THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARY HISTORY COMMENTARY ON SENECA’S DE CLEMENTIA by John Calvin Used by permisson from E.J. Brill Publishing All Rights Reserved © 1969 B o o k s F o r Th e A g e s AGES Software • Albany, OR USA Version 1.0 © 1998 2 THE TEXT OF THE PRESENT EDITION The text of the De Clementia is here basically printed from Calvin’s edition of 1532, not from any sort of antiquarian interest, but simply because this Commentary refers very specifically to this text, and to no other. We have, of course, a much better text today than Calvin had four hundred years ago; but if we want to understand his Commentary and that is the aim of the present publication — then we cannot work with any other text than that which he himself prepared for the presses of Louis Blauwbloem in the Rue de St. Jacques, Paris. In preparing the critical apparatus which is to be found at the bottom of each page, I have not attempted to do anything more than 1. to indicate where, and in what way, Calvin deviated from the standard edition published by Erasmus in 1529, and 2. to indicate the most important differences between Calvin’s text and the texts of current modern editions like that of Hosius (1914), Prechac (1921), and Faider (1928). In doing so, I have tried to be as explicit as possible, keeping in mind the abhorrence inspired in the mind of a student by a critical apparatus consisting of nothing but single little words or fragments of words. I have therefore consciously deviated from the usual practice, by writing out sentences or parts of sentences as fully as possible, especially in those cases where a whole sequence of words has got jumbled in the manuscripts. Moreover, I have as a rule repeated in the apparatus the reading given by Calvin (which is in most cases an Erasmian reading), in order to contrast this as directly as possible with the readings found elsewhere. To the trained eye of the specialist this will doubtless seem so much trouble and paper gone to waste; but I am convinced that to the average student it must make a difference. Wherever possible, I have indicated which manuscripts are in agreement with the Erasmian text; but I have definitely not regarded it as part of my 3 task to prepare, as it were, a separate apparatus for Erasmus: in other words, to investigate in detail where he relied on the earlier printed texts of the incunabula editions, where on the manuscripts (and on which!), and where on his own powers of critical divination. The sign Er. after a reading, therefore, does not mean (as with other names) that such a reading is necessarily a correction or a conjecture made by Erasmus; it simply indicates that that is what Erasmus wrote, no matter where he found it. CONSPECTUS SIGLORUM ET ABBREVIATIONUM Er1 editio Erasmiana prima, 1515 Er2 editio Erasmiana secunda, 1529 Er edd. Erasmianae ambae edd. vet. editiones veteres, Erasmianas antecedentes, a Calvino nonnunquam adhibitae edd. editores recentes omnes aut plerique codd. codices omnes aut plerique, Nazariano saepe excluso N codex Nazarianus (Palatinus 1547) saec. 8/9 N2 manus altera codicis N R codex Reginensis 1529 saec. 9/10 A codex Amplonianus bibl. Erfurtensis saec. 12, desinit 1.18.2 F codex Laurentianus plut. 76 36 saec. 12 L codex Leidensis Lipsianus 49 saec. 12 P codex Parisinus 6382 saec. 13 S codex Parisinus Sorbonne 1586 saec. 12/13 T codex Parisinus 8542 saec. 12 4 PREFACE OF JOHN CALVIN TO THE MOST SAINTLY AND MOST WISE PRELATE, CLAUDE DE HANGEST, ABBOT OF ST. ELOI’S AT NOYON If there are to be found in our day, Most Excellent Prelate, men born with just a little more than the average quickness of intelligence, they are almost certain to be fired with the ambition to become famous, and to vie with one another in their haste to leave their names celebrated with posterity by publishing the products of their talent without patience and without forethought; thinking, forsooth, that this will be accounted to their credit, that they had thought of posterity, whereas in fact they ought to be thoroughly ashamed of it. So few are there, who are capable of keeping themselves in check; hence, also, the mad and unrestrained passion to write something, which is always immediately followed by regret, as by a close companion. Yet in the midst of all their villainy they still try to do something in order to win the favor of their so called “benevolent” readers; and I must say, they certainly tax their readers’ benevolence to the utmost. Some seek to shield themselves behind their youthful inexperience; others try to justify themselves by stating that their works, though hardly yet begun, had been wrung from them by the wanton insistence of friends; while others just babble all sorts of nonsense in order to clear themselves from error, if in their folly they should have put up themselves as a spectacle before the public. But I would much rather bring forth no “children” at all than bring them forth before their time; or rather — as usually happens — not so much bring forth such abortions, as cast them forth. Yet I, too, have to contrive something in order to justify this my plan and undertaking before my readers: not only my “benevolent” but also my wary and critical readers; the more so, since I am but an ordinary person from the ranks of the people, endowed with a moderate, nay rather, a very modest learning, and having nothing in me which could possibly excite any hopes of future celebrity. In fact, it was precisely this consciousness of my obscurity, which had induced me so far to abstain from publishing anything. 5 Neither did I start composing these commentaries of mine, whatever they may be worth, in any hope of their ever coming before the public eye; but one would have said I really did think about publication, so great was the fervor with which I prosecuted my study, having no intention to trifle away my time, like one trifling at leisure with amusements and trifles. So, having not yet altogether come to the end, I read it aloud to a few tried and trusted friends, and when they expressed their judgment upon this, as upon all matters, with straightforward simplicity, they inspired me with some hope that my work was of a quality which would not altogether miss the mark, if published. And most particularly did I set store by the opinion of my friend Connan, a man of prudence and learning, by whose judgment I stand or fall. Add to this, that I simply could not tolerate seeing the best of authors despised by most, and held in almost no esteem whatsoever; so that I had long since been wishing that some illustrious champion would stand up to vindicate his cause and restore him to his proper place of dignity. If to any degree I may have succeeded in doing this, I need not regard so much labor as spent in vain; after all, there are certain things (in the text) which have escaped the notice of even Erasmus himself, the second glory and the darling of literature, though he sweated twice in this arena; and which have now for the first time been noticed by me; which I would say without any ill-will. Concerning the author himself, I shall indeed be rather short, for fear that I might otherwise detract from his real merit through my lack of ability to praise him. Nor have I any intention to extol his merits, lest it might seem as if he himself had too little to show by way of recommendation. I would have kept altogether silent, were it not that a certain small opinion of Seneca had occupied the minds of many, and were now already become a fixed prejudice, namely, that Seneca’s merits as a stylist were none, as a philosopher, few and negligible, lying buried and hidden among his many faults. Thus, they declare, Quintilian purposely deferred mentioning him (Seneca) in (his discussion of) the different branches of literature, in order thus indirectly to remove his name from the list of approved authors. Thus, they say, Gellius pronounces him, in the words of another, but 6 nevertheless, in his own proper judgment, a thoroughly useless writer. Now I would not dare openly to refute Quintilian, a man of the keenest and clearest judgment; but I would certainly like these critics also to understand that Quintilian, too, was only human, and that he did not treat Seneca with sufficient good faith, or in any case tried to take revenge for some old personal insults. For Seneca, in the Declamations, had treated Quintilian the Elder with less respect than was his due, and had tried to obstruct the fame of Quintilian the Younger. As regards the things poured out over Seneca by the black bile of Gellius, if they really consider all that as the established truth, they certainly are wide of the mark. Surely it must be plain to everyone, with how unrestrained a fury he attacks him, and how he is, in this part, rather more insulting than really serious. Certainly, whatever Quintilian and Gellius may have thought, later generations, who have been able to judge without envy and partiality (two sworn enemies of the truth), count him (Seneca) amongst the foremost princes of Latin letters. It was an easy thing for Quintilian to wrestle with ghosts, and get away with it: the dead man could not bite! But had he been alive and alert, it would not have been so easy to shout at him! And yet he did not strip him of all praises so completely, as not to leave him still the highest praise: enumerating all the Latin orators from the earliest times, he singles out Seneca amongst all these, to celebrate him for the copiousness of his style.