Nedum‘letalone’andnonsolum‘notonly’analysedinthehumanist
traditionfromLorenzoVallatoDesideriusErasmus
TheoA.J.M.Janssen,VUUniversityAmsterdam
FrederikeC.vanderLeek,UniversityofAmsterdam
Abstract: This article conveys how the useof the Latin expression nedum ‘let alone’ was
conceivedofbyLorenzoVallainbetween1431and1449andhowhisinsightswerepassed
on by later humanists such as Josse Bade, Hilaire Bertholf and Erasmus. Though
undoubtedlythoughtprovoking,theiraccountsmeetwithseriousproblems,thuspointing
totheneedforamorethoroughinvestigation.
AbbasSeptimi,homocorpulentusetpinguis,vesperiFlorentiamproficiscens,interrogavit
rusticumobvium,anportamseingrediexistimaret. Intellexit Abbas an putaret se
perventuruminurbem,antequamclauderenturportae.Illeveroinpinguedinemjocatus:
‘Atqui,’inquit,‘currusfaeni,nedumtu,portamintroiret.’PoggioBracciolini[1451]
TheabbotofSeptimo,anenormouslyfatandbulkyman,askedapeasanthemetwhileon
hiswaytoFlorence,‘DoyouthinkI’llbeabletomakeitthroughthecitygate?’Whathe
meant to ask was whether he thought he could reach the gates before closing time.
Pokingfunathisfatness,thepeasantanswered:‘ByJove,awagonofhaycouldmakeit
throughthegate,letaloneyou!’1
1.Introduction
Lorenzo Valla (1405/07Ͳ1457) describes in detail when the Latin connective nedum ‘let
alone’canfunctioninaffirmativeandinnegativesentences(§2).Laterhumanistssuchas
Josse Bade (Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 1462Ͳ1535) from Ghent and Hilaire Bertholf
(Hilarius Bertulphus Ledius, †1533) from Ledeberg follow his analysis, though not in all
details(§3).DesideriusErasmus(1466/1469Ͳ1536)initiallyadoptsValla’sapproachinfull,
butendsupexcludingaffirmativenedumͲsentencesfromhisanalysis.Evenso,heoffers
points of departure for a coherent analysis of the use of nedum in both negative and
affirmativesentences(§4).Thearticleendswithourconclusion(§5).
1
OnaparwithEnglishletaloneyou,theDutchliteratorGerritKomrij(Poggio1968:27)translates
nedumtuinthefinalsentenceintolaatstaanjij‘letstandyou’.
198
2.LorenzoValla
Vallais–asfarasisknown–thefirstpersoninhistorytohaveconveyedhisviewsonthe
useofneduminwriting.HedidsoinhisElegantiaeor,moreprecisely,Delinguaelatinae
elegantialibrisex(1449).Inthosesix‘books’concerningaccuratelanguageuse,hedeals
withagreatmanynicetiesofLatinidiom,suchasfoundinthewritingsofMarcusTullius
Cicero(106Ͳ43B.C.)andMarcusFabiusQuintilianus(ca.30Ͳ96A.D.).Vallabeganworking
on the Elegantiae in 1431, when lecturing on rhetoric in Pavia. At the presentation of a
doctoraldegreecertificate,hedenouncedthebarbarousLatinusedbythecandidate,thus
creatingsuchanoutragethathehadtopackhisbags.In1435hesettleddowninNaples
intheserviceofKing Alfonso. Valla’sbookwasfirstprintedin1471, inParis,Romeand
Venice.
2.1.Thetext
InhisElegantiae(liber2,caput55,inlatereditionsusuallyreferredtoascaput18)Valla
discusses the semantics and syntax of nedum and the difference between nedum and
especially non solum. For the text of the chapter, we rely on the Venice edition (Valla
1471). We have solved the abridgments and ligatures, maintained the u/vͲspelling, the
capitalsandtheinterpunction,correctedoneprinter’serrorandaddeditalics.
DeNedumetnonsolum
Nedum duobus modis periti uti solent: uno cum utranque sententiam eodem claudimus
uerbo:alterocumsuumutriquesententiaeuerbumdamus.Primomodosic:funderempro
te sanguinem: nedum pecuniam: secundo sic: funderem pro te sang[u]inem: nedum
pecuniam tibi crederem: et hoc affirmatiue. Negatiue sic. Non perderem pro te obolum:
nedum sanguinem. Item non crederem tibi obolum: nedum pro te funderem sanguinem.
Atqueinaffirmandoidquodplusest:maiorisquemomentiinprimaparteponendum;in
negandoquodminorisest.Plusenimetmagisestmomentosumfunderesanguinemquam
pecuniam: et minus est et leuius, perdere aut credere obolum: quam perdere aut
profundere sanguinem. Imperiti uero hanc dictionem accipiunt pro non solum: sic
dicentes.Nedumprotelaboremsusciperemsedetiammortem.Quodsicdicendumerat.
Mortemprotesusciperem:nedumlaborem.Autpernonsolum:namcontrariusmodusest
anonmodopernedumsicneprioraexemplaconuertamus.Nonsolumpecuniamprote
funderem sed etiam sanguinem. Item, non modo tibi pecuniam crederem: uerum etiam
pro te sanguinem funderem: et hoc affirmatiue. Rursus negatiue: non modo pro te
sanguinem non perderem sed nec pecuniam. Item non tantum pro te sanguinem non
perderemsednecpecuniam.Itemnontantumprotesanguinemnonfunderem:uerumne
199
obolum quidem tibi crederem. Haec est igitur differentia inter nedum et non solum siue
nonmodo:siuenon tantum:aliquandotamen reperimushocposterius penepronedum
accipi. Cicero in officiis iii: Huic igitur uiro bono quem Fimbria etiam non modo Socrates
nouerat,nullomodouideripotestquicquamesseutile:quodnonsithonestum:possemus
hic dicere pro non modo Socrates nouerat: nedum Socrates. Sed nedum auget:
praepolletque alteri parti cui adiungitur non modo autem aequiperat. Ideoque puto
Ciceronem uoluisse equiparare Fimbriam romanum Socrati graeco: dixisseque illud non
modosicutinquibusdamaliisexemplis.Vtineisdemofficiis:adquodestadhibendaactio
quaedam non solum mentis agitatio. Et pro Plancio: plura ne dicam tuae me lachrymae
impediunt: uestraeque iudices non solum meae. Hic non ausim pro non solum dicere
nedum.
Onnedumandnonsolum
Skilledwriterstendtousenedumintwoways.Intheonewaywhenwecloseoffeachof
thetwosentenceswithoneandthesameverb;intheotherwaywhenweallottoeachof
the two sentences a verb of its own. In the first manner as follows: Funderem pro te
sanguinem,nedumpecuniam‘Iwouldgivemybloodforyou,letalonemymoney’.Inthe
second thus: Funderem pro te sanguinem, nedum tibi pecuniam crederem ‘I would shed
my blood for you, let alone lend you money’. And this affirmative. Negative thus: Non
perderemproteobolum,nedumsanguinem‘Iwouldn’tloseasmuchasapennyforyou,
let alone my blood’. Likewise: Non crederem tibi obolum, nedum pro te funderem
sanguinem‘Iwouldn’tlendasinglepennytoyou,letalonethatIwouldshedmybloodfor
you’.Andwithaffirmationthatwhichismore,andofgreatermomentum,mustbeputin
the first part; with negation that which is less. After all, it is more and of greater
momentumtospillbloodthanmoney.Anditislessandlightertowasteapennyorlendit
thantospillbloodorshedit.
Unskilled writers, however, use this expression for non solum when saying the
following:Nedumprote laboremsusciperem,sed etiammortem‘LetalonewouldItake
the suffering upon me, but even death’. Which should have been expressed as follows:
Mortemprotesusciperem,nedumlaborem‘Iwouldtakedeathuponmeforyou,letalone
thesuffering’.Orwithnonsolum–forthemannerofexpressionwithnedumisopposite
tothatofnonmodo2–asfollows(letusrefrainfromchangingtheexamples):Nonsolum
pecuniamprotefunderem,sedetiamsanguinem‘NotonlywouldIspillmymoneyforyou,
butevenmyblood’.Andsimilarly:Nonmodotibipecuniamcrederem,uerumetiamprote
2
Hereonewouldhaveexpectednonsolum.Apparently,nonsolum,nonmodoandnontantumare
sosimilarinValla’seyesthathevarieshischoiceofexpressionforstylisticreasons.
200
sanguinemfunderem‘NotonlywouldIlendmymoneytoyou,butIwouldevenspillmy
bloodforyou’;thisintheaffirmative.Oncemorenegative:Nonmodoprotesanguinem
non perderem, sed nec pecuniam ‘Not only would I not spill my blood for you, but not
even my money’. Similarly: Non tantum pro te sanguinem non perderem, sed nec
pecuniam‘NotonlywouldInotspillmybloodforyou,butnotevenmymoney’.Alsothus:
Nontantumprotesanguinemnonfunderem,uerumneobolumquidemtibicrederem‘Not
onlywouldInotspillmybloodforyou,butIwouldnotevenlendyouapenny’.
This, then, is the difference between nedum and non solum or non modo or non
tantum.Andyetwesometimesfindthelattertobealmostaseasilyacceptedinsteadof
nedum.CiceroinDeofficiis,3[19,77]:HuicigituruirobonoquemFimbriaetiamnonmodo
Socratesnouerat,nullomodouideripotestquicquamesseutile,quodnonsithonestum‘So
toamanofsuchhonesty,atypethatevenFimbriarecognized,notonlySocrates,nothing
canseeminanywayexpedientthatisnothonorable.’InsteadofnonmodoSocratesnoveͲ
rat we could say nedum Socrates. But nedum strengthens and is moreforceful than the
other part it is connected with, whereas non modo equalizes. And that is why I think
CiceropreferredtoputFimbriatheRomanonaparwithSocratestheGreekandsaidthe
above non modo in the same way in certain other cases. As in the aforementioned De
officiis,1[5,17]:adquodestadhibendaactioquaedamnonsolummentisagitatio‘where
a certain amount of physical exertion has to be included, not only mental activity’. And
Cicero Pro Plancio, [42, 104]: Plura ne dicam tuae me lachrymae impediunt, uestraeque
iudicesnonsolummeae‘Yourtearspreventmefromsayingmore,justlikeyours,judges,
notonlymyown’.HereIwouldnotdaresayneduminsteadofnonsolum.
2.2.Commentary
Intheabovechapter,Vallafirstenlargesuponnedum.Withthehelpofafewexampleshe
showsthatthenedumͲconjunctcanoccurwithoutorwithaverbofitsown;3heillustrates
thetwooptionsforbothaffirmativeandnegativenedumͲexamples,cf.examples(1)Ͳ(2)
and(3)Ͳ(4)respectively.
(1) Funderemprotesanguinem,nedumpecuniam.
‘Iwouldgivemybloodforyou,letalonemymoney.’
3
NedumͲconjunct stands for the conjunct headed by nedum. Given that nedum connects a
conjunct preceding it with one following it, we refer to the two as first and second conjunct
respectively(conjunct1andconjunct2 for short). In accordance with the polarity of conjunct1, we speak of
a nedum-sentence as affirmative or negative.
201
(2) Funderemprotesanguinem,nedumtibipecuniamcrederem.
‘Iwouldshedmybloodforyou,letalonelendyoumoney.’
(3) Nonperderemproteobolum,nedumsanguinem.
‘Iwouldn’tloseasmuchasapennyforyou,letalonemyblood.’
(4) Noncrederemtibiobolum,nedumprotefunderemsanguinem.
‘Iwouldn’tlendasinglepennytoyou,letalonethatIwouldshedmybloodforyou.’
Valla subsequently discusses an important difference between affirmative nedumͲ
examplessuchas(1)and(2),withsanguineminconjunct1andpecuniaminconjunct2,and
thenegativeversions(3)en(4),withoboluminconjunct1andsanguineminconjunct2.The
sanguinemͲandpecuniam/obolumͲargumentshave,inotherwords,changedplaces.With
affirmation,Vallanotes,theweightier(or‘major’)argumentmustbeplacedinconjunct1,
withnegationitisthelessweighty(or‘minor’)argumentthatmustbeplacedthere.After
all, ashe reminds us, sheddingbloodis ofgreatermomentumthanlendingmoney,and
losingorlendingapennyisoflessmomentumthansheddingblood.
NotethatValla,allinthehumanisttradition,reliesheavilyonexamplestosupporthis
generalizations. Thus, he accounts for the distribution of the sanguinemͲ and
pecuniam/obolumͲarguments in examples (1)Ͳ(4) by appealing to our intuitive
understandingthatsheddingbloodisofgreatermomentumthanlendingmoney.Wefeel,
however,thatacomparisonatamoredetailedlevel–inlinewithcurrentresearch–will
ensure a better understanding of Valla’s views of nedum than achieved so far. That is,
zoominginonthelevelofthetwoargumentsassuch,onemaynotethattheseare,inthe
given context, being compared in terms of the common semantic notion that both are,
say,precioustous,beittodifferentdegrees.Thuswerankbloodasthemore,andmoney
asthelesspreciousofthetwo.Inotherwords,theintuitionthatthewillingnesstogive
blood implies the willingness to give money hinges on the understanding that the
willingness to give what is the more precious implies thewillingness to give what is the
lessprecious.Andviceversaforthenegativecases.
The next issue Valla turns to is a comparison of nedumͲsentences with sentences
involving non solum (including non modo and non tantum), illustrating the use of non
solumc.s.withexamplesusedearlierfornedum.Comparingthetwosentencetypes,Valla
notes that nedum and non solum c.s. are used in opposite ways. He begins by showing
howthetwocanc.q.cannotbeused.Rejectingtheuseofneduminfrontposition,asin
(5),hecontraststhiswithitscorrectusein(6)andthatofnonsolumin(7).
202
(5) Nedumprotelaboremsusciperem,sedetiammortem.
‘LetalonewouldItakethesufferinguponme,butevendeath.’
(6) Mortemprotesusciperem,nedumlaborem.
‘Iwouldtakedeathuponmeforyou,letalonethesuffering.’
(7) Nonsolumpecuniamprotefunderem,sedetiamsanguinem.
‘NotonlywouldIspillmymoneyforyou,butevenmyblood.’
For Valla sentence (5) is incorrect, this in contrast with sentence (6), where nedum
interconnectsconjunct1andconjunct2,withthemajorargument(mortem)occurringinthe
formerandtheminorone(laborem)inthelatter.NonsolumcanoccursentenceͲinitially,
as in sentence (7). Here we find the minor argument (my money) in conjunct1 and the
majorone(myblood)inconjunct2.Theorderoftheargumentsintermsofmajorversus
minor in (7) is, in other words, opposite to that in sentence (6). In sentences with a
negativefirstconjunctthatfeaturenonsolum,nonmodoornontantum,suchas(8)and
(9)below,themajorargumentprecedestheminorargument.Thisargumentorderisthe
sameasinsentence(6),butoppositetothatinsentence(7).
(8) Nonmodoprotesanguinemnonperderem,sednecpecuniam.
‘NotonlywouldInotspillmybloodforyou,butnotevenmymoney.’
(9) Nontantumprotesanguinemnonfunderem,uerumneobolumquidemtibicrederem.
‘NotonlywouldInotspillmybloodforyou,butIwouldnotevenlendyouapenny.’
Valla ends the above discussion by concluding: ‘This, then, is the difference between
nedum and non solum or non modo or non tantum’. This conclusion is summarized in
Schema1.
polarityconjunct1
rankofargument
conjunct1
rankofargument
conjunct2
nedum
affirmative
major
minor
negative
minor
major
nonsolumc.s.
affirmative
minor
major
negative
major
minor
Schema1.Nedumennonsolumc.s.inaffirmativeandnegativecontexts
203
So far, Valla’s evidence is limited to home made examples. As a result, nedum and non
solum c.s. appear to convey the same meaning, differing only in that they are used in
oppositeways.Valla’snextstepistoextendhisevidencetocertainauthenticexamples;
theseenablehimtobringtolightanimportantdifferencebetweenthetwoexpressions.
Twoofthem(fromCicero’sDeofficiis,3[19,77]andProPlancio,[42,104]respectively)
arerepeatedbelow.
(10)
HuicigiturvirobonoquemFimbriaetiamnonmodoSocratesnoverat,nullomodo
videripotestquicquamesseutile,quodnonsithonestum. ‘Sotoamanofsuchhonesty,atypethatevenFimbriarecognized,notonly
Socrates,nothingcanseeminanywayexpedientthatisnothonorable.’ (11)
Pluranedicamtuaeme[etiam]lachrymaeimpediunt,uestraequeiudicesnon
solummeae.4
‘Yourtears[also]preventmefromsayingmore,justlikeyours,judges,notonly
myown.’
The conjuncts headed by non modo in (10) and by non solum in (11) fill the slot so far
reservedforthenedumͲconjunct. Withregardto(10),Vallaobserves,we could alsosay
nedumSocratesnoveratinsteadofnonmodoSocratesnoverat.However,doingsowould,
hepointsout,affecttheinterpretationofthesentence.Thatis,nedumstrengthensandis
moreforcefulthantheotherpartitisconnectedwith,whereasnonmodoputsthetwo
partsonaparwitheachother.Valla’sinterpretationofnedum’sfunctionasstrengthening
canbeunderstoodasfollows.Giventhatnedumismeanttoensurethatwhatisstatedby
conjunct1 implies what is stated by conjunct2, it follows that nedum strengthens in the
sensethatconjunct2makesamoreforcefulstatementthanconjunct1.Usingnedum,that
is, compels one to compare Fimbria and Socrates in terms of, say, wisdom, ranking the
firstashavingthelesserandthesecondashavingthegreaterwisdomofthetwo.Thus
the(pragmatic)logicunderlyingthenedumͲstatementintherelevantversionof(10)isthe
following:giventhat,oftwopersons,theonewiththelesserwisdomiswiseenoughto
recognizewhat‘amanofsuchhonesty’standsfor,itfollowsthatthisapplieswitheven
greater certainty to the person with the greater wisdom. Put differently, the statement
aboutSocratesmakesamoreforcefultruthclaimthantheoneaboutFimbria.Andthatis,
according to Valla, why Cicero opts for non modo in (10): he wants to put Fimbria the
4
MosteditionsofCicero’saddresstothecourthaveetiaminthispassage.ThefirstVallaͲedition
known to us that includes etiam here is Valla (1526: fol. 26r); this edition will come up for
discussionatalaterstage.
204
RomanonaparwithSocratestheGreek;theconjunctionnonmodo(oroneofitsvariants)
involves, in other words, the coordination of two (logically) independent, and as such
equalstatements.Usingnedumin(11)insteadofnonsolumis,Vallalastlypointsout,no
option:thatwould,orsoheimplies,forceonetointerpretthetearsofthemenCicerois
addressing as playing a role (in the process of stopping him from saying more) that –
comparedtohisown–isoflesserimportance.5That,ofcourse,wouldneverdo.
The abovemakes it clear why a changein the polarity of the initial conjunct of the
nedumͲconstructiongoeshandinhandwiththecontrastingargumentsexchangingplaces:
nedumcausestheseargumentstotradeplacessothatineithercasethecontentofthe
nedumͲconjunct, conjunct2, is properly included in, hence implied by that of conjunct1.
Now the non solumͲconstruction (or the non modoͲ or non tantumͲvariant), which
involves, as we have seen, the coordination of two conjuncts stating truth claims
independentlyofoneanother, exhibitsasimilartradingofargumentͲpositionsrelativeto
achangeinpolarity(regardlesswhethernonsolumheadsconjunct1orconjunct2).Thereis
another similarity between the two constructions, one concerning the distribution of
etiam (‘even’ or ‘also’): this expression may not occur in either the nedumͲ or the non
solumͲconjunct itself, but in what we will call their ‘coͲconjunct’ it is often explicitly
present, and never out of place anyway. We suggest, therefore, that the non solumͲ
constructionalsoinvolvessomekindofcomparison,beitthatthecomparisondoesnot,
asinthenedumͲconstruction,functionattheleveloftruth.Asweseeit,thestatement
expressedbythenonsolumͲconjunctservesasastandardofexpectationthatallowsthe
speaker/writer to present what is expressed by its coͲconjunct in a special light. In the
case of example (10), for instance, Cicero conveys that Fimbria, given that he has an
insightofadepththatonlyamanaswiseasSocratescouldbeexpectedtoachieve,must
be seen as an extraordinarily wise man. Next consider example (9), Non tantum pro te
sanguinemnonfunderem,uerumneobolumquidemtibicrederem,whichdiffersfrom(10)
notonlyinthatitisnegativebutalsointhatthetwoconjunctsarecontrastive.Hereone
ismadetounderstandthat,inlightofthefactthatanunwillingnesstospillone’sblood
for someone is, as such, what one would expect, the unwillingness to lend someone as
muchasapennyisnotatallwhatonewouldexpect.Itisthecomparison,inotherwords,
that makes one see such an unwillingness as utterly excessive. Essentially the same
applies to the positive version of (9), i.e. example (7), Non solum pecuniam pro te
funderem, sed etiam sanguinem, where the non solumͲconstruction only makes sense if
5
Notice that the nedumͲvariants of (10) and (11), despite being affirmative, require a minor
argumentinconjunct1andamajorargumentinconjunct2.Apparently,Schema1doesnottellthe
wholestoryasfarasnedumisconcerned.
205
the arguments appear in reversed order: now the standard of comparison is the
willingnesstogivemoneytosomeoneandwhatratesasunexpectedisthewillingnessto
go as far as giving one’s blood. To conclude this discussion of the workings of the non
solumͲconstructionweendwithabrief,butgeneralcharacterization:astatementthatis
setoffagainstanonsolumͲstatementgivesrisetoimplicationsthatitneednotgiveriseto
inisolation.
Thereis,finally,oneotherdifferenceinValla’sdataconcerningtheuseofnedumand
thatofnonsolumc.s.,adifferencethathedrawsnoattentionto.Inthecaseofanegative
conjunctheadedbynonsolumc.s.itscoͲconjunctcontainsitsownnegativemarker,both
whenitisandwhenitisnotaccompaniedbyaverbofitsown,cf.examples(8)and(9)
respectively;wheneverthenonsolumͲconjunctisaffirmative,itscoͲconjunctisaffirmative
aswell.Mattersaredifferentwherenedumisconcerned:inallValla’snedumͲexamples,
cf. (1)Ͳ(4), conjunct2 lacks a negation marker of its own, regardless whether conjunct1 is
affirmative or negative, and regardless of whether conjunct2 contains a verb of its own.
Thereisgeneralconsensusamonglaterhumanistswithregardtothedatainvolvingnon
solum c.s.; however, concerning the nedumͲdata there turn out to be differences in
opinion.Itissuchdifferencesthatwewillconcentrateoninthefollowingsections.
3.BadeandBertholf
ThereareagreatmanyElegantiaeͲeditions.In§3.1belowwelookatsomeoftheeditions
in which the editors are specifically concerned with nedum: Jouennaux (1492), Bade’s
epitomeonneduminValla(1501)andJouennaux&Bade(1508).In§3.2welookintothe
diagramsummarizingBertholf’sviewsontheuseofneduminValla(1526).6In§3.3,lastly,
wecompareValla’sexamples(3)and(4)withthenegativeformsthatBadeandBertholf
proposeinstead.
3.1.Bade’sepitomeonnedum
Bade’s epitome on nedum in Valla (1501),7 which precedes Valla’s own nedumͲanalysis,
6
Asidefrommanymanuscripts,morethan150editionshave,from1471onward,beenpublished
accordingtothecensusofIJsewijn&Tournoy(1969,1971);amongothers,Valla(1526)ismissing
fromtheirlist.
7
BadetaughtbonaelitteraeinValenceandLyon,whereheeventuallybecameaproofreaderand
texteditor,e.g.oftheComoediaeofPubliusTerentiusAfer,thistogetherwithJouennauxin1493.
Around1500hewenttoParis,wherehesettledasprinterͲeditorin1503andlateronbecamea
professoraswell.Healsomadenameasapoet(cf.Janssen&Marynissen2013).
206
shares the latter’s main views on nedum and non solum c.s. (outlined in section 2.2
above), but follows its own direction where nedumͲsentences are concerned in which
conjunct1 is negative and conjunct2 has a verb of its own. That is, the pattern of Bade’s
two affirmative nedumͲexamples and Valla’s, cf. (1) and (2) in §2.2, is exactly the same.
ThisisalsotrueofthefirstnegativenedumͲexamplehepresents,butinthesecondBade
hasaddednoninconjunct2,cf.(12)and(13)respectively.
(12)
Nonexponeremprotepecuniam,nedumsanguinem.
‘Iwouldnotgiveupmymoneyforyou,letalonemyblood.’ (13)
Nonsubiremprorebusmundanistormenta,nedumvitamnonexponerem.
‘Iwouldnotsubmittotormentsforthesakeofworldlymatters,letalonethatI
wouldgiveupmylifeforthem.’
With regard to (13) Bade comments: inueni sublatum illud secundum non: vt sit nedum
vitamexponeremquodsublatumnonoportuit‘Inoticedthatsecondnontohavebeenleft
out, as if what was left out ought not to be present in nedum vitam exponerem’ (Valla
1501:fol.26v).
Wewillreturntothisissuelater,firstdrawingattentiontothetreatmentofnedumin
Jouennaux (1492), an abridged version of Valla’s Elegantiae with comments by
Jouennaux.8IntendedasatextͲbookforuniversitystudents,thebookprovidestheLatin
examples with French translations. Note that Jouennaux, for want of a specific French
expression covering the sense of nedum, uses non pas seullement (‘not merely’) in (15)
and(17)totranslatenedumin(14)and(16)respectively.
(14)
Profunderemprotevitam,nedumpecunias.
‘Iwouldgivemylifeforyou,letalonesumsofmoney.’
(15)
Jemettroismaviepourtoynonpasseullementmonargent.
(16)
Assemtibinondabonedumaureumtibisumprestaturus.
‘Iwillnotgiveyouacoppercoin,letalonethatIwillgiveyouasmuchasagold
coin.’
(17)
Jenetedonneraypasunemaillenonpasseullementungescuouagrantpeine
doncunescu.
8
See Guy Jouennaux (1492: fol. 20r). Guido Juvenalis Cenomanus ‘from Le Mans’ died around
1505Ͳ07.
207
Inaposthumousedition,Jouennaux(1508),Badeadds(18)asaDutchtranslationfor(14)
and, replacing (16) by (19), translates the latter into Dutch as in (20). Note that (19),
Bade’sversionof(16),differsfromthelatterinthatitcontainsnoninconjunct2, this in
linewiththeexamplehegaveinValla(1501),cf.(13)above.NotefurthermorethatBade
translatesnedumin(14)and(19)withthehelpofdifferentDutchexpressions,nietalleene
(literally‘notonly’)in(18),andiclatestaen(‘Iletstand’)in(20).AssumingthatDutchic
latestaencould,atthetime,onlybeusedinfrontofafiniteclause,wesuggestthatBade
hadnootheroptionthantoresorttonietalleenein(18)asthetranslationcomingclosest
to the meaning of nedum in (14). The let aloneͲtranslations of both (18) and (20) are
intendedtoreflecttheirnedumͲoriginalsascloselyaspossible.
(18)
Icsoudesturtenmijnlevenoftbloedvoerhu:nietalleenemijngeld.
‘Iwouldspillmylifeorbloodforyou,letalonemymoney.’
(19) Assemtibinondabonedumaureumtibinonsumpraestaturus.
‘Iwillnotgiveyouacoppercoin,letaloneasmuchasagoldcoin.’
(20)
Icensalhunieteenenpennijncgheveniclatestaendatichuenenguldensoude
gheven.9
‘Iwillnotgiveyouapenny,letalonethatIwouldgiveyouaguilder.’
In summary, where nedumͲsentences are concerned in which conjunct1 is negative and
conjunct2containsaverbofitsown,BadediffersfromVallawithrespecttothepresence
(Bade)orabsence(Valla)ofaseparatenegativemarkerinconjunct2.Notice,incidentally,
thatthereisaremarkablediscrepancybetweenJouennaux’s(16),ourEnglishtranslation
of (19), and even Bade’s ic late staen versionof (19) on the one hand, and Bade’s Latin
form(19)ontheother:onlythelatterincludesthenegativemarkerBadeinsistsshouldbe
presentinthenedumͲconjunctofthetypeofsentencesthat(19)isaninstanceof.Inlight
ofsuchdiscrepancy,Bade’s‘improvement’viewsmaywellseemdubious.Even so, he is
not,asthefollowingsubsectionwillshow,aloneinthem.10
9
Bade’s ic late staen in Jouennaux (1508) is the oldest attested use of the expression that later
developedintolaatstaan(cf.Janssen&VanderLeek2009).
10
JandeSpouter(JohannesDespauterius,ca.1480Ͳ1520)fromNinovéalsousesnoninconjunct2
inhicscientiamnonsibicomparatnedumvirtutemnoncolit‘heacquiresnoknowledge,letalone
thatheexercisesvirtue’(1513:fol.c5v).
208
3.2.B
Bertholf’sscchemaofneedum,nonssolumetc.
InValla(1526)B
Bertholfpressents,11intheformofaadiagramreeproducedbelow,asummary
hat he conssiders to bee the essential aspectss of the syn
ntax and semantics of nedum
of wh
seeninconnectionwiththo
oseofnonsolum,nonm
modo,nonttantum,non
nabestandadeo.
Diagrram1:Theu
useofnedumandnonssolum(Vallaa1526:fol.25v)
11
Berrtholf,whod
diedoftheplagueinLyon
nalongwith hisfamily,w
wasformersecretaryofEErasmus
(Bierlaire&Bietenholz1995: 141Ͳ142).Errasmus,hold
dinghimineesteem,putshimonstaggeinhis
Cicero
onianusand inhisColloq
quia,towitintheDiversoria‘Inns’an
ndtheSynod
dusgramma
aticorum
‘Ameeetingofgram
mmarians’.
209
Diagram1portraystheuseofnedumandnonsolumasthisissummarizedinSchema1in
§2.2.Ateachcornerofthesquarethereisabigcirclecontainingthreesentences,onein
which conjunct2 does not, and two in which it does have a verb of its own; the first
examplesinthefourcirclescorrespond,contentwise,tooneanother;thesameappliesto
thesecondandthirdexamples.Thecirclesatthetoparelinkedbyabarindicatingthat
both contain nedumͲexamples, while those at the bottom, linked by a bar labelled non
solum,bothcontainonenonsolumͲ,onenontantumͲ,andonenonmodoͲexample.The
barlinkingthetopͲandbottomͲcirclesattheleftindicatesthatbothcontainaffirmative
examples, while the one linking the topͲ and bottomͲcircles at the right points to their
bothcontainingnegativeexamples.12
Below we have arranged eight examples from Bertholf in what might, loosely
speaking, be called minimal pairs,each aͲsentence and bͲsentence involving nedum and
nonsolumc.s.respectively.(21)and(22)featuresentencescontainingoneverbͲandtwo
verbͲexamplesrespectively,andsodo(23)and(24).Theexamplesin(21)Ͳ(22)andin(23)Ͳ
(24)are,lastly,affirmativeandnegative,respectively.
(21)
a Uitamtibiimpenderimnedumpecuniam.
‘Iwouldevengivemylifeforyou,letalonemymoney.’
b Nonsolumimpenderimprotepecuniam:verumetiamvitam.
‘NotonlywouldIgivemymoneyforyoubutevenmylife.’
(22)
a Amoetiamtenedumdiligo.
‘Ievenlove,letalonerespectyou.’
b Nontantumtediligo:sedetamo.
‘NotonlydoIrespectyou,butIalsoloveyou.’
(23)
a Nonimpenderimtibipecuniamnedumnonvitam.
‘Iwouldnotgivemymoneyforyou,letalonemylife.’
b Nonsolumnonimpenderimtibivitam:verumnepecuniamquidem. ‘NotonlywouldInotgivemylifeforyou,butnotevenmymoney.’
(24)
a Haudquaquamtediligonedumnonamo.
‘Idonotrespectyouatall,letalonethatIloveyou.’
b Nontantumnonamo:immonecdiligo.
‘NotonlydoInotloveyou,Ido,infact,notevenrespectyou.’
12
TheexamplesinthesmallercirclesinDiagram1areofnoconcerntousinthisarticle.
210
Looking at Bertholf’s Latin examples, it is immediately clear that it is in complete
agreementwithSchema1in§2.2:theargumentorderineachofthenedumͲsentencesis
thereverseoftheargumentorderinthenonsolumͲsentencesthattheyformaminimal
pairwith.Apartfromthis,thereisastrikingnoveltyinBertholf’sanalysisinthatforeach
minimal pair made up of a nedumͲ and a non solumͲsentence, the second conjuncts of
bothalwayshavethesamepolarity.
All in all, three dissenting views regarding the absence c.q. presence of a negation
markerinthesecondconjunctofnedumͲsentenceshavebeenunderreview,thatofValla,
ofBadeandofBertholf.Inthefollowingsection,wewillgointothequestionwhatmight
bebehindsuchcuriousdifferencesinopinion.
3.3.Samesense,differentforms
Despitethestructuraldifferences,pointedoutabove,regardingtheabsenceorpresence
of a negative marker in the second conjunct of nedumͲsentences with a negative first
conjunct,opinionsdiverge,itisquiteclear,asfarasform,notasfarasinterpretationis
concerned. That is, Valla’s statement ‘Sed nedum auget: praepolletque alteri parti cui
adiungiturnonmodoaequiperat.’iscommonlyaccepted,ifnotexplicitly(Bade),thenat
leastimplicitly(Bertholf).
Valla, we assume, sees the reinforcing power of nedum as applying at the level of
interpretation.Thatis,whenconjunct1isaffirmative,theeffectofnedumonconjunct2is
that its content is understood as affirmed with greater certainty than the content of
conjunct1 is; when conjunct1 is negative, we find the same pattern, but applied to
negation: now nedum reinforces one’s interpretation of the content of conjunct2: it is
understoodtobedeniedwithgreatercertaintythanthecontentofconjunct1is.Somuch
is, in any case, in conformity with the pattern exhibited in Valla’s examples (1)Ͳ(4).
Bertholf’sanalysis,ontheotherhand,revealscompleteparallelismbetweennedumͲand
nonsolumͲsentencesasfarastheformalabsenceandpresenceofnegationisconcerned.
That is, not only within non solumͲsentences but also within nedumͲsentences do both
conjunctsformallysharethesamepolarity(eithernegationisabsentinboth,ornegation
ispresentinboth).Nedum,inthisview,‘praepolleret’theexplicitlyaffirmativeornegative
secondconjuncttogreateraffirmativeornegativeheightsrespectively.Bade’spositionis
inthemiddleofValla’sandBertholf’s:whenthesecondnedumͲconjunctcontainsnoverb
of its own, its interpretation depends on the polarity of the first conjunct; when it does
containafiniteverbofitsown,itisinterpretedintermsofitsownexplicitpolarity.
211
UnfortunatelyforBertholf(andinlesserdegreeforBade),thereisnoevidencefrom
authenticLatinexamplescorroboratingtheformalnegationpatternstheywanttoimpose
onthesecondconjunctofcertainnedumͲsentences.
4.DesideriusErasmus
ErasmusmadeanabridgedversionofValla’sElegantiaeinthreeversions:thefirst,written
around1489,appearedinanunauthorizededitionin1529,thesecondgotlost,whilethe
third,authorizedversion,Paraphrasis,seupotiusEpitome,appearedin1531(Heesakkers
&Waszink1973).ThenedumͲepitomeinthisthirdversionwillbelookedintoin§4.1.
4.1.Thetext
Erasmus’nedumͲepitomefromtheFreiburgedition(1534:fol.48rͲv),ispresentedbelow,
editedasValla’stextin§2.1.
Nedumpenèestidemquodnonsolum,sednonunomodoeisutimur.
Nonmodo,etnonsolum(quaeidemualent)semperinprioreparteorationisponuntur,ut
Nonmodotediligo,uerumetiamfratrislocoamo.Nonsolumpecuniamuerumetiamuitam
proteimpenderem.Nedumferèsemperinfineponitur,itatamen,utsioratiositnegatiua,
idquodminusestponaturinprincipio,etmaiusinfine:sinaffirmatiua,contrariomodo
fiet, ut Non solum laborem pro te susciperem, uerumetiam mortem. Non crederem tibi
obulum, nedum uitam meam: non solum non crederem tibi uitam, uerum ne obulum
quidem. Est item alia differentia inter nedum et non solum: Nedum iungit partes
inaequales:nonsolum,aequales.Vndeethaccausa,nonsolum,nonnunquaminorationis
fine reperitur. Cicero. Plura ne dicam tuae me lachrymae impediunt, uestraeque iudices,
non solum meae. Hic non recte dicetur, nedum meae. Nedum nusquam ponitur, nisi in
orationenegatiua.
NedumiswellͲnighthesameasnonsolum,butwedonotusetheminthesamemanner.
Nonmodoandnonsolum(whichhavethesamemeaning)arealwaysputinthefirstpart
of the sentence, as in Non modo te diligo, uerumetiam fratris loco amo ‘Not only do I
respectyou,Ievenloveyouasabrother’.Nonsolumpecuniamuerumetiamuitamprote
impenderem‘NotonlymymoneybutevenmylifewouldIofferforyou’.Nedumisalmost
alwaysputattheend,butinsuchawaythattheminorpartisputinthebeginningwhen
the sentence is negative, and the major part at the end, but when the sentence is
212
affirmative, it works the other way round, as in Non solum laborem pro te susciperem,
uerumetiammortem‘NotonlywouldItakethesufferinguponme,butevendeath’.Non
crederemtibiobulum,nedumuitammeam‘NotevenapennywouldIentrustyouwith,let
alone my life’. Non solum non crederem tibi uitam, uerum ne obulum quidem ‘Not only
wouldInotentrustyouwithmylife,butnotnotevenwithapenny’.Thereisyetanother
differencebetweennedum andnonsolum:nedumjoinsunequalparts,nonsolumequal
parts.Thatiswhynonsolumissometimesalsofoundattheendofthesentence.Cicero
[ProPlancio42,22]:Pluranedicamtuaemelachrymaeimpediunt,uestraequeiudices,non
solummeae‘Yourtearspreventmefromsayingmore,justlikeyours,judges,notonlymy
own’.Hereitwouldnotberighttosaynedummeae.Nedumisputnowhere,unlessina
negativesentence.
4.2.Commentary
ApartfromValla’sobservationthatconjunct2mayappearinfullyspecifiedorelidedform,
Erasmus’ epitome comprises, on the face of it, the central points of Valla’s nedumͲ
analysis:(i)theaffirmativeornegativeuseofnedum,(ii)themomentumofthecontentof
each of the conjuncts, (iii) the reverse positioning of their lexical content, and (iv) the
stricterrestrictiononnedum’spositioninthesentencethanthatofnonsolumc.s.
ErasmusdiffersfromVallaononeimportantpoint,however.Inhisclosingstatement
hecontendsthatnedumcannotbeusedinanyotherthananegativesentence.However,
thatcontentionfliesinthefaceofhisspecificationsconcerningtheuseofneduminboth
affirmative and negative sentences. There he compares how nedum can be used in the
two sentence types with the way in which non solum c.s. can be used in them.
Conspicuously absent in his sample sentences is, however, one exemplifying the use of
neduminanaffirmativesentence.Intheunauthorizededitionofhistext,Erasmus(1529:
fol.56r),thereissuchasamplesentence:Mortemprotesusciperem,nedumlaborem.Is
there, then, a connection between its absence in the present text and the closing
statementthatnedumisonlyusedinnegativesentences?Thatisextremelylikely,since
that closing statement is, in its turn, conspicuously absent in the unauthorized version
containingtheaboveaffirmativenedumͲexample.Apparently,Erasmuschangedhismind
abouttheuseofneduminaffirmativesentencesinbetweenthefirstandthirdeditionof
his Valla text. That is also clear from his De copia. His 1512Ͳedition (fol. 18rͲv) contains
nedumͲexample(25),butintheDecopiaͲeditionsfrom(1526)onward(cf.Erasmus1988:
93)thesentencecontainsnonmodoinsteadofnedum,see(26).
213
(25)
(26)
Vitametiamtibiimpenderim:nedumpecuniam.
‘Iwouldevengivemylifeforyou,letalonemymoney.’
Vitametiamtibiimpenderim,nonmodopecuniam.
‘Iwouldevengivemylifeforyou,notonlymymoney.’
ThisreplacementconstitutesanindependentindicationthatnedumͲconstructionswithan
affirmativefirstconjunctarelateronrejectedbyErasmus.hadheperhapscometorealize
that, somehow, there was something not rightabout number (2) ofValla’s four nedumͲ
examples, i.e. the one in which both conjunct1 and conjunct2 are affirmative, while the
latter has a finite verb of its own? Below we reintroduce Valla’s examples (1)Ͳ(4), now
accompaniedbyEnglishtranslationsthatallowonetoseetheirmeaninginaclearerand,
in fact, different light. In the case of examples (1) and (3), this means that the English
translationsadd,inbrackets,whatisnotformallypresentinconjunct2 andyetpartofour
understandingofthatconjunct.Mattersaremorecomplicatedinthecaseofexample(2).
HerewepresenttwoalternativeEnglishversions.Thefirst,(2)(i),presentsconjunct2inits
full,uncontractedform.Curiouslyenough,thistranslationyieldsanEnglishsentencethat
isincoherent(indicatedby#).Thesecondversion,(2)(ii)does,duetoitsincludingnotin
conjunct2, yield a coherent English sentence. Only in the case of example (4) does the
originalEnglishtranslationremainthesameasbefore.
(1) Funderemprotesanguinem,nedumpecuniam.
‘Iwouldgivemybloodforyou,letalone(thatIwouldnotgive)mymoney(foryou).’
(2) Funderemprotesanguinem,nedumtibipecuniamcrederem.
(i) # ‘Iwouldshedmybloodforyou,letalonethatIwouldlendyoumoney.’
(ii) ‘Iwouldshedmybloodforyou,letalonethatIwouldnotlendyoumoney.’
(3) Nonperderemproteobolum,nedumsanguinem.
‘Iwouldn’tloseasmuchasapennyforyou,letalone(thatIwouldlose)myblood
(foryou).’
(4) Noncrederemtibiobolum,nedumprotefunderemsanguinem.
‘Iwouldn’tlendasinglepennytoyou,letalonethatIwouldshedmybloodforyou.’
Thepatternthatemerges,isclearasfarasexamples(1),(3)and(4)areconcerned:the
polarity of conjunct1 is the reverse of the polarity of conjunct2. Note that the form of
nedumͲsentence(2)istheoddmanout:thewordͲbyͲwordEnglishversionisincoherent,
nor does (2) conform to the pattern the other three nedumͲsentences exhibit. It seems
reasonabletoassume,therefore,thatValla’sexample(2)isnotacorrectLatinsentence
214
and should be reformulated as Funderem pro te sanguinem, nedum tibi pecuniam non
crederem.13 Given this adaptation, the incoherence problem is solved and the general
principleonwhichtheuseofnedumisbasedisstraightforward:thenedumͲconstruction
requiresthatitstwoconjunctsbeinterpretableintermsofreversepolarities.
ThefollowingaffirmativenedumͲsentencefrom–noless–Erasmus’Decopiaappearsto
beanexceptiontothisprinciple.
(27)
Ingeniumquoquesenectusdeterit,nedumcorporisvigorperpetuoduret.
‘Oldageweakenseventhehumanmind,letalonethatbodilystrengthwould
endureforever.’
In this sentence, nedum does not get replaced by non modo or a related expression in
later editions (see Erasmus 1988: 94). This sentence, in which both conjuncts are
affirmative,appearstobeanexceptiontotheabovenedumͲprinciple;infactitisnot,beit
that the principle needs to be refined. It is not the negative or affirmative character of
conjunct2 that is crucial; what is crucial is that conjunct2 is, contentͲwise, in opposition
with conjunct1. This is the case in (27), due to the fact that weaken and endure have
opposite meanings, as the following, less handsome translation confirms: ‘Old age
weakenseventhehumanmind,letalonethatbodilystrengthwouldnotweakenintime.’
ThatErasmus,asastudentoflanguage,rejectedtheuseofneduminsentenceslike
(2) was, we conclude, fully justifiable; that he, as a user of language, fully accepted
sentenceslike(27)turnsouttobeequallyjustifiable.
5.Conclusion
Studyingtheuseandmeaningofnedumandnonsolumc.s.inpairsofsemanticallysimilar
sentences,enablesVallanotonlytogetacrosshowcloselyconnectedthetwoexpressions
13
WeknowofoneLatinexample,fromCicero’sDepetitioneconsulatus,6,21,inwhichconjunct1
isaffirmativeandconjunct2negative,cf.:
Minimusbeneficiishominesadducunturutsatiscausaeputentesseadstudiumsuffragationis,
nedum ii quibus saluti fuisti, quos tu habes plurimos, non intelligant, si hoc tuo tempore tibi
nonsatisfecerint,seprobatosneminiumquamfore.
‘Even by very small favours men are persuaded to think they have sufficient reason for
supportingacandidate,letalonethatanyonethatyouhavesaved–andthere’sagreatmany
ofthem–wouldnotrealizetheywouldneverbetrustedagainiftheydonot,atthisyourhour
ofneed,complywithyourwishes.’
215
areaccordingtohim,butalsotopinpointwhat,inhisview,thesubtlesemanticdifference
betweenthemis:‘Nedumiungitpartesinaequales:nonsolum,aequales’,inthewordsof
Erasmus. Bade, disagreeing with the form of Valla’s negative nedumͲexample Funderem
protesanguinem,nedumtibipecuniamcrederem,proposesLatinvariantswithanexplicit
nonaddedtothenedumͲconjunct.OurletaloneͲtranslations,aswellasBade’sowniclate
staenͲversion,pointinanotherdirection:Valla’snegativenedumͲsentenceiscorrectLatin,
Bade’sisnot,andthatgoesforBertholf’snegativenedumͲexamplesaswell.Erasmus,in
histurn,issuspiciousaboutValla’saffirmativenedumͲsentences,endingup,wronglyso,
by rejecting them. All this, as well as our understanding of a fair number of twoͲverb
affirmativenedumͲexamplesfromclassicalLatin,leadsustoidentifyValla’sexample(2)as
incorrectLatinandtosuggestreplacingitby(28),aformthatincludesnoninitssecond
conjunct. A comparison of (28) and Valla’s negative example (4) brings the following
pattern to light: in each case the two conjuncts, considered independently of nedum’s
contribution,makeconflictingtruthclaims.
(28)
Funderemprotesanguinem,nedumtibipecuniamnoncrederem
‘Iwouldshedmybloodforyou,letalonethatIwouldnotlendyoumoney.’
(4) Noncrederemtibiobolum,nedumprotefunderemsanguinem.
‘Iwouldn’tlendasinglepennytoyou,letalonethatIwouldshedmybloodfor
you.’
Weconcludefromthisthatnedum’sfunctionistoresolvethisconflict.Thatis,ratherthan
reinforcing the truth claim made by the second conjunct, nedum dismisses it as irreal
because of what can be mentally concluded from the truth claim made by the first
conjunct.14Toillustratewhatwemean,letusgobacktothepunchlineofPoggio’sjoke
quotedatthebeginningofthisarticle.Inlinewithourviewsonnedum’simport,thissays:
‘ByJove,awagonofhaycouldmakeitthroughthegate,letalonethatyoucouldnotget
through’.Thepeasantthusjokinglytellsthefatabbotthatitcannotpossiblybethecase
that he could not make it through the gate, since the fact that a wagon of hay can get
through,unambiguouslyimpliesthattheabbotcantoo,withthegreatestofease.
14
In this analysis, the meaning of nedum in negative sentences is no different from that in
affirmative sentences, this as opposed to earlier analyses, including – at least by our book –
Goldstein (forthc.). We are preparing an article, Nedum revisited (‘working title’), in which the
theoreticalimplicationsofourviewsonthematterwillbepresentedindetail.
216
6.References
Bierlaire,Franz&PeterG.Bietenholz(1995),HilariusBertholfofLedeberg,dcAugust
1533.In:PeterG.Bietenholz&ThomasB.Deutscher(eds.),Contemporariesof
Erasmus:AbiographicalregisteroftheRenaissanceandReformation,Volumes1Ͳ3,
Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.
DeSpouter,Jan(1513),ArsEpistolicaJoannisDespauteriiNiniuitaeexDato:Sulpitio:
Nigro[:]Herasmo:Badio:BebelioetipsoCicerone:caeterisqueverelatinisdiligenter
excerptamultocopiosiusquampostSyntaxinhabeatur,Paris:JosseBade.
Erasmus,Desiderius(1512),D.ErasmiRoterodamideduplicicopiarerumacverborum
commentariiduo[…].Paris:JosseBade.
Erasmus,Desiderius(1988),OperaomniaDesideriiErasmiRoterodami,BettyI.Knott,ed.,
Decopiaverborumacrerum,IͲ6,Amsterdametc.:NorthͲHolland.
Erasmus,Desiderius(1529).ParaphrasisD.ErasmiRoterod.lvcvlenta,iuxtaacbreuisin
elegantiarumlibrosLau.Vallae[…],Keulen:IoannesGymnicus.
Erasmus,Desiderius(1534).Paraphrasis,sevpotivsepitome,inscriptaD.ErasmoRotero.
luculentaiuxtaacbreuis,inelegantiarumlibrosLaurentijVallae,multoquàmantea
fuitetcastigatior,etlocupletior.[…],FreiburgimBreisgau:JoannesFaberEmmeus.
Goldstein,David(forthc.),Thesynchronyanddiachronyofascalarcoordinator:Latin
nĤdum‘letalone’,IndoͲEuropeanLinguistics.
Heesakkers,ChrisL.&JanH.Waszink,eds.(1973),OperaOmniaDesideriiErasmi
Roterodami,IͲ4,ParaphrasisseupotiusEpitomeinElegantiarumLibrosLaurentii
Vallae,Amsterdam:NorthͲHollandPublishingCompany.
IJsewijn,Jozef&GilbertTournoy(1969).Unprimocensimentodeimanuscrittiedelle
edizioniastampadegli‘Elegantiarumlinguaelatinaelibrisex’diLorenzoValla.In:
HumanisticaLovaniensia18,25Ͳ41.
IJsewijn,Jozef&GilbertTournoy(1971).Nuovicontributiperl’elencodeimanuscrittie
delleedizionidelleElegantiaediLorenzoValla.In:HumanisticaLovaniensia20,1Ͳ3.
Janssen,TheoA.J.M.&FrederikeC.vanderLeek(2009),Laatstaanindenegatieveende
positievezin.In:EgbertBeijketal.eds.,Fonsverborum.Feestbundelvoorprof.dr.
A.M.F.J.(Fons)Moerdijk,Leiden:INL/Amsterdam:GopherBV,431Ͳ443.
Janssen,Theo&AnnMarynissen(2013).Brabantsoudezot(1500)enErasmus’goddelijke
Zotheid(1509)ineenintiemerelatie?In:HannoBrand,EricHoekstra,BenGroen&
CorvanderMeer,eds.,Detienduizenddingen,Leeuwarden:FryskeAkademy&
StichtingAfûk,333Ͳ349.
217
Jouennaux,Guy(1492).InterpretatioinLaurentiiVallaeElegantiaslatinaelinguae,Paris:
FélixBaligault.
Jouennaux,Guy&JosseBade(1508).InlingualatinaexVallaetGelliosumptaerudition
cumthematisgallicanisabipsopridem:ettheutonicisabAscensionuperadjectis,
Paris:JosseBade.
PoggioBracciolini([1438Ͳ1452]).Liberfacetiarum.IntraTextEditionCT:
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/LAT0577/.
PoggiodeFlorentijn(1968).Grootgrollenboek.Boertenenverhalenuitdevijftiendeeeuw,
TranslatedbyGerritKomrij,Amsterdam:DeArbeiderspers.
Valla,Lorenzo(1471).LavrentiiVallensisdelingvaelatinaeelegantia,Venice:Nicolaus
Ienson.
Valla,Lorenzo(1501),LaurentijValledelingualatinaquamoptimemeriti:deeiusdem
elegantialibrisex[…].EtcumJodociBadiiAscensiiepitomatissinguliscapitibus
antepositis[…],Paris:AndréBocardforJehanPetit.
Valla,Lorenzo(1526).LavrentiiVallensisElegantiarvmlibri[…],Lyon:LaurentHilaire.