Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T02:39:53.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sebastian Brant's Narrenschiff and the Humanists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Ulrich Gaier
Ulrich Gaier*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Brant's Humanistic friends viewed the Narrenschiff (1494) as a satire in the Roman tradition which marked the beginning of a literary Renaissance in the German vernacular. That contemporary interpretation of the work justifies a comparison of the Narrenschiff with Erasmus' Encomium Moriae, “the most important remaining problem in Brant research” (Zeydel). The two works are formally comparable since both use rhetorical forms (e.g., oralio) as a structural basis for their satiric intent. Since the two satires also coincide on many points of content, the “Erasmian duplicity” seems the only obstacle to a complete juxtaposition. This duplicity, however, is a necessary consequence of Erasmus' use of prosopopoiia and is not characteristic of his frame of mind, as can be shown in his firm reliance on divine wisdom. In this he coincides again with Brant's attitude in the Narrenschiff. Thus, the difference between the two works is not one in kind or outlook but one mainly determined by the different audiences addressed.

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , May 1968 , pp. 266 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Friedrich Zarncke, Narrenschiff (Leipzig, 1854; Darmstadt, 1964), p. xviii; Karl Goedeke, Das Narrenschiff (Leip zig, 1872); Deutsche Dichter des 16. Jahrhunderts, vii, v; Charles Schmidt, Histoire littéraire de l'Alsace à la fin du XVE et au commencement du XVIe “ siècle, I (Paris, 1879), 189; Henry Dexter Learned, The Syntax of Brant's Narrenschiff (Philadelphia, 1917), p. 49; Hans Henrich Eberth, Die Sprichworter in Sébastian Brants Narrenschiff (Greifswald, 1933), p. 5; Mary Alvarita Rajewski, Sebastian Brant, Studies in Religious Aspects of Bis Life and Works with Special Reference to the ‘Varia Carmina’ (Washington, 1944), p. 40; Barbara Konneker, ” ‘Eyn wis man sich do heym behalt.’ Zur Interpretation von Sebastian Brants Narrenschiff,“ GRM, XLV (1964), 46–77, 76.

2 William Gilbert, “Sebastian Brant, Conservative Humanist,” Archiv fiir Reformationsgeschichte, XLVI (1955), 145–167; 146.

3 Goedeke, p. v; Schmidt, p. 190.

4 Goedeke, p. xii; Eberth, p. 5; Rajewski, p. 9.

5 E.g., Rajewski, p. 9.

6 Wolfgang Stammler, Von der Mystik zum Barock, 1400–1600, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1950), p. 204; Ruth Westermann,“Brant,” in Wolfgang Stammler, Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters, Verfasserlexikon, I (Berlin and Leipzig, 1933), col. 288; Kbnneker, p. 76.

7 Cf. the description of editions, translations, etc., in Zarncke, pp. lxxx-cxxxvii.

8 “Qui germana nova carmina lege facit Barbaraque in numéros compellit verba ligatos,” quoted by Zarncke, p. Ixxv.

9 “Sebastianus Brant Argentinensis, maximi vir ingenii etomnis doctrinae splendor, sathyras germanica lingua scripsit quas navem stultorum appellant, historiis f abulis et sapientis-simorum sententiis adeo respersit, ut in nostra populari lingua minime mihi persuadeam librum huic esse parem.” Quoted by Adam Walther Strobel, Das Narrenschiff von Dr. Sebastian Brant, nebst dessen Freiheitsiafel (Quedlinburg and Leipzig, 1839), pp. 54–55.

10 “… ut non iure stultorum librum, sed divinam potius satyram opus illud appellasset. Nescio enim si quid tempesta- tis nostrae usibus salubrius aut iucundius legi posset.” (Descript, eccl. p. 222, quoted by Schmidt, p. 313.)

11 “… potuisset praesens hic noster libellus, non inconcinne satyra nuncupari: sed auctorem nouitas tituli delectauit.” (Argumentum in Narragoniam, printed by Zarncke, p. 213b.)

12 “Stultiferae naviculae, seu scaphae, fatuarum mulierum:circa sensus quinque exteriores fraude navigantium.” (Paris,1500; Strafiburg, 1502.)

13 “… Sebastiano Brant Alemafio … qui faceta iucundaque comentatione fatuos ac stultos, quorum infmitus estnumerus, ita erudit et castigat, ut salibus eius atque festivissimo sermone illecti non prius in se animadvertere euro sentiant, quam (ut de Flacco dicitur) admissus circum praecordialudat, eosque resipiscentes (si quidem sese curabiles exhibeant) in prudentium sententiam concedere cogat.” (Foreword, quoted by Strobel, p. 55.) The reference to Horace is taken from Persius, Satire i,11. 116–117.

14 The 3rd chapter in my book Satire: Studien zu Neidhari Wittenwiler, Brant and zur satirischen Schreibart (Tubingen, 1967) furnishes this proof by (a) showing that the Narrenschif is not a medieval moral satire, nor an allegoric epic as has been suggested, and by (b) comparing in detail the Narrenschiff with the Roman satires on matters such as approach, purpose, methods of presentation, and style.

15 Cf. his addition to Locher's translation of 1497 Ad Jacobû Philomusum, 11. 5–12 (printed by Zarncke, p. 118a).

16 See esp. the Prologus Iacobi Locher: Philomusi: in Narragoniam, partly printed in Zarncke, p. 212b.

17 In the prose introduction to his Latin version of Brant's Narrenschiff, Paris, 1505 (printed in Zarncke, p. 217b). For the passage from Diomedes see Heinrich Keil, Grammatici Latini, ? (Leipzig, 1857), pp. 485–486.

18 Edwin H. Zeydel, “Notes on Sebastian Brant's Narrenschiff,” MLN, LVIII (1943), 346.

19 Edwin H. Zeydel, The Ship of Fools, Translated into Rhyming Couplets with Introduction and Commentary (New York, 1962), pp. 43–45.

20 “Erasmus, who knew his Brant in Latin and perhaps in one or two other tongues as well …” (H. H. Hudson in his translation of The Praise of Folly, Princeton, N. J., 1951, p. xvii). Cf. also P. S. Allen, The Praise of Folly, tr. John Wilson (Oxford, 1913–31), p. xviii: “Erasmus must have seen Brant's Narrenschiff and Badius' Stulliferae Naves, but his Praise of Folly is in no sense an imitation.”

21 Zeydel, The Ship of Fools, p. 43. I have tabulated references in the Praise of Folly to more than one-third of the“fool” chapters in Brant's work.

22 Vulgares nostra stultos vexisse carina Contenti, intactam liquimus ire togam. Moria nunc prodit, quae byrrhum, syrmata, fasces Taxans, philosophos convehit et druidas. Heu mihi, quas turbas, quas sanguinis ilia lituras Eliciet, biles, cum stomachisque ciens. (Quoted by Schmidt, i,315, n. 172.)

23 Johan Huizinga, Europaischer Humanismus: Erasmus(Hamburg, 1958), p. 70.

24 Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Colloquia Familiaria etc.(Leipzig, 1736); Encomium Moriae, pp. 1169–1292, p. 1171: “nosque clamitabunt, veterem Comoediam, aut Lucianum quempiam referre, atque omnia mordicus arripere.”

25 Huizinga, p. 68.

24 Zeydel, The Ship of Fools, p. 43.

27 Eberth, pp. 103–107, demonstrates Brant's concern for his style and his ability to adapt it to the specific public for which he wrote.

28 Seen. 8.

29 Cf. my book Studien zu Sebastian Brants Narrenschiff (Tubingen, 1966), Ch. ii, in which I show that the whole of this work constitutes a regular Quintilianic oratio. Thus, the two works are equal in form.

30 “Die ‘Narrheit’ in Sebastian Brants Narrenschiff,” Neophilologus, XLIII (1959), 207–221.

31 Gruenter, pp. 217–218.

32 Cf., e.g., Priscianus Grammaticus Caesariensis, Praeexercitamina, N° 9, in Heinrich Keil, Grammatici Latini, in (Leipzig, 18S9), 438.

83 Cf. Narrenschiff, Chs. i, v, lxxxi, cviii, where almost the whole chapter uses ethopoiia. Many other instances, where ethopoiia is mixed with other forms of presentation, cannot be quoted here.

34 Erasmus, Praefatio, p. 1170.

35 Erasmus, p. 1173.

36 Huizinga, p. 70.

37 “ … ipsum quoque Christum, quo stultitiae mortalium subueniret, cum esset sapientia patris, tamen quodammodo stultum esse factum, cum hominis assumpta natura, habitu inventus est vt homo” (p. 1284).

38 “ … cum esset sapientia patris, tamen …” (loc. cit.).

39 Sydt als das vnder der sunnen isi Vnniitz ist / vnd detn wheit gbrist (Brant, NS, liv, 22–23).