. One by one, Karin Crousaz examines the principal aspects of that revolution and Erasmus’ role in each: the personal relations of an author with his printer-publishers; the sort of readers he, and they, hope to reach; the proofreading; the material and esthetic quality of books; the number of copies printed and the sales venues; the book as an instrument for propagating ideas and conducting polemics; copyright and other legal issues, especially censorship; the compensation of the author, if any; and the birth of the critical edition.

Erasmus considered printing as an invention that was-quite literally-heaven-sent, although he complained about the masses of trash that flooded the market. Whenever possible, he involved himself closely in the production of bis books, at least the ones that contained new material. Therefore the proximity of publishers was an important factor in the choice of his residences. He wanted his books to be weIl crafted and handsome. Shoddy editing and printing he judged harshly. Karen Crousaz shows impressively how weIl he understood the technical and commercial aspects of the industry and how willingly he conformed to its dynamies. He was happy to provide advertising, for instance by praising the prin ter and his work in a preface. He realized how important it was to launch a book just in time for one of the biannual fairs at Frankfurt. Doing so created sorne space before a pirate reprint or, in case of controversies, a rejoinder might hit the market. ln the absence of clear mIes for copyright, he usually allowed time for one publisher to sell his edition before providing revised copy to another. He had many occasions for lamenting unauthorized or adulterated editions of his writings, but did not complain to the authorities, unless he felt he had been slandered or charged with heresy or subversion. He was aware of an ordinance of the Fifth Lateran Council that prescribed censoring of aIl manuscripts to be printed by the bishop of the diocese in question, and sometimes he complied. On the other hand, he condemned the buming of books found heretical as vigorously as the burning of people so judged.

In view of the coherence and admirable concision of this book, one is reluctant to suggest additional topies or issues that might have been dealt with, but sorne could perhaps be taken up if the author were to continue her research. How did Erasmus decide if and when to release a manuscript to a prin ter? The brief discussion in the present book deserves to be expanded, especially with regard to his letters. Since he regularly arranged for collections of his correspondence to be published, the question often arises whether he had a wider public in mind, even when writing what we would call a private letter, addressed to a single recipient. Some letters were subjected to editing before they appeared in print but, nonetheless, contradictory statements tum up side by side in the same collection. Was it that Erasmus trusted the readers to realize that they ought to read his letters the way they were written, with the addressee in mind, that the writer owed it to the recipients to consider their frame of mind when he chose his words? In his early years Erasmus had the letters he sent and received copied into copy books. Luckily one such copy book, known as the Deventer letter book, survived. A large majority of the letters it contains were not printed until the eighteenth century. The latest letter in the Deventer book dates from October 1518. From there on most of the letters we have today are the ones he had chosen to share with the public at large, for shortly before his death he destroyed a substantial volume of unpublished correspondence. Thus the many letters of the Deventer book that he passed over should greatly facilitate an analysis of Erasmus’ criteria for publishing his correspondence. In the same context a good deal of attention is due to Beatus Rhenanus, whom Erasmus trusted with the selection and editing of many of his letters for the Froben press, or so at least he says. Incidentally, I would question Crousaz’s suggestion (in view of Erasmus’ last will, for instance), that he never liked Hieronymus Froben as much as he had had liked the father, Johann Froben. Occasionally, a glance at the English translation of Erasmus’ letters might have produced minor corrections; for instance, the editor of the Schöffer press’ famous edition of Livy with the newly found books (letter 919) is not Hutten, but Nikolaus Carbach. One omission both amid Crousaz’s sources and her bibliography is not so easy to forgive: Die Amerbachkorrepondenz is a mine of information on Erasmus and printing, in importance second only to his own correspondence.

The above comments will show how stimulating this reader has found Karen Crousaz’s book. It is important for it teaches us a great deal about sixteenth-century printing as weIl as about Erasmus himself.

Peter G. Bietenholz, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, Tome 6