Chapter 1

Produced by Louise Hope, Joseph Cooper, Chris Curnow, Greg Lindahl and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

[Transcriber's Note:

This text is intended for users whose text readers cannot use the "real" (Unicode/UTF-8) version of the file. Characters that could not be fully displayed have been "unpacked" and shown in brackets:

[en], [em] = e with overline [un], [um] = u with overline [in] = i with overline (once only)

The forms ã (for an, am) and õ (for om, on) have been retained.

The text is based on scans of two different physical copies of the same edition; see end of e-text for one variant reading. Other errors are also listed at the end of the e-text.

Superscripts are shown with carets: w^t, y^e. All pilcrows ¶ in the body text were added by the transcriber (see endnotes).

The book was originally (1550) printed together with Erasmus's _The Education of Children_. The introduction (1961) mentions Erasmus briefly; the Index refers only to Sherry's _Treatise_. Since the two texts have no connection except that Sherry is assumed to be the translator of the Erasmus essay, they have been made into separate e-texts.]

A TREATISE OF SCHEMES AND TROPES

A TREATISE OF SCHEMES AND TROPES (1550) by RICHARD SHERRY

and his translation of

THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN by DESIDERIUS ERASMUS

A facsimile reproduction with an introduction and index by HERBERT W. HILDEBRANDT _The University of Michigan_

Gainesville, Florida SCHOLARS' FACSIMILES & REPRINTS 1961

SCHOLARS' FACSIMILES & REPRINTS 118 N.W. 26th Street Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A. Harry R. Warfel, General Editor

Reproduced from a copy in and with the permission of BODLEIAN LIBRARY _Oxford_

L.C. Catalog Card Number: 61-5030

Manufactured in the U.S.A. Letterpress by J. N. Anzel, Inc. Photolithography by Edwards Brothers Binding by Universal-Dixie Bindery

INTRODUCTION

Richard Sherry's _A Treatise of Schemes and Tropes_ (1550), a familiar work of the Renaissance, is primarily thought of as a sixteenth-century English textbook on the figures. Yet it is also a mirror of one variation of rhetoric which came to be called the rhetoric of style. As a representative of this stylistic school, it offers little that is new to the third part of classical rhetoric. Instead, it carries forward the medieval concept that ornateness in communication is desirable; it suggests that figures are tools for achieving this ornateness; it supplies examples of ornateness to be imitated in writing and speaking; it supports knowing the figures in order to understand both secular and religious writings; it proposes that clarity is found in the figures. In short, the work assisted Englishmen to understand eloquence as well as to create it.

Four-fifths of ancient rhetoric is omitted in the _Treatise_. The nod is given to elocution. Invention is discussed, but only as a tool to assist the communicator in amplifying his ideas, as a means to spin out his thoughts to extreme lengths. Arrangement, memory, and delivery are overlooked. Accordingly, the _Treatise_ neatly fits into the category of a Renaissance rhetoric on style. It is this school which recognized the traditional five Ciceronian parts of rhetoric, but considered style to be the most significant precept. The _Treatise_ is not the first to support an emphasis wholly on style, nor the foremost. We know that Aristotle's _Rhetoric_, Cicero's works on rhetoric, and Quintilian's _Institutes_ discussed the significance of style, but they had a broad view. However, in England, about the time of Bede, arose a limited concept that rhetoric is mainly style, particularly that of the figures. It is this latter truncated version of rhetoric that the _Treatise_ continues in the Renaissance. Rhetoric in Sherry's work has lost its ancient meaning.

The _Treatise_ is highly prescriptive. It was born in an age of rules. So much so, that the rhetorician who named his rules and tools was not out of rapport with the period. This accounts for the rigidity, the love of classification, and the schematic presentation of the work. It is nothing more than a highly organized dictionary of ancient, medieval, and Renaissance schemes and tropes. In fact, the major variation from previous Latin compilers is to be found in the headnotes relative to the various kinds of figures. Nor is it as thorough in handling the figures as its predecessors. It utilizes, however, the customary Greek and Latin terms and supplies a definition, but here the similarity with contemporaries and ancients ends. It is weak in amplification of examples during an age when amplification was practiced. Sherry economizes by selecting usually one example in support of a figure while contemporary cataloguers, and ancients for that matter, are more definitive.

Whether the work was ever popular within the schools or without is unclear. Probably it did not have extensive success because only one issue of the work appeared and a revised edition was brought out in 1555. By contrast, during the sixteenth century, Erasmus' _De Copia_ (1512) had at least eleven printings, Mosellanus' _Table_ (c. 1529) had at least eight editions, Susenbrotus' _Epitome_ (1541) had at least twenty printings, Peacham's _Garden_ (1577) had two editions, and Day's _Secretorie_ (1586) underwent at least five editions. Some of these works had new editions printed in the seventeenth century and would seem to reflect a greater public acceptance than the _Treatise_. Some were also written in Latin while Sherry moves in the vernacular. It still was an age of Latin, and Sherry in part recognized this by his alternate Latin and English movement in his second rhetoric on style published in 1555. Moreover, people seemed content to remain with the giants of the Renaissance, notably Erasmus and his _De Copia_ instead of turning to a lesser light such as Sherry.

The _Treatise_ does have merit. The work cannot be judged entirely by tallying its meager number of editions, its lack of thoroughness, or its artificial divisions. Its signal contribution rests upon the fact that it is a pioneering effort at permitting the figures to march, for the first time, in English. Here Sherry had an opportunity to provide the English reader with additional words, ideas, and material to be employed in vernacular communication. His efforts in his works on rhetoric, the two editions of the _Treatise_, provided the sixteenth century Englishman with the identical schemes and tropes which had been a heritage of the Latin language since antiquity. Hence the work can be called a complicated ordering of the figures, but it is also a sincere attempt to provide in English those figures which would lend ornateness to the expression of an idea.

To indicate that the _Treatise_ was part of a continuing school of rhetoric, we must consider a few rhetoricians subsequent to Sherry's work. Indeed, one notices the continuance of dictionaries of figures which carry the admonition that the usual manner of utterance was to be despised. Thomas Wilson's _The Arte of Rhetorique_ (1553), although preserving the classical idea of rhetoric, also felt the definition of a figure employed in communication involved the uncommon. Twenty-seven years subsequent to Sherry, England again has a pure catalogue of the figures; this is Peacham's _Garden of Eloquence_. More elaborate than the _Treatise_, it too suggests that rhetoric is decoration. Continued interest in the stylistic tools is also seen in Puttenham's The _Arte of English Poesie_ (1589). When we move to the latter part of the sixteenth century and then change the genre as exemplified in Day's _The English Secretorie_, we see a stylistic extension to the art of letter writing which borrowed rhetorical terms and rules and applied them to written correspondence. The emphasis in these rhetorics on style is the same: ornateness in communication is achieved through using the figures.

When we look in the opposite direction, to works which preceded Sherry, the figures, definitions, and examples in the _Treatise_ derive more from contemporaries than from the ancients. It relies extensively upon intermediaries. Sherry explains that Erasmus and Mosellanus will be major sources. Hence the _De Copia_, the _Ecclesiastae_, and the _Tabulae de schematibus et tropis_ are used with regularity. Although further removed in time, the _Rhetorica ad Herennium_ is the primary ancient source. But beyond this first-hand reliance on the ancients, examples from Vergil, Cicero, and Terence, to mention several, as well as definitions of the figures, depend heavily upon neo-classical intermediaries.

Appended to the text on the figures of rhetoric is a seemingly gratuitous section entitled "That chyldren oughte to be taught and brought vp gently in vertue and learnynge, and that euen forthwyth from theyr natiuitie: a declamacion of a briefe theme, by Erasmus of Roterodame." This essay occupies almost two-thirds of the _Treatise_ and receives its first English translation from the Latin at the hands of Sherry. William Woodward in his _Desiderius Erasmus Concerning the Aim and Method of Education_ gave us another English translation in 1904. One other translation, in German, by August Israel, is entitled "Vortrag über die Nothwendigkeit, die Knaben gleich von der Geburt an in einer für Freigeborne würdigen Weise sittlich und wissenschaftlich ausbilden zu lassen."

The reason for the inclusion of the Erasmian essay is never clearly stated in the other sections of the _Treatise_. Nor do the other translators suppose a reason. From the internal evidence of the essay and from headnotes preceding it, we may assume that the purpose is one of supplying readers with an example of amplification of a brief theme, first illustrated in miniature, and then full blown into a long declamation. The essay does not appear to be illustrating the numerous figures discussed in the initial section of the work.

Of Sherry we know little. Beyond the dates in the DNB, we infer from his works that he had an intense interest in English and had a desire for his countrymen to communicate well in the vernacular. He was interested in religion, was most likely a Protestant, and hoped to continue an interest in religion which he developed in his youth. He was also a teacher. And although Latin was still a living language, the task of inculcating a new tongue in the students fell to the schoolmaster; Sherry was active in this capacity. This does not weaken an acclamation we possess of the man: "He was a Person elegantly learned."

HERBERT W. HILDEBRANDT

_The University of Michigan February 25, 1960_

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A TREATISE OF SCHEMES AND TROPES by _Richard Sherry_ 1

Introduction 2 Eloquucion 17 Of Evidence and Plainness 19 Of the Three Kyndes of Style 21 Scheme and Figure 25 Faute 32 Garnyshyng and His Kyndes 38 Figures of Sentence 62 Proves 78

THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN by _Desiderius Erasmus_ 97

¶ A treatise of Schemes & Tropes very profytable for the better vnderstanding of good authors, gathered out of the best Grammarians & Oratours by Rychard Sherry Lon doner.

Whervnto is added a declamacion, That chyldren euen strayt frõ their infancie should be well and gent- ly broughte vp in learnynge. Written fyrst in Latin by the most excel- lent and famous Clearke, Erasmus of Rotero- dame.

To the ryght worshyp ful Master Thomas Brooke Esquire, Rychard Shyrrey wysheth health euer- lastynge.

[Sidenote: The tytle of thys worcke straunge.] I doubt not but that the title of this treatise all straunge vnto our Englyshe eares, wil cause some men at the fyrst syghte to maruayle what the matter of it should meane: yea, and peraduenture if they be rashe of iudgement, to cal it some newe fangle, and so casting it hastily from th[em], wil not once vouchsafe to reade it: and if they do, yet perceiuynge nothing to be therin that pleaseth their phansy, wyl count it but a tryfle, & a tale of Robynhoode. But of thys sorte as I doubte not to fynde manye, so perhaps there wyll be other, whiche moued with the noueltye thereof, wyll thynke it worthye to be looked vpon, and se what is contained therin. [Sidenote: Sheme and Trope.] These words, _Scheme_ and _Trope_, are not vsed in our Englishe tongue, neither bene they Englyshe wordes. [Sidenote: Vse maketh stra[un]ge thinges familier.] No more be manye whiche nowe in oure tyme be made by continual vse, very familier to most men, and come so often in speakyng, that aswel is knowen amongest vs the meanyng of them, as if they had bene of oure owne natiue broode. Who hath not in hys mouthe nowe thys worde Paraphrasis, homelies, vsurped, abolyshed, wyth manye other lyke? And what maruail is it if these words haue not bene vsed heretofore, seynge there was no suche thynge in oure Englishe tõgue where vnto they shuld be applyed? Good cause haue we therefore to gyue thankes vnto certayne godlye and well learned men, whych by their greate studye enrychynge our tongue both wyth matter and wordes, haue endeuoured to make it so copyous and plentyfull that therein it maye compare wyth anye other whiche so euer is the best. [Sidenote: Oure language falsely accused of barbarousnes.] It is not vnknowen that oure language for the barbarousnes and lacke of eloquence hathe bene complayned of, and yet not trewely, for anye defaut in the toungue it selfe, but rather for slackenes of our co[un]trimen, whiche haue alwayes set lyght by searchyng out the elegance and proper speaches that be ful many in it: as plainly doth appere not only by the most excellent monumentes of our a[un]ci[en]t forewriters, [Sidenote: Gower. Chawcer. Lidgate.] Gower, Chawcer and Lydgate, but also by the famous workes of many other later: [Sidenote: Syr Thomas Elyot.] inespeciall of y^e ryght worshipful knyght syr Thomas Eliot, which first in hys dictionarye as it were generallye searchinge oute the copye of oure language in all kynde of wordes and phrases, after that setting abrode goodlye monumentes of hys wytte, lernynge and industrye, aswell in historycall knowledge, as of eyther the Philosophies, hathe herebi declared the plentyfulnes of our mother to[un]ge, loue toward hys country, hys tyme not spent in vanitye and tryfles. What shuld I speake of that ornamente Syr Thomas Wyat? which beside most excellente gyftes bothe of fortune and bodye, so flouryshed in the eloquence of hys natiue tongue, that as he passed therin those wyth whome he lyued, so was he lykelye to haue bene equal wyth anye other before hym, had not enuious death to hastely beriued vs of thys iewel: teachyng al men verely, no filicitie in thys worlde to be so suer and stable, but that quicklye it may be ouerthrowen and broughte to the grounde. Manye other there be yet lyuynge whose excellente wrytynges do testifye wyth vs to be wordes apte and mete elogantly to declare oure myndes in al kindes of Sciences: and that, what sentence soeuer we conceiue, the same to haue Englyshe oracion natural, and holp[en] by art, wherby it may most eloqu[en]tly be vttered. [Sidenote: The occasion of thys treatise.] Of the whych thynge as I fortuned to talke wyth you, Master Brooke, among other matters this present argument of Schemes and Tropes came in place, and offered it selfe, demed to be bothe profitable and pleasaunte if they were gathered together, and handsomelye set in a playne ordre, and wyth theire descriptions hansomely put into our Englishe tongue. And bicause longe ago, I was well acquaynted with them, when I red them to other in y^e Latin, and that they holpe me verye muche in the exposicion of goode authores, I was so muche the more ready to make them speak English, partli to renew the pleasure of mine old studies, and partelye to satysfy your request.

¶ [Sidenote: Rodulphus Agricola.] Beside this, I was moued also wyth the authorytye of that famous clarke Rodulphus Agricola, whyche in a certeine epistle wryten vnto a frynde of hys, exhorteth m[en] what soeuer they reade in straunge tongues, diligently to translate the same into their owne language: because that in it we sonar perceiue if there be any faute in our speaking, and howe euerye thynge eyther rightly hangeth together or is darkely, ruggishly, and superfluously wrytt[en]. No lerned nacion hath there bene but y^e learned in it haue written of schemes & fygures, which thei wold not haue don, except thei had perceyued the valewe.

¶ Wherefore after theyr example obtaynyng a lytle lesure, I red ouer sundrye treatises, as wel of those which wrot long ago, as of other now in our daies: fyndynge amonge them some to haue wrytten ouer brieflye, some confuselye, and falselye some. [Sidenote: Mosellain.] Mosellane hathe in hys tables shewed a fewe fygures of grammer, and so hathe confo[un]ded them together, that his second order called of Loquucion pertayneth rather to the rhetoricians then to hys purpose. [Sidenote: Quintilian.] Quintilian briefly hathe wrytten bothe of the Gramatical and rhetorical Shemes, but so that you may soone perceyue he did it by the waye, as muche as serued hys purpose. [Sidenote: Cicero.] Cicero in hys boke of an oratour with hys incompetable eloquence hathe so hid the preceptes, that scarselye they may be tryed oute by theyr names, or by theyr exãples. [Sidenote: Erasmus.] Erasmus in hys double copye of words and thynges, hath made as y^e tytle declareth but a comentarye of them bothe, and as it wer a litle bil of remembra[un]ce. Wherefore to make these thinges more playne to y^e students that lyst to reade them in oure tongue, I haue taken a lytle payne, more thorowelye to try the definicions, to apply the examples more aptly, & to make things defused more plaine, as in dede it shal ryght wel apere to the dylygente. I haue not translated them orderly out of anye one author, but runninge as I sayde thorowe many, and vsyng myne owne iudgement, haue broughte them into this body as you se, and set them in so playne an order, that redelye maye be founde the figure, and the vse wherevnto it serueth. Thoughe vnto greate wittes occupyed with weightye matters, they do not greatelye pertayne, yet to such as percha[un]ce shal not haue perfecte instructoures, they may be commodious to helpe them selues for y^e better vnderstandynge of such good authors as they reade. ¶ For thys darre I saye, no eloquente wryter maye be perceiued as he shulde be, wythoute the knowledge of them: for asmuche as al togethers they belonge to Eloquucion, whyche is the thyrde and pryncipall parte of rhetorique. The common scholemasters be wont in readynge, to saye vnto their scholers: _Hic est figura_: and sometyme to axe them, _Per quam figuram?_ But what profit is herein if they go no further? In speakynge and wrytynge nothyng is more folyshe than to affecte or fondly to laboure to speake darkelye for the nonce, sithe the proper vse of speach is to vtter the meaning of our mynd with as playne wordes as maye be. [Sidenote: A figure not to be vsed but for a cause.] But syth it so chaunseth y^t somtyme ether of necessitie, or to set out the matter more pla[in]ly we be compelled to speake otherwyse then after common facion, onles we wil be ignorante in the sence or meaninge of the mater that excellente authors do wryghte of, we muste nedes runne to the helpe of schemes & fygures: which verely come no sildomer in the writing and speaking of eloquente english men, then either of Grecians or Latins. Many thinges might I brynge in to proue not onely a great profyt to be in them but that they are to be learned euen of necessitie, for as muche as not only prophane authors wythout them may not be wel vnderstand, but that also they greatelye profit vs in the readinge of holye scripture, where if you be ignoraunte in the fyguratiue speches and Tropes, you are lyke in manye greate doubtes to make but a slender solucion: [Sidenote: Westimerus] as ryght wyll do testefy _Castelio Vestimerus_ and [Sidenote: Augustinus] y^t noble doctor saint Augustine. I confesse I haue not made the matter here so perfecte as my wyll and desyer is it shoulde haue ben, and that I haue but brieflye touched, and as it were with my litle fynger poynted to these thinges, which require a l[en]ger declaracion. For what can be hasted, and absolute to? But if God spare me lyfe, I truste hereafter to make it an introducciõ, wherbi our youth not onlye shall saue that moste precious Iewell, Time, whyle they wander by them selues, readynge at all aduentures sundry and varyous authors: but that also thei shalbe able better to vnderstande and iudge of the goodlye gyftes and ornamentes in mooste famous and eloquente oratoures. [Sidenote: And apte similitude.] For as lyke plesure is not to him whiche gooeth into a goodlye garden garnyshed wyth dyuers kindes of herbes and flowers, and that there doeth no more but beholde them, of whome it maye be sayde that he wente in for nothynge but that he wold come out, and to hym which besyde the corporall eie pleasure, knoeth of eueri one the name & propertye: so verelye much difference is there in readynge good authors, and in sundrye sortes of menne that do it: and muche more pleasure, and profit hathe he whiche vseth arte and iudgement, then the other, whiche wyth greate studye in dede turneth them ouer but for lacke of the knowledge of preceptes wanteth also the fruite and delectacyon that he more amplye myghte obtayne. The lyuynge God from whome all good giftes do procede, gyue vs grace so to order all oure words and speache, that it may be to his honour and glory for euer and euer. Amen.

¶ Geuen at London the. xiii. day of Decembre. Anno .M.D.L.

¶ A briefe note of eloquciõ, the third parte of Rhetoricke, wherunto all Figures and Tropes be referred.