- Email: [email protected]
Humanist insights and the vernacular in sixteenth-century France
History of European Ideas, Vol. 16, No. 1-3, pp. 67-73, 1993
0191-6599/93 $6.00+0.00 Pergamon Press Ltd
Printed in Great Britain
H U M A N I S T INSIGHTS AND THE VERNACULAR IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FRANCE DOUGLAS M.
PAINTER*
So now, Frenchmen, march courageously toward that proud Roman city .... Attack that deceiving Greece and sow there once again the famous nation of Gallo-Greeks. Pillage without conscience the sacred treasures of this Delphic temple as you have previously done [i.e. in 279 B.C.] .... Recall your ancient Marseille, a second Athens, and also your Gallic Hercules drawing the multitudes after him by their ears, with a chain fastened to his tongue. ~ Joachim Du Bellay in the conclusion to his Deffence (1549) exhorts his compatriots to cultural imperialism and reminds them of the power of language with the image of a Gallic Hercules. His poetic flight is indicative of significant changes in the Perceptions of language, culture, and power that had been developing for decades. The 1530s were a turning point in the thinking of French humanists about the use of the vernacular. By the 1540s numerous French writers were attempting to deal with what they perceived as deficiencies in the structure of the language or problems involved in the use of it. One can point to Etienne Dolet, Louis Meigret, Peletier and Du Bellay as representative of the concern. Writers like Dolet and Rabelais wrote exclusively in French from the late 1530s. French translators had greatly increased their pillage of classical treatises in the decade previous to Du Bellay's statement above. The translators found it necessary to address questions of language and to weigh relative resources of the source and target languages. There are many possible reasons for such a concern with vernacular use, but I would like to suggest how some emphases in the humanist tradition provided room for intellectual action and ideological conviction on the part of those who sought to use, enhance, and enrich their native language. It began from a deeper understanding of what the ancient Romans had accomplished. That the Romans enriched their language and that they made it a useful tool of imperialism was not exactly a recent discovery. But the idea had developed and become more precisely understood over the previous two centuries as a result of the scrutiny of Italian humanists and others. Bishop Nicole Oresme, the fourteenth-century translator at the court of Charles V, had an idea of the importance of Latin development for the Romans and the implications of cultural transfer when he noted in the preface to his French translation of Aristotle's Ethics that ' . . . Greek was in regard to Latin among the Romans as Latin now is in regard to French among us'. 2 More in-depth expression of the important role of language in the sustenance of the R o m a n Empire is found in the writings of various Italian humanists, such as Leonardo Bruni and Lorenzo Valla whose works were popular in France as elsewhere in the early sixteenth century. 3 *72 Kirkland St #22, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
67
68
Douglas M. Painter
Perhaps even more interesting for its emphasis on developing vernacular expression is the exhortation of Lorenzo de' Medici that young Florentines should work for the enhancement of the 'Florentine empire' by writing in Tuscan. 4 In the hands of some sixteenth-century French humanists in the reigns of Louix XII and Frangois I such views came to hold a significant immediacy. Claude de Seyssel in the preface to his French translation of Justin in 1509 spelled out the Romans' method succinctly: The people and princes of Rome... holding the monarchy of the world.., found no more certain or more reliable means of accomplishing their goal than to magnify, enrich, and refine their Latin language (which was quite meager and rude in the early days of their empire). Afterward they spread it to the countries, provinces and peoples they conquered along with Roman law which was unknown to the peoples in the conquered lands: Seyssel went on to note that the Romans enriched their language by concourse with Greek arts and sciences. He further praised Louis XII for having Greek works translated into French--the very task Seyssel was involved in with the aid of Janus Lascaris, the Byzantine humanist and Medici librarian, who purified the earlier humanist Latin translations so that Seyssel could render them better into French. Of course, Seyssel's statements also had implications concerning the Italian territory briefly under the French king's sway. Twenty years later, the Italian possessions largely lost, French humanists became more concerned about their language as an expression of their cultural coming-of-age. Writing in either Latin or French, French humanists began to express their concern about the state of the vernacular. Implicit here was the century-old argument of Biondo and Bruni. The Romans, as Biondo recognised, wrote in their maternal language, but wrote a notch or two or three above street level. Bruni insisted that the eloquent Latin of Cicero could not possibly be the same language spoken by the plebes of Rome. Later humanists continued to investigate and showed that essentially, Biondo was right. 6 Over time this had the effect of leveling Latin in much the same way that Copernicus's heliocentric theory took the earth out of its central position in the universe. Indeed, the language questions of the time often rested on the contention of whether Latin was inherently superior as a language, or was as prevalent as it was because of historical accident. Lorenzo de' Medici as well as others had considered this question and came down decidedly in favor of the idea that no language is inherently superior. The sway of-any particular language was an historical accident; thus the door was open for any language to develop, spread, and conquer according to fate or historical forces: In the early sixteenth century such an idea had significant resonance in France. By the end of the 1520s clarion calls for the development and further use of French began to be heard. Two writers, Geoffroi Tory in French and Jacques Dubois (alias Sylvius) in Latin, addressed the idea of development of the vernacular for the benefit of France and posterity. Tory in fact thought (and here he certainly echoes Lorenzo de' Medici) that it would only take a little cultivation, some labor on the part of French literati, to make the French language truly first-rate. His 'Letter to the Reader' was a clarion
Humanist Insights and the Vernacular in Sixteenth-century France
69
call to ' d e v o t e d lovers o f beaux lettres a n d men o f noble s e n t i m e n t s ' to w o r k t o w a r d establishing rules a n d p r o v i d i n g o r d e r for the F r e n c h language. H e assured t h e m t h a t such l a b o r w o u l d please G o d , but m o r e to the p o i n t was t h a t it w o u l d be pleasing to their c o u n t r y m e n . I see those who want to write in Greek and Latin and yet they do not even know how to express themselves in French very well. It seems to me, in correction, that it would be a finer thing for Frenchmen to write in French than in another language, as much for the security of their spoken French tongue as in order to embellish their country and enrich its language which is as beautiful and good as any other when it is well put into w r i t i n g . . . I would refrain from neither Greek nor Latin for purposes of citation ... or in order to speak with those who do not know French?
J a c q u e s D u b o i s (alias Sylvius) went further in his concern for a m o r e o r d e r e d F r e n c h a n d greater use in m o r e learned subjects in a Latin treatise, In Linguam Gallicam Isag6ge (Paris: R. Estienne, 1531). In the preface to the r e a d e r of that w o r k , D u b o i s stated the reasons for the necessity o f rules. M e n differ from a n i m a l s because o f 'la p a r o l e ' , but they differ a m o n g each o t h e r by the polish o f their language. F r e n c h m e n m u s t light the flame for p o s t e r i t y by p r o v i d i n g rules a n d an o r t h o g r a p h y which c o n f o r m e d to usage. D u b o i s realised that this w o u l d be no easy task, for the elements o f language (verb forms, p r o n o u n s , etc.) were c o n f o u n d e d a n d c o r r u p t e d b y the v a r y i n g uses o f the F r e n c h provinces, indeed there were often wide v a r i a t i o n s in the same province. W r i t t e n F r e n c h s h o u l d be stabilised, a c c o r d i n g to D u b o i s . It seems the French are unaware that their language could be subjected to certain laws. And this is natural. I have yet to see anything written on certain rules to the French language--and no one has looked more thoroughly... Let us bend all our efforts toward making French as plain and as pure as Latin from which it has departed in great measure, so that it could be read and understood with as much surety as the Latin booksfl Several years later Etienne D o l e t , the n o t e d L a t i n h u m a n i s t , not only turns his a t t e n t i o n to the F r e n c h language, he m a k e s it an exclusive engagement. His r e a s o n i n g illuminates the c h a n g i n g perceptions. A t the end o f CommentariiLinguae Latinae Etienne D o l e t stated his i n t e n t i o n to dedicate his life to writing a history o f his times, l° A t first, his p r e s e n t a t i o n was in a small b o o k l e t o f L a t i n h e x a m e t e r r e c o u n t i n g the deeds o f F r a n c i s I, p a r t i c u l a r l y his military deeds, a n d the i n t e r p l a y o f a fickle fortune. One y e a r later in 1539, he r e c o m p o s e d the w o r k into F r e n c h p r o s e as Les Gestes de Francoys de Valois Roy de France. As C l a u d e L o n g e o n stated in his edition o f D o l e t ' s F r e n c h prefaces: Dolet devotes himself to proving not only the intellectual and moral role, but also the political role of writers, who are so to speak the conscience and the memory of the nation. Without them a country has no history, and it is to them that he is concerned to give a language that foreigners do not scorn. The defender and the illustrator of the French language meets the historian of France in the same
70
Douglas M. Painter preoccupation,... The novelty is that Dolet suddenly abandoned the noble ideas and the beautiful language in order to put his actions in accord with his thought: it does not suffice for him to proclaim the grandeur of history, he will be an historian; he is not satisfied with claiming in Latin that a nation edifies itself with a language in which the dignity is recognized by everyone, henceforth he will write in French. II
Dolet never made much of himself as a historian, but his point was made and other Frenchmen became increasingly involved in historical studies which depicted the greatness, not just of French monarchs, but French institutions, traditions, etc. 12 After turning away from his Latin classical studies, Dolet's work in the French language centered on 'the French orator'. In 1540, as part of this project, he issued La Maniere de bien traduire d' une langue en aultre as well as short treatises on punctuation and accents in the French language (Lyon: Dolet, 1540). Dolet expressed again the idea of Geoffroy Tory that the perfection of anything, and most particularly language, comes only through time with the efforts of many men. Sensitive to the concerns of some Frenchmen about those who would meddle with the received language, Dolet appealed to their patriotism in justifying his treatise on translation and defending the French language generally: 'My affection is such toward the honor of my country that I want to find any means of illustrating it'. Dolet expressed the desire to make French as celebrated a language as the Greeks and Romans had made theirs. This noted Latin scholar observed that the Greeks and the Romans (who even though they drew from the Greeks) used 'no other instrument of their eloquence than the maternal language'. He also cited some contemporary Italians and Frenchmen who sometimes or often used the vernacular, such as Petrarch, Aretino, Bembo, and Bud& Therefore, to emulate the deeds of ancient literary men, it was necessary for Frenchmen to make French a more perfect medium of expression. As he noted in conclusion of his preface, one man cannot give complete artistic form to a language, especially by merely writing short treatises on translation and punctuation. It took several men among the Greeks as well as the Latins; likewise the French language can be rendered perfect o n l y ' . . , little by little by the means and work of learned m e n . . , for by such efforts the most perfect will be known'. This perfection in Dolet's mind was a rhetorical enterprise, and he wanted 'the French orator' to have the tools and means of Cicero's orator. 13 Two years later in his Les Epistresfamiliaires d e . . . Cicero (Lyon: Dolet, 1542) Dolet put his 'maniere' to effect and announced other of his projects, such as a French Dictionary which was never printed, and Les Questions Tusculanes de Cicero which he was able to finish while in prison in the latter part of 1542 and print at the beginning of 1543 at Lyon. Les Epistres familiaires, as Dolet noted, had been previously printed in the French translation of Guillaume Michel de Tours in 1537. He does not ignore it, he said in his letter 'au lecteur' But do you know what? certainly it was made despite the Latin and French Muses. For besides the fact that the language is worthless, the first 'gentil' translator has so much corrupted the sense that one must be an Apollo to divine that which he wants to say. That is something quite contrary to the divine fluency and perspecuity of Cicero. I believe you will find him a little better clothed. Read, and then you will
Humanist Insights and the Vernacular in Sixteenth-century France
71
judge more soundly.... [For] I affirm that without an understanding of Les Epistres familiaires it is impossible to understand well the other works of Cierco...20 Dolet has reiterated for French readers the importance of the connection of good style, artistic expression that renders clarity, and drawn attention to the idea that Cicero's letters help establish context for Cicero's other writing. Then repeating a principle he established in his La Maniere, he notes that French is not as copious as Latin. It was necessary for him to use 'commodius circumlocutions', he said, and the reader should not be surprised for it could not have been set down otherwise. It is the result of the diversity of languages. Some languages can explain something in one word which in others may take many words. The 'excellent and perfect interpreter' must have a good understanding of the phrasing and propriety of each language. 15 Dolet also brought to his aid in this prefatory epistle ideas that he had previously expressed in his Latin works. Of particular importance is an idea from his De Imitatione Ciceroniana (Lyon: Gryphe, 1535). In the Ciceronianus Erasmus had written about terms and ideas Cicero had used that were no longer applicable to western societies, and also about modern terms that were not applicable to Cicero's time. Dolet, in this respect at least agreeing with Erasmus, makes this a general principle to be applied not only to Cicero's Familiar Epistles, but to the understanding of ancient societies. The idea had been brought forth by previous humanists, but Dolet introduced this important connection of language and history to a French-reading audience and in a work likely to be read by young scholars and others without extensive Latin training. Thus, he offered a warning about the Latin terms retained in his translation. Moreover, if in this book you find some words of antiquity, such as auspices... Consuls', Questeurs, Preteurs, Dictateurs. . . and several other expressions of the Roman period, keep yourself from wanting to reprove or reject them, for that would serve only to confound venerable antiquity. What is more, they can be translated into our language in no other way. And if you want to know and understand their significaton, it is necessary to have recourse to Latin or French authors who explain such terms. And making it your duty to read and understand, be sure not to ignore these ancient words. That is one of the principal points that will lead you to a true understanding of good authors in the Latin language; that is, if you apply the knowledge of Magistrates, of public offices, their creation and function, the order of Judges, Senators, and Praetors--and generally all that clarifies the senses of histories. ~6 Thus Dolet calls the French reader's attention to the on-going studies of Roman law and society as not merely a desirable or morally beneficial venture, but as a necessity for the true understanding of the past and the realization of some very real social and institutional differences embedded in language. Out of the Ciceronian controversy, for Dolet at least, was a developing perspective based on the correct translation and understanding of ancient terms as well as a faith that historical knowledge could be made more clear and precise through an examination of those terms. It is an application of humanist philological concerns and the humanist school of law to vernacular concerns and this at a time when Frenchmen seem more eager to represent themselves to posterity in
72
Douglas M. Painter
their own language a n d are d e v e l o p i n g a m o r e secure sense o f their 'naif' mind. The Gallic Hercules was stirring a n d forging his chains. D o u g l a s M. P a i n t e r Harvard University
NOTES 1. Joachim Du Bellay, La Deffence et illustration de la langue fi'ancoyse, ed. Henri Chamard (Paris: Albert Fontenoing, 1904), 'Conclusion de tout l'oeuvre', pp. 377341. This paper is adapted from sections of my doctoral thesis, The Babel of Knowledge: Humanist Sensibilities and the Vernacular Translation of Greek History in the French Renaissance, University Microfilms, no. 8920600. 2. Nicole Oresme, 'Prologue ',Le Livre de Ethiques d'Aristote, ed. Albert Douglas Menut, (N.Y.: G.E. Stechert & Co., 1940), p. 101. Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 3. See for instance Bruni's Le Vite di Dante e di Petrarca, in Humanistisch-philosophische Schriften, ed. Hans Baron, (Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 1928), pp. 64-66 where Bruni contends that the decline of letters in Rome corresponded with the rise of 'perverse Tyranny'. Also, see Bruni's 'Laudatio florintinae urbis' where he presses the issue, in Hans Baron's edition of it in conclusion of From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968). Valla wrote of extending political power (or at least influence) through the extension of a language in various dominions. He saw the need for a restoration of literature in order to recapture some of the benefits of the Roman emperium. See his preface to the first book of In Sex Elegantiarum Libros in Oraciones y profacios, ed. Francesco Adorno, (Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria, n.d.), pp. 194-208, particularly pp. 194, 200 and 204. 4. Lorenzo de' Medici, Comento sopra alcuni de" suoi sonetti, in Opere, a curo de Attillo Simioni (Bari: Gius. Laterza & Figli, 1913), Vol. I, p. 21: ' . . . e d augmento al fiorentino imperio', 5. Seyssel, 'Exorde' to his translation of Justin's abridgement of Trogus Pompeius's Deeds of the Romans, ed. Jacques Poujol in Le Monarchie de France et deux autres fragments politiques (Paris: Librairie d'Argences, 1961), p. 66. 6. For Biondo's position see De LucutioneRomana, ed. G. Mignini in Propuonatore, n.s., III, 1890, pp. 135ff; or, in Scritti inediti e rari di Flavio Biondo, ed. B. Nogara (Rome, 1927). Bruni's position was best stated in Epistolarum libri VIII. ed. L. Mehus, VI, 10, pp. 62-65. Valla, Poggio, Filelfo, Guarino and Angelo Decembrio all followed up on the question. 7. Lorenzo de' Medici, op. cit., pp. 19-22. 8. Geoffroy Tory, Champfleury (Paris: Tory et Gourmont, 1529), 'Au Lecteur'. 9. Dubois, 'Au Lecteur', as cited in Ch.-L. Livet, La Grammaire Fran¢oise et les grammariens du XVIe sikele, (Paris: Didier, 1859), pp. 34-36. 10. (Lyon: Gryphius, 1538), T. II, col. 1385. 11. Etienne Dolet, Prgfaces francaises, ed. Claude Longeon (Genbve: Droz, 1979), Introduction, pp. 17-18. 12. See Donald Kelley, The Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship (N.Y.: Columbia U. Press, 1970). 13. Dolet, La Maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en aultre. D'avantage. De la
Humanist lnsights and the Vernacular in Sixteenth-century France
73
punctuation de la langue Fran~oise. Plus des accents d'ycelle. Preface. 14. Cicero, Les Epistresfamiliaires, Trans. Dolet (Lyon: Dolet, 1542), 'Au Lecteur', in Longeon, ed. op. cit., p. 112. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid., p. 113.
0191-6599/93 $6.00+0.00 Pergamon Press Ltd
Printed in Great Britain
H U M A N I S T INSIGHTS AND THE VERNACULAR IN SIXTEENTH-CENTURY FRANCE DOUGLAS M.
PAINTER*
So now, Frenchmen, march courageously toward that proud Roman city .... Attack that deceiving Greece and sow there once again the famous nation of Gallo-Greeks. Pillage without conscience the sacred treasures of this Delphic temple as you have previously done [i.e. in 279 B.C.] .... Recall your ancient Marseille, a second Athens, and also your Gallic Hercules drawing the multitudes after him by their ears, with a chain fastened to his tongue. ~ Joachim Du Bellay in the conclusion to his Deffence (1549) exhorts his compatriots to cultural imperialism and reminds them of the power of language with the image of a Gallic Hercules. His poetic flight is indicative of significant changes in the Perceptions of language, culture, and power that had been developing for decades. The 1530s were a turning point in the thinking of French humanists about the use of the vernacular. By the 1540s numerous French writers were attempting to deal with what they perceived as deficiencies in the structure of the language or problems involved in the use of it. One can point to Etienne Dolet, Louis Meigret, Peletier and Du Bellay as representative of the concern. Writers like Dolet and Rabelais wrote exclusively in French from the late 1530s. French translators had greatly increased their pillage of classical treatises in the decade previous to Du Bellay's statement above. The translators found it necessary to address questions of language and to weigh relative resources of the source and target languages. There are many possible reasons for such a concern with vernacular use, but I would like to suggest how some emphases in the humanist tradition provided room for intellectual action and ideological conviction on the part of those who sought to use, enhance, and enrich their native language. It began from a deeper understanding of what the ancient Romans had accomplished. That the Romans enriched their language and that they made it a useful tool of imperialism was not exactly a recent discovery. But the idea had developed and become more precisely understood over the previous two centuries as a result of the scrutiny of Italian humanists and others. Bishop Nicole Oresme, the fourteenth-century translator at the court of Charles V, had an idea of the importance of Latin development for the Romans and the implications of cultural transfer when he noted in the preface to his French translation of Aristotle's Ethics that ' . . . Greek was in regard to Latin among the Romans as Latin now is in regard to French among us'. 2 More in-depth expression of the important role of language in the sustenance of the R o m a n Empire is found in the writings of various Italian humanists, such as Leonardo Bruni and Lorenzo Valla whose works were popular in France as elsewhere in the early sixteenth century. 3 *72 Kirkland St #22, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
67
68
Douglas M. Painter
Perhaps even more interesting for its emphasis on developing vernacular expression is the exhortation of Lorenzo de' Medici that young Florentines should work for the enhancement of the 'Florentine empire' by writing in Tuscan. 4 In the hands of some sixteenth-century French humanists in the reigns of Louix XII and Frangois I such views came to hold a significant immediacy. Claude de Seyssel in the preface to his French translation of Justin in 1509 spelled out the Romans' method succinctly: The people and princes of Rome... holding the monarchy of the world.., found no more certain or more reliable means of accomplishing their goal than to magnify, enrich, and refine their Latin language (which was quite meager and rude in the early days of their empire). Afterward they spread it to the countries, provinces and peoples they conquered along with Roman law which was unknown to the peoples in the conquered lands: Seyssel went on to note that the Romans enriched their language by concourse with Greek arts and sciences. He further praised Louis XII for having Greek works translated into French--the very task Seyssel was involved in with the aid of Janus Lascaris, the Byzantine humanist and Medici librarian, who purified the earlier humanist Latin translations so that Seyssel could render them better into French. Of course, Seyssel's statements also had implications concerning the Italian territory briefly under the French king's sway. Twenty years later, the Italian possessions largely lost, French humanists became more concerned about their language as an expression of their cultural coming-of-age. Writing in either Latin or French, French humanists began to express their concern about the state of the vernacular. Implicit here was the century-old argument of Biondo and Bruni. The Romans, as Biondo recognised, wrote in their maternal language, but wrote a notch or two or three above street level. Bruni insisted that the eloquent Latin of Cicero could not possibly be the same language spoken by the plebes of Rome. Later humanists continued to investigate and showed that essentially, Biondo was right. 6 Over time this had the effect of leveling Latin in much the same way that Copernicus's heliocentric theory took the earth out of its central position in the universe. Indeed, the language questions of the time often rested on the contention of whether Latin was inherently superior as a language, or was as prevalent as it was because of historical accident. Lorenzo de' Medici as well as others had considered this question and came down decidedly in favor of the idea that no language is inherently superior. The sway of-any particular language was an historical accident; thus the door was open for any language to develop, spread, and conquer according to fate or historical forces: In the early sixteenth century such an idea had significant resonance in France. By the end of the 1520s clarion calls for the development and further use of French began to be heard. Two writers, Geoffroi Tory in French and Jacques Dubois (alias Sylvius) in Latin, addressed the idea of development of the vernacular for the benefit of France and posterity. Tory in fact thought (and here he certainly echoes Lorenzo de' Medici) that it would only take a little cultivation, some labor on the part of French literati, to make the French language truly first-rate. His 'Letter to the Reader' was a clarion
Humanist Insights and the Vernacular in Sixteenth-century France
69
call to ' d e v o t e d lovers o f beaux lettres a n d men o f noble s e n t i m e n t s ' to w o r k t o w a r d establishing rules a n d p r o v i d i n g o r d e r for the F r e n c h language. H e assured t h e m t h a t such l a b o r w o u l d please G o d , but m o r e to the p o i n t was t h a t it w o u l d be pleasing to their c o u n t r y m e n . I see those who want to write in Greek and Latin and yet they do not even know how to express themselves in French very well. It seems to me, in correction, that it would be a finer thing for Frenchmen to write in French than in another language, as much for the security of their spoken French tongue as in order to embellish their country and enrich its language which is as beautiful and good as any other when it is well put into w r i t i n g . . . I would refrain from neither Greek nor Latin for purposes of citation ... or in order to speak with those who do not know French?
J a c q u e s D u b o i s (alias Sylvius) went further in his concern for a m o r e o r d e r e d F r e n c h a n d greater use in m o r e learned subjects in a Latin treatise, In Linguam Gallicam Isag6ge (Paris: R. Estienne, 1531). In the preface to the r e a d e r of that w o r k , D u b o i s stated the reasons for the necessity o f rules. M e n differ from a n i m a l s because o f 'la p a r o l e ' , but they differ a m o n g each o t h e r by the polish o f their language. F r e n c h m e n m u s t light the flame for p o s t e r i t y by p r o v i d i n g rules a n d an o r t h o g r a p h y which c o n f o r m e d to usage. D u b o i s realised that this w o u l d be no easy task, for the elements o f language (verb forms, p r o n o u n s , etc.) were c o n f o u n d e d a n d c o r r u p t e d b y the v a r y i n g uses o f the F r e n c h provinces, indeed there were often wide v a r i a t i o n s in the same province. W r i t t e n F r e n c h s h o u l d be stabilised, a c c o r d i n g to D u b o i s . It seems the French are unaware that their language could be subjected to certain laws. And this is natural. I have yet to see anything written on certain rules to the French language--and no one has looked more thoroughly... Let us bend all our efforts toward making French as plain and as pure as Latin from which it has departed in great measure, so that it could be read and understood with as much surety as the Latin booksfl Several years later Etienne D o l e t , the n o t e d L a t i n h u m a n i s t , not only turns his a t t e n t i o n to the F r e n c h language, he m a k e s it an exclusive engagement. His r e a s o n i n g illuminates the c h a n g i n g perceptions. A t the end o f CommentariiLinguae Latinae Etienne D o l e t stated his i n t e n t i o n to dedicate his life to writing a history o f his times, l° A t first, his p r e s e n t a t i o n was in a small b o o k l e t o f L a t i n h e x a m e t e r r e c o u n t i n g the deeds o f F r a n c i s I, p a r t i c u l a r l y his military deeds, a n d the i n t e r p l a y o f a fickle fortune. One y e a r later in 1539, he r e c o m p o s e d the w o r k into F r e n c h p r o s e as Les Gestes de Francoys de Valois Roy de France. As C l a u d e L o n g e o n stated in his edition o f D o l e t ' s F r e n c h prefaces: Dolet devotes himself to proving not only the intellectual and moral role, but also the political role of writers, who are so to speak the conscience and the memory of the nation. Without them a country has no history, and it is to them that he is concerned to give a language that foreigners do not scorn. The defender and the illustrator of the French language meets the historian of France in the same
70
Douglas M. Painter preoccupation,... The novelty is that Dolet suddenly abandoned the noble ideas and the beautiful language in order to put his actions in accord with his thought: it does not suffice for him to proclaim the grandeur of history, he will be an historian; he is not satisfied with claiming in Latin that a nation edifies itself with a language in which the dignity is recognized by everyone, henceforth he will write in French. II
Dolet never made much of himself as a historian, but his point was made and other Frenchmen became increasingly involved in historical studies which depicted the greatness, not just of French monarchs, but French institutions, traditions, etc. 12 After turning away from his Latin classical studies, Dolet's work in the French language centered on 'the French orator'. In 1540, as part of this project, he issued La Maniere de bien traduire d' une langue en aultre as well as short treatises on punctuation and accents in the French language (Lyon: Dolet, 1540). Dolet expressed again the idea of Geoffroy Tory that the perfection of anything, and most particularly language, comes only through time with the efforts of many men. Sensitive to the concerns of some Frenchmen about those who would meddle with the received language, Dolet appealed to their patriotism in justifying his treatise on translation and defending the French language generally: 'My affection is such toward the honor of my country that I want to find any means of illustrating it'. Dolet expressed the desire to make French as celebrated a language as the Greeks and Romans had made theirs. This noted Latin scholar observed that the Greeks and the Romans (who even though they drew from the Greeks) used 'no other instrument of their eloquence than the maternal language'. He also cited some contemporary Italians and Frenchmen who sometimes or often used the vernacular, such as Petrarch, Aretino, Bembo, and Bud& Therefore, to emulate the deeds of ancient literary men, it was necessary for Frenchmen to make French a more perfect medium of expression. As he noted in conclusion of his preface, one man cannot give complete artistic form to a language, especially by merely writing short treatises on translation and punctuation. It took several men among the Greeks as well as the Latins; likewise the French language can be rendered perfect o n l y ' . . , little by little by the means and work of learned m e n . . , for by such efforts the most perfect will be known'. This perfection in Dolet's mind was a rhetorical enterprise, and he wanted 'the French orator' to have the tools and means of Cicero's orator. 13 Two years later in his Les Epistresfamiliaires d e . . . Cicero (Lyon: Dolet, 1542) Dolet put his 'maniere' to effect and announced other of his projects, such as a French Dictionary which was never printed, and Les Questions Tusculanes de Cicero which he was able to finish while in prison in the latter part of 1542 and print at the beginning of 1543 at Lyon. Les Epistres familiaires, as Dolet noted, had been previously printed in the French translation of Guillaume Michel de Tours in 1537. He does not ignore it, he said in his letter 'au lecteur' But do you know what? certainly it was made despite the Latin and French Muses. For besides the fact that the language is worthless, the first 'gentil' translator has so much corrupted the sense that one must be an Apollo to divine that which he wants to say. That is something quite contrary to the divine fluency and perspecuity of Cicero. I believe you will find him a little better clothed. Read, and then you will
Humanist Insights and the Vernacular in Sixteenth-century France
71
judge more soundly.... [For] I affirm that without an understanding of Les Epistres familiaires it is impossible to understand well the other works of Cierco...20 Dolet has reiterated for French readers the importance of the connection of good style, artistic expression that renders clarity, and drawn attention to the idea that Cicero's letters help establish context for Cicero's other writing. Then repeating a principle he established in his La Maniere, he notes that French is not as copious as Latin. It was necessary for him to use 'commodius circumlocutions', he said, and the reader should not be surprised for it could not have been set down otherwise. It is the result of the diversity of languages. Some languages can explain something in one word which in others may take many words. The 'excellent and perfect interpreter' must have a good understanding of the phrasing and propriety of each language. 15 Dolet also brought to his aid in this prefatory epistle ideas that he had previously expressed in his Latin works. Of particular importance is an idea from his De Imitatione Ciceroniana (Lyon: Gryphe, 1535). In the Ciceronianus Erasmus had written about terms and ideas Cicero had used that were no longer applicable to western societies, and also about modern terms that were not applicable to Cicero's time. Dolet, in this respect at least agreeing with Erasmus, makes this a general principle to be applied not only to Cicero's Familiar Epistles, but to the understanding of ancient societies. The idea had been brought forth by previous humanists, but Dolet introduced this important connection of language and history to a French-reading audience and in a work likely to be read by young scholars and others without extensive Latin training. Thus, he offered a warning about the Latin terms retained in his translation. Moreover, if in this book you find some words of antiquity, such as auspices... Consuls', Questeurs, Preteurs, Dictateurs. . . and several other expressions of the Roman period, keep yourself from wanting to reprove or reject them, for that would serve only to confound venerable antiquity. What is more, they can be translated into our language in no other way. And if you want to know and understand their significaton, it is necessary to have recourse to Latin or French authors who explain such terms. And making it your duty to read and understand, be sure not to ignore these ancient words. That is one of the principal points that will lead you to a true understanding of good authors in the Latin language; that is, if you apply the knowledge of Magistrates, of public offices, their creation and function, the order of Judges, Senators, and Praetors--and generally all that clarifies the senses of histories. ~6 Thus Dolet calls the French reader's attention to the on-going studies of Roman law and society as not merely a desirable or morally beneficial venture, but as a necessity for the true understanding of the past and the realization of some very real social and institutional differences embedded in language. Out of the Ciceronian controversy, for Dolet at least, was a developing perspective based on the correct translation and understanding of ancient terms as well as a faith that historical knowledge could be made more clear and precise through an examination of those terms. It is an application of humanist philological concerns and the humanist school of law to vernacular concerns and this at a time when Frenchmen seem more eager to represent themselves to posterity in
72
Douglas M. Painter
their own language a n d are d e v e l o p i n g a m o r e secure sense o f their 'naif' mind. The Gallic Hercules was stirring a n d forging his chains. D o u g l a s M. P a i n t e r Harvard University
NOTES 1. Joachim Du Bellay, La Deffence et illustration de la langue fi'ancoyse, ed. Henri Chamard (Paris: Albert Fontenoing, 1904), 'Conclusion de tout l'oeuvre', pp. 377341. This paper is adapted from sections of my doctoral thesis, The Babel of Knowledge: Humanist Sensibilities and the Vernacular Translation of Greek History in the French Renaissance, University Microfilms, no. 8920600. 2. Nicole Oresme, 'Prologue ',Le Livre de Ethiques d'Aristote, ed. Albert Douglas Menut, (N.Y.: G.E. Stechert & Co., 1940), p. 101. Translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 3. See for instance Bruni's Le Vite di Dante e di Petrarca, in Humanistisch-philosophische Schriften, ed. Hans Baron, (Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 1928), pp. 64-66 where Bruni contends that the decline of letters in Rome corresponded with the rise of 'perverse Tyranny'. Also, see Bruni's 'Laudatio florintinae urbis' where he presses the issue, in Hans Baron's edition of it in conclusion of From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968). Valla wrote of extending political power (or at least influence) through the extension of a language in various dominions. He saw the need for a restoration of literature in order to recapture some of the benefits of the Roman emperium. See his preface to the first book of In Sex Elegantiarum Libros in Oraciones y profacios, ed. Francesco Adorno, (Santiago de Chile: Editorial Universitaria, n.d.), pp. 194-208, particularly pp. 194, 200 and 204. 4. Lorenzo de' Medici, Comento sopra alcuni de" suoi sonetti, in Opere, a curo de Attillo Simioni (Bari: Gius. Laterza & Figli, 1913), Vol. I, p. 21: ' . . . e d augmento al fiorentino imperio', 5. Seyssel, 'Exorde' to his translation of Justin's abridgement of Trogus Pompeius's Deeds of the Romans, ed. Jacques Poujol in Le Monarchie de France et deux autres fragments politiques (Paris: Librairie d'Argences, 1961), p. 66. 6. For Biondo's position see De LucutioneRomana, ed. G. Mignini in Propuonatore, n.s., III, 1890, pp. 135ff; or, in Scritti inediti e rari di Flavio Biondo, ed. B. Nogara (Rome, 1927). Bruni's position was best stated in Epistolarum libri VIII. ed. L. Mehus, VI, 10, pp. 62-65. Valla, Poggio, Filelfo, Guarino and Angelo Decembrio all followed up on the question. 7. Lorenzo de' Medici, op. cit., pp. 19-22. 8. Geoffroy Tory, Champfleury (Paris: Tory et Gourmont, 1529), 'Au Lecteur'. 9. Dubois, 'Au Lecteur', as cited in Ch.-L. Livet, La Grammaire Fran¢oise et les grammariens du XVIe sikele, (Paris: Didier, 1859), pp. 34-36. 10. (Lyon: Gryphius, 1538), T. II, col. 1385. 11. Etienne Dolet, Prgfaces francaises, ed. Claude Longeon (Genbve: Droz, 1979), Introduction, pp. 17-18. 12. See Donald Kelley, The Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship (N.Y.: Columbia U. Press, 1970). 13. Dolet, La Maniere de bien traduire d'une langue en aultre. D'avantage. De la
Humanist lnsights and the Vernacular in Sixteenth-century France
73
punctuation de la langue Fran~oise. Plus des accents d'ycelle. Preface. 14. Cicero, Les Epistresfamiliaires, Trans. Dolet (Lyon: Dolet, 1542), 'Au Lecteur', in Longeon, ed. op. cit., p. 112. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid., p. 113.