It is a commonly expressed belief that all thinkers, writers, and poets of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries must be regarded as humanists. Such notable scholars as Walser, Pastor, and Anichini have lent considerable support to this opinion; in an effort to disprove the thesis (which has been dominant since the beginning of the century) that humanism is predominantly irreligious and individualistic, they have managed to distinguish between a Christian humanism and a pagan humanism.

On the basis of such a distinction, we should consider even Luigi Pulci and Lorenzo the Magnificent (and why not Machiavelli and Leonardo?) to be humanists of the same calibre as Ficino, Poliziano, Pico, and Erasmus, even though their humanism was more apparent than real.

In the course of editing and annotating Erasmus’ The Praise of Folly for the forthcoming Amsterdam edition of his complete works, I have come to believe that the 461 years since its first publication have produced only two original commentaries on the Moria. In 1515 a fairly thorough commentary, almost as long as the work itself and of a sort usually reserved for ancient works, was published with The Praise ofFolly. Reprinted eleven times during Erasmus’ lifetime, it has retained some currency, though not much, because it was reprinted in the Leyden Opera omnia of 1703-06. Though it goes under the name of Girardus Listrius, we know from one of Erasmus’ letters that he himself wrote part of it—how much we do not know. The second major commentary was that by I. B. Kan, published at The Hague in 1898. In our own century some useful information and suggestions have been provided by Maurice Rat and Hoyt Hudson. The rest, alas, is not silence, but (as Douglas Bush once said about Shakespearean criticism) fearless repetition.

The Editorial Board of Renaissance Quarterly is most kindly continuing its tradition in Renaissance News by allowing me to publish the third supplement to the Catalogue of Italian Plays 1500-1700 in theUniversity of Toronto Library (University of Toronto Press, 1961). Previous supplements appeared in RN16 (1963), 298-307, and 19 (1966), 219-228. The plays listed below illustrate a wide range of theatrical tastes, from Latin and Italian passion plays, medieval in tradition, to the later dominant vogue for musical dramas. In editions of the latter it became customary early in the seventeenth century to record architects, costumers, and performers, so that the printed plays are a valuable source for stage history. Scenery for four of these dramas was designed by Ferdinando and Francesco Galli di Bibbiena, then at the outset of their careers.

Mutabilitie's claim to sovereignty over gods and men alike, as she lays it before Jove in Book VII of the Faerie Queene, is supported first of all by a genealogical argument:

As a ‘Titanesse,’ Mutabilitie is older by one generation than any inhabitant of Olympus. Her first assault on Jove's dominion is based on the simple equation of priority in time with priority to power: because she came first, she deserves first place. Of all her arguments, however, this turns out to be the weakest, and Jove disposes of it handily.