spacer1. This is the fourth and last of F. H. Flayderʼs plays to be posted here on The Philological Museum. For a discussion of Flayder’s career and his place in the history of German Neo-Latin literature, see the Introduction to his play Argenis. For some comments on the importance of school and university Latin drama for language training, see § 2 - § 5 of the Introduction to Imma Portatrix. This introduction will describe the plot of Moria Rediviva (“Folly Reborn”), Folly’s antecedents in Erasmus and other authors, the objects of the play’s satire, and some stylistic features of the play.0
spacer2. The Plot Flayder’s 1627 play, set in 17th century Germany, filled with contemporary characters, and addressing contemporary issues, tells of the return to Earth of two ancient Greek philosophers, Democritus and Heraclitus, their meeting with the Goddess Moria (“Folly”), the duty assigned them by Folly to recruit officials for her new kingdom, the philosophers’ encounter with ten recruits who display vividly the required level of folly or foolishness, and the eventual reception of the entire cast into Folly’s kingdom. NOTE 1
spacer3. As in most literary works using or adapting the “ship of fools” theme, the plot outlined above serves as the framework on which to display the particular folly or deceit of each character, wherein the true entertainment value of the play lies. In this play the framework (i.e. the scenes with Folly and the two philosophers) has three parts: Acts I.i - ii, II.vi - vii, and V.vi. The intervening scenes introduce the individual fools, engage them with each other, and bring some of them to well-deserved disaster. Act I.i - ii bring Folly and the two philosophers Heraclitus and Democritus on stage. Folly introduces herself in I.i when the philosophers enter, Heraclitus weeping uncontrollably and Democritus laughing. Both joyfully recognize Folly and praise her extravagantly. After some descriptive plot scenes (II.i-v) which introduce a parson, a wandering scholar (Lat. philosophaster – see below), a merchant, a courtier, an alchemist, and a prosperous peasant, the second framing scene (II.v - vii) occurs: the philosophers return on stage complaining that their sight is now so dim that they have not been able to catch any recruits for Folly. She then equips them with monocles, with which they survey the play’s audience, in a typical comic breaking of the “fourth wall.” Long plot passages follow. In Acts III and IV, Barbara, the sole female fool, comes on stage, a lawyer has dealings with the previously introduced characters, and the Alchemist’s art is dissected. Act IV introduces the Soldier, who recounts his picaresque career to the audience. This act brings the play’s catastrophe, the turning-point of the plot, when the crooked Lawyer loses everything. a brings in a new character, the Hunter, who promptly gets his comeuppance. In the third and final framing scene (V.vi), Folly, the two philosophers, and all the characters are united on stage, where Folly accepts everyone into her kingdom and assigns duties and rewards to each. Thus ends the play.
spacer4. Five themes common in 16th and 17th century literature appear in Moria Rediviva:

A. The uncertainly of the law and the deceitfulness of lawyers.
B. The indebted state of the nobility.
C. The hypocrisy of the clergy.
D. The deceptions of alchemy. (Astrology too is often a target, although not an issue here.)
E. The oppression of peasants, a favorite theme of Flayder’s model, Nicodemus Frischlin.

These will be discussed below.

spacer5. The Sources As he says in his preface Lector Benevole, Flayder’s direct source is Erasmus, Moriae Encomium (hereafter Mor. En.) or Stultitiae Laus. NOTE 2 As in Erasmus, Folly herself enters on stage with fulsome praise of herself and her contributions to human welfare. Indeed, her opening monologue echoes the first chapters of Mor. En.: the hilarity of the spectators when first she appeared, her ancestry (Plutus/Wealth her father, Iuventus/Youth her mother, etc), her upbringing, her friends (Mor. En. 71, 76 - 80 greatly condensed). In addition the dialogue between the two philosophers and Folly repeats many of Folly’s claims in Mor. En.: idiots are the happiest of men, fools are welcomed everywhere, every human association is made stable (nay, even bearable) by foolishness (Mor. En. 94).
spacer6. The rest of the play, however, owes little to Mor. En. Flayder brings characters on stage who are not mentioned by Erasmus: the Peasant, Hunter, and Philosophaster. Even those who are mentioned in Mor. En. (the Merchant, the Courtier) have a very different character and role in Flayder. Aside from genre, a fundamental difference separates Mor. En. and Flayder’s Moria. Erasmus anatomizes folly into three types: the happy morons endowed with the foolishness that makes human existence bearable, i.e. most of us; the fraudsters and oppressors, the worldly wise in the church and elsewhere who prey on the gullibility of the many; and finally the Christian fool in St. Paul’s sense (I Cor. 1:18 - 22, “...For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men”) who sees worldly wisdom as true folly and Christian folly as true wisdom. Aside from Act I, Flayder deals only with the second type, and those very mildly. He lacks Erasmus’ bile and anger towards these fraudsters, as he himself says in Lector Benevole. It is noteworthy that Flayder weakens Erasmus’ anger towards churchmen into a series of humorous anecdotes.
spacer7. As he says in his preface, Flayder also borrowed passages from Caspar Ens’ Morosophia, a verbose rewriting of Mor. En. which minimized the original’s wit and humor, but added several new categories of fools, such as hunters and alchemists. NOTE 3 Another source of inspiration was Flayder’s great model, Nicodemus Frischlin (on Frischlin see the Introduction to Flayder’s Argenis in the Philological Museum). In Julius Redivivus Frischlin also has two figures from antiquity, Cicero and Caesar, return to contemporary Germany. The recognition scene between our philosophers and Folly (II.i) strongly resembles the scene between Cicero and Caesar and their guide to the modern world Hermannus (Julius Red. II.i). Flayder wrote his Huntsman’s arrival onstage in V.i to resemble a similar scene in Frischlin’s Bible play Rebecca II.i. Flayder borrowed his characterization of the Soldier from Frischlin’s Helvetiogermani, a versification (with embellishments) of Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum, book I. In that play the soldier, Thrasymachus, is also down on his luck (Helv. I.iv) and has a camp follower like Barbara, who is also a good thief (Helv. II.iv). Verbal echoes of Frischlin in Flayder’s plays are too frequent to be worth annotating.
spacer8. Originality Moria Rediviva is Flayder’s most contemporary play, set in 17th century Germany and portraying a range of contemporary types. Most Neo-Latin comedies, including Flayder’s Imma and Ludovicus, are populated with characters from Roman comedy (parasites, cooks, insolent servants, adolescents in love &c.), even if they are not the primary characters. None of these appear in Moria. Instead we meet local types: an apparently Protestant parson, a drunken soldier, a wandering scholar, a huntsman, an alchemist. Flayder treats them and their foibles with humor rather than indignation. His goal as always is entertainment, not imparting some message.
spacer9. The characters Flayder’s characters are more than stick-figure moral types. Each interacts with others on stage in an emotionally understandable, if exaggerated, way. The peasant is afraid of the parson to such an extent that he mishears the Parson’s mutterings and assumes they apply to him (II.v). Barbara is indignant that the Alchemist won’t marry her, despite his promises, while he is verbally abusive and gloats over the fact that he gave her a fake gold ring (III.i). The Soldier is dumbfounded (“Oh, I see the sun!” 1424) at Barbara’s transformation when she dons military garb (IV.i — in addition there must be some comic stage play as she adjusts her costume at 1450ff.). The Lawyer undergoes the worst change of fortune, from considering himself most favored by God (913ff.) to falling into misery, being shorn of his beard and hair and robbed of all his gains (IV.v). None of the characters are identifiable as real persons. Flayder adopts Martial’s dictum parcere personis, dicere de vitiis, “to spare the person, to denounce the vice” (X.xxxiii.10, quoted in Flayder’s Argenis p. 73). In order of appearance the characters are as follows.

a. The portrayal of Folly derives from Erasmus’ Moriae Encomium. She enters with fulsome praise of her role in human life. In fact, most of her opening monologue is borrowed — occasionally verbatim — from Erasmus. Only in Acts II and V does she actively participate in the plot, first giving spectacles to her philosophical recruiters, and finally distributing duties and rewards.

b. Heraclitus and Democritus. Since antiquity these two were considered a pair, the first always weeping, the second always laughing. In Latin literature, Juvenal imagines how Democritus would laugh at all the ridiculous pomp of senatorial Rome, while Heraclitus would weep (x.28 - 52). In Lucian’s Greek dialogue Βίων Πρᾶσις (Lives/Philosophies for Sale), Zeus and Hermes arrange an auction of various philosophers, among the Heraclitus and Democritus. A potential bidder questions them about their extraordinary behavior, the first always weeping, the other laughing. Repelled by their responses, he refuses to bid and they go unsold (xiiif. — see the discussion of the tradition by Lutz). Flayder continues this tradition: Heraclitus does little but weep for man’s folly (Lat. heu heu heu, translated here as “Woe, alas”) while Democritus laughs (Lat. hā hā hā), each one managing to round up a few fools and present them to Folly (heu, heu, heu). In his role as mocker and scoffer, Democritus also becomes the examiner and critic of alchemy (III.vi). We learn that he has apparently investigated the art in Paris (1175 - 8).

c. The Parson (Pfaffus, like its German original, Pfaffe, has a contemptuous sense compared to concionator, the usual word for Protestant minister, or sacerdos, the Catholic equivalent; Flayder calls his a sacrificulus indoctus, ’“an ignorant priestling,” in Argenis, p. 73). This frequent target of abuse appears in two long scenes. In the first, II.i, he engages in conversation with the wandering scholar (see below). In the second, V.iv, he preaches a ridiculous sermon which is an anthology of preacher jokes. The Parson is pictured as greedy, eager to exact all his dues; lazy, using canned sermons; ignorant of good Latin; and a hypocrite. He is paid a hundred gold pieces per year, but if he actually had to practice what he preached, he would not do it for four hundred (1831 - 3, a joke from Bebel’s Facetiae). Flayder must have been fearful lest this parody sermon bring down on his head accusations of impiety, especially in view of the tense situation in Germany as war’s devastation came close. (Heidelberg had been sacked in 1622 and Flayder’s friend Jan Gruter had fled from there to the vicinity of Tübingen. In 1634 Tübingen was to be occupied by Imperial, Catholic troops.) As a result Flayder prefaces the sermon with his own note saying in effect, “Don’t blame me; I got all this from joke books” (beginning of V.iv).

d. The wandering scholar (Philosophaster). This word, extant from antiquity only in Augustine. was in vogue during the Renaissance. Best known is Robert Burton’s play of that name. Burton defines a philosophaster as those who licentiantur in artibus artem qui non habent, eosque sapientes esse iubent, qui nulla praediti sunt sapientia, et nihil ad gradum praeterquam velle adferunt [“Those with a diploma in the arts who have no art, those ordered to be wise who have no wisdom and who have no qualifications for a degree except desire”] (Anatomy of Melancholy I.ii.iii.15 ad fin). In Burton’s play the philosophasters are pseudo-scholars (obscurantist philosophers, incomprehensible mathematicians, alchemists, and the like) who infest a newly founded university in order to gain riches. Burton’s definition and his portrayal do not fit Flayder’s philosophaster in any way, who is instead a starveling scholar on the lookout for any position and who is good at extemporaneous versifying. (Flayder can hardly have been acquainted with Burton’s play, which was presented at Oxford in 1617, but not printed until the 19th century.) In his Argenis (p. 73) Flayder calls him a studiosus vagans or scholasticus erro, “wandering scholar,” neither term being derogatory. In his dialogue with the Parson (II.i) all his responses are quotations either from classical literature or from Latin grammars. He reappears in V.iii, when he extemporizes a long poem to accompany the Huntsman’s punishment. Folly considers him to have no special skills, but to be a jack of all trades, a patcher and mender, among other jobs (2016 - 27).

e. The Alchemist puts in a brief appearance in II.ii, when he and his assistant carry his furnace onto the stage. His long scene (III.vi) with the Courtier, who is one of his victims, and with Democritus is an extended refutation of the value of alchemy and an exposure of the Alchemist’s trickery. In assaulting this easy target, Flayder has borrowed tropes and a few specific passages from contemporary pro- and anti-alchemy literature, including Ens’ Morosophia, Erasmus’ colloquy Alcumistica, and (possibly) Petrarch’s De Remediis Utriusque Fortunae Libri Duo chap. 111 “De Alchimia,” and Cornelius Agrippa’s De Vanitate, chapter 90, or some work derived from Agrippa. Not just a literary trope, the value of alchemy was a contemporary issue for Flayder’s fellow citizens. Duke Friedrich of Württemberg, who was incidentally Flayder’s godfather, was deeply involved with (i.e., a sucker for) alchemists. We know the names of at least three alchemists at his court in Stuttgart during the 1590 ’s and early 1600’s, all of whom came to a bad end. In his rage at being cheated, the Duke had them hanged on a tall iron gallows which he had constructed from the metal which one of them had promised to transmute into gold. The colorful details in Sattler, pp. 196f., 218, 230, Kopp 182 - 4, and (in English) Janssen 292f.

f. The Courtier (Aulicus, someone with a position at court) is a victim of the Astrologer, one element of his folly. Beyond that he is heavily in debt to a Merchant — the reason for his interest in alchemy — and is consulting the Lawyer to devise some way of not paying his debts, i.e. to cheat his creditor. Act II.iii records his excuses when he accidentally meets the Merchant, his creditor, in the street.

g. The Merchant is owed a large sum by the Courtier, but he himself also owes the Peasant a hundred Philips for grain which the merchant had purchased for resale. He too consults the Lawyer, first to file a lawsuit which will force the Courtier to pay him, and second, to devise some way not to pay the Peasant the hundred Philips. He is exacting and deceitful at the same time.

h. The Peasant (Rusticus, “countryman, farmer,” sometimes called by his proper name Menalcus, taken from Vergil’s Third Eclogue) is in the same position as the Merchant. He is owed money by the Merchant, and in turn he owes money to the Parson and fears persecution by him. He has little legal protection: a courtier can be in debt and never pay, but a lawsuit will force a peasant to pay quickly (660 - 3). His status in society is low: the Parson thinks that the peasants are all servants of the Devil (1799). The Peasant consults the Lawyer about how to collect his due without paying his debts. He is apparently prosperous, with barns full of cattle and grain to sell (IV.ii), but he is fearful (II.v), and even in Folly’s kingdom he wears donkey ears and is a bearer of burdens (2030 - 36).

i. Barbara, the only fool whose name is consistently used, is the most colorful character. A skillful thief, she is first mentioned in II.i, when the Parson complains that his maid Barbara, who ran his household, has left him. He wants her back. She first appears on stage quarreling with the Alchemist, who had promised to marry her and had given her a ring of fake gold. She leaves the alchemist and becomes the Soldier’s companion (IV.i), with whose help she undertakes to plunder the Lawyer, with whom she had also lived for a short time. After plundering the Lawyer’s house, she is caught carrying the loot down the street and is forced to abandon most of it (IV.iii). This abandonment brings the Lawyer’s world crashing down when his clients see what he has accumulated. In the end Barbara is assigned all the female tasks in Folly’s court (ll. 2004 - 8). As in Flayder’s Imma and Ludovicus, this female character is more enterprising, more ingenious than anyone else in the plot. Her character owes much to Tusnelda, a Swabian camp follower in Frischlin’s Helvetiogermani. Both women are forced to accommodate themselves to down-and-out soldiers, and both are caught thieving (Helv. IV.iv). Barbara has a name for two reasons: men populated the professions worthy of satire (lawyers, merchants, astrologers) and could simply have their profession as a name. Women on the other hand have many menial jobs. Who wants to satirize washer-women as a group? Second, St. Barbara is the patron saint of soldiers, specifically artillerymen. As the companion of a soldier, her name is significant.

j. The Lawyer (Rabula, a contemptuous term meaning pettifogger, shyster — in IV.i we learn for the first time that his name is Chrysostomus, “Golden Mouthed”) brings most of the fools together. The Parson, Courtier, Merchant and Peasant all consult him about collecting one debt and evading another, and all present the Lawyer with suitable gifts. In III.iii the Lawyer thanks God that he became a rich lawyer rather than a poor theologian, philosopher, or doctor. Nevertheless he is ruined when the fleeing Barbara leaves all his gifts in the street, and his clients come to realize that he has taken gifts from them all and is deceitfully working each one against the other. His clients reclaim their gifts and more besides, shave his beard off, and drive him away. He is rescued by Heraclitus (IV.v) and eventually becomes Folly’s investigator.

k. The Soldier plays a role similar to that of Boncompagnus in Flayder’s Ludovicus and Thrasymachus in Frischlin’s Helvetiogermani, both being braggart warriors who entertain the audience with long comic monologues about their early life (Lud. IV.iv; Helv. I.iv). In his monologue (1318 - 1423) the Soldier shares episodes from his past adventures, vignettes of daily life in 17th century Germany: the servant who sneaks away by tricking his master with a suitcase full of rocks, a cook who substitutes one dish for another and who steals the choice bits, a traveling medicine show “doctor” and the potions he sells. The Soldier’s folly is his bragging, lust, and thievery.

l. The Huntsman seems out of place in this company. His only fault other than his Plautine abuse of his underlings (V.i) — if indeed that is a fault in this quasi-Roman comedy — is to purchase a rabbit from the Peasant and pass it off as his own. His incorporation into the play may be attributed to two factors. Ens’ Morosophia, one of Flayder’s sources, includes a chapter on the folly of hunting. More important, the Huntsman gives Flayder an excuse for including his Waidmesser (Modern Germ. Weidmesser), the Hunting-Knife Song, a metrical tour-de-force in V.iii based on the actual practice of hunters. Any hunter guilty of “unhunterly” (unweidemännisches) words or deeds was given three blows on the buttocks with the flat of a knife. A special chant accompanied each blow (Stisser 488-9). Our Huntsman’s unhunterly offense was to claim someone else’s take as his own. Flayder has of course exaggerated the ceremony for literary effect.

spacer10. Performance and Staging There is no evidence that the Moria was ever presented on stage, and the probabilities are in fact that it was not. The introduction Lector Benevole begins: “Before you read...” rather than “see” or “hear.” The Collegium Illustre, where Flayder taught and whose students performed the plays, may have already been in difficulties due to the approaching war. It closed permanently in 1628. Perhaps more significant, the 1627 printed text, unlike the printings of Flayder’s other plays, does not include a list of the cast, nor does Flayder’s fulsome dedication to Johann Karl von Gloiach mention any role which he may have played on stage. Contrast Flayder’s other dedications, which emphasize the dedicatee’s acting skills. In any event, Moria could have been easily staged, since Flayder’s plays require no complex sets. Most of Moria takes place in the street which runs in the front part of the stage and is backed by two structures, the church on the left side and the lawyer’s house with a red door on the right (670 - 73). The Alchemist’s laboratory may have been an open area towards the back of the stage. In Act I Folly and the two philosophers meet and talk in the front of the stage. In II.ii the Alchemist and his assistant enter and place his furnace towards the back of the stage. The long scene of the Alchemist, the Courtier, and Democritus (III.vi) must take place in front of the furnace. At 1241 the Alchemist removes his furnace from the stage. It is replaced at the back of the stage by Moria’s throne, on which she sits in V.v-vi. The plundering of the Lawyer happens in front of his house and the Parson’s sermon in front of the church. Every other scene is in the street at the front of the stage. An example: when the Lawyer invites the Courtier into his house, the latter politely declines and remains in the street (993). All of this is very much in keeping with ancient Roman stage practice.spacer
spacer 11. Meter and style As mentioned above, Moria is Flayder’s most contemporary play, and this characterization extends to its style. Far fewer lines are borrowed or closely adapted from Plautus and Terence. Several German interjections fall from the characters’ lips (940 , 1515, 1907), NOTE 4 although this use of the vernacular is not rare in Neo-Latin plays (cf. George Ruggle’s 1615 Cambridge comedy Ignoramus, Frischlin’s Julius Redivivus, Palmireno’s Fabella Aenaria, the latter at least half Spanish). In addition, Flayder abandoned the earlier metrical pattern used in Imma and Ludovicus (ordinary dialog in iambic senarius, recitatives in iambic octonarius, excited dialog in trochaic septenarius), which generally conformed to the pattern of Roman comedy, especially Terence. NOTE 5 In contrast, almost all of Moria is in trochaic septenarius. The line consists of seven trochees (or the usual substitutions except in the seventh foot, which is always a trochee) and a final anceps syllable. There is regular dieresis (end of a word at the end of a foot) after the fourth foot. Two examples of trochaic septenarius in ordinary speech (573f.):

Sīste hūc | īn mĕdĭ |ūm scă|bēllum, ĕt | īmpŏne | hānc fōr |nācŭ |lăm.
Rēctē, | tūm cār |bōnēs | īndĕ. | Sīc sătĭs. | Ŭbĭ nūnc | īgnem hă |bēs?

(Vowels marked long may be long by position, not by nature.)

The play also includes two poems in other meters: conventional elegiacs in the philosophaster’s self-presentation (424 - 436), and the Hunting-Knife Song (1715 - 1784) in a trochaic meter heretofore unknown to me. It consists of rhyming lines of four trochaic feet (with the substitutions usual in comedy), essentially eight or nine syllables forming the first part of a trochaic septenarius up to the dieresis after the fourth foot. An example (1715 - 7):

Quī sŏ|lēs lĕpŏ|rēs dŏ|nārĕ
Ēt cāp|tōs ĭtĕ|rūm cāp|tārĕ
Ēt pĕ|cūniā | prǣstĭ|nārĕ

(The -ia in pecunia is treated as one syllable.)

One noteworthy feature of Flayder’s three original plays (ignoring his Argenis, a prose rewriting of Barclay’s novel) is his inclusion in the dialogue of lists of Latin words, some quite obscure. His fondness for such lists seems to have grown. In Imma, two peasants take turns abusing a cook with insulting words, imitating Plautus’ Pseudolus 359 - 70. In Ludovicus, the ruined soldier Boncompagnus gives us a long list of the tradesmen who brought charges against him in court (Lud. 1144 - 57). This list includes several terms not in Lewis and Short, but which may have been in use in the 17th century. In Moria more long lists appear, the first in the dedication to Johann Karl von Gloiach, an exhaustive list of all possible stage performers. A second follows shortly thereafter in the next paragraph Lector Benevole, a list of professions and their corruptions. Later comes a list of the people, minerals, and equipment found in an alchemist’s workshop (1153 - 66). Finally there is a list of the feminine trades, all ending in -ix (2004 - 8). Shorter lists abound: various fools (381 - 4), professions (789 - 91), insults (845 - 8, 1354f.), crops and animals (917 - 21), just to name a few. I might suggest two reasons for these lists. The most important is pedagogical: one primary goal of presenting these Latin plays is that the students should expand their Latin vocabulary. Thus the inclusion of isolated rare words (e.g. occinuisti - 609, datarias - 625, cornicamini - 716, accismus - 1002, fimeto1377). The other is for comic effect and is perhaps based on the exaggerations and the freely employed insults so common in Plautus and Terence (scelestus, ganeo, furcifer, and the like). The list of feminine -ix words in the 1709 The Tatler edition (see the commentary note on 2004ff.) may give some force to this second reason.
spacer12. The text This edition is based solely on the 1627 printing, the only text. I have corrected a few obvious errors and modernized the punctuation and capitalization, except for Flayder’s introduction, preserved as an example of 17th century practice. (For clarity I have added quotation marks even there.) I have retained his Humanist Latin spelling, which should present no difficulties. The printed text, as usual, often confuses the question mark with the exclamation point. I have silently changed where I thought necessary.
spacer13. In his dialogue with the Parson (II.i), the Philosophaster responds with quotes from Roman literature or tags from a school grammar. I have identified most of the tags as coming from Philip Melanchthon’s Latin grammar, which was widely used in Protestant circles. The specific edition used for this play cannot be determined with the available resources; I have cited several possibilities. Here are the list of the verbal echoes in this scene:

438, 440 – an example distich used in grammars (Melanchthon 356), from Aulus Gellius XIII.viii.
442 – Melanchthon de Syntaxi (1575) 367.
444 – Vergil Aen. II.619.
446f. – Ovid. Met. 4.561, Vergil Aen. VI.660.
449f. – Vergil Ecl. iii.33f.
453 – Melanchthon 353.
455 – Tibullus I.ii.16.
456f.Aen. I.320, I.493.
460 – Plautus, Pseudolus II.ii.66 + Cicero, Rab. Post. ix.23 + Aen. I.550.
462 – Melanchthon 366; cp. Eras. Adagia 111.
464 – Horace Epis. I.i.15.
466 – Melanchthon 352.
468 – Vergil Aen. VII.524.
470f. – Horace Epis. I.ii.69.
473 – Ovid Her. xvii.166.
475 – Melanchthon 351.
477 – Attributed to St. Jerome by Aquinas, Super Evangelium Matthaei cap. 9. .
479 – Vergil Aen. 11.362.
481 – Horace Epis. I.10.24.
483 – Vergil Aen. I.738.
485 – Ovid Fasti I.216.
487 - 9 – Melanchthon 357.
491 – Cicero, pro Rosc. Comoed. xi.31.
493 – Sallust, Cat. lv.3.
495 – Vergil Aen. II.774.
497f. – Melanchthon 352, phrase from Cicero Ep. ad Curio v.
500 – Melanchthon 353.
502 - 512 are short news items from various unidentified ancient and contemporary sources. The first lines are from Melanchthon 353f. (perhaps quoting The Fugger Newsletters or some similar source), 511 is from Aulus Gellius X.xii.8. 512 refers to the Wars of the League of Cambrai [1508 - 16].
506 This anecdote about Themistocles is found in various sources Flayder may have seen, such as Lambert Hortenius Montfortius’ Enarrationes doctissimae atque utilissimae (Basel, 1577) p. 251.
514 – Terence, Heaut. 549.
517 – Melanchthon p. 372.
518f. – Horace Epis. I.vi.37, Ovid, Ep. ex Ponto II.iii.8.
521 – Horace Sat. I.ii.11.
523 – Horace Epis. I.i.52.
525f. – Horace Epis. I.i.53f.
528 – Sallust Cat. liv.
530f. – a motto; Persius Satire f.52.
533f. – Martial XII.liv. Zoilus is the literary “type“ of the carping critic.
536 – Juvenal ii.63.
538 – Melanchthon 353.
540 – Melanchthon 349 from Sallust Cat. liv.
542 – Vergil Aen. I.215.
544 – Melanchthon 352.
546 – Horace Odes I.xxii.1.
548 – Melanchthon Grammatica Philippi Melanchthonis (1575) p. 162. Fem. nouns with no plurals.
550 – Vergil Ecl. ix.25.
552 – Cicero de Legibus III.xiv (modified).
554 – Melanchthon 354.
556 – Melanchthon 1575 p. 413. Verbs which take the ablative.
558f. – Melanchthon 349; a motto.
561 – Martial XII.xxv.1.
563f. – Juvenal iii.143-4.
566f. – Plautus Asin. 202; Erasmus Adagia 1784.
569f. – Vergil Aen. I.609; Vergil Ecl. vii.9
572 – A traditional medieval phrase.


NOTE 1 The play was printed in 1627, but begun three years previously. In an appendix to his Argenis (1626) Flayder prints Act II.i of Moria, adding that he had hoped to attach the entire Moria to this edition of his Argenis, but the death of his esteemed printer forestalled this plan. Quanquam primo noster fuerit animus, huic Argenidi adiungire (sic) Drama novum, Moriam Redivivam,...tamen obitu Optimi nostri Typographi hic subsistere cogimur. So he decided to append just one scene as a sample. The Argenis is short enough that one volume could have contained the two plays .

NOTE 2 All references to Moriae Encomium are to page and line numbers in Clarence Miller’s ASD edition, volume 4.3 of the standard modern edition of Erasmus’ complete works, which — remarkably! — is available on line (see bibliography). Note that stultitia is not “’stupidity”: the fools are not stupid, but selfish, greedy, deceitful.

NOTE 3  Caspar (or Gaspar) Ens [ca. 1570 - 1650] was a publicist and prolific writer who lived most of his life in Cologne. He was the author of histories, mathematical works, and anecdote anthologies (Epidorpidum LiberBook of Desserts).

NOTE 4 The first two characterize the Rusticus as countrified. The last (Barbara calling the soldier a Narr, “fool”) may serve to remind the reader of the antecedents of this play in the Narrenschiff literature.)

NOTE 5 For a discussion of Flayder’s meters, see §14 - 17 of the Introduction to Imma in the Museum. A useful database of the meters of Roman comedy by Timothy J. Moore at http://romancomedy.wulib.wustl.edu.



Bebel, Heinrich, Facetiarum Heinrici Bebelii... Tubingae: apud Haeredes Vlrici Morhardi, 1555. All references to Bebel are from this edition, available online here.

Bloemendal, Jan and Norland, Howard B. Neo-Latin Drama and Theatre in Early Modern Europe. (eiden - Boston: Brill, 2013.

Bulenger, Julius Caesar, Systematis Opusculorum Tomus Secundus, in Quo Habentur Libri De Triumpho... Lugduni [Lyons]: Sumptibus Antonii Pillehotte, 1621. Available online here.

Ens, Gaspar, ΜΩΡΟΣΟΦΙΑ: Id est, Stulta Sapientia, Itemque Sapiens Stultitia... Cologne: Petrus à Brachel, 1620. Available online here. The German Gaspar Ens (ca. 1570-1650) is little studied, but seems to have written several lengthy books.

Erasmus, Desiderius, Moriae Encomium, id est Stultitiae Laus ed. Clarence Miller, in Opera Omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami Ordinis Quarti Tomus Tertius. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. 1979. References are to page / line numbers. Available online here.

Erasmus, Desiderius, Des. Erasmi Roterod. Colloquia nunc emendatiora. Amsterdam: Elzevier 1679.

Flayder, Fridericus Hermannus, Argenis Incomparabilis I. Barclai in Comoediam redacta et acta...(Tübingen: Typis Werlinianis, 1626). Text and translation of the play itself are available in the Museum, but not the additional pages mentioned in this introduction containing Moria II.1.

Flayder, Fridericus Hermannus, Moria Rediviva: quae tamen nunquam fuit mortua. Tübingen: Typis Werlinianis, 1627, available online here.

Haupt, Gunther, Friedrich Hermann Flayders Moria rediviva und Die bedeutendsten Vertreter des lateinischen Schuldramas im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert,. Tübingen: Buchdruckerei der Tübinger Studentenhilfe, 1928) A Tübingen dissertation; the only serious treatise on the Moria.

Janssen, Johannes, History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages, vol. 15. London: Kegan Paul, 1910. Available online here.

Kopp, Hermann, Die Alchemie in Älterer und Neuerer Zeit. Erster Theil: Die Alchemie bis zum Letzten Viertel des 18. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1886.

Lehrich, Christopher I., The Language of Demons and Angels: Cornelius Agrippa’s Occult Philosophy. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003. This study is the most convenient source for the passages which Flayder may have been quoting (pp. 235 - 238).

Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Der Briefwechsel von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz mit Mathematikern. Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1899.

Lutz, Cora E. “Democritus and Heraclitus” The Classical Journal, vol. 49, No. 7 (April 1954) 309-14.

Melanchthon, Philip, Grammatica Latin and Syntaxis, first published in 1525 and 1526 respectively, followed by countless editions in the following century. For convenience I have cited the critical edition, which is readable and on line, in Corpus Reformatorum. vol. 20, ed. Binseil, Henricus Ernestus. Brunsvigae [Braunschweig]: Apud C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1854. Available online here.

Petrarch, Franciscus, De Remediis Utriusque Fortunae Libri Duo. Roterodami: Ex officina Arnoldi Leers, 1649 pp. 305 - 7 (“De Alchimia”, Dial. CXI)

The Tatler, ed. Aitken, George A., vol. 1. London: Duckworth & Co., 1898, nr. 35 (June 30, 1709).

Sattler, Christian Friderich, Geschichte des Herzogthums Würtenberg unter der Regierung der Herzogen, Fünfter Theil, (= vol. 5). Ulm: bey Aug. Lebr. Stettin, 1772. Available online here.

Stisser, Friederich Ulrich, Forst- und Jagd-historie der Teutschen. Leipzig: Langenheim, 1754. Available online here.

Zambelli, Paola, White Magic, Black Magic in the European Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 2007.