Le Cymbalum mundi (review)

This colloquium on the Cymbalum mundi brought together a host of talented critics, including many of the best-known names in sixteenth-century scholarship. The resulting volume, dedicated to Michel Simonin (In Memoriam by Jean Céard), contains thirty-nine contributions, the avant-propos and acknowledgments by the editor, and "Conclusions" by Richard Cooper.

In section 1 (Ouvertures) R. Cooper provides a history of Cymbalum mundi, authorship (Des Périers or another?), its first editions, its reception, questions of religion, its parole (babil or Word of God?), views of Cymbalum mundi as theatrical farce, and its lack of unity and impenetrable enigmas, still unresolved. Y. Giraud's contribution seeks to establish the text and reconsider attribution. He concludes the author was highly placed, highly, humanistically educated. But who can name the author with certainty?

Section 2 (Histoire, etc.): M. Simonin outlines the situation when Cymbalum mundi was first published: the king hoped to support the art of publishing, heretic-hunters wanted to roast any suspect, reformers wanted to publish. In the confusion, Cymbalum mundi slipped through. P. Desan sees in man's appropriation of Jupiter's Livres des destines man's ascendancy over gods, taking his fate in his own hands. R. Vulcan accepts the Screech/Nurse approach to Cymbalum mundi and sees the clash between its Lucianesque satire and serious themes as a clash of cymbals. F. Higman traces the evolution of censure, noting that Cymbalum mundi's ambiguity allows its interpretion as heretical and innocuous at the same time. F. Roudaut surveys French opinions of Cymbalum mundi 1537–1830; F. Giacone reports on reception in Germany: the Cymbalum mundi, sive symbolum sapientiae (ca. 1692) denies divine revelation to Moses and the divinity of Christ. P. Smith examines the complexities of Prosper Marchand's critique of Cymbalum mundi (1711) in which he refutes those who believe it is impious or "detestable." G. Bedouelle inventories nineteenth-century opinions. F. Giacone traces biblical echoes: the entire Cymbalum mundi is steeped in biblical culture.

Section 3 (Fables, etc.): J. Céard interprets Dialogues poétiques as fictions, fantasies, and contradictions/ambiguities. R. Gorris-Camos proposes transmutation on many levels, especially alchemical, as an Ariadne's thread. M. Huchon provides a partially Lucianesque, partly allegorical-historical approach: Mercury, Lucianesque and self-mocking, tries to please Minerva (Marguerite de Navarre) but her poets provoke Jupiter's (François I's) thunderbolts. C. Bologna delves into the spirito of Cymbalum mundi compared to contemporary works like Horapollo's Hieroglyphica and Alciato's Emblematica. F. Lestringant examines the Cymbalum from the point of view of place. B. Pinchard compares the Antipodes in Dialogue 4 to Rabelais's in the Cinquiesme Livre. B. Conconi notes that Aretino's De tribus impostoribus was, like Cymbalum mundi, taxed with atheism and impiety. J.-C. Carron paints a panorama of twentieth-century criticism from Lefranc to Delègue. These critics denounce each other just as do Rhetulus, Cubercus, and Drarig.

Section 4 (Dialogue et Théâtralité): O. Millet distinguishes between "Lucianesque" (form, style) and "Lucianique" (message), opining that Cymbalum mundi leans toward the former. C. Lauvergnat-Gagnière peers beneath the multiple disguises in Cymbalum mundi, concluding that the best disguise is the author's. B. Petey-Girard compares Socratic with Lucianesque dialogue. Whereas the former clarifies, Cymbalum mundi's gives the reader no purchase: there is no "author's voice." D. Ménager considers that the world "out there" is no tranquil reflection of the human. Cymbalum mundi uses talking dogs and Antipodes to decentralize us. S. Bamforth displays the work's theatricality: the épitre liminaire as curtain raiser followed by intensely spatial scenes with snappy dialogue and action. E. Kushner develops her earlier ideas: central themes are The Book, Truth, Love and the Word. Cymbalum mundi teaches there is no monolithic truth. V. Zaercher compares Cymbalum mundi and Dolet, their interest in Plato and their common anti-Erasmianism (eloquentia...