Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches from Antiquity to Early Modern Times 9789004321793, 9004321799, 9789004341869, 9004341862

Citation preview

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches from Antiquity to Early Modern Times

International Studies in the History of Rhetoric Editors Laurent Pernot (Executive Editor, Strasbourg, France) Craig Kallendorf (College Station, U.S.A.) Advisory Board Bé Breij (Nijmegen, Netherlands) Rudong Chen (Perkin, China) Manfred Kraus (Tübingen, Germany) Gabriella Moretti (Trento, Italy) Luisa Angelica Puig Llano (Mexico City, Mexico) Christine Sutherland (Calgary, Canada)

VOLUME 7

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/rhet

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches from Antiquity to Early Modern Times Rearranging the Tesserae Edited by

J. Carlos Iglesias-Zoido and Victoria Pineda

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016058593

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1875-1148 isbn 978-90-04-32179-3 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-34186-9 (e-book) Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Notes on Contributors viii Introduction: Old Words in New Books 1 Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido and Victoria Pineda

PART 1 Antiquity 1 Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity 25 Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido 2 Historians’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education: Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Selection from Thucydides 42 Roberto Nicolai 3 Speeches of Historians and Historiographical Criticism: Timaeus’ Speeches in Polybius’ Book XII 63 José María Candau 4 The Speeches in Justin’s Corpusculum Florum: The Selection and Manipulation of Trogus’ Historiae Philippicae 79 Luis Ballesteros Pastor

PART 2 Byzantium and the Middle Ages 5 A Word from the General: Ambrosianus B 119 sup. and Protreptic Speeches in Byzantine Military Manuals 97 Immacolata Eramo 6 A Medieval Anthology: Juan Fernández de Heredia’s Crónica Troyana 115 María Sanz Julián

vi

Contents

7

The Byzantine Influence: Heredia’s Tucídides and the Contiones Thucydidis of Lapo da Castiglionchio 136 Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido

8

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle: Fernando de Pulgar’s Anthology in ms. 9–5173 Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid 154 Teresa Jiménez Calvente

PART 3 Early Modern Age 9

Prefaces in Anthologies of Contiones 173 Joaquín Villalba Álvarez

10

Remigio Nannini’s Orationi Militari 194 Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido

11 Henri II Estienne’s Conciones siue orationes ex Graecis Latinisque historicis excerptae 213 M. Violeta Pérez Custodio 12

François de Belleforest’s Harangues militaires 238 Victoria Pineda

13

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in the Teaching of Rhetoric 261 David Carmona

14

L’utilità che si caua d’un libro: The Culture of Compendia and the Reading of Contemporary Italian Warfare in Nannini’s Orationi militari 285 Carmen Peraita

15

Modern History in Nannini’s and Belleforest’s Anthologies 300 Xavier Tubau

Contents

16

Oratory and Political Debate in the Last Decades of the Roman Republic: Cassius Dio’s Reconstruction (with Some Notes from Remigio Nannini’s Orationi Militari) 319 Ida Gilda Mastrorosa

17

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular: The Speeches in Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories 339 Robert D. Black

vii

18 The Trésor des livres d’Amadis as an Anthology of Speeches 356 Florence Serrano 19

From Italy to Europe: Seventeenth Century Collections of Orationes Fictae 378 Valentina Nider Appendix: Contiones. Printed Anthologies of Speeches (1471–1699) Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido and Victoria Pineda 401 Bibliography 456 Index of Names 520 Index of Subjects 538

Notes on Contributors Luis Ballesteros Pastor (Ph.D. 1994), teaches Ancient History at the University of Seville. He is the author of a book-length study on Mithridates Eupator (Granada 1996) and a commentary on the chapters devoted to Mithiridates in Justin’s Epitome (Hildesheim 2013). Robert Black (Ph.D. London, 1974) is Emeritus Professor of Renaissance History at The University of Leeds. His publications include Benedetto Accolti and the Florentine Renaissance (1985), Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy (2001), Education and Society in Florentine Tuscany (2007) and Machiavelli (2013). José María Candau (Ph.D. 1971) is Professor of Greek Philology at the University of Seville. His research interests focus on ancient historiography and geography, with special attention to Polybius, Strabo and the fragmentary Greek historians. David Carmona (Ph.D. 2009 in Classical Philology) is Assistant Professor of Spanish Philology at the University of Extremadura. His most recent publications include La escena típica de la épipólesis (Rome 2014) and “La batalla del Puerto de Siracusa: Tucídides o el imitador de Homero” (SemRom 2014). Immacolata Eramo (Ph.D. 2009) is Lecturer in Classical Philology at the University of Bari. Her research interests include warfare in Antiquity and the Byzantine ages, Greek and Roman military literature, the history of the tradition of ancient technical texts in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. She is the author of several essays, including a critical edition with translation and commentary of Syrianus’ Discorsi di guerra (2010). J. Carlos Iglesias-Zoido (Ph.D. 1992), teaches Classical Philology at the University of Extremadura. He is the co-editor of Talia dixit. Previous publications on Thucydides and ancient historiographical speeches include Retórica e historiografía. La arenga mili-

Notes on Contributors

ix

tar desde la Antigüedad hasta el Renacimiento (Madrid 2008, as editor) and El legado de Tucídides en la cultura occidental (Coimbra 2011). Teresa Jiménez Calvente (Ph.D. 1995) is Associate Professor of Latin at the Universidad de Alcalá. She has published on different subjects related to Latin language and literature, Medieval and Renaissance cultures, and the classical tradition. Her books include Los “Epistolarum familiarium libri XVII” de Lucio Marineo Sículo (2001), Sátira, amor y humor en la Edad Media latina (2009) and, in collaboration with L. Fernández Gallardo, El “Duodenarium” (c. 1442) de Alfonso de Cartagena (2015). Ida-Gilda Mastrorosa (Ph.D 1998) is Associate Professor of Roman History at Florence University. Her topics of research include Roman historiography and judicial oratory in the Roman Empire, political propaganda in Roman history, women’s social role and juridical status in Republican and Imperial Rome, and modern interpretations of Roman history and Roman institutions. Roberto Nicolai (Ph. D. 1990) is Professor of Greek Literature at the University of Rome “La Sapienza”. He is the editor of Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca. He has published essays on historiography, geography, epic, and tragic poetry. His publications include La storiografia nell’educazione antica (Pisa 1992) and Studi su Isocrate (Roma 2004). Valentina Nider (Ph.D. University of Pisa, 1992) is Professor of Spanish Literature at the University of Trento. Her most recent publications include some critical editions of Francisco de Quevedo: Carta a Antonio de Mendoza (2013), La constancia y paciencia del santo Job and Caída para levantarse (2017). Carmen Peraita (Ph.D. 1991) is Professor of Romance Languages and Literatures at Villanova University. Her current research focuses on Renaissance and Baroque material and cultural history, with a special interest in print culture, the history of the book and reading practices. She has published several books and articles on Quevedo’s political and historical works, as well as on rhetoric and historiography in the seventeen century.

x

Notes on Contributors

María Violeta Pérez Custodio (Ph.D. 1990) teaches Classical Philology at the University of Cádiz. Previous publications include the critical edition and study of the rhetorical treatise by Arias Montano (Rhetoricorum libri quattuor, Badajoz, 1995) and the progymnasmata handbook by Alfonso de Torres (Rhetoricae Exercitationes, Alcañiz and Madrid, 2003). Victoria Pineda (Ph.D. University of Michigan, 1993), teaches Comparative Literature at Universidad de Extremadura. She is the co-editor of Anuario Lope de Vega. Her research focuses on rhetoric and historiography, textual studies, and intermediality. Her most recent publications include a book on Luis Cernuda’s poetic ekphrasis (Barcelona, 2017) and a critical edition of Lope de Vega’s Los Prados de León (Madrid, 2017). María Sanz Julián (Ph.D. 2006) is Associate Professor at the University of Zaragoza. Her research focuses on the literature of the late Middle Ages, especially the Trojan Cycle, Medieval Aragonese literature (Juan Fernández de Heredia) and the relationship between Spanish and German incunabula. She has published widely in those fields and has edited two mediaeval Trojan chronicles by Juan Fernández de Heredia and Juan de Burgos (2012 and 2015). Florence Serrano (Ph.D. 2011) teaches Cultural Studies at the University Savoie Mont Blanc. Her most recent publications include a critical edition of Juan Rodríguez del Padrón’s Triunfo de las donas / Triumphe des dames (Paris, 2017) and Las heroidas castellanas o la renovación del modelo ovidiano en el siglo XV (Turnhout, 2015). Xavier Tubau (Ph.D. 2008) is Assistant Professor of Hispanic Studies at Hamilton College (USA). He is the author of Una polémica literaria: Lope de Vega y Diego de Colmenares (2007) and Erasmo mediador: política y religión en los primeros años de la Reforma (2012), and co-author, with Pedro Conde Parrado, of “Expostulatio Spongiae”: En defensa de Lope de Vega (2015). He is currently writing a book on political propaganda during the empire of Charles V.

Notes on Contributors

xi

Joaquín Villalba Álvarez (Ph.D. 1998) is Associate Professor of Latin Philology at the University of Extremadura. His publications include translations of Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia (2003) and Silius Italicus’ Punica (2005), as well as the books Los proemios en la historiografía latina renacentista (2009) and Exempla fidem faciunt (2013, as editor).

Introduction

Old Words in New Books Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido and Victoria Pineda This volume is about a relatively little-known rhetorical and bibliographic genre, namely, anthologies of speeches excerpted from history books. From Ancient times to the present day, the practice of culling orations made by different characters from one or more works and publishing them independently of their original source has produced new and different ways of reading and using history. The fact that the speeches extracted from the works of Thucydides, Sallust, Leonardo Aretino, or Machiavelli are highly codified rhetorical pieces with elements that are easily recognizable from a typographical point of view makes it easy for the excerptors to identify, select, and combine them, in order to present the reader with a florilegium of excellent pieces worthy of consideration and imitation. This book, then, lies at the point where rhetoric and historiography intersect, and seeks to find answers to such questions as: what makes this genre unique and different from other anthologies? What are the specific features of these works? Who are the excerptors? What kind of audience do they work for? For what purpose? Which historians are the most anthologized? How were these books disseminated? What other kinds of readings apart from the rhetorical—for example, political, ethical or cultural—could be extracted from the collections? What was the history of transmission of some of these collections? How did the anthologies affect the way history was read? Focusing on the rhetorical aspects of the genre, but using a variety of approaches and methodological tools that account for other important aspects of our subject, our research aims to offer an introduction to the very diverse questions that arise from the study of a single object: anthologies of historiographical speeches. As anyone who has undertaken the study of the transmission of speeches knows, one phenomenon is apparent, namely, that from the earliest times, speeches included in historical narratives, whatever their type, were eventually separated from the works for which they had originally been composed and began to circulate until they took on a life of their own and started to make an impact on other fields. What is most striking about this process is that it was constant. It appeared in Greco-Latin antiquity, continued and increased during the Middle Ages, in both the Byzantine East and the European West, and underwent a final boost in the Renaissance. In some cases the anthologies

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_002

2

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

became the only means of transmission for some speeches.1 Raising awareness of the importance of this phenomenon has resulted in the studies that we propose in this book, where we have established an interdisciplinary line of research about the drafting, circulation, and utilization of these kinds of miscellanies, selections and excerpta. Our aim is to investigate what the speech collections can tell us about the relationship between rhetoric and historiography from antiquity to the Renaissance, and also about the use that different readers in those periods made of the collections. In our view, the process of preparing the anthologies, the mechanisms for selecting texts (types of speeches chosen and discarded,2 their relationship with other texts of an epistolary nature, and so on), the presence of linking devices that we shall call “narrative settings” (narrative passages that provide data about who, when and where a speech was delivered),3 the changes made to the speeches as they were selected (by abbreviating, changing or modifying introductory verbs or the content of the speech itself, merging two speeches into one, introducing titles and rubrics),4 their purposes, and the reasons for their success over the centuries comprise a set of problems that need to be clarified. These are general lines of research that help us understand the mechanisms used to create a new type of cultural product—in which the selection and combination of texts is not due to a simple process of accumulation but to the use of key elements of a literary, ideological or cultural kind5—and to examine the speeches and modes of transmission in such a way that it brings out meanings and interpretations that have so far gone unnoticed.

The State of the Art

Until relatively recent times, it was usual for researchers to analyze the speeches inserted in history books in an attempt to determine the specific context of the work or its author. In the last fifty years, numerous studies have been 1  A notable example are the four speeches and two letters from Sallust’s Historiae, which were compiled in the imperial era and transmitted, together with the other orations from the two Sallustian monographs, by means of a manuscript tradition that was widely disseminated, as codices such as Vat. Lat 3864 testify. Cf. Paladini (1967), Pasoli (1976), Canfora (1987), and Novokhatko (2009) on Sallust’s invectives. New editions by La Penna and Funari (2015) and Ramsay (2015). 2  Cf. Brock (1995). 3  Iglesias-Zoido (2006). 4  Irigoin (1997). 5  Canfora (2002).

Introduction: Old Words in New Books

3

published about how the speeches given by prominent figures in the works of Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Sallust, Caesar, and Tacitus were constructed and what purposes they served. There have been far fewer transversal studies of specific types of speech over time in order to determine their rhetorical components and possible adaptations in different historical, literary, and ideological contexts. However, although the study of anthological compilations in general had been traditionally neglected because they were regarded as a secondary, unimportant genre, particular attention has been paid during the past decade to the intellectual process by means of which certain texts are extracted from their original contexts, and together with other similar ones, are transferred to a new “container” that eventually takes shape as a different cultural instrument.6 In contrast to authors such as Vardi, who adhere to the traditional idea that these works are just “a collection of more or less self-contained items of knowledge,”7 more recent research has sought to define the anthology genre and to analyze the function that the collections really served in the cultural context in which they were created. It could be said that the tide is turning against an academic practice established since the beginning of the contemporary era, namely, marginalizing as objects of study all cultural manifestations which, as a result of any type of process of selection, might “pervert” the sacred respect for the integrity of the works of authors regarded as “classics.” 8 Most studies of selections, anthologies and excerpta have focused on analyzing how anthologies of poetic texts, such as the Palatine Anthology, were created and developed. In other words, they have analyzed florilegia, collections of texts that already existed independently or proceeded from formal and thematic groupings that were no longer in vogue.9 Particular attention has also been paid to the labor excerpendi carried out in anthologies comprising different types of text (poetry, drama and prose), such as the one put together by Stobaeus.10 Selections of prose passages, such as stratagems, apophthegms, or exempla—which, by the way, also arise from history books—have been examined as well, with special attention given to the work of Valerius Maximus. These studies demonstrate that texts of this kind, which were of obvious 6  Cf., with different approaches, Funghi (2003–2004), Piccione and Perkams (2003–2005), Morgan (2007a), Morgan (2007b), Morgan (2012a), and Pordomingo (2013). On condensed texts, see Horster and Reitz (2010). 7  Vardi (2004) 164–165. 8  Morgan (2012b) 54–57: “Archaeology of a misconception.” 9  Cf. Argentieri (1998). On Greek anthologies on papyrus, cf. Falivene (2010) and Pordomingo (2013). 10  Cf. Piccione (1994a), Piccione (1994b), and Reydams-Schils (2011).

4

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

illustrative or moralizing value, were widely disseminated in the Western and Byzantine Middle Ages. However, one only has to look at the bibliography devoted to selections and anthologies to verify that the study of collections of speeches taken from history books continues to be a field that is almost completely neglected by criticism.11 The reasons for this scant interest are diverse. The triumph of the “canonicist” perspective in European universities during the nineteenth and a large part of the twentieth century caused the complete abandonment and undervaluing of selections of speeches that had been used as a rhetorical and educational tool until the first third of the nineteenth century, which was when the last important examples of this genre were published.12 Reducing the collections to the status of a didactic tool meant that they were no longer regarded as objects worthy of scientific study. For the scholars who nowadays do address speech anthologies and the manuscripts that contain them, the importance attributed to speeches is usually reduced to clarifying questions of a textual nature, or collecting variant readings for text editions. For other scholars who examine the work of historians transmitted in a fragmentary way, selections of speeches are just another element that has to be fitted into a whole about which not very much is known. The speeches in this case are studied in a similar way to those passages that are cited by indirect tradition or, in the case of Greek historiography, to texts found as a result of papyrological discoveries. Neither of these types of study, however, recognizes or analyzes the significance of the selection in itself, the process of its compilation, the reasons that justified it and the reasons that account for its success over time. The collections are handled, in short, as subsidiary products and not as entities worth studying in themselves.

Speech Collections and Other Miscellanies

The consideration of selections of speeches may turn out to be useful for the general study of anthological genres, since they are works that help organize and systematize the extremely varied typology of selections, miscellanea and recueils. To begin with, they are useful for differentiating the constituent elements of such distinct types as excerpta, anthologies and florilegia.13 All these 11  Cf. Burke (1966), Burke and Po-chia Hsia (2007) 125–140, and Burke (2011). Cf. also López Poza (1990), López Poza and Fernández Vales (2011), and Lorenzo Lorenzo (2008). 12  Cf. the anthologies of Ymbert (1818), de Botidoux (1823), Reinach (1894), and Vauchelle (1898). Cf. Douay-Souvlin (1997), Douay-Souvlin (1999), and Compagnon (2007). 13  For a definition of the different types of miscellany and their relationships with anthologies, encyclopaedias, and so on, see Raible (1995), Morgan (2007a), Morgan (2007b), and

Introduction: Old Words in New Books

5

modalities are normally categorized as part of the overall concept of “miscellany,” which has only begun to be defined with greater precision in recent years.14 A first meaning of “miscellany” serves to describe works like those by Athenaeus or Aulus Gellius. These are collections that gather together quite a wide range of quotations taken from other writers.15 The variety of their sources (poetry, prose, historical genres, etc.) and themes (medicine, culinary art, facts and deeds, etc.) are their hallmark. It is precisely the interest aroused by authors such as Athenaeus and Gellius in recent decades that has enabled critics to adopt a perspective that reinforces this first meaning of the genre and to regard miscellanies as true creations and not simply erudite compilations. On the other hand, however, a second sense of the term “miscellany” refers to collections of maxims, sayings and any type of fragmentary material taken from more homogeneous sources, such as Plutarch’s collection of sayings of kings and commanders.16 Anthologies of speeches culled from history books constitute a particular case within this modality, slotted into the categories of “selection” (syllogé) or “collection” (synagogé).17 As has already been pointed out, the very nature of the anthologized material—speeches in direct discourse that can easily be separated from the narrative whole—lends itself to the selection process, thanks partly to the narrative settings that made it easy to isolate speeches within the body of a history, and would make it possible for the speeches to be used as rhetorical models from antiquity onwards.18 These features also make it possible for us to understand how, despite the complaints expressed by numerous historiographical treatises that the speeches interrupted the flow of the narration,19 the paradox should emerge that the Morgan (2012a). For a study on their influence in different periods, see, for example, Crisci (2004), Maniaci (2004), and Ronconi (2004) on the use of different miscellany manuscripts in the Byzantine era. Cf. also Olsen (2014) 300–368 on medieval florilegia and anthologies and R. Black (2004) on the school miscellany in Medieval and Renaissance Italy. On anthologies and florilegia cf. Rouse (1979), Munk Olsen (1979), Munk Olsen (1980), Munk Olsen (1982), Munk Olsen (1995), Hamesse (1995), Aldama Roy and Muñoz Jiménez (2005), and Muñoz Jiménez (2011). On recueils, cf. Balavoine (1984), Cazes (1994), and Cazes (2002). 14  Morgan (2007a), Morgan (2012a), and Morgan (2012b). From the codicological point of view, cf. the studies on miscellany manuscripts gathered in the volume edited by Crisci and Pecere (2004). 15  Dorandi (2000). 16  Morgan (2012a). 17  Cf. Odorico (1990), Piccione (2003), and Maniaci (2004) 83–86. 18  Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) and Iglesias-Zoido (2012). 19  Cf. Fornara (1983) 143–145 on ancient historiography and Pineda (2007) on the Renaissance and Early Modern historiographical context.

6

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

very same speeches that interrupted the course of the story were the parts that ended up being so successful when disseminated as elements independent of the historical narrative. In contrast to the miscellanies that arose in a less systematic way (which, depending on their type, gathered together poems, sayings, or maxims that followed the anthologist’s readings, as Aulus Gellius points out in his famous Preface 2–3: “Vsi autem sumus ordine rerum fortuito . . .”), the syllogé is a type of selection—to which, as has been mentioned, the anthologies of speeches of historical origin belong—that seeks to offer a detailed list of the specific content of a work or genre. In the course of the period examined in this book, the selection process evolves in terms of modality and purpose. In the Byzantine era, collections systematically brought together speeches in direct discourse that were regarded as “model speeches,” templates for drafting military harangues and embassy speeches.20 Those compiled during the fourteenth, fifteenth and first part of the sixteenth centuries tended to extract any utterance in direct discourse, even those that could not, strictly speaking, be considered full-fledged speeches. Systematic collections of every oration found in authors such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon were then generated, combining antiquarian and rhetorical purposes. Only at a later stage, from the second half of the sixteenth century, when it was perceived that some or many of the speeches selected—those that could not properly be called orations—did not fulfill the rhetorical purposes that the collections were aiming for, did the selection process become more refined, so as to include only those speeches that might be truly useful as oratorical models. Thus, in the same period different possibilities of reading historical works and different types of readers existed side by side.21 Readers more interested in the events as a whole could turn to the complete works of a historian, while those most interested in the speeches and their rhetorical usefulness could turn their attention to the anthologies. This was how collections of speeches became a significant bibliographic genre in the Greco-Roman imperial era, during the Macedonian Renaissance of Byzantium in the tenth and eleventh centuries and, especially, in the European Renaissance and, in many cases, were the main way in which particular works were used for training in rhetoric and literary creation during those periods.

20  Eramo (2008) and Eramo (2010a). Cf. also Dain (1953), Dain (1954), U. Roberto (2009), and Németh (2010) on the aims and method of the Excerpta Constantiniana. 21  Cf. Burke (1966).

Introduction: Old Words in New Books



7

The Dissemination of Speech Anthologies: General Problems

One of the main problems we have faced in the course of this research has been the dearth of preserved anthologies of historiographical speeches in antiquity. We have very few examples to illustrate the process of selection, because scarcely a handful of anthologies have survived from that period. As a result we have to fall back either on testimonies and references preserved in letters and biographies or on remains present in papyrus fragments. As far as the process of selection is concerned, we need to determine the function that collections served in the rhetorical instruction process during the imperial era, their relationship with a system of declamations and progymnasmata, and the role of the rhetors. Perrochat pointed out long ago that, as a result of an anthology of speeches drawn from the History of the Peloponnesian War, the orations in the first three books of Thucydides’ work might have influenced those composed by Sallust. Until relatively recently, however, these observations were simply unconfirmed hypotheses.22 The scattered nature of testimonies and fragments that bear witness to the dissemination of such selections in antiquity is one of the major problems that critics face. There is no systematic study that gathers all the known information together in one place. Hence, one of the priority research tasks is to create a corpus that does gather together, in chronological order, testimonies such as the only two speeches of Theopompus’ Philippics that have been preserved, texts that Didymus cites in his commentary on Demosthenes (14.52 = F 164 and 8.58 = F 166), or information that is dispersed in papyri, such as that offered by the P.Col.Zen 60, of the third century bce. This includes the list of books that Zenon sent to his brother, Epharmostos, where a collection (synagogé) of prefaces and ambassadorial speeches by Callisthenes is already mentioned.23 The situation in medieval times, where there are more examples, poses a different kind of problem. Although the number of anthologies of speeches that have been preserved is significantly higher in the Middle Ages, many of them have been kept in a haphazard fashion or by accident, as part of miscellaneous manuscripts with a rhetorical, didactic, or military content.24 A general overview of the Byzantine era shows that the excerpta Constantiniana 22  See Perrochat (1949). 23  Otranto (2000) 1–4. 24  For the problems posed by the medieval miscellaneous codices and the attempts to draw up a typology, see the studies collected in Crisci and Pecere (2004). See also Olsen (2014) 300–328, who offers an overall view of florilegia and anthologies in manuscript form produced between the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

8

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

are of major importance for that period. During the so-called Macedonian Renaissance, between the ninth and eleventh centuries ce, there was in Byzantium an enormous increase in selections of passages and speeches taken from the whole of the work of classical historians.25 These anthologies are fundamental links in the chain for establishing the state of the works of authors such as Polybius and Cassius Dio as we know them today. This process of selective transmission reached a peak in the middle of the tenth century, in the time of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (911–959), when, on his orders, the huge task of compiling historical texts was undertaken.26 The result is a work comprising fifty-three volumes, known under the title of Excerpta Historica iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeneti confecta, which contained a wide selection of themes (speeches, sayings, examples of virtues and vices, and so on) extracted from the historical literature of the classical era until the Byzantine authors of the seventh century ce.27 The selected historians and texts reveal the concept of history prevalent at the time, as well as the criteria used when assembling the collection.28 These selected passages found a new use as didactic and moralistic models, while another application was found for the speeches as a basis for drafting ambassadorial orations (De legationibus) and, in particular, for composing military harangues (demegoríai). The study of these excerpta will enable us to find keys to the way rhetoric influenced the historiography of the period, particularly if we bear in mind the central importance of the imitative process followed at the time.29 Two testimonies in this area occupy a prominent place. The first one, by Syrianus Magister, is referred to as the Rhetorica militaris and is the only one of its kind to have survived.30 The second is a selection of harangues of historiographical origin, preserved in Codex Ambrosianus B 119 sup.22, together with a corpus of works of a military nature that were copied in the scriptorium in Constantinople toward the middle of the tenth century, and known as Demegoríai protreptikaí 25  Cf. Markopoulos (2006), Mango (2002), and Holmes (2010). 26  The idea of “encyclopaedism” used to refer to this editorial process (cf. Büttner-Wobst [1906], Dain [1953] and Lemerle [1971] 287–288) was challenged by Odorico (1990), who suggested the concept of syllogé (“collection”) as a more appropriate label for describing this task. Cf. also Flusin (2002). 27  Cf. Kaldellis (2012). 28  For the historians excerpted, cf. Németh (2010) 8–9. Cf. also Moore (1965) 126–167 (Polybius); Pittia (2006) (Appian); Mazzuchi (1979), and Molin (2004) (Cassius Dio); Parmentier-Morin (2002) (Dionysius of Halicarnassus); Forcina (1987) 90–102, and Ochoa (1990) (Zosimus); and U. Roberto (2001) and U. Roberto (2005) (John of Antioch). 29  Cf. Taragna (2000) and Hoffmann (2007). 30  Cf. Eramo (2011).

Introduction: Old Words in New Books

9

(“exhortative harangues”) (fols. 141r–161v).31 This anthology is complemented by another two military speeches in the form of letters addressed to an army on a campaign, dated to the years 950 and 958, and attributed to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus himself.32 In the Christian West too, the speeches of antiquity were seen as a perfect way to gain access to knowledge of the thought and oratory of such admired historical figures as Alexander, Caesar, and Pompey. To possess their speeches was a way of getting closer to the gift of persuasion that characterized these great men of the past. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that codices of the miscellaneous type containing collections of eminent authors’ speeches and letters, which made the work of reading historical texts easier, should circulate at a very early stage. This process was an important part of the transmission, for example, of Sallust’s work throughout the whole of the Latin Middle Ages. Copies of his work, prepared in Corbie and Auxerre in France, were already in circulation in the ninth and tenth centuries, when other kinds of historical texts were added to the speeches and letters extracted from his monographs.33 Of particular importance is MS Vaticanus latinus 3864, containing Julius Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War (fols. 1r–74r), the Letters by Pliny the Younger (fols. 78r–108r), speeches and letters from the work of Sallust (fols. 109r–127r), and the Epistulae ad Caesarem senem (fols. 127r–133v) attributed to him. In Italy these selections were known and used centuries later by authors such as Guglielmo da Pastrengo and Pier Candido Decembrio, exponents of the new humanistic interest in the writing of history. The speeches of Sallust, isolated from their original work, came to be employed as rhetorical models. This can be observed by the enormous sway they held over essential authors of medieval historiography when it came to representing the words of the speakers. As Smalley points out, “that Catiline was a ‘baddy,’ not a ‘goody,’ makes no difference: Oratio Catilinae ad milites suos pulcherrima runs a gloss on Cat. 20. Any chronicler needing a literary model for a speech by a general encouraging his soldiers to face heavy odds had his Catilinarium to hand.”34 The compilation practices of the Late Middle Ages, a period that provides an abundance of specimens of this genre, can be illustrated by studying particular cases, for example Juan Fernández de Heredia’s Tucídides.35 In spite of the title 31  Cf. Eramo (2007). 32  Cf. Ahrweiler (1967) and McGeer (2003). 33  Cf. Reynolds (1983). 34  Cf. Smalley (1971) 169–170 and Lee (2003 and 2010). For the dissemination of Sallust in this period, see Reynolds (1983) and Osmond and Ulery (2003). 35  Cf. Álvarez Rodríguez (2007).

10

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

by which it is traditionally known, this is not a complete copy of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. The reader who picks up manuscript 10.801 in the Spanish National Library finds an anthology that brings together most of the speeches in the work but not its narrative parts. In addition to its relevance as a sample of the process of selection, carried out in the scriptorium of the Grand Master of Avignon, this work acquires even more importance if we bear in mind that this is not a selection in the original language, but a translation into Castilianized Aragonese, the language used in Heredia’s studio. In fact, it is the first translation of Thucydides into a vernacular language, being earlier than Lorenzo Valla’s 1452 version. The cases of Sallust and Thucydides show the growing rhetorical interest in selections of speeches of historiographical origin during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance.36 The process gained ground throughout the fifteenth century when it was extended to the work of other Latin historians such as Livy, and not only in cultural centres in France or Italy, but also in places like the Iberian peninsula, as can be deduced from news about works that have not survived. These include Enrique de Villena’s Arengas e Propusiçiones (“Harangues and Propositions”), the Arengues e repeticions (“Harangues and Repetitions”), which was held in Bernat Granollach’s library in 1468, or those cited in the inventory of books belonging to the Counts of Benavente de Medina de Pomar, the Arengas e propusiçiones e abtos de los de Titu Libio (“Harangues and propositions and facts from Livy”).37 The trend continued until the late fifteenth century, as can be demonstrated by MS 9–5173 in the Royal Academy of History (Real Academia de la Historia) in Madrid, which holds an anthology of speeches from Fernando de Pulgar’s Crónica.38 The practice of compilation was not confined to history, but affected adjoining genres, as is suggested by the existence of collections of speeches with a Trojan theme, such as the one offered by the Crónica Troyana (“Trojan Chronicle”), which was also produced in Heredia’s scriptorium, or Leonardo Bruni’s Orationes Homeri.39 The first is an anthology of 147 speeches culled from Guido delle Colonne’s Crónica Troyana.40 The second is a Latin translation of the speeches delivered in the famous Embassy episode, which enjoyed great success at the beginning of the fifteenth century and circulated in copies that were completed by other compositions of an oratorical type, as can 36  Cf. also Winterbotton (1983) for the dissemination of Quintus Curtius. 37  Cf. Gómez Moreno (1994). 38  Cf. Carriazo (1954). See the chapter by Jiménez Calvente in this volume. 39  Cf. Thierman (1993). 40  Cf. Sanz Julián (2012).

Introduction: Old Words in New Books

11

be seen in the mid-fifteenth century MS Holkham 339 (Bodleian Library), where several of Sallust’s speeches were also copied alongside Bruni’s Homeric Orationes, and in other manuscripts from the same period. Epic and historiography are mixed together without any problems.41 Often, medieval anthologies are collections in which speeches taken from the works of Sallust or Xenophon share space with the orations of Lysias, the letters of Cicero, or texts taken from the Holy Scriptures or manuals of the military arts.42 The fact that they are closer to us in time, the use of more durable media, and the zealous preservation of manuscripts among the library stocks of monasteries and noble houses that went on to form part of the great European collections, means that a significant number of examples are available to us. It is obvious nonetheless that the medieval anthologies that have been preserved are just a tiny proportion of those that must have existed at the time, and the same could be said of the Renaissance collections.43 It should not be forgotten that the thirteenth-, fourteenth- and fifteenth-century anthologies of speeches that have been preserved in manuscript form were not necessarily intended as works that would endure in time, but as the working tools of a scholar or a particular group of intellectuals. Their very existence and the reason the anthologies were copied can be attributed to the fact that they fulfilled educational, rhetorical, or military functions in very specific contexts in which their circulation was quite restricted.44 Scribes or scholars carried out a process of selection of the speeches, often in accordance with the specific 41  Cf. Holloway (1993), Moos (1993), Artifoni (2001), and Milne (2006). 42  See for example MS. Vaticanus latinus 3864 (end of the ninth century), which contains Julius Caesar’s Commentary on the Gallic Wars (fols. 1r–74r), Pliny the Younger’s Letters (fols. 78r–108r), the speeches and letters from the works of Sallust (fols. 109r–127r), and the Epistulae ad Caesarem senem (fols. 127r–133v), attributed to Sallust. 43  For the humanist miscellaneous codices, see Gentile and Rizzo (2004). A good example is the set of manuscripts from the Quattrocento that brings together “epistole e dicerie” held in various libraries, such as the Riccardiana in Florence. See Morpurgo (1900) 6. 44  See Lundström (1897), who provides examples of anthologies of speeches from the fifteenth century by Flavius Josephus in miscellaneous manuscripts: Parisinus gr. 2991 A (ca. 1420), which contains speeches selected from the Bellum Judaicum (the speeches of Agrippa, Josephus, and Titus) and from the Antiquitates Judaicae (Testimonium Flavianum); Vindobonensis hist. gr. 113, which, in fols. 151v–152r, contains Titus’ speech in BJ 3.472–484; Upsaliensis gr. 8., which, in fols. 297v–299v, contains the speeches of Titus (BJ 3.472–484) and Josephus, (BJ 3.362–382). Most of the manuscripts cited in the previous note, which combined speeches taken from the works of Sallust, Livy or Flavius Josephus with others from Cicero and Ovid, as well as with orations written by Italian humanists, come from the middle of the fifteenth century.

12

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

goals of a compiler, an intellectual group—a scriptorium or a Papal court—or a particular period. On some occasions, as is evident in the case of Sallust, the objective would be to have available models of speeches useful for historiographical work.45 At other times, as with the Byzantine anthologies, scholars sought to collect together useful models of style or argumentation, so that the elites of the Empire could compose battle speeches.46 In other cases, the selection would have been drawn up as the result of antiquarian interests, such as collecting the words in direct speech delivered by great men and leaders of antiquity. Or, again, it may have been that the purpose of the anthology was to bring together useful passages as part of a “practical” repertoire that would serve to accompany the theoretical teaching of rhetorical manuals, thereby creating a collection of oratorical examples that were guaranteed by a historical source of some prestige.47 During the Renaissance, we witness a proliferation of both the number and types of collections published. Material of such a varied nature requires an approach that considers the object of study from different angles. To begin with, we need to reflect on collections as a result of the practice of excerpere.48 The transversal reading of historical texts that we have spoken about is in fact the consequence of a praxis that was already cultivated in antiquity and the Middle Ages, the ars excerpendi.49 The systematic annotation of texts during the reading process tended to lead to the production of a notebook (the codex excerptorius) in which the reader would write down all those passages that might prove useful on some future occasion. In the case of the transmission of history, this procedure flourished in the Renaissance, in part because of the advent of the printing press. Humanists and publishers began to extract contiones from their original works and to publish them separately in the form of anthologies, which turned these orations into models of eloquence. In this way, what had, since antiquity, been a personal activity, the fruit of a meticulous process of reading and study, generated a hugely successful editorial product, as the numerous anthologies published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries demonstrate (see the final Appendix in this book). With specific reference to orations interspersed in history books, excerpting practices can be linked to the material characteristics of the manuscripts. 45  See Smalley (1971). 46  See Eramo (2010a) and chapter 5 of this book. 47  See the example of Lapo de Castiglionchio analyzed by Iglesias-Zoido in chapter 7 of this book. 48  Cevolini (2006) and Yeo (2014). 49  See Blair (2010) and Kallendorf (2012).

Introduction: Old Words in New Books

13

Fifteenth century humanists already highlighted the speeches by marking them in the manuscripts of the original works and first vernacular translations of the classical historians. Speeches, therefore, became an element that stood out from the text as a whole and were distinguished from the rest of the narrative. The publication of these passages in anthologies turned contiones into the central elements of veritable bestsellers. The collections were increasingly elaborate and complex, and underwent an identifiable internal evolution both in structure and goals. The printed compilations were no longer the result of one reader’s private point of view and became organized selections of historiographical material that could be useful to the greatest possible number of readers. The popularization of this bibliographic genre inevitably ended up influencing the way in which a good number of early modern readers approached historical texts, by saving those interested in the rhetorical content of history a considerable amount of work. Collections, however, could also be regarded as a problem, as they became intermediaries, or obstacles, between the reader and the work. In fact, in many cases, anthologies ended up replacing consultation of the complete work, a phenomenon that explains the progressive development of editorial elements (titles, argumenta and “effects”) designed to achieve final independence from the source text. One phenomenon that stands out in light of the observed data is the considerable expansion of the practice of compilation in at least three directions: collections also start to cover—sometimes exclusively—contemporary historians; as a result of this, speeches written in the vernacular are also included; and not only historical sources are anthologized, but even books of fiction. Accordingly, attention should be focused on the works that had the greatest impact. These are the selections composed in Italian by Remigio Nannini (Orationi militari, Venice, 1547) and in French by François de Belleforest (Harangues militaires, Paris, 1573). In both of them, classical and contemporary authors, placed on an equal footing by the process of selection, receive identical consideration.50 Another two anthologies warrant special attention on account of their didactic approach. These are Conciones sive orationes et Graecis Latinisque historicis excerptae by Henri Estienne (Geneva, 1570, from which would be derived the Latin collection Conciones sive orationes, or Conciones et orationes, which culls the speeches from the Latin section only and was used in teaching from the second half of the sixteenth century until at least the beginning of the twentieth century) and Orationes aliquot ex Herodoti, Thucydidis, Xenophontis, Livii itidem Caesaris, & Sallustii historiis in usum Academiae Argentinensis by Melchior Junius, published in Strasbourg in 1586, and later re-issued and 50  Cf. Hester (2003).

14

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

complemented, by Junius himself, with a collection of letters also of historical origin. Along with these collections comprising material taken from history books, the modern age likewise provides us with anthologies of speeches taken from works of fiction. The full extent of this phenomenon has still not been fully assessed and this book aims to prompt the process of clearing the ground. The most outstanding of all of these is the Trésor des livres d’Amadís, composed of speeches and letters extracted from the Spanish chivalric novel Amadís de Gaula, which met with great success in France and was translated into a variety of languages,51 as well as the several collections of orationes fictae that were published in Italy, France, and Spain in the seventeenth century.52 These collections establish and create a European vogue for this new genre through translations.

Types of Collections

The copious material that the modern period supplies demands that we establish a typology of the collections. Several possible classifications, obeying different criteria, can be determined. The first classification is based on the kind of selected materials, and includes three separate modalities: a) Collections of speeches by a single author. The most outstanding anthologies in this group are those that contain the speeches of Sallust and Livy, famous for their rhetorical usefulness and their affinity with the work of orators. Notable anthologies in this group are, for example, Perion’s Titi Livii Patavini conciones (Paris, 1532) and Titi Livii Patavini orationes omnes, published by R. Lorich in 1537. b) Collections organized around a particular rhetorical genre. One example would be De legationibus, an edition produced by Fulvio Orsini in 1582 based on the Byzantine work Excerpta de legationibus, using the text found in two manuscripts sent by Antonio Agustín that are now held in the Vatican Library (Vaticanus Graecus 1418) and the Naples National Library (Neapolitanus III-B15). This second grouping, like the previous one, contains mainly editions in the original language (Greek or Latin). c) Encyclopaedic collections of speeches, such as those by Nannini, Belleforest, and Estienne, which set out to offer all the leading contiones of ancient history collected together in a single work, and which also include modern orations in Nannini’s and Belleforest’s cases. This third type set in 51  Vaganay (1923) and Place (1954). 52  Cf. Nider (2011).

Introduction: Old Words in New Books

15

motion an unstoppable process of popularization during which all the classical texts were translated into languages such as Italian and French. A second possible classification depends on the internal organization of the material within the anthologies. Most collections of the modern period included paratextual elements (indices, tables, arguments, etc.) that enable us to understand how the readers would have received and used the collections.53 In the indices of compilations of speeches by a single author (Polybius, Sallust, and especially Livy), the excerptores themselves had already established classifications and subdivisions using criteria that ended up being transmitted to selections of the encyclopaedic kind, which were not therefore mere accumulations of speeches, but structured wholes.54 a) The first of these criteria is the most compatible with the rhetorical usefulness of the speeches, and it consisted of distinguishing three major, clearly defined groups: ambassadorial speeches and military harangues, speeches of defense or accusation, and speeches of praise or blame. The threefold division corresponds to the three rhetorical genres (deliberative, judicial, and epideictic) and so connects the production of the speeches with the guidelines of classical rhetoric. This was the criterion that Estienne, for example, used to organize his anthology. For each of the genres, lists of rhetorical topics are offered (the capitula finalia), which make up the essential part of the argumentations. These topics would be able to provide historians with the rhetorical raw material for drafting the speeches that were then inserted into their works.55 b) From the second half of the sixteenth century in particular, especially in the anthologies of Nannini and Belleforest, who sought to popularize the ancient historiographical texts by translating them into the vernacular, a complementary classification to the earlier one started to take hold as a result of the renewed influence of Polybius.56 In his Histories (12.25a), Polybius classified the speeches of the historiographical genre under three broad headings: councillors’ speeches, ambassadors’ speeches, and speeches of military leaders. Basically, these three types of speech may be classified as part of the same rhetorical genre (deliberative), but their differences are explained by taking other factors into account: the type of orator, the context 53  Cf. Burke (2011). 54  For the organization of knowledge in the paratextual materials, see Tavoni (2009). 55  On rhetorical historiography in this period, cf. Struever (1970), Cochrane (1981), Grafton (2007), and Ianziti (2012). 56  Cf. Momigliano (1977).

16

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

in which his speech was delivered, and the effects of those words on the development of events. It is important to stress that no matter which of the two classifications the indexes of the anthologies followed, the materials were almost always organized according to chronological criteria in the body of the collection. Melchior Junius’s anthology (1586) used the two criteria mentioned, both combined and enhanced. In the introduction to his work, Junius shows an obvious awareness of genre. He admits his debt to earlier selections, such as those of Périon, Lorich, and Estienne, and makes it particularly clear that his intention is to offer a new arrangement of the materials applying what had already been expressed in the tables and classifications of the earlier collections. In this didactic, bilingual collection (with Greek texts translated into Latin), the orations no longer appear arranged by author, do not follow the criterion of chronology, nor do they distinguish between Greeks and Romans. The selected speeches are distributed according to the three rhetorical genres and grouped in each of these under epigraphs corresponding to different illocutionary acts (deliberatio, petitio, adhortatio, dehortatio, and so on). For Junius, then, it is less important to present an anthology of the most outstanding passages of each author than to offer what is most useful from a rhetorical point of view. This is an innovation that reveals both the degree of maturity that the genre had attained, as well as the preferences of readers at the time.

Transversal Reading of Ancient History

The question arises of what role anthologies of speeches might have played in the reception of classical historians in the Renaissance.57 It would be helpful, in this regard, to reformulate widely accepted statements, such as those made by Peter Burke in his much-quoted 1966 article “A survey of the popularity of ancient historians 1450–1700” about the diffusion of ancient historians in both Renaissance and modern age Europe. Burke based the greater “popularity” of certain authors (Sallust and Plutarch in the sixteenth century or Tacitus in the seventeenth) in contrast to others (Thucydides) on the number of editions in Greek and Latin and the various vernacular translations of their complete works. However, an analysis of reading practices and of the publishing industry during that period shows that such statements should be treated with caution, since Renaissance readers also had other ways of gaining 57  Cf. Burke (1966) and Jardine and Grafton (1990).

Introduction: Old Words in New Books

17

access to the texts of classical historians. They could not only read the works in their entirety, but could also make what we call a “transversal reading” of those historians. Interest in specific aspects common to the historical works could be satisfied by turning to miscellaneous publications. In addition, readers could not only read the classical historians as testimonies to entire periods of history (the general histories of Polybius or Livy), as a report of some important event (in the monographs by Thucydides or Sallust), or as reflections of the lives of illustrious figures (the exemplary biographies by Xenophon or Plutarch), but these same authors (exponents, as we can see, of quite distinct historiographical genres) could also be seen as repositories of examples for model behavior (exempla) and wisdom (sententiae), or as sources of model passages from a stylistic or rhetorical point of view. The reading is transversal but also unifying, one which makes no distinctions between historiographical genres (the universal history, monograph, or biography), and which directs its interest towards units that can easily be isolated and whose usefulness goes well beyond historical knowledge. The anthologies give us a glimpse of those other types of reading that, in many cases, had been concealed by the passage of time and changes in intellectual perspective. They also enable us to glimpse those other ways of approaching classical historians available to readers who had no academic interest in the history of Greece or Rome—a field of endeavor practically reserved for the humanists—but who were interested in the different uses that could be made of the most select elements of the histories. For such readers, the contiones represented the accumulated rhetorical heritage of the ancient histories, a particularly appreciated asset in the case of those historians who were most difficult to read. The success achieved by the anthologies not only obliges us to reopen the question of the “popularity” of the historians, but also invites us to set aside a series of deeply-rooted cultural prejudices. As we have seen, miscellaneous works that bring together exempla, sententiae, or speeches culled from their original contexts may, at first sight, seem to be texts of secondary interest in comparison with the editions and translations of complete works. Nonetheless, it is precisely the fact that they are products of a selection process that makes them supremely interesting because of the way they show the value, and especially the usefulness, of texts that are central not only to the knowledge of the history of Greece and Rome, but also to rhetorical and literary composition. Renaissance oratory and literature (from epic to historiography, and even the theatre) cannot be understood without taking into account the implications of this kind of “transversal” reading. The various excerpting practices that are apparent in the medieval and Renaissance manuscripts can also be seen when the genre passed into print.

18

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

One of the most important contributions of our study, in fact, is to underline the existence of different stages in the publication of anthologies of speeches in accordance with the diverse objectives and approaches of the excerptors who compiled them and of the public to whom they were addressed.58 This evolution in the aims, purposes, and formats of the anthologies meant that works that were very popular in one period were dismissed completely in later ones, or that works that were very popular at the end of the sixteenth century, like those published by Nannini or Belleforest, ended up neglected on library shelves. It is obvious that an anthology of Sallust’s speeches printed as an incunabulum at the end of the fifteenth century has little in common with the great encyclopaedic anthologies published in Venice or in Paris at the end of the following century. All these anthologies, in a way, became the forgotten tesserae of a mosaic whose significance and scope has been lost sight of over the centuries. They were simply isolated testimonies bearing witness to an important intellectual current that covered the whole of Europe.

This Book

The aim of this book, then, is to resolve the unanswered questions posed by anthologies of speeches of historical origin. In view of the very different situations and problems that we encounter from antiquity to the Renaissance, we have tried to cover two basic objectives in our study: namely, the production of speech selections and the analysis of specific examples of anthologies, or to put it another way, anthologies of speeches as a process, on the one hand, and as a product, on the other. This theoretical distinction enables the line of research developed in the first part (devoted to antiquity) to be differentiated from the one that provides the basic structure of the rest of the book (the Middle Ages and the Renaissance). In the first case, almost all the tesserae are missing. Given that few testimonies have been preserved, our research has focused on understanding the way in which historiographical speeches of antiquity were conceived as elements that could be individually distinguished and selected. This type of study could help illustrate the kind of work that the compilers would carry out, the possible reasons that prompted them to extract certain orations from the source work and to use them in intellectual contexts that were different, yet reasonably close. Consequently, in the first section of the book, we have concentrated on studying three functions that are widely attested to in historiographical and critical works in antiquity and which we 58  See the studies in part 4 of this book.

Introduction: Old Words in New Books

19

see as the organizing principles of later collections: the use of speeches as material for producing studies of literary criticism (Dionysius of Halicarnassus does this when he selects the exemplary speeches of Thucydides as models), as an instrument for passing judgement on and criticizing earlier historiography (as in the case of Polybius’ criticism of Timaeus), and, finally, as a detachable element suitable for selection in the process of drafting epitomes (as we see in the anthology that Justin compiled from the contents of the work of Pompeius Trogus). In the sections devoted to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, we have concentrated on studying particular cases of anthologies that can be examined as testimonies of the way in which this cultural product was generated and used in those cultural contexts. Here, the two longest sections of the book (2 and 3) are organized following the chronological order of the anthologies studied, although different perspectives and approaches are brought together within each section, as we shall see shortly. The cases analyzed in the medieval context are the tesserae that represent different ways of understanding the speech anthology in Byzantium and the Christian West. The study of the most important printed anthologies in the early modern period (where we have nearly all the tesserae in the mosaic) enables us to understand the characteristics and evolution of an intellectual product that eventually became an important bibliographic genre. For the section on antiquity, Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido presents an introductory chapter that examines the historiographical, rhetorical, and ideological contexts in which anthologies of historiographical speeches were produced and circulated. He examines the scarce testimonies on papyri, the few extant anthologies (especially Sallust’s anthology), and additional data provided by Greco-Roman rhetorical works. He also analyzes the testimonies bearing witness to the way that ancient critics, such as Dionysius of Halicarnassus,59 and authors, like Atheneus,60 carried out their work. Finally, collections of declamations like those of the rhetor Lesbonax, which clearly imitate the selections of historiographical speeches, are also the subject of study.61 Next, three complementary views analyze the way in which some important rhetoricians and historiographers of antiquity dealt with the problem of speeches in historiography in a way that probably resembled that in which the producers of anthologies elaborated their collections. Three chapters focus on issues that relate to the process of speech selection. Chapter two (by Roberto Nicolai) studies the ways in which ancient rhetoricians made use of the speeches 59  Pittia (2002). 60  Lenfant (2007). 61  See Iglesias-Zoido (2010b) and, more generally, Schröder, Dingel and Schröder (2003).

20

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

contained in the writings of historians as models for oratory. On Thucydides by Dionysius of Halicarnassus offers the most important example of historiographical speeches used as material for ancient critical studies. Nicolai studies Dionysus’s treatise systematically, seeks all references to speeches contained in it, and then documents the terms of the debate around the use of historians as a model for oratory. An analysis of the role of historical speeches in the field of literary criticism highlights the existence of an anthology of the best and worst speeches by Thucydides according to Dionysius. Chapter three (by José M. Candau) examines the way in which Polybius took speeches by previous Hellenistic historians, such as Timaeus, as a point of reference in order to demonstrate what historiographical orations ought to be like. Polybius’ Book XII, of which large fragments have been preserved, was entirely devoted to historiographical criticism, and is therefore particularly important for understanding the way in which ancient historians conceived of speeches. Candau focuses on the speeches that Timaeus attributed to the ambassadors of Gelon of Syracuse (significantly, they correspond to the three most frequent types of speech in Greek historiography: ambassadorial speeches, harangues before popular assemblies or councils, and exhortations by generals to soldiers) and on how they are censured by Polybius. Chapter four (by Luis Ballesteros Pastor) examines the function of speeches in the selection process that was followed when preparing an epitome of a historical work. The process is exemplified by Justin’s “brief anthology” (“breve veluti florum corpusculum,” Praef. 4), where the rhetorical passages constitute the fundamental framework of the text. Justin collected oratorical pieces pertaining to the main types recorded in the ancient historiographical tradition: military harangues, epistles, ambassadorial and deliberative speeches, persuasive declamations, and so on. It is obvious that, in many cases, he chose to select and reproduce significant orations rather than offer a complete account of the main characters in the story. The Epitome is a unique example of a collection of speeches that can itself be regarded as an anthology, so that an analysis of the themes, locations, and length of the speeches that Justin picked out is a key aspect for understanding the Epitome. The section on Byzantium and the Middle Ages is organized around an analysis of some significant anthologies of speeches that circulated during the period. The first chapter in this section is chapter five (by Immacolata Eramo), which studies the content and rhetorical function of the Byzantine anthology preserved in Codex Ambrosianus B 119 sup. Chapters six (by María Sanz Julián) and seven (by Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido) examine two anthologies composed in the circle of Juan Fernández de Heredia in Avignon at the end of the fourteenth century: the so-called Tucídides and the anthology of 147 speeches

Introduction: Old Words in New Books

21

taken from the Historia destructionis Troiae that we mentioned earlier. Chapter eight (by Teresa Jiménez Calvente) examines the fifteenth-century manuscript of a Spanish collection of speeches excerpted from the Chronicle of the Catholic Monarchs by Fernando de Pulgar. The abundance of Renaissance collections and the breadth of their implications require us to devote a greater number of chapters to them. The eleven contributions that make up this section are headed by a study (by Joaquín Villalba Álvarez, chapter nine) about the prefaces to anthologies, which is where the predominant topics of the genre are usually to be found. There follow four chapters that present and introduce the four main anthologies of the early modern period (Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido on Nannini, M. Violeta Pérez Custodio on Estienne, Victoria Pineda on Belleforest, and David Carmona on Junius; chapters ten to thirteen). The next four chapters further develop specific issues concerning the main anthologies and the use of speeches by historians and editors. Carmen Peraita (chapter fourteen) studies the anthologies, especially Nannini’s, in the context of the circumstances of their publication and material characteristics; Xavier Tubau (chapter fifteen) examines the political context in which Nannini and Belleforest published their works and how those contexts might have affected the compilers’ choice of speeches written by modern historians; Ida Gilda Mastrorosa (chapter sixteen) studies the use of speeches both in Cassius Dio’s work and as excerpted by Nannini. Robert Black’s essay (chapter seventeen) presents a specific case of how a Renaissance historian, Machiavelli, uses speeches in his historical works as a form of disguised criticism (although this contribution does not specifically focus on anthologies, Black’s thorough discussion of Machiavelli’s use of speeches will help the reader to understand the Renaissance approach to the presence of speeches in historiographical works: Machiavelli and other Renaissance and early modern historians modelled their speeches on classical models—Sallust, Livy—that they might have found in collections or anthologies). The section ends with two articles on fictional speeches: chapter eighteen (by Florence Serrano) deals with the Trésor des livres d’Amadís, the French anthology of speeches and letters extracted from the Spanish chivalric novel Amadís de Gaula; chapter nineteen (by Valentina Nider) is a study of the sub-genre of anthologies of orationes fictae in seventeenth-century Italy, France and Spain. The final Appendix (by Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda) presents a list, comprising over a hundred entries, of those printed anthologies that we have been able to identify and which are part of a database that we are constantly updating. Each entry includes several fields, from the name of the author, title and publication data, to brief comments on the content and a secondary bibliography.

22

Iglesias-Zoido and Pineda

Acknowledgements The publication of this book has been possible through funds provided by Spain’s Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad to Research Project FFI2012– 31813 (“Selecciones de discursos de origen historiográfico desde la Antigüedad hasta el Renacimiento II”). We would like to express our appreciation to Anthony and Janet Dawson for their skill and thoroughness in translating and revising most of the chapters in this book and for meeting every deadline. Other translators have been gratefully acknowledged where appropriate. Ana Isabel Sánchez has done a superb job of copy-editing: our warm thanks to her, and to Denise Elekes as well. Thank you to the anonymous reviewers of the book proposal and manuscript for taking the time to provide helpful guidance on how to improve this volume. We have wholeheartedly enjoyed unending conversations with friends and colleagues about the topics discussed here. Gratitude is especially extended to Patricia Osmond, for her always insightful comments, and to Luigi Giuliani, who gave us the title for the book and countless invaluable suggestions about content and form. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations from Greek, Latin, and other languages are the authors’ own.

Part 1 Antiquity

∵

CHAPTER 1

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido The purpose of this chapter is to examine the historical and rhetorical context of Greco-Latin anthologies of historiographical speeches. This study is framed in a line of research that centers on the analysis of the compilation and circulation of both miscellanies and anthologies in the ancient world.1 There is no clear dividing line between the two, since as Morgan points out, “a miscellany may historically be a collection of smaller works, excerpts of works, snippets of information, stories or maxims, arranged thematically, alphabetically, chronologically, randomly or in any other way. The contents may be limited—by author, genre or subject—as much or little as the compiler chooses.”2 This definition would apply equally well to a collection of sententiae as to an anthology of speeches. Their differences stem mainly from the degree to which the texts were altered, and the different ways in which the selected elements were adapted.3 After a lengthy period in which it was thought that miscellanies and anthologies played a minor role—especially when the author’s complete work was available—special attention has been paid in the last ten years to the process (the legere-adnotare-excerpere sequence) by which a passage was extracted from its original context and, together with other similar texts, ended up becoming a new cultural product.4 Thus, in contrast to those who maintain that selections (whether miscellanies or anthologies) were just collections of texts, chosen with varying degrees of success by mediocre compilers, the idea is beginning to gain currency that anthologies followed certain rules and had definite purposes. In this respect, the anthology may be regarded as a sort of genere editoriale in the ancient world or, at least, as Konstan has it, the fruit 1  Cf. Piccione (2003), Vardi (2004), Morgan (2007a), Morgan (2007b), Morgan (2012a), and Pordomingo (2013). On condensed texts, cf. Horster and Reitz (2010). 2  Cf. Morgan (2007a) 331–332. 3  Cf. Barns (1950), Barns (1951), and Funghi (2003–2004). 4  Cf. Dorandi (2000) 27–50. For the reasons for the relative lack of attention, cf. Morgan (2012b) 54–57.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_003

26

Iglesias-Zoido

of a particular “reading practice.”5 Hence, finding out about its compositional principles becomes important, as a means of moving closer to the intellectual interests and reading practices of the ancient world. Our aim in this chapter is to provide an overview of these selections of texts that have received little critical attention by studying the prima facie evidence for the existence of anthologies of historiographical speeches, explaining how these anthologies were created in the classical era, analyzing their formal characteristics, and, finally, offering a proposal for classification based on their purposes. 1

Indicators and Testimonies

Knowledge of the specific characteristics of Greco-Latin anthologies of historiographical speeches is based on three types of testimony. In the first place, we have the information provided by passages scattered throughout ancient literature that allude to the existence of anthologies of this kind. Almost all are from the Imperial period and outstanding among them are the letters of Fronto and Pliny the Younger, a correspondence that concentrates particularly on the intellectual development of the emperor and transmits valuable information about the labor excerpendi at the time.6 Thanks to this, we know that, in the course of his lifetime, Pliny the Elder gathered together an immense collection of excerpta. His nephew in fact recounts (3.5.17) that he managed to compile a total of 160 anthologies from works of all kinds. These anthologies were extremely long, covering both sides of the papyrus and were written in very small writing (“opisthographos quidem, et minutissime scriptos”). Pliny the Younger also says that, during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius that killed his uncle, he was busy excerpting Livy in order to improve his prose style (6.20.2).7 Meanwhile, the correspondence between Fronto and Marcus Aurelius tells us that various excerpta of a rhetorical and historiographical kind were sent to the young emperor.8 So, for example, the emperor speaks of an anthology compiled by the teacher of rhetoric (3.19.2: “excerpta tua”) from some history written by contemporary analysts like 5  Argentieri (1998) 12 and Konstan (2011). 6  Dorandi (2000). 7  Cf. Ash (2003) and Pitcher (2010) 147: “The younger Pliny’s goals were stylistic, but excerpts on the grounds of interesting subject matter were likewise a possibility.” About the practice and goals of excerpting classical historians in this period, cf. Stadter (2014). 8  Cf. Fleury (2006).

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity

27

C. Fannius or Sempronius Asellio, in which the speeches of a model citizen such as Tiberius Gracchus had been preserved. Reference is also made to a “coelianum excerptum” (3.9.3) compiled from the work of the second century bce author Lucius Coelius Antipater, one of the historians who introduced the historical monograph into Rome and who was famous for the elaborate speeches he put in the mouths of the characters of his Bellum Poenicum. Selections were also made from works belonging to other literary genres, such as Lucretius’ De rerum natura (4.1.3: “etiam si qua Lucretii aut Enni excerpta habes”) or the corpus of Cicero’s letters (3.7: “Ciceronis epistulas, si forte electas, totas vel dimidiatas habes”). These testimonies, taken as a whole, demonstrate the extent to which these excerpta in prose and verse—in which historiographical speeches occupy a prominent place—formed part of the rather old-fashioned sounding educational program designed for the emperor. In addition to letters, biographical texts also provide us with valuable information. Sometimes the data is less than precise, such as when Diogenes Laertius (80 and 81) writes that there was an anthology of deliberative and embassy speeches (δημηγοριῶν τε καὶ πρεσβειῶν . . . συναγωγαί) among the works produced by Demetrius of Phalerum at the end of the fourth century bce. The technical term used to refer to this type of anthology is synagogé. In other cases, we are fortunate that the biographer gives us more precise details, such as when Suetonius provides the reasons for senator Metius Pompusianus’ fall from favor in the times of the Emperor Domitian (Dom. 10.3): apart from the fact that he owned a map of the world drawn on parchment and named two of his slaves Mago and Hannibal after Carthaginian enemies, the main reason why the senator was sentenced to death was that he always carried about with him an anthology of the contiones of kings and generals taken from Livy’s work (“contionesque regum ac ducum ex Tito Livi”). This information demonstrates that anthologies of Livy’s speeches were in circulation at that time. Secondly, the very few papyrological remains of historiographical anthologies testify to bibliological conventions that can be dated and which add precious information about their use. Some of the titles of those anthologies have been preserved, such as the one provided by PColZen 60, of the third century bce, which includes the list of books sent by Zenon to his brother Epharmostos, among them not only the selection of proems and embassy speeches by Callisthenes, but also an anthology of passages from Herodotus.9 Significantly, synagogé is once more the term used in the papyrus to refer to 9  Cf. P. Col. Zen 60, col. 3–5, in Otranto (2000) 2–3: Συναγωγή τῶν προ- / οιμίων Καλλισθένους / καὶ τῶν πρεσβειῶν. Cf. D.L. 5.80 and 81. Cf. also Houston (2009) and Otranto (2009) on papyrological evidence.

28

Iglesias-Zoido

both anthologies.10 In other cases, fragmentary testimonies of anthologies have been preserved on papyrus found at the sites of Egyptian centres of learning. One of the most interesting examples is offered by the POxy. 13.1621, the contents of which appear to be an anthology of Thucydides’ speeches, put together in the middle of the fourth century ce. We know it to be an oratorical anthology because the final part of an exhortatory speech delivered by the Spartan Archidamus (2.11.5–9) and the beginning of Pericles’ famous funeral oration (2.35.1) appear one after the other on the few preserved remains of the original papyrus. Other remains on papyrus can be added to this testimony.11 Critics in fact have emphasized the greater number of Thucydides papyri that have been preserved (about ninety) compared to those of Herodotus (about forty) and, above all, the abundance of school texts in which Thucydides’ speeches were copied.12 Thucydides’ speeches were considered more useful in terms of their application in rhetoric: even though the dominant idea at the end of the Republic was that Thucydides was inferior to Herodotus in style (elocutio), rhetoricians thought that Thucydides was superior in the search for appropriate ideas to defend a thesis (inventio) and in the use of arguments (dispositio). His expressions and figures were little suited to practical oratory, but his speeches and contiones offered rhetorical models much appreciated by, for example, Quintilian (10.1.73). The same was supported by even one of Thucydides’ major critics, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who noted that, although Thucydides was often faulty in style and in the deployment of ideas, the speeches are admirable for their invention (Thuc. 34 and 43).13 Thirdly, we know that anthologies of speeches of historians who stood out for their use of rhetoric, such as Livy and Sallust, were also in circulation. In the case of Livy, the sheer quantity of his output would also have been a key factor. It would be less common to have a Livius ingens in a library, and its content, in 10  Cf. also the term ἐκλογή in the title eklogaí rhetorikón lógon in P.Vindob.Gr. inv. 39996 (= Otranto [2010] 3). Puglia (1998) 82 provides a full discussion of this title, considered as a florilegium of orators or orations, possibly created with a didactic function or as a working tool by an anonymous compiler. 11  Cf. Fournet (2002) and Pellé (2010). 12  Cf. West (2011) 70: “It is, at first sight, surprising that Thucydides was so much more popular.” List of papyri of Thucydides basically transmitting the texts of speeches between the first and fourth centuries ce: POxy 16+696 (1st c. ce): Th. 4.8–41; POxy 225 (1st c. ce): Th. 2.90ff.; POxy 451 (3rd c. ce): Th. 2.73ff.; POxy 452 (2nd–3rd c. ce) Th. 4.87; POxy 879 (3rd c. ce): Th. 3.58ff.; PGenav. 2 + PRyl. 548 (3rd c. ce): Th. 2.2–5, 13, 1ff.; PGiss. 12 (4th–5th c. ce): Th. 2.59ff.; POxy 1245 (4th c. ce): Th. 1.139–141; POxy 1621 (4th c. ce): Th. 2.11 and 35; POxy 1622 (2nd c. ce): Th. 2.65, 67; PSI 1195 (2nd c. ce): Th. 1.71–3. 13  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2012) 396–397.

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity

29

any case, would quickly have been selected in accordance with different interests, as can be seen from the summary in the Periochae or in anthologies, such as the one that cost Metius Pompusianus his life (Dom. 10.3). In both cases, their nature as auxiliary works is obvious. The Periochae offered brief summaries of the content of each of Livy’s books (except for 136 and 137), focusing attention not only on Rome’s relations with other nations and the most important battles, but also quoting speeches that held some special interest.14 Anthologies made it easier to locate and have to hand the numerous contiones of this vast history. In Sallust’s case, we are fortunate to have an anthology of speeches and epistles that were extracted from the Histories, which, as a result of the vagaries of transmission, ceased to be copied and was eventually lost.15 Canfora, in fact, argues that by the fifth century ce there was very little likelihood that the five books of Sallust’s Historiae had survived, since at that time the historian was more valued for his contiones than for setting out historical facts.16 The anthology of Sallust’s work also provides medieval examples of what a broader selection that brought together the most important orations from all his works would look like. The ninth-century manuscript (Vat. lat. 3864) offered an anthology of speeches and letters extracted from the Historiae, BC and BI (in that order), to which several fake letters addressed to Caesar were added, plus two suasoriae designed to complete the selection and to offer students further rhetorical possibilities.17

14  Cf., for example, Perioch. 59.9 (speech by Quintus Metellus about marriage); 65.3 (speech by the Cimbrian ambassadors); 70.1 (defence of Manius Aquilius); 70.7 (embassy from the Parthians seeking Rome’s friendship); 71.1 (assembly speeches); 77.1 (draft law put forward by the tribune Publius Sulpicius); 83.4 (speech by Lucius Valerius Flaccus in the Senate in favor of a peace accord); 84.1 (Sulla’s response); 109.2 (speeches for and against Caesar by the tribune Gaius Curio); 113.2 (debate about the destruction of Utica); 142.4 (eulogy delivered by Augustus after Drusus’ death). Binham (1978) 421–425 found in Perioch. 46 references to speeches in Livy’ work. Cf. also Chaplin (2010) 458–460. 15  Cf. Paladini (1967), Pasoli (1976) and cf. Reynolds (1983) 343: “It first appears about 790 in the palace library of Charlemagne . . . A copy of the book once at the palace, now lost, survives in Vatican lat. 3864, written in the third quarter of the ninth century at Corbie.” For the importance of contiones in the work of Sallust, cf. Sen. Rh., Contr. pr. 8, Iust. Hist. Phil. 38.3.11; Gran. Licin. 36, p. 33 Flemisch. Cf. new editions by La Penna and Funari (2015) and Ramsay (2015). 16  Cf. Canfora (1986). 17  Cf. Smalley (1971) and Reynolds (1983).

30 2

Iglesias-Zoido

The Origin of Anthologies of Speeches: Implicit and Explicit Anthologies

The creation of these anthologies formed part of a complex rhetorical, educational, and literary process. In this respect, it is important to bear in mind the techniques that were used in Antiquity for studying rhetoric and training orators. The prevailing idea today is that the rhetorical training of the ancient Greeks and Romans was based on the study of handbooks containing the theoretical precepts that should guide the composition of speeches, a view based on the teaching of rhetoric in the fourth century bce and on the Aristotelian model. The situation, however, is really much more complex. From the beginning of classical times, there were various methods of learning rhetoric that may have overlapped and that evolved over the centuries. One of the most enduring sophistic methods was the use of model speeches.18 From the middle of the fifth century, there was quite a variety of fictitious epideictic or forensic speeches, as we can see in Gorgias (Helen and Palamedes), Antisthenes (Ajax and Odysseus), and Antiphon (Tetralogies), to which some Isocratean examples from the fourth century could be added. Some critics argue that the sophists provided their students with these speeches (whether in isolation or in anthologies, in the case of Antiphon) as models to be emulated, and that it was these exemplary speeches combined with oral teaching that constituted the true téchne of the master.19 In addition, fictitious speeches put a set of abstract arguments in the mouths of mythological figures (Helen or Palamedes) or archetypes (the young man or the old man of the Tetralogies) as a means for teaching logical and rhetorical argumentation in a judicial context. This method of teaching was harshly criticized by Aristotle in Sophistical Refutations (183b), but, as we can see in the case of Antiphon’s Tetralogies, as early as the fifth century bce, the method enabled successfully putting into circulation anthologies of fictitious speeches created for a specific purpose: to assist in the preparation of other orations, in particular in the judicial sphere. This type of rhetorical instruction—which could also take the form of a compendium of exemplars—was based on creating and disseminating models of eloquence, and must have influenced the way in which new literary genres in prose, notably histories, were beginning to develop. Cole, in this regard, has explained the important role played by Thucydides’ History, so influenced by the principles of sophistry, as the first history work where the 18  Cf. the argument put forward by Cole (1986) and Cole (1991). Cf. also Kennedy (1959) and Usher (1999) 1–2. 19  Cf. Kennedy (1959) 169–170, Buchheit (1960) 39, Cole (1986), and Cole (1991) 81.

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity

31

idea of a “chrestomathy of political and military eloquence” could be found.20 According to Cole, “[Thucydides] may even be deliberately exploring the possibilities opened up by the dual character of the book: a gigantic Attic lógon téchne concerned with deliberative speech on political and military matters, embedded in an equally ambitious . . . text on the political and military history of a particular war.”21 Indeed, in contrast to the less standard type of speech from a rhetorical point of view in Herodotus, Thucydides’ speeches in direct discourse (except the dialogs) complied with the norms of sophistic rhetoric and constituted examples of political and military oratory. The account of war events would have been an excuse to offer the public a set of exemplary speeches.22 In other words, through the influence of the sophists, Thucydides’ historical work provided model speeches, which, collectively, made up a sort of chrestomathy, giving us the first example of an “anthology” of historiographical speeches.23 This example invites us to consider the very concept of anthology and how anthologies began to develop. We may look at these questions from two points of view: Thucydides’ example enables us to make a distinction between the anthology that was planned a priori and the one compiled a posteriori. In the first case (the implicit anthology that must be deduced from reading a work), we are dealing with speeches arranged a priori by the writer, with the intention of presenting, within the work, a kind of chrestomathy or selection of texts designed to train politicians and military leaders. This educational function (closely linked to the pragmatic purpose of his work) would explain Thucydides’ tendency to insert deliberative speeches and battle exhortations in his history, as Leimbach has argued—an idea, moreover, that would not be exclusive to Thucydides.24 We already find the notion of an “implicit anthology” in the view that men of the Classical era had about the value and usefulness of epic works like the Iliad, understood as a kind of handbook valid for all kinds 20  Cf. Cole (1991) 105: “ . . . producing, in other words, a series of logon technai as well as logoi.” 21  Cf. Cole (1991) 109. 22  Cf. also Cole (1991) 107–108 on the four speeches (“the most striking example”) dealing with the treatment of defecting allies: Cleon (3.37–40) and Diodotus (3.42–48); Plataeans (3.53–59) and Thebans (3.60–67). 23  Cf. Cole (1986) 11: “l’antologia di discorsi che si ottiene . . . non può essere altro che una serie di modelli: una crestomazia di eloquenza politica e militare” (“the anthology of speeches thus obtained . . . can only be a series of models: a chrestomathy of political and military eloquence”). Cf. also the criticisms expressed by Plant (1999) 64: “Cole does not take enough account of the way in which the speeches are firmly attached to a narrative.” 24  Cf. Leimbach (1985) and his concept of “militärische Musterrhetorik” in relation to Thucydides’ battle speeches and Köhnken (1993).

32

Iglesias-Zoido

of teachings, with oratory chief among them, thanks to the different types of speeches included.25 We can find a similar approach in other historians of the fourth century. New types of work, such as the Cyropaedia, were conceived as a means of supplying orations designed to characterize exemplary models of political leaders and ideal soldiers in defense of the monarchical system.26 It is precisely the existence of these internal chrestomathies—whether they were aimed at providing orators and military men with examples of eloquence, as in Thucydides, or examples of an ideal political and military leader, as in Xenophon—which may explain why a teacher of rhetoric might consider going further and taking the next step by copying speeches that he considered exemplary and creating an authentic anthology that we may call “explicit.” Examples of this selective procedure in the Classical era have been preserved. Some come from Attic oratory, as can be seen in Isocrates’ Antidosis (where the teacher of rhetoric supplies an anthology of passages from his own speeches)27 and, above all, in Lycurgus’ Against Leocrates, where the orator, bent on discrediting the cowardice of the defendant, offers a lengthy anthology of poetic speeches on courage (Leoc. 88–110), wherein he cites in extenso exhortatory lines from Euripides, Homer, and Tyrtaeus.28 The existence of these collections of memorable passages must be linked to the statement that Socrates makes in Xenophon’s Memorabilia, where he perused, together with his friends, “the treasures of the wise of old, written and bequeathed in their books,” culling (eklegómetha) “any good thing our eye lights upon” (Mem. 1.6.14); and to the comparison Plato makes (Leg. 811a) between those who study the complete work of the poets and those who spend their time producing anthologies. Both Xenophon and Plato appear to be describing a well-established school practice whereby an anthology was copied down to be memorized later by the students (Leg. 811e).29 These selections could be geared towards training orators, as is revealed in their different ways by Isocrates and Alcidamas.30 The former is in favor of this approach as something positive (Ad Nic. 41 and 44), while the latter, in his pamphlet, rails against these anthologies that enable even uncultured people to compose speeches because of the 25  Kennedy (1957). 26  Cf. the information of Gell. 14.3.3 about the intentions of Xenophon with respect to Plato’s Republic. 27   Antid. 59 = Paneg. 51–99; Antid. 65 = Pac. 25–56 and 132–145; Antid. 72 = Ad. Nic. 14–39; Antid. 195 = C. soph. 14–18; Antid. 253–7 = Nic. 5–9. Cf. Nicolai (2004) and Pinto (2013). 28  Cf. Eur. fr. 360 Kannicht (Leoc. 100); Hom. Il. 15.49–99; Tyrt. Eleg. 6–7 Prato (Leoc. 107). 29  Cf. Arist. Top. 105b and the task of selection (eklégein) using written works. 30  For these passages, see Nicolai (2004) and Pinto (2013).

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity

33

custom of selecting ideas (enthymémata synageîrai) from works written (syngrámmata) by earlier authors (Soph. 4). This selective process, of which we have a good number of testimonies in the Classical era, could also be applied to history, and in fact there are some very early testimonies of collections of speeches excerpted from history books available, like the selection (synagogé) of proems and embassy speeches by Callisthenes previously cited. Creating an “explicit” anthology would consist of reading a work with a view to selecting a series of speeches as pragmatic, exemplary, or simply literary models. This shift from the implicit to the explicit, which had already occurred with epic and dramatic texts (as the passages studied make clear), certainly took place in the field of historiography at the end of the classical era, giving rise to the birth of a new type of cultural product that would be developed throughout Antiquity.31 3

Formal Characteristics

When it comes to studying what these anthologies were like, it is important to establish the ways in which they differed from other types of text selections in prose or verse, such as excerpta, florilegia, or syllogaí. All of these forms are usually grouped under the broad heading of miscellany.32 Anthologies from history texts, whether they are referred to as syllogé, synagogé, or eklogé, can be classified generically as what Piccione called “anthologies spéciales,” or collections belonging to a specific literary genre arranged according to precise rules.33 Anthologies of speeches differ from other kinds of anthologies that also include materials coming from history, such as Aulus Gellius’ Attic Nights and Plutarch’s Sayings of Kings and Commanders. In Aulus Gellius’ case, the differences with respect to speech anthologies are not only due to Aulus Gellius’ multiple sources of information (history, as well as lyrical, epic, and theatrical texts), but also, in particular, to his method of selecting and ordering the materials, as he explains in his proem (Proem. 1–17). He states that his work was the result of a process of selection governed by the randomness of his readings, and designed to assist his memory whenever the occasion to use these annotations arose. That is why the commentarii of his Attic Nights appeared to be a 31  Cf. Barns (1950), Barns (1951), and Morgan (1998) 120–145 on the diffusion anthologies of gnomic sayings in the ancient world. 32  Cf. Morgan (2007a), Morgan (2012a), and Morgan (2012 b). 33  Cf. the classification made by Piccione (1994b), based on Guéraud and Jouguet (1938) and Collart (1943).

34

Iglesias-Zoido

disjointed product and why the work did not set out to “teach” but to “inform” (Preface 17: “ut non docendi magis quam admonendi gratia”).34 In the case of collections of sayings and deeds of kings and generals in Plutarch’s Sayings, the reader is faced with a collection of apohthegmata arranged by peoples (barbarians, Sicilians, Macedonians, Greeks, and Romans) and by chronological order, and uttered by historical figures.35 But, once again, the purpose is clearly informative and not educational. Plutarch declares that, thanks to this anthology of words (lógous) “collected separately (suneilegménous) as an example and seed of their lives” (172E), the reader will save time and be able to verify the way in which both the conduct and oratory of these prominent figures mirror their thought.36 In contrast to miscellanies of this kind, the anthology of speeches excerpted from history was a product conceived not to inform but to instruct, and it met specific rhetorical needs, as can be ascertained by considering four formal characteristics. First, the very nature of these orationes made them especially suitable for selection. A speech in direct discourse could easily be separated from the narrative section, thanks to the “settings” that connected them to the main body of the account. The excerpted speech needed little adaptation to stand by itself and could be given a titulus, as we find in Early Medieval manuscript collections. It is ironic that this simple process would enable the preservation of those selfsame speeches that “interfered” with the narrative that Cratippus (FGrHist. 64 F1) and Diodorus Siculus (20.1) complained about so much. Secondly, the selection process could not be governed by pure chance, as Gellius proclaimed, but had to be the result of a reading designed to extract quite specific elements, such as speeches or letters, able to be collected whole and to serve as a model for the process of rhetorical imitatio. Thirdly, the result of this selection process respects the order in which the passages were arranged in the original work, revealing the auxiliary character of these anthologies with respect to the source works, as we can see, for example, in the order that the speeches taken from Sallust’s Historiae follow in the preserved manuscripts.37 It was a way of taking the choicest fruits from those works that were considered 34  With respect to the literary techniques of Gellius, cf. Vardi (2004), Riggsby (2007), and Gunderson (2009). 35  Cf. also, Plu. Ap.Lac., a collection of Spartan sayings and notes arranged alphabetically by Plutarch in order to be used as an auxiliary text in the composition of the Lives. Cf. Stadter (2014) 666–674. 36  Cf. Stadter (2014) 674–685. 37  Cf. the arrangement used by the editor, Mauerbrecher: 1) Oratio Lepidi consulis ad populum Romanum (1.55 M.); 2) Oratio Philippi in Senatu (1.77 M.); 3) Oratio C. Cottae consulis ad populum Romanum (2.47 M.); 4) Epistula Cn. Pompei ad Senatum (2.98 M.); 5) Oratio Macri tribuni plebis ad plebem (3.48 M.); and 6) Epistula Mithridatis (4.69 M.).

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity

35

classics and placing them in the hands of the reader, and it was probably for this reason that they shared space with the complete works on the shelves of the libraries of antiquity. Fourthly, the result of this approach was a new product with well defined limits: in most cases an anthology of speeches obviously geared towards purposive selection from particular authors (Sallust, Livy, and so on) rather than simple, varied “fruits of reading” that could be reorganized in accordance with multiple epigraphs. These anthologies could be flexibly adapted to the new demands and interests of the schools of rhetoric. Let us take the case of the Second Sophistic. During this period, teachers of rhetoric were not satisfied with the process of selecting speeches from exemplary historians, and carried out more elaborate experiments and adaptations, even if it meant returning to the sophistic models of Gorgias or Antiphon: in the imperial era, around the second century ce, we find rhetorical experiments with anthologies of “fictitious” speeches that recall the model speeches that the early sophists had put into circulation. One example concerns the anthologies of ethopoeiae in hexameters preserved on papyrus, which had a mythological content and had been compiled using Homeric models in particular.38 It is interesting that several authors of the Second Sophistic no longer used prominent figures (such as Ulysses or Palamedes) or situations (for example, trial by arms) taken from epic poetry as their models, but went on to take history as a source of inspiration for ethopoeiae—a popular, but not unique, case was the figure of Alexander—and other types of composition.39 During this period, we find anthologies of model speeches conceived in imitation of the orations of classical history. Aelius Aristides’ Sicilian Speeches and Lesbonax’s lógoi protreptikoí are good examples. Both are exponents of an attempt to use rhetorical training to complete models of argumentation that the classical sources had either not supplied (approaches concentrating on the distressing consequences of a future defeat, the ekbesómenon, absent from fifth-century bce historiography) or had left undeveloped (key scenes narrated without speeches, such as the one that Thucydides associated with Nicias’ letter being read in book VII of his history).40 The declamations attributed to Lesbonax of Mytilene are especially interesting.41 These are fictitious speeches that take the form of an anthology, as if they had been selected from an original work in order to provide the reader with a variety of types of speech, such as battle exhortations. Only three declamations have survived, although Photios has left evidence that the collection 38  Miguélez-Cavero (2008) 320–327, numbers 19, 52, and 55. 39  Cf. Kohl (1915) and Gibson (2004). 40  Cf. Pernot (1981). 41  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2010b).

36

Iglesias-Zoido

circulating in the Imperial era consisted of sixteen logoi politikoí, as he called them. This term was used to refer to speeches made in a public arena (whether an assembly speech or a battle exhortation) and allows us to surmise that, quite possibly, the complete set took in other contexts. These speeches show how Imperial rhetoric provided an opportunity to create anthologies of fictitious orations that completed what the classical historians had not developed in their works, and allowed students to expand their exercises in imitation. 4

Classification of Anthologies based on Their Purpose

Now that we have examined the origins and the compilation process, there is enough evidence to argue that there were three major types of anthologies of historiographical speeches in the ancient world that corresponded to three basic purposes. Rhetorical Purpose The most obvious purpose to which this type of collection might be put was rhetorical. From a very early stage—and following the example offered by the work of Thucydides—compilers selected model speeches that were rhetorically and pragmatically useful from works that were already, in the fourth century bce, regarded as “exemplary” and worthy of being continued.42 In the beginning, the function of these anthologies would have been to serve as the necessary point of departure for carrying out the process of rhetorical mimesis that was so important in history, a genre in which anthologies must have played an important role early on, particularly if we bear in mind that there were no written theoretical rules to follow. The speeches selected from historical works that were very quickly considered classics would have had the virtue of offering, in compilation form, the essence of style and argumentative procedures used by such exemplary authors as Thucydides. Since these texts were generally accepted as models by the educated men of the time, the speeches would inevitably have been taken into account by other historians. What kind of speeches would have been included in these anthologies? We believe they would basically have been of three types: assembly speeches (δημηγορίας), embassy speeches (πρεσβευτικοὺς λόγους), and military exhortations (παρακλήσεις). It is no coincidence that these three types are the same as those that Hellenistic historians like Polybius emphasize when they refer to historiographical speeches (12.25.a), and which also appear in other passages by Polybius himself (36.1) reduced to two: political (συντάξεις ἀνδρῶν πολιτικῶν) 42  Cf. Nicolai (1995) and Hornblower (1995).

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity

37

and ambassadorial (ἀπηγγελκὼς δημηγορίας). This is in line with what Diodorus Siculus points out in the famous passage at the beginning of book XX of his history (20.2) when he refers to “a public address from an ambassador, a statesman, or some such thing from the other characters.” It is highly significant that when these authors, who wrote in two different eras (one in the Hellenistic age and the other in Imperial times), refer to historiographical speeches, they do not have the Aristotelian genres (deliberative, judicial, or epideictic) in mind, but rather speeches delivered by ambassadors, statesmen, or generals. Because of the very nature of history (narratives about conflicts and wars between nations), the speeches—an important part of a history book—clearly ended up being regarded as models for, even indispensable to, genres that were not governed by written theoretical rules and in which mimesis was so important.43 Polybius gives us a practical application of this principle in his critical analysis of Timaeus’ speeches (12.25.a and ff.), when he decides to offer the reader a commentary on the speeches delivered by a variety of orators, like the ambassadors of Gelo, Hermocrates, Timoleon, and Pyrrhus of Epirus (12.25j and ff.).44 In line with the earlier statement that there are three types of speech in history books (assembly, embassy, and military speeches), Polybius chose a specific example of each type with the intention of revealing the mistakes made by Timaeus: Hermocrates speaking to the assembly gathered at Gela (12.25j. 6–7), Timoleon exhorting the Greeks to do battle with the Carthaginians (12.26a), and Gelo’s envoys delivering a speech to the Greeks sitting in council in Corinth (12.26b). In the opinion of Polybius, these inadequate speeches are more like school exercises in declamation than orations worthy of the historiographical genre. It is not surprising that this analysis of what a historian should not do when he inserts speeches into his work was preserved by the Byzantine compilers, which has allowed us to become acquainted with the very best of the contents of book XII of Polybius’ History. Later testimony may help us comprehend the extent to which this classification of historiographical speeches permeated the culture of antiquity. In this context we can understand the letter that Lucius Verus addressed to Fronto towards the second half of the second century ce, giving him instructions about a future monograph (a History of the Parthian War) that Fronto had to write in order to make a record of events. Lucius Verus tells him that he must pay particular attention to three types of orations: his speeches to the senate (“orationes ad senatum”), his battle exhortations (“adlocutiones nostras ad exercitum”), and his talks with the barbarians (“sermones meos cum barbaris habitos”) (ad Verum Imp. 1.2.1). In essence, the letter talks about three types of 43  Cf. Wooten (1974). 44  Cf. the chapter by Candau in this volume.

38

Iglesias-Zoido

speeches that can be classified as belonging to the same rhetorical genre (the deliberative), but which can be differentiated on the basis of the type of orator (political leader, ambassador, or general) and the particular arena in which the speech is delivered (assembly, embassy or battlefield). These three types of speech are those that ended up featured in the two kinds of “explicit” anthologies that were most successful in the ancient world. Either an anthology could be produced from the work of a specific author by extracting and disseminating the three types of historiographical speeches found in it, as a means of supplying its readers with the very best of that author; or from the writings of many authors by bringing together different examples of one of the three types of speech in the same place. Both kinds of anthology must have coexisted in the ancient world because of the different uses deriving from each case. Thus, there are examples both of anthologies that focused on the work of a particular historian (Sallust or Livy) and anthologies designed to illustrate the different possibilities offered by just one of the three types of historiographical speeches. Among the latter, the anthologies with diplomatic content were soon (certainly from the Hellenistic era) the ones that attracted most attention. In fact, Diogenes Laertius (5.80 and 81) bears witness to the fact that they were already being compiled in Peripatetic circles when he cites a collection (synagogé) of embassy speeches among the works attributed to Demetrius of Phalerum. In similar vein is the testimony of the only two speeches of Theopompus’ Philippica that have survived, cited by Didymus in his commentary on Demosthenes.45 It is highly probable that both texts come from a selection of embassy speeches and would have been included in it because of their exemplary nature, since they set up an antilogy (Philocrates’ speech and Aristophon’s response to the terms of the Peace of Philocrates). The question that should be asked is how Didymus gained access to these speeches. Even if Theopompus’ complete work had still been available in the Imperial era, it is certainly true that selections of these speeches that provided useful models for embassy oratory were already in circulation.46 These anthologies of πρεσβευτικοί λόγοι would be of enormous interest from a rhetorical point of view. Piccirilli offers an explanation: when it came to studying diplomatic language in ancient Greece and applying it to the writing of history, there was one objective difficulty, the absence of oratory written by ambassadors.47 The inscriptions and treaties that have come down to us in literary texts provide information about the outcome of the negotiations, but not about the characteristics of diplomatic activity and even less 45  Cf. 14.52=F 164 and 8.58= F 166. 46  Cresci (2002). 47  Piccirilli (2002) 65ff.

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity

39

about the arguments employed. Therefore, the orators who were interested in this type of speech only had available to them the speeches made by ambassadors that appeared in historiography. A selection in an anthology would have saved them an inordinate amount of reading. This interest increased in the Byzantine era, as the important anthology compiled in the entourage of Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus attests (περὶ πρεσβειῶν or Excerpta de legationibus). This interest corresponds to the fundamental role that this type of speech played in the historiography of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.48 Moralizing and Educational Purposes There was also the possibility of extracting speeches from history with a moralizing and educational purpose, an approach that had already inspired an “implicit anthology” or chrestomathy like the one offered by Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. This moralizing or educational objective must soon have generated the compilation of “explicit anthologies” of historiographical speeches that offered the elites models of conduct.49 This approach clearly continued the path undertaken by a large part of fourth-century bce historiography— Ephorus’ History and Theopompus’ Philippica are prime examples—whose distinctive feature was to analyze the past with the intention of providing moral and political examples for the present. From Xenophon onwards, this tendency would eventually become one of the main lines of ancient historiography. As Pownall points out, since they were members of an elite writing for an elite, these historians composed their histories with the idea of promoting aristocratic-like virtues. They used written texts as instruments of their own particular concept of paideia, which was gradually replacing Homer and the poets in the moral education of the elites.50 This ideological focus would explain their interest in the words uttered by political and military leaders, such as Cyrus, Pericles, and Alexander (who represented both model statesmen and generals, and, many centuries later, became models adopted by the Roman emperors). Contrasting with these speeches would be those delivered by characters who were reprehensible from a moral standpoint (like Cleon or Alcibiades) or because of their nationality (like a barbarian Scythian king, in the case of Cyrus). It is evident that most of these new models were taken from history. This approach enjoyed an enormous upsurge during the Imperial 48  Cf. Cresci (2002), Piccirilli (2002), Taragna (2000), and U. Roberto (2009). For other kinds of anthologies of protreptic speeches (Περὶ δημηγοριῶν), see the chapter by Eramo in this volume. 49  On the use of anthologies as schooltexts within the educational system, cf. Morgan (1998) 120–151. 50  Cf. Pownall (2004) 25.

40

Iglesias-Zoido

era, as we can see in Plutarch, who, when pointing out the importance of a good moral example to inspire confidence and demonstrate authority before the people (Praec. ger. reip. 5; 801C–D), always uses historical figures who were outstanding not only for their conduct but also for their eloquence. This latter quality is understood as the “instrument” (synergón) that the good leader must be adept at using if he is to ensure that the good impression generated by his virtuous, exemplary conduct is effective.51 Seen in this light, it is obvious that, not only were Themistocles, Pericles, Nicias, and Alexander seen as models of good conduct in the Imperial era, but their speeches too (preserved by historians and understood as an “instrument”) could be used as models to imitate. Critical Purpose Thirdly, apart from these two initial types of speech anthologies that would begin to circulate from the end of the classical period, other collections that we may refer to as “critical anthologies” were also developed in the Imperial era. These were compiled from the work of historians who formed the canon of authors who were most influential regarding the process of mimesis. It is well known that school rhetoric recommended the selection of significant passages with a didactic purpose. The rhetorician Theon, for example, advises teachers, as a matter of course, “to compile appropriate examples of each exercise from the ancient works and tell the young men to study them in depth.”52 More specifically, he shows how Thucydides’ work can be analyzed as a source of model speeches.53 The preference for Thucydides is also noticeable in the rhetorician Aphthonius who, when praising a historian, lists the most studied narrative passages and speeches in his history and indeed, after the first three books of his work, he offers a veritable anthology for schools.54 The result of this procedure that was recommended by the progymnasmata handbooks was the compilation of anthologies in which more or less lengthy passages of the selected speeches (in this case, the whole speech was not selected but only significant passages) were accompanied by theoretical explanations. The function of this kind of “critical anthology” was to provide interested readers with a theoretical analysis of the most important rhetorical passages to show the key features of their style and argumentation. The most outstanding example can be found in some of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ brief treatises, notably De Thucydide 51  Cf. Pelling (2000) 44–47. 52  Cf. Theon Progymn. 65–66. 53  Cf. Theon Progymn. 61 and 70. 54  Cf. Aphthonius Progymn. 8.23–4: narration (2.2–5, 2.2.90–2, 3.27–8, 3.10.7–8, 3.68, 4.8–14) and speeches (1.32–43, 1.67, 1.79–85, 1.86, 1.139–144, 2.60–64).

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Antiquity

41

(Concerning the Characteristics of the Language of Thucydides), which is analyzed by Nicolai in the next chapter, where he offers a selection of Thucydides’ speeches that are most suitable for rhetorical imitation. We find the same method of working applied to making rhetorical use of speeches present in other genres, like the epic, as can be observed in Pseudo-Plutarch’s, De vita et poesi Homeri, with its analysis of Homeric oratory and its selection of the most important speeches from a rhetorical point of view.55 Indeed, the rhetorician (2.171), based on a reading of the poet’s work (ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀναγνώσεως), argues that Homer can be considered a “master of rhetoric” (τεχνίτης λόγων), an assertion that is supported by the commentary and the selection of Homer’s speeches most worthy of being imitated, which belong to three key episodes in the work: the confrontation between Achilles and Agamemnon over Cressida;56 the episode of the dream sent by Zeus;57 and, of course, the episode of the embassy to Achilles.58 5 Conclusions In this chapter we have examined the historiographical, rhetorical and ideological contexts in which anthologies of historiographical speeches were produced and circulated in Antiquity. We have analyzed the scarce testimonies on papyri, the few extant anthologies, and additional data provided by Greco-Roman rhetorical works. The final picture shows that in this period the speeches of the historians became the main features of collections related both to contemporary reading practices and to the unwritten rules that guided imitatio of the historical genres. These anthologies provide testimony of a way of reading history and a way of writing it, when the absence of generic rules turned the imitation of oratorical models into one of the key elements of ancient historiography and rhetoric.59 55  Cf. also Falivene (2010) on Homeric anthologies on papyrus. In this sense, cf. PMichInv. 4832 (2nd c. bce), PHamb. II 136 (3rd c. bce), PStras.inv. 2374 (3rd c. bce), and PVindobG. 26740 (2nd c. bce). 56  Cf. Ps. Plut. 2.164–5: 1) Il. 1.17–21; 2) Il. 1.148–171; 3) Il. 1.172–187; and 4) Il. 1.254–284. 57  Cf. Ps. Plut. 2.165–7: 5) Il. 2.16–34; 6) Il. 2.109–141; 7) Il. 2.108–206; 8) Il. 2.284–332; and 9) Il. 2.337–368. 58  Cf. Ps. Plut. 2.168–70: 10) Il. 9.32–49; 11) Il. 9.53–78; 12) Il. 9.162–172; 13) Il. 9.225–306; 14) Il. 9.432–605; 15) Il. 9.624–642; and 16) (Il. 9.644–655). 59  This paper is related to the Research Project MICINN FFI2012–31813 and the Research Group “Arenga” (HUM-023).

CHAPTER 2

Historians’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education: Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Selection from Thucydides Roberto Nicolai 1

Preliminary Remarks

This essay looks at the ways in which rhetoricians made use of the speeches contained in the writings of historians as models for oratory. There are two different angles from which this oratory-historiography relation may be approached: one would be to study rhetorical treatises systematically, seek all references to speeches contained in historiographic works, and thus document the terms of the debate around the use of historians as a model for oratory;1 alternatively, one may attempt to establish whether and to what extent certain orations and declamations were modelled on the speeches that appear in the works of historians.2 In this chapter I will follow the first route, which may be regarded as preparatory to the second line of inquiry. The issues at stake in the debate on the use of historians as a model for oratory also involve two distinct dimensions: on the level of the texts, one should start by examining rhetoricians’ assessments of the speeches in historiographic works. One needs also, however, to come to understand the literary system of antiquity; appreciate the standing of the critical category of literary genre in the teaching of grammar and rhetoric; and acquire a sensitivity for the differences and similarities grammarians and rhetoricians would have seen among writings belonging to diverse genres. I shall attempt to address the first side of the issue by reference to the treatise by Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides, which contains, among extant rhetorical treatises, the largest number of analyses and assessments on the subject of speeches appearing in writings on history. Translation by Mattia Bilardello. 1  See Nicolai (1992) 61–83, and, on the use of historians as sources for rhetoricians, see Nicolai (2008). On the debate concerning the imitation of Thucydides see de Jonge (2008) 214–216 and de Jonge (2011) 456–459. 2  See Nicolai (1992) 83–88 and Nicolai (2008) 156ff.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_004

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

43

The second side of the issue has several weighty implications, and must at least be defined in outline. The shape of the literary system3 (which developed from an initial condition of primary orality and, later, aurality) was determined (in its archaic phase, at any rate) by the contexts and occasions of performance, which gave rise to genres and to their peculiar expressive codes.4 Towards the end of the Classical age, and especially in the last quarter of the fifth century bce, a process began whereby several prose genres were singled out for circulation in writing, leading to decisive transformations in the field of literary communication and the system of genres. At this later phase, works could be conceived independently of any specific performance occasion, and this was the necessary precondition for the creation of an autonomous literary space. Another event occurred towards the end of the fifth century bce: for the first time, a canon was determined on the grounds of a different rationale than performance requirements—namely the selection of a set of authors who were seen to excel in a given genre.5 That canon is the canon of the three tragedians, as echoed in Aristophanes’ Frogs. While the shape of the literary system at large was broadly determined by canons (which among other things brought into relief the distinctive traits of the main genres and identified outstanding models), the schools of grammar and rhetoric played a crucial role in determining the canons, and these in turn affected the selection of genres and works. Certain genres were firmly established: epic poetry, upon which the grammarians based their teaching; tragedy and comedy, which were instrumental in establishing fifth-century Athens as a cultural beacon; and the lyric, which lost its innovative impetus over the course of the fifth century, but was rediscovered by the Alexandrian poetarum iudices. The schools of rhetoric, instead, largely relied on prose genres: oratory foremost; historiography; and, in a highly specialized function, philosophy.

3  On the problems that attend the use of the term “literature” with regard to archaic Greek culture see my “Gorgia e Isocrate” (2014b). On the outlook on literary matters in antiquity see Hunter (2009). 4  For a discussion of literary genres as categories see Rossi (1971), a landmark in this field; see also Rossi (2000) and Nicolai (2012b); on the contributions of Rossi to the history of Greek literature, with special emphasis on the investigation of literary genres, see Nicolai (2013b). The genres that enjoyed fewest constraints were those connected to the symposium, the seat of literary experiment par excellence: thus Rossi (1983). 5  On the literary canons of Antiquity see Nicolai (1992) 250–339, Nicolai (2006a), Nicolai (2007), Nicolai (2013a), and Nicolai (2014a). The version of the Trojan Cycle commissioned by Hipparchus for the Panathenaia is an example of a canon determined by performance criteria, on which see Sbardella (2012).

44

Nicolai

The literary system I have described in outline had strict ties with education; hence, the need to examine the use of literary texts made by grammarians and rhetoricians, and the need to assess how the distinctive traits of each genre influenced the way texts were used. Frequentation of the rhetorical treatises of antiquity shows how rhetoricians would draw their examples of figures and stylistic devices from a broad array of works, in almost complete disregard of genre boundaries. Genre distinctions were more frequently the object of philosophical speculation (e.g. Plat. resp. 394b 2-c 5) and, more specifically, of poetics (e.g. Aristot. a.p. 1459b 22–28), than rhetorical discourse. The distinction sometimes bore not so much on literary genres as on “arts” (τέχναι), as in Arist. rhet. 1360a 33–37, where rhetoric and politics are being discussed. Treatises of rhetoric focus on the differences between the three genres of oratory, usually omitting to discuss other genres. This state of affairs raises several questions as to the standing of the notion of literary genre itself in Greek and Roman culture, but here is not the place for examining so complex an issue.6 2

Statements of Historiographic Method

Following from the examination of works on rhetoric, one should then compare the opinions of rhetoricians as to what historians did or ought to have done in composing speeches with statements on the subject made by historians. Thucydides’ remark on speeches in his statement of method (1.22.1) is one of the most famous and commented upon passages in Greek literature. I shall omit going over the several issues raised by that passage (which I have addressed, in certain regards, elsewhere),7 and only remark on a few points that will be helpful in our discussion. When Thucydides speaks of “what was necessary to be said” (τὰ δέοντα μάλιστ᾿ εἰπεῖν), no distinction is being made between contents (clearly implied in the wording τῆς ξυμπάσης γνώμης, “the general intention”) and form. The matter of a given topic’s suitability blends with the accomplishment of its exposition, and a historian must be aware of the circumstances in which a speech was delivered (περὶ τῶν αἰεὶ παρόντων). This precept could be read (and has so been read) as theorizing the handling of speeches in works of historiography from the rhetorical point of view. In Thucydides’ time the respective domains of rhetoric, historiography, and politics had not been marked out; distinctions only began to be drawn in the fourth century, and broad areas of overlap remained nonetheless. 6  I have developed some considerations on these issues in Nicolai (2014c). 7  Nicolai (1992) 63–69, Nicolai (1995), and Nicolai (2012a), especially 62–64.

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

45

A significant (and neglected) parallel to Thucydides’ statement is to be found in fr. 6 of Gorgias’ Epitaphios, in which the great virtues of the fallen are extolled. Among these, “to speak or to hold their tongue, to do or to leave undone the right thing at the right moment” (τὸ δέον ἐν τῷ δέοντι καὶ λέγειν καὶ σιγᾶν καὶ ποιεῖν καὶ ). Clearly, Gorgias’ remark addresses the conduct of a citizen in his public capacity, not that of historiographers. All the same, what holds in one sphere tends to hold in the other: just like politicians, historiographers too have to devise speeches that are appropriate to and consistent with the occasion. Another helpful text in establishing what kind of reception and status was enjoyed by the speeches that appear in Thucydides, and one that is especially valuable due to its antiquity, is the fragment from Cratippus (FGrHist 64 F 1 ap. Dion. Hal. Thuc. 16):8 the fact that speeches are seen to be disruptive of the narration of facts (οὐ μόνον ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτὰς ἐμποδὼν γεγενῆσθαι λέγων . . ., “he says that not only have the speeches been an impediment to the narrative . . .”) entails a decision on the part of the historiographer which has rhetorical import; similar conclusions may be drawn from the remark on the adverse reaction by the public (. . . ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ὀχληρὰς εἶναι, “ . . . but they are also annoying to the hearers”).9 Among other things, one may note that, in this fragment, Cratippus restricts the argument of historiography to πράξεις alone, to the exclusion of speeches and, implicitly, of anything which may be deemed a digression from the narrative. I shall refrain from discussing another important aspect in the fragment: the aesthetic commentary on the several parts of the work of Thucydides. Cratippus seems to have fathered the Thucydidean question long before Ulrich and Kruger: he was the first to introduce a discussion on the overall composition of the work and on Thucydides’ change of approach in the last book. Callisthenes (FGrHist 124 F 44 ap. Athen. Mech. p. 10 Schneider) also expressed his position regarding the contents and form of speeches, which must be made consistent with the character delivering them (Thucydides’ ἕκαστοι) as well as the circumstances (οἰκείως αὐτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι).10 The complexity of Thucydides’ statement of method seems lost to Callisthenes, who seemingly insists on the λέξις befitting to historical writing, with remarks on the “convenient” (πρέπον). Callisthenes’ precept provides a key to understand what 8  Pavano (1958) 58–61 raises some doubts on the fact that the fragment should report the opinion of Cratippus; see also Pritchett (1975) 67f. 9  Pritchett (1975) 11. 10  On the fragment see Hornblower (1995) 54, with a discussion of prior bibliography, to which be added Prandi (1985) 132–136.

46

Nicolai

form of ethopoeia was practised by the historians of antiquity, namely the creation of personae suited to the characters in the narrative. I would incline to understand this as the creation of types matching the origins and role of characters (the Athenian, the Persian, the tyrant, the general, etc.) rather than a portrayal of individual personalities, and as the casting of these personae into the setting wherein they deliver their speech. The real problem is to understand whether historians also attempted a rendition of the style of individual orators, and in a short while I shall attempt to answer this question by reference to Dionysius of Halicarnassus and his discussion of Thucydides. Elsewhere I have discussed Polybius’ doctrine of speeches in historiographic writing and his argument against Timaeus in book XII.11 I shall therefore restrict my comments here to noting that Polybius essentially grounds his critique on the principle of the εἰκός; that he inclines to rule out only the empty rhetorical display in historical narratives, not the use of direct speech (which he too employs, besides).12 Along the same lines as Polybius is the proem to book XX of the Bibliotheca historica by Diodorus Siculus,13 which reads more intelligibly in the context of the historiographic debate in the second and first centuries bce than in the debate of the fourth and third bce (to which it would be dated if one were willing to credit Ephorus, Duris, or Hieronymus of Cardia as sources). In Lucian’s Quomodo historia conscribenda sit, the issue of reporting speeches directly is raised twice (26 and 58), first by reference to a historian of the Parthian War, then in order to give general guidelines and precepts.14 Attempting to model himself on Thucydides, the nameless historian of the Parthian War composed a eulogy of Severianus in imitation of Pericles’ Funeral Oration, which Lucian found to be excessive both in length and rhetorical ornament (“the flood of rhetoric which follows is so copious and remarkable”, τοιαῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα ἐπερρητόρευσεν αὐτῷ). The narrative, Lucian expands, sees the orator, whose name was Afranius Silo, first expatiating on the sumptuous banquets and libations, provoking Lucian’s mirth, then committing suicide after the manner of Sophocles’ Ajax. Lucian’s critique appears to be in line with 11  See Nicolai (1999). 12  See Nicolai (2006b). 13  On which see Achilli (2012), and my review in Nicolai (2014d). 14  On Lucian’s treatise see at least Avenarius (1956), Canfora (1974), Montanari (1984), Montanari (1987), Georgiadou and Larmour (1994), Piras (2001), and now Free (2015). On the relation between Lucian’s treatise and Polybius see Georgiadou and Larmour (1994) 1450–1453 and passim. On direct speeches see Georgiadou and Larmour (1994) 1472f. and Free (2015) 40–53.

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

47

the principles defended by Polybius and Diodorus: stigmatizing exaggeration, inventio contrary to the principles of the πρέπον (the banquets and libations), and the contravention of the principle of verisimilitude (the orator’s suicide). Chapter 58 deserves special attention, noting the controversial concluding statement: “If ever it may be necessary to introduce someone to make a speech, let him first and foremost say things that fit his character and are suitable to the circumstances . . .” (῍Ην δέ ποτε καὶ λόγους ἐροῦντά τινα δεήσῃ εἰσάγειν, μάλιστα μὲν ἐοικότα τῷ προσώπῳ καὶ τῷ πράγματι οἰκεῖα λεγέσθω . . .). There are significant similarities with the fragment from Callisthenes, including terminology: ἐοικότα τῷ προσώπῳ καὶ τῷ πράγματι οἰκεῖα (“things that fit his character and are suitable to the circumstances”) closely resembles οἰκείως αὐτῷ (with reference to the πρόσωπον) τε καὶ τοῖς πράγμασι. The principle of verisimilitude (ἐοικότα) calls back to Thucydidean doctrine as translated in terms of rhetorical doctrine. The concluding statement does not affect the principle of ἀλήθεια for the plain reason that verbatim rendition of speeches was neither feasible nor required.15 Lucian simply voices what everyone knew and practised: the writing of speeches was the work of historians, who were authorized (were indeed under some kind of obligation, I would say) to make a show of their rhetorical skill, adhering only to the principle of verisimilitude with regard to the character delivering a speech and to the occasion in which the speech was delivered.16 The critical issues that arise from reading the passage are largely due to the projection of modern conceptions and categories onto historiographic practice as conceived during antiquity. Modern historians of antiquity object to the notion that their predecessors and colleagues of old might have, to some extent, invented the speeches they report. It is interesting to compare the statements of principle made by historians with the sections in rhetorical treatises which discuss the figure of speech of prosopopoeia and the corresponding exercise. Let us take, e.g., Quint. 3.8. 49–51, where the personae difficultas is emphasized as marking the difference between this practice from other suasoriae, and its usefulness for poets, historians, and orators to come is upheld (49). Quintilian specifically underlines how a speech must be fitting to the character and situation: “neque enim minus 15  A similar view is held by Piras (2001) 137f. n. 123. On the meaning of the term ἀλήθεια, which does not overlap with the modern notion of historical truth and has more to do with impartiality and lack of mendacity or deliberate omission, see Nicolai (1992) 16f., with further reference to Woodman (1988). 16  Georgiadou and Larmour (1994) 1473 observe that Lucian admits the flaunting of rhetorical skill by historians in his third and last precept, and underline that in the introductory statement Lucian insists on the point that speeches only be reported when necessary.

48

Nicolai

vitiosa est oratio si ab homine quam si a re cui accommodari debuit dissidet” (51, my italics). 3

Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Critical Selection of Thucydidean Speeches

In what follows I propose to discuss only certain aspects of Dionysius’ De Thucydide.17 I shall only marginally touch upon his observations on style18 and refrain completely from touching upon the problems of textual criticism raised by the discrepancies between the text of Thucydides as known to us via direct tradition and the text as cited by Dionysius.19 I shall concentrate, instead, on the sections he devotes to direct speech, with special emphasis on his selection of texts and his statements of approval or disapproval. The sections in the work of Thucydides that Dionysius (16) deems weakest are the speeches: special mention is made of the demegoriai (δημηγορίαις), dialogs (διαλόγοις), and other samples of oratory (ἄλλαις ῥητορείαις). The three categories listed by Dionysius comprise the deliberative speeches at popular assemblies, the Melian dialog and the Plataean debate in book II (see infra, in the discussion of § 37), and the speeches delivered by generals. The terms of his critique fall within the scope of the debate on Thucydides as a model for orators (cf. 49f.) and his interest in speeches is a consequence of this. Dionysius first reports Cratippus’ assessment of the speeches that appear in Thucydides (see above), then compares books I and VIII (16). Instead of conjecturing, as Cratippus had done, that the style of Thucydides was evolving towards a narrative form devoid of speeches, Dionysius takes issue with the inconsistency of having sections in which facts of little moment combine with a considerable 17  There are few comprehensive studies on this treatise: besides Pavano (1958) and Pritchett (1975), there is the chapter on the “later essays” in Bonner (1969) 81–97 and Grube (1950), who also examines references to Thucydides in the other works by Dionysius; on this topic see the recent Wiater (2011) 130–165. Grube (1950) 96, agreeing with Bonner, claims that the De Thucydide is probably “the last substantial work of Dionysius we possess, and thus shows his method fully developed.” One cannot agree with Grube (1950) 96 that “Dionysius thought of himself chiefly as an historian and his criticism throws an interesting and at times curious light on what he thought history should be,” in that Dionysius argues throughout in terms of using Thucydides as a model for orators-to-be. On the audience to which the rhetorical treatises of Dionysius were destined see Weaire (2005). 18  On Dionysius’ linguistic and stylistic observations and judgements see de Jonge (2008). 19  These inconsistencies are pointed out, alongside editions of Thucydides, in Pritchett (1975).

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

49

number of speeches, and then entire books in which there are few speeches, but battles and political narratives of considerable importance. The discussion of Thucydidean speeches begins in chapter 17. In Dionysius’ opinion, Thucydides is unable to discriminate what needs telling from what has to be left out of a narrative.20 In book III Thucydides fails to report the speeches delivered at the first assembly to discuss the punishment of the Mytilenians following their defection, but reports two speeches from the second assembly, when the matter was reconsidered. Dionysius upholds the principle that speeches be consistent with “events” (πράγματα), continuing in the theoretical tradition discussed in our previous section. At the same time, one should also note how Dionysius seems not to register the value of the speeches by Cleon and Diodotus in Thucydides’ analysis of the dynamics of Athenian democracy. Chapter 18 discusses Pericles’ Funeral Oration in book II. Here too, Dionysius focuses his criticism on the modest significance of the events that caused some casualties among the Athenians, and not a large number at that.21 Again, Dionysius seems unreceptive to Thucydides’ use of the epitaph as a vehicle for the tenets of Pericles’ democratic ideology, expanding on the description of Athenian civic institutions and accordingly compressing the sections normally reserved for the exempla (taken care of by preterition: 2. 36. 4) and to the eulogy of the dead. Dionysius abides by the principle whereby only the ­narrative of significant πράγματα provides the context for speeches, and is oblivious to the 20  “I have even thought that in his very speeches the man has given evidence of the same failing, so much so that in dealing with the same subject and on the same occasion he writes some things that he ought not to have said, and omits others that he ought to have said” (Ἤδη δὲ ἔγωγε καὶ ἐν αὐταῖς ἔδοξα ταῖς ῥητορείαις τοῦτο συμβεβηκέναι τῷ ἀνδρὶ τὸ πάθος, ὥστε περὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπόθεσιν καὶ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καιρῷ τιθέναι μὲν ἃς οὐκ ἔδει, παραλιπεῖν δὲ ἃς ἔδει λέγεσθαι) (17, cf. Pritchett [1975] 11; Pritchett’s translation in this and the next Dionysius’ passages). The passage is discussed in Pritchett (1975) 69, who examines the thesis of Usener (1889) 71–74 and Luschnat (1954) 22–25, whereby the similarities between certain passages in Dionysius’ treatise and the scholia to Thucydides would indicate a common source in Alexandrian exegesis. As de Jonge (2008) 218 rightly points out, one cannot establish at what time the observations contained in the scholia to Thucydides were made nor can one rule out that Dionysius was an influence on later grammarians and lexicographers, whose remarks might have been incorporated in the scholia. The issue is further discussed in de Jonge (2011). 21  “For, in this book, the Athenians who fell during this first invasion of the Peloponnesians were very few in number, and not even these performed any illustrious deeds” (ἐν ταύτῃ μὲν γὰρ οἱ κατὰ τὴν πρώτην τῶν Πελοποννησίων εἰσβολὴν πεσόντες Ἀθηναῖοι κομιδῇ τινες ἦσαν ὀλίγοι, καὶ οὐδ᾿ οὗτοι λαμπρόν τι πράξαντες ἔργον) (18, cf. Pritchett [1975] 11–12).

50

Nicolai

merits of the kind of historical analysis whereby Thucydides decided to insert an ideologically poignant speech that was, nonetheless, unrelated to events of any eminence.22 Thucydides then compares the minor occasion that brought about the death of the Athenian soldiers celebrated by Pericles with battles of greater moment, in which large numbers of the population were involved. Dionysius instead compares the small number of casualties extolled by Pericles with Demosthenes’ victory at Pylos and with one of the great catastrophes to have befallen the Athenian army, namely their defeat in the Sicilian campaign. It is interesting to note how the epitaph is defined “high tragedy” (ὑψηλὴ τραγῳδία),23 employing an adjective usually reserved for elevated poetry, while the term tragedy (τραγῳδία) appears here to have lost its specific reference to a well-defined literary genre, to extensively describe any text levering on a sense of pathos.24 Dionysius then makes the final remark that Thucydides betrayed his own ambition to compose a funeral oration he could attribute to Pericles, although the latter could not have witnessed the great battles of the Peloponnesian War: But it seems that the historian (for I shall say what I think), desiring to use the personality of Pericles (τῷ Περικλέους προσώπῳ βουλόμενος ἀποχρήσασθαι) and to put in his mouth the funeral eulogy that he had composed (καὶ τὸν ἐπιτάφιον ἔπαινον ὡς ὑπ᾿ ἐκείνου ῥηθέντα συνθεῖναι), since the man died in the second year of the war and did not live at the time of any of the disasters that subsequently befell the city, bestowed upon that small and insignificant deed a praise that went far beyond the real worth of the matter.25 It may be of some significance that Dionysius employed the term πρόσωπον in connection with Pericles, just as Callisthenes had done; the natural reading would then be that Dionysius saw Thucydides as leaping at the opportunity to compose a speech he could entrust to so high-standing a figure as Pericles. Dionysius thus clarifies in what way he believed the historiographers 22  On this issue see Pavano (1958) 63f. 23  Several tragedies were extended narratives of mythical episodes also evoked in funeral orations. On the relation between funeral orations and tragedy see Sonnino (2010) 113–119. 24  Grube (1950) 104 notes that the exposition of Athenian ideals in Pericles’ Funeral Oration at the beginning of the war and the exhibition of Athenian hybris in the Melian dialog before the Sicilian campaign conform to dramatic and not historiographic criteria. 25  Pritchett (1975) 12–13.

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

51

of antiquity approached speech-writing: Thucydides acted in the same way as rhetoricians did when composing speeches as they imagined Alexander the Great or Themistocles would have delivered them. Compared to rhetoricians, historians were naturally more strictly bound to the principles of verisimilitude and consistency vis-à-vis the character delivering a speech and the occasion for the speech. The difference between a historian and an orator, Dionysius and several other historians of antiquity would have agreed, is essentially a difference in degree: a declaimer may, indeed should, impress his audience, to the extent of even exceeding the bounds of verisimilitude; likewise, he is not strictly bound to a context of πράγματα to which the speech must conform. When a historian exceeds these bounds, he acts after the fashion of declaimers and commits faults of the kind stigmatized by Polybius and Diodorus. In discussing the style of Thucydides, Dionysius reports the opinion whereby the peak of the writer’s achievement was realized in the demegoriai26 (cf. 34: “in which some people think he displayed the height of his genius” ἐν αἷς οἴονταί τινες τὴν ἄκραν τοῦ συγγραφέως εἶναι δύναμιν) and proceeds (ibid.) to identify the two chief constituents of oratory, “subject-matter” (πραγματικὸν μέρος) and “style” (λεκτικόν), the one governed by “nature” (φύσις), the other by “technique” (τέχνη). The former has essentially to do with inventio; the latter with the use an author makes of the arguments and concepts. It is to the latter domain that two further oratorial tasks pertain, namely dispositio and elocutio. Contrary to what his keenest admirers maintain, Thucydides is not consistently flawless on these counts, his excellence residing mostly in πραγματικὸν μέρος. In the exercise of λεκτικὸν μέρος, instead, he if often found wanting with regard to both λέξεις and σχήματα (35). Thucydides is credited with outstanding skill in the “invention of enthymemes and thoughts” (τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων τε καὶ νοημάτων εὕρεσις), where natural ability prevails over τέχνη (34). The description of the attitude displayed by Thucydides’ acritical admirers abounds in irony and first of all identifies the cause of their admiration with the extraordinary wealth of “enthymemes” (ἐνθυμημάτα). In their reactions to criticism of Thucydides, Dionysius says, they act like offended paramours: And if any one attempts to instruct them in each matter, presenting the reason why it was not appropriate for this to be spoken on such and such an occasion (ἐν τούτῳ τῷ καιρῷ) and by such and 26  Pavano (1958) 135f. uses the term demegoriai extensively to designate speeches rather than deliberative orations specifically, although the latter are distinguished from dialogs at other places.

52

Nicolai

such persons (ὑπὸ τούτων τῶν προσώπων) and that should not have been used about such and such matters (ἐπὶ τούτοις τοῖς πράγμασιν) not to such an extent (μέχρι τούτου), they are annoyed, experiencing the same feeling as those who are overpowered by so strong a love of some vision as to border upon madness.27 The principles upon which Dionysius conducts his critique are observance of the “occasion” (καιρός)28 and coherence with respect to “characters” (πρόσωπα) and “matters” (πράγματα) as well as adequacy in length. At the close of chapter 34, Dionysius reasons on the criticism of literary works:29 those who evaluate by correct standards (ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀρθοὺς κανόνας ἀναφέρουσιν) and owe their aptitude to natural skill, or have sharpened their skills through study (ἰσχυρὰ τὰ κριτήρια κατασκευάσαντες) are able to detect the virtues and shortcomings in an author. Again he voices appreciation of Thucydides’ “invention” (εὕρεσις), but also an unfavorable opinion of his “economy” (οἰκονομία), excepting for a few demegoriai (35), and then proceeds to review in detail the flaws that riddle the speeches, both in the use of vocabulary and of figures of speech (ibid.). Having restated his approach of comparing the more accomplished with the weaker passages (35), Dionysius goes on to analyze the style, starting from the Plataean debate in book II (36): He reports such speeches as were likely (εἰκóς) to have been given by each side, speeches that were suited to the speakers (τοῖς προσώποις πρέποντας) and appropriate to the subject (τοῖς πράγμασιν οἰκείους), that neither fell short of nor went beyond the proper measure; and he embodied them in language that is pure, clear and concise and that does not lack the other qualities.30 The assessment of the speeches relating to the events at Plataea follows the principles of εἰκός and πρέπον, with the latter applied to both πρόσωπα and πράγματα. Further, observance of “proper measure” (μετριότης) is commended, as well as stylistic virtuosity. In the exercise of criticism, Dionysius largely abides by the criteria variously propounded by Callisthenes, Polybius, and Diodorus, showing that the gulf between the world of historiographers and 27  Pritchett (1975) 27. 28  On the ancient doctrine of the καιρός see Vallozza (1985) and Vallozza (1987). Pavano (1958) 138 claims that, in speaking of the καιρός, Dionysius is referring to the principle of the πρέπον. 29  Rightly Pavano (1958) 139f. thus reads τὴν ἐξέτασιν τῶν λόγων. 30  Pritchett (1975) 28.

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

53

that of the rhetoricians who appraised their work and singled out for imitation their more accomplished passages and features turns out to be narrower than modern histories of ancient historiography would lead one to believe. Having analyzed a dialog he finds very well accomplished (37), Dionysius then moves on to one extolled by Thucydides’ admirers, namely the Melian dialog in book V. His first criticism addresses several solecisms in number and case, and results in the emendation of a sentence (5.86). The second addresses the enthymeme “conceived in a normal way, but not expressed in a manner that can be easily followed” (νενοημένον μὲν οὐκ ἀτόπως, ἡρμηνευμένον δὲ οὐκ εὐπαρακολουθήτως) in 5.87. The analysis of 5.89 opens with a brief appreciation of the theme (38) and moves on to remark how the argument developed by the Athenians is unworthy of the city’s standing and inappropriate to πράγματα of such kind (ibid. “he first makes use of the following enthymeme which is neither worthy of the Athenian state not fitting to be used of such events”, πρῶτον μὲν εἴρηκεν ἐνθύμημα οὔτε τῆς Ἀθηναίων πόλεως ἄξιον οὔτ᾿ ἐπὶ τοιούτοις πράγμασιν ἁρμόττον λέγεσθαι). Dionysius expands on his objections (39): Words like these were appropiate (ἥρμοττε) to oriental monarchs addressing Greeks, but unfit to be spoken (οὐκ ἦν προσήκοντα εἰρῆσθαι) by Athenians to the Greeks whom they liberated from the Medes, to wit, that justice is the normal conduct of equals to one another, but violence is of the strong against the weak.31 In this regard, Dionysius is not unlike those commentators of Homer who would advocate the excision of any line or sequence of lines they deemed inappropriate to such heroes as Achilles or Agamemnon. Neither the tenor of the argument developed by the Athenians nor the significance Thucydides attributes to the facts are at all taken into account by Dionysius. I shall not report each of his paraphrases and comments, some of which are especially harsh.32 Alongside his moral evaluation of the Athenians’ speech, the convoluted flow of their argument appears to him unfit in terms of genre and ill-suited to the characters, who, being army generals, ought not to reason like sophists. The remarks on 5.103 (40) deserve more attention. Thucydides’ choice of words is inappropriate to Athenian generals insofar as it runs counter to the pietas that generally characterized the city of Athens. It is possible that Dionysius 31  Pritchett (1975) 31. 32   e.g., (39) “words such as a pirate or robber would hardly utter” (ὃ μόγις ἂν εἶπεν τῶν καταποντιστῶν τις ἢ λῃστῶν); ibid. “a bad enthymeme and tortuously expressed” (ἐνθύμημα πονηρὸν καὶ σκολιῶς ἀπηγγελμένον); (40) “he makes the Athenian reply more tortuous than a labyrinth” (ποιεῖ τὸν Ἀθηναῖον ἀποκρινόμενον λαβυρίνθων σκολιώτερα).

54

Nicolai

took the encomia of Athens read in funeral orations and panegyrics33 to hold true; more plausibly, he was of the persuasion a historian ought to have Athenian characters speak in accordance with the ethos attributed to them in the encomia. The Melian dialog is unsettling to Dionysius because it contradicts the general encomiastic trend, and to that extent provokes his criticism. In their answers to the Melians, the Athenians display increasing arrogance (cf. 40 αὐθαδέστερον ἔτι, referred to 5. 105), with arguments that would not become any Athenian, nor the Greeks at large (ibid. Ἀκόλουθα καὶ ταῦτα τοῖς πρώτοις καὶ οὔτε Ἀθηναίοις οὔτε Ἕλλησι πρέποντα εἰρῆσθαι). Thucydides, in sum, ought not to have had the Athenians speak in a manner unbecoming to their ethos; he should have composed a dialog in keeping with expectations, instead: with the preterition which introduces the last quotation from the dialog (41), Dionysius effectively denounces the attribution to the Athenians of such conjunction of wit and cruelty. As he winds up his analysis of the dialog, Dionysius introduces an issue of great importance for us (ibid.): That the historian was not present on that occasion at the meeting, and that he did not hear these speeches from the Athenians or the Melians who recited them, may readily be seen from what the author writes about himself in the preceding book, that after serving as a general at Amphipolis he was banished from his native city and spent the entire remaining period of the war in Thrace. So it remains to be examined whether he has made the dialogue appropriate to the circumstances and befitting the persons who came together at the conference (εἰ τοῖς τε πράγμασι προσήκοντα καὶ τοῖς συνεληλυθόσιν εἰς τὸν σύλλογον προσώποις ἁρμόττοντα πέπλακε διάλογον) “adhering as closely as possible to the overall purport of what was actually said,” as he himself stated in the proem of his history.34 These lines read as a kind of praeoccupatio: the objection might have been raised that the dialog had been conducted exactly as reported by Thucydides. Preempting this objection, Dionysius shows, on the grounds of what Thucydides himself had written in 5.26, that the latter could neither have witnessed the dialog nor heard reports from its protagonists, having gone into exile in Thrace 33  On funeral orations see at least Loraux (1981). On the points of contact between funeral orations and Isocrates’ Panegyric see pan. 74 and Nicolai (2004) 58–63. On the, let us say, Isocratean portrayal of Athens which Dionysius seemed to expect from Thucydides too, see Wiater (2011) 155–158. 34  Pritchett (1975) 33.

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

55

after the events at Amphipolis, and remained there until the end of the war. I shall not discuss the bearings of this statement on the controversial facts of Thucydides’ biography and simply record them as said. Satisfied that no faithful rendition of their words was possible, Dionysius’ concern was to establish whether, adhering to his statement in the proem (1.22.1),35 Thucydides had devised speeches appropriate to the πρόσωπα and πράγματα. It is quite apparent that Dionysius interprets the second part of Thucydides’ statement by exclusive reference to the principle of the πρέπον,36 as Callisthenes had also implicitly done before him. The remaining sequence confirms the interpretative line followed by Dionysius, who approves of the Melians’ appeals to freedom, but condemns the Athenians’ appeal to strength (41). Such arguments are unfit for the military leaders of a city, Athens, with such a good system of laws (εὐνομωτάτη); nor, on the other hand, is it fitting that the leaders of a small town should favor the καλόν over the ἀσφαλές. It is likewise inappropriate to have the Athenians blame the Melians for acting in a manner comparable to their own when they abandoned Athens in the course of the Persian War. Once again Dionysius makes appeal to the civilizing role of Athens. The city he has in mind is an ideal, inspired by noble principles, governed by just laws, ready to fight for everyone’s freedom. The Melian dialog is thus, according to Dionysius, inferior to the Plataean debate with regard to both the “subjectmatter” (πραγματικὸν μέρος) and the “style” (λεκτικόν). By way of explanation, Dionysius brings in the facts of Thucydides’ life and the hatred against Athens he must have nurtured during exile. Among the demegoriai, Dionysius appreciates Pericles’ speech in 1. 140–144 (42), the style of which he discusses at length. Then, having made further examples of demegoriai he approves, he adds a comment that is particularly significant as coming from a teacher of rhetoric: “and whatever other similar addresses there may be that are characterized by purity and perspicuity and are suitable for actual pleadings” (καὶ εἴ τινές εἰσιν ἄλλαι τοιαῦται δημηγορίαι καθαραὶ καὶ σαφεῖς καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀληθινοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐπιτήδειοι). Deliberative speeches in historical works are to be appreciated when they are fit for actual political debate, i.e. they are written in a style similar to, or not too dissimilar from, the speeches at popular assemblies. Dionysius’ highest praise goes to the Plataeans’ speech in 3. 53–59 (ibid.):

35  On this issue, see Wiater (2011) 159–161. In particular see p. 160: “The πρέπον thus marks the intersection of rhetoric and history because it is concerned with the relationship between the text and the object the text claims to represent.” 36  Pavano (1958) 167f. insists on the weight of the πρέπον in Dionysius’ analyses.

56

Nicolai

But more that all the speeches presented in the seven books I admire the defense of the Plataeans, and that for nothing so much as for the absence of distortion and excessive elaboration and the use of true and natural embellishments (ἀληθεῖ δέ τινι καὶ φυσικῷ κεκοσμῆσθαι χρώματι). The arguments are presented with a great deal of feeling, and the language is not repulsive to the ear. For the composition is euphonious and the figures are appropiate to the matter. These are the works of Thucydides that are worthy of emulation, and I advise historians to draw their material for imitation from these (ἀπὸ τούτων τὰ μιμήματα τοῖς ἱστοριογραφοῦσιν ὑποτίθεμαι λαμβάνειν).37 The concluding remark ostensibly addresses historiographers rather than trainee orators,38 but this really comes to the same: orations by historiographers have to be credible, realistic within the context of the narrative and appropriate to the characters delivering them. Moving on to a survey of speeches he does not completely appreciate (43), Dionysius then especially focusses on Pericles’ in 2.60–64 and on Hermocrates’ in 6.76–80. He quotes the incipit of Pericles’ speech, and illustrates what he deems to be its flaws (44): the words Thucydides attributes to Pericles in 2.60 would have been appropriate for a historian dealing with Pericles “in narrative form” (ἐν ἱστορικῷ σχήματι), though not as attributed to Pericles in the act of defending himself before a furious assembly. What, I would argue, Dionysius fails to appreciate in his analysis is the peculiar nature of speeches in historical narratives, their point being not only to stand as samples of oratory to be rated according to their appropriateness. They are designed, rather, to disclose the mindset of the speaker (so far as the historian could reconstruct it) and so contribute to the interpretation of events. Dionysius did not regard direct speech to be an integral part of historical discourse; to him they were, one might say, insets of oratory, which should obey the rules of good rhetoric and be appropriate to characters and context. His criticism now centres on inventio, particularly on arguments he sees as unfit to the occasion: Τούτοις ἐπιτίθησι διάνοιαν ἀληθῆ μὲν καὶ δεινῶς ἀπηγγελμένην, οὐ μέντοι γε τῷ παρόντι καιρῷ χρησίμην. And further: Τούτοις ἐπιτίθησιν ἔτι φορτικωτέραν διάνοιαν καὶ ἥκιστα τῷ παρόντι καιρῷ πρέπουσαν. The remark which closes the section on the πραγματικὸν μέρος sums up Dionysius’ preceding commentary, with the addition of an interesting remark on the work of writing history (45): 37  Pritchett (1975) 35. 38  Cf. Pol. 12.25i, whose discussion shifts from the historian to the politician with no clear distinction between their prerogatives.

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

57

Indeed the invention of the very best arguments and thoughts is not in itself an object worthy of serious effort, if they are not appropriate (μὴ . . . προσήκοντα) to the events (τοῖς πράγμασιν), the speakers (τοῖς προσώποις), the occasions (τοῖς καιροῖς), and everything else . But as I said at the outset, the historian, giving expression to his own views (τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην ἀποδεικνύμενος ὁ συγγραφεύς) about the merits of Pericles, seems to have spoken these words contrary to the proprieties of the occasion. The writer ought himself to have put in his mouth, when he was in danger, words that were humble and calculated to conciliate the anger of his audience. Such a course would have been befitting a writer who was desirous of giving a picture of the truth (τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν πρέπον τῷ μιμεῖσθαι βουλομένῳ συγγραφεῖ τὴν ἀλήθειαν).39 Historians, Dionysius believes, must imitate “truth” (ἀλήθεια) and provide a credible narrative, even with regard to speeches. Such a notion of ἀλήθεια as Dionysius provides, however, stands in close relation to εἰκός, and ends up marginalizing what modern historiographers would see as their primary requisite, namely a valid use of documentary sources.40 Dionysius then goes into a detailed analysis of 2.62.3 (46): “Annoying, too, are these puerile embellishments of speech and intricately constructed arguments” (Ὀχληρὰ δὲ κἀκεῖνα τὰ μειρακιώδη καλλωπίσματα τῆς λέξεως καὶ τὰ πολύπλοκα τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων σχήματα). The adjective “puerile” (μειρακιώδης) had been used by Polybius in his harsh criticism of the speeches of Timaeus in 12.25i.5: τελέως ἀνάληθες καὶ μειρακιῶδες καὶ διατριβικόν. The term applies to the excesses of young orators formed at the schools, who are unable to adhere to a sense of verisimilitude (ἀλήθεια, in other words) and abound in heavy-wrought figures of speech and reasonings. The same flaw is attributed to Timaeus, a historian, with regard to the speeches in his work, and the same criticism is levelled by Dionysius against certain passages in the speeches by Thucydides. In the commentary that follows the quotation from Thucydides, Dionysius compares him with two authors taken as perfect illustrations of two major failings 39  Pritchett (1975) 36. 40  Pavano (1958) 179f. comments: “τὴν ἀλήθειαν: la verità, la realtà storica, intende dire: quella realtà che egli ha stabilita non tenendo conto delle testimonianze, ma desumendola dalla conoscenza dei κάνονες, dai quali Pericle, a suo giudizio, non si sarebbe sognato di deflettere” (“τὴν ἀλήθειαν: the truth, the historical reality, refers to that reality which he established by not taking into account the evidence, but inferring it from the knowledge of the κάνονες, from which Pericles, in his [Dionysius’] opinion, would not have ventured to deviate”).

58

Nicolai

in style: “coldness” (ψυχρότης) and the lack of “clarity” (σαφήνεια) (ibid.). In particular, Gorgias was blamed for exceding in frequently strained conceits. As for Heraclitus, his obscurity was proverbial. Having pointed out a contradiction in Thucydides’ reasoning, Dionysius then quotes passages from the same speech he admires for inventio and elocutio (47), which is to say he appreciates Thucydides’ sense of measure in the use of vocabulary and figures of speech. In the subsequent chapter (48) the analysis of the speech of Hermocrates in book VI begins. His opinion of 6.77 is especially flattering: For this passage which is expressed in clear and pure language has the added qualities of rapidity, beauty, tension, grandeur and forcefulness, and is full of oratorical passion. And one may use this language at the bar (ἐν δικαστηρίῳ), at public meetings (ἐν ἐκκλησίαις), and in conversation with friends (φίλοις διαλεγόμενος).41 It is worth pausing on the final remark, where the speeches composed by historians are once again appraised for their value as exempla. What one would not expect is that alongside assemblies, Dionysius should name tribunals and conversations among friends.42 Speaking as a rhetorician, however, he insists no speaker should ever deflect from the standards of good measure and sobriety, whatever the nature of the speaking. By likening judiciary and deliberative argument to friendly conversation, Dionysius is instructing his pupils not to be drawn by their young age into highly conceited or unseemly figures of speech. Two more extracts that are worthy of imitation follow, before Dionysius turns to the exam of what he disapproves in the speech of Hermocrates, starting with 6.76.2. Dionysius deems “frigid” (ψυχρά) the paronomasia κατοικίσαι / ἐξοικίσαι, which he sees not to add “real feeling but gives a studied appearance” (πάθος, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπιτήδευσιν); he criticizes the complex structure in 6.76.4 (Καὶ ἔτι τὰ πεπλεγμένα καὶ πολλὰς τὰς ἕλικας ἔχοντα σχήματα ταυτί); he chastises the transition from plural to singular and the transition “from discourse about persons to the person of the speaker” (ἐκ τοῦ περὶ προσώπων λόγου εἰς τὸ τοῦ λέγοντος πρόσωπον) in 6.78.1. Overall, he finds these sections to be childish, excessive, and more obscure than riddles (Ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ μειρακιώδη καὶ περίεργα καὶ τῶν λεγομένων αἰνιγμάτων ἀσαφέστερα). The same assessment is made of 6.78.3, where he highlights an especially unfortunate phrase which would not even be excused if it came from a youth (οὐδὲ μειρακίῳ προσῆκον ἐπιφώνημα). 41  Pritchett (1975) 38. 42  Pavano (1958) 188 mistakenly identifies the third category with epideictic oratory: compare the classification proposed by Dionysius in § 49, on which see infra.

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

59

The closing sections of Dionysius’ work are devoted to an overall evaluation of Thucydides’ λέξις: at its best when it does not exceed good measure and adheres to fundamental qualities; far less commendable when his style abounds in unusual words and figures. The latter is inappropriate to either assemblies or tribunals, and is unfit for even social settings; some places in his speeches would require an interpreter, as though they were spoken by one not native to the language (49). He then counters the claims, made by some, whereby Thucydides’ style is appropriate for historiography, as a genre reserved to a readership trained in rhetoric and philosophy, and that Thucydides was writing for his contemporaries, who would have had no difficulty understanding him (50). The first argument he counters by remarking that, in such case, the works of Thucydides would be the privilege of an excessively limited number of readers— who would still need a grammatical commentary to interpret certain passages. As for the notion that Thucydides wrote after the fashion of his time, Dionysius objects that none of his contemporary orators, nor any of Socrates’ pupils wrote in his manner. His final remark is that the language of historiography must depart from common speech, and eschew excess (51). The comparison of Thucydides with his imitators is confined to Demosthenes (52–55), who abstains from verbal excess and is upheld as a model for aspiring orators (55). 4

Dionysius’ Thucydidean Selection: Concluding Remarks

It should be remembered at the outset that Dionysius claims he is writing for a readership well acquainted with the work of Thucydides.43 One may interpret this claim as a form of captatio benevolentiae, considering that complete editions must have been hard to come by (as the papyri partly suggest, being mostly limited to fragments of the first books of Thucydides’ work). There could, however, be a further layer of meaning: on the face of it, Dionysius is downplaying his specialized knowledge, but he is in fact declaring his awareness of its breadth and depth by the standards of his contemporaries, even within the specialized circles of the schools of rhetoric. His actual intent may thus be to remark that acquaintance with only a few speeches is insufficient for an exact assessment, for the purpose of teaching rhetoric, and that in-depth knowledge of Thucydides’ entire production is a prerequisite.

43  (8) “To cite examples is unnecessary to readers of his history” (Παραδείγματα δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν φέρειν οὐ δέομαι τοῖς διεληλυθόσιν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἱστορίας).

60

Nicolai

We may proceed by means of a table to list the speeches found in Thucydides which Dionysius either mentions or quotes from; next to them the reference to the passage in which they appear in Dionysius’ treatise and his assessment in highly condensed form are indicated:

• • • • • • • •

1.140–144 (Pericles’ speech); Thuc. 42: approved; 2.35–46 (Pericles’ funeral oration); Thuc. 18: not approved; 2.60–64 (Pericles’ speech); Thuc. 43; 44–47: approved with reservations; 2.71–74 (speeches of the Plataean embassy and Archidamus); Thuc. 36: approved; 3.37–48 (Cleon and Diodotus); Thuc. 17 and 43: not approved; 3.53–59 (apology of the Plataeans): Thuc. 42: approved; 5.95–113 (Melian dialog); Thuc. 37–41: not approved; 6.9–14; 20–23; 7.11–15; 7.61–64; 7.77 (Nicias’ speeches before the Sicilian campaign; Nicias’ epistle; Nicias’ exhortation before the final battle at sea; Nicias’ speech after the loss of the fleet); Thuc. 42: approved; 6.82–87 (Euphemus’ speech); Thuc. 43: not approved; 6.76–80 (Hermocrates’ speech): Thuc. 43; 48: approved with reservations.

• •

What information may one derive from this table? Dionysius quotes several speeches from the first three books, which also occur most frequently in the papyri. Out of the other books he quotes only the Melian dialog (an “anthology piece,” so to speak), and a number of speeches from books VI and VII, pertaining to the Sicilian campaign (another section in the work which most likely enjoyed independent circulation from the remainder of the work). None of the speeches in book IV are discussed. Dionysius proves fully knowledgeable of the entire work, but eventually concentrates on the first three books and two especially well-known sections. The summary reports of what Dionysius approves of and criticizes lead, instead, to the observation that the only Thucydidean orator to receive, let us say, wholesale approval is Nicias. The speech of Pericles in 1.140–144, the speeches of the Plataean embassy and Archidamus in book II, and that of the Plataeans in book III are also approved. With regard to Nicias it would be interesting to establish whether Dionysius’ positive evaluation merely reflects an attitude of ethical and ideological consonance (Nicias never voices inappropriate or scandalous thoughts, unlike the Athenians at Melos), or whether Dionysius’ approval stems from stylistic, and especially syntactic, qualities in the text. Dionysius consistently evaluates speeches in terms of their appropriateness to the characters to whom they are attributed and to their setting. One of the

Historians ’ Speeches in Rhetorical Education

61

most interesting remarks is to be found in chapter 41 (supra), where Dionysius contrasts what Thucydides does in practice with the statement of method in 1.22, forewarning the reader that Thucydides had neither witnessed the speech nor heard reports from direct witnesses. Here too, his standard is that of appropriateness to setting and characters, although his remarks are more carefully qualified. I would argue from Dionysius’ insistence on appropriateness to πράγματα that he was inclined to believe that Thucydides’ choices were determined by elements of context, rather than an elaborate ἠθοποιΐα aimed at rendering the features of each orator’s style.44 Dionysius thus confirms the hypothesis that in the exercise of ἠθοποιΐα Thucydides operated not so much and not only on the level of πρόσωπα, but especially on the level of πράγματα.45 As for πρόσωπα, the evaluation one draws from Dionysius is that Thucydides ought to have had orators conform to their category of provenance: e.g., Greeks, Athenians, barbarians, etc. The two levels of πρόσωπα and πράγματα are explicitly mentioned in Callisthenes’ important statement with regard to speeches, which is undoubtedly indebted to Thucydides, but which also translates the intricacies of its model into plainer terms, namely those of rhetorical theory with special reference to the principle of πρέπον. The profound consonance of Dionysius’ stance with the theoretical statements of historians (starting with Thucydides’ statement of method and those of his commentators) endorses the view that writings on rhetoric and on history be taken as a contiguous set, at least for what concerns the issue of speech-writing. Dionysius is critical of speeches which deflect from the principle of appropriateness to the characters pronouncing them and to the setting, exactly as were Callisthenes and (though in a different form and with different emphases) Polybius, Diodorus, and Lucian. He also objects to involution and excess in rhetorical ornatus, since these are conducive to two flaws to be avoided in all circumstances: “coldness” (ψυχρότης) and lack of “clarity” (σαφήνεια). Dionysius (46) and Polybius (12.25i.5) express a similar criticism of Thucydides and Timaeus, respectively, when they stigmatize the occasional juvenile vein that also mars the style of inexperienced orators. Dionysius moves from the premise that the speeches are wholly the work of Thucydides: this can be established on the grounds of chapter 41, in which Dionysius supplies a paraphrase of the first, controversial statement 44  According to Tompkins (1972), Tompkins (1993a), and Tompkins (1993b). On ἠθοποιΐα see Hagen (1966) and the essays in Amato and Schamp (2005), focussing on the Imperial age and late Antiquity. 45  Nicolai (2011).

62

Nicolai

by Thucydides on speech-writing and then quotes ad verbum the participial clause. His paraphrase is rigorously conducted on the principle of the “convenient” or πρέπον (προσήκοντα, ἁρμόττοντα) as applied to the orators and the setting in which they are made to speak. One must thus discard the exquisitely modern notion of Thucydides as providing House-of-Commons-style transcripts, intent on reporting the ipsissima verba of the several speakers, and assume the point of view of the rhetorician of antiquity, who would read the speeches in Thucydides and regard them as pieces of rhetoric. However, one should also be clear on the point that Dionysius (as well as, I would add, the general readership of antiquity) would have regarded the rift between ἀλήθεια and εἰκός—which we see as tremendous—as very minor, almost to the point of vanishing, as in the instance of the speeches reported by historians.

CHAPTER 3

Speeches of Historians and Historiographical Criticism: Timaeus’ Speeches in Polybius’ Book XII José María Candau Polybius’ Book XII, of which large fragments have been preserved, was devoted entirely to historiographical criticism. Polybius passes judgement on his Hellenistic predecessors, although Timaeus is the main target of his attacks. The starting point for some of his arguments is his censure of the orations that Timaeus inserted in his work. As a result, Polybius is harshly critical of the speeches of Gelon’s ambassadors, Hermocrates and Timoleon, which correspond to the three most frequent types of oration in Greek historiography: λόγοι πρεσβευτικοί (ambassadorial speeches), δημηγορίαι (speeches addressed to popular assemblies or councils), and παρακλήσεις (exhortations by generals to soldiers). The present chapter will focus on the speeches that Timaeus attributed to the ambassadors of Gelon of Syracuse. 1

Timaeus’ Reputation

During the Hellenistic period, the work of Timaeus, who was born in Sicily and lived between 350 and 260 bce,1 enjoyed wide circulation. Jacoby traced his influence on a large range of authors, from poets (Callimachus, Lycophron, Apollonius of Rhodes) to geographers (Artemidorus, Pseudo-Scymnus) and paradoxographers (Antigonus of Carystus).2 His most famous work, the History of Sicily, focused on the Greek West, principally Sicily, but also the Greek cities in Italy. The Punic Wars and Roman expansion drew attention to this area of the Mediterranean Sea, which may have contributed to the promotion of Timaeus’ work.3 Finally, Timaeus has been considered one of the models that inspired the creators of Roman historiography.4 1  Cf. Baron (2013) 16–22. 2  Jacoby (1955) 527. Modern studies, from Geffcken (1892) 177–178 to Feeney (2007) 47 and Baron (2013) 52–54, agree on the significant impact of Timaeus. For further details, see Candau (2004–2005), 16. 3  As Laqueur (1936) 1201–1202 already observed. See also Feeney (2007) 52–57. 4  Cf. Feeney (2007) 52–53; Baron (2013) 54–55. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_005

64

Candau

Even though all this added to the reputation of this important historian, it should be mentioned that he was also a controversial figure from the very beginning. Ister the Callimachean, whose floruit is set in the mid-third century bce,5 wrote a work entitled In Response to Timaeus.6 A few years later, Polemon of Ilium also composed a treatise In Response to Timaeus.7 The greatest impact and influence on the later tradition, however, corresponds to the critical analysis of Polybius. In this respect, the information provided by the Suda proves significant: eleven of the twenty text entries originally proceeding from Timaeus are taken from Polybius’ book XII.8 The sharp accusations levelled by Polybius against him are tinged with malice and extremely unjust, as contemporary criticism has long recognized.9 Polybius, who is a harsh and unfair critic, is at the same time the most important transmitter of Timaeus.10 The recovery of Timaeus, therefore, must overcome a preliminary obstacle, namely lifting the veil of hostility hanging over him. And the person who most actively encouraged this hostility is, at the same time, our main source of information concerning the author to be recovered. 2

Polybius’ Criticism: A General Assessment

In 12.25a–b Polybius begins his assessment of Timaeus’ speeches: they are not truthful compositions, he says, because they do not seek to reproduce “what was actually said” or “the general meaning of a speech” (oὐ γὰρ τἀ ῥηθήντα γέγραφεν, οὐδ’ὡς ἐρρήθη κατ’ἀλήθειαν),11 but rather to show the rules of “how to speak properly” (ὡς δεῖ ῥηθῆναι). Consequently, they are like school exercises, whose aim is to display the rhetorical skills of a schoolboy, and as a result, the true meaning of the historiographical speech—which is to find out what words were actually spoken and to explain why what was done or proposed was a 5  Jacoby (1954) 619. 6  FGrHist 566TT 16 and 25 (= FGrHist 334 F 59) 7  FGrHist 566T T 26 (FHG III, p. 126, fol. 39). For the dates of Polemon, see Lasserre (1979) 971. 8  Cf. Candau (2010) 299. 9  This theme appears in the studies of Classen (1883) 9–13 and Geffcken (1892) 180–183. An updated bibliography is found in Candau (2010) 299–300 and Baron (2009) 3–4. 10  In the list of testimonies to and fragments of Timaeus provided by the electronic edition of FGrHist (Concordance Jacoby-Source), the name of Polybius appears fifty times. For the dominant presence of Polybius in testimonies to and fragments of Timaeus, see also Baron (2013) 58. 11  See Pédech’s translation (1961) 34 and Walbank’s comments (1967) 385–386.

Speeches of Historians and Historiographical Criticism

65

failure or a success—becomes distorted.12 At the end of 25b, Polybius leaves aside the question of the speeches for several paragraphs until 25i.3, when he takes up his arguments again in a rather confused and disorganized way.13 His main points are as follows: Timaeus’ speeches are “misleading, puerile, and pedantic” (ἀνάληθες καὶ μειρακιῶδες καὶ διατριβικόν). His tendency to verbal display leads to failure and exposure to contempt as has happened to many others. In fact, Timaeus opens the door to “all kinds of possible speeches” (πάντας τοὺς ἐνόντας λόγους), but if our goal is to benefit the reader, it is necessary, on the contrary, always to make use of the best and most appropriate speeches for the occasion. Nevertheless, distinguishing which are the most appropiate requires personal experience and practice. With such experience, the historian will be able to show the circumstances in which a speech is composed, explain the actual meaning of the words uttered, and clarify the reasons why the orator succeeded or failed. Without such experience, the result is empty bookish verbosity. In order to complete his observations, Polybius proposes examining some passages of the speeches that Timaeus puts in the mouths of Gelon, Hermocrates, Timoleon and Pyrrhus. 3

Polybius’ Criticism: Pragmatic History

This last disquisition about the speeches is from the final section of Book XII, where the critique of Timaeus focuses on his lack of experience and his limitations due to his bookish nature. What Polybius calls the βιβλιακὴ ἕξις (“bookish nature”) of Timaeus14 lies at the heart of his deficiencies and is the basic reason why his historical work lacks precision and rigor, does not bring out the truth, and, because it is remote from reality, is also artificial, useless and implausible. Polybius’ text, on the other hand, eulogizes the figure of the historian who has experience of political and military matters, the only one in a position to judge and explain the events of the past. This context is important because it helps to determine the meaning of the expression “all kinds of possible speeches” (πάντας τοὺς ἐνόντας λόγους), which Polybius used to define Timaeus’ speeches.

12  Τὸ πραθὲν ἤ ῥηθὲν is an expression that can be found in Thucydides 1.22; cf. Pédech (1961) 34. 13  Walbank (1967) 399: “this confused and clumsy formulation of how the historian deals with the problem of speeches.” 14  Plb. 12.25h.

66

Candau

As Pédech observed, the expression appears in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ de Thucydide.15 Dionysius points out that a sign of Thucydides’ shortcomings is that, at certain points in his work, a speech necessary to maintain a proper proportion with an adjacent passage is missing. The omission, Dionysius says, is not due to the fact that Thucydides was unable “to invent the possible speeches” (τοὺς ἐνόντας εὑρεῖν τε καὶ ἐξειπεῖν λόγους). Dionysius’ text indicates that the field of the ἐνόντας λόγους is that of the εὕρεσις, the Latin inventio, or in other words, the creative field that consists of eliciting the possibilities of development contained within a subject.16 Nevertheless, Polybius does not reproach Timaeus because he had invented the speeches in his work. The adjective πάντας carries the negative meaning, which must be understood here as indicating that the criterion used by Timaeus was too broad. In fact, Polybius admits that the historian, any historian, faces the choice of deciding “how many and which of all existing speeches he should include” (πόσοις καὶ ποίοις τῶν ἐνόντων χρηστέον).17 Nonetheless, faced with this dilemma, the criterion of choice should seek to benefit the reader and should have a practical political role. The first aim is to obtain a “true notion” (ἔννοια ἀλεθινή) of the plans and processes explained in the speeches and the last is to judge similar cases using this ἔννοια in order to “succeed in the matter in which we are at present engaged” (κατευστοχεῖν ἀεὶ τῶν προκειμένων). Lessons that have been learnt from personal experience and practice provide a valid guide in this process; the lack of such experience leads to long-winded futile writing. When Polybius criticizes Timaeus’ speeches, he confines his ideas to what he calls “pragmatic history,” the history that would have been written by a statesman in the Greek and Roman sense—in other words, someone who is simultaneously a politician and a soldier—to educate those who were or aspired to be statesmen.18 In the context of these ideas, the composition of speeches is conceived as an exercise in political teaching: its function is to set out the factors that the politician making decisions in a particular situation should take into account. In the words of Thucydides, a speech has to express what was required in the circumstances at the time (περὶ τῶν αἰεὶ παρόντων

15  Pédech (1961) 41, in reference to D.H., Th. 15. 16  Lausberg (1975) 243. 17   For the relationship between historiographical speeches and the words actually uttered, see Marincola (2007) 120–128; for Polybius’ attitude, see ibid., 125: “Polybius, like Thucydides (but perhaps without the genius of his predecessor), chooses to reproduce speeches in his own particular way.” 18  Gelzer (1964) 160. For more details, see the bibliography cited by Baron (2013) 66. Also Sacks (1981) 171–186 and Herchenroeder (2010) 69–124.

Speeches of Historians and Historiographical Criticism

67

τὰ δέοντα).19 Timaeus’ approach is different and Polybius criticizes it as a source of vacuous pretentious writing, but without clearly specifying what guidelines Timaeus followed. Polybius’ statements, therefore, are a “cover-text,” a text that preserves information about a lost historian, but at the same time conceals it.20 4

“Authorial Commentary”: Polybius and Timaeus

One component of the historiographical speech is what Baron calls the “authorial commentary,”21 in which a speaking character is used as a mouthpiece for explaining questions and general principles that are important for understanding events. The authorial commentary offers a rational and abstract analysis of the questions that concern the events being related; in this way, it takes on major responsibility for one of the speech’s basic functions, namely, to serve as a counterbalance to the predominantly sequential narrative of ancient historiography.22 It tends to appear at crucial moments and may appear in different thematic fields. Marincola has drawn attention to the way in which the “constitutional debate” of Herodotus, which analyzes and compares monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy, deals with a question that is germane to the situation in which Herodotus inserts it, but at the same time has universal scope. The same can be said of the contrast between monarchy and oligarchy, which Cassius Dio explains through the speeches of Gaius Maecenas and Agrippa. Some speeches by Latin historians are used with the intention of presenting the narrative circumstances that frame them and at the same time discussing broader issues having to do with imperialism and imperial politics. The debate between Cleon and Diodotus in Thucydides includes reflexions about how a state should treat its subjects and in what terms the self-interest of the state should be conceived.23 In his criticism of Timaeus, as we have seen, Polybius clearly sets out his ideas about the thematic field in which the authorial commentary should be developed, namely, political teaching, which is where history written by and for politicians belongs.24 Polybius’ accusations of pedantry, emptiness, childishness, and so on are the only direct information we have about Timaeus, although 19  Th. 1.22.1. 20  Schepens (1997) 167. 21  Baron (2013) 187–190. 22  Marincola (2007) 119 and Wiater (2010) 75–79 and 81. 23  Marincola (2007) with reference to Hdt. 3.80; D.C. 52.1.40; Sall. Hist. 4.69; Liv. 9.1; Tac. Agr. 30–32 and ann. 12.37; Th. 37–48. 24  Cf. Marincola (2007) 123–125.

68

Candau

some indirect evidence can be gleaned from other information transmitted by Polybius himself, specifically reports of the speeches attributed by Timaeus to the ambassadors of Gelon of Syracuse, Hermocrates and Timoleon.25 5

Himera. Herodotus’ Account

The speeches relating to Gelon, which we shall now focus on, took place in 481 bce, that is to say, on the eve of the Persian invasion of Greece and the battle of Himera, the important victory of 480 bce in which the tyrant Gelon of Syracuse, together with Theron of Acragas, defeated the Carthaginians. According to Herodotus,26 emissaries from the Greek allies against Persia went to Syracuse to meet Gelon, a man with considerable power, who in fact ruled over Sicily. Herodotus inserts six speeches. First, the emissaries ask Gelon for military help and warn him that the Persian invasion also represents a threat to Syracuse. Then, Gelon reproaches the allies because they did not help him during previous conflicts with the Carthaginians27, although he will be willing to cooperate if he has military command. The Laconian, Syagrus, responds haughtily, with a speech rejecting Gelon’s command. Gelon reproaches the arrogance of Syagrus’ words and demands at least to be given command of the fleet. Next, the Athenian representative speaks: he does not accept Gelon’s last proposal and, for his part, demands Athenian command of the fleet. In the sixth and last speech, Gelon finally refuses to cooperate and dismisses the emissaries. 6

Himera: Timaeus’ Account

From earliest times, the battle of Himera has been presented as a fundamental chapter in the Greek struggle against the barbarians. The parallel with the 25  Polybius states that he will also (25k.3) comment on a speech that Timaeus puts in the mouth of Pyrrhus, although this comment has not come down to us. Pédech (1961) 46 hints at its possible content. 26  Hdt. 7.153,1; 157–162. 27  Contrary to what Herodotus says, there is no information about conflicts between Gelon and the Carthaginians before the battle of Himera. Well-known historians (Niebuhr, Meyer, Busolt; see references in Niese [1910] 1007), have supposed that Gelon’s words refer to the battle of Himera, the date of which changes, therefore, to 481. The words have also been accepted without changing the date of Himera, see Kiechle (1979) 729. Nevertheless, Asheri (1988) 767 considers the announcement of Herodotus to be “an item of Panhellenic propaganda.” In this sense, Vignolo Munson (2006) 264–265 describes Gelon’s statements as a product of the propaganda deployed by the Sicilian tyrants.

Speeches of Historians and Historiographical Criticism

69

major Greek victories during the Greco-Persian Wars already appears in Pindar, while Herodotus records a Sicilian tradition that places the battle of Himera on the same day as the battle of Salamis.28 In the fourth century bce, the Hellenic dimension of Himera and its assimilation to the victories over the Persians was emphasized by Ephorus, and there is a short comment in the Poetics of Aristotle about the coincidence between Salamis and the battles against the Carthaginians in Sicily. Later, Diodorus projects the view of these conflicts as a Panhellenic event comparable to the Greco-Persian Wars.29 Himera, in short, was presented in later tradition as a glorious chapter in the wars between the Greeks and the barbarians. The legend about it taking place at the same time as Salamis heralds a theme that is particularly relevant to Timaeus’ work—the synchronicity of great historical events denoting a view of history in which allusions to Providence and supernatural forces play some role. According to Polybius, Timaeus modified Herodotus’ narrative with respect to the site of the meeting,30 by stating that it took place in Corinth, not Syracuse. The representatives of the Greek coalition against Persia were assembled there and it was there that they received Gelon’s ambassadors. The initiative for the defence of Greece was attributed therefore to Gelon. In accordance with the change of location, Gelon did not speak, although his ambassadors did. In the words of Polybius, they made long speeches,31 praising the size of Sicily and historic Sicilian endeavors, which were depicted as the most glorious in all Greek history; they extolled Sicilian wisdom, as superior to any other and “the politicians of Syracuse as the most worthy to exercise command and the closest to the gods” (τῶν δὲ πραγματικῶν ἡγεμονικωτάτους καὶ θειοτάτους τοὺς ἐκ Συρακουσῶν). 7

Timaeus’ Account of Himera. Sikelika as Helleniká

When Timaeus moved the place of the meeting from Corinth to Syracuse, it may have been to emphasize the Panhellenic dimension of Gelon as a leader and his policy as directed towards the defence of Greece. If, as Timaeus 28  Pi, P., 72–80; Hdt. 7.166. 29  Ephorus, FGrHist 70 F 186 (= Σ Pi., P. i. 146a); Arist., Po 1459a 24–9; D.S. 11.1.4. 30  Plb. 12.26b. 31  It is not entirely clear how many speeches Timaeus inserted against the six speeches of Herodotus. Polybius uses the expression “Timaeus spends such a wealth of speeches on these points” (Τίμαιος εἰς ἕκαστα τῶν προειρημένων τοσούτους ἐκτείνει λόγους, 12.26b.4), in which λόγους can mean “speeches” (cf. Baron [2013] 199); if that is its meaning, Timaeus must have inserted an enormous number of speeches.

70

Candau

claimed, it was Gelon who sent ambassadors to promote an alliance against the barbarians, his policy was manifestly pro-Hellenic in orientation. More than anything, the victory of Himera meant a victory of Greek civilization over external enemies. Praising Greek battles against the barbarians was a topical theme of some significance when Timaeus was writing. The Celtic invasion of Greece, which threatened the sanctuary of Delphi, took place in 279 bce. In the context of this praise, though, it does seem strange that Sicily should take pride of place. Athens and Sparta were the traditional birthplaces of the human models that embodied the ideal of Greek παιδεία, so that giving preference to the sages and political leaders of Sicily implied an important change in assessment, a change which also affected the boundaries of the genre that characterized Sikeliká as local history. In a well-known article published at the beginning of the twentieth century, Jacoby described the characteristics of the different Greek historiographical genres. The most prestigious may have been the genre of the Πράξεις Ἑλληνικαί, the “Hellenikatypus,” in the expression used by Jacoby. The work of Thucydides offered a model for this sort of composition, whose features were consolidated in the Ἑλληνικά, written by those who continued Thucydides. One of these features is the adoption of a Panhellenic point of view, capable of superseding the narrow view of local history.32 If we start from this assumption, the speeches that Timaeus attributes to Gelon’s ambassadors belong more properly to compositions classified as Ἑλληνικά. In other words, when Timaeus emphasizes the Panhellenic supremacy of Sicily, he shifts his Σικελικά from the status of local history to one corresponding to a general history of Greece (Ἑλληνικά). It is a fact that the genres of Greek historiography cannot be divided into clear-cut categories. Jacoby’s division is too rigid, and it becomes a difficulty if we accept it unquestioningly.33 Nevertheless, his general ideas may have some functional value. In this respect, it may be helpful to handle Jacoby’s categories using the concept of genre developed by Conte. According to Conte, the genre is a literary strategy; as a result, it implies an addressee and a response, is defined in terms of its relationships with other genres that make up the literary culture, and its particularity lies in the fact that each genre only admits content of a specific type.34

32  Jacoby (1909) 36. 33  See Marincola (1999). Diachronic aspects, as Marincola rightly says, are the most unacceptable part of Jacoby’s theory. 34  Conte (1991) 153–173.

Speeches of Historians and Historiographical Criticism

71

The strategy followed by Timaeus in the speeches of Gelon’s ambassadors seems to be clear: to insert ideas and mental images characteristic of the Ἑλληνικά into his Σικελικά, to stretch the boundaries of the genres, and to play with the expectations of the reader. This strategy probably had precursors in other Hellenistic historians. The mixing of genres (“Kreuzung der Gattungen”) was a common literary practice in the Hellenistic period and for this reason Timaeus’ use of it should come as no surprise.35 If his use of this strategy can be accepted, a conjecture about the “authorial comment” of the speeches we are examining can also be accepted. Praise of the glories of Sicily and of the achievements and qualities of its leaders and the determination to emphasize the Panhellenic dimension of its past suggest that, by means of the ambassadors, Timaeus was presenting a lofty view, so to speak, of the history of Sicily. An important objective would be to give meaning to the historical record of the island and to underline its decisive contribution to a superior history, the history of Greece and the struggle of Hellenism against the barbarians. Timaeus used the speeches, therefore, to expound on the history of Sicily, whose various chapters would be inscribed within a loftier plan, focusing on the struggles and endeavors of the Greek civilization. This strategy may have been a significant component of the angle or point of view from which the historian developed his interpretation, his “authorial commentary.” 8

Timaeus’ Strategy of Literary Communication: Rhetoric and Aesthetic Design

Timaeus’ perspective is very different from that of Polybius. Polybius thinks that speeches should recreate the plans and decisions of the historical actors, so that one of the differences between his speeches and Timaeus’ would be the relative vantage points from which each of the two historians considered them. In principle, Polybius’ perspective, which is determined by the events and actors in the account, requires the speech to be more closely connected to its narrative context. On the other hand, the fact that Timaeus develops his speeches from a higher vantage point means that the speech can have a much weaker connection with the narrative context. Consequently, the possibility exists that there is a different relationship with the facts that lead to the speech. This difference can be analyzed by reviewing the strategy of literary communication (as Conte calls it), that is to say, the terms in which the author 35  See Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004) 17–18 and Gutzwiller (2007) 173–174. The expression “Kreuzung der Gattungen” (“Intersection of genres”) comes from Kroll (1924).

72

Candau

establishes his relationship with the reader. In Polybius’ case, we know what his strategy is because he states it repeatedly:36 one of providing didactic content aimed at a clearly defined reader, the politician or trainee politician. With regard to Timaeus, it is necessary to resort once again to indirect information. When Polybius describes the speeches that Timaeus attributes to Gelon’s ambassadors, he mentions the praise of Sicily, its history, and its inhabitants. Pédech observes that, according to Menander Rhetor, this was the order to be followed for an encomium of a country.37 Polybius ends with a comparison: Timaeus’ speeches resemble schoolboys’ exercises in paradox, such as a eulogy of Thersites or a diatribe against Penelope. Pédech and Walbank notice that both these figures often provide the theme for more or less serious compositions that were written as a demonstration of oratorical skills or formed part of rhetorical training.38 It is legitimate to bear in mind the animosity in Polybius’ accusations. We may even question whether rhetorical excess was in fact a hallmark of Timaeus’ speeches, given that this information, transmitted by Polybius and Plutarch, is not shared (or at least not entirely) by other testimonies.39 Nevertheless, according to these same testimonies, Timaeus’ attention to formal aspects was characteristic of style: in the opinion of Cicero, he was a homo eloquentissimus and a representative of concinnitas and the Asian venustas;40 for Dionysius of Halicarnassus, he was an “affected” (ψυχρός) follower of the Isocratic style;41 and the author of De sublimitate comments that he was brimming with affectation, though sometimes clever and not lacking greatness on occasions.42 We can say, therefore, that Timaeus imposed a strong literary imprint on his work. The attention to formal aspects was probably not restricted to style, but also concerned the design and composition. The fragmentary nature of our texts does not allow us to make any confident assertions. In addition, this facet of Timaeus’ work has not been sufficiently studied. Nonetheless, Vattuone proved that, at least in the sections dedicated to Agathocles and the criticism of Aristotle, Timaeus’ compositional schemata derive from parodic drama.43 36  The clearest statement can be found in 12.28.3–5. 37  Pédech (1961) 141. See Men. Rh. pp. 344–346 Spengel (Πῶς χρὴ χώραν ἐπαινεῖν = pp. 77–81 R.-W.); pp. 346–351 (Πῶς χρὴ πόλεις ἐπαινεῖν = pp. 81–91 R.-W.). 38  Pédech (1961) 141 n. 35 and Walbank (1967) 404–405. 39  See Baron (2013) 174–176. Plutarch’s testimony can be found in Nic. 1.1–4 = FGrHist 566 T 18. 40  Cic. de orat. 2.55–58 = FGrHist 566 T 20; Brut. 325 = T 21. 41  D.H. Din. 8 = T 22. 42  Π. ὕψ. 4.1 = T 23. 43  Vattuone (1991) 34–39, 77–78.

Speeches of Historians and Historiographical Criticism

73

The same tendency to employ compositional devices taken from other literary genres is relevant to several outstanding historians of the Hellenistic period. Callisthenes, Cleitarchus, and the representatives of the so-called “tragic historiography,” Duris and Phylarchus,44 not only employed a bright and lively expression, but also incorporated tools and designs that were common in epic and drama into their works. As an example, it will be sufficient to quote Jacoby’s description (even today, the best description given) of Cleitarchus’ literary manner. Aesthetic design is paramount in Cleitarchus according to Jacoby; formal problems come to the fore and the main concern of the historian is stylistic elaboration; epic poetry or drama provide the models to be followed and the historical facts are the material used by the author to display his art and exhibit his literary skills.45 9

History, Erudition, and Aesthetic Design. Timaeus and Others

The appropriation of resources taken from other genres is a relevant factor that illustrates Timaeus’ strategy of literary communication. Another pertinent factor is his erudition, which was not only a characteristic element but also a distinctive feature of Timaeus’ writing, as is pointed out in various testimonies, beginning with Polybius himself, that describe Timaeus as eruditissimus and πολυίστωρ.46 An eloquent example is provided by his List of Olympic Victors (Ὀλυμπιονῖκαι), a composition that marked a milestone in the development of chronology.47 Other Hellenistic historians who incorporated literary devices in their historical works also cultivated this kind of erudition, which may be classed as antiquarianism, or historical and philological learning. One such is Callisthenes, the first alexandrographos. For Schwarz, who 44  Concerning the complex phenomenon of tragic historiography, see references in Candau (2011) 147–155. 45  Jacoby (1921) 629–630. 46  FGrHist 566 T 10 (= Plb. 11.12.1); T 11 (= D.S. 5.1.3); T 20 (= Cic. de orat. 2.55–58 [eruditissimus]); T 23 (=Π. ὕψ. 4.1 [πολυίστωρ]). 47  Cf. Jacoby (1955) 538: “Es ist unzweifelhaft, dass er dadurch dass  Eratosthenes hier in seine Fußstapfe trat, den Sieg der Olympiadenrechnung in der Wissenschaft entschieden hat; und es scheint sicher dass er die praktische form des chronikalischen Handbuchs geschaffen hat...” (“It is indisputable that he [Timaeus] through Erastothenes, who followed in his footsteps here, brought to the science the victory of the Olympic chronology; and it seems also certain that he created the practical form of the chronographical handbook...”). Christensen (2007) 277: “Timaeus broke new ground in the Historiai by making use of numbered Olympiads to date historical events.”

74

Candau

developed the concept of “tragic historiography,” Callisthenes was, along with Duris, the first to put into practice the precepts of this historiographical movement.48 Schwarz’s hypothesis is certainly mistaken, as Walbank pointed out in two papers published long ago.49 Nonetheless, the “artistic” features erroneously considered to be distinctive of tragic historiography are already present in Callisthenes.50 The urge to shape his work by means of formal schemata originating from other literary genres is indeed evident in several fragments.51 Moreover, Callisthenes actively collaborated in the scholarly projects carried out in the Peripatetic school, and a title typical of such projects, a List (πίναξ) of Pythian Victors, appears under his name. Similarly, he is considered to be the author of a collection of ἀποφθέγματα and a Periplus combining geography and mythology, which explained toponymy using pieces of information from legends (although the authorship of the two works is uncertain).52 Scholarship and historiographical writing with an artistic design also appear combined in the two great representatives of tragic historiography, Duris and Phylarchus. Among other learned treatises, Duris wrote On tragedy, On Euripides and Sophocles, On Homeric Problems, On painting, and On Contests.53 Under Phylarchus’ name are the compositions entitled54 Ἐπιτομὴ Μυθική, a compendium of mythological stories,55 Ἄγραφα, a treatise with a collection of unwritten versions of myths, On the Epiphanies of Zeus,56 and Περὶ Εὑρημάτων.57

48  Schwarz (1897) 560–562 and Schwarz (1900) 107 and 127–128. 49  Walbank (1955) and Walbank (1960). See also Prandi (1985) 134–135. 50  This is Walbank’s argument against Schwarz’s hypothesis (cf. Walbank [1960] 232–233). 51  See, for example, FGrHist 124 FF 44, 14 and 31 (with Pearson’s commentary [1960] 36–38). 52  A discussion of the works attributed to Callisthenes in Jacoby (1919) 1684–1686. Jacoby underlines the link between Callisthenes and the scholarly output of Aristotle’s school. See also Prandi (1985) 15–16. 53  See FGrHist 76 FF 27–34 54  Concerning Ἄγραφα, see FGrHist 81 F 47 (= Sch. Aristid. 309 D.). Catalog of the other works in FGrHist 81 T 1 (= Suda, s. v. Φύλαρχος [Φ 828 Adler]). For the evaluation of the mentioned works, I follow Kroymann’s commentary (1956) 472–476. 55  This could be an epitome of the abundant mythical material included in his work or an independent composition. In any case, the fragments of Phylarchus show a strong tendency to accept mythological versions different from the vulgate (see Kroymann [1956] 474, who cites as a proof FF 15, 28 and 32b). 56  The title given by the Suda, Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Διὸς ἐπιφανείας (“On Zeus’ Epiphany”) does not seem authentic. Kroyman (1956) 475 observes that the most probable correction may be to replace ἐπιφανείας by the plural ἐπιφανειῶν. 57  For the “Heurematography” and its constitution as an independent genre during the fourth century bce see Zhmud (2006) 2444.

Speeches of Historians and Historiographical Criticism

75

Two recent studies have highlighted the relationship between philology and history throughout Antiquity, particularly since the Hellenistic period.58 Ancient philologists used texts of historians for hermeneutical purposes, to explain certain facts of the works they analyzed. This first link is known. More surprising is the birth of the philology of historical prose and the appearance of the historian-cum-philologist. The scholar who combines the figures of the historian and the philologist is perhaps the most meaningful instance of the link between the two disciplines. This connection, more frequent than has been traditionally assumed, becomes more common from the beginning of the Hellenistic period.59 Ister the Callimachean, Philochorus, Hermippus, and Satyrus of Callatis clearly represent the figure of the philologist who deals with historical problems.60 Callisthenes, Duris, Phylarchus, and Timaeus fall into the same category, but form a separate subgroup. They are also scholars competent in history and philology, although literary values and artistic design are dominant features of their work. The hallmark of their writing is not its higher or lower quality, but the primacy of aesthetic patterns, which are valued just as much as the historical truth or the semblance of probability, and perhaps more so. The figure of the scholar-artist of historical prose has a counterpart in Hellenistic literature, with the Alexandrian poetae docti being an obvious example. On the other hand, the literary figure we have sketched must certainly be carefully handled. The information we have on this prototype of historian is sparse and a good deal less than what we know of the Alexandrian poets. Analogies, therefore, should not be taken too far, although it seems likely that the strategy of literary communication was similar in both cases. Let us explore this possibility with regard to the work of Timaeus. 10

Timaeus’ Compositional Devices: Hellenistic Aesthetics?

As we have seen, Polybius insists that historiographical speeches have to be plausible and probable. He clearly defines his purpose (didactic) and his receptor (the politician), thereby establishing a direct and explicit relationship with the reader, in accordance with his pragmatic view of history. The function of

58  Montana (2009) and Montanari (2013). 59  Montana (2009) 175 and Montanari (2013) 2. 60  See Montana (2009) 177; on Ister, see also Berti (2013). Besides his Ἀτθίς, Philochorus also wrote several works of scholarly content; see the catalog of his production with commentary in Costa (2007) 4–6 and T 1 (= Suda, s.v. Φιλόχορος [Φ 441 Adler]).

76

Candau

speeches is, above all, explanatory. They have to make the mental, emotional, and rational processes of historical agents visible, and they have to construct a credible image of the circumstances in which they are inserted. In short, they represent the basis from which historical actions spring.61 The Alexandrian poets tend to pose a more complicated approach. In their work, the dialog between reader and text is often tacit and indirect, with many implicit appeals and hidden references. Some of the instruments used for this dialog are allusions that presuppose common but not explicitly mentioned readings; verbal echoes that suggest agreement or disagreement about poetic principles; the remaking of literary tradition to accommodate new contexts and interests; or, in general terms, different types of experiments with genres.62 We cannot know with any certainty whether compositional devices of this kind were present in Timaeus’ speeches, although there are some indications that there might have been, or at least something similar. General indicators include the close link between Timaeus and the aesthetics of his time, the wide dissemination of his work, and probably the analogies made between him (as scholar and artist of historical prose) and the figure of the poeta doctus. More precise indications are provided by the information we have about the consciously formal design of Timaeus’ writing.63 The most important indications, however, come from Polybius’ criticism, whose comparison with schoolboy exercises and his complaint about the excessive use of paradox, hyperbole and commonplaces shows that the form of Timaeus’ speeches was carefully planned and that they were conceived as literary pieces. Polybius’ words are clearly hostile, and his unsympathetic criticism does not take Timaeus’ aesthetic concerns and compositional aims into account. Nonetheless, it is not otiose to regard it as providing helpful information, namely, the idea that Timaeus’ speeches employed formal procedures comparable to those of other Hellenistic literati. If so, they may have been highly refined compositions, written artifacts that were the result of a strategy of literary communication rooted in Hellenistic aesthetics. 11

Conclusions

In a recent publication about speeches in Greco-Roman historiography, the following premises were established: 1) the speech should not be explained in isolation, but in connection or interaction with its context; 2) in spite of the common features that unify all ancient historiographical production, 61  Cf. Wiater (2010) 77, 84 and 87. 62  See Gutzwiller (2007) 169–177. 63  Cf. notes 39–41

Speeches of Historians and Historiographical Criticism

77

different historians tend to exploit their speeches in different ways; 3) a study of the authenticity of a speech is less stimulating than a study of its effects on the reader.64 We can try to apply these premises to the speeches that Timaeus puts in the mouths of Gelon’s ambassadors. The results, outlined here in summary, may be as follows. As regards the first point, the context was the Greco-Persian Wars, the battle of Himera and, from a broader perspective, the battles between Greeks and barbarians. We do not know whether Timaeus accepted the synchronicity between Himera and Thermopylae, which Diodorus chronicled as the result of divine intervention.65 Synchronicity abounds in the Σικελικά,66 as do references to divinity or the interference of supernatural forces in history.67 We should remember that, according to Polybius, Gelon’s ambassadors praised the fact that the politicians of Syracuse were close to the gods.68 It is very likely that, in order to bring out the importance of Himera, their speeches were larded with allusions to Providence or invocations to the intervention of the gods in history. The second point may be illustrated by means of the differences between Polybius’ and Timaeus’ speeches. Polybius produces useful didactic speeches that focus on providing a rational explanation for the course of events. We may assume that Timaeus conceived of his speeches as literary artifacts that were included in a work whose artistic layout and compositional aims were complex and sophisticated. Gutzwiller observes that “epigrams as they were inscribed on tombstones and dedicatory objects, . . . were written to be seen rather than heard in pre-Hellenistic Greek culture. Just as epigrams were adapted to new subjects in the Hellenistic age, so some aspects of their original visual context were adapted to aesthetic uses in bookrolls.”69 A comparison of the speeches of Polybius and Timaeus reveals something similar—that since Timaeus’ speeches are not focused on providing a rational explanation for historical events, they can be adapted to other subjects and different uses. Concerning the third premise, the effect on the reader, we may start from Herodotus’ version of the debate between Gelon and the Greek representatives. 64  Pausch (2010a) 3. 65  D.S. 11.24.1. See also the references in notes 26 and 27. 66  See FGrHist 566 F60 (= D.H. 1.74.1); F105 (= Plu. Moralia 717c); F106 (= D.S. 13.108.4). The synchronicity referring to the foundations of Rome and Carthage is the most famous; see Feeney (2007) 43 and 92–95 67  FGrHist 566 F 29 (= Aesch. scholia, ed. Dilts, 2.10); F102a (=Π. ὕψ. 4.3); F102b (= Plu., Nic. 1.2). 68  Plb. 12.26b.4. 69  Gutzwiller (2007) 180. See also Bing and Bruss (2007) 4, 8, 14.

78

Candau

When an historian composed a speech that already existed in the work of a predecessor, he was to some extent conditioned by the predecessor, to some extent because he had the option of modifying or recasting the existing speech.70 Nothing indicates that Timaeus was an exception. On the contrary, the learned and cultivated character of his work strongly suggests that he composed the speeches of Gelon’s ambassadors taking Herodotus’ report into account. In contrast to Herodotus, Timaeus’ speeches proposed a new Panhellenic leadership with Sicily as protagonist. This proposal moved the heart of Panhellenism to western Greece. It also entailed a historiographical shift, with the Sikeliká playing the part of the Helleniká. For the reader, all this would be novel. Nonetheless, the main novelty of Timaeus’ speeches was not perhaps in their content, but in their different relationship with the narrative. At this point, a comparison with Polybius may again prove helpful. According to Polybius, there should be a solid relationship between speech and narrative. Political teaching results from the interpretation that a speech makes of its actual setting, that is to say, of the narrative event that gave rise to the appearance of the speech. In this way, speech and narrative are connected to each other and the outcome of their connection is political teaching. In the case of the speeches attributed by Timaeus to Gelon’s ambassadors, we do not know exactly what their connection was with their narrative setting, although their content—let us remember that, according to Polybius, they were hyperbolic in their praise of Sicily and its leaders—suggests that this connection was, at least as regards the interpretation of the factual environment, rather weak or, at least, lacking in precision. It may even be supposed that Timaeus, through the mouths of the ambassadors, was speaking to his audience and ignoring the logic and rationality of the narrative. Ignoring these factors may have provided a strong reason for Polybius’ criticism, even if it is not the only one motivating his rather unjust disapproval. 70  See Marincola (2007) 129–130.

CHAPTER 4

The Speeches in Justin’s Corpusculum Florum: The Selection and Manipulation of Trogus’ Historiae Philippicae Luis Ballesteros Pastor Justin’s Epitome is difficult to categorize. If we were to take the title at face value, we might expect to find an abridged version of the content of the Philippic Histories written by Pompeius Trogus.1 However, as Justin himself states in the Preface, his intention was to produce a corpusculum florum, in other words, a selection of passages that he found particularly interesting.2 So, unlike other epitomes, such as those by Florus or Eutropius, Justin does not offer an abbreviated narrative of the contents of a larger work, but a collection of more or less carefully assembled episodes, in which certain events are developed at length, while others are either treated en passant or ignored completely.3 Speeches play a key role in Justin’s work, often highlighting moments of climax in the narration. Indeed, it is significant that one single speech in the Epitome—the harangue by Mithridates—is longer than some entire books.4 These rhetorical passages, therefore, constitute the fundamental framework of the text and it is obvious that, in many cases, Justin has chosen to reproduce significant orations rather than offer a complete account of the main characters in the story. The Epitome, therefore, is a unique example of a collection of speeches that can itself be regarded as an anthology. Justin collected 1  For Trogus and Justin, see particularly Klotz (1952), Seel (1972) 7–79, Santi Amantini (1981) 7–49; Forni and Angeli Bertinelli (1982), Alonso Núñez (1987), Alonso Núñez (1992), Jal (1987), J.-D. Richter (1987), Van Wickevoort-Crommelin (1993), Castro Sánchez (1995) 7–66, Yardley and Heckel (1997) 1–41, Arnaud-Lindet (2003), Ballesteros Pastor (2013b), and Borgna (2013). Trogus also wrote the treatise De animalibus (Borgna [2014]). 2  Just. Prol. 4; Brunt (1980) 487, Jal (1987) 199, Yardley and Develin (1994) 6, Heckel (1997) 16–17, Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 13 (with further bibliography) and Borgna (2013) 21–25. The term florum recalls the traditional metaphor used in Roman rhetoric: see Yardley (1994) 70, Yardley and Heckel (1997) 18, and Borgna (2013) 26. 3  Nonetheless, other ancient epitomes were more or less re-written by their respective authors: see Brunt (1980) and Bessone (1982). 4  Compare this speech (38.4–7) with the length of books 17, 19, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, and 40. The speeches cover an important proportion of the text of some books (such as 28, 29, and 38). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_006

80

Ballesteros Pastor

oratorical pieces pertaining to the main types recorded in the ancient historiographical tradition: military harangues, epistles, ambassadorial and deliberative speeches, persuasive declamations, and so on. At the same time, in the Epitome, he tried to imitate models that were widely known in Latin historiography, Sallust in particular and, in our opinion, Tacitus also. Consequently, an analysis of the themes, locations and length of the speeches that Justin picked out is a key aspect for understanding the Epitome. The sort of anthology that our author produced may have had a double purpose: to offer a range of exempla and at the same time to serve as a model for teaching the art of rhetoric. In addition, Justin sought to show off his own literary skills and so took all sorts of liberties when manipulating Trogus’ original. 1

Pompeius Trogus and Justin

Apart from a few short fragments, what we know about the Philippic Histories is confined to the Epitome that Justin produced, which means that our assessment of what Trogus’ original text might have been like is mostly based on conjecture. We can gather some information from writers such as Appian of Alexandria and Memnon of Heraclea, both of whom, in our view, reproduced or abridged extended passages from this universal history, although the use that these authors made of Trogus gives us only a limited idea of the Philippic Histories. It is extremely difficult to determine which episodes Appian took from Trogus and which came from other Latin sources, although we think that important parts of Appian’s books on the Mithridatic and Syrian Wars derived largely from Trogus. In addition, a large part of Appian’s Roman History has been lost, making it even more difficult to compare with Justin’s account. With respect to Memnon, the problems are even greater, since a third of the books in his account of Heraclea Pontica are missing, while the remainder have come down to us through the abridgement made by Photius, who not only omits some of the content of Memnon’s work, but also introduces misleading data.5 The specific problems associated with Justin’s Epitome should therefore prompt us to proceed with caution in this study, although we need not lapse into profound skepticism, because there is sufficient information to draw conclusions, which may be illustrative not only of Trogus’ original perspective, but also of how his work was later adapted by the idiosyncratic hand of Justin.

5  For Trogus as a source of Appian and Memnon, see Ballesteros Pastor (2013a) 186 and 196 nn. 24–25 and Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 15–20 and 40–46. For Memnon, see Janke (1963).

The Speeches in Justin ’ s ‘ Corpusculum Florum ’

2

81

A Work Replete with Speeches

Although Justin’s Epitome represents a considerably abridged version of Trogus’ text, we are able nevertheless to detect traces of a large number of speeches; we may conclude, therefore, that the Philippic Histories contained an abundance of rhetorical passages.6 A particular interest in including orations is also apparent in Quintus Curtius’ Historiae Alexandri Magni, which could suggest that both the biography of Alexander and Trogus’ universal history either shared a common source or used sources deriving from the same tradition. In our view, the Histories of both Trogus and Curtius were based primarily on accounts composed in the East that demonstrated extensive knowledge of Iranian traditions.7 We should bear in mind that there were several Hellenized barbarian kingdoms flourishing in Asian countries during the late Hellenistic period, whose elites, and even the royal houses, were eager to learn about Greek culture. Rhetoricians of Hellenic origin would have played a leading role in this process, showing off their oratorical skills and, at the same time, using their writings both as a sample of their teachings and as a means of disseminating them. We could cite, among others, authors such as Metrodorus of Scepsis, philos of Mithridates Eupator, Conon the mythographer, who was in the service of Archelaus of Cappadocia, or Amphicrates of Athens, who fled his city after Sulla’s conquest. Amphicrates sought refuge in the kingdom of Parthia and ended his life at the court of Tigranes the Great of Armenia.8 More than a century ago, Von Gutschmid worked out that the author of Trogus’ source for Achaemenid history knew Persian and corrected the Iranian proper names that had been wrongly transcribed in the Greek manuscripts.9 In spite of the limitations involved in studying Justin’s Epitome, we can point out examples of this abundance of speeches in the Trogan original. The most significant case, where traces of twenty-five speeches and epistles of varying lengths can be detected, would probably be Books 11 and 12, dealing mainly with Alexander the Great;10 and similarly the chapters devoted to Mithridates 6  See in particular Ballesteros Pastor (2009a). 7  For the relationship between Curtius and Trogus with regard to Alexander, see particularly J.E. Atkinson (1980) 59–61, Yardley and Heckel (1997) 7, 26–27, 36 and 41, Baynham (1998) 30–35 and Ballesteros Pastor (2003). On Curtius’ speeches, see especially Helmreich (1927). On Trogus’ Eastern source, see Ballesteros Pastor (2013b). 8  On Metrodorus, see Marastoni (2007). On Conon, see Martini (1922). On Amphicrates’ life, see Plu. Luc. 22.5. 9  Von Gutschmid (1894) 36, 53, 58, and 67 and Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 21–22; cf. the remarks by Mecca (2001). 10  Ballesteros Pastor (2009a) 30–31 n. 5.

82

Ballesteros Pastor

Eupator, that is, most of Book 37 and more than a third of Book 38, where we think that Trogus may have included at least sixteen speeches in all.11 Another indication that suggests that the speeches in the Philippic Histories were important is that, in all likelihood, the source on which Trogus’ work was based had initially been planned to conclude precisely with an oration. In this passage, Pompey proclaims the power of Rome before Antiochus Asiaticus once the Republic had conquered the East and finally subjugated the Seleucids, an event which marked the culmination of a historical period.12 This piece of oratory, conceived as a colophon, would have served to help the Armenian king, Tigranes II, win the favor of the mighty general and be spared despite having fought against Rome.13 The fact that the Epitome also contains books without speeches would be due to Justin’s preferences, not the absence of oratorical passages in the corresponding parts of Trogus’ work.14 To substantiate this assertion with an example, we think that, in all probability, Appian’s Iberike largely derives from Book 44 of the Philippic Histories, but whereas Appian includes numerous speeches, the Epitome presents no rhetorical passages in the account of Hispania.15 Also, the fact that the history of Hellenistic Macedon in the Epitome includes hardly any speeches could reflect Justin’s contempt for this kingdom. As we shall see, the only orations of any length that refer to Alexander’s successors to the Macedonian throne are, on the one hand, the words of Meleager concerning the problematic succession of the Macedonian conqueror, and, on the other, the speech of Demetrius Poliorcetes, a king much criticized by ancient writers and often described as a paradigm of corruption.16 In this passage, Demetrius denounces all the crimes committed by Cassander against the legitimate heirs of Alexander so as to keep them off the throne. The image of the Macedonian kingdom in these speeches is not a very positive one, therefore. 11  Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 101. In our view, these speeches would correspond to Just. 37.4.5; App. Mith. 12–14; 16; 50; 54–58; 62; 70; 72; 85; 98, and Memn. FGrHist 434 F1, 27.8; 29.4; 38.4– 5, also taking into account some paired speeches which were not completely reflected in these passages. See below n. 66. 12  Just. 40.2.3–4; Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 34–35; cf. Van Wickevoort-Crommelin (1993) 373–374. 13  Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 34–35 and 99–101. 14  The books without any trace of speeches would have been: 10, 21, 32, 33, 35, 36, 41, and 44. Arnaud-Lindet (2003) Appendix 3 also maintains that there are no speeches in books 3, 7, 8, 17, 20, 26, 27, 37, and 42. 15  See for instance, App. Hisp. 10; 11; 18; 21; 26; 34; 36; 53; 59; 61; 95. 16  See respectively Just. 13.2.6–10; 16.1.10–17. Philip V delivers a short harangue (30.4.6–7), and there is a phrase, probably taken from a speech by Perseus (33.1.3). For Demetrius’ negative image, see, for instance, J.-D. Richter (1987) 71–72.

The Speeches in Justin ’ s ‘ Corpusculum Florum ’

3

83

Justin’s Speeches: Selection Criteria

We do not consider that Justin used a single criterion when choosing which speeches of the Philippic Histories to include in his Epitome, but proceeded with different points of view in mind. It should be remembered first of all that Justin did not draw up an abridged version of Trogus stricto sensu, but produced a florilegium, or anthology of passages. We use the term epitome, therefore, because of the title that has come down to us, not because the work is an actual summary of the original.17 Furthermore, Justin modified the content of Trogus’ account and added elements to it, so that the resulting text is not an accurate reflection of what the Philippic Histories were like. As suggested above, Justin was probably a teacher of rhetoric and may have chosen passages that stood out for their language and use of rhetorical figures. In addition, as was customary, he selected different exempla related to moral attitudes; Justin’s preference for descriptions of “active” women who played a significant role in the narration, for example, has been pointed out.18 After these general remarks, there are several more specific criteria for Justin’s selection of oratorical passages. In the first place, we suspect that he avoided repeating the same content that Appian had taken from Trogus for his Roman History. This would explain, for instance, why Justin’s Epitome focuses on the life of Mithridates prior to his conflicts with Rome (which Appian had reduced to a few lines) or why he narrated the mythic origins of Iberia, which had been deliberately omitted in the Alexandrian’s account.19 Another of Justin’s criteria for selection might have been to provide content to suit the taste of his protector, the anonymous person addressed in the Epitome’s preface, which took the form of a short epistle.20 Justin mentions how, after having fallen into disgrace for some unknown reason, he sought to recover the favor of his patron by composing this historical work. This purpose might explain, for example, Justin’s emphasis on anti-Roman speeches: the one 17  See above n. 2. 18  Comploi (2002). For Justin’s interest in exempla, see especially Yardley (1994) 70–71, and further Alonso Núñez (1992) 21–23, Yardley and Heckel (1997) 18 and Borgna (2013) 23. 19  App. Hisp. 2; Just. 44.4; Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 15–20. On Mithridates see Just. 37.1.6-38.8.1 20  This preface has been regarded as fictitious, invented either by Justin following the model of other Latin authors or written by Trogus himself: Seel (1955) 35–43, Seel (1956) 18–21, fr. 16a and fr. 18, Seel (1972) 50–51, and Alonso Núñez (1998–1999) 441. Santi Amantini (1981) 8 n. 5 tried to reconcile the two hypotheses: Justin based his Preface on the one written by Trogus in the form of an epistle. For Justin’s dedicatee, see Yardley and Heckel (1997) 9; cf. Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 5, and below n. 26. Yardley (2010) 470 noted the combination of the first person singular and plural in the preface.

84

Ballesteros Pastor

delivered by the Aetolians; the words of Demetrius, king of Illyria; and especially, the harangue by Mithridates, which is by far the longest rhetorical passage included in the Epitome.21 We assume that both Justin and his protector came from the northwestern coast of the Black Sea. In this region, barbarians were mixing with the Greeks, who strove, in desperately difficult circumstances, to keep the flame of Hellenism burning. It should also be remembered that Roman troops were stationed in the city of Olbia Pontica and this presence would not have been greatly welcomed by certain sectors of the population who longed for their ancestral freedoms. In this context, Justin’s interest in the deeds of the Scythian people and of King Mithridates Eupator, who led the Scythians against Rome, does not seem to be accidental.22 It is also worthy of note that Justin attaches some importance to the words of Alexander to the Epigonoi, praising the loyalty of these Persians who had fought on his side.23 Quintus Curtius is the only author to reproduce a speech with similar content, another indication that this passage, as well as the Philippic Histories as a whole, had a Hellenized Iranian source.24 Extolling barbarian valor, therefore, would have been to the liking of Justin, who probably lived in a border area, and would have sought to highlight the importance of barbarians in the famed Macedonian Empire.25 It seems beyond doubt that some of the main speeches in the Epitome were delivered by characters admired by both Justin and his protector, primarily Mithridates, but also Hannibal, who appears as a model man and a brilliant general (sometimes resembling the Pontic king).26 We could also mention the proconsul Flamininus, who was responsible for the first Macedonian debacle against Rome, given the critical tone—which permeates Justin’s work generally—used to refer to Macedon. Meanwhile, major figures such as Pyrrhus or Scipio Africanus, who ought to have been particularly eulogized by Trogus, did not merit any long speech in the Epitome.27 21  See respectively Just. 28.2, 29.2.2–3.5, 38.4–7. 22  For this hypothesis about Justin’s homeland, see Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 4–10 and 102. For the particular emphasis on the Scythians, see Ibid. 6–10 and 12–13. 23  Just. 12.12.1–3; cf. Yardley and Heckel (1997) 274–275. 24  Curt. 10.3.6–14; Yardley and Atkinson (2009) 134–139. For the Iranian view of Trogus’ main source, see Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 21–24 and passim. 25  See above n. 22. 26  Some of the virtues of Hannibal that Justin extols are reminiscent of the personality of Eupator: Just. 32.4.10–12, 37.1.8–9, 37.2.7–9, 37.4.1–2; Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 120, 134, and 228. 27  For Flamininus, see Just. 30.4.8–14, 17, 31.1.6. In 31.3.1.4, this Roman is compared with Philopoemen. For Trogus’ predilection for Pyrrhus, see Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 49. For

The Speeches in Justin ’ s ‘ Corpusculum Florum ’

85

Another of Justin’s selection criteria would have been the search for speeches focusing on themes that concerned the author’s relationship with his protector. As we shall see, some of the longest speeches in the Epitome deal with topics such as forgiveness, gratitude, treachery, and the honor of women.28 It would not be going too far, therefore, to surmise that Justin had aroused the anger of his patron over some personal issue, perhaps related to a woman in the latter’s entourage.29 The writer’s desire to recover the favor of this powerful man leads us to another principle of selection: to seek out opportunities to give a dazzling display of his rhetorical skills in imitation of authors such as Sallust, and possibly Tacitus.30 Lastly, Justin may have chosen some speeches for narrative reasons, or for some other personal motive of which we are unaware. 4

The Longer Speeches in the Epitome

Following the system of classification proposed by Utard,31 we have found only twelve medium-length speeches (that is, of more than seventy-five words in the Teubner edition) and six long ones (of more than 150 words) in Justin’s work. With respect to the remainder of Trogus’ speeches, Justin simply picked out passages of variable length, which ranged from a single sentence to several paragraphs. In the case of the paired speeches in Trogus, Justin frequently omitted one of them, and confined himself to reproducing either the proposal or the response.32

the pro-Scipionic perspective in the Historiae Philippicae, see ibid. 46, 258, and 261–262. The reverence for Scipio Africanus would already have been present in Trogus’ source: see Just. 31.7.8, 38.6.5. Some Athenian authors who may have influenced Trogus’ text showed an anti-Macedonian bias, see Yardley, Wheatley and Heckel (2011) 256. 28  See below, notes 29–46. 29  This situation, seen from Justin’s standpoint, is suggested by the final phrase of the Preface: “cum obtrectationis invidia decesserit;” see Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 4. See above n. 17. 30  For Sallust’s influence on Trogus and Justin, see Sellge (1882), Rambaud (1948), Ballesteros Pastor (1996) 392 with n. 55, Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 73–76 (with further bibliography), and Yardley (2003) 11–17. It can be assumed that the paired harangues of Flamininus and Philip V (30.4.6–14) aimed to imitate the contrasting speeches of Calgacus and Agricola written by Tacitus (Agr.30–34). 31  Utard (2004) 45. 32  See for instance Just. 18.6.5, 18.7.7, 31.7.6, 37.4.5, 7, 40.2.4; cf. Ballesteros Pastor (2009a) 30–31 with n. 5.

86

Ballesteros Pastor

These medium-length and long speeches in Justin are the following: 1. The speech by Xerxes claiming his right to the throne over his half-brother Ariamenes, on the grounds that the latter’s mother was not of royal status.33 2. The advice of Alcibiades to Tissaphernes to sow discord among the Greeks in order to benefit Persian interests.34 3. The words of Cleadas begging Alexander to show mercy to Thebes.35 4. Alexander’s epistle to Darius III before the battle of Gaugamela.36 The Macedonian rejects the Persian’s gratitude for the respect shown towards the women of his family after the battle of Issus. At the same time, Alexander expresses his determination to conquer the Achaemenid Empire. 5. The message that Darius conveys to Alexander before dying, in which he reiterates his gratitude to the king who defeated him, highlighting once more the Macedonian’s clemency towards the members of the Achaemenid royal family.37 6. The speech of Meleager against the rights of Rhoxane and her unborn child, emphasizing the legitimate lineage of both Philip Arrhideus and Heracles, the son of Alexander and Barsine.38 Rhoxane was regarded as unworthy of occupying the Macedonian throne because she was of Persian stock. 7. and 8. Contrasting speeches by the Argyraspids and Eumenes of Cardia. The soldiers blame their general for causing them to lose the booty acquired after great sacrifice and effort. Eumenes, in reply, recriminates them for their disloyalty and treachery.39 9. The speech of Demetrius Poliorcetes, claiming his right to the Macedonian throne against the sons of Cassander, whom Demetrius accuses of wiping out Alexander’s line with abominable murders.40 10. Malchus’ words to his son Carthalo, whom the Carthaginian tyrant reproaches for his luxurious robes and the disdain shown towards his own father.41

33  Just. 2.10.3–8. 34  Just. 5.2.8–13; Forni and Angeli Bertinelli (1982) 1325–1326. 35  11.4.1–6; see Yardley and Heckel (1997) 96–99. 36  11.12.11–16; see Yardley and Heckel (1997) 162–163. 37  11.15.7–13; see Yardley and Heckel (1997) 179–180. 38  13.2.6–10; see J.-D. Richter (1987) 48–49 and Yardley, Wheatley, and Heckel (2011) 65–70. 39  14.3.7–10; 14.4.2–14; see Yardley, Wheatley, and Heckel (2011) 184–185 and 186–188. 40  16.1.10–17; cf. J.-D. Richter (1987) 72. 41  18.7.10–14.

The Speeches in Justin ’ s ‘ Corpusculum Florum ’

87

11. The speech of the Carthaginian general Himilcho, trying to comfort his fellow citizens after the defeat they suffered due to the plague, prior to committing suicide in order to share his men’s fate.42 12. The harangue of Agathocles of Syracuse, encouraging his troops to seize Carthage.43 13. The speech of the Aetolians before the Roman legates.44 14. The speech of Demetrius of Pharos, king of Illyria, urging Philip V of Macedon to wage war against the Romans and denouncing their ambition.45 15. The harangue of Flamininus before the battle of Cynoscephalai.46 The general praises Rome’s victories and considers them to be greater than the feats of Alexander. 16. Hannibal’s advice to Antiochus III explaining the peculiarities of war against the Romans.47 17. The harangue of Mithridates, by far the longest speech in the Epitome.48 In addition to denouncing Rome’s greed and treachery, the king praises his own lineage and his triumphs over the Scythians from northern Euxinus. 18. The speech of Antiochus Grypus in response to a brief speech by his wife Cleopatra Tryphaena.49 The king proclaims his refusal to seize Cleopatra IV, Tryphaena’s sister, who had taken refuge in a temple. The speech of Themistocles to the Ionians should be included in this list.50 The Athenian leader reproaches the Ionians for their ingratitude because they are helping the Persians attack Athens despite the fact that this city had supported the Ionian revolt against Darius. This speech is worth taking into account, not only because it consists of just seventy-four words, but also because it has the particular characteristic of being written in direct discourse. The longest speeches (more than 150 words) include those by Eumenes, Agathocles, the Aetolians, Demetrius of Pharos, Hannibal, and Mithridates. We could assume that the idea of reproducing lengthy sections of oratorical passages came to form a part of Justin’s plan after he began making his selection 42  19.3.4–10. 43  22.5.3–13; cf. J.-D. Richter (1987) 98–99. 44  28.2; cf. J.-D. Richter (1987) 136–138 and Ballesteros Pastor (2009b). 45  29.2.2.-3–6. 46  30.4.8–14; cf. J.-D. Richter (1987) 149. See above n. 27. 47  31.5.2–9. 48  38.4–7; cf. Ballesteros Pastor (2006), Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 52–61 and 222–296. 49  39.3.7–9; cf. Borgna (2013) 105–106. 50  2.12.3–7.

88

Ballesteros Pastor

from Trogus’ work. It is also striking that, from Agathocles’ words onwards, Justin reproduces no more medium-length speeches, opting either for short ones or for long ones of more than 150 words. The speech of Antiochus Grypus is the only exception. Among these extended orations, those critical of Rome stand out clearly. They are not only the longest rhetorical passages in the Epitome, but also seem to have been prepared more meticulously. 5

The Protagonists of Justin’s More Highly Developed Speeches

While it is difficult to determine whether Justin had any specific criteria for selecting which figures should deliver these longer speeches, some considerations may be noted. To begin with, there is no obvious preference for any particular kingdoms or geographical areas; Trogus, in fact, recorded speeches that were delivered by Gauls, whereas Justin did not attach any importance to these.51 Nor is there any clear preference for speeches given by kings, since there are several by generals or ordinary people. Another characteristic is the absence of long orations pronounced by women in the Epitome, even though Trogus included significant examples in his Histories.52 It is, nonetheless, more worthy of mention that Justin paid no special attention to speeches by Roman leaders; only Flamininus delivers an oration of any substance, whereas Pompey’s declaration is limited to a few lines.53 This is obviously consistent with the critical attitude to Rome in the Epitome. In some passages, Justin did not consider it necessary to specify exactly who was giving a speech, because it was delivered by a group of people rather than a single man, as in the case of the Aetolians and the soldiers of Eumenes. This indeterminacy could be the result of Justin’s abridgment of Trogus’ original text.54 It is interesting that some of the medium-length and longer speeches are put into the mouths of characters of little or no importance, while some outstanding figures in the Philippic Histories do not utter a single sentence in the 51  Just. 20.5.5; 24.5.1; 24.7.10. There is only one speech delivered by Scythians in the Epitome addressed to the legates of Vezosis, king of Egypt: Just. 2.3.10–12; Ballesteros Pastor (2003) 33–34. 52  Just. 2.4.26–27; 23.2.8–9; 39.3.11. 53  For Flamininus, see 30.4.6–14; for Pompey, see 40.2.3–4. In our opinion, Trogus recorded speeches by Sulla and Lucullus: cf. App. Mith. 54; 55; 57–58; 62; Memn. FGrHist 434 F1, 27.8; 38.5. 54  See Just. 28.2; 14.3.7–10, respectively.

The Speeches in Justin ’ s ‘ Corpusculum Florum ’

89

Epitome or their words have been greatly condensed. Cleadas, a man about whom we know nothing apart from his appearance in Justin’s account, is a case in point,55 as is that of the mysterious Malchus, who has triggered a large number of studies.56 In the same way, the importance given to Demetrius of Pharos or Antiochus Grypus is worth mentioning because Justin could have reproduced instead the speeches of kings who were more notorious. It is quite noticeable that the words of Emperors, such as Cyrus the Great or Philip II, take up very few lines in the Epitome and that rulers, such as Darius I or Antiochus III, pronounce no speeches at all.57 6

Justin’s Manipulation of Trogan Speeches: The Use of Oratio Obliqua

The abbreviated nature of Justin’s work reveals that oratorical passages taken from Trogus were manipulated in several different ways. With a few exceptions, we think that not even the speeches that were worked on most in the Epitome reproduced the original text, either in length or content. It is obvious that Justin selected parts of these orations and joined them together, using particles or connecting expressions such as igitur, deinde, denique, ad postremum, and so on. These parts would theoretically correspond to sentences or entire paragraphs in Trogus, although we cannot be absolutely certain about this.58 Another discernible feature of the way Justin assembled the speeches is that passages were shifted from their original positions in Trogus’ work. An example of this would be the Aetolians’ speech, whose anachronisms led it to be regarded as a fictitious piece of oratory.59 The anachronisms would have been the result of mixing together sentences that had been selected from different parts of the Philippic Histories, and it is even plausible to suggest that this speech might include words added by Justin himself.60 Another case is the harangue of Flamininus, in which the general describes Philip V as puer 55  See above n. 32; cf. Heckel (2005) 85 s.v. Cleadas. 56  See in particular Krings (1998) 33–92. Orosius (Hist.4.6.6–9) mentions this Punic general, quoting explicitly from Trogus and Justin. 57  Just. 1.6.6 (Cyrus); 8.4.10; 9.2.5–6 (Philip). See n. 24. 58  Forni and Angeli Bertinelli (1982) 1302, Ballesteros Pastor (2009a) 32, Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 13–14, and Borgna (2013) 30–31. 59  Just. 28.2; Ballesteros Pastor (2009b). 60  Yardley (2003) 116–180, Ballesteros Pastor (2009b) 388 with n. 26 and Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 13–15, 53, 54, 59, 116, 177–178, and passim.

90

Ballesteros Pastor

inmaturae aetatis, an assessment that leads us to think that the speech must belong to an earlier period, perhaps the First Macedonian War, when the troops of the Republic confronted Alexander’s countrymen for the first time.61 Notwithstanding these cases, as we shall see, the most obvious example of the fusion of different passages in order to compose a speech can be observed in the celebrated harangue of Mithridates, which Justin presents, paradoxically, as the only speech to have been transcribed verbatim from the Trogan original.62 Apart from these considerations, the most striking feature of Justin’s adaptation of speeches is undoubtedly their conversion from oratio recta to oratio obliqua. In the remarks preceding Mithridates’ harangue, presented in Book 38, the epitomator states that Trogus used only indirect discourse and that he criticized Sallust and Livy for recording addresses in direct discourse in their works.63 Many modern researchers have pondered this statement, considering it to be a unique perspective in Roman literature, and exclusive to Trogus.64 Other factors, however, indicate that Justin’s statement is not true; on the one hand, Klotz discovered that the use of certain verbs in Mithridates’ harangue was wrong according to the rules of oratio obliqua,65 and on the other, the Epitome itself contains passages in direct discourse, such as the previously mentioned speeches of Eumenes and Malchus, and a few paragraphs spoken by the Scythian Queen Tomyris and Themistocles. Justin, therefore, openly contradicts himself.66 It is certainly possible that Trogus might have censured some specific aspects of the texts of Sallust and Livy, but it is even more likely, we would guess, that Justin put the speeches in direct discourse in the Philippic Histories into indirect discourse for the deliberate purpose of disguising all the modifications that he had made to those sections.67 In this way, the author of the Epitome felt free to alter or move around some rhetorical passages without considering either their original locations in Trogus’ Histories or the historical reliability of the account. The detail added by Justin about Trogus’ rejection of direct 61  Just. 30.4.12; cf. Castro Sánchez (1995) 408 n. 861 and Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 60. 62  Just. 38.3.11; cf. Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 52–53 and 221–222. 63  Just. 38.3.11. 64  Baynham (1998) 31. For further commentaries on Justin’s statement, see, for instance, Forni and Angeli Bertinelli (1982) 1309, Van Wickevoort-Crommelin (1993) 2–3 and 299 n. 870, Yardley and Heckel (1997) 6 and 12, Santangelo (2009) 61, Flamerie de Lachapelle (2010) 269, and Adler (2011) 37–38 and 57. 65  Klotz (1952) 2310. 66  Just. 1.8.13; 2.12.3–7; 14.4.2–14; 18.7.10–14; Klotz (1952) 2309, Forni and Angeli Bertinelli (1982) 1309, Arnaud-Lindet (2003), and Ballesteros Pastor (2009a) 33. 67  Ballesteros Pastor (2006) 593 n.52, Ballesteros Pastor (2009a), and Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 53.

The Speeches in Justin ’ s ‘ Corpusculum Florum ’

91

discourse is, more than anything, an excusatio non petita, indicating that it was a device used by the epitomator as he composed his work. The manipulation also creates some puzzling situations for the reader, because it is not uncommon for speeches included in the Epitome to be introduced without any kind of transition, or for their conclusions to merge into the thread of the story with nothing to indicate that the speech has already concluded.68 We do not know the specific reasons that led Justin to put four passages in his work in quotation marks. A plausible hypothesis would be that our author had a special interest in emphasizing those specific words. All these scenes condemn vanity, treachery, and greed, while extolling sobriety and fidelity, and it is clear that Justin highlighted these passages deliberately. It may also be worth mentioning that the last direct speech appears in Book 18 and that the speakers of the directly quoted paragraphs bear no relationship to each other, either in space or time. Perhaps Justin changed his mind as he composed his account and thought that when his protector was reading Book 38, he would have forgotten that he had already read some speeches in direct discourse. 7

Mithridates’ Harangue and Justin’s “Method”

This manipulation of Trogus’ speeches, as we have said, culminates with the harangue of Mithridates, which appears in the Epitome in connection with the account of 89 bce, just prior to the Pontic invasion of the Roman province of Asia. Justin states that this passage had been taken word-for-word, although it is in fact another excusatio non petita. An analysis of the content of the address shows that it is the result of merging at least five speeches, some of which were partially recorded by Appian, namely Mithridates’ response to the Roman embassy sent to stop the Pontic and Bithynian invasion of Paphlagonia (ca. 103 bce); the words of Archelaus to Sulla when negotiating the peace with Pontus (86 bce); Eupator’s allegations to Sulla in Dardanus (85 bce); the king’s address to the men loyal to him, rejecting any possibility of agreement with Pompey (66 bce); and the exhortation delivered by the ruler before his last war with Rome (73 bce).69 68  See for instance the speech of Antiochus Grypus (38.3.9–10), the words of the defenders of Delos from the Gauls (24.8.4), or the end of Demetrius of Pharos’ speech (29.3.5–6). 69  Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 55–61. See the parallelisms between Just. 38.4 and 37.5–6; Just. 38.5.1–5 and App. Mith. 54; Just. 38.5.6–10 and App. Mith. 56; Just. 38.6 and App. Mith. 98; Just. 38.7 and App. Mith. 70. We could likewise mention a lost speech of the Pontic ambassadors before the Senate in 89 bce, although its connection with Trogus’ account is unclear (cf. Eutr. 5.5.2; Oros. Hist. 6.2.1; D.C. fr.99.2). The relationship between App. Mith.

92

Ballesteros Pastor

The mixture of different texts in Mithridates’ speech can be detected not only in the contrasting points of view found in this passage, but also through the sentences and ideas that coincide with those recorded in the above-mentioned orations of Appian. Anachronistic references, such as the allusion to the Cimbric menace in 89 bce, would be clear indicators that speeches had been combined, since Mithridates’ first speech to the Romans, as recorded by Trogus, actually referred to 103 bce when the Republic was being threatened by these barbarians coming from the North.70 Apart from this, amalgamating paragraphs relating to different historical moments gives a rather confusing account of the ideas of the Pontic king; Mithridates, for example, begins his speech by wondering whether or not he should wage war against the Republic but appears later to be openly hostile to the Romans, insulting them with harsh words and expressions of his contempt.71 However, the surprising feature about Eupator’s speech does not end there, since Justin probably arranged the passages that he took from Trogus so that they followed a similar sequence to the order of contents found in Sallust’s Epistula Mithridatis.72 Justin presents, more or less accurately, the same topics that were developed in the Sallustian fragment, namely the forces of the king, the weakness of Rome, the Republic’s hatred of monarchies, and her greed and lowly origins. Imitation of Sallust can also be observed in the similarity between various sentences in Justin’s speech and the Epistula, and in the very way in which the Epitome introduces Eupator. The account of this ruler begins with an encomium, which is exceptional in Justin’s work, and probably Trogus’ Histories as well.73 In our view, this passage could have been taken from an obituary of Mithridates. In fact, no encomia can be found at the beginning of any other account of a major figure in the Epitome, whereas many death notices have been preserved in the work.74 In Sallust’s narrative, meanwhile, when he starts to talk about some important leaders, it is usual to find them characterized morally and psychologically, which may lead us to 56 and Justin’s harangue has already been noted by Goukowsky (2001) 195 n. 603 and F. Russo (2009) 383. Other scholars suspected that the harangue was not a fragment from Trogus: Van Wickevoort-Crommelin (1993) 372, Yardley and Develin (1994) 5 and 238 n. 6, and Yardley and Heckel (1997) 6. 70  Just. 37.4.5; Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 213–215. The Cimbri are cited by Mithridates in Just. 38.4.15. 71  Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 59–60. 72  Sall. Hist. fr.4.69M. 73  37.1.7–9; Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 114–123. 74  For these death notices, see Ballesteros Pastor (2009b) 385 with n.13 and Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 115.

The Speeches in Justin ’ s ‘ Corpusculum Florum ’

93

suppose that Justin sought to emulate the Republican author in his account of Mithridates Eupator.75 We believe that Justin’s protector was not only an admirer of the Pontic king, but also of the style of Sallust, whose speeches and epistles had been used by teachers of Rhetoric for centuries.76 Once again, we come up against a personal motivation for explaining the treatment given to the speeches in the Epitome. Justin sought to please his patron and, at the same time, show that he was a great expert in Latin oratory and literature. The order of contents in this oration has another interesting aspect. This speech has the peculiarity of neglecting to mention the king’s ancestors at the beginning of the text, which was contrary to the rule established by Thucydides.77 According to our reconstruction, Trogus would have followed the pattern of the Athenian author in Eupator’s exhortation (later recorded by Appian), which started with a reference to the king’s lineage. This speech, delivered prior to the Third Mithridatic War, would have been a brilliant passage for opening Book 38 of the Philippic Histories. Justin, as we have suggested, moved this speech and inserted it in what he considered to be a more appropriate place, eliminating some allusions to the decade of the 70s bc.78 8

Conclusion. The Speeches in the Epitome

It seems clear that Justin was a teacher of rhetoric and that he knew the main elements of this art. The selection of excerpts from Trogus’ speeches in the Epitome seems to be as chaotic as the work itself; we can detect no systematic planning with regard to the number of rhetorical pieces, their distribution or their length. We consider, therefore, that private reasons may have been paramount among Justin’s objectives when he decided which speeches to take 75  See Sall. Iug. 63.2–7 (Marius); 95.3–4 (Sulla); Cat. 5.1–8 (Catilina); cf. also Iug. 6.1 (Jugurtha); 43 (Metellus Numidicus); Cat. 23.1–3 (Quintus Curius). 76  See, in particular, the allusion to Sallust’s speeches in Fronto’s Epistles (Ad L. Verum 2, 124.6–15); Van den Hout (1999) 296–297. See further the anthologies mentioned in the present volume. 77  See the beginning of Pericles’ funeral oration: Th. 2.36.1; Loraux (1981), Iglesias-Zoido (2007) 147–148, Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 69 and 113, and Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 74–75. For a comparison between the harangue and the epistle, see particularly Sellge (1882) 23–25, Raditsa (1969), Van Wickevoort-Crommelin (1993) 297 n. 865, Adler (2011) 37–58, and Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 73–76. 78  App. Mith. 70; cf. Just. 38.7; Ballesteros Pastor (2013b) 57, 272–296. The confusion in Justin’s text has led to suppose that Eupator’s harangue was moved from Book 37: Van Wickevoort-Crommelin (1993) 80 n. 183.

94

Ballesteros Pastor

from Trogus and whether they should be abridged or modified. Justin probably aimed to win the goodwill of his protector, who may have appreciated the art of rhetoric. So it seems that the speeches were selected for extra-literary reasons, which would explain the peculiar way in which they were put together and also why the modern researcher finds the selection so interesting. Due to the sheer number of its speeches, Trogus’ Philippic Histories may have become a model for the study and enjoyment of rhetoric. The style and vocabulary of the Gallic scholar echoed respected figures such as Cicero, Sallust, and Livy, and the same literary qualities were probably recognized by later authors, such as Pliny the Elder.79 This outstanding role of the speeches remained in the corpusculum florum composed by Justin. It is evident that Justin preferred to include rhetorical passages in his account, rather than create a systematically abridged version of Trogus’ text. Unlike other authors of epitomes, such as Florus, Justin seems to have paid more attention to the speeches than to the narrative content, omitting many aspects of the universal history he was abbreviating. As we clearly see in Mithridates’ case, putting words in the mouths of different characters gave the text greater intensity than a simple account of the facts. The speeches, therefore, served to bring the reader into the kingdoms and world of the people described in this universal history, bringing to life not only historical events, but also the personality of their protagonists.

79  See Pliny NH 11.274; HA Aur.2.1; Prob.2.7. On the influence of Latin authors in the Epitome, see Yardley (2003).

Part 2 Byzantium and the Middle Ages

∵

CHAPTER 5

A Word from the General: Ambrosianus B 119 sup. and Protreptic Speeches in Byzantine Military Manuals Immacolata Eramo Skill at speaking is one of the virtues of a perfect general, as well as a quality much appreciated throughout the Byzantine age. The aim of this chapter is to analyze the anthology of historiographical speeches preserved in the codex Ambrosianus B 119 sup. in relation to other Byzantine technical military writings: original works, such as the Strategikon or Rhetorica militaris, and other compendia, such as Leo’s Tactica. All these works clearly highlight the vitality of an age-old tradition and demonstrate how useful a protreptic speech can be for achieving victory. 1

The General Skilled at Speaking

According to Onasander (first century ce), λέγειν ἱκανός (“skilled at speaking”) is what a general should be. Eloquence represents a quality of excellence and a criterion for choosing a military leader. The general’s ability to use protreptic speeches gives an army a great advantage, since they make soldiers scorn danger, yearn for glory, and feel eager to face battle. In times of misfortune or when an army is discouraged, the words of a general can also give comfort and solace. For this reason, “nobody will lead a military expedition without a general, nor choose a general who is not skilled at speaking.”1 The relationship that a general is able to establish with his troops in order to lead them to victory is one of the most fundamental elements in Byzantine military thought, which favored an indirect approach to war, namely that it should be managed with as little bloodshed and violence as possible and be as rational, profitable, and economical as possible. The military science that the Byzantines developed was greatly influenced by the rules of the authors who preceded them, but it was richer, more organized and codified, particularly in strategic aspects, and entailed the greater and more complex involvement 1  Onas. 1.13–16.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_007

98

Eramo

of every soldier, every officer, and of the army in general.2 It is no surprise that “field manuals” also attach great importance to these aspects, which include the harangue that the general must address to his soldiers before facing battle. In the Strategikon, there is a chapter on the subject of harangues in book VII, devoted to strategic management. This chapter also includes advice about the best way of composing military speeches with the aim of persuading the soldiers to fight.3 The next book, which concerns the initiatives that a general should undertake on the day of battle itself, stresses that the general should inspect the entire formation, and encourage the troops, while avoiding other activities that may distract him from doing what is essential.4 With regard to this encouragement before battle, we know that at the time of the Emperor Maurice (539–602), and also later, the army included in its units socalled kantatores, who were heralds that had this “institutional” task.5 The Emperor Nikephoros Phokas (ca. 912–969) also attaches the same importance to protreptic speeches. He considers that after the infantry has been lined up, a general should encourage the soldiers and excite their ardor, “as an excellent general should,” with a harangue “as sweet as honey.”6 According to Byzantine military thought, a general should have both a solid cultural education and the ability to use words wisely. The part of the dialogue De scientia politica that has been handed down begins with rules concerning the transmission of orders and harangues. The general should not only give orders to the officers personally, but should, in particular, deliver a short speech in a warlike tone in the midst of the troops, appropriate to the occasion and ensuring that the troops are able to hear it. While speaking, he should address each soldier individually calling him by name, following the example of Cyrus, whose practice was an effective means of persuading his men to fight.7 In this way, the closeness of the general to his troops permits him to show that he is a

2  On the (often ambiguous) attitude of the Byzantines towards war, see Kaegi (1983), Dennis (1997) 165–169, Kolia-Dermitzaki (1997) 213–214 and 238, Haldon (1999) 13–33, Breccia (2001), Breccia (2009) lxxv–lxxx, Cosentino (2009) 92–99, Haldon (2014) 5–6 and 123–124, and bibliography cited here. 3  Strat. 7A.4. 4  Strat. 7B.4. 5  Strat. 2.19. Kantatores is a neologism of the Strategikon or otherwise a recent coinage (but evidently in use and perfectly understandable in the age of Maurice), so much so that the Ambrosian paraphrase inserts this particular category ex novo into the chapter devoted to the different names of officers and troops (Strat. 1.3), and also explains the term (43.4–5 Leoni). 6  Nic.Ph. Vel. 23.3–4. 7  The reference is to Xen. Cyr. 5.3.46–50.

A Word from the General

99

shrewd and critical judge of the valor or cowardice of each of his men, and so of the outcome of battle.8 Finally, among the precepts that Kekaumenos (ca. 1078) lays down for the ideal general, importance is placed upon his being an assiduous reader of books, histories, and ecclesiastical texts, in order to arouse admiration not only for his courage, but also for his wisdom and eloquence.9 2 The Speeches of Syrianus The advice given by Emperor Constantine VII (905–959) to his son Romanos before a military campaign also includes considerations of the protreptic speech that the general must address to each tagma or thema.10 The Emperor also discusses the books that should be included in his “travelling library”: the liturgy of the Church, military writings, treatises on strategy and mechanics, liturgical books, an oneirocritical book, writings on omens, a treatise on meteorology, a map of thunderbolts and earthquakes, and also “history books, especially Polyaenus and Syrianus” (βιβλία ἱστορικὰ, ἐξαιρέτως δὲ τὸν Πολύαινον καὶ τὸν Συριανόν).11 The choice of Polyaenus was due to the Byzantine predilection for the indirect approach to and strategic management of war, which avoided hand-to-hand combat as far as possible and preferred the use of stratagems, trickery, cunning diplomacy, and bribery. Modern scholarship attributes to Syrianus authorship of a compendium made up of three parts: the so-called De re strategica, which deals with strategy and land tactics; Naumachiae, a treatise on naval tactics; and a manual which in the manuscript tradition has the title Δημηγορίαι προτρεπτικαὶ πρὸς ἀνδρείαν ἐκ διαφόρων ἀφορμῶν λαμβάνουσαι τὰς ὑποθέσεις (“Assembly speeches of military exhortation which take their subjects from different sources”). This is the only writing on military rhetoric in Greek that the ancient world has passed down.12

8  Sc. pol. 4.1–4. 9  Cecaum. 2.54. 10  124.466–473 Haldon (De cer. 483.22–484.9 Reiske). 11  106.196–204 Haldon (De cer. 467.4–15 Reiske). We do not know exactly to which texts Constantine is referring. We can say that it is a large multidisciplinary collection of writings that was considered useful, based on a conception of culture that was deeply rooted in Byzantine society (see Haldon [1990] 210–212, Cavallo [2001] 596–598, and Taragna [2003] 34–42). 12  Hereafter RhM. For the general characteristics of this writing see Eramo (2010a) 11–34. For the structure of Syrianus’ work and hypotheses about the date, see Eramo (2011) and Eramo (2012).

100

Eramo

This work, which filled a gap that was already noted by ancient rhetoric,13 was an obvious peculiarity in the technical literature and a stage—as significant as it was unique—in a process that brought together military strategy, including the use of protreptic speeches,14 and rhetorical tradition. From this tradition, the manual selects those theories that focus not on individual parts of the speech, but on their quality, theories that are best expressed by the doctrine of status by Hermogenes of Tarsus.15 Syrianus takes from Hermogenes only what is essential for his field.16 He particularly avoids giving more complex definitions and refers to the source text with only minimal variations so as to devote more space and attention to examples.17 However, the presence of examples does not make Syrianus’ work a collection of progymnasmata; rather, it is a treatise on rhetoric that refers to real cases,18 a manual de inventione, and, at the same time, a “pattern-book” This particular feature of Syrianus’ work constitutes a key element that highlights, from a more general point of view, the way in which Byzantine society read, interpreted, and used the past, combining the theoretical exposition of age-old doctrines with examples able to offer guidance and educate the learned readers, and possibly give them help in carrying out the tasks which they had to perform. Those who mainly carried out this cultural activity were not necessarily scholars or philologists by profession, but more often than not high officials, both lay and ecclesiastic, who had been educated by private preceptors and exchanged a great deal of correspondence with one another.19 3

The Codex Ambrosianus B 119 sup.

The way in which these men of letters considered the past is clearly shown in a witness of the Greek manuscript tradition belonging to the scriptorium

13  Cic. De orat. 2.15.64. 14  For this tradition, in addition to Eramo (2010a), see Paniagua Aguilar (2007), IglesiasZoido (2008b), Iglesias-Zoido (2008c), Abbamonte, Miletti, and Buongiovanni (2009), Iglesias-Zoido (2010a), and Iglesias-Zoido (2011a). 15  See Hunger (1978) I 79–81, Jeffreys (2008) 828–831, Patillon (2009) vii–xviii, and Eramo (2010a) 16–18. 16  See Eramo (2008) 125–126 and Eramo (2010a) 16–18 and passim for comments on each subject. 17  RhM 8.1 (see also infra). 18  Patillon (1997) 146 n. 3. 19  See examples in Mazzucchi (1978) 267–276.

A Word from the General

101

in Constantinople: the Ambrosianus B 119 sup.20 This codex was created on the initiative of Basil Lekapenos when he was παρακοιμώμενος (literally “the one who sleeps beside [the emperor’s chamber]”), between the end of 946, after the exile of his predecessor Theophanes, and November 959.21 Its aim was to support the candidacy of Basil for the command of the expedition to Crete in 960, as can be inferred particularly from the dedicatory verses and the proem of Ad Basilium patricium Naumachica (fols. 339r–342v),22 as well as some passages in the two Constantinian epistles.23 The codex consists of four sections: works on tactics, a paraphrase of Polyaenus’ Strategemata (the so-called Strategemata Ambrosiana),24 a rhetorical corpus, and writings on naval tactics. More specifically, the texts included were the following: a paraphrase of Onasander’s Strategikos (fols. 1r–5v and 104r–113r); Syrianus’ De re strategica (fols. 6r–17v); a paraphrase of the Strategikon (fols. 18r–88v, 96r–103v, and 114r–124v); Urbicius’ Cynegeticus (fols. 89r–91v); Urbicius’ Taktikon (fols. 93r–95v); Syrianus’ Rhetorica militaris (fols. 135r–140v); a corpus of speeches (fols. 141r–161v); the Strategemata Ambrosiana (fols. 162r–185v); Leo VI’s Tactica (fols. 186r–322r); Leo VI’s De navali proelio (fols. 323r–331r); Leo VI’s Excerptum nauticum (fol. 331r); De fluminibus traiciendis (fols. 331v–332v); Syrianus’ Naumachiae (fols. 333r–338v); Ad Basilium patricium Naumachica (fols. 339r–342v); De obsidione toleranda (fols. 343r–348v). As the sequence of leaves shows, the codex suffered from the transposition of some fascicles and a few other mutilations.25 The presence of a rhetorical corpus in a codex dealing with military matters might be considered inappropriate, if we did not take into account that “rhetorical corpus” means the presence of Syrianus’ Speeches—in truth only the last part26—followed by seventeen passages from Xenophon, Flavius Josephus,

20  For a complete description of this manuscript, see Mazzucchi (1978) 276–292 and 310– 316, with other bibliography in Eramo (2007) 127 n. 1; see also Bevilacqua (2012) 190–192, Markopoulos (2012) 47–48, Bevilacqua (2013) 1013–1030, and Haldon (2014) 56–57. 21  Theoph. Cont. 469.13–470.1; Ps.-Sym. Mag. 757.3–11; Cedr. 2.339.2–4 and Zon. 3.490.16–18. See Brokkar (1972), in particular 203–219, and Boura (1989) 404–405. 22  The latest edition is in Pryor and Jeffreys (2006) 521–545. 23  Mazzucchi (1978) 292–306; Kyriakides (1939) 502–503 already supplied useful data about this, although he only studied Ναυμαχικά; see also infra. 24  Dain and de Foucault (1967) 364–365. 25  Details are reconstructed by Mazzucchi (1978) 306–310. 26  The original ligature was removed from the codex and consequently some fascicles were lost and others transposed. Of the RhM, the codex contains only chapters 41.2–58 (fols. 135r–140v); see Eramo (2010a) 27–31.

102

Eramo

and Herodian.27 These texts are followed by two epistles by Constantine VII. Both letters are addressed to the army that was sent to fight the Hamdanides of Tarsus. The first was composed at the end of 950, after the victory against the Hamdanid Emir of Mosul and Aleppo, Sayf al-Dawla.28 The second letter dates to the summer of 958, when an expedition led by Basil Lekapenos was sent to fight the same enemy.29 An examination of the text and some features of the corpus of speeches led Karl Konrad Müller to doubt that the collection was part of the lost Περὶ δημηγοριῶν (“On assembly speeches”) section of the Excerpta Constantiniana.30 The existence of this section is in fact attested to by internal references,31 which could either be suggestions for reading or traces of the excerptors’ ways of working. Based on Theodor Büttner-Wobst’s hypothesis of the structure of the Excerpta, Rudolf Vári considered its attribution to the section Περὶ δημηγοριῶν to be certain;32 he might have been influenced by the fact that scholarship was inclined to attribute any collection of extracts from historical works made in the same period to the Excerpta of Constantine VII.33 The ratio of the corpus of speeches in the Ambrosianus, however, is exactly the same as other military writings in the manuscript and shares only the 27  Xen. Cyr. 1.5.7–14; 3.3.44–45; An. 1.7.3–4; 3.1.15–25; 1.35–44; 2.2–3; 2.10–32; 2.39; Jos. BJ 1.19.373–379; 2.16.345–401; 4.3.163–192; 6.1.34–53; Hdn. 2.10.2–9; 3.6.1–7; 4.14.5–8; 6.3.3–7; 8.3.4–6. There is no extract from Theophylact Simocatta included in the collection, contrary to Ahrweiler’s belief (1967) 393. 28  Mazzucchi (1978) 296–299; McGeer’s reconstruction is very detailed (2003) 116–117 and 120–127. Henceforth: IConst. 29  This letter (Δημηγορία Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ἀνατολῆς στρατηγούς or “Speech given by king Constantine to the generals of Anatolia”, henceforth IIConst.) is edited and briefly commented on by Vári (1908) 78–85 (for the text, see also Kurtz [1925] 321). Ahrweiler (1967) 394–397 edited a free translation and a commentary. For the occasion of the speech, see also Mazzucchi (1978) 299–301. An English translation of both letters with an extensive commentary is in McGeer (2003) 111–135. 30  Müller (1882) 26–27. 31  Exc. de leg. 199.7 and 484.18–19 De Boor; de virt. 1.63.2 and 2.153.9–10 Büttner-Wobst; de ins. 4.22; 30.22; 48.25–26; 215.7–8; 222.3–4 De Boor; de sent. 412.27 Boissevain. 32  Vári (1908) 75–76. Indeed, Büttner-Wobst (1906) 109–110 and 118–120 limited himself to rebuilding the thematic sets of the fifty-three Constantinian sections and to attributing the Excerpta περὶ δημηγοριῶν to the section about the State (on this subject, see also Eramo [2007] 134 n. 32). 33  Mazzucchi (1978) 292. Vári’s hypothesis was refuted, above all, by Ahrweiler (1967) 393– 394 and Lemerle (1971) 273. In general, for the misunderstanding engendered by the notion of Constantinian “encyclopedism” and for the “culture of the syllogé” typical of the whole Byzantine age, see Odorico (1990) 1–12 and Piccione (2003) 54–56.

A Word from the General

103

methodological ways of working with the Constantinian Excerpta.34 It is evident from the texts that the recensio of the works of Xenophon and Flavius Josephus in the Ambrosianus is different from those in the Constantinian collection. We cannot compare the text of Herodian, who was unknown to the Constantinian excerptors.35 The criteria for the selection, organization, and presentation of the materials are perfectly clear and logical: the Ambrosian speeches have particular characteristics that are clearly consistent with the aims and features of the military expedition that Basil led. The Ambrosian speeches are, in fact, protreptic speeches, representative of the various periods of Greek historiography: the classical age, imperial times, and late antiquity, and finally, with the letters of Constantine, the contemporary age. The choice of speeches is subject to a definite ratio, as is evident in the rubrics that come before each text. These are in capital letters in very bright purple ink. Each speech presents the word δημηγορία (“assembly speech”) as a title, followed by the name of the speaker, the listeners, and, in some cases, a few additional words about the occasion of the speech. Each group of texts, divided by author and chronologically ordered, is preceded by a further rubric (in capital letters and in purple ink), in which the name of the author and the work from which the texts are taken follow the term δημηγορίαι (“assembly speeches”).36 Two codicological elements deserve special attention. Three crosses in red ink are drawn on the upper margin of the first leaf of the speeches from Xenophon and Flavius Josephus; it is unclear whether they are there for decoration or because the scribe wanted to repeat whatever he saw in the codex that he was copying.37 Secondly, as regards Xenophon, who is the only author with two works in the collection, the copyist has added ΚΥ ΠΑΙΔ Γ̅ < (“The Education of Cyrus”) in red ink in the margin of fol. 142r, next to the title of the last speech of the Cyropaedia (3.3.44–45), and of ΚΥ ΑΝΑΒΑ ¯B (“The Expedition of Cyrus”), in the margin of the rubric of the first speech taken from Anabasis (1.7.3–4), evidently in order to distinguish the two texts, which come one after the other. 34  Markopoulos (2012) 48. However, I fear that his conclusions are hasty; according to him, the Ambrosianus could be one of the “preparatory” manuscripts of the Excerpta or, conversely, it should have included material taken from the Excerpta. For the way in which Constantinian’s excerptors worked, see Dain (1953) 71–75, Lemerle (1966) 604–609, and Luciani (2003). 35  For an analysis of the textual situation, see Eramo (2007) 135–137. 36  Regarding the rubrics, see Eramo (2007) 128–129 and the Appendix to this chapter. 37  See Mazzucchi (1978) 315.

104

Eramo

It is clear that the Ambrosian excerptor did not have a ready-made collection of speeches in front of him, but made the selection himself and drafted a compilation from the texts. This inference results firstly from the fact that he uses a new fascicle (quaternions or ternions according to the length of the text)38 for each author, which puts him to the inconvenience of having to cut the excess blank sheets. Secondly, he reserves a different treatment for Constantine’s first letter; rather than using a new fascicle for a short text and weakening the previous one by eliminating too many sheets, he decides to insert this letter on the recto of the first available sheet immediately after the speeches of Herodian. In this way, he finds a position that is more than suitable in terms of space and also with regard to the organization of the collection. He evidently inserted this letter at a later date, and left it without a rubric or an initial (could this have been an oversight, as he had already decorated this fascicle?).39 It is not only the position of this collection, immediately after Syrianus’ rhetorical manual, but also the theme and general structure of the manuscript that enables us to identify and specify the reasons for the choice of the texts to be anthologized. The seventeen speeches and the two Constantinian letters form an appropriate complement to the rhetorical theories of the manual. The Ambrosianus provides examples of harangues to illustrate and apply the theories in the manual, theories similar to those set out in the manual by Syrianus, specifically the argumenta ficta in chapters 19–23. This structure corresponds to the programmatic intent explained in Syrianus’ work: to present the material in a didactic way, using examples for the purpose of clarity, and also to point out semantic nuances and differences.40 This relationship goes beyond the characteristic content and topoi of the protreptic tradition41 and is also fully realized with respect to structure and rhetorical composition. An analysis of the Ambrosian speeches in the light of the theories in Syrianus’ manual shows that every speech has a προοίμιον (RhM 4.1) or “proem,”42 which, in most cases, is very short so as to make space for the προκατάστασις or προδιήγησις (“preliminary exposition”). This layout fully corresponds to the 38  The reconstruction of these codicological features is explained by Mazzucchi (1978) 303–304. 39  Ahrweiler (1967) 401 believes that the copyist wished only to copy the text of the speech, which was destined for being read to the army (however, why did he behave differently with the second letter?). 40  RhM 8.1. 41  See Eramo (2007), in particular 142–160. An examination of common topics, limited to the RhM and the two Constantinian epistles, can also be found in Markopoulos (2012) 49–52. 42  With respect to Syrianus’ treatment of Hermogenes’ rhetorical terms, see the commentary in Eramo (2010a) 125–131 and 185–186, passim.

A Word from the General

105

features described in RhM 4.2. In some cases (Cyr. 1.5.7–14; An. 1.7.3–4; 3.1.15– 25; BJ 6.1.34–53; Hdn. 2.10.2–9), it is clear that this is a προοίμιον ἐξ ὑπολήψεως (“proem of opinion”), according to the definition of RhM 5.1. In every speech there is always, as προβολή, the προτροπὴ τοῦ πολέμου, that is, the “exhortation to fight”, which is one of the most important features of protreptic speeches according to Syrianus (RhM 4.2; 7.2; 8.1). The κεφάλαια (“headings of purpose”) of the Ambrosian speeches belong to more categories: τὸ δίκαιον (“the just,” RhM 8.3; 9.2–13; Cyr. 1.5.7–14; An. 3.1.15–25; 3.1.35–44; BJ 1.19.373–379; 2.16.345– 401; 4.3.163–192; Hdn. 3.6.1–7; 4.14.5–8; 6.3.3–7; 8.3.4–6; IConst. and IIConst.), τὸ σύμφερον (“the useful,” RhM 8.2; 14–16: An. 3.1.35–44; 3.2.2–3; 3.2.39; BJ 6.1.34– 53; Hdn. 2.10.2–9; 8.3.4–6; IConst. and IIConst.) and, in one case, τὸ νόμιμον (“the legal,” RhM 8.3 and 9.1; An. 3.1.15–25). In the longest and most complex speeches, we also find ἐπιχειρήματα (“epicheiremes”) of a different nature (RhM 7.2; 25.1–2): ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου (“from the place,” Cyr. 1.5.7–14), ἀπὸ τοῦ πράγματος (“from the thing,” Cyr. 3.3.44–45; An. 1.7.3–4; 3.2.10–32; BJ 4.3.163–192; 6.1.34–53; Hdn. 3.6.1–7; 6.3.3–7; 8.3.4–6; IConst. and IIConst.); in some cases there are also ἐργασίαι (“developments,” RhM 7.2; Cyr. 1.5.7–14; An. 3.2.10–32; BJ 4.3.163–192; 6.1.34–53; IConst. and IIConst.) and ἐνθυμήματα (“enthymemes,” RhM 7.2; 35: An. 3.2.10–32 and IConst.). Each speech ends with an ἐπίλογος (“epilogue,” RhM 49.1 and 50–53), which corresponds to the features prescribed in RhM 50.2–3. Concerning the speeches taken from the histories, their aim in the Ambrosianus is immediately clear in the choice of texts.43 The first text (Cyr. 1.5.7–14), for example, is a model of a protreptic speech that a general addresses to his closest collaborators; the second speech (Cyr. 3.3.44–45) shows an example of epipolesis;44 An. 3.1.15–25 and 3.1.35–44 are harangues inserted in the context of an assembly, not addressed directly to the whole army; the particular characteristic of Xenophon’s speech in An. 3.2.10–32 is a long proem that includes references to the Persian Wars, which were by then topical;45 Agrippa’s speech (BJ 2.16.345–401) is a rare and obvious example of 43  We cannot be certain that the excerptor wished to exclude the harangues in Thucydides’ work because he considered that their subject would not interest the Byzantine public (as claimed by Karapli [2010] 366), and for two reasons: the choice of what to include was based not only on content; secondly, we do not know which text the excerptor had when he organized the collection. 44  With respect to this type of speech, see Carmona (2009) and Carmona (2014). For the criteria of choice of the speeches, see also Iglesias-Zoido (2011a) 132–133 and Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 152–153. An in-depth examination of the rhetorical structure of both harangues by Cyrus is found in Nicolai (2014a) 180–186. 45  See also RhM 44.9–10 (with comment in Eramo [2010a] 179–181 notes 126–127).

106

Eramo

an ἀπροτρεπτικός, or “dissuasive speech”;46 BJ 4.3.163–192 is a harangue delivered by the high priest addressing the people; Crispinus’ speech (Hdn. 8.3.4–6) is an example of a protreptic speech addressing citizens at a particularly serious and compelling moment, such as when a city is under siege, so fully in line with Syrianus’ description of this particular type of harangue.47 The Ambrosianus also makes some changes in order to standardize the characteristics of the collection. For example, the excerptor turned all the speeches into oratio recta48 and made appropriate cuts. So, in An. 3.1.15–25, he censors the words complaining about the difficult conditions of the Greek troops,49 evidently for the same reason given by Syrianus: in a protreptic speech, a general should never recall difficult situations when the troops are unsuccessful (RhM 33–34). Although one can rightly mention the numerical superiority of the enemy, it is not appropriate to refer to the enemy’s ability to seize an advantage. For this reason, part of Annas’ speech was eliminated (BJ 4.3.186– 189). Furthermore, the ratio used to organize the texts led to the elimination from the Ambrosianus of any parts that were strictly connected to the occasion when the speech was delivered: the references to the crossing of the river (Xen. An. 3.2.22–26); the initial information regarding Artaxerxes and Tissaphernes (An. 3.1.35); the mention of the details connected to the siege of the fortress of Antonia (Jos. BJ 6.1.45); the allusion to the misrule of Commodus and the behavior of the Syrians (Hdn. 2.10.3–4 and 7); the reference to Antoninus and his works (Hdn. 4.14.5); the mention of the internecine clashes between the Zealots and the Sadducees and the fate that awaited both peoples (Jos. BJ 4.3.167 and 169–172); the long digression on all the subjects of the Roman Empire (BJ 2.16.368–395); and the tragic situation, which, according to Agrippa, lay in store for the Jews after they were defeated (BJ 2.16.397–399). To the same ratio should also be attributed the presence of keywords, whenever they are not present in the original text, which serve to identify harangues, such as the exhortative verbs παραινέω (“to exhort,” An. 1.7.2), παρακαλέω (“to appeal,” An. 3.1.34 and 1.44), συγκαλέω (“to convene,” An. 3.1.15; 3.2.1; Hdn. 2.10.1; 3.6.1; and 4.14.4), παρακελεύω (“to encourage,” Cyr. 3.3.43; BJ 4.1.34), παρορμάω (“to incide,” BJ 1.18.372), παρακροτέω (“to encourage,” BJ 4.3.193), as well as the initial appeal to the listeners, also included in the Ambrosianus when it cannot

46  With respect to the characteristics of this speech, see Eramo (2007) 151–152. 47  RhM 1.4. 48  See Crispinus’ speech to the citizens of Aquileia, which is in oratio obliqua in the first part of Hdn. 8.3.4–6. 49  Xen. An. 3.1.19–21.

A Word from the General

107

be found in the texts being copied: ὦ ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες (“Oh, Greeks”) of An. 3.1.35 and 3.2.10, and ὦ ἄνδρες (“Oh, soldiers”) in 3.2.39, in Hdn. 4.14.5 and 8.3.4.50 This freedom shown by the Ambrosian collection in the excerptio of texts is a particular characteristic of both the corpus of speeches and the codex as a whole, which in most cases has summaries and paraphrases of military writings. Urbicius’ Taktikon, in fact, is a summary of the first part of Arrian’s Ars tactica, the Strategemata Ambrosiana are a paraphrase of Hypotheseis, and the codex also presents paraphrases of Onasander’s Strategicus and Maurice’s Strategikon. Furthermore, it is obvious that De fluminibus traiciendis is nothing more than a paraphrase of Strat. 12.8.21 and that the redaction of Leo’s Tactica in this manuscript was different from, and later than, that of the Laurentianus LV,4.51 4

The Aim of the Constantinian Letters

The two letters by Constantine deserve special mention. Not only does their structure, like that of the other speeches, correspond exactly to the rhetorical theories of Syrianus’ manual, but they can also be compared with other texts in the manual itself. In chapters 19–23, Syrianus writes about the κεφάλαια πλαστά (“fictitious headings”), which he admits are his personal invention. He focuses on two particular types of argumenta ficta, in which one forms a response to the other: the letter that the general tells the army he has sent to the emperor, and the letter that the general says he received from the emperor in person. This letter is addressed to the army and read out by the general to the assembly in arms. In it, the emperor expresses his delight at the courage of the soldiers, his affection for them, his “fatherly” devotion, and his regret that he is not among them as a fellow soldier. The correspondence between the fictitious speeches and the letters of Constantine is established above all through the use of metaphors and figures that recall—in detail and occasionally also with textual evidence—the argumenta of Syrianus: the language which celebrates the soldiers’ feats, the appellative λαός, used in the Iliad to designate the army, the figure of Christ being “insulted” by enemies attacking and burning a city, soldiers who are so vile that they are compared to women, the “rising up” against the enemy, the emperor whose affection for the soldiers burns within 50  See Karapli (2010) 246–251 regarding uses and occurrences. I do not believe, however, that it is possible to clearly identify constant elements in the uses and meanings. 51  See Dain (1931) 334–335, Dain and de Foucault (1967) 341, 347, and 364, Mazzucchi (1978) 282–284, Cosentino (2001) 63–66, Leoni (2003) xvi-xvii and xxx-xxxi, and Rance (2007) 733–736.

108

Eramo

his very bowels, the iunctura of audacity and perseverance, the emperor as a “fellow-soldier,” the appellative “sons”—used by the emperor to address the soldiers—, and his paternal feelings towards them.52 These motifs are found in the “expedition manual” that Constantine VII had compiled for his son, Romanos, a few years before, although they are fewer in number and the content is briefer than the wealth of topics and the exceedingly elaborate style of the letters.53 Constantine VII cites the same topics at roughly the same period and in the same text in which he advises Romanos to include Syrianus in his “travelling library.” Wherever Constantine appears to want his son to do what he himself was unable to do, the letter realizes this desire in the Ambrosianus by showing father and son as fellowsoldiers, fighting with the Eastern troops.54 These thoughts lead us to believe that the two letters are not the result of a selection from the archives but of a literary composition ad usum, or at least a sophisticated creation made especially for the Ambrosian collection. It was, therefore, a literary operation based on a real event, the war against the Hamdanides of Tarsus, which took its cue from diplomatic documents— dispatches, circulars, written arrangements, perhaps even some words of encouragement55—in order to invent texts that were stylistically elaborate and rhetorically constructed. This Fiktion fully satisfied two needs. The first was literary, namely, to enrich the collection of the rhetorical corpus and make it more complete and interesting for its circle of readership—the court and its 52  IConst. 6–7; 17; 19; 66–67; 81–82; IIConst. 1.3–5, 6, 18–24, 32, 37–39; 2.1–2; 3.24–27; 4.1, 19; 5.1–7; RhM 6.2; 10.1; 19.1; 20.1, 5; 22.2–4, 6; 26.1; 28.2–3; 32.1; 36.2; 37.1; 43.1; 44.3; 45.1; 52.1, 7; 55.4 (see also infra). 53  Haldon (1990) 52–53 dates the terminus post quem to 952, the year in which Romanos turned fourteen, the age when a child formally reached adulthood. However, he had not taken part in a military expedition before then or shown any interest in doing so. 54  IIConst. 5.1–4. 55  IIConst. 1.10–11 and 33–35 allude to this type of communication (συλλαβαί, ἔγγραφα ὑπαναγνωστικά). However, I believe that they are short dispatches and contained principally organizational and strategic instructions (see Theoph. Cont. 448.22–449.1) but not δημηγορίαι. I agree, therefore, with Ševčenko (1992) 187 n. 49, who highlights the dissimilarities in style and lexicon with the writings that are considered most likely to have been written by Porphyrogenitus. The interpretations made over the years in various studies have been different; see the status quaestionis in Eramo (2011) 133–134 n. 30. More recently, Karapli (2010) 207–209 and 250 believes that the speeches were written by Constantine and read out to the army in abbreviated form, while conceding the presence of literary re-elaboration; Markopoulos (2012) 49 believes that they are essentially also rhetorical exercises.

A Word from the General

109

high officials—complementing the timeless generic examples that Syrianus included in his manual with subjects and protreptic topics taken from contemporary events. The second was strategic. As a result of this cultural operation and thanks also to the direct involvement of the “literary-emperor” Porphyrogenitus,56 the Fiktion achieved a more important aim for Basil παρακοιμώμενος (“the one who sleeps beside [the emperor’s chamber]”):57 to show the recent successes obtained against Sayf al-Dawla,58 so as to endorse his strategic abilities in view of the forthcoming expedition to Crete. The second letter in particular, which is richer in information and references to the present than the first, as well as more elaborate in style and full of biblical quotations,59 reserves words of unconditional esteem and praise for Constantine’s therapontes (“attendants”), who were decisive in the victory against Sayf al-Dawla.60 These included Basil Lekapenos. It might be more accurate to say that the term therapontes mentioned in the letter is nothing more than an appellative used to refer to Basil himself—who we know was the architect of this great success—without actually naming him. However, the propagandistic cultural operation that he organized with the Ambrosianus did not have the desired effect: when Constantine died, within months or even days, Romanos removed 56  As regards the figure of Constantine VII as “literary-emperor,” promoter and key figure in the cultural activity of this period, Toynbee’s work (1973) 575–580 remains a landmark. Theoph. Cont. 445.17–446, 14; Psell. Hist. 102.6–8 and Zon. 482.17–483.5 explicitly cite letters and speeches by Constantine VII, but in a way that is too general for them to be considered as the same ones found in the Ambrosianus. For example, the letters written by Constantine VII to Theodorus Cyzicenus in codex Athos Laura Ω 126 (in Darrouzès [1960] 317–332) are of a different tenor. They do however constitute private correspondence. 57  We should not undervalue the leading role that Basil played in the cultural life of the period. He was responsible for Constantine’s personal library; later, he had the title of μέγας βαΐουλος, “preceptor and pedagogue” (of Romanos II). Afterwards, he also commissioned a series of works of art, including the chalice of Saint Mark and part of the Limburger Staurothek, which are included among the masterpieces of Byzantine gold (Brokkar [1972] 219, Mazzucchi [1978] 305–306, Ginnasi [2009] 99, 119–122, and Bevilacqua [2012] 183–197). Basil’s reputation for intelligence, wisdom, and culture is highlighted by both Greek (Psell. Chron. 1.3; Leo Diac. 94.7–8; Theoph. Cont. 442.22–443.1) and Latin sources (Liud. Cremonensis, Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana 15). 58  The active intervention of Basil, with a large deployment of forces, against the Arabs of Sayf al-Dawla is also well highlighted by other sources: Theoph. Cont. 461.9–462.4; Yahya Antioch. Patr. Or. 18. 775; Mich. Syr. 13.4. Regarding this expedition, see Canard (1953) 793– 796, Vasiliev (1968) 362–365, and Brokkar (1972) 214–215. 59  See Kolia-Dermitzaki (1989) 55. Regarding the biblical quotations of IIConst., see also Markopoulos (2012) 53–54. 60  IIConst. 2.3–14; 4.11–26.

110

Eramo

Basil from his position of responsibility, preferring the less able and less enterprising, but more reliable, Joseph Bringas. 5

The Echoes in Leo’s Tactica

The same interest in military rhetoric and protreptic speeches can be noted in the Tacticae constitutiones, or Tactica, by the Byzantine emperor Leo VI (866–912). In the Byzantine cultural spirit of the syllogé, the aim of this compendium was to pass on or bring back the martial precepts of the past, without forgetting the military and cultural requirements of the present.61 Leo developed his taste for words and interest in rhetoric from the teachings of Photius, whom his father, Basil, wanted as his preceptor. To acquire a talent with words or to aspire to making the “perfect speech” is one of the teachings that Photius gives to Leo in his Basilika parainetika.62 Leo does not only refer to the general’s harangue to his soldiers before battle,63 but often uses the same topoi as Syrianus’ Speeches. These include, above all, religious sentiment, particularly the defense of the Christian faith against enemies who were godless heretics, sacrifice for one’s brothers, the presence and intervention of God in favor of the Christians, and thanksgiving to God after victory.64 Topics characteristic of the military rhetorical tradition are also included: the importance of discipline and training for the soldiers and of tactical and strategic ability in the general, the principle of the bellum iustum, the hope of victory based on the commitment of the soldiers, and glory after death being better than any other reward and consolation after defeat.65 At the end comes a motif that is characteristic 61  Leo Tact. pr. 5–6. 62  Basil. par. 64 (72.26–73.1 Emminger). 63  Leo Tact. 2.12; 12.57; 13.4; 14.18 and 101; 19.24; 20.17; 110, 181; ep. 22; ep. 40 (see the comment in Haldon [2014] 271, 292–293 and 435). 64  Leo Tact. 2.29–30; 14.1.31, 101; 16.2.15–16; 18.19, 105, 112, 123, 127; 19.39; 20.58, 77, 191; ep.15 (with the comment by Eramo [2010a] 134–136, 175–176, and passim, Markopoulos [2012] 52–53, Haldon [2014] 280–281, 310–311, 354, and 424; but see also Dagron [1983] 223–232 and Kolia-Dermitzaki [1989] 39–47). In general, on the topic of the “holy war” in Tactica, see Kolia-Dermitzaki (1989) 44–49, Stouraitis (2012) 235–250, and Haldon (2014), in particular 33–38, 354, 367–369, and 375–376. 65  Leo Tact. pr. 8; 1.12; 2.6.29–31; 3.9; 7.2.40; 11.5; 12.3.57, 105; 14.2–3, 31, 33, 99–100; 15.6; 18.20.112, 127; 19.39; 20.2.17, 57–58, 65–66, 169–171, 175, 210; ep.14–17 (with the comment by Eramo [2010a] 170–178 passim, and 189–190, and Haldon [2014] 127, 131–133, 268–276, 283–284, 358, 375–376, 421–422, 425, 435, 440, 447; see also Kolia-Dermitzaki [1989] 47–49, Karapli [2010] 282–299, and Stouraitis [2012] 247–248).

A Word from the General

111

of, and particular to, harangues during this period: the image of the emperor who wants to share the dangers and hardships of war with his soldiers, seeing himself as a fellow-soldier and having feelings of fatherly affection for them.66 The particular topic of the emperor feeling paternal affection for his troops is found not only in the Constantinian letters in the Ambrosianus, but also in the advice that Constantine gives his son before a military expedition.67 The connection between the protreptic motifs—which should, according to Leo, be addressed to the army by the kantatores—and the topics dealt with in Syrianus’ manual are even more noteworthy. Leo’s repertoire seems much richer than his principal source for this section, the Strategikon, which only makes mention of this use. In some parts, however, Leo’s use of topoi coincides exactly in terms of order and structure with those found in Syrianus’ Speeches; a particular example would be his use of argumenta in the δίκαιον (“the just”) category, which are arranged in order until they reach a climax, placing faith in God first, then defense of the homeland and affection for one’s own people, and finally the punishment of enemies who are guilty of ungodliness and unrighteousness.68 It may be that the λόγος εὐκαίρως γινόμενος (“speech uttered at the right time”) of Leo’s kantatores is a florilegium of protreptic topics from military tradition, both theoretical and “on the battlefield,” which were in turn considered and given shape in the rhetorical system of Syrianus’ Speeches. We should nevertheless consider not only the elements that link the two texts— which seem to be echoes of, if not direct references to Syrianus’ manual—but also the fact that the name of Syrianus is cited as one of the authors considered by Leo in a marginal gloss found in some witnesses to the so-called recensio Laurentiana of the Tactica.69 These topics, forms, and thoughts seem to go beyond the mere convergence of military precepts or a common cultural background, but testify to a deep knowledge of Syrianus’ manual and so represent a kind of filter through which Leo read the past. For this reason, the reflections that Leo inserts among the memoranda and the ready-to-use advice near the end of his Tactica, which 66  Leo Tact. 4.1 and 20.5 (with the comment by Eramo [2010a] 243–244 n. 65, Karapli [2010] 249–250, and Haldon [2014] 143). 67  122.453 and 124.468 Haldon (De cer. 483.22–483.5 and 484.3 Reiske). 68  Leo Tact. 12.57; RhM 9.2. These topics were examined in chapters 10–13 and recovered, in the same order, in 37.7.(6). For the richness of these topics, see Dagron (1983) 223–232, Koutrakou (1994) 370–386, Karapli (2010) 244–360, Stouraitis (2012) 239–250, and Haldon (2014) 267–268. 69  Tact. pr. 6. See Dain (1946) 150–151 and Dain (1946–1947) 35, Dennis (2014) 7, and Haldon (2014) 125.

112

Eramo

recall the treatment of the previous Constitutiones,70 are more than a summary and reminder of the initial chapter about the virtues of the general, in which Leo paraphrased the text of Onasander. They reflect the tradition of examples and warnings that Syrianus’ manual had codified. In turn, Onasander’s reflection on the general who is λέγειν ἱκανός takes on new meaning, not so much because of the words used as in its expression of a way of thinking that has matured, deepened, and taken root over the centuries: A general should be able to deliver public exhortations (λέγειν δὲ καὶ δημηγορεῖν ἱκανόν). I believe that the army will benefit greatly from this ability, if the general, when lining up his troops for battle, induces the soldiers to scorn risks and often also death itself and to wish for rewards and glory…If the army should suffer a defeat, an encouraging speech will uplift their souls…A speech immediately raises the morale of the afflicted and suffering, and also incites brave soldiers to be courageous and bold.71 Onasander’s general, who is λέγειν ἱκανός, revives a long literary, military, and theoretical tradition. “Have you thought of touching the souls of the horsemen and inflaming the enemy?,” Socrates says to a future cavalry leader. “Do you mean that, in addition to his other duties, a cavalry leader should make an attempt to be a good speaker?,” replied the hipparchus. “And did you think,” replied Socrates, “that a commander should be silent?”72

70  Leo Tact. 20.110, 181, 217. 71  Leo Tact. 2.12. 72  Xen. Mem. 3.3.11.

A Word from the General



113

Appendix: Anthology of Speeches in Ambrosianus B 119 sup. (Speeches’ Rubricae)

I. Δημηγορίαι Ξενοφῶντος ἐκ τῆς Κύρου παιδείας (Xenophon’s speeches from Cyropaedia) 1) Δημηγορία Κύρου πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ στριατιώτας (Cyrus’ speech to his soldiers) (= Xen. Cyr. 1.5.7–14) 2) Δημηγορία τοῦ Ἀσσυρίων βασιλέως πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοῦ στρατιώτας (Speech given by the King of the Assyrians to his soldiers) (= Xen. Cyr. 3.3.44–45) 3) Δημηγορία Κύρου πρὸς τοὺς συμμάχους Ἕλληνας (Cyrus’s speech to the Greek allies) (= Xen. An. 1.7.3–4) 4)  Δημηγορία Ξενοφῶντος πρὸς τοὺς Κύρου συμμάχους Ἕλληνας μετὰ τὴν ἐκείνου ἐν τῷ πρὸς βασιλέα Ἀρταξέρξην τὸν αὐτοῦ ἀδελφὸν ἀναίρεσιν ἀπιέναι βουλόμενον εἰς τὰ οἰκεία (Xenophon’s speech to Cyrus’ Greek allies after their defeat in the battle against Cyrus’ son Artaxerxes, wanting to return to his home country) (= Xen. An. 3.1.15–25) 5) Δημηγορία Ξενοφῶντος πρὸς Ἑλληνικὸν στράτευμα (Xenophon’s speech to the Greek army) (= Xen. An. 3.1.35–44) 6) Δημηγορία Χειρισόφου πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοὺς Ἕλληνας (Cheirisophus’ speech to the same Greeks) (= Xen. An. 3.2.2–3) 7) Δημηγορία Ξενοφῶντος πρὸς τοὺς αὐτοὺς Ἕλληνας (Xenophon’s speech to the same Greeks) (= Xen. An. 3.2.10–32) 8) Δημηγορία τοῦ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς αὐτούς (Speech by the same general to the same soldiers) (= Xen. An. 3.2.39) II. Δημηγορίαι ἐκ τῆς Ἰωσήπου ἱστορίας τῆς ἀλώσεως Ἱεροσολύμων (Speeches from Josephus’ Jewish War) 9) Δημηγορία Ἡρώδου πρὸς τὸ ὑπήκοον ἐπὶ συμβάντι σεισμῷ καὶ πολεμίων ἐφόδῳ (Herod’s speech to his listeners on the recent earthquake and the escape of the enemies) (= Jos. BJ 1.19.373–379) 10) Δημηγορία Ἀγρίππα πρὸς Ἰουδαίους (Agrippa’s speech to the Jews)

114

Eramo

(= Jos. BJ 2.16.345–401) 11) Δημηγορία Ἀνάνου ἀρχιερέως (Speech by Annas, the high priest) (= Jos. BJ 4.3.163–192) 12) Δημηγορία Τίτου πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ στρατιώτας ἐπὶ τὸ τεῖχος Ἱεροσολύμων ἀνιέναι προτρέποντος (Titus’ speech to his soldiers before attacking the walls of Jerusalem) (= Jos. BJ 6.1.34–53) III. Δημηγορίαι ἐκ τῆς Ἡρωδιανοῦ ἱστορίας ὅσαι πρὸς ἀνδρίαν παρακαλοῦσι πρὸς τὸ χρήσιμον συντετμημέναι (Speeches from Herodian’s Histories, which exhort bravery to carry out useful things) 13) Δημηγορία Σεβήρου πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ στρατιώτας (Severus’ speech to his soldiers) (= Hdn. 2.10.2–9) 14) Δημηγορία Σεβήρου (Severus’ speech) (= Hdn. 3.6.1–7) 15) Δημηγορία Μακρίνου βασιλέως (Speech by King Macrinus) (= Hdn. 4.14.5–8) 16) Δημηγορία Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μαμαίας καὶ Ἀντωνίνου υἱοῦ (Speech by Alexander, son of Mammea, and his son Antoninus) (= Hdn. 6.3.3–7) 17) Δημηγορία Κρισπίνου ὑπάτου, ἣν εἶπε πρὸς τοὺς πολίτας τῆς Ἀκυληΐας ὅτε ἐπολιόρκει αὐτὴν Μαξιμῖνος (Speech by consul Crispinus given to the citizens of Aquileia when Maximinus laid siege to the city) (= Hdn. 8.3.4–6) IV. Constantinian letters 18) (Speech of Constantine VII without rubrica) (Ahrweiler 1967, pp. 397–399) 19) Δημηγορία Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ἀνατολῆς στρατηγούς (Speech given by King Constantine to the generals of Anatolia) (Vári 1908, pp. 78–84)

CHAPTER 6

A Medieval Anthology: Juan Fernández de Heredia’s Crónica Troyana María Sanz Julián In this and the next chapter we shall analyze and set in context two anthologies of speeches that were compiled in Juan Fernández de Heredia’s scriptorium: the Crónica Troyana (hereafter CT) and the Tucídides, a selection from The History of the Peloponnesian War. Both works, contained in the same manuscript (Biblioteca Nacional de España [BNE] 10.801), are good examples of anthologies that are deeply rooted in the medieval tradition, but which also look to the future and present many features of the coming Humanism. Although the CT comes after the Tucídides in the manuscript, we shall examine the CT first, because this work can be considered a link in the long, rich tradition of the Matter of Troy that was so hugely successful in the Middle Ages. After this chapter, Iglesias-Zoido will analyze the Tucídides and compare it with the Contiones Thucydidis, which is a compilation, a product of the new humanist mentality, put together years later by the Italian humanist Lapo da Castiglionchio. 1

Juan Fernández de Heredia

Juan Fernández de Heredia was one of the most influential European personalities of the fourteenth century. He was born in Munébrega (Zaragoza) into a family belonging to the lesser nobility of Aragon. Although we do not know the exact date of his birth, according to a papal bull issued by Benedict XIII, our author would have been more than a hundred years old in 1395 and nearing his death, which occurred the following year in Avignon. He displayed an early interest in politics and during the 1340s he obtained the Castellany of Amposta, which enabled him to work closely with the King of Aragon, Peter IV, the Ceremonious. However, Heredia put the interests of the Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem before the King’s. By 1351, he was living in Avignon, where he was to win the trust of several popes. Heredia’s military and personal prestige ensured that he was a key figure for Peter IV as well as at the papal court in Avignon. There he took on various © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_008

116

Sanz Julián

responsibilities, which included strengthening the city walls, and was the standard-bearer when the papal retinue returned to Rome in 1376. In 1377 he was made Grand Master of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, and while holding this office he took part in several campaigns in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the course of one of these, in 1378, Heredia was captured as he tried to extend the Order’s hegemony and conquer Lepanto from the Albanians. He was kept in captivity until the Hospitaller Order was able to collect the enormous sum needed for his ransom. Throughout a number of years, the Grand Master fought succesfully against the Ottoman Empire, occupied Corinth, and defended the Order’s sees in Rhodes and the Morea, but he also discovered and learnt about Byzantine culture and the work of the Greek historians at first hand.1 Heredia, however, did not only spend his time on intrigues and politics. As a consequence of the Western Schism and his support for Clement VII, Heredia settled in Avignon where he founded a scriptorium. The scriptorium, following his precise instructions, produced remarkable manuscripts and some of the first translations of Greek historians into a Romance language. The language of these translations was Aragonese, spoken in the kingdom of Aragon in northeastern Spain. Heredia’s literary activity was constant, especially from 1385. His various works include translations, compilations, and a volume for the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem. Critics have often debated whether or not Heredia was a humanist. Quite clearly, given his age and mentality, he could not have formed part of the rollcall of humanist authors, even though it is obvious that his personal situation enabled him to travel all over the Mediterranean, be in permanent contact with the European intellectual elites, and keep abreast of literary developments. All these aspects are widely reflected in his rich work.2 2

The Manuscript: BNE 10.801

Manuscript 10.801, containing two selections of speeches in the Aragonese language, is kept in the National Library of Spain. The first of these selections, the Tucídides, or Guerra del Peloponeso, brings together speeches from Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War (1r–69v). From fols. 71r to 194r, there is an anthology of the speeches taken from the Historia destructionis Troiae by Guido delle Colonne. Manuscript 10.801 (olim Ii.68) consists of a total of 194 1  Cf. Bosio (1594), Herquet (1878), Serrano y Sanz (1913), López Molina (1960), Luttrell (1959), and Cacho Blecua (1997). 2  Gómez Redondo (1999) 1649. Cf. also Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 137.

A Medieval Anthology

117

parchment folios.3 Fol. 70, which separates the two works, is a blank page, as are fols. 194v to 197v, which are unnumbered. On the recto side of the last one, two different hands have indicated the volume’s contents (“Oraciones de griegos y troyanos” and “Historias y Acontecimientos entre Griegos y Troyanos”: “Speeches by Greeks and Trojans” and “Histories and Events between Greeks and Trojans”);4 on the verso side, next to the seal of the Biblioteca Nacional, is the following inscription: “Plut. I. Lit. IV. Nº. 15,” which is the catalog number it used to have in the Osuna Library.5 The CT starts on the last two fols. of the same quire as the one in which the Tucídides ends, which is what enables us to state that the two works were planned as a single unit and that the two parts of the whole must have been completed within a reasonably short time of each other. There is no date on manuscript 10.801, although we can set a date post quem (1385) and another date ante quem (1396). The Grant Crónica de Espanya supplies the first date. The third part of this work by Heredia tells the story of Ulysses after the destruction of Troy. The CT narrates it on fols. 190v to 194r. These pages, however, are not used as either the principal or secondary source of the Grant Crónica de Espanya. We know that the copying of the first version of this compilation was completed on 13 January 1385, the second version in December 1388, and the last one before 1393. It is a reasonable assumption that if Heredia had had these materials, he would have used them to write the GCdE.6 As for the date ante quem, the CT must, of necessity, have been finished before the death of the Grand Master in 1396. According to available data, the Tucídides manuscript was copied between 1384 and 1396, although the Aragonese translation must obviously have been earlier than that.7 These dates correspond exactly to those of our CT, enabling us to date the 3  The manuscript measurements, which I have verified personally, are 30.2 x 43.5 cm (binding) and 29.6 x 42 cm (inside: these measurements correspond to folio 71r). The codex is written in two columns of between 29 and 31 lines, with a space of one centimetre between each one. The column boundaries measure 8.1 x 28.5 cm, the inter-column space 3.3 x 28.5 cm, and the left, right, upper, and lower margins, 4.1 cm, 5.9 cm, 5.1 cm and 8.4 cm, respectively. 4  According to Schiff (1905) 16, the first of these inscriptions was written in the fifteenth century. As for the second one, López Molina (1960) 48 does not actually attribute it to Schiff, but states that it was not earlier than the study of the manuscript made by the Italian researcher. 5  After Heredia’s death, the manuscript passed, as Lasso de la Vega (1962) 456 states, into the King’s hands and afterwards into Íñigo López de Mendoza’s; due to family links, it remained for four centuries in the House of Osuna’s library, whose volumes are described by Rocamora (1882) § 91. At the end of the nineteenth century, the codex became part of the Biblioteca Nacional de España. 6  Cf. Cacho Blecua (1997) 100, Cacho Blecua (1991) 182, and Geijerstam (1964) 41. 7  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 144, Álvarez Rodríguez (2007) xxx, and López Molina (1960) 48.

118

Sanz Julián

completion of the whole manuscript 10.801 between 1385 and 1396. However, the absence of some decorative elements in the codex and its unfinished appearance tell us that the death of the Grand Master may have affected the manuscript’s completion, whose composition would then be closer to 1396 than to 1384 (vide infra). As regards the script, it is Gothic minuscule from the second half of the fourteenth century. It tends to be rounded, which is why it has also been called letra rodona, in contrast to textura quadrata.8 The volume also has Arabic numbering, which must have been added after Schiff described the manuscript, since he states that the folios were not numbered.9 The original numbering in Roman numerals has disappeared. We also find lines delicately ruled in black throughout the manuscript, with the exception of fols. 70 (separating Tucídides from the CT) and 197v. The scribe writes in red and black ink. At the beginning of the CT, red ink is used to highlight certain parts: titles of speeches, narrative settings between speeches, and pilcrows. From fol. 77r onwards, red ink is used for just the first and third of these purposes. The case of the Tucídides is different. Just before every speech, there is a blank space; these spaces of between two and eight lines would have been prepared for the rubrics, which supports IglesiasZoido’s theory that the Tucídides was a translation of a pre-existing selection of Thucydides’ speeches.10 The scribe would have left the creation of the rubrics for a later moment. The CT, however, was an ad hoc selection and this essential part of the text’s ordinatio was there from the start. The idea that these blanks in the Tucídides were designed to separate the speeches or to insert miniatures does not seem very likely.11 From fol. 96r onwards, we find blanks in the CT for pilcrows that were never drawn. This absence, together with the rubric matter mentioned in the Tucídides, supports the idea that manuscript 10.801 is unfinished, either because the Grand Master had died or because he was unable to supervise the work to completion. The date of composition, therefore, should be moved closer to 1396 than to 1384. Throughout the text, we find many decorated initials (alternating red on a blue background with blue on a red background). These initials are

8  Cf. Millares Carlo (1985) I 215, García Villada (1923) II lviii, and San Vicente (1992) II 9. 9  Cf. Schiff (1905) 17. 10  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 146 and 148. 11  López Molina (1960) 49 and Schiff (1905) 19.

A Medieval Anthology

119

characteristic of Heredia’s manuscripts.12 Those on fols. 1r and 71r, which come right at the beginning of each work, are particularly bright, with gold for the letter decoration and also for the vegetal ornaments (branches terminating in trilobate leaves and forming a half frame). Decorated initials (in blue and red or with motifs of vegetation in gold) are very frequent in manuscripts from Paris and Avignon, in particular, in the thirteenth and at the end of the fourteenth centuries, as Labande points out.13 The illuminated initials are: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U and Y. A catchword at the end of each quire anticipates the beginning of the text on the following recto. The catchword errors and those in the text have been corrected by the same hand. Only on fol. 160v does the error appear to have gone unnoticed. The binding is made of leather with four helmets on embossed circles on both covers. The circles frame a coat of arms, which is quite damaged on the front cover and completely detached at the back. The coat of arms is quarterly per saltire; in chief and base vert, a bend gules fimbriated Or, and in flanks Or, a motto sable “ave [m]aria / gratia [plena],” which is only partially legible. Mario Schiff identified this kind of binding as that of some books belonging to Íñigo López de Mendoza, Marquis of Santillana. When the manuscript was bound, the folios were cut and the Roman numerals disappeared. The edges of the parchment were gilded.14 Both content and form prove that manuscript 10.801 forms a single unit. The Tucídides and the CT are anthologies of speeches and were not bound together by chance after being prepared separately. The volume was devised as a whole; we only have to remember that the CT starts in the same quire as the one in which the Tucídides ends. We have already indicated that the manuscript is a collection of speeches from Thucydides’ The History of the Peloponnesian War and the Historia destructionis Troiae by Guido delle Colonne that were translated into Aragonese. The speeches are linked by short narrative settings, which make the text more intelligible. This disposition is clearly explained at the beginning and the end of the CT: Aquí comiençan las oraciones et arenguas de la ystoria troyana, así de consellos como de conveniencias et trattamientos havidos entre los 12  We find the same casos cuadrados in the Ceremonial de Consagración y Coronación de los Reyes de Aragón, whose scribe might be the same as for manuscript 10.801, cf. San Vicente (1992) 12. 13  Cf. Labande (1907) 230, 231, and 235. 14  Cf. Schiff (1905) 16.

120

Sanz Julián

griegos et los troyanos & otras naciones que incidentalment tocaron a la dicha ystoria (fol. 71r a). Here begin the speeches and harangues of the history of Troy, as well as the councils, talks and dealings that took place between the Greeks and the Trojans and other nations that occasionally took part in that history. Onde, porque del nuestro propósito non es tractar aquí a pleno la dicha istoria, por tanto nós mandamos sacar los fundamentos & puntos de la sustancia de ella a fin que non tan solament el sentimiento de las oraciones, proposicionnes et arengas en ella contenidas millor se ofrescan entendibles a los que las leyeren, hoc encara que qualquier pueda aver compendioso sumario de la dicha historia por do millor pueda seyer recomendada a la memoria (fol. 194r b).15 Since our purpose here is not to deal with the entire history, we are therefore required to take out the fundamentals and points of substance from it, so that not only the sentiment of the speeches, propositions, and exhortations contained in it should be better presented in an understandable way to those who read them, but also, so that anybody may have a condensed summary of the said history so that it can be better committed to memory. We find no similar comments in the Tucídides, where the narrative settings are relatively fewer and much shorter than in the CT. The reason for this difference is the source used for the Aragonese translation of the first work, which Iglesias-Zoido correctly identifies as one of the collections of speeches that were so appreciated by the Byzantines.16 If Heredia had commissioned the speech selection directly from Thucydides’ work, the result would have probably included more information on the narrative context, along the lines of the CT. In point of fact, it is much easier to read the latter work, where the narrative passages provide all the elements necessary to understand the development of the action, even for those not acquainted with the story of the Trojan War. On the other hand, only someone who knew the original work very well would be able to understand the context of the speeches in the Tucídides.17 15  Both translations are mine. Henceforth, passages of the CT are from the edition by Sanz Julián (2012) and those of the Historia destructionis Troiae from Griffin’s edition (1936). 16  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2005) 147 and Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 148. 17  For a more detailed study of this work, see the following chapter by Iglesias-Zoido.

A Medieval Anthology

3

121

The Oratorical Context of the Manuscript

Although the works contained in the manuscript do not belong to the group of the major Heredian compilations, they are extraordinarily interesting texts that should be interpreted in the light of the general interest in historiography and oratory, as well as of the cultural environment of the Aragonese crown at the end of the fourteenth century. For many years, Heredia had had in mind the idea of taking control of the Morea and he took pleasure in reading about the historical affairs of Greece.18 Because of his wide culture, he would have been well acquainted with the characters who appeared in the pages of the manuscript. By the time the codex was made, Heredia was an old man living in Avignon, practically retired from any military or political activity. He had time to read, so we can conclude that if he gave the task of making the CT to his collaborators, it was not because he did not have time to read the whole work, but because he was genuinely interested in the speeches in it, as the beginning of the manuscript confirms. It is not very likely that he needed oratorical models at that stage of his life, but he surely understood their value and importance, especially if we take into account rhetorical practices at the time. There was a growing interest in profane oratory and the artes dictandi from the twelfth century on, not only as a means of learning Latin, but also as a useful element for politics.19 Martín de Riquer considers that, without the brilliant oratory at the court of the Crown of Aragon, Heredia would never have felt tempted to translate these dazzling rhetorical speeches into Aragonese.20 In this context, speeches could be used for different purposes and take many different forms. These circumstances led to the development of the artes arengandi, which could be used for writing either speeches or letters. The relationship between manuscript 10.801 and the tradition of works like Occulus pastoralis (1220), Gemma purpura (1239–1248), Parlamenta et epistola (1242– 1243) by Guido Faba, the Arringhe by Matteo de’ Libri (1275), and some other works by Brunetto Latini—in which the authors looked for practical applications for classical rhetoric—has often been set within this framework.21 We also know that Humanism recuperated the compositional technique of using 18  Cf. Serrano y Sanz, (1913) 66, Domínguez Bordona (1920) 326, Cortés Arrese (1983), Cortés Arrese (1987), and Cortés Arrese (1996). 19  Cf. Gómez Moreno (1994) 167 and Cátedra (1985) 70. 20  Cf. Riquer (1969) 229. 21  Cf. Cacho Blecua (1991) 185–186, Cacho Blecua (1997) 145, Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 143, and Murphy (1981).

122

Sanz Julián

harangues and epistles in historical works.22 In this respect, Wilmart asserts: “Que l’ars dictandi, auquel les historiens commencent de s’intéresser, soit lié dans l’enseignement médiéval à l’ars concionatoria c’est ce qui devrait le moins nous surprendre” (“It should come as no surprise to us to learn that the ars dictandi, which began to arouse the interest of historians, is bound up with medieval teaching and the ars concionatoria”).23 This technique had already been used by the most important Latin historians and was reemployed by Guido delle Colonne in his Historia destructionis Troiae. Furthermore, in the fourteenth century there was an increasing interest in Greek historians and in knowing the actual facts and words that had been uttered in the past. In the wake of this interest came collections of speeches and harangues, and those of certain authors, such as Thucydides, often became independent oratorical pieces.24 It is very interesting to see how Heredia incorporated into his works elements and materials that would soon be characteristic of the new times. Some authors have asserted that the manuscript was conceived as a model for military oratory,25 although the speeches in the CT present an enormous variety of subjects (from the monologues of Cassandra in which she laments the future loss of Troy to the author’s invective against women, priests, or Jason for breaking his promises of love to Medea). In fact, throughout the CT we find several examples of the demonstrative, deliberative, and judicial genres, although not always the six parts that were required by classical rhetoric (exordium, narratio, divisio, confirmatio, confutatio, and conclusio). This variety was the consequence of the personal nature of the work, and the fact that the aim was not to construct the speeches completely in accordance with the rules of rhetoric.26 4

The Anthology of Speeches in the Crónica Troyana

The Matter of Troy The CT was born of the personal interest of the Grand Master, but was also a product of its time, closely related to the artes arengandi and artes dictandi, and also to the Matter of Troy, which was tremendously successful in the Late 22  Cf. Gómez Moreno (1994) 171. 23  Cf. Wilmart (1933) 117. 24  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2008a) 945 and Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 141. 25  Cf. Vives (1927) 14. 26  Cf. A. Wilmart (1933) 122.

A Medieval Anthology

123

Middle Ages. In the second half of the eleventh century, we find the first Latin inscriptions in Spain that mention figures and events related to the destruction of the city of Troy. From that moment on, it was a recurring subject in Spanish literature. Of all the works about the Trojan War, the Historia destructionis Troiae was the one that left the greatest impression on Spanish literature. This story, finished in 1287, was written in Latin by the Sicilian judge Guido delle Colonne (ca. 1210–ca. 1287), and translated into dozens of languages and used as a principal or secondary source by many works, some of them very late ones. The Sumas by Leomarte, written around the middle of the fourteenth century, was the first work in the Iberian Peninsula to collect the materials of Guido delle Colonne, although there were other works besides the Sumas that used the Historia destructionis Troiae as a primary source and which were quite respectful of the original. The first translation of Guido into one of the peninsular languages was into Catalan by Jaime Conesa—secretary to Peter IV the Ceremonious between 1367 and 1374—and follows the source very closely. This work was likewise used by the authors of Tirant lo Blanc and Curial y Güelfa. Only a few years later, Juan Fernández de Heredia finished his anthology of the CT in the Aragonese language. It seems that he used a lost Latin manuscript or, less probably, a Romance version of the Historia destructionis Troiae that would have been very close to the Latin original. The CT is extremely respectful of its source, but it is also true that the use of interposed romance versions was very common in Heredia’s scriptorium, although it has not been proven in this case. The adaptability of the Matter of Troy enabled it to be easily modified to the tastes of each period. In Heredia’s case, the interest in this kind of text should be understood in the light of his love for historiography and Greco-Roman culture. Moreover, the way he handles Guido’s work prefigures the evolution of this matter, which only a few years later played a very important role in the birth of chivalric literature.27 The Ordinatio of the Anthology In the context of Heredia’s works, the ordinatio of the CT is quite unusual; it lacks the accessus, the table of contents, and the division into parts (books and chapters with internal subdivisions), elements that are found in most of the Grand Master’s works. We may assume, in this instance, that because of its peculiar ordinatio, the rubrics missing from the Tucídides and the pilcrows missing from the CT, ms. 10.801, it was unfinished. The Marquis of Santillana 27  Cf. García Solalinde (1916) 121–165 and Rey and García Solalinde (1942).

124

Sanz Julián

probably bought the volume in this condition and with the unbound quires, which would be why he had the manuscript bound and why, unlike in other cases, it does not bear Heredia’s property mark. Heredia’s CT abandons the division into books of the Historia destructionis Troiae. The plot remains the same (the story begins with Jason’s journey in search of the Golden Fleece and concludes when Ulysses narrates his adventures to King Idomeneus), but our CT subordinates all formal and content elements to the speeches and words of the characters. Most of the narrative material has therefore been removed. As for the internal organization of the text, it is very difficult to discern a coherent structure using just a few conventional signs. It is impossible to make the speeches stand out from the structured narrative passages and establish a clear hierarchy that enables the reader to know where he is and, at the same time, respect the dispositio of the Latin text. The peculiar structure of the CT would have made it difficult to prepare a table of contents, although it would have been much easier in the case of the Tucídides. Actually, if the manuscript lacks these elements, it would not be due so much to these difficulties, but to other circumstances that led to the work being left unfinished. We should also take into account that the table of contents could only be prepared after the whole work was completed. Rubrics are traditionally used, as Heredia does in other works, to present and summarize new chapters. The includes rubrics in the first two quires of the CT, when he seeks to make the “oraciones et arenguas” (“speeches and harangues”) stand out from the narrative settings by using inks of different colours, but this method is abandoned even before the third quire. The CT begins on fol. 71r with a rubric, which is in place of Guido delle Colonne’s prologue. Afterwards, there is a beautifully decorated initial and a narrative passage in black ink. Here we find a summary of everything that happens in the Historia destructionis Troiae up to the first speech. Both rubric and narrative passage operate as a prologue. Speeches are copied in black ink and the rest is in red ink until fol. 77r. The initial intention was to present the oratorical passages in black ink, the settings in red, and the initials in blue, but this system did not work due to the irregular lengths of the different passages. This apparently simple kind of ordinatio is in fact used from fols. 71r to 77r, although even here we find some exceptions: three short narrative settings are in black ink with no previous distinguishing marks (fols. 72r b, 73v b, and 77r a). The failure of the initial method was due to two main reasons. First of all, it would have been impossible to copy all the narrative settings in red: some of them are extraordinarily long and would have looked more important than the speeches themselves. Besides, it would seem necessary to write an introduction

A Medieval Anthology

125

to these long narrative passages and structure them, like the one on fol. 77r, with some of the conventional signs, but it would have been very difficult to do this and at the same time separate the settings visually from the speeches. From fol. 77r onwards, the red, black, and blue inks are combined, more or less systematically: the speeches and narrative settings are written in black, and the introductions, the pilcrows, and the rubrics that structure the long narrative settings in red. This general rule presents, however, a great number of variants and anomalies, which shows the difficulties the scribe faced when structuring the text using these simple elements. In most cases, rubrics are used to emphasize the beginning of each speech and occasionally provide information about the context in which it took place. Nevertheless, up until fol. 78r, we find some that include a large amount of narrative material. Two of these are especially remarkable: those on fols. 73v–74r and 78r. When the rubrics introducing a speech include narrative information, this information is generally taken from the lines immediately preceding the speech in question. Rubrics, however, are also used for other purposes: to introduce narrative settings and separate them visually from preceding speeches (e.g. speech 80) or from shorter following narrative passages (v.gr. on fols. 77r, 108v and 132r), and to structure particularly long narrative settings, in which case the position of the rubric is not fortuitous. The translation of these parts follows the Latin source, although not as precisely as the speeches. Suppression of a Latin passage (vide fols. 143r, 155v or 156v) or the beginning of a new book in the Historia destructionis Troiae (e.g. speech 81) is clearly indicated in the CT by means of a rubric. Sometimes, when the parts into which the passage is divided are not independent of each other, the gap is marked with a pilcrow (e.g. fol. 147r). We often find rubrics where the author has not taken the Latin text as his direct source but has reworked the information he considered relevant, irrespective of whether that information was dispersed in the text of the Historia destructionis Troiae, which the author appeared to know very well. Whether these rubrics existed in the Latin version that was used as a source is something we do not know; more likely they were carefully composed by the person employed by Heredia to produce the CT. We should also bear in mind that these rubrics only make sense in the context of the new work, where speeches play an essential role. The “original” rubrics are generally shorter than the rest and merely indicate who the speaker is and, at most, whom he or she is addressing (v.gr. fols. 126v, 127r, or 131v). In these cases, the rubrics generally follow more or less stereotypical patterns that hardly vary throughout the text. The most frequent forms are these: “Síguese la respuesta de,” “esta es la respuesta,” “estas son las paraulas,”

126

Sanz Julián

“oración fecha por,” “cómo,” “síguense / síguense,” “de,” “respuesta,” “paraulas dichas por,” or “esta es la oración” (“The response follows,” “this is the response,” “these are the words,” “speech given by,” “how,” “there follow,” “from,” “response,” “words spoken by,” or “this is the speech”). In such cases, there is a double introduction to the speech: one taken from Guido and inserted in a narrative setting, and the other, shorter, made by the author of the CT. In some similar cases, the speech is highlighted, not by a rubric, but by an initial (e.g. fols. 77v, 122r, and 129r). When the author composes the rubrics, he selects information that he considers important: who speaks to whom, sometimes where the speech takes place, the attitude of the characters, and so on. Occasionally, we find a few more details about the characters (speaker or listener): for example, his social position or whether or not he is important with respect to someone of high status. We have already mentioned the red and blue decorated initials that are frequent in Heredia’s works. It is noticeable that they systematically appear after every rubric, although there are some exceptions to this rule (e.g. fols. 77r, 79r, 79v, 128r, 129r, and 138v). Most of these instances correspond to speeches that are introduced by the previous narrative setting taken from Guido, not by a rubric. Whether the author forgot to write the rubric or decided that it was unnecessary because the speeches were so short is a question we are unable to answer. Nonetheless, the fact is that on other occasions we find rubrics that are longer than the speeches they introduce. Finally, we find some initials in places where there should be a pilcrow, for example, at certain points that structure narrative passages (v.gr. fol. 81 where the end of book IV and the beginning of book V are marked in the Latin source) or where their use is to separate speeches from a later narrative setting (v.gr. fols. 79r and 122v). The rubrics and the pilcrows were made after the whole work had been copied, which explains the blanks in the manuscript. We have already seen that the blanks in the Tucídides are of two to eight lines and can be explained in different ways. In the CT, the blank spaces are not as wide, and the text fits into the space quite neatly. Only occasionally do we find part of a line left blank (e.g. fols. 128r and 187r). These spaces are filled in with interlaced lines or point decorations in the same color as the preceding text (vide fols. 76v or 145v). Only twice (fols. 105v and 131r) are the letters spaced out so as to fill the whole line. On the other hand, there are blanks for pilcrows in the CT that were never drawn. The first one is on fol. 96r and the last one on 193v. It is interesting to see that from fol. 96r onwards, pilcrows alternate with blanks left for pilcrows to be inserted, and as the work progresses the number of blanks increases. It is

A Medieval Anthology

127

difficult to find an explanation for this procedure. We would have expected to find all the blanks from a particular folio onwards, but this is not the case here. The Speeches in the Crónica Troyana There are 147 loci in this anthology where the characters speak. Not all of them can be considered speeches or harangues; many are very short and follow on from each other, so constructing rapid dialogues between characters (for example, in the conversation between Jason and Medea from fol. 74 onwards). There are also monologues, exclamations and short speeches where the author tries to persuade the reader of something. There is a noticeable interest in direct speech. We have already seen that the CT reproduces, with slight variations, the speeches and words of the characters contained in the Historia destructionis Troiae, and summarizes or suppresses the narrative settings between them. Nevertheless, there are some examples where the oratorical passages have been significantly altered. They are of scarcely any importance in the general context of the CT, but they do show us the way in which the work was composed. There are two kinds of basic transformation to rhetorical passages: the suppression of short speeches or words of the characters, and the transformation of passages from direct to indirect discourse, or vice versa. Most of the suppressions involve short, unimportant speeches contained within longer passages that were not translated into Aragonese. Once the passage had been suppressed, the speeches suffered the same fate. This was what happened to the digression about idolatry in book X of the Historia destructionis Troiae (which contains very short quotes attributed to saints and prophets), a long passage from book XIII (in which there are two speeches by Calchas), and another passage from book XXI, which contains a few words uttered by Andromache. These speeches would not in fact have contributed much to improving the final anthology, but to include them would have required a summary of the suppressed narrative passage that would inevitably have been longer than the speech itself, so that the structure of the plot of the CT would have suffered. Some other short speeches or character’s words, which were not inserted into a longer narrative passage, were also suppressed, presumably because they were considered irrelevant and so were not translated. There is just one speech (in book III of the Historia destructionis Troiae) that is of considerable length, has all the characteristics of other speeches in the CT, and has not been translated. This is a tirade in which the author criticizes Jason for betraying Medea, and Medea for being blinded by her love for Jason, so that she did not know what was going to happen. There are other speeches in the

128

Sanz Julián

CT in which the author/narrator expresses his opinion on various matters. The lost Latin manuscript that was used as a source may not have included this passage, although, unfortunately, we cannot confirm it; or perhaps, it was not made clear at the beginning of the working process whether speeches by the author of the Historia had to be translated. In the end, it was decided to include them in the CT, although this particular speech would not be saved, even though it could have been included in the text with no further additions. Parts of two other speeches are omitted. The first one is the diatribe of some author against Helen, in particular, and women in general, the first part of which (book VII of Historia destructionis Troiae) has been suppressed. The second case is a speech by Antenor to Thoata (book XXX of the Historia destructionis Troiae). The beginning and the end are missing. The suppression of important elements of speeches is very unusual, so that we must attribute these cases to a gap in the lost Latin source, although obviously we cannot confirm this theory. The possibility of a careless translation is not a reasonable one, given that the translator of the CT works carefully and shows excellent knowledge of the source. The transformation of passages from indirect into direct discourse is also noteworthy. This procedure is very common in selections of orationes,28 although this particular technique is used only once in our CT. However, we find several examples of the opposite situation: a passage originally written in direct discourse in the Latin source is rewritten in the Aragonese version in indirect discourse. There are also two examples of Latin passages in reported speech that were translated using free reported speech and one example of the opposite situation.29 Most of these particular cases take place in short sen28  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 149: “la práctica común de los historiadores y la propia normativa retórica de época imperial ya recomendaban ‘completar’ y ‘mejorar’, pasándolas a estilo directo, aquellas intervenciones que un historiador había dejado resumidas o en estilo indirecto” (“The common practice among historians and the rhetorical rules of the Imperial Age themselves already recommended ‘completing’ and ‘improving’ those speeches that a historian had left in summary form or written in indirect discourse, by turning them into direct discourse”). 29  To see the complete casuistry, cf. Sanz Julián (2012) lv-lxiii. “Licet enim Hector suas acies sic ordinasset, numquid Agamenon negligens extitit uel remissus in ordinacione suarum?” Griffin (1936) 131 (“For, even though Hector had drawn his line of battle in this way, was Agamemnon negligent or remiss in the arrangement of his?”) and “Et pues, maguer que Éctor d’esta manera huviesse ordenadas sus azes, yo te demando si Agamenón fue negligent et frido en ordenar las suyas” (fol. 127v, b) (“Then, although Hector had organized his troops this way, I ask you if Agamemnon showed to be negligent or indolet in the arrangement of his”); “ . . . excepto Hectore, qui de indulgendis eisdem omnino dissensit, asserens

A Medieval Anthology

129

tences, whose transformation hardly matters, although sometimes the resulting text is less elegant because of the mixture of reported and direct speech. It is difficult to say why the translator decided to make these changes, although examples are relatively common; the only obvious reasons would be to do with his own particular aesthetic preferences or he may have been thinking of his early training, when he would have studied the proverbium and done exercises of this type.30 Apart from the special cases we have already seen, the remaining harangues and speeches from the Historia destructionis Troiae are accurately reproduced in the CT. There is a general tendency in the translation of oratorical passages to bring intensity, dignity and grandiloquence to texts that would otherwise have been too plain, with the translator introducing a few elements to make the speeches reflect the ideal structure of the artes dictandi. We mention below some of these stylistic techniques present in the CT. The first one consists of introducing salutationes that are lacking in Guido. These salutationes open the speeches, give the names of the interlocutors, and Grecos ex dolo et astucia petere predictas inducias, sumpta occasione fallaci quod uelint scilicet eorum mortuos interim sepelire, cum ipsi uictualibus careant et pro acquirendis eisdem commodam interim habent facultatem, ‘et nos interim nostra uictualia consumemus, que tamen nobis necessaria pro sustinenda tanta gente in hac ciuitate nobiscum inclusa prorsus existat’ ” Griffin (1936) 160 (“except Hector, who was utterly opposed to consenting to it declaring that the Greeks were seeking the said truce out of guile and cunning, having adopted the ruse that they naturally wanted to bury their dead during that time, while they themselves were short of provisions and might have a good opportunity to acquire them, ‘and in the meantime we are consuming our own provisions, which are absolutely necessary to sustain the multitude who are confined in this city with us’ ”), and “ . . . sacando Éctor, que contradixo diziendo que los griegos por enganyo et art maliciosa demandavan treguas, tomando aquella falsa et mentirosa occasión, ‘esto es, que quieren en esti medio sepultar los muertos, como seya otra la verdat,’ esto es, que ellos non tenían viandas et que en aquesti tiempo ellos avrían spacio pora buscarlas a su provecho, et por tal que en esti tien/po los troyanos consumassen las que tenían en su çiudat, las quales les eran neççesarias pora mantener et sostener tanta gent como dentro está encerrada” (“except Hector, who disagreed saying that the Greeks deceitfully and cunningly asked for truces under false pretences, ‘that is, that they want to bury their dead during this time, whereas the truth is quite different,’ that is, that they didn’t have any food and they might be able to forage for some in that space of time for their benefit, and so that in that time the Trojans would consume the provisions they had in their city, which were necessary for sustaining and mantaining as many people as there were confined within it”) (fol. 132v a and b). Cf. also Griffin (1936) 196 and fol. 154v a, Griffin (1936) 225 and fol. 177r a and b, and Griffin (1936) 225 and fols. 185v b–186r a. 30  Cf. Rico (1982) 29–32 and Serés Guillén (1994) 6 n. 45.

130

Sanz Julián

function as a form of politeness. In the second, some elements are modified by intensifying them. For example, on fol. 89v the translator introduces a salutatio which was not in the Latin source: “¡Fillos mucho amados!” In the same way, the beginning of the speeches is intensified when necessary: “¡O, malvado siervo!” (“Oh, wicked servant!,” fol. 86v) < “Serue” (p. 55). We also find several examples in which a vocative embedded in the sentence in the Latin source is placed, in the Aragonese text, at the beginning of the sentence and speech. The aim again is to emphasize and follow the principles of rhetoric. An example is: “¡O, Jasón! Sepas que si tú me prendes por muller et . . .” (“Oh, Jason! Know that if you take me as your wife and . . .,” fol. 76r) < “Si me tibi copulaueris in uxorem, si me ab hoc regno, Iason, . . .” (p. 21). As with any other translation in the Middle Ages, we frequently find multinominal expressions (where a Latin word is translated into two Aragonese terms), and elements added to connect passages or to make the text more coherent. There are also elements that are repeated in order to intensify and organize the text according to the classical tripartite structure: “Et sabedes bien que . . . et sabedes bien que . . . et sabedes que . . . Ítem sabedes que . . .” (“And know that . . .,” fol. 83r) < “Scitis enim . . .” (p. 51). Finally, there are small omissions made in an attempt to improve the style by avoiding repeating the same or similar words. In other cases, there is no obvious reason why words are omitted. As far as the narrative settings are concerned, they are translated in accordance with quite uniform criteria. Short narrative passages are reproduced completely and with the same degree of accuracy as if they were speeches. Those of medium length are generally quite faithfully translated, but with some examples of small changes or omissions as well. Throughout the Historia destructionis Troiae, we also find narrative passages of quite considerable length, some of which even span more than one book. In such cases, only the lines preceding the speeches are translated with care. Here we find essential information related to the speeches: the identity of the orator and the audience; their mood; and the place, time, and circumstances in which the speech is delivered. We should keep in mind that this fundamental information is presented in the rubrics. The narrative passages translated into Aragonese are essential for reading the speeches and understanding all their details. As for digressions, those that are not absolutely essential for understanding the speeches are suppressed: for example, detailed descriptions (battles, objects, lists of combatants), encyclopaedic digressions (the origin of the Myrmidons in book I, Ursa Major and Ursa Minor also in book I, or the birth of idolatry in book X) and purely narrative passages. In other words, they are not essential elements for contextualizing the speeches. A point of interest is that the Aragonese expressions “Breument” or “Et breument” indicate the places

131

A Medieval Anthology

where some part of Guido’s text had been suppressed (e.g. on fols. 71r b, 72r b, and 78r b). 5 Conclusions The CT is a very thought-provoking text with all the features of a book by Heredia. From a formal point of view, the unfinished manuscript lacks the portrait of the Grand Master, but not the other characteristics of his literary works: the format (folio), script (Gothic minuscule), simple decoration (French vegetal half-framing, coloured initials, rubrics), and language (Aragonese). As for the content, the CT includes almost all recurring elements of the works created in Heredia’s scriptorium, which have been pointed out by Gómez Redondo:31 the desire to recuperate the most prestigious historians from the past and concern for historiography coexist with an evident love of chivalric narrative, adventure, the matter of Antiquity, and the specula principum. If all these elements are more obvious in the CT than in the Tucídides, it is due to the fact that the former was prepared from the outset at the request of the Grand Master and was not a translation of a previously made collection. Consequently, the narrative material, and hence the elements of love, fantasy, and chivalry, are more important in the CT, as well as the approach to literary genres which would be so successf ul in the years that followed.32

Appendix: Index of Speeches in Crónica Troyana (Proper names in Aragonese)

Number

Speech by

Folio

1 2 3 4 5 6

Peleo to Jasón Laomedón’s messenger to Jasón Jasón to his people Jasón to Laomedón’s messenger Ércules to Laomedón’s messenger Jasón to Ércules

71v a 72v a 72v b 72v b 73v a 73v a

31  Gómez Redondo (1999) 1651–1655. 32  This chapter was produced within the framework of the Research Project FFI2012–32259 and Research Group “Clarisel” (H34), recognized by the Diputación General de Aragón, both directed by Dr. María Jesús Lacarra Ducay.

132

Sanz Julián

(cont.) Number

Speech by

Folio

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Medea to Jasón Jasón to Medea Medea to Jasón Jasón to Medea Medea to Jasón Jasón to Medea Medea to Jasón Jasón to Medea Medea to Jasón Jasón to Medea Medea to Jasón Jasón to Medea Medea to Jasón Jasón to Medea Jasón to King Oethes King Oethes to Jasón Jasón to King Oethes King Oethes to Jasón Medea (monologue) Peleo to the Monarchs Ércules to Peleo Príamo to the Trojan people Anthenor to Peleo Anthenor to Thelamón Thelamón to Anthenor Cástor and Pollus to Anthenor Néstor to Anthenor The author (monologue) Príamo to his people Príamo to his sons Príamo to Éctor Éctor to Príamo Paris to Éctor Mercurio to Paris Mercurio to Paris Deóphebo to Príamo

74r b 74v a 74v b 75r b 75v a 75v a 76r a 76r a 76v a 76v b 77r b 77v a 77v b 78r a 78r b 78r b 78v a 78v a 78v b 79v b 80v a 82r b 84r a 84v b 85r b 86r a 86v a 87r b 88r a 89v a 89v b 90r b 92r a 93r b 94r a 94v a

133

A Medieval Anthology

Number

Speech by

Folio

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74

Eleno to Príamo Troillo to Eleno Príamo to his citizens Pertheo to Príamo Casandra (monologue) Príamo to the Trojan people The author against Elena Paris to the Trojan people Paris to Elena Elena to Paris Paris to Elena Paris to Elena Elena to Paris Casandra (monologue) Agamenón to Menalao Agamenón to the Greek people Apollo to Achiles Apollo to Calcas Calcas to Agamenón Agamenón to the Greek people Vlixes to Príamo Príamo to Vlixes Diómedes to Príamo Príamo to his people Eneas to Príamo Diómedes to Eneas Vlixes to Príamo Agamenón to the Greek people Achiles to Thelepho Thelepho to Achiles Achiles to Thelepho King Theutra to Achiles and Thelepho Diómedes to to the Greek people Éctor to Troillo Troillo to Éctor Éctor to Príamo

95r a 95v a 96v a 97r b 98r a 98v b 100v b 102v b 105r a 105v a 105v b 105v b 106v a 107v a 109r b 111r a 112v b 113r a 113v b 115v b 118r a 118v a 119r b 119v b 120r a 120r b 120v a 120v b 122r b 122r b 122v a 122v b

75 76 77 78

125r a 126r b 126v b 127r a

134

Sanz Julián

(cont.) Number

Speech by

Folio

79 80 81 82 83 84

Príamo to Éctor Merión to Éctor Mises to the Trojan people Casandra to the Trojan people Diómedes to Eneas Príamo to his secretaries and councillors Eneas to Príamo Príamo to Eneas Éctor to the Trojan people Achiles to Éctor Éctor to Achiles The author (monologue) Brisaida to Diómedes Brisaida to Calcas Calcas to Brisaida The author (monologue) Éctor to Achiles Brisaida to Diómedes’ servant Agamenón to his people Agamenón to Palamides Agamenón to the Greek people Achiles (monologue) Éncuba to Achiles’ messenger Príamo to Éncuba Éncuba to Achiles’ messenger Achiles to the Greek people Deóphebo to Paris One of Achiles’ servants to Achiles Vlixes to Achiles Achiles to Vlixes Agamenón to the Greek people Calcas to the Greek The Myrmidons to Achiles The author (monologue)

127r b 128r b 129r a 130r a 130v b 131r a

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

131r b 131v a 132v a 133r b 133v a 135r b 136r a 136r b 137r a 137v a 138r b 138v b 140r b 141r b 142r a 145r a 146r b 146v b 147r b 147v b 149v a 151r b 152v b 153v a 154r b 155r a 158v a 160v a

135

A Medieval Anthology

Number

Speech by

Folio

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

Menón against Achiles The author (monologue) Écuba to Paris Thelamón to Paris Pirro to his people Penthasilea to Pirro The author against Príamo Eneas and Anthenor to Príamo Príamo to Anthenor and Eneas Anthenor to Príamo Amphímato to Anthenor Eneas to Amphímato Príamo to Anthenor and Eneas Príamo to Amphímato Eneas to Príamo Príamo to Eneas Príamo (monologue) The author (monologue) Vlixes against Anthenor Anthenor to Vlixes Diómedes to Anthenor Anthenor to Vlixes and Diómedes Diómedes to Anthenor Anthenor to Diómedes Anthenor to Vlixes and Diómedes Anthenor to Thoata The author (monologue) Casandra to the Trojan people Crisis to the Greek people Éncuba against Eneas Thelamón to the Greek people Thelamón to the Greek people Vlixes to Thelamón Eneas to the Trojan people Vlixes to King Idumeo

161v a 162v a 163r a 165r b 165v a 168v b 171r b 172r b 172r b 172v a 173r a 173v a 173v b 174v a 175v a 175v a 177r b 178r a 178v a 178v b 178v b 178v b 179v a 179v a 179v b 180r b 180v b 181r b 181v b 184v a 187r a 187v a 187v b 189r b 190v a

CHAPTER 7

The Byzantine Influence: Heredia’s Tucídides and the Contiones Thucydidis of Lapo da Castiglionchio Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido The aim of this chapter is to compare the Aragonese translation of the anthology of Thucydides’ speeches, known as Heredia’s Tucídides (ms. 10.801 BNE), with the selection made some years later by the Italian humanist Lapo da Castiglionchio (ca. 1405–1438), preserved in the Vatican ms. Urbinas Graecus 131. They appeared only a few years apart; the Tucídides was compiled in the late fourteenth century in Heredia’s scriptorium in Avignon, while the Contiones Thucydidis were copied in the first third of the fifteenth century by Lapo himself in Italy. In our view, comparing the two texts will enable us to study the beginning of the process of creating and circulating anthologies of speeches by Greek historians, such as Thucydides, in Europe at the end of the Middle Ages and in the early years of the Renaissance.1 More specifically, we shall examine two complementary issues in this study. The first one concerns the Byzantine influence that the two selections share and, indeed, if we want to understand the nature and purpose of the two anthologies of Thucydides’ speeches (an author almost unknown in the Latin West during the Middle Ages), it is necessary to consider beforehand the way in which the classical Greek historians were traditionally read in Byzantium. The second issue is to study the differences in the way the two anthologies were drawn up. In a previous study, we argued that Heredia’s translation was almost certainly based on a selection of speeches drafted earlier in a Byzantine cultural context, which he would have had access to during his stay in Greek territory.2 This hypothesis is supported by a series of formal features and the content of the manuscript. Lapo, on the other hand, based his anthology on a detailed reading of a manuscript containing the complete work of Thucydides. Lapo’s manuscript reveals the process that he followed: the painstaking way in which he gathered together all the speeches in direct discourse, the annotations he used from the original marginal notes in the Byzantine manuscript, 1  Cf. the overview offered by Iglesias-Zoido (2015). 2  Cf. the thesis already put forward in Iglesias-Zoido (2005) and developed at greater length in Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 135–154.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_009

The Byzantine Influence

137

and also the errors he made while copying the text and the solutions he adopted. A comparison of the manuscripts in which the two anthologies are preserved clearly shows that they are the result of two very different ways of thinking. In Heredia’s case, the Tucídides is completed with a selection of speeches taken from the Trojan Chronicle by Guido delle Colonne,3 which shows that, despite the innovation implied by translating the Greek historian’s speeches into Aragonese, the authors of the manuscript continued to direct their gaze towards the medieval rhetorical tradition. In Lapo’s case, we find an anthology that is the product of the new humanist mentality, seeking to recover the classical texts with a selection in Greek of Thucydides’ historiographical speeches, completed with two of Lysias’s orations and brief speeches in direct discourse taken from one of Plutarch’s Lives. As we shall see, the cultural and rhetorical frameworks of the two anthologies present significant differences. 1

Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in Byzantium

For a better understanding of how the two anthologies of Thucydides’ speeches were created and the purposes they served, it is essential to bear in mind the circulation of the Greek historians’ texts in Byzantium in the previous centuries.4 It was usual to find manuscripts of two types in Byzantine libraries: complete works and anthologies of speeches. This background is particularly important if we start from the hypothesis that Heredia’s Tucídides is a translation of an anthology that was circulating in Byzantium around the end of the fourteenth century, and that Lapo’s Contiones Thucydidis were copied from a Byzantine manuscript of the History that had recently reached Italy at the beginning of the fifteenth century. Lapo’s source would have been a codex with tituli and scholia, written in the margins to help with the reading of a complex work, and to bring out the rhetorical usefulness of the speeches, epistles, or dialogues that it contained. This layout would have influenced the process of reading and selecting speeches that Lapo followed.5 The abundant annotations that mark the text throughout make it easier to access the content of Thucydides’ work, considered to be one of the most difficult histories to read, to the point that even the Byzantines found it difficult to understand. In spite

3  Cf. Sanz Julián (2012) and her chapter in this volume. 4  Cf. Irigoin (2003), Kaldellis (2007), and Kaldellis (2012). 5  Cf. Irigoin (1997).

138

Iglesias-Zoido

of its difficulty, however, the speeches deserved special attention, and were considered sublime examples of the oratory practised in classical Athens.6 As a matter of fact, numerous marginal scholia in the preserved Byzantine manuscripts of Thucydides’ History make the speeches stand out:7 every speech, whether in direct or indirect discourse, has some kind of indication that provides information about the orator, the type of speech or the audience to whom it was delivered. In many cases, we also find clarifications of a rhetorical kind, showing the dominant type of argumentation (the just, the expedient, and so on) of each speech. The oldest preserved manuscripts of Thucydides’ complete work provide the reader with an accurate idea of the role of annotations.8 The eleventh century Vaticanus Graecus 126 manuscript is an outstanding example. Throughout its hundreds of folios, the scribes have annotated difficult parts and have identified letters, descriptions of battles or the plague, the episode of the civil war in Corcyra, and so forth. It seems clear, however, that the scribes in Constantinople who copied the text paid special attention, bordering on the obsessive, to the speeches. All these orations, even those in indirect discourse, are clearly identified in the margins of the text, with precise indications about their genre (demegoría, battle exhortation, and so on). These were, in short, elements that aided the reading of a difficult work, which Thucydides’ History certainly was. It is completely understandable, therefore, how a culture as literary as the Byzantine, which was dominated by rhetoric and the desire to imitate the classics, should end up taking the crucial step that involved separating the speeches from the text as a whole; it was the copyists and scholars who took that step, by copying the speeches and putting them into circulation as anthologies.9 This process of selective transmission of speeches reached its peak in the middle of the tenth century, in the reign of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913–957), who commissioned the colossal Excerpta Historica, an anthology that offered a wide selection of themes taken from history, ranging from Herodotus and Thucydides to the Byzantine authors of the seventh century ce.10 In the preamble to the De legationibus, the moralizing pedagogical objective of the complete work is set out.11 Having collected books from the whole of the known world, Constantine considered that the best thing to do was to take what was of greatest use and significance from each of them, and arrange it all 6  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 123–129. 7  Cf. Luschnat (1954). 8  Cf. Kleinlogel (1965). 9  The method and aims of the συλλογή are studied by Odorico (1990) and Piccione (2003). 10  Cf. Dain (1953), Dain (1954), Flusin (2002), U. Roberto (2009), and Németh (2010). 11  This prooimion is also preserved in the preamble of the Excerpta de virtitubus et vitiis.

The Byzantine Influence

139

into forty-three themes that would encompass all the major lessons that could be drawn from history.12 In accordance with this idea, the excerptors selected and transliterated the passages in the minuscule that has preserved them until today. These selected passages found a new use in the following centuries as pedagogical models of ambassadorial orations (as can be deduced from works such as De legationibus) and, most particularly, military exhortations. Indeed, one of the parts of that colossal work, the Excerpta Historica, was entitled Περὶ τῶν δημηγοριῶν (‘On assembly speeches’). At that time, the term demegoría was used to refer to historiographical speeches that could be included in the deliberative genre. This anthology of assembly speeches has now been lost, but throughout the Constantinian excerpta there are multiple references to it, thanks to indications of the type “Look in . . .” (an intertextual notation that an anthology existed). Such notations show us that highly significant speeches had been extracted from the histories in which they had been inserted and then brought together in this selection.13 The Excerpta Historica gives us a fundamental insight into the way the Byzantines took advantage of those parts of historical works that could best be exploited for the purposes of imitation: both the embassy speeches in De legationibus and the exhortative orations in Περὶ τῶν δημηγοριῶν are evidence of a way of reading history with a rhetorical purpose in mind. To a certain extent, these Byzantine excerptors took the pragmatic use of history to an extreme, turning the orations into political and military models. It is important to stress, however, that in the Byzantine world, such selections went hand-in-hand with the transmission of the complete works of the historians. The anthologies were in all likelihood auxiliary codices that made it possible to consult the texts in the History that were most obviously rhetorically useful. Today, there are several examples that have been preserved, which allow us to understand the purpose and use of Byzantine historiographical selections. One of the most interesting is a codex containing an anthology of Thucydides’ speeches and letters dated in the fifteenth century (Cod. III-B-8), and kept in the National Library of Naples. It is important for its original provenance, since it belonged to the rich collection of Greek manuscripts in the Farnese Palace, with numerous original copies from Byzantium that can be dated between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries.14 What is interesting is that there is a manuscript of Byzantine origin in this collection, the Cod. III-B-10, that contains a magnificent version of the complete work of Thucydides. The fact that both manuscripts were placed on the same shelf 12  Cf. Flusin (2002) 538–539, U. Roberto (2009) 74–75 and Kaldellis (2015) 25–46. 13  Cf. De legationibus 199.6, 484.18; De virtutibus et vitiis 1.63.2:2.153.10; De insidiis 4.22, 30.22, 48.25, 215.8, and 412.27. 14  Cf. Pernot (1979) and Formentin (2008).

140

Iglesias-Zoido

(III B) of the original collection demonstrates that, in the early fifteenth century library, the texts complemented each other: one offered the complete work, the other a selection with a rhetorical purpose, as is apparent from the way the selection is arranged.15 Finally, these Byzantine anthologies enable us to understand better the methodus excerpendi that the Byzantine scholars followed when they drafted an anthology of speeches, using procedures that were, in many cases, retained in the Renaissance anthologies. In many cases, in fact, the selection of oratorical texts involved some editing and adaptation.16 For example, some passages were eliminated from the original speeches when they contained digressions that were not very relevant for contemporary uses. There are also examples of indirect discourse being rewritten in direct discourse, a procedure that helped make the selection more uniform. Lastly, various procedures were employed to give the reader information about each of the speeches in the anthology: when the speeches were well known, the excerptors considered that the vocative noun at the beginning of each oration was enough to identify both orator and audience; however, in other cases, they considered it necessary to keep the original narrative settings of the speeches, either wholly or partially, so that the reader could accurately identify the text. In other cases, the way the historian manipulated the narrative settings, by using introductory or deictic verbs to refer to the content of the speech, is extremely interesting for understanding the objectives of the compilers because the maintenance or removal of information about the speaker or the oratorical context often coincides with the anthology’s purpose17 All these issues are reflected, in one way or another, in the process of drafting the two anthologies of Thucydides’ speeches that are the subject of study in this chapter. Above all, the facts analyzed demonstrate the importance of the Byzantine context for a full understanding of these works as rhetorical products. 2 Heredia’s Tucídides (BNE ms. 10.801) This anthology is an Aragonese translation of the speeches in the History carried out by men in the service of the Grand Master Don Juan Fernández de 15  These codices would have to be put together with III.B.17, which, from page 144 onwards, presents the speeches from book I of the History (Conciones excerptae ex primo libro historiarum Thucydidis) and a selection of passages from the rest of the work. Cf. Cyrillo (1832) 519. 16  Cf. U. Roberto (2009) 78–82. 17  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2006).

The Byzantine Influence

141

Heredia (1310–1396),18 who was an influential figure at the court of King Pedro IV of Aragon. A man of his time, he cultivated both arms and letters throughout a life marked by two historic events that decided his activity as a humanist.19 One was the Aragonese intervention in the eastern Mediterranean, a theatre of operations in which he took part and where he was held prisoner by the Turks between 1379 and 1382. His action in that conflict led to his appointment as Grand Master of Rhodes, and to obtaining first-hand knowledge of Byzantine culture and the work of the Greek historians. The other event that marked his life was the Western Schism, in which he sided with the antipope, Clement VII, a choice that lead him to settle in 1383 in Avignon, where he lived until his death in 1396.20 It was during this time that Heredia assembled a team with the task of compiling historical texts and translating a select group of Greek and Latin historians into Aragonese. Heredia was responsible for choosing the topics and the approaches taken in the compilations, as well as selecting the works to be translated. Under his direction the Lives of Plutarch, together with what interests us here, the speeches in Thucydides’ History, were translated into Aragonese. The so-called Heredia’s Tucídides is an anthology of speeches comprising 37 independent sections, which, broadly speaking, correspond to individual speeches (although in section XXIX two consecutive speeches have been joined together: 6.36–40 and 6.41), some of which have preserved the settings that linked them to the narrative part of the history.21 The bulk of the corpus is made up of deliberative speeches, which are distributed throughout the entire work of the Attic historian, and to which must be added the military exhortations, the famous funeral oration by Pericles (VIII), and the Trial of the Plataeans (XV and XVI). Two further speeches (2.13 and 6.72), originally composed in indirect discourse but rewritten in direct discourse, should be added to these. These characteristics lead us to pose a first question: was this anthology based on Thucydides’ complete work or on a pre-existing selection of the speeches? In this connection, both the nature of the selection itself and the characteristics of the codex in which it has been preserved have led us to support the argument that this is the translation of a previous selection of

18  For the life and work of Heredia, cf. Vives (1927), Luttrell (1959), and Cacho Blecua (1997). 19  Cf. Luttrell (1960) and Luttrell (2010). 20  Cf. Luttrell (1972). 21  We are following the edition by Álvarez Rodríguez (2007), which has definitively superseded the one by López Molina (1960).

142

Iglesias-Zoido

Byzantine origin and that those in Heredia’s team did not use a complete manuscript of Thucydides’ History.22 It is important to stress firstly that this selection does not include every speech that is in Thucydides, which might well have been the case if the translator had had the complete work in front of him. The manuscript starts with the speech delivered by the Athenian ambassadors who had travelled to Sparta (1.73–8), having left out the first three speeches of the work: the debate between the Corcyraean ambassadors (1.32–6) and the Corinthian ambassadors (1.37–43) before the Athenian Assembly, and the speech delivered by the Corinthian ambassadors in Sparta (1.68–71). From the point of view of the selection itself and of its utility, it would not have made sense to omit these initial speeches, which are emblematic models of embassy speeches. The absence of 1.68–71, however, is particularly striking, because the first speech in the Heredia selection, the one delivered by the Athenian ambassadors in Sparta (1.73–78), is meant to be a response to the arguments put forward in the omitted speech. It does not seem to be consistent, therefore, that if the other deliberative debates in the history have been preserved intact, only a part of this very important debate, which occupies a prominent position at the beginning of the work, should have been translated. It is easier to explain this omission by considering the possibility that the translator was following a selection, which, as a result of the vagaries of the transmission of the text, had lost the first few leaves. Other speeches from the body of the text are also missing, such as the exhortation delivered by several Peloponnesian generals (2.87), which, in Thucydides’ history, is directly associated with Phormio’s exhortation (2.89) to the Athenian troops, a speech that occupies section X of the manuscript. In point of fact, we suspect from the narrative setting of this section (fol. 2r) that this speech took second place, and that it was preceded by a speech given by the commanders of the opposing side. If a copy of the complete work had been used, this absence would be inexplicable. Secondly, these speeches have no rubrics that unequivocally determine who is delivering each speech or that mark out the text in direct discourse in a graphic way. Unlike the practice of using a heading to identify the oratio, which was customary in historiographical works in the late Middle Ages, the text of many of these speeches starts immediately, without any cues by way of introduction. There has been an attempt to justify the absence by pointing out that the preservation of the passages setting these speeches in the narration would have had this identifying function. But there is a series of cases in which we do not even have these settings. The first speech in the manuscript 22  Cf. Iglesias-Zoido (2005).

The Byzantine Influence

143

(fol. 1r), for example, begins straightaway with the text in direct discourse; there is no incipit to the work as a whole, nor a specific rubric to provide contextual information about the speech. This is such a glaring omission that the copyist, whether following a superior’s orders or on his own initiative, left several blank lines for a rubric to be added later before each of the speeches in this selection. The same could be said of speeches IV (1.120–4), VI (2.11), XII (3.30), XXX (6.68), or the last one, XXXVII (7.77). In all these instances, no information is provided about the orator, and only the initial vocative nouns enable us to know who was being addressed. The fact that in the end those rubrics were never written in—which in a deluxe copy such as this one could not have been due to an oversight—demonstrates that this was not a common way to lay out the text, given the normal procedure followed in Heredia’s scriptorium. If we bear in mind that Thucydides’ work was unknown in the West and that there was no Latin translation of it either, the rather unhelpful way in which the speeches are arranged seems, to say the least, to be of limited future use as a historical document. If the translator had had access to the complete work, he would undoubtedly have taken greater care over it. There is a broad critical consensus about the process followed in translating this collection of speeches from Thucydides. It would have been carried out in various phases: firstly, the original classical Greek text would have been turned into modern Greek by one Dimitri Calodiqui, a Greek scholar from Salonika who was in Heredia’s service; secondly, the “updated” text would have been translated into Aragonese by someone in his circle between the years 1384 and 1396, and all the signs are that it must have been Nicholas, Bishop of Drenopolis in Aetolia. This Dominican, who had been the interpreter for the Byzantine Emperor John V Palaeologus when he went to Rome in 1369, wielded great influence in the papal court in Avignon, where he resided between 1380 and 1384. According to Álvarez Rodríguez, there could even have been an intermediate version in Italian—between the demotic Greek and Aragonese versions—that would have left traces in the translations in which Nicholas had a hand.23 This translation poses a key question for understanding the legacy of Thucydides at this moment in history: why did these scholars only translate the speeches and not the complete history? Up till now, critics have pointed to two possible reasons. The first supports a simple antiquarian purpose. Heredia had the speeches translated in order to have the orations of some of the most significant heroes described by Plutarch in his Parallel Lives.24 Secondly, a possible 23  Cf. Álvarez Rodríguez (1989). 24  Cf. Weiss (1953).

144

Iglesias-Zoido

rhetorical purpose has been proposed: the selections would serve as practical oratorical models.25 On the basis of this interpretation, it has been speculated that selections of speeches such as this one may have been intended for use in the Aragonese Cortes, which, as Johnston and Cawsey’s study has shown, enjoyed a period of oratorical splendour during the fourteenth century.26 The fact that, in the second part of the BNE 10.801 manuscript, there is another selection of 147 speeches taken from the Trojan Chronicle by Guido delle Colonne, which also appears to have been produced in the same scriptorium, would reinforce the idea of a possible rhetorical purpose.27 The 147 speeches are framed in a sort of summary of the original Latin work, and, on the last folio of the manuscript, an explicit indication of the intended objectives of this selection can be found: . . . porque del nuestro proposito non es tractar aquí a pleno la dicha historia, por tanto nós mandamos sacar los fundamentos et puntos de la sustancia de ella a fin que non tan solament el sentimiento de las oraciones, proposicionnes et arengas en ella contenidas millor se ofrescan entendibles a los que las leyeren, hoc encara, que cualquier pueda aver compendioso sumario de la dicha historia por do millor pueda séller recomendada a la memoria. (fol. 194r). . . . since our purpose here is not to deal with the entire history, we are therefore required to take out the fundamentals and points of substance from it, so that not only the sentiment of the speeches, propositions, and exhortations contained in it should be better presented in an understandable way to those who read them, but also, so that anybody may have a condensed summary of the said history so that it can be better committed to memory. In this case, it is obvious that this compendium was consciously compiled from a well-known work from which the fundamentals and points of substance had been “taken out,” but, above all, in which special attention was paid to the “sentiment of the speeches, propositions, and exhortations contained in it.” What makes this translation noteworthy, particularly in comparison with Thucydides’ text, is that the speeches can be read while taking into account the narrative framework in which they are set. 25  Cf. Cacho Blecua (1997). 26  Cf. Johnston (1992) and Cawsey (2002) 22–34. 27  Cf. the chapter by Sanz Julián in this book.

The Byzantine Influence

145

In view of these details, should we accept, without further discussion, that the first translator of the Tucídides made a selection of speeches using the complete manuscript of the work or, on the other hand, is this the Aragonese translation of a selection that already existed, one which was compiled before Heredia’s time, and which would have circulated in the Byzantine empire independently of the complete work? If we choose the first option, even the place where this selection could have been made poses a serious problem. It may have originated from Heredia’s stay in Rhodes between 1379 and 1382, a time when he would have been thinking about some of the projects that were later brought to fruition in the Avignon scriptorium. On the other hand, if we opt for Avignon in the late fourteenth century, we would have to accept that there was already a manuscript of Thucydides’ complete work in the West at that time, a manuscript, furthermore, of which no information has come down to us. We believe that the second option—that a selection already existed in the cultural environment of Byzantium—is more likely, and the data lead us to support that interpretation. Besides the characteristics already pointed out, there is one aspect of a rhetorical nature that we believe to be especially significant in this matter: the two speeches (2.13 and 6.72) originally in indirect discourse that have been rewritten as direct speech. Why make this change? It has been said that Heredia’s translations in general are typical of their time, that is to say, literal translations based on a word for word interpretation of the original, rather than ad sensum. A deviation from the norm in the two orations would have been a rather unique case. It is more plausible to think that the translators limited themselves to translating what they would have found in their source rather than taking the liberty of modifying it. It makes more sense to assume that this approach, which was fairly common in Byzantium, found its way unaltered into the Aragonese translation. There are, in fact, a number of points of contact between the procedures followed by Byzantine excerptors and the text of Heredia’s Tucídides: there are not usually any headings to identify the speeches, and the settings before and after the speeches are normally altered to offer a context that is intelligible to new readers. 3

Lapo da Castiglionchio’s Contiones Thucydidis (Urbinas Graecus 131)

In order to understand the extent to which the characteristics of Heredia’s Tucídides are significant vis-à-vis other anthologies, it is very useful to compare his collection with a selection of Thucydides’ speeches drafted a few

146

Iglesias-Zoido

years later by the Florentine humanist Lapo da Castiglionchio the Younger (ca. 1406–1438). This is a text that the critics have virtually ignored, but which is extremely interesting. What we know of the life, works, and thought of its author, as expressed in letters addressed to some of the most important humanists of the time, enables us to understand how the process of compiling this anthology came about and, by extension, the cultural context in which it was created. Lapo da Castiglionchio, despite his premature death during the plague epidemic that devastated Ferrara in 1438, was one of those humanists in the first third of the fifteenth century who stood out mainly because of their interest in the great figures of Greek literature.28 He was one of the brightest pupils of Francesco Filelfo, the Greek teacher of a whole generation of scholars, who years later praised Lapo’s profound knowledge of the Greek language and considered him to be one of the most brilliant translators from Greek to Latin of his time.29 Lapo’s interest in Greek authors turned chiefly towards historiographical and oratorical texts,30 a preference motivated to a large extent by his ceaseless search for patronage, which soon led him to concentrate on the moralising biographies of Plutarch and the study of rhetoric; these two lines of study were very useful at the time for obtaining employment in accordance with his aspirations. For this reason, he translated a good number of Plutarch’s Lives into Latin and dedicated them to prominent political figures of the day such as Cosimo de Medici (Themistocles) and the Duke of Gloucester (Artaxerxes). He also took an interest in the work of Attic orators such as Lysias and Isocrates.31 In the context of this study, the manuscript containing the Contiones Thucydidis offers a magnificent testimony to his work as a humanist and to his interest in historiography and rhetoric. It is an anthology of speeches, written in Greek, taken from Thucydides’ History, which is completed with two of Lysias’s speeches and a selection of passages taken from Plutarch’s Life of Coriolanus. The manuscript is what might be called a personal workbook, in which all the texts (beyond some of the initial titles) are copied in Greek, without the humanist supplying any translation into Latin or Italian.

28  For the life of Lapo, cf. Fubini (1998) and Celenza (1999). 29  Cf. Luiso (1899) I 268–269 n. 2 and Sabbadini (1905) 134. 30  For the wealth of information about his ideas and proposals in his collected letters to other prominent humanists such as Biondo, see Luiso (1899), Miglio (1974), Regoliosi (1995), McCahill (2004), and Regoliosi (2005). 31  Cf. Carlini (1970–1971) on his translations of the Ad Demodicum, Ad Nicoclem, and Nicocles, and Celenza (1997) for his translations of Plutarch.

The Byzantine Influence

147

This anthology is kept in the Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 131, a manuscript whose date and drafting process have been well established by the critics.32 Accordingly, there is consensus that Lapo’s Contiones was the result of a process of reading and selection carried out by the humanist himself, using a manuscript that contained the complete work of Thucydides. It may have been one of the first manuscripts of Thucydides’ work available at the time, like the one that we know Francesco Filelfo took to Italy in 1427.33 In any case, using a Byzantine manuscript as his starting point (the only ones, moreover, that were available at that time), Lapo da Castiglionchio would have put this anthology together around 1430 as part of the task of a labor excerpendi; the result is a notebook into which he also copied texts, gleaned from his readings of the work of other ancient authors. We know that it was Lapo himself who copied the Greek text of the selection because the expression manu Lapi appears in the manuscript and also from comparisons with other passages copied in his own hand.34 Various titles are used in the manuscript for the anthology of Thucydides’ speeches. For example, the indicator, Contiones Thucydidis manu Lapi, appears on the final folio (fol. 103v), but there are also two other complementary titles: one in Greek (Θουκιδείδου δημηγορίαι ἐκ τῆς τῶν Ἀθηναίων καὶ Πελοπονησίων ἱστορίας), and the other in Latin (Thucydidis conciones ex historia Atheniensium et Peloponesiorum). The three terms, contiones, conciones and δημηγορίαι, were in any event widely used at that time to refer to historiographical speeches and are, in short, the result of a cross between the Latin and Byzantine traditions. As for the anthology’s purpose, there are two possibilities. One is purely historical, namely, the desire to collect speeches delivered by illustrious figures of the classical era into one anthology. The words of Lapo himself can be used as evidence in support of this hypothesis. In a famous letter, dated 8 April 1437, which he sent to Flavio Biondo, he explained the value of ancient history as the richest source imaginable of precepts for any facet of life. In this respect, Lapo particularly stressed the model of the great wise men of the past, whose sayings, actions, plans, and advice could be imitated by the men of their own day.35 32  Cf. Stornajolo (1895) 235–236. 33  The complete list of the codices that Filelfo took back to Italy from Constantinople on his return journey in 1427—which includes the works of the historians Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Plutarch, and orators such as Lysias and Demosthenes— can be found in a letter addressed to Ambrosio Traversario, and can be read in Cannetus (1759) 1010 (Book 24, Letter 32). For more information, cf. Sabbadini (1905) I 48. 34  Cf. the Schriftprobe of Lapo’s handwriting in Eleuteri and Canart (1991). 35  Cf. the text in Miglio (1974) and Regoliosi (1995).

148

Iglesias-Zoido

It is more than likely, however, that this anthology had a rhetorical purpose. In the first place, it is not a selection of all the speeches in the History, but of just thirty in direct discourse that are in the first four books, to which the author has added the speech delivered by General Nicias in 7.77, which would have been considered of special interest. In the second place, following the selection of the deliberative contiones in Thucydides (fols. 1–73r), Lapo has copied two speeches by Lysias—one judicial (De caede Eratosthenis, which occupies fols. 73v–81v) and the other epideictic (known as Epitaphius, in fols. 81v–97)—and a varied sample of speeches in direct discourse (Conciones excerptae ex Plutarchi Vita Coriolani, fols. 97–99v) taken from Plutarch’s Life of Coriolanus, which the humanist himself had translated into Latin during those years.36 This evidence suggests that Lapo intended to include Thucydides’ contiones in a miscellaneous codex that would offer different types of speeches belonging to the three oratorical genres (deliberative, judicial, and epideictic), which would be useful for the humanist process of rhetorical imitation. Furthermore, from a formal perspective, the codex offers information that tells us about the way it was produced, and makes it obvious that it was based on a reading of the complete work of the historian. The first and most salient aspect of the result of Lapo’s readings is his thoroughness in assembling all the speeches in direct discourse (thirty in total), and in the order in which they appeared in those four books of the History. This objective led the excerptor to include, for example, a series of texts that do not appear in Heredia’s Tucídides. In some cases, these correspond to the significant initial gap at the beginning of the Aragonese anthology—the short speeches III (Th. 1.53.2, fol. 7r) and IV (Th. 1.53.4, fols. 7r–7v) in the anthology—but in others, Lapo has introduced the letters and dialogues to be found in books I and II: the letters of Pausanias (text X: Th. 1.128.7, in fol. 20v) and Xerxes (text XI: Th. 1.129.3, in fol. 20v), and the dialogue of the Plataeans, arranged in two different sections as if they were two orations: “Speech of the Plataeans to the Lacedaemonians” (text XVI: δημηγορία πλαταῖων πρὸς λακεδαιμονίους, fols. 36v–37r) and “Archidamus response” (text XVII: Ἀρχιδάμου ἀπόκρισις, fols. 37r–37v). Secondly, all the speeches are clearly identified by a titulus in Greek that corresponds to the one that appeared in the manuscript of Thucydides’ work and provides information about the type of speech, the orator, and even the audience. The term most frequently used is δημηγορία, a general term denoting 36  Specifically, these are short speeches in direct discourse by Coriolanus (chapter 23.2–4, fols. 97r–97v), Valeria (chapter 33.3–4, fols. 97v–98r) and Volumnia (chapter 33.5–6, fol. 98r and chapter 35.1–5, fols. 98r–99r). It is interesting to note that in the codex that contains Lapo’s translation into Latin (Vat. lat. 918) these very passages are marked for attention.

The Byzantine Influence

149

both deliberative speeches and military exhortations. In several cases, the distinct nature of the “funeral oration” (text XIII: έπιτάφιος λόγος, fol. 21 v) or of the “military exhortation” (as in texts XVIII, XIX: παρακέλευσις) is pointed out. In the third place, there are a number of errors resulting from the selection process. The most important occurs when Lapo failed to notice Archidamus’s exhortation (text XV) at the beginning of book II (Th. 2.11) and had to copy it later on, after the third speech of Pericles (text XIV, fols. 32r–35v). This oversight led him to add a series of explanatory notes and reference marks both in the exact place in the selection (fol. 25v) where the speech should have been and where it was finally copied (fol. 35v). This notation is a further piece of evidence that Lapo was concerned about compiling a selection that was faithful to the original order in the source work. Fourthly, we should highlight the presence of annotations accompanying some of the most important speeches, which make it clear that Lapo was not only copying the text but also reflecting upon its possible translation. Among the speeches, the one that seems to have attracted Lapo’s attention the most is the one delivered by the demagogue Cleon (text XXII, fols. 44r–48r). In this case, there are plentiful notes that attempt to clarify some of the most complex passages. Some appear to come from the scholia that were in the manuscript of the work, while others are of a linguistic kind (such as the one that raises the question of whether the aorist form or the present is more correct), and yet others that compare passages like 3.39.4 (a reflection on the insolence of a city because of its good fortune at a particular moment) with texts from orators, such as Demosthenes (fol. 46 v). On the basis of this information, Lapo da Castiglionchio’s anthology can only have been the result of a personal reading of Thucydides’ original text and must surely have been thought of as an accessory to the codex containing the entire text of the Greek historian; this procedure was even continued years later when the History was translated into Latin by Lorenzo Valla. In Valla’s 1452 translation, in fact, all the passages in direct speech were still clearly marked in the margins as a guide to reading the speeches, letters and dialogues. The annotations alone form a veritable selection, incorporated into the text of the work as a whole, and provide evidence of the enormous interest aroused by Thucydides’ contiones during the fifteenth century. 4 Conclusions As we have been able to show, the Renaissance witnessed a process of selecting speeches from the ancient historians and turning them into the key features of independently circulating selections, rather than their being just another

150

Iglesias-Zoido

prominent element in the text of the complete works. In this chapter we have studied two manuscripts (the 10.801 BNE and the Urbinas Graecus 131) that are testimony to two different kinds of anthology dating from the start of this process in the late fourteenth century and the early years of the fifteenth. The first is the selection made by Heredia at the end of the fourteenth century; the other is the one presented by Lapo in the first third of the fifteenth century. Though produced only a few years apart, there is a world of difference in the way the anthologies were compiled. The data analyzed enable us to confirm the initial hypothesis that Heredia’s Tucídides—the oldest selection of the Attic historian’s speeches to be found in the West—is not the result of a selection process based on a detailed reading of Thucydides’ original work, but a translation into Aragonese of an earlier selection of speeches that was Byzantine in origin. There is abundant evidence of various kinds (gaps, uncorrected errors, the absence of tituli to speeches in spite of spaces being left for them to be copied in) indicating that the scholars who copied this selection in Avignon around 1396 did not have access to the complete text of Thucydides’ work. In the case of Lapo da Castiglionchio’s anthology, we have demonstrated that it was compiled from a reading of a manuscript of the original work, evidenced by the thoroughness with which all the speeches in direct discourse were assembled, the rhetorical annotations originating in the marginal notes of the Byzantine manuscript used, and the possibility of correcting errors made during the copying process. Furthermore, Lapo’s selection is an example of the renewed interest of the humanists in contiones of historiographical origin. The desire to present a set of ancient rhetorical models—by providing examples of deliberative speeches (those of Thucydides), judicial, and epideictic speeches (two by Lysias), as well as a series of extremely significant speeches in direct discourse from one of Plutarch’s Lives—is also very much in evidence. The two anthologies taken together, in any case, constitute a veritable bridge between the ancient and modern tradition of the reception of Thucydides’ speeches, and their very existence has great symbolic value. The fact that Heredia should consider it more useful to translate this selection of speeches than the History in its entirety, together with the labor excerpendi carried out by Lapo, are both fundamental precedents for understanding what was to become the fashion a century later throughout Europe: selections of speeches from the great classical historians used as rhetorical instruments.37

37  This essay is related to the Research Project MICINN FFI2012–31813 and the Research Group “Arenga” (HUM-023).

151

The Byzantine Influence



Appendix: Index of Thucydidean Speeches in Heredia’s and Lapo da Castiglionchio’s Anthologies (Tituli from Lorenzo Valla’s First Latin Translation of Thucydides in 1452)

Number

Thucydides

Speeches

Heredia’s Tucídides

1

1.32–6

2

1.37–43

3 4 5

1.53.2 1.53.4 1.68–71

6

1.73–78

7

1.80–85

8 9

1.86 1.120–4

10 11 12

1.128.7 1.129.3 1.137.4

13

1.140–4

14 15 16 17 18

2.11 2.13 2.35–45 2.60–4 2.71–4

Oratio Corcyrensium apud ----Athenienses Oratio Corinthiorum apud ----Athenienses Corinthii ----Athenienses ----Oratio Corinthiorum apud ----Lacedemonios Oratio Atheniensium apud x Lacedemonios Oratio Archidami regis apud x Lacedemonios Oratio Sthenelaide ephori x Oratio Corinthiorum apud x socios Epistola Pausaniae ad regem ----Epistola regis ----Epistola Themistoclis ad ----Artaxerxem Oratio Periclis apud x Athenienses Oratio Archidami regis x Oratio Periclis obliqua x Oratio Periclis funebris x Oratio Periclis x Dialogus Archidami / ----legatorum plateensium

Lapo’s Contiones Thucydidis

x x x x x x x x x x x ----x x ----x x x

152

Iglesias-Zoido

(cont.) Number

Thucydides

Speeches

Heredia’s Tucídides

Lapo’s Contiones Thucydidis

19

2.87

-----

x

20

2.89

x

x

21

3.9–14

x

x

22 23

3.30 3.37–40

x x

x x

24 25

3.42–8 3.53–59

x x

x x

26

3.60–64

x

x

27

4.10

x

x

28

4.17–20

x

x

29

4.59–64

x

x

30

4.85–87

x

x

31

4.92

x

x

32

4.95

x

x

33 34 35 36 37 38

4.126 5.9 5.89–105 6.9–14 6.16–18 6.20–23

Oratio Peloponnensium ducum ad milites Oratio Phormionis Atheniensis ad milites Oratio Mityleneorum apud Lacedemonios Oratio Teutiapli Oratio Cleonis apud Athenienses Oratio Diodoti Oratio Plateensium apud Lacedemonios Oratio Thebanorum contra Plateenses Oratio Demosthenis ad milites Oratio Peloponnensium legatorum Oratio Hermocratis ad Sicilienses Oratio Brasidae ad Achantios Oratio Pagondae ad Boetios milites Exhortatio Hippocratis ad milites Atenienses Oratio Brasidae ad milites Oratio Brasidae ad milites Dialogus Meliensium Oratio Niciae Atheniensis Oratio Alcibiadis Oratio Niciae secunda

x x ----x x x

-------------------------

153

The Byzantine Influence

Number

Thucydides

Speeches

Heredia’s Tucídides

39

6.33–34

40

6.36–40

41

6.41.2–4

42 43 44

6.68 6.72 6.76–80

45

6.82–7

46

6.89–92

47 48 49 50 51

7.11–15 7.21.1 7.21.3 7.61–64 7.66–68

52 53

7.77 8.45.2

Oratio Hermocratis ad x Syracusanos Oratio Athenagorae ad x Syracusanos Alter ex magistratibus x Syracusanis Oratio Niciae ad milites x Oratio Hermocratis obliqua x Oratio Hermocratis x Syracusani Oratio Euphemi Atheniensis x contra Hermocratem Oratio Alcibiadis ad x Lacedemonios Epistola Niciae ad Ateniensesx Gylippi oratiuncula ----Hermocratis obliqua oratio ----Oratio Niciae ad milites x Oratio Syracusanorum ac x Gylippi ad milites Oratio Niciae ad milites x Obliqua oratio Alcibiadis ad ----Tissaphernem

Lapo’s Contiones Thucydidis

----------------------------------------------------x -----

CHAPTER 8

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle: Fernando de Pulgar’s Anthology in ms. 9–5173 Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid Teresa Jiménez Calvente 1

A Few Words on Pulgar’s Literary Taste and Trends

After a long career in the royal court, Fernando de Pulgar was appointed as royal chronicler of Castile in 1480 at the Cortes of Toledo. As early as 1457, he already formed part of the Chancery of Henry IV, King of Castile, for whom he also performed occasional diplomatic tasks.1 The Castilian Chancery was the best milieu for satisfying Pulgar’s intellectual pursuits.2 I do not wish to tackle the discussion of what label would be most accurate for Pulgar in view of the spectrum of his work: a medieval intellectual, a preRenaissance man, or a humanist. It seems much more interesting and fruitful to enquire about and describe the cultural environment in which Pulgar and his contemporaries lived and composed, a period during which the imprint of the literary novelties brought from Italy is particularly neat and traceable. The openness of the Castilian royal court and its interest in cultural renovation since the reign of John II is unquestionable. The royal courts of his successors, Henry IV and Isabella of Castile, were no strangers to the same cultural inclinations. After all, the Trastámara dynasty committed to internationalisation of its politics, expanding the kingdom’s boundaries beyond the Iberian Peninsula and creating an interchange that proved to be very fruitful in the cultural field. Pulgar’s main works are a chronicle of the Catholic Monarchs, a collection of letters (Letras, with two different editions: 1485 and 1486), and a collection of literary portraits (Claros varones de Castilla). Literary portraits, chronicles, and letters were the kinds of prose he liked the most, three related genres where delight and morality combine to perfection. There is yet another element that 1  In particular, we know of two diplomatic visits he made to France: in 1459 and 1464. 2  For a full intellectual profile of Pulgar, see Pontón Gijón (2008) xxix–xxiii, whom I would like to thank for putting at my disposal his research, which has been of great importance and relevance for the preparation of this study. An excellent overview of Pulgar and his work can also be found in Gómez Redondo (2012). I am using Elia’s edition of the Letras (1982).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_010

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle

155

made his writing particularly attractive in the eyes of his readers: his irreverent, mocking tone. Aside from being a fine writer, Pulgar was also a homo facetus (“witty man”) or so at least he is considered in literary history, which honoured him with this title in Melchor de Santa Cruz’s Floresta Española (1574). 2

Pulgar and the Profession of the Historian

A loyal royal official and a smart courtier, Pulgar was appointed as the principal chronicler in 1480, succeeding Alfonso de Palencia, who had held this post since 1456, but had lost the Queen’s favor. This rift could have been caused by Queen Isabella when she demanded that Palencia submit his work to a “learned prelate” for review. Palencia must have interpreted this demand as censorship of his work. Pulgar acted quite differently and assured the Queen that he would hand her all he had written, “para que lo mande examinar” (“for her to have it reviewed” letra 11).3 In the same letter, under the guise of his lack of talent (commonplace of modesty), Pulgar speaks of the challenges and difficulties his task entails due to what he describes as the extraordinary and almost miraculous nature of the monarchs’ deeds. Although Pulgar was not the only chronicler to spread the idea of the advent of a new golden age under the rule of the Catholic Monarchs,4 his influence on the chroniclers who followed him is clear, especially those who wrote their treatises in Latin. There is a guiding thread that links Pulgar with the chroniclers that came before him (Palencia) and after him (Nebrija and Marineo). Each of them is acquainted with the work of his colleagues and crafts his historical account by imitating, while also surpassing, previous or contemporary models. All of them seek to perform their task as historians by fulfilling two purposes: to compose a work of aesthetic value and to contribute to the praise and the glorification of their royal patrons.5 Consequently, history is pitched at a similar level to epic poetry, since it is an opus oratorium maxime with a clear didactic, moralizing, and eulogistic or celebratory function, which makes it a suitable genre for the education of princes and high state dignitaries. This being the case, the chronicler must be capable of handling major rhetorical devices gracefully in order to compose an accurate and entertaining 3  Cf. Elia (1982) 108. 4  Cf. Jiménez Calvente and Gómez Moreno (2002). 5  This second aim is barely present in Palencia’s chronicle, more concerned with appearing as a historian fully committed to the truth. As Tate (1998) pointed out, in Palencia’s works usually his sense of history as a dispassionate investigation of facts comes first.

156

Jiménez Calvente

narrative, a result achievable only after an extensive learning process. In letra 11, Pulgar demonstrates that for him writing a chronicle is a task that goes way beyond a sheer narration of facts in an orderly manner. He deems it necessary, from a literary and functional viewpoint, to insert speeches allegedly pronounced by the characters involved in the events. Such interpolations in the form of direct speech acquire great narrative importance, for it is in them that the aims, the intentions, and the motives that determine the events are set out; and this certainly requires great rhetorical skills (for this precise quotation, I refer the reader to the 1485 edition): Después desto es menester, algunas vezes, fablar como el rey e como vuestra alteza e asentar los propósitos que ovistes en las cosas; asentar asy mismo vuestros consejos, vuestros motivos, otras veces rrequiere fablar como vuestro consejo. Otras vezes como los contrarios. Después desto las fablas y rrazonamientos y otras diversas cosas. Todo esto, muy esçelente rreyna e señora, no es razón dexarlo a esamen de un çelebro solo, aunque fuese bueno, pues ha de quedar por perpetua memoria. (f. biiii v). Furthermore, I had on occasion to speak as the King and as Your Majesty, and to set out the intentions that you had concerning matters, to set out your advice and your reasons and on some occasions it was necessary for me to speak as your Council, and on other occasions, as your adversaries, as well as the speeches and reasonings, and various other things. All this, most excellent queen and lady, is no reason to leave it to the test of a single mind, however good it may be, since the memory has to be preserved forever. Even though Pulgar did not include this paragraph in the 1486 edition of his Letras, the fragment is highly eloquent, due to the importance given in it to the fablas and razonamientos.6 In another letter, written around 1483 and also missing in the 1486 edition, Pulgar emphasizes once again the central role of the speeches in his chronicle.7 He gives the example of Livy and other ancient historians: “they enrich their chronicles with reasonings full of both philosophical and moral values” (letra 33: “que hermosean mucho sus corónicas con los razonamientos que en ellas leemos, envueltos en mucha filosofía y buena doctrina”).8 Indeed, this letter is a veritable declaration of methodological 6  Cf. Carriazo (1943) lxx. 7  The letter to the Count of Cabra was published by Serrano (1924). It can also be found in the edition of the Letras in Elia (1982) 108. 8  Cf. Elia (1982) 108.

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle

157

principles. Thanks to it, we know that Pulgar used to receive directly from the Queen and some nobles memorials and reports on the battles and the events that took place at the front.9 On the basis of these materials, Pulgar would compose his narrative, though he took greatest pride in the razonamientos or speeches that he introduced at will to elevate the general tone of his chronicle. Relying on what he had read in the classical sources and what he knew from other fellow historians, our chronicler had licence to add and garnish these speeches “with the most elegant and effective words that we should ever be able to find” (Letra 33: “con las mejores e más eficaces palabras e razones que pudiéremos”).10 In this letter Pulgar communicates that he is sending two oratorical pieces that reflect the debates in the Council over Boabdil’s eventual fate, and suggests to the Count of Cabra, the addressee of the letter, the possibility of attributing to him the speech in which the alternative of liberating the Moorish king was defended. Eventually, though, Pulgar put the speech in favor of freeing Boabdil in the mouth of the Marquis of Cádiz. With such razonamientos and letters, Pulgar gave a new twist to his chronicle. Undoubtedly, these speeches were composed as loose pieces at different moments in time: some writings, previous to his appointment as royal chronicler, were the fruit of his work in the Chancery; others were composed later, upon receiving the news and with his sights set on the historiographical narrative. It is noteworthy that the speeches and razonamientos are much more frequent in the first half of the chronicle (a part which is more political in content), which deals with the wars with Portugal and which had to be composed on the basis of pre-existing materials (the war concluded in 1479, a year before Pulgar was commissioned to write the chronicle). While working on his chronicle, Pulgar never stopped cultivating other literary genres. For instance, in 1486 he published his Claros varones de Castilla, where the literary portrait technique is displayed in all its glory. According to Tate, this little compilation of biographical sketches is the first printed sample “de los datos recogidos para la elaboración de la crónica” (“of the data gathered for the preparation of the chronicle”), and so Claros varones turns into a sort of a preliminary literary draft of the chronicle.11 Claros varones de Castilla was not published on its own, but rather wrapped up in a revised and amplified edition of Pulgar’s letters, which had seen the light of the day for the first time in 1485. Among these letters there is a razonamiento (letra 16) to the Queen. The same text can also be found in the chronicle, where, however, it is placed in the mouth of the Bishop of Cádiz (chapter 89). 9  On this account, see Pontón Gijón (2002b). 10  Cf. Elia (1982) 108. 11  Cf. Tate (1985) 38.

158

Jiménez Calvente

It seems, therefore, that just changing the title or, rather, removing the salutatio is enough to turn certain epistles into accomplished speeches. Obviously, this transformation happens only with certain types of letters, those in which Pulgar appears in the capacity of a judicious advisor. Generally, these are extensive letters (contrary to the ideal of the breuitas prescribed by the manuals), characterized by a careful development of the narratio and a solid argumentation to better strengthen the intentio suadendi. These missives look like deliberative discourses, including letra 16, which is addressed not to the popular assembly but rather to the Queen, who is advised to be generous in her use of clemency and is dissuaded from proceeding with excessive rigor in the application of law. Similarly, letra 14, “para un su amigo de Toledo,” becomes part of a speech delivered by Gómez Manrique before the denizens of Toledo in the chronicle. On this occasion, the letter is incorporated in a much broader discourse, thanks to its careful reworking: what in the letter is a narration of facts to an imaginary friend becomes in the speech an apostrophe of reprimand. Even more complicated is letra 7, addressed to the King of Portugal but attributed to a Portuguese friar in one of the drafts of the chronicle.12 However, in what could possibly be the second redaction of the chronicle, Pulgar does not include this letter, merely paraphrasing its contents.13 To complicate matters further, other manuscripts include the letter, but attribute it to Hernando de Talavera or to the Duke of Braganza.14 By including their words in his chronicle, Pulgar renders a great service to his noble friends preserving their memory from oblivion and depicting them as great men of arms and, more importantly, as accomplished orators. 3

Pulgar’s Works and his Interest in Oratoria: ms. 9–5173 RAH

Let us focus on the speeches (some seventy, according to Carriazo) that embellish Pulgar’s chronicle. Along with these elaborate orations of some length, 12  Chapter 28 in manuscript 18062 Biblioteca Nacional de España (BNE). 13  This second redaction would be the version that Galíndez de Carvajal handed to Nebrija, and which many a scholar identifies with ms. 1759 BNE (an apograph in the opinion of the experts). 14  These are ms. 20445 BNE, fols. 44–47, and ms. 2420 BNE, fols. 1–6v, respectively. It is important to add that the letter was an enormous success, judging by the fact that Andrés Bernáldez reproduces it in its entirety in his Historia de los Reyes Católicos (chapter 14), where he restores Pulgar as the author. For a close study of this letter, cf. Carriazo (1943) xcii–xcviii.

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle

159

there are also occasional intercessions of barely more than three lines, with which some characters interrupt the narrative. Though this literary procedure of short monologic interventions (at times arranged after the manner of a brief dialogue)15 is very effective in breaking the monotony of the narrative, the authentic speeches are very elaborate pieces that both embellish the story and powerfully convey political and moral ideas. Pulgar himself admits authoring these speeches in his letters, following the example of Livy (he was acquainted with Sallust as well). Nonetheless, this penchant for speeches goes beyond their use in the body of a historiographical narrative. In fact, it is part of a more ambitious aspiration of reviving a genre deeply rooted in classical antiquity.16 Collections of speeches and letters from diverse sources go hand in hand, and point to a new form of reading that seeks to pick up only the relevant parts.17 A collection that deserves special attention is ms. 9–5173, Colección Abella, Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid (RAH) (fols. 351r–405r).18 Several questions arise about this manuscript: 1) who is the author of these texts?, 2) who undertook their compilation?, and 3) what is the relationship that binds these texts to the speeches contained in Pulgar’s chronicle? According to Amador de los Ríos, we are dealing with a compilation of speeches that were truly delivered by members of the royal court and that Pulgar collected as source material to insert later in his chronicle. Nonetheless, it is necessary to refine this hypothesis, for it is more than probable that these speeches are Pulgar’s own creation or, at the very least, fruit of a deep personal reworking of the source material, though without altering “la sustancia del fecho” (“the substance of 15  We can find an example of it in chapter 48, where the Queen maintains a dialog with the warden of the Torres de León (Carriazo [1943] 152). 16  For a general overview of this phenomenon, see Murphy (1983) and Gómez Moreno (1994) 167–178. 17  Among such anthologies and miscellanies, ms Res/27 BNE is interesting because it includes cartas de batalla, fragments from the Crónica de Pedro I of the Chancellor Pero López de Ayala, and a variety of speeches (for the first description of this manuscript, see Faulhaber et alii [1984]). For the use of polyantheas and miscellanies, see Jiménez Calvente (2008). 18  The collection was discovered by Amador de los Ríos, who edited and published four of the seventeen texts contained in the manuscript. He published the texts in the last volume of his Historia Crítica de la Literatura Española (1865) 562–577 to illustrate an appendix whose title is: “Sobre la elocuencia profana en el reinado de los Reyes Católicos” (“On profane eloquence during the reign of the Catholic Monarchs”). All track of this manuscript was lost until Gómez Moreno (1993) located it, reissued some of these texts (the four transcribed by Amador de los Ríos [1, 4, 9, and 13]) and, in a later study (1994), published three more (14, 15, and 16).

160

Jiménez Calvente

the matter”).19 In the times of the Catholic Monarchs, the royal court was an appropriate forum for delivering speeches or razonamientos, which used to be given on particular occasions: sessions of the Cortes, a Royal Entry by the sovereigns into a city, presentations of diplomatic missions, or harangues. No doubt relying on the synopses or making use of his own memory, Pulgar turns this common practice into literature. This way, aside from magnifying the style of his chronicle, he also indulges those historical characters who are capable of displaying their eloquence so masterfully. Pulgar himself comments on this procedure in the aforequoted letter to the Count of Cabra. If we analyze the contents of these speeches, we will find many ideas in them (as in other razonamientos interspersed in the chronicle) that undoubtedly reflect Pulgar’s moral and political thought, easily recognizable throughout all his writings. Once Pulgar’s ultimate authorship of these razonamientos is admitted, it is necessary to return to the question of the authorship of the compilation and its relationship with the speeches contained in the chronicle. There seem to be two possible answers to the question of authorship: a) that the compiler was Pulgar himself, who assembled a small selection of razonamientos either as source material for other writings or simply as a collection of the oratorical pieces of which he felt most proud; b) that the compiler was, as Pontón Gijón suggests, an anonymous reader of the chronicle, who selected and copied some razonamientos transmitted in the manuscript.20 Before reaching definitive conclusions, we must confront these razonamientos with those included in the chronicle. Pulgar’s chronicle has a complex textual history.21 If, as seems logical, we focus only on the manuscript transmission, Pontón Gijón’s idea that two main manuscripts or “dos estados textuales diferenciados” (“two distinct textual issues”) must have existed makes sense:22 ms. 18062 BNE (preferred by Carriazo in the edition that he designates as the

19  This is recognized both by Carriazo (1954) and Carrasco Manchado (2000) 1019. 20  Cf. Pontón Gijón (2008) lxxiv. 21  Up till now, we know of 61 manuscripts; we should also take into account the editio princeps (Valladolid 1565), where the text appeared under Antonio Nebrija’s name, and the 1567 edition of Zaragoza, where the error was rectified. Beside these earlier editions, we should bear in mind the edition prepared for the press of Benito Monfort (Valencia 1780; this is the text reedited by Cayetano Rosell in the 70th volume of the BAE collection, recently reissued in 2011) and the one published by Juan de Mata Carriazo in 1943 (recently reedited by Pontón Gijón in 2008). On this complicated textual transmission, see Pontón Gijón (1998) and Pontón Gijón (2008), and especially Hernández González (2002) 532–549. 22  Cf. Pontón Gijón (2008) lxxx.

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle

161

“unedited version”) and ms. 1759 BNE, which is, according to Pontón Gijón, among the most important ones.23 Kayoco Takimoto has compared the speeches contained in the RHA manuscript with the variants of the same speeches found in the versions of the chronicle transmitted by ms. 18062 and ms. 1759 BNE.24 The conclusions she reaches seem truly interesting, though they are, of course, still a working hypothesis. According to Takimoto, a close relationship can be traced between the speeches transmitted in ms. 9–5173 RAH and the ones in ms. 18062 BNE. Furthermore, she demonstrates the enormous discrepancy between these speeches and those contained in ms. 1759 BNE. A preliminary comparison of the texts in question allows me to formulate the following findings: doubtlessly, there is a greater degree of proximity between the RAH razonamientos and those contained in ms. 18062 BNE. However, in some speeches the differences are so noteworthy that they lead us to suspect the razonamientos in ms. 9–5173 RAH to be an earlier version than those preserved in ms. 18062 BNE. In other cases, some speeches contained in the RAH manuscript—mostly those, and that for an obvious reason, which are copied at the end—are not found in ms. 18062 BNE. These correspond to the first chapters of the chronicle.25 This being the case, two explanations seem plausible: either the texts in the RAH manuscript belong to an earlier redaction of the speeches, previous to their inclusion in the chronicle, or they were taken out of another draft of the chronicle, different from the one contained in ms. 18062 BNE. But let us take it one step at a time. The seventeen razonamientos included in the manuscript of the RAH are preceded by a title.26 Usually, the speech commences without any preambles. However, in speeches 2 (fols. 354r–v) and 3 (fols. 354v–357r)27 there is a brief 23  Cf. Pontón Gijón (2008) lxxxvii. The latter ms. 1759 BNE is basis for 1780 Valencian edition and was possibly the one that reached Nebrija’s hands with Galíndez de Carvajal’s help. Pontón Gijón, critical of Carriazo’s ecdotic decision, considers ms 18062 BNE to be “una copia de los borradores de Pulgar en una determinada fase de elaboración” (“a copy of one of Pulgar’s drafts at some point in its composition”), which explains the lacunae and the empty folios in it. In his opinion, the “neat arrangement” of ms 1759 BNE “denota su condición de copia en limpio” (“indicates that it is a handwritten fair copy,” Pontón Gijón [2008] lxxxviii). 24  In her on-going doctoral dissertation at Universidad Complutense (Madrid). 25   Carriazo introduced those chapters into his edition from alternative sources (as Hernández González [2002] believes, from the printed edition of 1780). 26  Gómez Moreno (1993) 129–130 transcribes the titles of the razonamientos. 27  This is also the case of speech 8, which corresponds to chapter 129. The variant found in this manuscript once again offers two points of view on the text of the chronicle.

162

Jiménez Calvente

introduction that places the oratio in a context.28 This approach could indicate that the texts were copied from a chronistic narrative and that, as opposed to the approach usually adopted in other speeches of this anthology, here the compiler wanted to further clarify the context. In other words, we could be looking at an anthology composed of the preliminary versions or working drafts of Pulgar’s chronicle. There are some speeches in the RAH manuscript that correspond almost word for word with the versions included in the chronicle. This is the case, for instance, with the “Razonamiento del obispo de Cádiz fecho en Sevilla” (fols. 362r–365v, appendix, n. 5), which coincides with letra 16 (dated 1477). In short, we could consider the possibility that the letters issued in 1485 and 1486 were inserted in the chronicle with scarcely any modifications. Also, the “Razonamiento de Puertocarrero a los caualleros de su capitanía para que tomasen esfuerço para defender la çibdad de Alhama” (fols. 385v–388r, appendix, n. 9) is kept virtually unchanged in all of its versions.29 Nevertheless, as I said, a greater closeness is observed between the speeches in the RAH manuscript, on the one hand, and those contained in ms. 18062 BNE, on the other, perhaps because both refer to an earlier stage of the composition of the chronicle. At the same time, numerous changes are detected when these texts are compared with the ones contained in ms. 1759 BNE or the printed versions from 1567 and 1780. Generally, the speeches in the “older versions” (the anthology of the RAH manuscript and the speeches contained in the ms. 18062 BNE version of the chronicle) are somewhat lengthier and even more florid.30 For instance, the “Razonamiento de Alfonso Díaz de Cuevas a los que defendían el castillo de Burgos,”31 (fols. 402r–404v, appendix, n. 16) a text of great dramatic tension that coincides with the speech inserted in chapter 54 of the chronicle edited by Carriazo,32 (fol. 89r of ms. 18062 BNE), is abridged in ms. 1759 BNE, where we find a bare summary of its initial apostrophe, in which the speaker stresses the futility of confiding in the Portuguese, always despised by the Castilians. The phrases removed enhance this assertion, but their removal does not 28  Cf. Carriazo (1943) 217, chapter 65. 29  Cf. Carriazo (1943) ch. 36. 30  This would confirm Carriazo’s hypothesis, (1954) 8, that both versions of the chronicle differed precisely in the tendency of the so-called versión refundida (“rehashed version”) to eliminate speeches which he attributed to the direct interference of Lorenzo Galíndez de Carvajal, an avowed foe of the “vana retórica” (“vain rhetoric”). 31  The transcription of this razonamiento from the RAH manuscript can be read in Gómez Moreno (1994) 339–340. 32  Cf. Carriazo (1943) 174–176.

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle

163

diminish the essential information contained in the speech: a suasoria or harangue delivered before the denizens of Burgos to convince them to join the Castilian forces. These variations, in which removing amplifications and redundancies represents an exercise in rhetorical restraint, can be observed in other razonamientos as well. However, sometimes the opposite is the case, as with “Razonamiento fecho por el cardenal d’España al rey de Castilla en su consejo, para que no se otorgasen las treguas que pedían el rey de Portogal” (fols. 351r–353v, appendix n. 1). This speech, which coincides virtually word for word with the one found in ms. 18062 BNE (Carriazo [1943], chapter 62), is partially modified in the 1780 printed version (chapter 43), where a couple of phrases are added to emphasize the role of the Queen as the provider of the resources. Yet, the above example does not really set a precedent, for usually a “more modern” version abridges the speeches, and even in ms. 1759 BNE and the editions stemming from it we read barely a few paragraphs from those speeches. This is also the case with speech 15, merely paraphrased in printed editions, but fully reproduced in ms. 18062 BNE (Carriazo, chapter 53). But the differences do not end there. For instance, those speeches in the RAH manuscript that correspond to the events described in the first chapters of the chronicle are found to be missing or very much abridged in ms. 18062 BNE, as I mentioned earlier. This occurs, for instance, with the “Razonamiento fecho por Gutierre de Cárdenas a la señora princesa siendo su maestresala sobre su casamiento con el príncipe de Aragón” (fols. 388r–389v, appendix n. 10).33 The same happens with the “Razonamiento del mayordomo Andrés de Cabrera fecho al maestre don Juan Pacheco quando procuró de aver el alcaçar de Madrid quél tenía” (fols. 390r–392r, appendix n. 11), present in the 1780 edition, 24–25,34 and entirely missing (the same as the entire chapter 15 of the chronicle) from ms. 18062 BNE. In addition, the text presented in the RAH manuscript is much lengthier than the one found in the rest of the versions of the chronicle, where this speech was reduced by almost half. Once more, the reason lies in minimizing the long excursus of Cabrera, brimming with reproaches for Pacheco, accused of ingratitude. Though the final peroratio coincides in both cases, the narratio of the RAH text is much more extensive in its detailed account of the many favors and privileges granted. All these examples suggest a greater degree of proximity between the speeches contained in the RAH anthology and the ones in ms. 18062 BNE. 33  The speech is, nonetheless, present in the 1780 edition, and that is where Carriazo takes it from. 34  Where Carriazo takes it from (1943) 50–51.

164

Jiménez Calvente

In spite of that, there are some cases, as has been pointed out earlier, when this rule does not apply, as in “Razones que dezían al rey para le atraer que dexase cativar a los portogueses, que después de la batalla se boluían hu­yendo a Portogal” (fols. 354v–357r, appendix n. 3). In this speech, as happens in speech 2, the narrative offers the readers a general context before turning to the argument itself, telling how at the Consejo some nobles sought to influence the King’s actions. This contextualization or narrative setting is missing in ms. 18062 BNE, while it is found in the printed version, based on ms. 1759 BNE.35 Further on, Castilian nobles take the floor to present their position in favor of vengeance; yet, these arguments, transmitted in direct speech, are not found in any other version of the chronicle that I have consulted. Rather, they are paraphrased in all the manuscripts and printed editions of the chronicle, and include only the discourse with which the Cardinal of Spain intends to persuade the King to act leniently. Thus, the manuscript of the RAH offers two deliberative speeches, which vividly juxtapose two different attitudes (one in favor of vengeance and the other in favor of mercy), a narrative procedure very much after Pulgar’s heart, as he himself wrote to the Count of Cabra in the aforementioned letter. The same happens with the “Razones que daban los que tomaron a Alhama e los que vinieron a socorrerlos sobre el partir del despojo que en la çibdad se ovo” (fols. 383r–385v, appendix n. 8). Once more, the first address in direct speech of the RAH manuscript is substituted by a narrative in indirect speech in the rest of the versions (chapter 129 in Carriazo, and chapter 4 of the third part in the edition of 1780). It is also the case with the “Razonamiento fecho por el cardenal d’España al arçobispo de Toledo, Alonso Carrillo, atrayéndolo a la Paz” (fols. 392r–394r, appendix n. 12), which allows us to hear Cardenal Mendoza’s voice, while in ms. 18062 and the printed versions (chapter 19) his speech is merely paraphrased. It seems that having composed these rhetorical pieces at some stage of the final draft of the chronicle, Pulgar decided to remove a few razonamientos in direct speech so as not to overexploit a narrative procedure that interrupted the flow of the narration. To do this, it was enough to change the verbal forms from the first or second person to the third, thus shifting easily from direct to indirect speech. As for the content, the solution lay in summarizing the main ideas while reducing the rhetorical flourishes, which elevated the general tone of the speeches. This way, greater immediacy is achieved and, at the same

35  Where Carriazo (1943) must have taken it from, though he says nothing in this regard (chapter 66).

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle

165

time, a greater sense of the objectivity of the chronicler, which tones down the strong emotion contained in these harangues. The discourses in direct speech deserve real literary analysis, for they offer a glimpse of what must have been the actual practices of palatial and courtly oratoria. Their phraseology is very close to official use, and they contain flashes of prose characterized by some deeply rhetorical features, with a tendency to reiterate and emphasize the main arguments through the use and accumulation of synonymous expressions. The orators are thus characterized as men skilled in law and capable of articulating a carefully argued discourse, where the important thing is to persuade through reasoning rather than emotion (one should bear in mind that these speeches are called razonamientos). In fact, a long time ago, Carriazo, quoting Menéndez Pelayo, declared that the historical figures whose speeches are preserved in the chronicle all had the reputation of learned and well-trained men.36 Pulgar adheres to the principle of verisimilitude, and, even though he embellishes the speeches, he puts them in the mouths of those who necessarily spoke fluently and were well acquainted with the techniques of a renewed rhetoric. While in their essence these speeches are close to the truth, in their form they reveal the work of a chronicler who wastes no opportunity to introduce his political thought into them. Before concluding this brief review, I would like to focus on the sequence of the speeches in ms. 9–5173 RAH, since they do not follow a strictly chronological order, at least not towards the end, where razonamientos 10–17 should have come at the beginning of the selection, considering their dates (they were delivered between 1469 and 1476). In fact, if we take the dates into account, the speech of the Cardinal, which opens the selection, should have been inserted immediately after speech 17. This apparent disorder could invalidate, at least partially, the idea that some anonymous reader was selecting the texts as he progressed in his reading. Perhaps the possibility should be contemplated that there existed an anthology of speeches that at some point during its transmission became disarranged. Then, one should imagine a compiler who rearranged some loose pages wrongly and copied them in that order without noticing the incongruity. Neither can we forget what was pointed out at the beginning: though certain proximity has been demonstrated between the RAH manuscript and ms. 18062 BNE, the anthology could not have been copied from this draft, since the latter lacks, as has been observed, some speeches present in the former. If so, could this be one of the earliest versions of the speeches? We cannot rule out the existence of a manuscript, lost today, where the texts appeared in the correct chronological order. Then, the manuscript would have 36  Cf. Carriazo (1954) 7.

166

Jiménez Calvente

been accidentally dismembered, and, later, carelessly reordered by an absentminded reader or owner. In the end, it was most certainly a careless scribe, responsible for the extant copy, who did his job unwittingly. 4 Conclusions What has been examined so far should serve as a stimulus for a further study of this anthology of speeches, which sheds light on the practices and characteristic trends in the historiography of the last decades of the fifteenth century. A first approximation invites us to focus on the selection of speeches itself and on the exact nature of its relationship with Pulgar’s chronicle. This approximation allows us to obtain interesting information regarding the manner of composing a historiographical narrative, as well as about the curious journey of these texts. Second, and here we enter the field of sheer speculation, we should ask ourselves who the compiler of these speeches was. This question would, in turn, open up new avenues of research. Here are what could be considered the immediate conclusions: 1) The texts of the RAH manuscript are arranged as an anthology, which indicates the importance of oratory in the late fifteenth century. Given its relationship with Pulgar’s chronicle, the analysis broadens enough to include a quite different and major genre: history. The rhetorical dimension of history is reflected through a series of speeches that occasionally interrupt the factual narrative. Through these, the historical facts are dramatized and commented on in the body of the text, where some nobles put their eloquence at the service of the monarchy. Usually, the speeches hold up major issues, such as justice, the honor of knighthood and nobility, magnanimity as a royal virtue, the establishment of a new order, the need for high prelates to stop meddling in political affairs and to retreat to their real mission—being priests—, etc. In the end, this anthology of speeches is presented as a good example of the rhetorical art of its time and, more specifically, as a bouquet of selected examples of civic oratory (as has already been pointed out by Amador de los Ríos). 2) The speeches stand out due to their impeccable crafting in terms of both internal structure and form. In these razonamientos great importance is attached to argumentation and there is a pronounced inclination towards the use of flowery language, manifested through antithesis and opposition and, sometimes, through concatenations of synonymous expressions. All this reminds us of the language of the Chancery and the legal forums, attached to the fixed models of legal formulae. This accomplished style gives the readers an impression that they are confronted with an authentic speech, close to the

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle

167

real moment, although improved by the pen of the chronicler. In this way, the speeches help portray those who pronounce them and so the chronicle broadens its scope, as announced in the proemium, where the encomiastic, didactic and moral intentions of history are stated. 3) The comparison of the speeches contained in the RAH manuscript with other versions of the chronicle holds some surprises. The RAH manuscript allows us, for example, to “hear” the arguments of two opposed groups, a narrative procedure which is not present in ms. 18062 BNE, in many respects the version of the chronicle that is closer to the anthology. This collection reveals some very interesting aspects of Pulgar’s composition technique, which have gone unnoticed by scholars who have studied his chronicle. One of the aspects that the anthology reveals is how Pulgar might have turned some of the razonamientos in direct speech—particularly the ones offering a standpoint contrary to that of the main character—into indirect speech to better integrate them in the narrative and perhaps to provide the account with greater homogeneity. This way, the effect achieved would be to emphasize further the personalities of the eminent men who gave public speeches. 4) The compiler of the anthology could have been Pulgar himself. In that case, the pieces he had composed must have been conceived, like his letters, as source material. However, the hypothesis of an anonymous compiler cannot be discarded either, bearing in mind the possibility of a reader very close to the early stages of the elaboration of the chronicle: someone who selected these speeches, many of deliberative nature, for sheer pleasure. These and numerous other points invite us to take up the reading of the speeches which, in the opinion of Amador de los Ríos and Carriazo, deserve to be edited and studied for what they are, little pearls of the rhetorical art.*

*  This paper is related to the Research Project MICINN FFI2012-35522-4166932. I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Victoria Atlas-Prilutsky, whose skill as a translator is only matched by her generosity of spirit. I also feel indebted to Asunción Miralles de Imperial (Real Academia de la Historia).

168 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Jiménez Calvente

Appendix: Speeches from ms. 9–5173 RAH Razonamiento fecho por el Cardenal d’España al Rey de Castilla en su consejo para que no se otorgasen las treguas que pedía el Rey de Portogal (fols. 351r–353v). Reasoning written by the Cardinal of Spain to the King of Castile recommending him to reject the truce proposed by the King of Portugal. Lo que después de la batalla e real fecha en Toro e Çamora pasó en Toro entre los portogueses esa noche que no fallaron al Rey de Portogal porque auía aportado a Castro Nuño (fols. 354r-v). Happenings in the night of the same day of the battle for Toro and Zamora, when the Portuguese knights could not find their King as he had moved to Castronuño (Valladolid). Las razones que dezía al Rey para le atraer que dexase cativar a los portogueses, que después de la batalla se boluían huyendo a Portogal (fols. 354v–357r). Why the King should allow his captains to enslave the defeated Portuguese on their way back to Portugal. Razonamiento fecho por Alonso de Quintanilla a los procuradores del regno para que fiziesen las hermandades (fols. 357r–362r: ). Reasoning written by Alonso de Quintanilla encouraging the procurators of the kingdom to create the so-called hermandades (armed patrols whose main duty was to keep order in the countryside). Razonamiento del Obispo de Cádiz fecho en Seuilla a la Reyna para que fiziese perdón general (fols. 362r–365v). Bishop of Cádiz’s reasoning to Queen Isabella in favor of a general pardon. Razonamiento de Gómez Manrique fecho a los çibdadanos de Toledo quando la çibdad se quería leuantar por el Rey de Portogal (fols. 365v–373v). Reasoning written by Gómez Manrique as a warning to all Toledo inhabitants, as they intended to rise up for the King of Portugal. Razonamiento fecho por el dotor Rodrigo Maldonado al Rey de Portogal para lo atraer a la paz (fols. 374r–383v). Reasoning written by Dr. Rodrigo Maldonado encouraging the King of Portugal to stop the war. Las razones que dauan los que tomaron a Alhama e los que uinieron a socorrerlos sobre el partir del despojo que en la çibdad se ovo (fols. 383r–385v). Reasons about the rights of the assault troops vs. those of the reinforcements over the spoils of war during the capture of Alhama. Razonamiento de Puertocarrero a los caualleros de su capitanía para que tomasen esfuerço para defender la çibdad de Alhama (fols. 385v–388r). Reasoning by Puertocarrero encouraging his soldiers to make a spirited defense of Alhama.

Speeches, Letters, and Chronicle 10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

169

Razonamiento fecho por Gutierre de Cárdenas a la señora princesa siendo su ­maestresala sobre su casamiento con el Prínçipe de Aragón (fols. 388r–389v). Reasoning written by Gutierre de Cárdenas, who was gentleman-sewer to Princess Isabella of Castile, at her wedding to Ferdinand of Aragon. Razonamiento del mayordomo Andrés de Cabrera fecho al maestre don Juan Pacheco quando procuró de aver el alcaçar de Madrid quél tenía (fols. 390r–392r). Reasoning written by Andrés de Cabrera, chief steward and defender of the Royal castle of Madrid, to Master Juan Pacheco, commander of the attacking forces. Razonamiento fecho por el Cardenal d’España al Arçobispo de Toledo, Alonso Carrillo atrayéndolo a la paz (fols. 392r–394r). Reasoning written by the Cardinal of Spain to Alonso Carrillo, Archbishop of Toledo, about the convenience of peace. Razonamiento del Condestable Conde de Haro fecho al arçobispo de Toledo para le quitar del partido del Rey de Portogal (fols. 394r–400v). Reasoning written by the Constable of Castile and Count of Haro warning the Archbishop of Toledo about the risk of being loyal to the King of Portugal. Lo que enbió dezir al Duque d’Arévalo al Rey de Portogal para que socorriese el Castillo de Burgos (fols. 400v–401v). Message of the Duke of Arévalo calling the King of Portugal to help the castle of Burgos. Lo que dezía vn cauallero portugués al Rey de Portogal para le fazer dexar el conbate que fazía de la puente de Çamora (fols. 401v–402r). Words of a Portuguese knight trying to convince the King of Portugal not to participate in the defense of the Zamora bridge. Razonamiento del alcalde Alonso Díaz de Cueuas a los que defendían el Castillo de Burgos para que lo diese al Rey (fols. 402r–404v). Mayor Alonso Díaz de Cuevas addresses some words to the defenders of Burgos Castle to convince them to surrender the fortress to the King. Razonamiento del Conde de Alva de Liste al Rey para que no alçase el cerco que tenía sobre la fortaleza de Çamora (fols. 405r). Speech by the Count of Alva de Liste where he recommends the King to maintain the siege of the fortress of Zamora. (Text in f. 405r, follows the very first folio of the anthology).

Part 3 Early Modern Age

∵

CHAPTER 9

Prefaces in Anthologies of Contiones Joaquín Villalba Álvarez In earlier studies we examined the prefaces of the Renaissance histories written in Latin and put forward a classification according to content.1 On the one hand, we found that there are panegyric prefaces, whose content includes praise for the personage to whom the work is dedicated, normally a political, military, or religious authority. On the other, there are reflective prefaces, which include evaluations of a programmatic nature about the specific history being presented or about historiography in general. This type also includes a eulogy, but in this case on the value of history as a model of behavior and example for future generations. Although this division is not clear-cut, since it is common for panegyric and reflective elements to co-exist in prefaces, Renaissance historians very often wrote two prefaces, one a dedication eulogizing somebody powerful, and another that praised the virtues and benefits of history.2 Clearly connected with the upsurge in historiography from the fifteenth century onwards is the remarkable development of anthologies of speeches taken from historiographical works, both from the classical period and later. In our view, it is also the programmatic character of the prefaces opening such anthologies that reveals what the interests and reflections were that drove compilers and publishers to assemble these texts. The primary interest was the pedagogical and literary potential that historiographical speeches had for training the individual in rhetoric, literature, and politics, both in the classical era and subsequently. For our study we have focussed on those anthologies that came out during the sixteenth century. Our selection represents quite a significant sample of collections of this kind, since these anthologies were precursors which served to pave the way for so many others that continued to appear in succeeding centuries. Here we concentrate fundamentally on the anthologies by Périon

1  Cf. Villalba Álvarez (2009) and Villalba Álvarez (2013). Cf. also some recent works, like González Rolán and López Fonseca (2014) or Julhe (2014), which came out at the time of writing this chapter. 2  So, for example, Flavio Biondo’s Roma triumphans or Marineus Siculus’ De rebus Hispaniae memorabilibus.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_011

174

Villalba Álvarez

(1532), Lorich (1537), Lorich (1541), Leich (1551), Nannini (1557), Nannini (1560), Marchetti (1560), H. Estienne (1570a), Belleforest (1572), and Junius (1586).3 1

Prefaces as Letters

In contrast to historiographical prefaces in general, which are referred to by a variety of names,4 the first characteristic of all the prefaces to the collections of speeches that we have analyzed is that they take the form and external structure of a letter, with a heading, body, and valediction. They are usually designated simply as an epistola, or epistola nuncupatoria, or epistola dedicatoria, and always include an encomium dedicated to some important political or academic figure, whose protection is sought. Secondly, it is common for the anthologies of speeches to contain another preamble, addressed to the reader. In these forewords, which often also have the formal structure of a letter, the publisher usually appeals to the goodwill and polite consideration of the reader, apologizing for any error or omission, and making use in this endeavor of the entire array of resources available for developing the exordium, as established since Antiquity.5 This preamble was also the appropriate place to set out the content and organization of the work, to give it the maximum publicity, and to encourage it to be read, with special emphasis being placed on the advantages of the proposed collection. These advantages were the inclusion of the arguments of the speeches, description of each oration’s context, and complete indices to make searching the work easier.6 Périon includes not one, but two forewords to the reader: the first describes the anthology’s content, while the second contains the only definition of contio that we find in all the works analyzed. Périon justifies the term out of respect

3  See the appendix to this chapter with the complete listing of the anthologies analyzed and their corresponding prefaces. 4  Praefatio, prologus, prooemium, dedicatio, epistola, epistola nuncupatoria, and so on. 5  Cf. Cic. de inv. 1.20 or Rhet. ad Her. 1.6. 6  We find similar images in Leich’s preface, when he encourages the brothers Broch to attain eloquence by reading Livy’s speeches, like someone gathering flowers in a large fertile meadow: “hinc denique divinam pene concionandi facultatem quasi latissimo et uberrimo demetite campo” (“you can extract from them [the contiones] that nearly divine ability for speech as if you were in the broadest and most fertile meadow”).

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

175

for tradition—which designates the orations of Livy as contiones—and also his preference for a short and direct title, something unusual in works of this type: Hoc te scire velim, lector, non sine ratione omnes omnium etiam generum orationes Livii concionum appellatione nobis significari placuisse, etiamsi proprie concio esse intelligatur sola ea oratio quae ad populum legitime convocatum per magistratum habetur. Primum, quod nullius non in ore conciones T. Livii habentur. Deinde, quod ita comparatum est ut gratiores sint libri quibus titulus nudus ac brevis praelatus sit, quam qui ampullas quasdam verborum prae se ferant (Périon [1532] epist. lectori # 2). I wanted you to know this, dear reader. That with good reason we have preferred to designate all of Livy’s speeches, irrespective of their type, as contiones. And, we have done this while well aware that, strictly speaking, a contio is a speech addressed to the people, duly convened by the magistrate. In the first place, because everybody talks about the contiones of Livy. Secondly, because it has been declared that books with brief explicit titles are more agreeable than those others that are preceded by a name loaded with pompous verbiage. Estienne also adds two letters to the reader. In one he emphasizes the innovative nature of his anthology, which, unlike earlier anthologies, includes both Greek and Latin historians.7 The other is the work of Iobus Veratius, and its importance and success were quite remarkable in the centuries that followed.8 Among other things, Veratius stresses the value of eloquence and the essential role played by historiographical speeches in its service. In the pages that follow we shall focus on precisely these aspects of content.

7  He also specifies its intended audience—those interested in attaining eloquence—and other important aspects, such as the use of the best lectiones in each text or the inclusion of indices and arguments to assist in quickly finding each specific speech. 8  Indeed, Veratius’s letter to the studiosus lector enjoyed a success that was in stark contrast to the author’s, about whom we know hardly anything, other than that he was probably from Genoa and that he died shortly afterwards in 1571. The letter’s success is demonstrated by its continuous appearance in the successive editions of the Conciones et orationes ex historicis latinis excerptae, throughout the seventeenth century. Cf. Brown, Hankins, and Kaster (2003) 171: “This index is often mentioned as one of the crowning glories of the edition.”

176 2

Villalba Álvarez

Panegyric and Reflective Prefaces

If we apply the distinction quoted above between panegyric and reflective prefaces to those introducing the collections of speeches,9 we can see that while the prefaces in the anthologies share certain similarities with general historiographical prefaces, they also have their own particular characteristics that are repeated more or less faithfully in each anthology, as will shortly be demonstrated. Panegyric Prefaces Among the topoi repeated in this kind of preface, perhaps the most important is the one known as the topos of dedication: the letter-preface is always addressed to some prominent figure so that his name and authority will confer luster and prestige and serve to shield him from possible detractors. Unlike the historical works written in Latin in these centuries, whose prefaces are usually dedicated to kings, popes, and the powerful in general, the anthologies of speeches have less ambitious purposes in mind: their function is clearly didactic, and their ultimate purpose, to inculcate eloquence (the addressees are rhetors, students of eloquence, and the like, and it is the acquisition of eloquence, rather than knowledge of Antiquity or the pursuit of virtue, that is praised as the ultimate goal of the anthologies), as we shall see in the following paragraphs. Consequently, the people to whom the prefaces are dedicated are either noble dilettanti who tended to act as patrons or people associated with the world of education. As examples of the first case, Lorich dedicates his two anthologies of 1537 and 1541 to the authorities in Frankfurt and to Philip, Count of Nassau, respectively; Nannini (1557) to Giambattista Castaldo, Marquis of Cassano; Marchetti (1560) to Count Curzio Martinengo; H. Estienne (1570a) to the French diplomat Pomponne de Bellièvre; and Belleforest (1572) to Ludovico Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers. All of these were powerful figures whose political and military virtues are extolled as much as their passion for literature. An example of the second case is the anthology that Périon dedicates in 1532 to his former teacher, Denis Briçonnet, bishop of Saint-Malo and abbot of Cormery, who taught him the greatness of Livy, an author highly recommended for young people and any educated person, because of his “gravitas sententiarum et verborum copia” (“seriousness of thought and abundance of words”) and his “facultas in concionando” (“ability to deliver a speech”), as Périon says in the preface. Périon also recalls an important fact, which doubtless lies at the 9  See note 1.

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

177

origin of the anthology that he now offers his master: on a certain occasion, he had had access to the edition of Ab urbe condita that Briçonnet kept in his library, and between its pages he found Briçonnet’s handwritten index of all Livy’s speeches, which made his work of compilation so much easier. For this reason, Périon dedicates his work to the bishop as a sign of his gratitude and profound respect. Years later, Jakob Leich also composed an anthology of Livy’s contiones, which he dedicated to Heinrich Broch’s sons, who had inherited their extraordinary qualities for study from their father, a prominent figure at the University of Cologne. The preface begins with a eulogy to eloquentia, which the students can acquire if they further their knowledge of the great auctores, among them Livy, whose orations are extraordinary models for emulation. Using a military simile, Leich compares the two brothers to soldiers who will have to place themselves in the front line of battle in order to finally conquer the city known as eloquence. Finally, Melchior Junius (1586) offers his anthology to the young Gottfried von Stadl, advising him to add eloquence to the rest of his studies, so as to follow in the footsteps of his father, the Austrian noble Erasmus von Stadl, who was renowned for his military knowledge, prudence and mastery of the word. Apart from this, the topos of dedication presents a series of recurring elements that revolve around exaggerated praise for the dedicatee as the prototype of every virtue. An obvious example can be found in the anthology that Reinhard Lorich dedicated to Philip III, Count of Nassau-Weilburg, in 1541, in which the eulogistic tone tends towards rhetorical exaggeration. The customary praise for study and its usefulness to society leads Lorich to establish res divinae precedence over res terrenae in a way vaguely reminiscent of the prefaces of Sallust. Immediately after this, Lorich inserts a simile that we might call “architectural”: just as divine affairs shine more brightly than human affairs, so the glory of those who erect buildings to the humanities exceeds that of those who put up “profane” buildings. He goes on to give examples: the Acropolis or the fountain called Enneakrounos brought glory to the city of Athens, but not as much as the Stoa, where the philosophers taught their doctrines. The Emperor Augustus and Lucullus also put up many monuments, but they will forever be remembered for having had luxurious libraries built, open to anyone who wished to consult them.10 The same can be said of Alexander, whose name will forever be linked to the library in Alexandria. After all these examples, Lorich concludes by having recourse to the topos of “outdoing,” by means of which all those prominent men of Antiquity are eclipsed, or “outdone,” by 10  Examples taken from Suetonius and Plutarch. Cf. Suet. Aug. 29.3 and Plu. Luc. 42.

178

Villalba Álvarez

the Count, whose glory will be eternal thanks to the grammar school that he has built in Weilburg. In this way, Lorich moves skilfully from a general praise of study to the direct personal praise of the Count as a literary benefactor: Et tua, generosissime Comes, arx Vueilburgica, quam modo recens ab imis fundamentis regaliter instauratam, alterius artificio Dinocratis exaedificas, tibi multum est laudis productura, sed non inferiorem profutura gloriam, nova quam arci subiungere Musarumque choro constituis dedicare Schola (Lorich [1541] letter to Philip, Count of Nassau 3b). And the castle of Weilburg, most noble Count, which you have recently majestically restored from the foundations up and which you are rebuilding with the artistry of a second Dinocrates, will bring you much honor, but no less glory than the new school that you intend to build next to the castle and that you wish to dedicate to the choir of the Muses. In Brescia in 1560 the printer Pietro Maria Marchetti reissued, with the same title and scarcely any modifications to the text, the anthology that Lorich had published in 1541. In his dedication to Curzio Martinengo, Marchetti once more has recourse to the topos of “outdoing,” when he contends that not only does the Count surpass his brothers, Ercole and Attilio, in political and military glory, but also in Christian piety and interest in literature. In short, Curzio represents the ideal of the politician who is sensitive to culture: Tum vero te in primis, Curti sapientissime, immortali laude dignum duco, qui spretis honoribus, quos sane amplissimos a Regibus et imperatoribus ultro virtuti delatos tuae ita sustinuisti, ut maiorum ac potissimum Herculis et Attilii fratrum tuorum gloriam non aequaris modo, sed longe etiam superaris, ad pietatem, quae Christianae nobilitatis caput est atque ad politiores literas, quarum studio eloquentia comparatur, ita traductus es ut incertum reliqueris utra sis laude gloriosior (Marchetti [1560] letter to Curzio Martinengo 3). And above all others, most wise Curzio, I consider you worthy of eternal praise, you who spurned the immense honors that kings and emperors granted you for your virtue and who performed in such a way that not only have you equalled the glory of your elders and most especially of your brothers Ercole and Attilio, but you have far exceeded it. And you have so devoted yourself to piety, which is the summit of Christian nobility, and to the humanities, through the study of which eloquence is attained, that it is difficult to discern of which glory you are most deserving.

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

179

Another equally noteworthy case is that of Remigio Nannini, who offered his Orationi militari to another politician, this time the Count of Cassano, upon whom he heaps praise, even though he knows it is impossible “to add stars to the sky or water to the sea.” Together with the flattering tone, Nannini has recourse in his argumentation to a topos that goes back to Greco-Latin Antiquity—it can be found in Sallust, among others—and which was to make a deep impression on the Renaissance, namely, the “literary dispenser of glory.”11 E bench’io sappia che sia cosa impossibile aggiugner stelle al cielo e cosa superflua portar acqua al mare, voglio dire che ancor ch’io conosca, ch’a me non sia possibile aggiugner gloria a’ vostri honori, e sia superfluo lodare quelche per se stesso è lodatissimo (perche dove è chiarezza di fatti, non vi bisogna splendor di parole), tutta volta V. Sig. si debbe ricordare che talhora un piccolo adornamento dà gran vaghezza a una pittura, per se stessa bellissima, et oltre a ciò deve havere a memoria che la lancia d’Achille non harebbe sparso molto sangue se la penna d’Homero non havesse versato molto inchiostro (Nannini [1557] letter to Giambattista Castaldo ii). And even though I know that it is impossible to add stars to the sky and useless to take water to the sea, I wish to say that even though I ­recognize that glory cannot be added to your honors and that it is superfluous to praise someone who is already highly lauded in any event (because where actions are illustrious, the splendor of words is unnecessary), Your Lordship must remember that at times a small adornment adds to the attraction of a painting, already of great beauty in itself, and besides, you must know that Achilles’ spear would not have shed so much blood if Homer’s pen had not spilt so much ink. Apart from excessive praise, there is another way to magnify the figure of the dedicatee—by diminishing the importance of the author—, in other words, the topos of false modesty. Declaring the work to be insignificant and clearly improvable is a topos whose roots are found in classical literature and serves to enhance the prestige of the dedicatee of the preface, and his prestige will serve as a shield against possible criticism (Curtius [1981] I 127). Belleforest, for example, in the heading of his letter to Ludovico Gonzaga, refers to him 11  Cf. Sall. Cat. 8. The expression is taken from Garin (1986) 59, regarding a certain dialog written by Benedetto Accolti, in which “he reduces the purported excellence of the ancients to the single fact that they had better historians and more numerous and more eloquent scholars.”

180

Villalba Álvarez

as “treshaut, trespuissant et tres-illustre Prince.” At the end of the preliminary section, he even compares him to a god. All this contrasts with the repeated expressions of humility (“humblement,” “treshumble”) that Belleforest himself scatters throughout the dedication. Reinhard Lorich offered his 1537 anthology to the authorities of the city of Frankfurt so that they would give the work their approval and, in all likelihood, so that they would finance its publication. The passage in question is full of elements that reflect this humble presentation and are characteristic of prefaces of this type, such as considering his work to be quite insignificant as it was in response to a request from a friend; the difficulties and criticisms that the writer came up against as he was writing it; his supposed inability to deal with the task; and the appeal for protection from the dedicatee: Chalcotypus vester Christianus Egenolphus Hadamarius, cum quo mihi maximum necessitudinis vinculum est, iampridem negotium mihi dedit ut pro parte mea Livianas orationes separatim excerptas artificio Dialectico et Rhetorico, praeterea scholiis illustrarem. Plurimis nominibus homini devinctus ego, meam operam addixi, sed admodum imprudenter. Non enim satis providebam quantas in molestias et suborituros obtrectatorum Cercopumque (ut aiunt) coetus, rem obeundo me coniecturus essem . . . Multa, fateor, brevius alii, plurima concinnius dicere potuissent. Sed ego puerilem ad mediocritatem descendens, malui ἀμαθέστερον καὶ σαφέστερον λέγειν quam nimium argutando nimiumque Rhetoricando fucum facere. Quidquid id est, vobis, prudentissimi viri, dedicatum isthuc transmitto, non ut vobis profuturum arbitrer, sed ubi vestrae, quam bonis moribus et literis apud nos instituendam fovetis, optimae exspectationis iuventuti et ornamento fortassis et usui futurum iudicaveritis, excusum Aegenolphianis formulis remittatis, simul et vestri nominis auspitio productum vestroque vallatum patrocinio, Vertumnum Ianumque spectare iubeatis. Sin minus iustissima censura districtum suffocetis, tineas pasturum inertes aut potius vestris mercatoribus tradatis emporeticarum chartarum vicibus functurum (Lorich [1537] letter to the Senate and City of Frankfurt aa 2). Your publisher Christian Egenolff of Hadamar, with whom I share a great friendship, some time ago now requested me, in so far as I was able, to cull speeches from Livy according to their dialectical and rhetorical qualities, and to explain them with scholia. I, who feel very close to him for numerous reasons, set to work, but somewhat imprudently. I was unaware of all the problems and the mobs of carping critics (as the saying goes) that I

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

181

would be involved with by taking on this task . . . I admit that others could express many things more succinctly and that most could do it more elegantly. However, I, stooping to the average educational level of children, preferred “to speak more simply and clearly,” instead of disguising reality with excessive prating and prattling. Be that as it may, I dedicate this work to you, the wisest of men, not because I think that it is going to profit you, but so that, when you consider that it may serve perhaps as an adornment and be of use to your promising young men, whom you have encouraged to learn good habits and letters from me, you will send it to Egenholff’s printers to be published, and along with the auspices of your name and protected by your patronage, you will order it to have its eyes on Vertumnus and Janus.12 But if you tear it to pieces with more than fair criticism, give it to the indolent moths to feed on or better still, give it to your tradesmen so that they can use it as wrapping paper. Incidentally, the topos of false modesty is not exclusive to epistles dedicatory, but can also be found in forewords to the reader as another way of engaging his goodwill and as a safeguard against possible criticism. Périon expresses his astonishment to the reader that nobody before him had set out to collect Livy’s contiones in a single manual. Among the possible reasons that he adduces are fear, modesty, the magnitude and difficulty of a work of this kind and, the most probable, indolence. Périon, for his part, humbly believes that there are others better qualified than he is, but has finally decided to compile these speeches of Livy’s, fearful that nobody else would ever take on the work. The entire passage is heavy with rhetoric and overflowing with a calculated, affected modesty. In fact, in tone and expression, it is quite reminiscent of Quintilian’s preface at the beginning of his Institutio oratoria: Quod ipsum cur ante nos adhuc nemo, quod sciam, tentarit, seu metu seu pudore prohibitus, seu magnitudine atque difficultate operis deterritus, seu (quod proximum vero) negligentia impeditus, quod minimam inde gratiam vel ingenii vel artis se initurum speraret, ut divinare equidem non possum, ita mirari non desino. Nos certe etsi ab aliis hoc ipsum maiore studio atque diligentia iudicabamus praestari posse, tamen veriti ne semper expectando nunquam opus procederet, ac sic demum tanto 12  All of this final part paraphrases the passage from Horace (Hor. Epist. 1.20) in which the Venusian poet addresses his own book, which is now anxious to see the light of day and be sold next to the statues of Vertumnus and Janus where the Roman booksellers gathered to sell their merchandise.

182

Villalba Álvarez

praesertim fructu studia iuvenum in aeternum carerent, tandem studio et mente in commune consulendi exhibuimus (Périon [1532] epist. lectori # 1). Why, as far as I know, nobody before me has tackled this question, either because they were overcome by fear or modesty, or because the magnitude and the difficulty of the task frightened them, or—and this is the most likely—because idleness prevented them, since they did not expect to obtain any reward for their talent or their art, is something that I just cannot fathom and it never ceases to amaze me. And although we thought that others could face the task with greater earnestness and care than us, for the common good we finally decided to put all our effort and thought into it, for fear that after waiting so long, the work would not go ahead and the education of the young would be deprived forever of such a great benefit. Reflective Prefaces The reflective content of a preface can be understood in two ways: on the one hand it may involve considerations of the specific work that is being introduced, or, on the other, observations that may be about the literary genre to which it belongs or more general questions that have nothing to do with the subject. The first case relates to a feature that is integral to any preface, namely the programmatic function of delimiting and separating out the content of the work. In this respect, both the prefaces dedicated to a particular person and, especially, the forewords addressed to the reader give a full account of the book’s subject matter and structure. The second case is bound up with the thematically independent paratextual nature characterizing certain prefaces, such as those that introduce demonstrative speeches. In this respect, Cicero had already pointed out the similarity between the genus demonstrativum and history,13 and Quintilian, when speaking of demonstrative prefaces, mentions historians like Sallust, whose prefaces—thematically independent from the rest of the work—constituted a literary model for histories in the Renaissance.14 However, in contrast to historiographical prefaces, in which history, and its usefulness in both the public 13  Cf. Cic. Orator 66 or Quint. Inst. 3.8.8–9. 14  A good example is Valla’s interesting preface to Gesta Ferdinandi (1445), in which he extols the importance of history by comparing it with poetry and philosophy. Cf. López Moreda (2002) 31ff.

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

183

and private spheres, is extolled, in the anthologies of speeches it is not history that is praised, but eloquence.15 The reason is simple: history is important here only in so far as its speeches are fundamental for training the individual to acquire eloquentia. As Leich counsels the young dedicatees of his anthology, eloquence is the key to mastering any other science or art:16 Eloquentiae studium vobis sit commendatissimum, utpote cuius accessione et praesidio omnes artes et percipiuntur commode et tractantur foeliciter (Leich [1551] letter to Heinrich and Friedrich Broch). The study of eloquence is highly recommended for you, for under its protective aegis, every art is mastered better and studied to advantage. A very significant aspect of the repeated eulogies to eloquentia in these anthologies concerns, once again, the figure of Sallust and the influence of his prefaces on the writing of history from the fifteenth century onwards, as we shall now see. In his preface to Curzio Martinengo, Marchetti produces a rather mannered eulogy to eloquence, based on a series of typically stoic dualities inspired by Sallust. Marchetti makes a distinction between the physical faculty of speaking (loqui) and that of speaking well (eloqui); the first is a physical quality that we receive at birth and use immediately, the second an intellectual quality that we attain by study. Magna quidem loquendi vis est (Comes amplissime), sed longe, meo iudicio, maior eloquendi. Tametsi enim magnum est inclusas animo 15  We have found only one case of direct praise of history in the epistle dedicatory that Belleforest (1572) addresses to Ludovico Gonzaga, in which the recurrent topoi of this eulogy are repeated: the definition of history as “a living painting of human life, the mother of science, virtue’s nurse, the only means of reviving the old nobility of the great princes,” his comparison with other disciplines, the habitual allusion to the importance of memory—with a revealing quotation from Homer—, and the identification of history with a mirror in which the most illustrious men should look at themselves. Ultimately, this praise of history is addressed to the powerful man to whom the work is dedicated and was surely motivated by Belleforest’s interest in being appointed the royal chronicler. In fact, the letter is full of references to his services to France as an intellectual and man of letters. 16  Significantly, in the very title of his work, Leich considers that Livy is no historian, but secundi dicendi magistri and eloquentiaeque Romanae alterius parentis, obviously behind Cicero.

184

Villalba Álvarez

cogitationes exponere mentisque sua sensa promere, consilia patefacere et caeteris communicare omnibus posse, quod ex cunctis animantibus uni est homini a natura tributum, quanto est tamen maius posse aliorum animos permovere, voluntates quocumque velis flectere, cogitationes atque sententias ad tuam trahere . . . Siquidem illud corpori magis inest, hoc animo, ille naturae fructus est, hic ingenii, illud usu comparamus, hoc studio . . . quin immo quis dubitet utrum plus homo caeteris animantibus oratione an homo homini praestet eloquentia? (Marchetti [1560] letter to Curzio Martinengo 2). The ability to speak, most illustrious Count, is important, but what is even more important, in my opinion, is the ability to speak well. And although it is impressive to bring out the hidden thoughts of our mind, express the meaning of our ideas, reveal our reflections, and be able to communicate with others, something that nature has bestowed only on man among all living beings, it is even more so to be able to change the minds of others, guide their wills to where one wishes, bring the thoughts and opinions of others round to one’s own position . . . The one has more to do with our body, the other with our mind, the one is the fruit of our nature, the other of our talent, the former we acquire with use, the latter with study . . . Who can doubt that, just as man stands out from the animals because of his speech, one man distinguishes himself from another on account of his eloquence?17 The conclusion that Marchetti comes to is a simple one: eloquence distinguishes one human being from another in the same way that language sets men apart from the animals. But he does not stop there. A little further on, the author goes over the same idea again, lamenting the folly of some of his fellow citizens who, in spite of possessing abilities and talent, prefer to live a life of pleasure instead of pursuing the one true virtue, eloquentia. The terms that Marchetti uses in his reasoning, such as socordia, otium, and voluptas, once again echo the prefaces of Sallust. A second example, equally revealing, can be seen in Veratius’s letter to the reader that appeared in H. Estienne’s 1570 anthology. The letter, besides being larded with erudite references to Thucydides, Virgil and Cicero, begins with a quotation from Homer (Il. 9.443); the author then extols the power of the 17  The schema followed by the author would present this oppositional structure: The gift of speech loqui natura usus corpus The gift of eloquence eloqui ingenium studium animus

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

185

word, placing it on the same level as action, in the same way that Sallust, at the beginning of his Bellum Catilinarium, vindicated his work as a historian by placing it on the same level as or even higher than the actual doer of the deeds.18 Words must be matched with actions and vice-versa: Mirifice me, studiose lector, Homericus ille versiculus delectat: μύθων τε ῥητῆρ᾽ ἔμεναι πρηκτῆρά τε ἔργων. Credo item omnes qui quae vis subsit iis verbis perpendunt. Dicendi enim facultatem cum agendi solertia coniungit et utroque viros amplissimos instruit. Quod nec industria sola, ea maxime quae in publicis rebus gerendis versatur, dicendi usu spoliata, satis munus suum tueri possit; facundia vero quae sese a rerum administratione removerit, importuna loquacitas iudicetur . . . Etenim ut impudentis est de iis quae nesciat verba temere fundere, ita turpe est quae scias ea plane et apte explicare non posse (Veratius, epist. studioso lectori, in H. Estienne [1570a]). Studious reader, I find that line in Homer “to be both a speaker of words and a doer of deeds” particularly pleasing. And I believe that it will please all those who measure the meaning contained in these words, for the line combines skill in speaking with a talent for action, and contributes in both ways to the instruction of the most distinguished men. And the fact is that action by itself, and particularly that which concerns public affairs, without the help of words, cannot fulfil its commitment properly; furthermore, eloquence that is not accompanied by action is considered irritating prattle . . . In fact, it is as stupid to speak blithely about things one knows nothing about, as it is unworthy not to be able to express clearly and appropriately what one does know. Veratius praises history in glowing terms because history is where eloquence and action meet to the best advantage. He does not refer to history’s political aspect (i.e. history as an investigation into the past that was extremely beneficial for the individual in general and the ruler in particular), but rather as an essential instrument for attaining eloquentia. History does this by means of the speeches that historians intersperse throughout their works. In both cases, the didactic function of history is clear, but different: history as a source of

18  We refer to the famous opening of chapter 3 of the Bellum Catilinarium: “Pulchrum est bene facere rei publicae, etiam bene dicere haud absurdum est” (“It is a noble thing to do good deeds for the state, and even to speak well of it is not ignominious”).

186

Villalba Álvarez

virtues and glorious deeds to be imitated, and history as a source of speeches for attaining eloquence. An examination of the consilia, acta, and eventus of which Cicero spoke in De oratore is fundamental for the training of rulers; the speeches inserted in history, however, have to do with the art of speaking: Haec quae dixi omnia in historia esse reposita videbimus. Sed eam historiam accipio quae est orationibus aspersa, directis potissimum. Nam et consilia, causae, eventus, res gestae (quae omnia historicus studiose persequitur) ad rerum administrationem pertinent; orationes vero ad dicendi facultatem referuntur (Veratius, epist. studioso lectori, in H. Estienne [1570a]). We can see that everything I have said is found in history, although I am referring to the history that is interspersed with speeches, especially those in direct discourse. Because the previous deliberations, causes, consequences, or facts themselves (all things that the historian diligently searches out) are useful for the administration of the state; the speeches, on the other hand, have to do with the mastery of the word. It is appropriate at this point to draw attention to the term industria, which Veratius uses to refer to action as the complementary element of the word and which has a certain presence in the work of Sallust, symptomatically in the preface to his Bellum Iugurthinum, where he refers to action as the driving force of virtue. After Sallust, the term reappears with a certain frequency, and with the same meaning, in the work of a kindred historian like Tacitus,19 and there was still, in Renaissance historiography, the occasional preface written in imitation of Sallust in which the term industria recurs.20 Returning to the anthologies of speeches, the imprint of Sallust is evident at the beginning of the letter that Belleforest dedicates to Ludovico Gonzaga, when he states that there is nothing that brings a man closer to immortality

19  Tacitus does not hesitate to call his master “rerum Romanarum florentissimus auctor” (“The most brilliant historian of Roman affairs,” Tac. Ann. 3.30). 20  We are referring particularly to Arnould Le Ferron, a French historian who continued the successful work of Paolo Emilio De rebus gestis Francorum libri IX, up to the reign of Henry II.

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

187

than serving his country in some way. Yet again, a preface stresses the importance of action, in this case, political or military action.21 Monseigneur, vous sçavez que les sages de tout temps ont escrit qu’il n’y a chose qui plus approche de la divinité ne qui soit plus propre à l’homme aymant l’immortalité qu’est de faire chose qui puisse redonder et servir au prouffit commun et au contentement de toute une republique (Belleforest [1572] letter to Ludovico Gonzaga ii). My lord, you know that wise men throughout the ages have written that there is nothing that brings one closer to the godhead, nor that is more appropriate to the man who seeks immortality than doing something that can redound to and serve the common interest and happiness of the republic. One final aspect associated with the reflective content that appears in collections of speeches concerns what we might call the utilitas of this type of anthologies. The prefaces explain at some length the information that appears in brief on the front of the book and that specifies not only the elements that help the excerpted speeches to be interpreted correctly, but also the readers to whom it is addressed. Indeed, these are the two senses in which utilitas can be understood, both of them associated with the predominantly pedagogical function of these works. First of all, the prefaces mention the merits and benefits of the work, placing emphasis on the practical component of the anthology, which is to make those speeches, which would otherwise have to be tracked down in the original works, available to the scholar in a single volume. It is sometimes illustrated with an etymological simile to the effect that the reader can gain access to each speech like someone gathering flowers in a garden: Nec haec rursus simpliciter tractantur, sed in suas quicque partes divisum atque seiunctum, ut quicumque huc penetret, quemadmodum si in hortum aliquem omni florum genere ornatissimum atque amoenissimum secedat, nesciat quem potissimum eligat ex omnibus (Périon [1532] epist. lectori # 2).

21  A little further on, Belleforest refers to this activity in the service of the state by using the term diligence, possibly a translation of the Latin industria, and he does so, oddly enough, just before he begins his praise of history.

188

Villalba Álvarez

And all the contents are not dealt with simply, but each one is divided and separated into its parts. In this way, whoever enters here, like someone who retires to a most pleasant garden adorned with every type of flower, will not know which one of them to pick. Besides its compendious nature being praised, the effort of selection, ordering, and interpretation carried out by the compiler—which helps the reader gain access to the speeches rapidly and easily—is also extolled. In this respect, the inclusion of the arguments of each speech, the classification of the speeches according to the rhetorical type to which the copious and complete indices belong, the annotations, and, in some cases, the effect of each speech on its audience are components that are constantly emphasized in the preliminaries and that speak for the suitability of the selection and accessibility of the handbook.22 Secondly, the intended readership of the collection is always indicated in the prefaces, something that, as we have seen, also usually appears on the front cover as a kind of subtitle. In this respect, and in connection with the dual pedagogical utility of these collections, we find two main types of reader addressed: students of rhetoric and public officials, both politicians and military men. Most of the anthologies analyzed are intended for students of rhetoric. Périon values the benefit that the iuvenes studiosi will obtain from his work, something that he extends to any learned person. Leich underlines the suitability of an author like Livy for any student of rhetoric; he dedicates the work, in fact, to two young students, to whom he confesses that he could not say whether Livy is more worthwhile for his fructus or his voluptas, that is, for the public usefulness of his speeches or the pleasure of reading them. This conjunction of the Horatian concepts of the utile and the dulce, of the docere and the delectare, is equally present in Renaissance historiographical prefaces when emphasizing the pedagogical and literary values of history. Another author who reiterates the value that his anthology has for the studiosa iuventus is Lorich (1537): Nihil aliud sit quaesitum quam solum iuventutis studiosae compendium. Quae si non ex meis lucubrationibus, tamen ex authoris lacteo (ut Divi Hyeronimi verbis utar) eloquentiae fonte manantis, Orationibus seorsum 22  It is common to find terms and expressions such as enchiridium, in promptu, and ad manum in the preliminaries, which support the view of the anthology as an extremely useful reference book.

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

189

aeditis, poterit non mediocrem facere profectum. Quod si Quintilianus a pueris Livium magis quam Sallustium legendum censuit, quanto magis legendae quas pulcherrimas ille protulit Orationes, partim quod aetas imbecillior totum habere vel assequi nequeat, partim quod in his et ad mores et ingenia perpolienda Thesaurus preciosissimus uno quasi gemmarum fasciculo clausus contineatur. Qua ratione quosdam olim impulsos arbitror ad eundem laborem subierint. Legimus enim in Suetonio Metium quendam Pomposianum contiones regum ac ducum ex T. Livio circumtulisse. Quarum nonnullas, iam in lucem denuo prodituras si vel aliquo benefitio . . . mea sedulitas affecit ut inde nonnihil utilitatis ad studiosam iuventutem promanaturum sit, bene. Sin minus, erit laudanda voluntas (Lorich [1537] letter to the Senate and City of Frankfurt aa 2v). I have only tried to put together a compendium for young students. They will be able to derive considerable profit, if not from my effort, at least from the fountain of milky eloquence flowing from Livy, in the words of St. Jerome, using his speeches published separately. For if Quintilian23 considered that it was more advisable for children to read Livy than Sallust, how much more advisable will it be to read the exquisitely beautiful speeches that he interpolated, partly because their tender age makes it difficult for them to read Livy and assimilate him in his entirety, partly because his speeches contain a rich treasury for improving their habits and characters, as if concealed in a single handful of precious stones. In my opinion, this is the reason that drove some in the past to undertake the same task. We read in Suetonius about a certain Metius Pompusianus who always carried about with him the exhortatory speeches of kings and generals extracted from Livy . . . If the trouble I have taken to bring some of them to light again has been of some use to young students, all well and good. If not, at least let my intention be praised. The reference to Suetonius and a figure like Metius Pompusianus is of some significance: Domitian suspected that the fact that Metius Pompusianus always carried a selection of exhortatory speeches taken from Livy around with him was an unequivocal sign that he was ambitious for power, and so Domitian had 23  The references to Quintilian or St. Jerome when extolling the figure of Livy are recurrent. In fact, Leich himself adds another paratextual element to his work, namely the eulogies of the Paduan historian made by various intellectuals from Antiquity (Quintilian and St. Jerome, just mentioned) as well as contemporary ones (Raffaele Regio, Raffaello Maffei, or George of Trebizond).

190

Villalba Álvarez

him executed. This anecdote leads us to the other main type of audience for whom these anthologies were written: politicians and military men. The pedagogical purpose is the same, but the application is to public life rather than to schools. This differing purpose is stressed in the prefaces. In his foreword “ai lettori,” Nannini begins by describing the joy that the reader experiences when he learns how much usefulness is contained in the pages of the book he has in his hands. For this reason, Nannini immediately makes it clear that his work is intended for “consiglieri, ambasciadori e capitani.” It will teach the first how to advise republics and their princes what is right and what is wrong; it will show ambassadors what reasons can be used when treating for peace, making alliances or calling truces; it will instruct captains how to exhort their soldiers, console them in defeat or congratulate them after victory.24 In any case, it is clear from the title itself to whom Nannini’s work is addressed, just as it is in the French version of this work that Belleforest produced a few years later and which addresses kings, bishops, legislators, ambassadors, and orators in general. Finally, the preliminaries that open Estienne’s Conciones clearly reveal his work’s intended readership. In the letter to Pomponne de Bellièvre that opens the anthology, Estienne mentions the success that some anthologies of speeches taken from Livy were having—a veiled allusion to the successful Périon anthology, which had already been reprinted several times. It was this success that prompted him to draw up a larger anthology, with speeches from both Greek and Roman historians. He immediately pre-empts the possible objection that some malicious person may make about the value of historiographical speeches for learning eloquence. As is to be expected, Estienne justifies that value, and points out that while his work does teach eloquence, it is not the kind developed in the forum, but on the battlefield:25 “Quid? Ex his concionibus disci posse eloquentiam existimas?” Dixerit forsitan aliquis. Ego vero non solum posse, sed etiam debere hinc disci contendo. Eam quidem certe potissimum quae non circa subsellia sed circa castra potius et praetoria, atque adeo circa regias ipsas versatura est; minimeque umbratilis futura sed in medium agmen, in pulverem, 24  Nannini (1557) Ai Lettori iii. 25  In the other two preliminaries that precede the speeches proper, he similarly stresses the usefulness of his work in public life, rather than in schools. Estienne’s own letter to the reader makes a reference to the goddess Suada, which implies the validity of the speeches for persuasion. Veratius’ letter highlights the value of history as a repository of civilian and military eloquence, as well as of all the virtues that any ruler should possess.

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

191

in clamorem, in castra et in aciem, non forensem illam, sed Martiam proditura, quae denique equestris potius (liceat enim mihi ita loqui) quam pedestris futura est (H. Estienne [1570a] letter to Pomponne de Bellièvre, ii). “What? So you think that someone can use these speeches to learn eloquence?” someone might say to me. And I wager that he not only can, but must. I am referring mainly not to the sort that develops around the benches of judges, but around the camps and the general’s tent and even the king’s; the kind that does not develop in the shadows, but in the thick of the troops, in the dust and the shouting, in the camps and the front line of battle; not that which is flaunted in the forum, but the eloquence of Mars; in short, and allow me to put it this way, that which rides on horseback, rather than going on foot. 3 Conclusions The prefaces of the anthologies of speeches are a key element for the proper understanding of the characteristics of the genre, the compiler’s intentions, and the specific audience that they were intended for. Some of these preliminaries even outstripped the author in fame, as was the case with Iobus Veratius, whose letter to the reader continued to appear in the multiple editions and adaptations of Estienne’s Conciones that were published from 1570 onwards. In the anthologies that we have taken as our sample, it is usual for a letter to take the place of a preface and to include a dedication to some important personage in the political or intellectual sphere. Alongside this dedication, another preliminary piece—or more than one on occasions—tends to appear which, in the formal guise of a letter to the reader, dwells on those aspects of the content that may attract the attention of the possible recipient of the work. From the point of view of the content, and as is the case with the prefaces of the historiographical genre from which such speeches are taken, a twofold division can be established: panegyric and reflective. The first type seeks to magnify the figure being addressed and, to a lesser extent, to reduce the status of the author with a modest presentation of his work. In this respect, the rhetorical resources employed to exalt a person or to show false modesty do not vary much, independently of the literary genre in which they are inserted. As for the reflective type, we certainly notice a significant change in these compared with historiographical prefaces; in the latter, recurrent themes were praise of history for its pedagogical value (historia magistra vitae) or consideration of

192

Villalba Álvarez

truth as the primary goal of every historian, which implies narrating sine ira et studio. In the prefaces to the anthologies of speeches, on the other hand, veritas fades into the background. Praise for history scarcely appears and, when it does, it is as an instrument at the service of eloquence, a kind of repository of speeches, which, excerpted into anthologies of this type, become an extremely valuable tool for mastering the ars dicendi. Eloquence becomes the center of every reflection and eulogy, a discipline that is critical for mastering all the rest. To explain what eloquence means, frequent recourse is made to the figure of Sallust, an author who paved the way for later historians precisely because of his profound reflections inserted into his prefaces and which became recurrent topoi in the preliminaries of many Renaissance Latin histories and also of some of the anthologies that we have analyzed, such as Marchetti’s letter to Curzio Martinengo or Veratius’s letter to the reader.26

Appendix: Anthologies and Prefaces

Author

Work

Prefaces

Périon 1532

T. Liuii Patavini Conciones cum argumentis et annotationibus Ioachimi Perionii benedictini Cormoeriaceni

Lorich 1537

T. Livii Patavini Orationes omnes, ex libris de II Bello Punico, Artificio Dialectico et Rhetorico illustratae T. Livii Patavini lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantis orationes

1. Epistola nuncupatoria from Périon to the Bishop Denis Briçonnet. 2. Letter from Périon to the reader 3. Advise from Périon to the reader Epistola dedicatoria from Lorich to the Senate and the People of Frankfurt

Lorich 1541

Epistola nuncupatoria from Lorich to Philipp, Count of Nassau

26  This paper is related to the Research Project MICINN FFI2012–31813 and the Research Group “Arenga” (HUM-023).

193

Prefaces in Anthologies of ‘ Contiones ’

Author

Work

Leich 1551

Epistola nuncupatoria from Leich to Heinrich and Friedrich Broch, sons of Heinrich Broch, from the University of Cologne 1. Letter from Nannini to Giambattista Castaldo 2. To the readers (version 1) Orationi militari raccolte per M. 1. Letter from Nannini to Remigio Fiorentino Giambattista Castaldo 2. To the readers (version 2) Letter from Marchetti to Count T. Livii Patavini lacteo Curzio Martinengo eloquentiae fonte manantis, orationes 1. Letter from Estienne to Conciones sive Orationes ex Pomponne de Bellièvre graecis latinisque historicis 2. Letter from Estienne to the excerptae reader 3. Letter from Iobus Veratius to the reader Epistre from Belleforest to Harengues militaires, et concions de princes, capitaines, Ludovico Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers ambassadeurs . . . Orationes aliquot ex Herodoti, Letter from Junius to Gottfried Thucydidis, Xenophontis: Livii von Stadl, son of Erasmus von Stadl itidem Caesaris, & Salustii historiis

Nannini 1557

Nannini 1560

Marchetti 1560

H. Estienne 1570a

Belleforest 1572

Junius 1586

T. Livii Patavini secundi dicendi magistri . . . conciones priorum quinque librorum primae decadis XXXXV Orationi militari raccolte per M. Remigio Fiorentino

Prefaces

CHAPTER 10

Remigio Nannini’s Orationi Militari Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido 1

Remigio Nannini (1518–1580)

Remigio Nannini’s life was full of contrasts.1 He was a Dominican friar who achieved great fame as an author of profane literature, such as his Rime (Venice 1547) and his acclaimed translation of Ovid’s Heroides (Venice 1555).2 Such literary activity did not prevent him from being, at the same time, an active participant in the Counter-Reformation. He supervised, at the pope’s behest, the publication of numerous devotional works, the most outstanding being the only anthology of New Testament texts permitted after the Council of Trent.3 Nannini received his religious training as a friar in Florence, a strict environment in those years, although he spent most of his life in the more open-minded and tolerant Venice. He was a man of the Church whose erudition made him an exceptional compiler, translator, and editor of historical works; in brief, he was a Dominican friar who admired Machiavelli and Guicciardini4 and, after 1549, became a close collaborator of the Venetian publisher Gabriele Giolito de’ Ferrari, the man responsible for the publication of the most important historical collana in the sixteenth century.5 It was on the presses of Giolito—the promoter of the ambitious project to make the texts of the key authors of ancient historiography accessible to the Italian public— that he published his first Italian translations of the work of Latin historians, such as Nepos and Ammianus Marcellinus; and, more particularly, it was also here that the most important work of his life was printed: the anthologies of historiographical speeches studied in this chapter. 1  For Nannini’s life, see Tomei (2012). See the chapters by Peraita and Tubau in this volume. 2  Epistole d’Ouidio di Remigio Fiorentino diuise in due libri, Venice, 1555 and re-issued in 1560, 1567 and 1568. 3  Epistole et Evangeli che si leggono tutto l’anno alla messa, Venice, 1567. 4  See Gilbert (1965). His interest in the work of this author is to be seen in his Considerazioni civili sopra l’historie di F. Guicciardini, Venice, 1582, a work that was widely disseminated throughout Europe. 5  For Giolito, see the studies of Bongi (1890–1895), Coppens and Nuovo (2005), Caputo (2007), and Favalier (2012). On the general context of the Venetian printers, see Grendler (1977).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_012

Remigio Nannini ’ s ‘ Orationi Militari ’

2

195

Nannini’s Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

Nannini composed two large anthologies of historiographical speeches: the Orationi Militari (Venice 1557) and the Orationi in materia civile e criminale (Venice 1561). The first is an anthology of speeches by political leaders, ambassadors, and generals culled from historical works of Antiquity and also, for the first time, from medieval and Renaissance works. Such was its success that a second edition was published in 1560 (with the addition of more authors until it exceeded a thousand pages) and there was a further edition in 1585. This important publishing task was completed in 1561, with the publication of Orationi in materia civile e criminale, a work intended for use in civil life, offering a selection of historiographical speeches, also both ancient and modern, useful in this case for advocates and men of the law.6 This anthology contains numerous examples characterized by their dramatic content7 (the characters are shown delivering speeches at key critical moments in their lives), an approach that exerted an important influence on later literary figures, such as Shakespeare, who might well have known the powerful speeches of Brutus, Marc Antony, and Caesar taken from Appian’s history. The same could be said of Hamlet’s speeches (Orationi, pp. 387–391), included originally in the Gesta Danorum and recorded by a little known medieval author, Saxo Grammaticus.8 The resounding success of these two anthologies by Nannini ultimately had an influence on the publication of the new type of encyclopaedic anthologies, as can be seen both in the scholarly Conciones that Henri Estienne (1528–1598) published in 1570, and, above all, in the French version of the Orationi militari that Belleforest published in 1573, with the title of Harangues militaires.9 3 The Orationi Militari Nannini’s most important work was the first example of an encyclopaedic anthology and laid the foundations for what eventually became an autonomous 6  As stated on its title page, “oltre alla cognitione dell’Historia, s’ha notitia di governi di Stati, e di Republiche, d’accusare, e difender Rei, e di molte altre cose utili a ciascuno, ch’attende alla vita civile” (“in addition to the knowledge of History, there is information about the government of states and republics, about how to accuse and defend kings, and about many other things that are useful to everyone involved in civil life”). 7  See Greenhut (1982) and G. Alexander (2007). 8  See Cherchi (1995) 6. 9  See the chapters by Pérez Custodio and Pineda in this volume.

196

Iglesias-Zoido

genre, with its own models and readership. This genre was widely cultivated in the following decades and enjoyed a period of splendor throughout the whole of the seventeenth century. In the following pages we shall analyze three general features of this anthology—the list of authors, text layout, and paratextual elements—and, more specifically, we shall focus on an analysis of the drafting process of the First Part, which was devoted to the Greek historians. Structure of the Anthology Nannini’s 1557 anthology provides a table of historians with thirty-eight entries, organized into three parts. Throughout its 740 pages, it covers the most important authors of the Greek and Latin historiography until it reaches the Renaissance.10 The First Part includes a selection of speeches from a series of Greek historians from Thucydides to Flavius Josephus—a selection that basically coincides with the list of authors translated up to that moment into Italian.11 The Second Part offers a selection of Latin historians from Livy to the medieval author Saxo Grammaticus, with whom Nannini was familiar because of his interest in the history of the Nordic countries by Olaus Magnus. To be precise, the list runs as follows: Livy, Sallust, Caesar, Quintus Curtius, Hegesippus, Ammianus Marcellinus, Procopius, and Saxo Grammaticus. In this case, as was evident to any cultured reader, far more Latin historians existed than those who were finally included in this part of the anthology (where there is also a Byzantine author and another from the Middle Ages). Since it was so obvious that there had been a process of selection, Nannini himself felt the need to contribute some valuable information in one of the few programmatic texts that are scattered strategically throughout his Orationi, and so, on the very last page of the Second Part, he states the following: Io so che ci sono molti altri Historici Latini, come Suetonio, Iustino, Floro, Eutropio, Sesto Aurelio, Cornelio nipote, e molti altri, ne’ quali non ­havendo trovato orationi, ne ragionamenti militari, se non pochissimi e brevissimi, però non mi è paruto opportuno mettergli qui altrimenti, perché attendendo a mettere insieme i parlamenti di qualche importanza, non ho giudicato esser buono occuparmi in ogni minima cosa (p. 552). I know that there are many other Latin historians, such as Suetonius, Justin, Florus, Eutropius, Sextus Aurelius, Cornelius Nepos, and many 10  For a complete list of historians see the Appendix. 11  These authors will be analyzed in greater detail in “The Greek Authors” section in this chapter.

Remigio Nannini ’ s ‘ Orationi Militari ’

197

others, where I have found neither orations nor military speeches, or only very few and very brief ones, and because of this I did not consider it appropriate to include them here, or else, because I was concentrating on gathering together the speeches of some importance, I did not consider it a good idea to concern myself with every little detail. This explanation is Nannini’s way of informing his readers that the selection principle he used was the presence of orationi, that is to say, full-fledged speeches that adhered to rhetorical norms. Despite their popularity in the Renaissance, Latin authors, such as Suetonius, Justin, and Nepos (who was translated by Nannini), were not included in his anthology because he regarded the brief speeches present in their works as minima cosa. His explanation, moreover, also served to demonstrate the compiler’s great familiarity with the Latin authors, whose works he would have read in their original language. Finally, the Third Part includes a series of fifteenth- and sixteenthcentury authors, beginning with Leonardo Aretino and finishing with Ascanio Centorio.12 Whereas the roll-call of ancient authors coincides with the preferences of the time, the inclusion of the contiones of modern historians was really quite a novelty. In our view, the contemporary content of this Third Part is enormously important for understanding the nature of the work, the possible reasons for its creation, and even the historiographical thinking of the compiler. It should be stressed, first of all, that this was the first time that an anthology of modern speeches taken from more general historical contexts had been published. Until then, the only published anthologies of speeches contained orations delivered by nobles and distinguished contemporary figures, but which had not been taken from written historical accounts. Nannini himself had published one of his own speeches (an “orazione consolatoria”) in the anthology printed in Florence by A. Doni, entitled Orationi diverse e nuove di eccellentissimi auttori (Florence, 1547, fols. 35r–38r). And in Venice, in the same period, Sansovino (1521–1586) published extensively, including several anthologies of speeches by Venetian notables, and a work of rhetoric for writing in the vernacular.13 These are examples of anthologies taken from the sphere of 12  Leonardo Aretino, Poggio Florentino, M. Antonio Sabellico, Paolo Emilio, Benedetto Accolti, Bernardino Corio, Machiavelli, Agostino Giustiniani, Paolo Giovio, Girolamo Faletti, and Ascanio Centorio. 13  For Sansovino, see Grendler (1969) and Grendler (1977). Works: L’arte oratoria secondo i modi della lingua volgare, Venice, 1546; Diverse orationi volgarmente scritte da molti hvomini illvstri de tempi nostri, Venice, 1561; and Delle Orationi recitate a principi di Venetia

198

Iglesias-Zoido

oratory—not history—which, no doubt, influenced Nannini’s historiographical anthology. Secondly, the fact that the translation of history into the vernacular was becoming increasingly important—as Giolito’s output shows14—must have influenced the selection of speeches by modern Italian authors. By that time, all the speeches, both ancient and modern, were translated into the Italian vernacular. This was how those anthologies that preserved the original Greek or Latin came to be abandoned in favor of a new cultural product that met the needs of a new type of cultivated readership no longer educated in the classical languages. In the third place, the contemporary speeches included in the Third Part are not to be understood as a simple afterthought, as might appear at first glance, but are essential for understanding the initial planning of the work. The anthology was drawn up, in fact, as a kind of Ringkomposition: the work opens with a dedication to the condottiero Giovanni Battista Castaldo—Marquis of Cassano and Count of Piadena, “padron mio osservandissimo,” in the words of Nannini, a model military and political leader—for his heroic deeds in the recent War of Transylvania against the Turks (ca. 1550) and closes precisely with an anthology of this military leader’s speeches (seven out of a selection of eight). These speeches were extracted from an account of the Transylvanian War by Ascanio Centorio, which had not yet been published because it was still being written (it would appear in 1566 on Giolito’s presses under the title Commentarii della guerra di Transilvania). Why Nannini thought that Centorio’s unpublished work was so important as to use a draft of it as a source for his anthology may have two complementary explanations. The first is that Nannini included Centorio’s speeches shortly before the publication date of his anthology as an element designed to tie in with the dedication and Nannini’s interest in honoring his patron. The second explanation could be that Nannini added the Third Part just to be able to include Castaldo’s speeches, which he knew about because of his client-patron relationship with the condottiero. Fourthly, thanks to the selection of modern authors in Part III, the preferences that guided Nannini become very clear. This can be demonstrated, quite significantly, by the fact that he included the contiones written by the Florentine Machiavelli. Nannini’s admiration for Machiavelli knew no bounds, and it is not surprising to find a selection of speeches from his Istorie Fiorentine nella loro creatione da gli Ambasciadori di diverse città, Venice, 1562. These two works were published together in a single volume in 1571 in an edition that follows the principles of Nannini’s anthology. 14  See Phillips (1979).

Remigio Nannini ’ s ‘ Orationi Militari ’

199

in Nannini’s 1557 edition of Orationi militari. But two years later, in 1559, Machiavelli was placed on the Index of prohibited books. Nannini, however, not only kept his speeches in the 1560 second edition of Orationi militari, but also included them in Orationi in materia civile of 1561. The only concession he made was to omit the name of the author and introduce the speeches as excerpts from an “anonymous” history of Florence.15 This admiration for Machiavelli, also apparent in later works like his Considerazioni Civili of 1582, was consistent with the zeal for translating into the vernacular that characterized Nannini’s historiographical work, and, especially, with his desire to put contemporary Italian works that dealt with two major topics on the same plane as the classics.16 These topics were, on the one hand, the history of the Italian territories, with special attention to Florentine history—the Third Part begins, in fact, with the history of Florence by Leonardo Aretino and Poggio, to which should be added the history written by Machiavelli—and on the other, the importance given to the speeches delivered by the Turks, the great danger of the time. This interest can be observed in the contiones selected from many modern authors and in the attention to monographic works such as Benedetto Accolti’s (about the war against the infidel in the Holy Land) and Ascanio Centorio’s (about the war against the Turk in Transylvania). Nannini’s growing interest in such matters is even more obvious in the 1560 edition with the inclusion of contiones by authors such as Bembo and those culled from histories of the origin of the barbarians and from the history of the Turks. The Presentation of the Speeches: Their “Encyclopaedic” Character Apart from Nannini including this novel list of modern authors, it should also be stressed that he endeavored to ensure that the speeches of the ancient historians were given a new text layout, that is, turning them into units that could be read and studied independently of the works from which they were taken. This was an enormously important feature which distinguished this anthology from those others published in the previous decades and demonstrates the various new ways that it could be useful. In fact, anthologies of contiones ceased to be an auxiliary instrument—as they had been during the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth, when they were used in conjunction with the volume that contained the historian’s complete work—and became a product that could be read independently. In this way, we see a shift from anthologies that offered scarcely any identifying information about the speech (a mere titulus perhaps) to the complex “encyclopaedic” model that 15  See Procacci (1965) 318–319. 16  See Philips (1979).

200

Iglesias-Zoido

Nannini put into circulation. Thucydides’ speeches, which head the selection, show the innovative way of presenting the orations and demonstrate how they evolved between 1557 and 1560. In the 1557 edition, each speech is identified with a title, along with a set of essential details given for its possible re-use for rhetorical or mimetic purposes: orator (Ambassadors), native land (Corfu), subject (alliance). Next, the argomento of the speech is provided, a section that contributes the background to the case (how the Corcyraeans arrived at this situation); the objectives of the speech (the Corcyraeans, finding themselves at a disadvantage in their dispute with Corinth, tried to persuade the Athenians to sign an alliance with them); the setting in the historiographical work (having obtained an audience in the Senate, one of them expresses, as follows, the will of those who sent them). Next, the speech, clearly marked out, is reproduced; in this case it was extracted, with scarcely any modification, from F. Strozzi’s 1545 Italian translation. Interestingly, Nannini was not satisfied with this layout, and saw the need to supply the effetto in the 1560 edition of that speech. This section gives details of great interest both with regard to the outcome of the speech and the state of mind of the listeners, to which are added other reflections of a moralizing, political or rhetorical type. Given that this procedure was so obviously useful, it was copied by Belleforest in his Harangues militaires, becoming one of the key features of this type of encyclopaedic anthology. It was even decisive in designing another of the works that formed part of Giolito’s historical collana. In fact, in 1564, Tommaso Porcacchi published a work that reproduced this same schema: Il primo libro delle cagioni delle guerre antiche di T. Porcacchi, tratti dagli istorici greci antichi (Venice, 1564), which in this case focused on compiling stratagems, organized according to the chronological succession of the Greek historians, and where each ruse selected is followed by its effetto.17 This text layout, which turns the contiones into units that can be read and studied independently of the original work, is taken even further in those cases in which the argomenti serve not only to provide contextual information about the speech (who gave the oration and where and when it was given), but also rhetorical and intertextual information. Let us look at two examples. In the section devoted to the speeches of Herodotus in the First Part (pp. 96–97), the compiler informs the reader of the existence of several short speeches of great interest present in the original Boiardo translation of the History (a translator whom he expressly cites), which Nannini would not have collected because of their brevity and because they formed more of a dialog than a debate of contiones. Another example giving intertextual information is in the argomenti of 17  See Cherchi (1998) 204–206 and Hester (2003) 237–238.

Remigio Nannini ’ s ‘ Orationi Militari ’

201

the section devoted to the “Orationi di Egesippo” (pp. 480–519) in the Second Part, where Nannini explains the relationship between these brief speeches and Flavius Josephus’s orations, with which this Latin text is closely linked: Perche questa Historia d’Egesippo ha tanta somiglianza con quella di Iosefo . . . ma rimetterò al discreto lettore a veder quelli de Iosefo, perché e le materie, e i concetti, e le sentenze e le persuassioni e disuassioni, e le persone che parlono in queste orazioni, hanno si gran conformità con quell’altre: ch’io ardisco quasi dire che le sieno le medesime (p. 480). Because this History by Hegesippus is so similar to the one by Josephus . . . but I shall refer the careful reader to those by Josephus, because not only the subject matter, but also the concepts, the sentences, the persuasions and dissuasions, and the people speaking in these orations are so much in accordance with the former that I dare say that they are the same. Actually, this Latin work, composed around 375 ce and transmitted in numerous manuscripts under the title of De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae, was widely disseminated during the Middle Ages since it was considered to be a Latin translation of Flavius Josephus’s Bellum Iudaicum. In this way, the reader received internal cross-references to other speeches that increased the usefulness of the anthology. In view of this layout, 1560 is a key moment in this process of selecting historians’ speeches. The fact that ever more attention was paid to the context of the contiones, their location, the rhetorical arrangement of the material and, finally, the effects on the audience shows that these orations were regarded as independent of the classical work from which they were taken. Also, the choice of language no doubt played a crucial role; this is no longer a Greek text or its Latin version, but an Italian translation that seeks to reach a wider readership. With these new readers in mind, the anthologies of contiones shift from being an auxiliary instrument to becoming an “encyclopaedic” product. Such a format was extremely useful, but inevitably became a filter that could eventually replace consultation of the works from which those contiones had been drawn. Paratextual Instruments: The Layout of the Material Looking beyond the layout of each individual speech, how did Nannini organise such an immense amount of material comprising hundreds of contiones useful for the process of mimesis? What possibilities for using it did its editor

202

Iglesias-Zoido

offer? In this respect, Nannini realized that it was essential for the text of the speeches to be accompanied by a series of paratextual tools that would guide the readers and help them make better use of the material. This had already started to be put into practice several decades earlier in the anthologies that had brought together the most emblematic speeches of the classical historiographical genre (especially useful in the case of Livy’s vast body of work). Thus, Livy’s excerptors, thinking of his practical utility, had established various possible classifications that ultimately influenced the way the genre of anthologies of speeches evolved, enabling these selections to be seen not only as a simple accumulation of emblematic texts but also as a rhetorical “artefact.” Nonetheless, it must be emphasized that Nannini offered a different procedure, which turned his work into something quite distinctive. The usual procedure employed up until that time, and the one closest to the rhetorical usefulness of the speeches, involved distinguishing between three large well-defined groups in accordance with the three rhetorical genres: forensic, epideictic, and deliberative. This system enabled the elaboration of speeches of this kind to be linked with classical rhetorical norms. This can be seen in the table classifying Livy’s speeches in T. Livii conciones, edited by J. Périon in 1532, which the author refers to on the title page as a very complete index of all the speeches according to the rhetorical genres (“index locupletissimus omnium concionum, simul & tabula insigniores conciones, suo qua[m] que generi subiectas complectens”). Thus, within each genre, a series of species supplies information about the orientation of their argumentations: suasio, dissuasio, adhortatio, dehortatio, and so on.18 The use and combination of these species provided the reader, keen to imitate these models, with very useful argumentative material classified according to the three genres of Aristotelian rhetoric. It was a model that spread across Europe as a reader’s guide not only for anthologies, but even for some translations of classical historians.19 And it was a procedure that was applied in encyclopaedic anthologies with a more “academic” approach, as we can see in the Conciones published in 1570 by 18  See Périon (1532): “Tabula conplectens concionum, velut generis divisionem in species . . .” 19  See the Spanish translation of Thucydides, published in Salamanca in 1564 by Diego Gracián, Historia de Thucydides, que trata de las guerras entre los peloponeses y ­athenienses, which provides as a final appendix: “Tabla de las oraciones de Thucydides y de Tito Livio, reduzidas a sus generos, para quien quisiere comparar la eloquencia de los dos principes de la historia Griega y Latina, y quando se offresciere ocasion aprovecharse de lo que ellos dixeron” (“Table of the orations from Thucydides and Livy, classified by their genres, for those who would like to compare the eloquence of the two princes of Greek and Latin history, and, when the occasion arises, to take advantage of what they said”).

Remigio Nannini ’ s ‘ Orationi Militari ’

203

H. Estienne, who offers a similar table so that the speeches could be used as models of eloquence by nobles and military leaders.20 It is important to stress that this classification was the consequence of the use of paratextual instruments (indices and tables) that set out to order what is, in fact, already ordered internally along chronological and national lines (Greek and Latin authors). All that was missing was an anthology that went a step further and presented the speeches ready-sorted by rhetorical genre. And this is exactly what Melchior Junius did in his Orationes of 1586, a work whose raison d’être originated in the late sixteenth-century world of the central European university.21 In his introduction, Junius shows a clear awareness of genre; he considers himself to be the heir to the selections of Périon, Lorich, and Estienne, and he makes his intention to present them in a new order particularly clear. Consequently, the physical distribution of the speeches throughout the anthology does not follow a chronological criterion nor does it distinguish between Greeks and Romans as had been the practice until then. He presents us with a selection that makes no claim to be exhaustive, but in which the speeches are arranged according to the three rhetorical genres (deliberative, judicial, and epideictic) and within each of these, he groups them under specific epigraphs based on purpose (deliberatio, petitio, adhortatio, dehortatio, and so on). In contrast to this rhetorical arrangement of the set of contiones, which was widely followed in anthologies published in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Nannini’s Orationi militari represents an obvious innovation by presenting a general classification of speeches in which “orationi appartenenti a Capitani, Consiglieri et Ambasciadori, fatte a diversi propositi e materie” (“speeches delivered by Captains, Councillors, and Ambassadors, made for different purposes and subjects”) were differentiated from each other. We believe that the renewed influence of the work of Polybius in the mid-sixteenth century22 explains why Nannini followed a classification that was more properly historiographical than rhetorical. In this case, what stands out in particular is the influence exerted by one passage in Polybius (12.25a) in which he classified the speeches of the historiographical genre under three broad headings: speeches of political councillors, speeches of ambassadors, and speeches of military leaders. These are three types of speeches that can be classified within the same rhetorical genre—the deliberative—but whose differences depend 20  See the 1570a title page, where it indicates the addition of an index of the speeches according to the rhetorical genres: “Additus est index artificiosissimus & utilissimus, quo in rhetorica causarum genera, velut in communes locos, singulae conciones rediguntur”. 21  See Junius (1586). 22  See Momigliano (1977).

204

Iglesias-Zoido

on the context, the type of orator, and the specific scenario in which it is delivered. Nannini realized that by following the Aristotelian classification according to rhetorical genres, the various uses of the speeches in their original works could not be fully understood, and he opted for the more flexible classification offered by Polybius. It should not be forgotten that the speeches were taken from history, a genre that had its own unwritten laws in which imitatio was crucial. The context, the speaker and the effect of the speeches were essential for understanding the role of the orations within the narrative. For this reason, the classification provided by this anthology was not only useful in terms of its general rhetorical utility, but most especially in works involving speeches considered to be integral models of historiographical oratory, like model speeches for political councillors, ambassadors, and military leaders. The Greek Authors When it comes to studying in detail how Nannini carried out the compilation task, we feel that it is illuminating to analyze the way in which he worked with the texts of the Greek historians included in the First Part of his Orationi militari. In this case, apart from the fact that they were essential authors in traditional classical historiography, a key factor can be added; as a scholar, Nannini had a perfect knowledge of the Latin language, but there is no evidence that he had the same command of Greek, at least not to the extent that he was capable of translating it correctly into Italian. This fact enables us to understand the basic aspects of his intentions when he put together the anthology, his choice of authors, and the way in which he went about selecting the speeches. In the first place, let us consider the selection and arrangement of the authors. For the First Part, Nannini chose the following authors, arranged in this order: Thucydides, Herodotus, Xenophon, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Polybius, Appian, Cassius Dio, Tacitus, Herodian, and Flavius Josephus. The basic criterion for selection (apart from all of them being essential classical historians) has a lot to do with the fact that this roll-call of authors coincided more or less with the list of those who had been translated into Italian up until that time23 and who had also been published by Giolito. With regard to the order in which the historians occur in the selection, we are immediately struck by the fact that the chronological sequence that Nannini would appear to have been following has been altered in some cases. However, once we see which speeches the Dominican extracted from each of these authors, the reason becomes clear: the guiding principle in Nannini’s anthology was to give priority to the chronology of events, not to the authors relating them. 23  See Hester (2003).

Remigio Nannini ’ s ‘ Orationi Militari ’

205

This is consistent and in keeping with the “encyclopaedic” perspective of his anthology of speeches, which, in practice, also offered a review of the most notable historical events in the ancient world. This criterion enables us to explain, for example, the order in which the Greek authors who narrated the history of Rome appear; so, for instance, an Imperial author, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (who narrated the origins of Rome) comes before a Hellenistic historian, Polybius (all of whose speeches relating to Hannibal were selected). The selfsame criterion explains the surprising fact that a Latin author (Tacitus) was included in this Part I, leaving a Greek author (Procopius) for Part II. In the case of the Byzantine historian Procopius, Nannini preferred to place his speeches after those of the Latin historians, while in the case of Tacitus, the reason why he appears in this position and before other Latin authors who came earlier, such as Sallust or Caesar, is because the Dominican opted for a chronological sequence of events. Hence, the speeches of Caesar, Marc Antony, and Octavian, key figures in the civil wars at the end of the Republic, are inserted after Dionysius, Polybius, Appian, and Cassius Dio. Tacitus contributed speeches from the beginning of the Empire, with orations of Germanicus and Otho; and Herodian, those of second and third century emperors, such as Commodus and Septimius Severus. Nannini, however, deviates from his criterion of a chronology of events in two instances: right at the beginning and also at the end of the First Part. Thucydides appears in first place before Herodotus, while Flavius Josephus (1st century ce) closes this section after the later author, Herodian. It is obvious that other motives of a rhetorical and structural nature took precedence in both cases. The reason why Thucydides appears first, then, can only be understood if we examine the list of authors as a whole, where it can be ascertained that his position in the Part I parallels the place occupied by Livy in Part II. In other words, both parts begin with the two historians (one Greek, the other Latin) whose contiones were considered the most important, from a rhetorical standpoint, in the mid-sixteenth century. Their initial position is a way of underlining their importance, and acts as a clear signal to the readers of the work. In the case of Flavius Josephus, for his part, the fact that the speeches of the Wars of the Jews presented special characteristics (their links with key events of Christianity) would surely have been uppermost in Nannini’s mind, making it advisable to place them at the end, as a kind of appendix, after a journey through the history of Rome as told by historians from Dionysius to Herodian. In short, the combination of these three criteria (chronological, structural, and rhetorical) enables us to explain the order in which they appear in this First Part, revealing the perspective that guided Nannini’s compilation, and above all to understand that what, to our eyes, may seem confusing was

206

Iglesias-Zoido

not in the least to the readers of the sixteenth century, to whom the work was, after all, addressed. Secondly, it is obvious that there are some conspicuous absences from this list of Greek authors, a notable one being Plutarch, whose work had been translated into Latin and the various vernacular languages in the Renaissance, since he was one of the most highly regarded historians of the period. In fact, Nannini himself felt that it was necessary to explain the reason for this unexpected absence by adding a significant comment placed just at the end of the First Part, in which he explicitly refers to the fact that speeches from Plutarch were missing: Habbiamo lasciato in dietro l’orationi di Plutarco perché le sono in numero molte, e tanto brevi in parole, che non havendo quasi forma d’orationi, sarebbe stato un multiplicar parole senza bisogno (p. 352). We have left out Plutarch’s orations because they are so many in number and have so few words that, since they almost lack the form of speeches, it would have been multiplying words needlessly. This afterword, similar to the one relating to the Latin historians quoted above (p. 552), reveals one of the major criteria for creating the anthology; despite Plutarch having inserted many speeches in direct discourse in his works, Nannini himself tells the readers that he did not include any from his Lives because he was unable to find any speeches that were long enough to be called contiones and be useful from a rhetorical point of view. However, although this choice was fully in keeping with a methodological criterion, the absence must have been criticized at the time. Given that an author like Nannini and a publisher like Giolito were both working with a view to satisfying public demand, it comes as no surprise that this issue should have been resolved in the 1560 edition, when Nannini added Plutarch to the catalog of authors in the First Part. This amendment (the only ancient author to be added) must have been in response to criticism received from a section of the work’s readership, since Nannini, to some extent, acknowledges as much in the prologue to the 1560 edition addressed “Ai Lettori” (“To the Readers”). Here, after indicating what was new (the addition of effetti and the new authors), he begs the readers to “haver compassione, a gli errori, dicendosi per proverbio, che, Chi non fa, non erra” (“take pity on the mistakes, for, as the proverb goes, he who does nothing does not make mistakes”, cf. fol. *iiii). His plea indicates the importance attached by compiler and publisher alike to the public’s reception of the work.

Remigio Nannini ’ s ‘ Orationi Militari ’

207

Thirdly, the differential treatment received by the two fathers of historiography, Thucydides and Herodotus, also offers valuable information about the objectives of the anthology and about the contemporary perspective from which the rhetorical worth of the two authors was judged. The listing for Thucydides—who, it should not be forgotten, has the honor of heading this part of the anthology—includes the vast majority of his speeches in a detailed selection covering his entire output, while, in the case of Herodotus, there is a limited number of contiones, all of them extracted from the last three books of the History, those specifically concerned with the Persian Wars.24 This detail demonstrates that the rhetorical usefulness of the two works was seen—from the point of view of the compiler and, consequently, the standpoint from which the two authors were viewed at the time—as being very different. Thucydides, despite having written a difficult work, offered one of the most elevated models of oratory in the eyes of the men of the Renaissance, since all his speeches in direct discourse (with the exception of the dialogs, which do not appear in this anthology) were perfectly adaptable to the rhetorical genres. In the case of Herodotus, his much more diffuse view of speeches—his orations often did not fit the model of rhetorical speech and were difficult to classify in terms of the oratorical genres—appreciably hampered their selection from the point of view of the contiones, as Nannini explains when he inserts two key statements in the part given over to Herodotus: I ragionamenti seguiti tra Xerse et Artabano sopra l’impresa della guerra . . . per esser corti & in forma di Dialogo, non gli habbiamo messi qui altrimenti, ma si rimette il lettore a vedergli nel proprio luogo cio è nel VII libro al quinto capitulo (p. 96). We have not included here the conversations between Xerxes and Artabanus about the enterprise of war . . . only because they are short and in dialog form, but we refer the reader to see them in their proper place, that is, the fifth chapter of the seventh book. Le parole similmente que furono tra gli ambasciatori de’ Greci e Gelone . . . per esser ancor elle in forma di dialogo non si metton qui altrimenti, ma chi desidera di vederli, legga il XII capitolo del VII libro, secondo la divisione del Boiardo . . . (p. 97, my italics). 24  As is stated in the introduction to this part: “Orationi d’Herodoto Alicarnaseo, raccolte da’ nove libri, delle Guerre de’ Greci, e de’ Persiani” (p. 93). It is no coincidence that the title is the same as the one shown in the tavola of Boiardo’s translation.

208

Iglesias-Zoido

Similarly, we have not included the words between the ambassadors of the Greeks and Gelo here . . . only because they too are in the form of dialog, but those who want to see them may read the twelfth chapter of the seventh book, according to Boiardo’s division . . . The way that Nannini goes about selecting these speeches shows better than any theoretical reflection that while Herodotus could be a model of a clear and easy-flowing style when it came to writing prose, the same did not apply from the standpoint of his value as a model of rhetoric. In these statements, too, Nannini reveals to his readers quite unambiguously (and without embarrassment either, we could add) that he is following the translation of Count Matteo Maria Boiardo. In the fourth place, the fact that Nannini followed the Italian translations of the Greek authors, rather than the original texts, provides key information about how the process of selecting the speeches for inclusion in the anthology came about. In the cases of Thucydides and Herodotus, Nannini used the translations by Strozzi (Venice 1545) and Boiardo (Venice 1533) as his starting point. Both translations contain tables indicating the speeches in direct discourse, although they are quite different from each other. In Strozzi’s case, the table is very detailed, probably as a result of the whole earlier rhetorical tradition, which had paid particular attention to the speeches of Thucydides in comparison to those of Herodotus. The speeches were already perfectly identified in Lorenzo Valla’s Latin translation, with full use of titles. As we have already seen, this did not apply to the speeches of Herodotus, where we only find similar indications concerning the speeches in the last three books of the work.25 The differences between these two tables, Boiardo’s and Strozzi’s, and the fact that Nannini followed them faithfully, enable us to understand the different character of the exhaustive list of all the speeches in Thucydides compared to the shorter list (only the orations from Book VII onwards) of those from Herodotus’.26

25  See Boiardo’s “Tavola la quale contiene brevemente la somma di tutta l’opera libro per libro,”, in which the term “oratione” only appears from chapter I of book VII onwards: “orationi che si feceno in consiglio,”, precisely the first two contiones that Nannini selected: “Parole di Xerse fatte a’ suoi capitani” (pp. 93–94) and “Risposta di Mardonio al re Xerse” (pp. 94–95). 26  Nannini expressly acknowledges that he followed Boiardo’s translation, even when he refers (p. 97) to dialogs that he does not include in the anthology, but that appear at a particular juncture: “XII capitolo del VII libro”.

Remigio Nannini ’ s ‘ Orationi Militari ’

209

The compiler’s reliance on previous translations and their paratextual instruments is even more obvious in the case of the other two most influential Greek historians, Xenophon and Polybius. The role played by Lodovico Domenichi’s translations into Italian is fundamental. Domenichi was an author who was very close to Nannini, since he had edited his Rime in 1547 and was one of the most constant collaborators in Giolito’s publishing house in the middle of the sixteenth century. It is understandable that Nannini should follow his friend’s translations of Xenophon and Polybius word for word. The reliance on translations can even be observed in the titles given to the works, which are just as they appear at the beginning of each of the parts of the anthology. Consequently, the titles given to the three works by Xenophon (Anabasis, Hellenica, Cyropaedia) correspond to those given in the three translations by Domenichi: I sette libri della impresa di Ciro Minore (Venice 1547), I sette libri de i fatti dei greci (1548), and I sei libri de la Vita di Ciro Maggiore (Venice 1548).27 This is even more noticeable in the case of Polybius’s History, which is presented in two parts (pp. 206–221 and 222–238) following the two editions in which Domenichi had issued them in Italian: Sei libri di Polibio (Delle Guerre de’ Romani) (Venice 1546) and Undici libri di Polibio nuovamente trovati (Venice 1553). More especially, Nannini fell back on the help afforded by the indices and tables in these translations, in which the most important speeches of each work, in Domenichi’s opinion, were very clearly indicated and this is particularly noticeable in the case of Xenophon, since Domenichi’s tables emphasized certain speeches in particular.28 For this reason, in cases such as Xenophon and Polybius, it is clear that Nannini only had to follow the indications and, consequently, that the anthology of the contiones of these authors had already been made in the tables of Domenichi’s baseline editions. 4 Conclusions Nannini was a compiler, rather than a true creator, who undertook the work of selecting and translating the speeches of the major ancient and modern

27  The re-issue of these translations by Domenichi the year after the publication of Nannini’s Orationi, in 1558, is further evidence of the close collaboration of various authors in Giolito’s printing house. 28  In the case of the Anabasis: the speeches delivered by Xenophon himself; Hellenica: coincides with the orationi highlighted in Domenichi’s table; Cyropaedia: the speeches of Cyrus according to the table.

210

Iglesias-Zoido

historians into Italian.29 The enormous task of producing his Orationi militari was aided by the fact that many of the Greek and Latin authors had already been translated into Italian and published in the same printing house, Giolito’s. Furthermore, in the case of the Greek historians, Nannini systematically used the indices and tables of the earlier translations, in which the most important speeches of each work were already clearly indicated. For authors such as Xenophon and Polybius, it is obvious that Nannini only had to follow the anthology that Domenichi had put together. From a modern perspective, all these details might lead us to think that Nannini was little more than a plagiarist. Nonetheless, his contribution to European culture goes far beyond this and he must be judged in his historical context, when the enormous production of books caused by the rise of the printing press forced scholars to develop new and sophisticated mechanisms for sorting knowledge and making it available.30 In this line of work, Nannini’s Orationi militari undoubtedly fulfilled an essential function, which was to make certain material, the contiones in ancient and modern historiographers and distributed throughout an ever-growing bibliography, more easily accessible to mid-sixteenth century public. In this way, the reader could find a collection of the most important examples of the work of outstanding exponents of the genre, from Antiquity to the Renaissance, organized in a single volume. A different question is the procedure employed to attain this end, although we think it useful to recall a statement made by Paolo Cherchi on the matter. Discussing the working arrangements of a series of authors of encyclopaedias, which included Nannini, Cherchi underlines the fact that accusations of plagiarism that might have been levelled at these compilers were very rare, even though, as we have been able to demonstrate (and should also have been obvious to their contemporaries), they copied texts translated by other authors without compunction. Cherchi concludes by pointing out that, at that time too “plagiare era, sì, una colpa, ma colpa ancora più grave era plagiare male” (“plagiarizing was indeed a fault, but plagiarizing badly was an even more serious fault”).31 Clearly, in this new art of composing encyclopaedic anthologies of speeches, Nannini was indisputably a master, and his later influence simply confirms it.32 29  See in this respect, the work of Cherchi (19983) and Hester (2003). 30  See Borsetto (1990) and Burke (2000) 81–115, together with Binkley (1997) and König and Woolf (2013). 31  Cherchi (1998) 24. 32  This paper is related to the Research Project MICINN FFI2012-31813 and the Research Group “Arenga” (HUM-023).

211

Remigio Nannini ’ s ‘ Orationi Militari ’



Appendix: Ancient, Medieval and Renaissance Historians in Nannini’s Anthologies

Orationi Militari (1557)

Orationi Militari (1560)

Part I Thucydides Herodotus Xenophon Dionysius of Halicarnassus Polybius Appian Cassius Dio Tacitus Herodian Titus Flavius Josephus

Part I Thucydides Herodotus Xenophon Dionysius of Halicarnassus Polybius Appian Cassius Dio Tacitus Herodian Titus Flavius Josephus Plutarch Part II Titus Livy Sallust Caesar Quintus Curtius Hegesippus Ammianus Marcellinus Procopius Saxo Grammaticus Part III Leonardo Aretino Poggio Fiorentino Marco Antonio Sabellico Paolo Emilio Benedetto Accolti Bernardino Corio Macchiavelli Agostino Giustiniano Galeazzo Capella Cardinal Bembo Paolo Giovio Girolamo Faletti

Part II Titus Livy Sallust Caesar Quintus Curtius Hegesippus Ammianus Marcellinus Procopius Saxo Grammaticus Part III Leonardo Aretino Poggio Fiorentino Marco Antonio Sabellico Paolo Emilio Benedetto Accolti Bernardino Corio Machiavelli Agostino Giustiniano Paulo Giovio Girolamo Faletti Ascanio Centorio

Orationi in materia ciuili e criminale (1561)

Cassius Dio Xenophon Dionysius of Halicarnassus Quintus Curtius Appian Titus Livy Sallust Hegesippus Procopius Saxo Grammaticus Leonardo Aretino Poggio Fiorentino Paolo Emilio Bernardino Corio Macchiavelli * Agostino Giustiniano Galeazzo Capella Paolo Giovio

212

Iglesias-Zoido

(cont.) Orationi Militari (1557)

Orationi Militari (1560)

Orationi in materia ciuili e criminale (1561)

Ascanio Centorio Dell’origine de’ Barbari Dell’Historie de’ Turchi * The name of the author does not appear in the “Tavola de gli autori contenuti nella presente opera.” What appears instead is: “Orationi delle historie fiorentine.”

CHAPTER 11

Henri II Estienne’s Conciones siue orationes ex Graecis Latinisque historicis excerptae M. Violeta Pérez Custodio 1

Henri Estienne’s Collection of Greek and Latin Speeches in the Context of His Editorial Production

Speeches, that is, orations excerpted from Greek and Latin historians. To those excerpted from Greek, a Latin translation has been added, sometimes new, sometimes already published, but now finally revised in many passages. Arguments intended to be of great help to the reader have been placed before all orations. A most skillfully wrought and useful index has been added, which associates every single speech with a rhetorical genre, like a classification by common places. This is the full title of the anthology of speeches excerpted from Greek and Latin historiography, which was edited and printed in folio in Geneva in 1570 by Henri II Estienne (Henricus Stephanus),1 a member of the French printing dynasty considered the equivalent of the Italian Aldus. The title page was printed with a variety of neat typefaces and embellished with the printer’s mark commonly used by the Estienne family (an olive tree with some falling branches and the words Noli altum sapere, “Don’t be high-minded”).2 Below it, the year of

1  Conciones siue orationes ex Graecis Latinisque historicis excerptae. Quae ex Graecis excerptae sunt, interpretationem Latinam adiunctam habent, nonnullae nouam, aliae iam antea vulgatam, sed nunc demum plerisque in locis recognitam. Argumenta singulis praefixa sunt, lectori adiumenta magno futura. Additus est index artificiosissimus et utilissimus, quo in rhetorica causarum genera, uelut in communes locos, singulae conciones rediguntur. For Henri Estienne’s biography and bibliography, see van Almelooven (1683) 59–119 and 34–63, Maittaire (1709) 195–503, Michaud (1843) 112–115, Feugère (1853), Dupont (1854) 55–68, Didot (1856) 516–553, Pattison (1889) 89–23, Clément (1899), Schreiber (1988a), Kecskméti, Boudou and Cazes (2003), and Boudou (2007) 9–17. The book is mentioned in numerous catalogs and bibliographical studies. Some of these are: Almelooven (1683) 45, Maittaire (1709) 350– 351, Renouard (1837) 132, Chaix, Dufour and Moeckly (1966) 74, Adams (1967) 308, Schreiber (1982) 154, Kecskméti, Boudou and Cazes (2003) 264–268, and Brown, Hankins and Kaster (2003) 149–150. 2  The motto warns against intellectual arrogance. Schreiber (1982) 247–263 and Cazes (2008b).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_013

214

Pérez Custodio

publication and the name of the printer were indicated, although not the location of the printing house.3 When this collection of orations came off the presses, Henri Estienne was already an experienced editor and printer. In 1559, he set up his own printing business in Geneva when he took charge of the printers that he inherited from his father, Robert I, who had established his business there in 1551 after leaving Paris following a major confrontation with the Sorbonne theologians.4 Henri’s tireless work until his death in 1598 produced an impressive number of books, mainly dealing with classical texts, but also with other subjects, such as Reformation theology, biblical texts, or the French language.5 The preliminaries that generally accompany them provide us with valuable information about his life and his scholarly and printing activity.6 His large production of volumes about Greco-Roman literature included numerous editions and translations of Greek texts, editions of Latin texts and a major lexicography project, the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (1572), upon which he lavished a great deal of time and effort in order to emulate his father’s Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, but which burdened him with debt.7 Although Henri Estienne was an accomplished scholar in both classical languages, he mainly focused his interest on Greek culture. This passion, fostered from childhood, accompanied him throughout his life, as the large number of Greek authors published demonstrates: Anacreon, Moschus, Bion, Theocritus, Aeschylus, Aristotle, Athenagoras, Xenophon, Herodotus, Hesiod, Homer, Euripides, and Thucydides are only part of a long list, with historians featuring prominently.8 On the other hand, the number and variety of Latin texts, including Cicero, Virgil, Varro, Pliny the Younger, Aulus Gellius, Macrobius, Horace, and ancient Latin poets, is much shorter. In order to provide readers with such a wide variety of classical authors, Henri Estienne often chose to publish anthologies, a common trend in his time. During his long career he prepared and printed collections of Greek poetry, Latin poetry, medical subjects, sententiae and apothegms, philosophy, oratory, 3  According to existing information, the year printed on the title page of the preserved copies is always 1570, except for one item in Magdalen College Library D.14.7, Oxford, which is dated 1571, although the last two figures of the number seem to have been altered by hand. 4  Armstrong (1954) 200–259. 5  Jeune (1994). 6  Kecskméti, Boudou, and Cazes (2003). 7  Kecskméti, Boudou, and Cazes (2003) xxi–xxviii. 8  Jehasse (1988). Critics have focused their attention mainly on Estienne’s production concerning Herodotus. See, for example, Boudou (2000), Boudou (2001), and Boudou (2003).

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

215

and so on. Anthologies were a constant feature of Estienne’s bibliography:9 the compilation of Moschus, Bion, and Theocritus dates back to 1555; the volume containing Laertius, Hesychius, and the Pythagorean philosophers was printed in 1594, four years before his death. Some time before publishing the selection of conciones in 1570, Estienne had already published two anthologies containing history.10 Some years later he published compilations of oratory.11 Although the Conciones siue orationes can be considered a major contribution to the history of anthologies of speeches, there have been no detailed studies to shed light on it. My aim in the following pages is to offer the reader the main points of reference as a guide to understanding this complex work, which has survived over the centuries by being transformed from a luxury item into a schoolbook. 2

The Origin of the Project and its Development

In the epistle dedicatory, Estienne mentioned that he decided to make an anthology of speeches taken from nearly all the extant Greek and Latin historiographical works after he had learned of the great success of a collection of orations excerpted from Livy. He was referring to the volume entitled T. Liuii Patauini conciones cum argumentis et annotationibus, published by Joachim Périon at S. de Colines in Paris in 1532, and on the presses of R. Winter in Basel in 1545. Estienne presented his project as a way of surpassing what Périon had achieved, although he did not mention that other scholars had already printed anthologies that were more extensive than the 1532 version. A volume intended for students had been printed in 1535 by J. Steels in Anvers, containing the collection of Livy’s speeches by Périon with the addition of one of Catiline’s exhortations to his soldiers, excerpted from Sallust. In 1541, in a volume printed in Marburg, Lorich had also gathered together a selection of speeches from five Latin historians, Livy, Sallust, Curtius, Caesar, and Tacitus, along with a Latin version of the Greek historian Herodian.12 This was also an anthology for use in schools and concentrated mainly on speeches taken from 9  Kecskméti, Boudou and Cazes (2003) 721–722 lists 27 titles. 10   Ex Ctesia, Agatharchide, Memnone excerptae historiae. Appiani Iberia. Item, De gestis Annibalis in 1557 and the Varii historiae Romanae scriptores, partim Greci, partim Latini in 1568. 11   Oratorum ueterum orationes in 1575 and Isocratis orationes et epistolae . . . Gorgiae et Aristidis quaedam in 1593. 12  Lorich (1541).

216

Pérez Custodio

Latin historiography with no Greek texts. Estienne’s project aimed to offer something different: a more comprehensive collection that included the most outstanding speeches excerpted from a large group of historians in both classical languages and intended for the luxury book market. Although the Conciones siue orationes did not come off the press until 1570, the volume was in preparation some years before that. In 1566, Estienne mentions a volume already begun (“inchoatum”) in the preliminaries of his Herodotus, consisting of a compilation of speeches excerpted from Greek and Latin historians, with a Latin translation of the Greek texts and an index whose aim was to classify the texts according to rhetorical genre.13 In 1569, in his Epistola, qua ad multas multorum amicorum respondet de suae typographiae statu, Estienne mentions a volume already printed in folio entitled Orationes seu conciones ex Graecis Latinisque historicis collectae, cum indice earum artificiosisimo et utilissimo, quo uelut in quosdam comunes locos earum argumenta reducuntur,14 which suggests that the volume containing the collection of contiones was almost ready for publication in 1569, although the printing process was, in the end, delayed until 1570. The copies that came off the press contained numerous errors in pagination in the Greek part, indicating that problems arose in that final phase.15 Documents exist providing evidence of Estienne’s financial difficulties in 1570.16 The volume was finally published as Conciones siue orationes ex Graecis Latinisque historicis excerptae. The word concio, originally meaning a speech given before an assembly gathered in specific circumstances, was used in the general sense of a public address, which is corroborated by Estienne’s father, Robert, in the Dictionarium seu Latinae linguae Thesaurus.17 This term, followed by the generic orationes, was consistent with the nature of the speeches included in the anthology: oratorical texts concerning war and peace, delivered 13  H. Estienne (1566a) fol. **.iii. 14  H. Estienne (1569) 14: Orations, that is, speeches selected from Greek and Latin historians with a most skillfully wrought and useful index of the speeches that serves to organize their arguments as in a classification by common places. 15  Although catalogs usually mention one main pagination error affecting page 288, which is 278 in a group of the preserved copies, the part containing the Greek orations presents various sets of numbering errors, such as: page 37 followed by pages 24, 23 and 40; page 128 followed by pages 135, 136 and 131; page 138 followed by pages 135, 136–138, 130, 132, 141 and 142; page 156 followed by pages 137, 138 and 159; page 165 followed by 158 and 167; page 163 followed by 154, 155, 156, 137, 138, 159; and page 277 instead of page 272. The combination of corrected and uncorrected sets of errors varies among the extant copies. 16  Reverdin (1988) 30. 17  R. Estienne (1531) fol. 133v.

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

217

by different kinds of speakers (kings, consuls, captains, ambassadors, soldiers) to a variety of audiences (senators, courtiers, military people, tribunes, citizens, plebeians). The common use of concio at that time to refer to any kind of oration included in historiographical works is well attested by Joachim Périon in his preface to T. Liuii conciones, printed in 1532, where he points out that this was what Livy’s speeches were generally called, irrespective of their type (“nullius non in ore conciones T. Livii habentur”).18 The long subtitle of Estienne’s volume gave notice of three features that had been added to help the reader: a Latin translation of Greek texts (making them available to those who could not read the original language); the addition of argumenta (a few lines about the context that preceded the speech); and a rhetorical index (to provide the reader with a search tool). The book was divided into five different parts. It opened with a set of preliminary letters intended as front matter (“in fronte operis”), as the editor-cumprinter points out in the epistle to the reader. Four different independently paginated sections followed: the rhetorical index, the index of orators (not mentioned in the title), the Greek speeches, and the Latin speeches. The preserved copies contain different combinations of these sections, and some sections are not included at all in some copies. Independent pagination suggests that the volume was designed as a set of individual texts, which could be sold and bound in different combinations, depending on the customer. 3

The Identity of the Dedicatee and the Purpose of the Book

The set of preliminary letters included the epistle dedicatory by Estienne, the epistle to the reader, also by Estienne, and another epistle to the reader by the scholar Job Veratius.19 The epistle dedicatory was addressed to Pomponne de Bellièvre, who was the Catholic French ambassador to Switzerland between 1566 and 1571.20 His military and diplomatic responsibilities required advanced rhetorical skills and his reputation as an excellent orator was vouched for by François de Belleforest, who included three of his speeches in the second edition of his Harangues militaires (1573).21 Other reasons, such as the advantage of being protected by someone close to Henry III during the troubled period of the Religious Wars, should also be considered. In 1575, Estienne again dedicated 18  Périon (1532) “Epistle to the reader,” no pag. 19  The little information that is known about him can be found in Jöcher (1751) 1519. 20  Poncet (1998). 21  For more details about Belleforest’s anthology, see the chapter by Pineda in this volume.

218

Pérez Custodio

a book, an edition of Horace’s poems, to the French ambassador at that time; on this occasion he justified his choice by arguing that court poetry would be quite useful for a man who wished to advance at court. The epistle dedicatory to Pomponne de Bellièvre indicates the purpose of the volume: to teach practical eloquence for military (rather than legal) purposes, using a method that involved frequent close reading of a choice selection of models. Estienne explains that this practice would make it easy to memorize many elements that would be available as needed for improvisation, a technique considered similar to the one used by talented poets.22 The Conciones siue orationes was not, therefore, a volume intended for everyday use in schools. It was luxurious, large in size and intended to improve the eloquence of those dealing with diplomatic and military issues. On the other hand, the schoolbooks printed by Estienne from 1567 onwards (such as the Apothegmata Graeca published in 1568)23 were smaller in size and less expensive. In addition, the targeted readership was identified using terms such as pueri (“children”) or tirones (“beginners”) in the preliminary pages. 4

Estienne’s Five Editorial Criteria for his Anthology

The aims of Estienne’s epistle to the reader are quite different from those set out in the one addressed to Bellièvre, and this is also reflected in the small italic typeface. This letter24 deals with technical issues and was written by Estienne in his role as philological editor, providing the reader with some pointers as to what was in the book: “Meum autem esse arbitror quae in eo et quorum opera praestiterim, sigillatim exponere”(“I consider it my responsibility to go into detail about the contents of the book and the authors of the material that I have included”). The texts focus on five aspects: a) The edition of the Greek and Roman orations. Estienne shows that he is a serious scholar of textual criticism by collating variants in order to select the best one. Concerning the Greek speeches, he pointed out that in some cases— mainly the conciones excerpted from Polybius and Arrian—the texts had been emended, as the reader would see by checking them against existing editions, even if unresolved problems requiring the help of another ancient codex still remained. Concerning the Latin orations, Estienne asserted that they had also 22  H. Estienne (1570a) fol. *iir. 23  Cazes (2002). 24  H. Estienne (1570a) fol. *iiiv–*iiiir.

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

219

been collated, especially those taken from Livy. The editor provided no specific information for identifying which previous editions or manuscripts had been collated. b) The translation of the Greek speeches into Latin. Estienne provided every Greek oration with a Latin translation, whether new or already published. He justified his limited participation in translating as due to lack of time. The translator was specified at the beginning of each text. c) The contextualization of the excerpted orations. To provide the excerpted orations with a meaningful context, Estienne resorted to the traditional device of adding so-called argumenta, a few lines describing the background to an isolated speech. The editor printed the argumenta that Job Veratius had prepared for each of the Greek and Latin orations, except for the ones by Livy (for whom already published argumenta were used) and Sallust (for whom new argumenta were composed by blending in words culled from previous passages by the historian).25 In short, three kinds of argumenta were included: c.1. The argumenta by Job Veratius, an extremely learned scholar who wrote the third preliminary epistle to the reader, recommending the anthology of speeches as a way of improving oratorical skills. At the end of the letter, Veratius explained that he had composed the argumenta to provide the studiosus lector with a tool for quickly understanding the context of every piece. These lines, not previously published, were independent texts composed especially for the occasion, using words and expressions taken from each historian. A good example is the argument that introduces Sandanis’ oration in Hdt. 1.71: “Parabat expeditionem in Cappadoces et Persas Croesus. Accedit eius dissuasor Sandanys Lydus, summa vir inter suos existimatione prudentiae. Docet eam expeditionem esse periculosam, propter illorum hominum duritiem et feritatem, nec vtilem, etiam in victoria propter eorumdem tenuitatem.”26 25  H. Estienne (1570a) fol. *iiiv: “Argumenta utraeque (id est utriusque linguae) conciones habent a doctissimo uiro et cum aliarum bonorum artium, tum uero rhetorices peritissimo, Iobo Veratio, conscripta. Salustianas et Liuianas excipio, his enim ea quae iam antea fuerant edita praefixa fuerunt, illis autem ea quae praefixi, ex ipsiusmet scriptoris uerbis paulo altius repetitis, uelut contexta fuerunt.” 26  “Croesus was preparing an expedition against the Cappadocians and Persians. The Lydian Sandanis, a man who had earned a great reputation for prudence among his fellow countrymen, approached to dissuade him. He explained that the expedition was dangerous because of the hardiness and ferocity of these men, and futile, even in the case of victory, because they possessed nothing of value.”

220

Pérez Custodio

A comparison of this argumentum and Herodotus’ text reveals that Veratius had made a brief paraphrase that included some of Herodotus’ original words translated into Latin. c.2. The argumenta added to the speeches from Livy. These preliminary lines had been published already. Although Estienne did not reveal their origin, they were the same ones that Périon had included in his T. Liuii conciones, consisting of a summary of the text that preceded each of the Latin historian’s orations. Some parts of these argumenta were composed by closely following Livy’s text, as can be seen in the one corresponding to the speech by Hannibal in Liv. 30.44.6–11: Inter alias pacis conditiones Carthaginiensibus petentibus pacem a Scipione authoritate Senatus datas, id etiam propositum erat ut in annos quinquaginta decem millia talentum argenti pensionibus aequis ­soluerent. Prima collatio pecuniae longo bello exhaustis difficilis videbatur, itaque quum ob eam ipsam causam caeteris in curia Carthaginiensi moerentibus atque flentibus unus Annibal rideret, tum Asdrubal Hoedus ridentem in publico fletu atque luctu increpauit, quum praesertim earum lacrymarum ipse causa esset. Tum Annibal in hanc sententiam respondit obiurganti atque caeteris:27 where Périon includes a paraphrase of Livy’s words made up in part with sentences taken from Hannibal’s harangue: “conditiones pacis . . . decem milia ­talentum argenti discripta pensionibus aequis in annos quinquaginta soluerent” (“peace conditions . . . to pay a regular sum of ten thousand silver talents for fifty years,” Liv. 30.37.5); “Carthagini cum prima collatio pecuniae diutino bello exhaustis difficilis uidebatur, maestitiaeque et fletus in curia esset, ridentem Hannibalem ferunt conspectum. Cuius cum Hasdrubal Haedus risum increparet in publico fletu cum ipse lacrimarum causa esset . . . inquit” (“At Carthage, when raising money for the first payment seemed difficult to men who were exhausted after a long war, and in the Senate there was grieving and 27  H. Estienne (1570a) 93, “Latin speeches”: “Among the other peace conditions that Scipio, in the name of the Senate, imposed on the Carthaginians when they asked for peace, was that they should pay a regular sum of ten thousand silver talents for fifty years. Raising money for the first payment seemed difficult to people exhausted after a long war and, as Hannibal was the only one to laugh when the rest were weeping and wailing in the Carthaginian Senate because of the situation, Hasdrubal Haedus rebuked him for laughing in public while people wept and grieved, especially since he himself was the cause of the tears. Then Hannibal responded to the one who had admonished him and to the others.”

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

221

weeping, they say that Hannibal was seen laughing. When Hasdrubal Haedus rebuked him for laughing while the people wept, since he himself was the cause of their tears, . . . he said,” Liv. 30. 44. 4–5). Estienne took advantage of Périon’s argumenta, but made a few minor changes, such as using the word oratio to introduce most of the speeches in order to simplify the lexical variety in Périon’s volume (concio, uerba, pronuntiatio, adhortatio, exhortatio, responsio, criminatio, relatio, actio). This reliance on Périon’s argumenta may explain a few inconsistencies in Estienne’s volume, such as the speeches excerpted from Liv. 7.6.40, in which the one by M. Valerius Corvinus is provided with an argumentum, while the following oration, by T. Quintius, is not. The reason can be found in Périon’s edition, in which the two texts have only one argumentum (Argumentum in LXIIII et LXV).28 c.3. The argumenta added to the speeches from Sallust. Estienne did not explicitly acknowledge their authorship, although he did describe the technique of composition. The short texts were made up of words excerpted from previous passages in Sallust and then put together (“uelut contexta fuerunt”) using additions, unifying elements, and changes of syntax, highlighted in italics, as needed. They were composed therefore following the model Périon used for Livy’s argumenta. Sometimes this process was highly complex. A simple case is the one preceding the Oratio legatorum C. Manlii ad Q. Martium regem (Sall. Catil. 33), which brought together four passages from Sallust: “Neque tamen Catilinae furor minuebatur, sed in dies plura agitare: arma per Italiam locis opportunis parare, pecuniam sua aut amicorum fide sumptam mutuam Faesulas ad Manlium quendam portare, qui postea princeps fuit belli faciundi” (Sall. Cat. 24.2); “Interea Manlius in Etruria plebem sollicitare, egestate simul ac dolore nouarum rerum cupidam, quod Sullae dominatione agros bonaque omnia amiserat, praeterea latrones . . .” (Sall. Cat. 28.4); “In quibus scriptum erat C. Manlium cepisse cum magna multitudine ante diem VI. Kalendas Nouembris” (Sall. Cat. 30.1) and “Dum haec Romae geruntur, C. Manlius ex suo numero legatos ad Q. Martium regem mittit cum mandatis huiuscemodi” (Sall. Cat. 32.3). The adverbial phrase Aliquanto post (“Some time later”) was added in italics to put the fragments in chronological order; the passage reproducing Sall. Cat. 28.4 was not cited in full in order to shorten the argumentum; and the word literis was inserted so that the relative pronoun quibus made sense. Neque tamen Catilinae furor minuebatur, sed in dies plura agitare: arma per Italiam locis opportunis parare, pecuniam sua aut amicorum fide sumptam mutuam Faesulas ad Manlium quendam portare, qui postea 28  Périon (1532) 135.

222

Pérez Custodio

princeps fuit belli faciundi. Aliquanto post, Interea Manlius in Hetruria plebem sollicitare egestate simul ac dolore iniuriae nouarum rerum cupidam, quod Sullae dominatione agros bonaque omnia amiserat, praeterea latr. etc. Aliquanto post, In quibus literis scriptum erat C. Manlium arma cepisse cum magna multitudine ante diem VI. Cal. Nouembr. Aliquanto post, Dum haec Romae geruntur, C. Manlius ex suo numero legatos ad Q. Martium regem mittit cum mandatis huiuscemodi,29 d) The criteria used to select the orations. Estienne announced that only orations in direct speech had been included, but where lines in reported speech had been included within the orations in direct speech, they had been italicized to distinguish them.30 The editor explained that this was why Caesar’s orations had been excluded, although he did not state why Caesar’s speeches in direct discourse had also been omitted. Estienne’s justification for the only case of an oration in reported speech being included in its entirety, Quintus Curtius’ Theati Atheniensis oratio, came at the end of its argumentum: the speech provided a response to the previous one, which could not be missed out.31 At the end of the epistle, Estienne explained that the reason he had not included in his anthology every speech by Latin and Greek historians in direct discourse, such as Cassius Dio’s,32 was that there would have been too much material for one volume, an idea expressed through the Erasmian adage Omnia sub unam Myconum (“Everything buried under Mykonos alone”),33 an allusion to all the giants buried beneath a single island.

29  H. Estienne (1570a) 2, “Latin speeches”: “Nevertheless, Catiline’s fury did not abate. On the contrary, every day he plotted something new; he placed weapons at strategic points throughout Italy and sent money that he had borrowed on his own credit or that of his friends to Faesulae to the home of a certain Manlius, who afterwards was the one to start the war. Some time later. Meanwhile, Manlius in Etruria, stirred up the people who, because of the poverty and injustices they had suffered, were anxious to rebel, for under Sulla’s tyranny they had lost their fields and all their goods; furthermore brigands had been brought in, etc. Some time later. In that letter it said that C. Manlius had taken up arms with a large force on 27 October. Some time later. While this was going on at Rome, C. Manlius sent some of his own men as ambassadors to Marcius Rex with the following message . . .” 30  H. Estienne (1570a) fol. *iiiv. 31  H. Estienne (1570a) 163, “Latin speeches.” 32  In 1591, H. Estienne published the Romanarum Historiarum libri XXV by Cassius Dio, translated by Guilelmus Xylander. 33  Adage 2.4.47. Erasmus (1551) 473.

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

223

e) The addition of search tools. Although the title of the volume mentioned just one index, which classified the conciones by rhetorical genre, there were others. The index mentioned was really three in one; it started with a simple tabula containing a generic classification of the different types of orations, continued with a long index, in which all the orations included in the book were assigned in alphabetical order to a specific rhetorical subgenre, and ended with an index of the historians included in the anthology. In addition, as many of the preserved copies show, another index listing the names of the orators in alphabetical order—first the Greek, then the Latin ones, in two separate sections—was also printed and added. Of all the indexes, however, the rhetorical one was of crucial importance. It was not new, since it closely followed a similar one in Périon’s volume, but it was richer. It meticulously classified every oration in the volume under a wide variety of rhetorical labels, such as the oratio petitionis, as found in petitio pacis, petitio beneficii, petitio honoris, petitio imperii, petitio praemiorum, and petitio praemii uictoriae. In addition, a thematic criterion was often employed to divide the rhetorical classification further. For example, the label petitio pacis (“peace petition”) was divided into various subtypes, such as the petition for peace through surrender. After every subtype the shortened title of the corresponding speech and the page where it could be found in the volume were added in italics. For any occasion that required a speech to be delivered, therefore, this collection, which served as a repertoire of rhetorical models, enabled the reader to quickly find the specific type to suit his needs.34 5

The Compilation of Greek and Latin Speeches

Estienne offered the public an anthology consisting of 510 orations: 279 in Latin and 231 in Greek with Latin translations. The Latin section was more abundant than the Greek in terms of number of orations (with forty-eight more items) and variety of authors (eight Latin and six Greek authors), while the Greek section, with the original orations arranged in a two-column format, was more extensive in terms of the number of pages, the result of adding the Latin translations. The length of the orations ranged from two lines, in the case of the Oratio Annibalis ad suos (Liv. 27.14.1), to several pages for the Lycisci oratio (Plb. Fr. 9.34–39). The authorship of Latin translations was always acknowledged, although nothing was said about the sources that were collated to establish the Greek 34  Goyet (2013a).

224

Pérez Custodio

texts. By the time Estienne had prepared his anthology, a good part of the Greek historians from whom he had excerpted the speeches had already been printed on his Geneva press. The selection of orations from Greek historians included:35

•

Sixty-four speeches belonging to the Histories by Herodotus (pp. 3–47). In this group of orations, fifty-six contained a translation by Lorenzo Valla and eight by Henri Estienne; in 1566, Estienne had published a volume containing texts from Herodotus and Ctesias in which he had corrected Valla’s translation. In the preliminary pages, Estienne sharply criticized the Italian scholar for the irregular quality of his version and also questioned his mastery of the Latin language because of his use of inepta et barbara uerba.36 In 1570, Estienne published a volume containing the Greek texts of Herodotus and Ctesias: on the preliminary page37 he acknowledged his intellectual collaboration with Joachim Camerarius, who had already published a Greek Herodotus in Basel in 1541. In 1592, Estienne printed the bilingual edition of this historian, using Valla’s translation and with more corrections than in the 1566 volume. Forty-four speeches belonging to the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides (pp. 48–135). In this group of speeches, seven had been translated by Veratius, five by Lorenzo Valla, and two by Henri Estienne. The other thirty speeches had Valla’s version corrected by Estienne. The editorcum-printer had also published a Thucydides in Greek and Latin in 1564, in which he included his revision of Valla’s translation, accusing him of ignorance and carelessness.38 In his letter to the reader, Estienne mentioned that the Greek text had been established after collating ancient manuscripts and former editions.39 In 1588, a Thucydides in Latin and, in 1589, a Thucydides in Greek were also issued by Estienne, who reprinted the bilingual text in 1594. Ninety-three speeches taken from different works by Xenophon: thirty-eight from the Cyropaedia, twenty-eight from the Anabasis, and twenty-seven from

•

•

35  For an exhaustive list of all the orations included, see the Appendix to this article. 36  H. Estienne (1566a) fol. **iiv–**iiir. The Italian humanist Lorenzo Valla (1405–1457) produced a Latin translation of the Histories of Herodotus which remained in manuscript form until 1474. He published an influential handbook placing the study of Latin on a scientific basis, entitled Elegantiae linguae latinae (written in 1441–1449) with the intention of restoring the purity of this language, lost during previous centuries. In this book, Valla applied the word barbari to those responsible for that situation. 37  H. Estienne (1570b) 4. 38  H. Estienne (1564) fol. *iiiv. 39  H- Estienne (1564) fol. *iiir.

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

225

the Hellenica (pp. 137–247). The translators participating in the Cyropaedia were Francesco Filelfo40 for thirty-two orations, Job Veratius for four, and Henri Estienne for two. Romulus Amasaeus translated all the speeches from the Anabasis41 and Francesco Porto all the orations from the Hellenica.42 In 1561, Estienne had published two volumes of Xenophon’s opera omnia in Greek and Latin. The Greek text edition was the result of collating many ancient copies, some of which were kept in Fugger’s library, as the title of the book indicated. In the Latin volume, dedicated to Joachim Camerarius, Estienne printed translations that had been done by other scholars, arguing that he had been too busy to contribute his own: for the Cyropaedia, he used a version by Francesco Filelfo, corrected in some places; for the Anabasis, he used the one by Romulus Amasaeus, defined as elegant but not accurate; and for the Hellenica, the translation by Francesco Porto.43 Ten speeches belonging to Polybius’ Histories (pp. 249–265). All the translations were by Job Veratius. An edition of the fragments of this Greek historian was a project that Estienne never completed. In 1595, he stated that the reason he had not finished it was that the bibliography, already published, was not available.44 Six speeches belonging to the Anabasis of Alexander by Arrian (pp. 266– 273). The translation was by Francesco Porto. As was mentioned previously, Estienne stated in the epistle to the reader that he had thoroughly revised the Greek text in order to provide an edition that differed from existing ones. In 1559, he published some texts by Arrian as an appendix to his edition of the Bibliotheca Historica by Diodorus Siculus. Fourteen speeches belonging to Herodian’s History of the Empire from the Death of Marcus (pp. 275–288). The translation was by Angelo Poliziano.45

• •

•

40  The Italian humanist Francesco Filelfo (1398–1481) had published his translation of the Cyropaedia in Milan, ca. 1474. Brown, Kristeller, and Cranz (1992) 81. 41  The Italian humanist Romulus Quirinus Amasaeus (1489–1552) published his Latin translation of the Anabasis in 1533 when he was teaching in Bologna, although he had started working on the text at least twelve years before. Brown, Kristeller, and Cranz (1992) 104–106. 42  The Greek scholar Francesco Porto (1511–1581) thoroughly revised the previous translation by W. Pirckheimer (1532) and changed it in many places. He also wrote a commentary on the Hellenica, published posthumously in 1586. Brown, Kristeller, and Cranz (1992) 145–149. 43  Brown, Kristeller, and Cranz (1992) 89. 44  R. Estienne (1595) 27 (“Epistola eidem lectori”). 45  The translation of Herodian’s books by the Italian scholar Angelo Poliziano (1454–1494) was first published in 1493 and was reprinted numerous times in different countries.

226

Pérez Custodio

Robert I Estienne had published this translation in Paris in 1543 and 1544. In 1568, Henri Estienne had already printed an anthology entitled Varii historiae Romanae scriptores, partim Graeci, partim Latini, which included some texts by Herodian. In 1581, he published the complete work of Herodian in a bilingual volume, in which he had corrected the Greek text, printed his revision of Poliziano’s Latin version and added commentaries. The selection of orations from Latin historians included:

•

Seventeen speeches from three works by Sallust (pp. 1–21). This group included five orations from The Conspiracy of Catiline, six from the Jugurthine War, and six from the extant fragments of the Histories. In Paris, in 1544, Robert I Estienne had published a volume containing the works cited by the Latin historian. One hundred and seventy-three speeches from Ab urbe condita by Livy (pp. 22–140). Thirty-three speeches belonging to three works by Tacitus (pp. 141–159). This group included twenty orations from the Annals, eleven from The Histories, and two from Agricola. Thirty speeches belonging to the Histories of Alexander the Great (pp. 160– 181). In 1559, Henri Estienne had added an appendix with some texts from Curtius to his edition of Diodorus Siculus. Fifteen speeches taken from three biographers (pp. 182–188). This group contains six orations by Julius Capitolinus, five by Aelius Lampridius, and four by Trebellius Pollio. In 1544, Robert I Estienne had published two pocket-sized volumes containing texts from Aelius Spartianus, Trebellius Pollio, and Flavius Vopiscus in Paris. Eleven speeches belonging to the Res gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus (pp. 188–194). The fourth tome of the anthology of texts relating to the history of Rome, published by Henri Estienne in 1568, contained Ammianus Marcellinus and Eutropius.

• • • • •

6

From Luxury Book Market to Schoolbook: The Conciones siue orationes after 1570

In the luxury book market, Estienne’s collection of orations competed with another contemporary anthology in folio of exhortatory speeches, the Harangues militaires et concions de princes, capitaines, ambassadeurs, et autres manians tant la guerre que les affaires d’Estat, which was published in Paris by

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

227

the militant Catholic printer Nicolas Chesnau in 1572–1573.46 Estienne’s collection, containing a corpus of orations in Latin and Greek, was printed only once, whereas Belleforest’s compilation, wholly in French, was more successful, being reprinted three times during the sixteenth century. Since Estienne had embraced the Reformed Church in Geneva, his anthology of historiographical orations was included in various editions of the Spanish Inquisition’s Index librorum prohibitorum et expurgatorum—like the one by Cardinal Antonio Zapata (Seville, 1632)—, meaning that the volume could be read if the title page carried a warning that the author and printer had been condemned.47 Although initially intended to meet the needs of an affluent group of readers, the Conciones siue orationes was potentially useful for school purposes. This gives us a clue to its survival in subsequent centuries, when the book was divided into two parts that were printed separately. The Latin part—under the title Conciones et Orationes ex historicis Latinis, and including the arguments from the 1570 edition—was printed in Amsterdam by Elzevier on several occasions. One of these editions was printed in 1639 (and later in 1649) for Jesuit schools (Opus recognitum recessitumque in usum scholarum Hollandiae et Westfrisia), including only the Latin orations excerpted from Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, and Curtius. In the preliminary letter, the reader was informed that the speeches by Capitolinus, Lampridius, and other historians had been omitted because they were not of sufficient quality, and that some of Livy’s less accomplished orations had been eliminated. Neither Périon nor Estienne was mentioned in the volume. Another Elzevier edition of 1652 identified Périon and Estienne as compilers on the title page, but included only the prefatory letter by Job Veratius. In England, the shortened Latin version was also printed. During the seventeenth century, there were several Oxford editions (such as the ones in 1663, 1667, and 1672) and in 1727 a volume containing orations by Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, and Curtius was published in London for use in Westminster schools. In France, in 1863, the Ministry of Public Instruction authorized the volume, entitled Conciones sive Orationes ex Titi Livii, Sallustii, Taciti et Quinti Curtii historii collectae and published by Ch.A. Gidel, for use in public sector schools. In the preface, Gidel, who defined the Conciones as “the breviary for rhetoricians” (“le bréviaire des rhétoriciens”), gave a brief account of the history of the book since 1570 and mentioned its long use in the teaching

46  For more details of Belleforest’s anthology, see the chapter by Pineda in this volume. 47  The copy of Conciones siue orations, preserved in the library of the University of Salamanca B.G./11720, contains manuscript notes informing the reader that the book had been expurgated as prescribed by the Indexes of 1616 and 1634.

228

Pérez Custodio

of Humanities: “ce livre eut alors auprès des maitres de la jeunesse la faveur que l’Université de France n’a cessé de lui accorder.”48 The section that contained the Greek orations also had its own editorial development, although with less success. The Conciones et orationes ex historicis Graecis excerptae, printed in Oxford in 1808 and 1815 for school purposes (in usum iuuentutis), is a good example of what happened to this section. As a result, the history of the Conciones siue orationes, which represents a significant milestone in the panorama of Renaissance oratorical anthologies, became an enduring one. Nonetheless, although we have the answers to the more basic questions about this complex book, there is still an extensive list of philological issues waiting to be studied: the manuscripts that were collated to establish the Greek texts; the criteria that were used to select the speeches from Périon’s volume; the extent to which Estienne modified the Latin translations taken from other scholars; and whether the book was a joint work or simply the fruit of his own individual effort. Only by means of a comprehensive in-depth examination of Estienne’s volume will we discover the real dimension and influence of this key part of the European bibliographical heritage.49

Appendix: The List of Greek and Latin Speeches Included in Conciones siue orationes ex Graecis Latinisque historicis excerptae

The speeches are taken from the 1570 edition. The location of every text in modern editions is indicated and, in the case of the Greek orations, the translators’ names have been added.



Greek Orations

Herodotvs: Oratio Sandanidis (Hdt. 1.71; H. Stephanus); Concio Cyri (Hdt. 1.126; H. Stephanus); Oratio legati Massagetarum (Hdt. 1.206; H. Stephanus); Oratio Croesi (Hdt. 1.207; L. Valla); Oratio filiae Periandri (Hdt. 3.53; L. Valla); Oratio Cambysis (Hdt. 3.65; L. Valla); Oratio Darii (Hdt. 3.72; L. Valla); Otanis oratio (Hdt. 3.80; H. Stephanus); Oratio Megabyzi (Hdt. 3.81; H. Stephanus); Oratio Darii (Hdt. 3.82; H. Stephanus); Maeandrii concio (Hdt. 3.142; L. Valla); Scythae cuiusdam oratio

48  “At that time, teachers of young people favored this book, something that the University of France has continued to do ever since.” (Gidel [1863] v and xii). 49  Research for this chapter has been possible thanks to the Research Project FFI2015– 64490-P (funded by the Spanish DGICYT) and the ResearchGroup HUM-251 (Elio Antonio de Nebrija).

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

229

(Hdt. 4.3; L. Valla); Cois oratio (Hdt. 4.97; L. Valla); Oratio legati Scytharum (Hdt. 4.118; L. Valla); Scytharum oratio (Hdt. 4.119; L. Valla); Indathyrsi oratio (Hdt. 4.127; L. Valla); Aristagorae oratio (Hdt. 5.31; L. Valla); Eiusdem Aristagorae oratio (Hdt. 5.49; L. Valla); Lacedaemoniorum oratio (Hdt. 5.91; L. Valla); Sosiclis Corinthii oratio (Hdt. 5.92; L. Valla); Histiaei oratio (Hdt. 5.106; L. Valla); Persarum oratio (Hdt. 6.9; L. Valla); Dionysii Phocaei ducis concio (Hdt. 6.11; L. Valla); Leutychidis oratio (Hdt. 6.86; L. Valla); Miltiadis oratio (Hdt. 6.109; L. Valla); Oratio Xerxis (Hdt. 7.7–8; L. Valla); Oratio Mardonii (Hdt. 7.9; L. Valla); Artabani oratio (Hdt. 7.10; L. Valla); Xerxis oratio (Hdt. 7.11; L. Valla); Eiusdem Xerxis oratio (Hdt. 7.13; L. Valla); Eiusdem Xerxis oratio (Hdt. 7.15; L. Valla); Artabani oratio (Hdt. 7.16; L. Valla); Artabani oratio (Hdt. 6.18; L. Valla); Xerxis oratio (Hdt. 7.53; L. Valla); Demarati oratio (Hdt. 7.101–102; L. Valla); Xerxis oratio (Hdt. 7.103; L. Valla); Demarati oratio (Hdt. 7.104; L. Valla); Oratio legatorum (Hdt. 7.157; L. Valla); Gelonis oratio (Hdt. 7.158; L. Valla); Gelonis oratio (Hdt. 7.160; L. Valla); Atheniensium legati oratio (Hdt. 7.161; L. Valla); Thessalorum legatorum oratio (Hdt. 7.172; L. Valla); Demarati oratio (Hdt. 7.234; L. Valla); Eiusdem oratio (Hdt. 7.235; L. Valla); Achaemenis oratio (Hdt. 7.236; L. Valla); Xerxis oratio (Hdt. 7.237; L. Valla); Themistoclis oratio (Hdt. 8.60; L. Valla); Artemisiae oratio (Hdt. 8.68; H. Stephanus); Mardonii oratio (Hdt. 8.100; H. Stephanus); Artemisiae oratio (Hdt. 8.102; L. Valla); Alexandri oratio (Hdt.  8.140; L.  Valla); Legati Lacedaemonii oratio (Hdt.  8.142; L.  Valla); Atheniensium oratio (Hdt. 8.143; L. Valla); Eorundem oratio (Hdt. 8.144; L. Valla); Legati Atheniensis oratio (Hdt. 9.7; L. Valla); Tegeatarum oratio (Hdt. 9.26; L. Valla); Atheniensium oratio (Hdt. 9.27; L. Valla); Alexandri oratio (Hdt. 9.45; L. Valla); Caduceatoris Persae oratio (Hdt. 9.48; L. Valla); Mardonii oratio (Hdt. 9.58; L. Valla); Equitis Spartani oratio (Hdt. 9.60; L. Valla); Lamponis oratio (Hdt. 9.78; L. Valla); Pausaniae oratio (Hdt. 9.79; L. Valla); Timegenidae oratio (Hdt. 9.87; L. Valla). Thvcydides: Oratio Corcyraeorum (Th. 1.32–36; J. Veratius); Corinthiorum oratio (Th. 1.37–43; J. Veratius); Peloponnensium oratio (Th. 1.53; L. Valla); Atheniensium oratio (Th. 1.53; L. Valla); Corinthiorum oratio (Th. 1.68–71; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Atheniensium oratio (Th.  1.73–78; L.  Valla / H.  Stephanus); Archidami oratio (Th. 1.80–85; J. Veratius); Oratio Sthenelaidae (Th. 1.86; J. Veratius); Corinthiorum oratio (Th. 1.120–124; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Oratio Periclis (Th. 1.140–144; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Oratio Archidami (Th. 2.11; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Oratio Periclis (Th.  2.35–46; L.  Valla / H.  Stephanus); Oratio Periclis (Th.  2.60–64; L.  Valla / H. Stephanus); Plataeensium Oratio (Th. 2.71; L. Valla); Archidami oratio (Th. 2.72; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Archidami oratio (Th. 2.72; L. Valla); Oratio Lacedaemoniorum ducum (Th. 2.87; H. Stephanus); Phormionis oratio (Th. 2.89; H. Stephanus); Oratio Mitylenaeorum (Th. 3.9–14; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Teutiapli Elei oratio (Th. 3.30; L. Valla); Cleonis oratio (Th. 3.37–40; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Diodoti oratio (Th. 3.42– 48; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Plataeensium oratio (Th. 3.53–59; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Thebanorum oratio (Th. 3.61–67; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Demosthenis oratio (Th. 4.10;

230

Pérez Custodio

L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Lacedaemoniorum oratio (Th. 17–20; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Hermocratis oratio (Th. 4.59–64; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Brasidae oratio (Th. 4.85–87; L. Valla/ H. Stephanus); Oratio Pagondae (Th. 4.92; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Hippocratis oratio (Th. 4.95; L. Valla); Lacedaemoniorum oratio (Th. 4.118; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Brasidae oratio (Th. 4.126; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Brasidae oratio (Th. 5.9; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Niciae oratio (Th. 6.9–14; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Alcibiadis oratio (Th. 6.16–18; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Niciae oratio (Th. 6.20–23; L. Valla/ H. Stephanus); Hermocratis oratio (Th. 6.33–34; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Athenagorae oratio (Th. 6.36–40; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Oratio Niciae (Th. 6.68; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Hermocratis oratio (Th. 6.76–80; L. Valla/ H. Stephanus); Oratio Euphemi (Th. 6.82–87; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Oratio Alcibiadis (Th. 6.89–92; L. Valla / H. Stephanus); Niciae oratio (Th. 7.61–64; J. Veratius); Oratio Gylippi et caeterorum belli ducum (Th. 7.66–68; J. Veratius); Oratio Niciae (Th. 7.77; J. Veratius). Xenophon: Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 1.5.7–14; H. Stephanus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 2.1.15– 18; H. Stephanus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 2.3.2–3; F. Philelphus); Oratio Chrysantae (X. Cyr. 2.3.5–6; F. Philelphus); Pheraulae Oratio (X. Cyr. 2.3.8–15; F. Philelphus); Cyri oratio (X. Cyr. 3.2.4–5; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 3.3.7–8; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 3.3.13–19; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 3.3.34–39; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 3.3.41–42; F. Philelphus); Oratio regis Assyriorum (X. Cyr. 3.3.44–45; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 3.3.51–55; F. Philelphus); Cyri Oratio (X. Cyr. 4.1.2–6; J. Veratius); Cyaxaris oratio (X. Cyr. 4.1.14–18; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 4.2.21– 26; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 4.2.38–45; J. Veratius); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 4.3.4– 14; J.  Veratius); Oratio Chrysantae (X.  Cyr.  4.3.15–21; F.  Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 4.4.10–13; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 4.5.37–49; F. Philelphus); Cyri oratio (X. Cyr. 5.1.20–23; F. Philelphus); Cyri oratio (X. Cyr. 5.3.30–33; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 5.4.19–22; F. Philelphus); Cyaxaris oratio (X. Cyr. 5.5.25–34; J. Veratius); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 5.5.44–48; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 6.1.12–18; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 6.2.14–20; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 6.2.25–41; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 6.3.20–34; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 6.4.13–20; F. Philelphus); Cyri oratio (X. Cyr. 7.5.20–24; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 7.5.42–47; F. Philelphus); Cyri oratio (X.  Cyr.  7.5.72–86; F.  Philelphus); Oratio Chrysantae (X.  Cyr. 8.1.1–5; F.  Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X.  Cyr.  8.4.32–36; F.  Philelphus); Oratio Cambysis (X. Cyr. 8.5.22–26; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 8.6.3–13; F. Philelphus); Oratio Cyri (X. Cyr. 8.7.6–28; F. Philelphus); Oratio Clearchi (X. An. 1.3.3–6; R. Amazaeus); Clearchi oratio (X. An. 1.3.9–12; R. Amazaeus); Militis cuiusdam oratio (X. An. 1.3.16– 19; R. Amazaeus); Oratio Cyri (X. An. 1.7.3–4; R. Amazaeus); Tissaphernis oratio (X. An. 2.3.18–20; R. Amazaeus); Clearchi oratio (X. An. 2.3.21–23; R. Amazaeus); Clearchi oratio (X. An. 2.4.5–7; R. Amazaeus); Clearchi oratio (X. An. 2.5.3–15; R. Amazaeus); Tissaphernis oratio (X. An. 2.5.16–23; R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 3.1.15–25; R. Amazaeus); Oratio Xenophontis (X. An. 3.1.35–44; R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

231

(X. An. 3.2.10–32; R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 3.3.12–19; R. Amazaeus); Hecatonymi oratio (X. An. 5.5.8–12.R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 5.5.13– 23.R. Amazaeus); Hecatonymi oratio (X. An. 5.6.4–10.R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 5.6.28–33.R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 5.7.5–33.R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 5.8.13–26.R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 6.1.26– 31.R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 6.3.12–16.R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 6.5.14–21; R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 6.5.23–24; R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 7.1.25–31; R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 7.3.3–6; R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 7.6.11–38; R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 7.7.4–10; R. Amazaeus); Xenophontis oratio (X. An. 7.7.21–47; R. Amazaeus); Oratio Callicratidae (X. HG 1.6.5; F. Porto); Callicratidae Oratio (X. HG 1.6.8–11; F. Porto); Euryptolemi oratio (X. HG 1.7.16–33; F. Porto); Oratio Critiae (X. HG 2.3.24–34; F. Porto); Theramenis oratio (X. HG 2.3.35–53; F. Porto); Thrasybuli oratio (X. HG 2.4.13–17; F. Porto); Oratio Cleocriti (X. HG 2.4.20–22; F. Porto); Thrasybuli oratio (X. HG 2.4.40–42; F. Porto); Legatorum Thebanorum oratio (X. HG 3.5.8–15; F. Porto); Pharnabazi oratio (X. HG 4.1.32–33; F. Porto); Agesilai oratio (X. HG 4.1.34–36; F. Porto); Timolai oratio (X. HG 4.2.11–12; F. Porto); Dercyllidae oratio (X. HG 4.8.4; F. Porto); Teleutiae oratio (X. HG 5.1.14–17; F. Porto); Cligenis oratio (X. HG 5.2.12–19; F. Porto); Leontiadae oratio (X. HG 5.2.26–34; F. Porto); Polydamantis oratio (X. HG 6.1.4–16; F. Porto); Oratio Calliae (X. HG 6.3.4–6; F. Porto); Autoclis oratio (X. HG 6.3.7–9; F. Porto); Oratio Callistrati (X. HG 6.3.10–17; F. Porto); Clitelis oratio (X. HG 6.5.37; F. Porto); Patroclis oratio (X. HG 6.5.38– 48; F. Porto); Proclis oratio (X. HG 7.1.2–11; F. Porto); Cephisodoti oratio (X. HG 7.1.12–14; F. Porto); Magistratus Sicyonii oratio (X. HG 7.3.6; F. Porto); Sicyoni cuiusdam oratio (X. HG 7.3.7–11; F. Porto); Corinthiorum oratio (X. HG 7.4.8; F. Porto). Polybivs: Aemilii oratio (Plb.  Fr.  3.108–109; J.  Veratius); Annibalis oratio (Plb. Fr. 3.111; J.Veratius); Chlaeneae oratio (Plb. Fr. 9.28–31; J. Veratius); Lycisci oratio (Plb. Fr. 9.34–39; J. Veratius); Oratio sociorum Philippi (Plb. Fr. 11.4–6; J. Veratius); P. Cornelii Scipionis oratio (Plb. Fr. 11.28–29; J. Veratius); Annibalis oratio (Plb. Fr. 15.6– 7; J. Veratius); Scipionis oratio (Plb. Fr. 15.8; J. Veratius); Prusiae oratio (Plb. Fr. 15.26; J. Veratius); Titi Quintii oratio (Plb. Fr. 18.23; J. Veratius). Arrianvs: Alexandri oratio (Arr. An. 2.17; Fr. Porto); Acuphidis oratio (Arr. An. 5.1; Fr. Porto); Alexandri oratio (Arr. An. 5.25–26; Fr. Porto); Coeni oratio (Arr. An. 5.27; Fr. Porto); Alexandri oratio (Arr. An. 7.9–10; Fr. Porto); Callinis oratio (Arr. An. 7.11; Fr. Porto). Herodianvs: Marci Antonii oratio (Hdn. 1.4.2–6; A. Poliziano); Commodi oratio (Hdn. 1.5.3–8; A. Poliziano); Laeti oratio (Hdn. 2.2.6–8; A. Poliziano); Pertinacis oratio (Hdn. 2.3.5–10; A. Poliziano); Alia Pertinacis oratio (Hdn. 2.5.6–8; A. Poliziano); Nigri oratio (Hdn. 2.8.2–5; A. Poliziano); Seueri oratio (Hdn. 2.10.2–9; A. Poliziano); Alia Seueri oratio (Hdn. 2.13.5–9; A. Poliziano); Alia Seueri oratio (Hdn. 3.6.1–7; A. Poliziano); Antonini Caracallae oratio (Hdn. 4.5.2–7; A. Poliziano); Macrini oratio (Hdn. 4.14.4–8;

232

Pérez Custodio

A. Poliziano); Alexand. Mammaeae filii oratio 6.3.3–7; A. Poliziano); Maximini oratio (Hdn. 7.8.4–8; A. Poliziano); Maximini oratio (Hdn. 8.7.4–6; A. Poliziano).



Latin Orations

Sallustivs: Oratio Catilinae, qua sibi de coniuratione consilii participes cohortatur (Sall. Catil. 20); Oratio alia eiusdem Catilinae, qua suos milites adhortatur (Sall.  Catil. 58); Oratio legatorum C. Manlii ad Q. Martium regem (Sall. Catil. 33); Oratio C. Caesaris suam sententiam Senatui exponentis de coniurationis Catilinae sociis qui in custodiis tenebantur (Sall. Catil. 51); Oratio M. Porcii Catonis proxime praecedenti orationi C. Caesaris respondens. (Sall. Catil. 52); Oratio Micipsae regis ad Iugurtham, qua eum officii sui admonet, finem uitae sibi adesse intelligens (Sall. Iug. 10); Oratio Adherbalis ad Senatum Rom., qua se a Iugurtha regno fortunisque omnibus expulsum queritur (Sall. Iug. 14); Oratio C. Memmii ad Quirites, qua eos ad uindicandum in Iugurtham, qui Adherbalem necauerat, et in socios eius sceleris hortatur (Sall. Iug. 31); Oratio Marii ad quirites de se et de ea quam parabat in Africam expeditione (Sall. Iug. 85); Oratio Syllae ad Bocchum regem (Sall. Iug. 102.5–11); Oratio Bocchi ad Syllam, qua suum erga illum studium exponit et se bellum populo Rom. facere uoluisse negat (Sall. Iug. 110); Oratio Lepidi cons. ad Pop. Rom. (Sall. or. Lep.); Oratio Philippi in Senatu (Sall. or. Phil.); Oratio C. Cottae consulis ad populum (Sall. or. Cottae); Oratio Marci trib. pl. ad plebem (Sall. or. Macri); Oratio ad C. Caesarem de republica ordinanda (Ps. Sall. rep. 2); Oratio alia ad C. Caesarem de republica ordinanda (Ps. Sall. rep. 1.) Livivs: Oratio Metii Fufetii ad Tullum Hostilium regem Romanorum de pace componenda inter Romanos et Albanos (Liv. 1.23.7–9); Oratio P. Horatii ad populum pro filio perduellonis reo (Liv. 1.26.10–11); Oratio Tulli Romanorum regis de proditione Metii Fuffeti Albanorum ducis ad milites (Liv. 1.28.4–9); Oratio P. Valerii Publicolae ad populum de crimine sibi obiecto (Liv. 2.7.9–11); Oratio Mutii Scaeuolae ad Porsenam Clusinum regem (Liv. 2.12.9–11); Oratio Martii Coriolani ad patres contra plebem et tribunos (Liv. 2.34.9–11); Oratio Actii Tullii Volscorum principis ad consules, ut ludis non adessent Volsci (Liv. 2.37.3–7); Oratio Actii Tullii ad suos, qua eos in Romanos concitat (Liv. 2.38.2–5); Oratio Q. Fabii ad tribunos pleb. alios omnes praeter Terentillum (Liv. 3.9.11–12); Oratio Auli Virginii ad plebem de Caesonis arrogatia (Liv. 3.11.12–13); Oratio P. Valerii Publicolae consulis ad tribunos omnemque plebem (Liv. 3.17.2–6); Oratio L. Quintii Cincinati ad populum aduersus A. Virginium (Liv. 3.19.6–12); Oratio L.Q. Cincinati eiusdem aduersus patrum licentiam (Liv. 3.21.4–7); Oratio Icilii aduersus Appii decretum, ut sponsa extra domum paternam maneret (Liv. 3.45.6–11); Oratio Virginii patris aduersus Appium (Liv. 3.47.7); Oratio Virginii ad milites, qua honorem sibi delatum recusauit (Liv. 3.51.3–5); Oratio seniorum patrum ad patres et decemuiros de decemuiratus abdicatione et tribunatus pleb. instauratione (Liv. 3.52.6–9); Oratio legatorum Valerii et Horatii ad postulata plebis in Sacro Monte (Liv. 3.53.6–10); Oratio Appii dum magistratu se abdicare uellet (Liv. 3.54.3–4); Oratio legatorum ad plebem,

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

233

ut in urbem rediret (Liv. 3.54.8–9); Oratio A. Virginii aduersus Appium reum (Liv. 3.56.3–4); Oratio M. Duillii tribuni pleb., cum potestati tribunitiae modum fecisset (Liv. 3.59.2–3); Oratio Valerii consulis qua equites ad fortiter pugnandum hortatur (Liv. 3.61.7–8); Oratio Horatii consulis, qua suos cohortatur (Liv. 3.62.2–4); Oratio T.Q. Capitolini quartum consulis ad populum Romanum (Liv. 3.67); Oratio C. Canuleii tribuni pleb. ad plebem pro rogationibus promulgatis (Liv. 4.3–5); Oratio Vectii Messii Volscorum regis, qua suos adhortatur (Liv. 4.28.4–5); Oratio Mamerci Aemilii dictatoris, qua suos inusitato certamine exterritos exhortatur (Liv. 4.33.4–5); Oratio Sexti Tempanii decurionis, qua milites in re complorata adhortatur (Liv. 4.38.3); Oratio L. Decii tribuni pleb. ad populum aduersus M. Posthumium tribunum militum (Liv. 4.49.13–16); Oratio Appii Claudii tribuni militum ad populum contra tribunos pleb. pro bello continuando (Liv. 5.3–6); Oratio P. Licinii Calui ad populum, ut filio sibi delatum honorem mandaret (Liv. 5.18.3–5); Oratio Camilli ad paedagogum Faliscorum in castris deprehensum cum pueris (Liv. 5.27.5–8); Oratio legatorum faliscos Romanis dedentium in Senatu (Liv. 5.27.12–15); Oratio Camilli exulis, qua Ardeates ut ad arma capiant aduersus Gallos, adhortatur (Liv. 5.44); Oratio M. Furii Camilli ad populum Rom. de non transmigrando Veios (Liv. 5.7.51–54); Oratio M. Furii Camilli dictatoris, qua suos perterritos hostium numero adhortatur (Liv. 6.7.3–6); Oratio A. Cornelii Cossi dictatoris ad suos (Liv. 6.12.8–10); Oratio Cornelii Cossi dictatoris in M. Manlium (Liv. 6.15.4–6); Oratio M. Manlii Capitolini, qua dictatori et patribus respondet (Liv. 6.15.9–13); Oratio M. Manlii Capitolini post uincula ad plebem aduersus patres concitandam (Liv. 6.18.5–15); Oratio Camilli ad senatores Tusculanorum de mittendis Romam de pace legatis (Liv. 6.26.1–2); Oratio legatorum Tusculanorum in Senatu, qua se purgant (Liv. 6.26.4–7); Oratio Q. Cincinnati dictatoris ad A. Sempronium magistrum equitum de belli ratione (Liv. 6.29.1–2); Oratio Camilli dictatoris ad Quirites de intercessione (Liv. 6.38.6–7); Oratio Appii Claudii contra tribunos pl. legumlatores et leges ipsas (Liv. 6.40–41); Oratio Seruii Tullii ad dictatorem, ut militibus pugnandi faceret potestatem (Liv. 7.13.3–10); Oratio M. Popilii consulis, qua suos milites adhortatur (Liv. 7.24.4–6); Oratio legatorum Campanorum in Senatu, qua auxilium aduersus Samnites petunt (Liv. 7.30); Oratio Romanorum, qua praecedenti Campanorum legatorum orationi respondent (Liv. 7.31.2); Oratio legatorum Campanorum, qua praecedenti Romanorum orationi respondent (Liv. 7.31.3–4); Oratio M. Valerii Coruini, qua suos adhortatur (Liv. 7.32.12–17); Oratio exhortatoria P. Decii tribuni militum ad A. Cornelium consulem, cum spes elabendi non uideretur (Liv. 7.34.4–6); Oratio eiusdem P. Decii, qua suos ad erumpendum ex colle occupato adhortatur (Liv. 7.34.13–35); Oratio M. Valerii Coruini dictatoris ad coniuratores et seditiosos milites, quos dehortatur a pugna contra patriam (Liv. 7.40.4–14); Oratio T. Quintii ducis seditiosorum, qua eos ad concordiam exhortatur (Liv. 7.40.15–19); Oratio Annii Setini praetoris Latinorum ad suos (Liv. 8.4.1–11); Oratio Annii eiusdem ad P.C. Romanorum, ut alter consul ex Latinis fieret (Liv.  8.5.3–6); Oratio T.  Manlii consulis ad legatos Latinorum

234

Pérez Custodio

(Liv. 8.5.8–10); Oratio T. Manlii consulis ad T. Manlium filium, qua eum accusat quod in hostem ipsius iniussu pugnauisset (Liv. 8.7.15–19); Oratio Furii Camilli consulis ad patres de latinis referentis (Liv.  8.13.11–18); Oratio L.  Papyrii dictatoris, qua Fab. Maximum accusat quod aduersus edictum pugnasset (Liv. 8.32.3–8); Oratio M. Fabii Maximi pro filio ad populum prouocantis a dictatore (Liv. 8.33.7–8); Oratio Papyrii dictatoris ad populum de absolutione Q. Fabii magistri equitum (Liv. 8.35.4–7); Oratio Claudii Pontii Samnitum imperatoris, postquam legatione nihil factum esse uidit (Liv. 9.1.3–11); Oratio L. Lentuli principis legatorum Romanorum ad exercitum et consules, qua suam de deditione sententiam exponit (Liv.  9.4.8–16); Oratio Sp. Posthumii consulis, qui sub iugum missus erat, in Senatu de pace ad Caudium facta (Liv. 9.8.3–10); Oratio eiusdem Sp. Posthumii contra tribunos pleb. qui deditionem impediebant (Liv. 9.9); Oratio A. Cornelii Aruinae fecialis ad Samnites in deditione sponsorum pacis (Liv. 9.10.9); Oratio Cl. Pontii Samnitium regis qua feciali respondet (Liv. 9.11); Oratio Q. Fabii dictatoris, qua suos ad eruptionem hortatur (Liv. 9.23.9–13); Oratio C. Menenii dictatoris, quando in eum ambitus crimen iactum est a nobilibus (Liv. 9.26.14–19); Oratio P. Sempronii tribuni pleb. aduersus Ap. Claudium, qui se intra legitimum tempus censura abdicare nolebat (Liv. 9.34.1–25); Oratio P. Decii Muris consulis ad populum, qua suadet ut ex plebe augures et pontifices fiant (Liv. 10.7.9–8); Oratio Hannonis ad Carthaginienses contra Annibalem de foedere rupto (Liv. 21.10.4– 13); Oratio Alorci Hispani ad Saguntinos, qua pacis conditiones quas Annibal ferebat exponit (Liv. 21.13); Oratio cuiusdam Carthaginiensis qua legatis Rom. de consilio oppugnationis Sagunti respondet (Liv. 21.18.4–12); Oratio Volcianorum qua legatis Romanorum respondent (Liv. 21.19.9–10); Oratio Annibalis ad Hispanos milites (Liv. 21.21.3–6); Oratio P. Scipionis suos adhortantis (Liv. 21.40–41); Oratio Annibalis suos adhortantis (Liv. 21.43–44); Oratio M. Minutii Ruffi magistri equitum, qua in Q. Fabii Maximi dictatoris cunctationem acriter inuehitur (Liv. 22.14.4–14); Oratio Minutii magistri equitum, qua suos ad coniungendam cum Fabio castra adhortatur (Liv. 22.29.8–11); Oratio Fabii Maximi ad Aemilium de Varrone et ratione pugnandi cum hoste (Liv. 22.39); Oratio P. Sempronii Tuditani tribuni militum, qua suos ad erumpendum adhortatur (Liv.  22.50.6–9); Oratio captiuorum Cannensi clade Romanorum ad patres (Liv. 22.59); Oratio T. Manlii Torquati, ne captiui redimerentur (Liv. 22.60.6–27); Oratio Pacuuii Calauii Campani ad populum Campanum (Liv. 23.3.1– 6); Oratio Varronis consulis qua legatis Campanorum respondet (Liv. 23.5.4–15); Oratio Perollae ad Pacuuium Calauium patrem de interficiendo Annibale (Liv. 23.8.9–11); Oratio Pacuuii Calauii filium a facinore dehortantis (Liv. 23.9.2–8); Oratio Perollae qua Pacuuio patri respondet (Liv. 23.9.10–12); Oratio Himilconis Barchinae factionis uiri aduersus Hannonem (Liv. 23.12.6–7); Oratio Hannonis, Himilconi respondentis (Liv. 23.12.8–13.5); Oratio Samnitium legatorum ad Annibalem, qua petunt ut opem aduersus Romanos ferat (Liv. 23.42); Oratio Fabii Maximi ad populum de deligendo imperatore (Liv. 24.8); Oratio T. Gracchi ad milites (Liv. 24.16.11–13); Oratio L. Pinarii

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

235

praefecti praesidii Romanorum Ennae, qua suos exhortatur (Liv. 24.38); Oratio relegatorum militum ad M. Marcellum de mutatione conditionis (Liv. 25.6); Oratio Syracusanorum ad Marcellum de deditione (Liv. 25.29.2–7); Oratio L. Martii qua suos milites exhortatur (Liv. 25.38.2–22); Oratio Vibii Virii Campani ad Campanos, qua ne se dedant Romanis, dissuadet (Liv. 26.13.4–19); Oratio M. Marcelli ad P.C. se aduersus Syracusanos oratores defendentis (Liv. 26.31); Oratio P. Scipionis ad ueteres milites (Liv. 26.41.3–25); Oratio P. Scipionis ad milites (Liv. 26.43.3–8); Oratio P. Scipionis ad Luceium Celtiberorum principem, cum ei sponsam reddidit (Liv. 26.50.4–8); Oratio M. Marcelli ad suos (Liv. 27.13.2–7); Oratio Annibalis ad suos (Liv. 27.14.1); Oratio P. Scipionis ad milites (Liv. 28.5.27.1–29.8); Oratio Saguntinorum ad P.C. in Senatu (Liv. 28.39.1–16); Oratio Q. Fabii Maximi, qua Scipioni Africam prouinciam decerni dissuadet (Liv. 28.40.3–42); Oratio P. Cornelii Scipionis orationi praecedenti Q. Fabii respondens (Liv. 28.43.2–44); Oratio Locrensium in Senatu (Liv. 29.17–18); Oratio Sophronisbae uxoris Syphacis ad Masinissam (Liv. 30.12.12–16); Oratio P. Scipionis ad Masinissam (Liv. 30.14.4–11); Oratio Annibalis ad P. Scipionem de pace (Liv. 30.30.2– 30); Oratio Scipionis ad Annibalem (Liv. 30.31); Oratio Annibalis ad Carthaginienses, qui reprehenderant quod risisset in communi fletu (Liv. 30.44.6–11); Oratio P. Sulpitii consulis ad populum de bello in Macedoniam transferendo (Liv. 31.7); Oratio legati Macedonum in concilio Aetolorum in Romanos (Liv. 31.29.4–16); Oratio legati Romanorum in concilio Aetolorum (Liv. 31.31); Oratio Aristheni praetoris Achaeorum, qua eos obiurgat (Liv. 32.20.3–6); Oratio eiusdem Aristheni ad Achaeos pro postulatis Romanorum (Liv. 32.21); Philippi regis et T. Quintii consulis congressus (Liv. 32.32.13– 16); Philippi regis ad Aetolos et alios responsum (Liv. 32.34.5–10); Oratio M. Catonis consulis pro lege Oppia contra mulierum luxuriam (Liv. 34.2–4); Oratio L. Valerii tribuni pl. pro mulieribus contra legem Oppiam (Liv. 34.5–7); Oratio M. Porcii Catonis consulis ad suos (Liv. 34.13.5–9); Oratio T. Quintii in conuentu Graeciae (Liv. 34.22.7– 13); Oratio Aristheni praetoris Achaeorum de Aetolis et Nabide (Liv. 34.24.2–4); Oratio Nabidis tyranni Lacedaemoniorum ad T. Quintium (Liv. 34.31); Oratio T. Quintii qua Nabidi respondet (Liv. 34.32); Oratio T. Quintii qua suos ad obsidionem Lacedaemonis adhortatur (Liv. 34.34.2–6); Oratio Minionis ad legatos Romanorum (Liv. 35.16.2–6); Oratio Sulpitii legati Romanorum, qua ad praecedentem respondet (Liv. 35.16.7–13); Oratio Annibalis ad Antiochum, qua se purgat (Liv. 35.19.2–6); Oratio Annibalis in concilio Antiochi de totius belli ratione et Macedonibus sententia (Liv. 36.7); Oratio Attilii consulis ad suos (Liv. 36.17); Oratio T. Quintii ad Achaeos de Zacyntho (Liv. 36.32.5–8); Oratio Quintii ad M. Acilium consulem pro Aetolis (Liv. 36.34.7–9); Oratio T. Quintii ad Aetolorum principes de reconciliatione (Liv. 36.35.3–5); Oratio Eumenis in concilio (Liv. 37.19.2–5); Oratio Scipionis, qua legatis Antiochi respondet (Liv. 37.36.3–8); Oratio Zeusis legati Antiochi ad Romanos de pace (Liv. 37.45.7–9); Oratio Scipionis ad ea respondentis (Liv. 37.45.11–18); Oratio Eumenis in Senatu (Liv. 37.53); Oratio Rhodiorum in Senatu (Liv. 37.54.4–28); Oratio Cn. Manlii cons. qua suos adhortatur (Liv. 38.17);

236

Pérez Custodio

Oratio L. Furii Purpurionis et Pauli Aemilii aduersus Cn. Manlium, ne triumphus ei decernatur (Liv. 38.45.7–46); Oratio Cnei Manlii refutatoria (Liv. 38.47–49); Oratio P. Scipionis Africani rei ad quirites (Liv. 38.51.7–11); Oratio M. Porcii Catonis consulis ad populum in foedum Bacchanalium ritum (Liv. 39.15–16); Oratio Philippi Macedonis ad legatos Romanorum (Liv. 39.28); Oratio Lycortae praetoris Achaeorum, qua legatis Rom. respondet (Liv. 39.36.6–37.17); Oratio Philippi Macedonis de sua liberorumque infelici conditione (Liv. 40.8.7–20); Oratio Persei accusatoris in Demetrium fratrem parricidii rerum (Liv. 40.9–11); Oratio Demetrii parricidii rei (Liv. 40.12–15); Oratio T. Sempronii praetoris ad L. Minutium legatum (Liv. 40.35.10–14); Oratio Q. Caecilii Metelli ad M. Lepidum et M. Fuluium censores declaratos de reconciliatione (Liv. 40.46.1–12); Oratio Philippi regis Macedonum ad Antigonum de regni haereditate (Liv. 40.56.4–6); Oratio Callicratis Achaei aduersus Perseum (Liv. 41.23.5–18); Oratio fratris Xenarchi praetoris Achaeorum pro Perseo refutatoria (Liv. 41.24.1–18); Oratio Eumenis regis in Senatu (Liv. 42.13); Oratio Sp. Ligustini centurionis ad populum, ne ipsi ordo inferior assignaretur (Liv. 42.34); Oratio Q. Martii, legati Romani, ad Persea regem Macedonum (Liv. 42.40); Oratio Persei, qua ad ea respondet (Liv. 42.41–42); Oratio Persei ad suos de uictoria contra Romanos (Liv. 42.61.4–8); Oratio L. Aemili Pauli consulis ad populum (Liv. 44.22.2–15); Oratio L. Aemili Pauli consulis ad milites (Liv. 44.38–39); Oratio L. Aemilii ad Perseum, qui se permiserat Romanis (Liv. 45.8.3– 7); Oratio Rhodiorum in Senatu expostulantium et se purgantium (Liv. 45.22–24); Oratio M. Seruilii pro L. Aemilio Paulo, ut ei triumphus contra militum maledicentiam decerneretur (Liv. 45.37–39); Oratio L. Aemili Pauli de rebus per ipsum in Macedonia gestis et fortuna (Liv. 45.41). Tacitvs: Vibuleni oratio (Tac. ann. 1.22); Germanici Caesaris oratio (Tac. ann. 1.42– 43); Segestis oratio (Tac. ann. 1.58); M. Hortali oratio (Tac. ann. 2.37); Tiberi Caesaris responsio (Tac. ann. 2.38); Germanici oratio (Tac. ann. 2.71); Tiberii oratio in Senatu (Tac. ann. 3.12); M. Lepidi oratio in Senatu (Tac. ann. 3.50); Tiberi ad Senatum oratio (Tac. ann. 4.8); Cremutii defensio in Senatu (Tac. ann. 4.34–35); Tiberii oratio in Senatu (Tac. ann. 4.37–38); Oratio Tiberii (Tac. ann. 4.40); Terentii equitis Rom. oratio (Tac. ann. 6.8); Neronis Caesaris oratio in Senatu (Tac. ann. 11.24); C. Casii oratio (Tac. ann. 14.43–44); Senecae oratio ad Caesarem Neronem (Tac. ann. 14.53–54); Ner. ad Senecam responsio (Tac. ann. 14.55–56); Paeti Thraseae oratio (Tac. ann. 15.20–21); Capitonis Cossutiani ad Neronem Caesarem oratio (Tac. ann. 16.22); Galbae Imp. oratio ad Pisonem (Tac. hist. 1.15–16); Othonis oratio ad milites (Tac. hist. 1.37–38); Othonis oratio ad milites (Tac. hist. 1.83–84); Othonis oratio (Tac. hist. 2.47); Mutiani oratio (Tac. hist. 2.76–77); Curtii Montani oratio (Tac. hist. 4.42); Legati Tencterorum oratio (Tac. hist. 4.64); Agripinensium oratio (Tac. hist. 4.65); Cerialis oratio (Tac. hist. 4.73– 74); Ciuilis oratio, sed mutilata (Tac. hist. 5.26); Galgaci oratio (Tac. Agr. 30–32); Agricolae oratio (Tac. Agr. 33–34); Clementis centurionis oratio (Tac. ann. 1.28); Pisonis oratio (Tac. hist. 1.29–30).

HenrI II Estienne ’ s ‘ Conciones siVe orationes ’

237

Cvrtivs: Charidemi oratio (Curt. 3.2.11–16); Legatorum Darii oratio ad Alexandrum (Curt. 4.11.2–9); Parmenionis oratio ad Alexandrum (Curt. 4.11.11–12); Alexandri oratio ad legatos Darii (Curt. 4.11.16–21); Darii oratio ad milites (Curt. 4.14.9–26); Euctemonis Cynaei oratio (Curt. 5.5.10–16); Theati Atheniensis oratio (Curt. 5.5.17–20); Darii oratio (Curt. 5.8.6–17); Nabarzanis oratio (Curt. 5.9.3–8); Alexandri oratio (Curt. 6.3.1– 18); Crateri oratio (Curt. 6.8.4–15); Philotae oratio (Curt. 6.10.1–37); Amyntae oratio (Curt. 7.1.19–40); Cobaris oratio (Curt. 7.4.10–18); Alexandri oratio (Curt. 7.7.10– 19); Scythae legati oratio (Curt. 7.8.12–30); Alexandri oratio ad trecentos milites (Curt. 7.11.8–12); Callisthenis oratio (Curt. 8.5.14–19); Hermolai oratio (Curt. 8.7.1–15); Alexandri oratio (Curt. 8.8.1–19); Alexandri ad milites oratio (Curt. 9.2.12–34); Coeni oratio ad Alexandrum (Curt. 9.3.5–15); Crateri ad Alexandrum oratio (Curt. 9.6.6–14); Alexandri ad amicos oratio (Curt. 9.6.17–27); Alexandri ad milites oratio (Curt. 10.2.15– 29); Alexandri ad peregrinos milites oratio (Curt. 10.3.7–14); Perdiccae in concione militum oratio (Curt. 10.6.5–9); Ptolemaei oratio (Curt. 10.6.13–15); Meleagri oratio (Curt. 10.6.20–23); Alexandri oratio (Curt. 6.9.2–24). Capitolinvs: Clodii Albini oratio (Capitol.  Alb.  13); Maximini oratio (Capitol. Maximin.  18); Mauricii Afri oratio (Capitol.  Gord.  8); Maximini oratio (Capitol. Gord. 14.1–4); Senatoris cuiusdam oratio (Capitol. Max. Balb.1.3–5); Vectii Sabini oratio (Capitol. Max. Balb. 2.2–8). Lampridivs: Macrini oratio (Lampr.  Diad. 1,4–2,1); Diadumeni oratio (Lampr. Diad. 2.2–2,4); Alexandri Seueri oratio (Lampr.  Alex. 8–12); Eiusdem Alex. Oratio (Lampr. Alex. 53.5–54.3); Eiusdem Alex. Oratio (Lampr. Alex. 56.2–9). Trebellivs: Decii oratio (Treb. Valer. 6(2).2–6); Valeriani ad Decium responsio (Treb. Valer. 6(2).7–9); Balistae oratio (Treb. trig. tyr. 12.4–6); Macriani ad Bal. responsio (Treb. trig. tyr. 12.7–11). Ammianvs: Constantii oratio (Amm. 14.10.11–15); Eiusdem oratio (Amm. 15.8.10– 14); Iuliani oratio (Amm. 16.12.9–12); Constantii oratio (Amm. 17.13.26–33); Iulani oratio (Amm. 20.5.3–7); Iulani oratio (Amm. 21.5.2–8); Constantii oratio (Amm. 21.13.10–15); Valentiniani oratio (Amm. 26.2.6–10); Procopii oratio (Amm. 26.7.16); Valentiniani oratio (Amm. 27.6.6–9); Eiusdem Valent. oratio (Amm. 27.6.12–13).

CHAPTER 12

François de Belleforest’s Harangues militaires Victoria Pineda François de Belleforest (1529–1583), man of letters, aspiring official historian at the court of the king of France, and translator—mainly from Italian, but also from Latin and Spanish—had two great passions in life. One was history, corroborated by various testimonies in which he himself defined his ambition and his intellectual scruples,1 and which could be summed up in the following phrase: “je doy m’arrester à tracer l’histoire comme le propre sujet de mes estudes.”2 His other passion was compiling anthologies, as the major part of his printed output demonstrates, and is easily confirmed by leafing through the list of his publications. Belleforest is known for his monumental Cosmographie universelle de tout le monde (1575) and especially for his seven-volume translation of Matteo Bandello’s novelle, the extremely popular Histoires tragiques, which, together with the Histoires prodigieuses (“extraictes de plusieurs fameux autheurs, grecs, et latins, sacrez et prophanes,” “extracted from several famous Greek and Latin authors, sacred and profane” as its title has it, 1571), circulated in dozens of editions until well into the seventeenth century, and were in their turn re-translated into other languages, among them English and Spanish. The result was a cultural cross-fertilisation that would leave its mark on the work of writers such as Shakespeare, Lope de Vega, or Cervantes. Among Belleforest’s prolific oeuvre, researchers have identified seventeen titles that are his own and more than twice that number of books that he had translated.3 Added to minor pieces, pamphlets and compositions of circumstance, and counting reprints and re-editions, they come to nearly three hundred entries.4 This extraordinary output has received uneven attention from the critics, and the book that concerns us here in particular, the Harangues militaires et concions de princes, capitaines, embassadeurs et autres manians

1  B.L.O. Richter (1986) 32. 2  “I must focus on following history as the appropriate subject of my studies.” Quoted in Simonin (1992) 130. 3  Richter (1986) 31. 4  Simonin (1992) bibliography.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_014

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’

239

tant la guerre que les affaires d’Estat collection, has fared worse than others.5 The aim of this chapter, then, will be to explore the literary, editorial and intellectual circumstances under which the work was produced, and to describe the material components and the possible sources of the three editions published during the sixteenth century (1572, 1588, and 1595). 1

A Key Figure: The Printer Chesneau

The publishing history of our volume begins in early 1570, when the Parisian bookseller Nicolas Chesneau obtained the privilege to print the collection,6 and when, almost three years later, in November 1572, his workshop brought out an imposing folio-size volume that assembled hundreds of orations taken from several dozen ancient and modern historians.7 We do not know what Chesneau’s precise role was in the project and publication of the speeches, but we do know that he and other imprimeurs-libraires acted as intermediaries between authors and readers, performing the role of writers’ agents and attending to the demands of the market.8 We also know that the collaboration between 5  Although the first edition prints Harengues, I will modernize Harangues throughout. The complete title is Harengues militaires et concions de princes, capitaines, embassadeurs, et autres manians tant la guerre que les affaires d’Estat. Comprenant les grandes et urgentes negotiations de toutes les anciennes monarchies, et representant l’image et office des roys, legislateurs, orateurs, embassadeurs de roys, empereurs, potentats, republiques, et des excellens capitaines; le succez des divers estudes de factieux; les moyens de se prevaloir (és choses desplorées) de ceux qui sont estonnez; les moeurs de diverses nations, et les loix et coustumes de plusierus villes et provinces; le discours des faicts et plus secrets affaires des Hebrieux, Persans, Grecs, Romains, Françoys, Allemans, Goths, Vvandales, Lombards, Espagnols; comme aussi des pays plus esloignez et septentrionaux et jusques aux remuëmens faicts par les Barbares. Recueillis et faictes Françoyses par Françoys de Belle-Forest, Comingeois. Avec trois tables, l’une des matieres et subject de chascune harangue; l’autre des autheurs d’où elles sont prises; et la troisiesme, des sentences et choses plus memorables contenues en tout l’oeuvre. 6  Simonin (1992) 151, 259. 7  The fact that copies of this same edition dated the following year, 1573, exist (of “collation identique,” Simonin [1992] 261), is explained in all probability by the publisher wanting to emphasize the novelty of a book coming off the presses at the very end of the year. We have at least one other example of this same procedure by Chesneau with the edition of the French ambassadors’ speech at the Council of Trent (Charles Choquart, La harangue des ambassadeurs du roy de France . . . au Concile general de Trente): “Extant copies of the same form have survived bearing the imprint 1562 and 1563, suggesting to the buyer that the news contained in the pamphlet was up to date” (Racaut [2009] 27). 8  Racaut (2009) 24.

240

Pineda

Belleforest and Chesneau dated from at least 1570, that this collaboration was destined to last a long time, and that during the period when Chesneau was considered to be one of the most important printers in Paris, he would become Belleforest’s main commissioning publisher.9 Both left written testimonies in which each referred to the other in glowing terms, with Belleforest saying that Chesneau published “beaux livres,”10 and the latter considering the former a “tresdocte Historiographe.”11 It is reasonable to conjecture that the translation of the orations—for a translation is what it is—would have come directly from a suggestion by the publisher, or at least, that he would have had a decisive role in the enterprise. Actually, the volume fits in with Chesneau’s general publishing project in four main ways. The first one is its book format. Although Chesneau had begun his career specializing in printing booklets with only a few pages in octavo (pamphlets characteristic of the period of the Wars of Religion in France), after 1567, because the market was saturated with these cheap opuscules, he was obliged to explore new avenues and increase the production of larger format volumes with a greater presence and, therefore, a higher price.12 This is precisely the most outstanding material feature of the Belleforest volume, which runs to more than 1,500 folio-size pages in this first edition. The second way in which Belleforest’s book fits in with Chesneau’s editorial project is its use of the French language. As some scholars have shown, from the middle of the sixteenth century, there was a huge increase in the number of books published in the vernacular. Chesneau forms part of that generation of printers whose output in French far exceeds their output in Latin: in his case the ratio is five to one.13 His catalog is replete with translations of the classics and contemporary foreign works, and it is hardly surprising that he should think that a collection of speeches written by great historians would appeal to the general public, especially as a vernacular counter to Henri Estienne’s

9  Simonin (1992) 105 and Racaut (2009) 37. Together Chesneau and Belleforest undertook such important projects as a monumental anthology of the lives of the saints (which Belleforest abandoned, not managing to complete it), the bilingual edition (FrenchLatin) of the History by Flavius Josephus in several volumes, the annotated translation of the City of God by St. Augustine, besides Latin editions of various Fathers of the Church, translations of Italian authors and a variety of minor works (Simonin [1992] bibliography and Racaut [2009] 38). 10  Quoted by Racaut (2009) 39. 11  Quoted by Simonin (1992) 158. 12  Racaut (2009) 35. 13  Racaut (2009) 25.

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’

241

Greco-Latin collection, which could already be found in bookshops in 1570.14 Translation was the main literary mode in France in the sixteenth century: Jean Balsamo tells us that “la traduction fut . . . le moyen par excellence du rapport qu’elles [les lettres françaises] entretenaient avec l’Italie.”15 Never were more texts translated in France from Italian than in the final decades of the Cinquecento, over 400 between 1570 and 1600, according to Balsamo’s estimates. Translation served, of course, to bring Italian culture to the French, but also, in a very special way, to enrich the French language itself. And it is in this area that Belleforest stands head and shoulders above other translators. According to Wilhelm Kesselring’s Dictionnaire chronologique du vocabulaire français: Le XVI e siècle, out of a list of more than six hundred names, Belleforest is the author who introduced the greatest number and variety of new terms into his language.16 The third feature of Belleforest’s anthology that is in line with Chesneau’s editorial practices is the source or provenance of the translated book. There is documentary evidence that books arrived at Chesneau’s printshop from all over Europe, but above all from Italy17 and from Venice in particular,18 and it has also been confirmed that before 1573 the Belleforest translations from Italian were based precisely on Venetian editions.19 We shall talk about the fourth characteristic later. 2

Belleforest Translates Nannini

Given the scenario just described, it would seem only natural for our protagonists to embark on a plan to prepare and publish a translation of Orationi militari raccolte per Remigio Nannini da tutti gli historici Greci e Latini, antichi e moderni, the anthology that had appeared in Venice for the first time in 1557 and then again in 1560. Hester has demonstrated that Belleforest took this second 14   Conciones sive orationes ex Graecis Latinisque historicis excerptae (1570a). Estienne’s book is not Belleforest’s source, as erroneously implied by Simonin (1992) 151. For more details about Estienne’s volume, see the chapter by Pérez Custodio in this volume. 15  “Translation was . . . the ultimate form of relationship that [French literature] maintained with Italy,” Balsamo (1998) 89–90 and Balsamo (2015). 16  B.L.O. Richter (1986) 47. P.S. Smith (1983) 41 indicates that neologism, together with reduplication, are the most important features of Belleforest’s translations. For other comments on Belleforest’s ability as a translator, see Stoyle (1987). 17  Racaut (2009) 37. 18  Simonin (1992) 157. 19  Simonin (1992) 157.

242

Pineda

edition as his model,20 and has also shown what kind of work Belleforest carried out on his source, pointing out that his oeuvre reflects an impressive amount of work. It contains hundreds of pages that, regardless of their original source, had to be translated into French. In addition to using all but one of Nannini’s sources Belleforest adds excerpts from twenty-three more modern texts (twenty-four in the 1588 edition)21 . . . Furthermore, he includes new orations in twenty-seven of the thirty-five sources he takes from Nannini. In some cases, such as in his section of speeches from Herodotus, Xenophon, and Caesar, he more than doubles the number of orations. He provides an argument and effet for each new oration and sometimes expands or even replaces the arguments and effects already in Nannini’s text. Belleforest also corrects and comments on Nanninni’s text, demonstrating that in at least some cases he consulted an integral version of the source texts.22 The examples adduced by Hester are more than sufficient to support the conclusions that I have just quoted. Some questions, however, still remain to be solved: why did Belleforest leave out one of the authors included by Nannini?, what texts were incorporated into the French translation and where did they come from?, and what significance do they have in the collection? Let us begin by examining the orations added by Belleforest. The first thing we notice is that the additions are presented in three groups and they all affect medieval or modern authors, whereas the Greco-Latin canon remains stable and indisputable.23 The first group is included at the beginning of the modern 20  Hester (2003). We know that Belleforest used Nannini’s second edition as his model because the second edition includes orations that do not appear in the first one but are in the French translation, and also because the Belleforest translation includes, together with the “arguments” prior to the speeches, the “effects” of these, and the Nannini edition that offers both is the second one, whereas the first contains only the arguments. Still to be published was the third Nannini edition in 1585. See, in this volume, the chapters by Iglesias-Zoido, Peraita, and Tubau. 21  In Appendix 2 that accompanies this chapter, the list that is shown contains one oration fewer, due to the fact that I count the orations of Martin and Guillaume du Bellay as a single text, since their source is the book of memoirs containing those of the two brothers. 22  Hester (2003) 242. 23  Although, as Hester (2003) 242–243 has demonstrated, Belleforest corrects the identification of some orations or adds others of some ancient authors already present in the Nannini collection. See also the chapter by Tubau in this volume. In Appendix 2, I give

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’

243

historians; the second, at the end of that section; and the third, following on from this one, forms an independent section that brings together orations contemporaneous with the time of writing. As I have said, the first group, comprising seven authors, heads the second part of Belleforest’s collection, with the aim of bringing together “tous les historiens modernes” (“all the modern historians,” p. 861).24 It is noticeable that the material incorporated into the French volume broadens the scope of the source: whereas Nannini keeps exclusively to Italian authors in the part on modern historians, Belleforest, with a more universalist impulse, is concerned about integrating authors and themes from several European territories. It is not difficult to surmise that the research he was doing for other works of a historical nature, such as the Histoire universelle (1570) or the Cosmographie universelle (1575), and his own scholarly inclination, would stimulate his interest in examining history books, and not only those of Antiquity, nor only those from neighboring countries. In fact, in this section we find chronicles of the Saxons, Bohemians, Hungarians, Bavarians, Danes, Swedes and Norwegians (together), and Poles, as announced in the title of the book.25 Belleforest takes up Nannini’s thread once more—having abandoned it after Saxo Grammaticus in order to insert the seven additional authors—with Leonardo Aretino’s orations, and continues translating Nannini (although with some changes in the order as can be seen in Appendix 1 in this chapter)

the names of the authors and works (numbers 1 to 7) and, when it has been possible to identify them, the details of the first edition. 24  I am quoting from the first edition. While Nannini divides his collection into three parts (Greek historians, Latin historians and modern historians), Belleforest divides his into only two, by putting the Latin and Greek historians together in the first part. 25  And in the dedication, Belleforest emphasizes this universalist aspiration: “Les conquestes d’Alexandre sont icy effigiees, les victoires Grecques, . . . la gloire Romaine, la force et gentillesse d’esprit Italienne, les ruses Affricanes, la furie Alemande, la vaillance Gauloise, la sobrieté et art militaire de l’Espaignol, le hault coeur de l’Anglois, la bravade Escossoise, les courses Sarrasines, les vols des Arabes, et conquestes Turquesques vous sont icy à l’oeil representees, et pour dire en somme, quiconque lira ce livre, il se pourra vanter de voir un abregé assez long et accomply de toute l’histoire,” (“Alexander’s conquests are depicted here, the Greek victories . . . the glory of Rome, the strength and charm of the Italian spirit, the African stratagems, German fury, the courage of Gaul, the sobriety and military art of the Spaniards, the great heart of the Englishmen, Scottish bravado, the Saracen races, the Arabs’ thieving, and Turkish conquests are here represented before your eyes, and, in short, whoever reads this book will be able to boast about seeing a rather long and complete synopsis of all of history,” fol. *iiiv).

244

Pineda

almost to the end of the collection.26 “Almost” to the end, because this is where the only omission from the translated text occurs: the orations that come from the history “Dell’origine de’ Barbari” (Dell’origine de’ Barbari, che distrussero per tutto ’l mondo l’impero di Roma, onde hebbe principio la città di Venetia, Venice: Gualtiero Scotto, 1552). This is the penultimate section in the book and precedes the “Historie de’ Turchi,” which brings the volume to an end and does appear in the French version.27 Is this an oversight or a deliberate omission? There is no easy answer to this. If it is a deliberate omission, it could be interpreted as a desire on the part of the historian, Belleforest, not to upset the chronological order of the book by not mixing subject matter from the end of Antiquity with the modern, although it is also true that he could have avoided the disruption by moving the section on the Barbarians to its corresponding position. A more plausible hypothesis could be that the omission was not really an omission at all, but rather that Belleforest introduced the various histories of the Barbarian peoples that we have just mentioned as a substitute for a work that was of a more general nature. I repeat, however, that we are moving in the realm of conjecture at this point. Another modification affecting this section is the order in which Belleforest presents his list of modern authors. The only two names that coincide are the first two, Leonardo Bruni and Poggio Bracciolini, each of them an author of a history of Florence; from that point on, though, the sequence is different in so far as Belleforest groups the authors thematically, putting Machiavelli, for example, with other Florentine writers, grouping the Venetians together, and similarly the Milanese.28 Moreover, whereas the Nannini compilation ends here, Belleforest’s carries on for another seventeen entries. Of these seventeen, the first five (numbers 8 to 12 in Appendix 2) round out the section of modern orations. Once more a universalist impulse is apparent; after the predominantly Italian histories 26  I compare Nannini’s second and Belleforest’s first editions in Appendix 1. Although Hester (2003) also offers two parallel lists, there are some errors in the ordering of the material, which makes a revision necessary. 27  In Nannini’s index, the entries corresponding to the Barbarians and the “Historie de’ Turchi” were mistakenly inserted (although with the page numbers correctly identified) between those of Cardinal Bembo and Paolo Giovio. Concerning the political significance of that “mistake,” see the work of Peraita in this volume. In Belleforest’s index, the history of the Turks is to be found in the correct place and identified with the name of its author, Marin Barlet (missing from Nannini), while the history of the Barbarians has, in fact, disappeared. 28  Furthermore, in Belleforest, Paolo Emilio has been inserted in the group of authors added on, between Callimachus and Martin du Bellay.

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’

245

presented by Nannini (Leonardo Aretino, Poggio and Machiavelli with the history of Florence; Agostino Giustiniani with Genoa; Sabellico and Bembo with Venice; Corio and Capella with Milan), Belleforest goes on to add historians of other traditions: Fontano and Rhodes, Oudegherst and Flanders, Nebrija and Spain, Buonaccorsi and Poland, and, finally, the brothers Du Bellay and France. The rest of the added material (numbers 13 to 23) constitutes a separate unit within the collection, entitled “Harangues recueillis de divers lieux et memoires des choses qui se sont passées de nostre temps selon les instructions de ceux qui ont manié les affairs” (“Harangues excerpted from different places and memories of things which have happened in our times according to the instructions of those who have handled the affairs,” p. 1383). Apart from being contemporary in nature (the texts that are included refer in the main to events that took place in the 1550s and 1560s), this anthology-within-ananthology presents other important characteristics. First of all, and as its title indicates, Belleforest suggests that the texts come directly from the authors of the speeches, without the mediation of any historian recording them a posteriori, as had been the case with all the other orations included in the volume up to this point. In other words, it is a question of letting the historical characters, the “eye witnesses,” speak for themselves. We should not rule out the possibility that Belleforest took some of the pamphlets that were circulating in Paris (of the kind quoted in note 7) as his source for those texts. Secondly, and with the odd exception, what we have are French texts, featuring key figures in the reigns of Henri II, François II, and Charles IX. As a result, the collection loses some of its character as a monument to history and becomes a chronicle of the most recent events. Thirdly, a strong thematic unity is noticeable centring on the religious wars (by which I mean the Christians against the Turks, and especially the French Wars of Religion in the sixteenth century) and, in addition, the political implications of the military actions. Hence, in the pages of this book, we meet Janos Lascaris, in the name of Clement VII, addressing Charles V “pour la concorde de la Chrestienté et la guerre contre le Turc” (“for the harmony of Christendom and the war against the Turk,” p. 1383); the ambassadors of the Swiss cantons interceding before the French king on behalf of the Waldensians of Angrogna; the duke of Guise haranguing his men at the siege of Metz and at the battle of Renty against the Protestants; the Procurator General of the Parliament of Paris calling for the parliamentarians to profess the faith; the Catholic king of Navarre and his enemy the Calvinist count of Montgomery haranguing their respective armies at the siege of the city of Rouen; and so on. Popes, emperors, kings, princes, ambassadors, captains, nobles, gentlemen, and soldiers parade through these pages, always with a very clear objective: to make the readers understand that reason is on

246

Pineda

the side of the Catholics and that they should not be seduced by the siren song of tolerance that at times had held the Crown in its thrall, especially during the Catherine de’ Medici’s regency in the 1560s. 3

Belleforest and the Publishing Program of the Militant Catholics

At this juncture, we need to return to our printer and clarify the fourth point of connection that links him to Belleforest. For some time, Nicolas Chesneau had been the spokesman for “un groupe de libraires ‘engagés’ . . . qui, dès 1561, s’était mis au service de la réforme catholique.”29 Chesneau has been defined as “a militant Catholic printer whose activity responded to commercial and political pressures but also reflects a personal commitment to Catholicism,”30 and as someone who managed to carry out this program because neither of the two institutions with the power to authorize the publication of religious books— the Sorbonne and the Parliament of Paris—were too concerned about censoring works that defended Catholicism against royal opposition.31 The Chesneau printers catalog is an example of the extent to which Chesneau developed his career around the theme of religion, and he found the perfect companion and complement in Belleforest, since the latter had also been known for years as a “translator and pamphleteer” for the Catholic cause.32 In fact, when Chesneau began to formulate his grand plan of publishing a collection of the lives of the saints, he thought at once, as he would recall years later, of “Belleforest, le cognoissant pour Catholique, aymant la sincerité de doctrine.”33 This affinity also explains why the anthology was dedicated to Ludovico Gonzaga, the Duke of Nevers, who was known for his interest in letters, philosophy, books, and culture, but also for his intransigent position in matters of religion, for his “refus résolu de tout pluralisme confessionel”, and for participating directly in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre.34 If we bear in mind that the massacre took place in late August, that in September Nevers gave 29  “A group of ‘committed’ booksellers . . . who since 1561 had placed themselves at the service of the Catholic reformation,” Simonin (1992) 105. 30  Racaut (2009) 23. 31  Racaut (2009) 29. 32  B.L.O. Richter (1986) 38 and Debofle (1995) 47. 33  “Knowing him to be a Catholic who loves the honesty of doctrine,” quoted by Simonin (1992) 188. 34  “Resolute rejection of any kind of confessional pluralism.” See an interesting account of the personality and deeds of Nevers in Boltanski (2006), especially in the chapter “Entre réformes et reconquête catholique;” the quotation is on p. 342. See also Jouanna (2007).

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’

247

the king a providentialist explanation of the event, and that in mid-November Belleforest was signing the book dedication, it is not difficult to work out how the author and publisher wanted the text to be read. 4

The Idea of History

Apart from demonstrating a clear political positioning, Belleforest’s dedicatory inscription also reveals his philosophy and the aims of the book very well.35 Starting from the general premise that there is nothing that brings man closer to the Godhead than “faire chose qui puisse redonder, et servir au prouffit commun et au contentement de toute une republique” (“doing something that can strengthen and serve the common good and the satisfaction of a whole republic,” fol. *ii), he moves on immediately to quote the classical authorities in order to establish a kind of scale of disciplines: for Plato, geometry and arithmetic are the two wings that enable man to soar on high;36 for Cicero, eloquence is the virtue that allows honor, glory and even riches to be attained. Nevertheless, our author goes on to say that there is a third wing that will lead men more happily to the heaven of immortal memory: history. History is described, with echoes of Cicero’s De oratore (II.36), as “la vive paincture de la vie humaine, la mere des sciences, la nourrice de vertu, et seul moyen de faire vivre l’ancienne noblesse des grands Princes qui vous ressemblent” (“a living picture of human life, the mother of the sciences, the nurse of virtue, and the only way to breathe life into the old nobility of the great princes who resemble you,” fol. *ii). History saves men and peoples from ruin and oblivion and therefore is much more necessary than numbers and proportions, but above all, history brings noble 35  Two points have attracted the attention of those who have made a close study of the introduction to the Harangues: the biographical detail that Belleforest reveals there about being of Italian descent on his mother’s side and the statement that he had not confined himself to Nannini’s translation and had compared it with the originals of the works (see the article by Hester [2003]). For the introductions to the anthologies, see the chapter by Villalba in this volume. 36  This is an image that circulated at the time, and which we find in some of Kepler’s writings, but researchers have not managed to identify the precise source of the image of the wings in Plato, “although in the Republic, VII and more explicitly in Laws, 817 et seq. and in Epinomis, 990 (formerly attributed to Plato), geometry and arithmetic are presented as prerequisites for the proper study of astronomy” (Jardine [1988] 186). The origin of the idea is in Republic 527a et seq., in a passage in which there is a debate about which branches of knowledge should be established in the ideal polis: geometry, as knowledge of what has eternal existence, would lead the soul to the truth and attract it to the heights.

248

Pineda

and generous spirits together in such a way that “leur exemple serve à la posterité, et . . . leur faicts glorieux soient le vray miroir de ceux qui descendront de leur sang” (“their example is useful to posterity, and . . . their glorious deeds are the true mirror of those who descend from their blood,” fol. *ii v).37 Utilitas is placed above every other quality, and however much it sounds like a hoary commonplace (we find it in Lucian of Samosata and it is extremely common in the prologues of history books of the period), Belleforest is, in all probability, sincere when he describes his work, in terms of that utilitas, as a “livre de Harangues diversifiees en histoire, pleines de beaux exemples, enrichies d’enseignements vertueux, et embellies de plusieurs sentences” (“book of harangues diverse in history, full of fine examples, enriched with virtuous teachings, and embellished with several maxims,” fol. *iii). The fact that it concerns a collection of speeches by important figures and not a historical narration as such, accentuates the usefulness of the work even more, for as Rothstein has pointed out, “what made the speeches attractive to Renaissance listeners . . . was the value they placed on usefulness—history teaching lessons—and the rhetoric which makes those lessons gripping and memorable,” and for that reason those orations “were sufficiently admired to be excerpted from the rest of the text and printed separately.”38 It is interesting, therefore, to emphasize the exemplary, universal character of the events narrated and the people introduced, that are there, according to Belleforest himself, as “une abstraction de quinte essence” (fol. *iii v). What these words appear to be saying is that removed from their original context, these historical figures, whose orations we read and admire, assume a universal dimension in which the specific events themselves become blurred while what is emphasized is a set of values that everyone can benefit from. Indeed, insistence on the benefits of history goes beyond the commonplace, and reflects the enthusiasm of a generation of men of letters who were inaugurating what Monod in his pioneering study of French historiography called “historical curiosity.” In fact, it was precisely in the second half of the sixteenth century when this “curiosité 37  Already in the preface to the reader of L’Histoire des neuf Roys Charles de France (Paris, Pierre L’Huillier, 1568), Belleforest had praised history vehemently “entant qu’elle seule peult autant profiter à la vie humaine que tous les autres arts ensemble” (“because she alone can benefit both human life and all the other arts together,” fol. a iii). Nassichuk (2015) similarly points to the prologue to the Recueil diligent et profitable auquel sont contenuz les choses plus notables à remarquer de toute l’Histoire de Jean Froissart (1572), which stresses the exemplary value of history. 38  Rothstein (1986) 365. The critical neglect of speeches contained in historical works seems at last to be being remedied. A good instance of this awakening is Burke’s article (2011), which analyzes Guicciardini’s case and then expresses more general considerations.

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’

249

historique s’éveilla véritablement en France” (“historical curiosity truly awakened in France.”) The causes are legion, and among them Monod singles out the fact that “les luttes politiques poussaient tous ceux qui s’y trouvaient mêlés à chercher des armes dans l’histoire et l’érudition” (“political struggles pushed all those who found themselves involved in them to search for weapons in history and scholarship.”)39 In any case, “through the sixteenth century . . . history is not merely a record of past events or a way of preserving present ones. It has another role, at least as important: providing examples which will guide those making choices in their own lives.”40 5

Political Readings

In this way, the Belleforest volume takes on a new dimension: as well as a history book and, to some extent, a book on eloquence, it is also a political work. Viewing it in this light enables us to reinterpret the past by illuminating it from the present and to see the texts that make up the anthology as exemplary.41 Each of the two parts of the collection gives meaning to the other. The classical authors not only supplied countless rhetorical models and political exempla that were valid for the time, but also legitimized the contemporary authors and ideas with which they had something in common; for their part, the contemporary authors brought the values of the past up to date and reflected an idea of history which could accommodate both annals and chronicles. It would have been unlikely for readers in the last three decades of the sixteenth century not to have seen their own society, in which the Wars of Religion were a daily reality, reflected in the pages of Belleforest. The architecture of the book directs the interpretation of the reader towards this political reading. Unlike the volumes of Estienne and Junius, whose bibliographical codes highlight the rhetorical and pedagogical reception of the collections, the very titles of both Belleforest’s and Nannini’s works stress other types of reading directed, on the one hand, towards the informative and, on the other, towards the educational. The informative component is underlined by introducing the “arguments” and “effects” that accompany each oration, to help the readers situate the occasion of the speech and offer them a quick summary of its content. Apart from the index of authors, the first edition provides two “tables,” one at the beginning of the work, which is a collection of 39  Monod (1876) 11–12. 40  Rothstein (1986) 369. 41  Nassichuk (2015).

250

Pineda

the “lieux communs de chacune matiere et subiect,” and another at the end with the “noms et matieres des doctes, graves et tres utiles harangues.”42 The table of commonplaces focuses chiefly on questions ranging from “agreement” or “alliance” to “war,” via “concord,” “conspiracy,” “the monarch,” “obedience,” “tyranny”, or “usurpation.” So, half way between its remit of informing and what I have referred to somewhat euphemistically as “educational,” the table directs attention towards some very specific concepts that it was of interest to emphasize. The marginal printed notes that accompany the text throughout are in the same vein.43 Nannini’s second edition included marginal comments that typically reappear in Belleforest’s work and would have served to present a distilled version of the lesson to be learned from the passage in question. To quote an example from the first few pages, there is a sententious annotation to an oration by Thucydides warning us: “Faut plustost user de la raison que de la force” (“Reason should be used rather than force,” p. 3), which corresponds to Nannini’s note: “In tutte le cose bisogna prima servirsi della ragione che della forza” (“In everything it is necessary to use reason first rather than force,” p. 5).44 42  The copy of the second edition that I examined (Biblioteca de Palacio, Madrid, III/1440) places the table of commonplaces at the end and does not include the index of names. The copy of the third edition (Biblioteca de la Universidad de Barcelona, XVI-2321) does have the index of names at the end, but does not include the table of commonplaces. For the function of the indices in the books of the time, see the documented study by Tavoni (2009). Prominently displayed on the front page of other books by Belleforest is a statement indicating what the addition of indices and other paratextual material means for the reader: Les epistres familieres de Marc Tulle Ciceron avec les argumens sur chacune epistre, tables et maniere d’entendre la date des Latins (1566), L’histoire des neuf roys Charles de France . . . avec la table sur chacune historie de Roy (1568), L’histoire de Flave Josephe . . . dont le sommaire du contenu se void en la page suyvante. Avec une ample table tant des chapitres que des matieres principales (1568). 43  Nassichuk (2015) devotes the second part of his article to the marginal annotations and other paratextual material, such as the “effects.” I should like to extend my most sincere thanks to the author for sending me the article while it was still in press. 44  To understand the value of these paratextual elements at that time, it is extremely useful to examine the full titles of the books. So, for example, we read on the front of another work in which Belleforest was a collaborator, that the text was “enrichi de plusieurs annotations et observations en marge, servans à la conference et intelligence des histoires anciennes et modernes” (Sainct Augustin, De la cité de Dieu . . . illustrée des commentaires de Jean Louys Vives . . . Le tout fait Françoys par Gentian Hervet . . . et enrichi de plusieurs annotations et observations en marge, servans à la conference et intelligence des histoires anciennes et modernes par François de Belleforest, avec une table des choses plus memorables, ordonnée par lieux communs, 1570).

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’

251

The marginal notes, which continue to feature in the additional orations “of our time,” served to complement the index of sententiae, which is absorbed into the index of “notable things.” The third edition of the Harangues included a new section, placed before the index of names and entitled “Proiects et reigles sententieuses d’Estat ou Avis politiques” (“Projects and solemn rules of State or political advice,” p. 2205). This section went on for over a hundred pages amassing more than 650 sententiae and political advice, further accentuating the political reading of the anthology.45 The superposition of present and past, and the political interpretation that can be deduced from it, corresponds to a conception of history that might well be summed up in the following sentence: “In France, the turmoil of the civil wars of the second half of the sixteenth century projected the search for the proper past into the debate of national salvation.”46 Richter refers to Belleforest’s “revitalization” of the ancient authors, stressing that he is “eager to graft the past upon the present, mainly in order to lend vigour to his defense of Catholicism by drawing from illuminating events that took place long before his time.”47 This statement does not specifically refer to the Harangues, although it may be useful for our understanding of the general background of our author’s “philosophy of history.” Richter offers, by way of illustration, a text that Belleforest places before the Histoire des persécutions faites en Afrique par les Arriens sur les Catholiques (1563), the translation of a work written by the fifth century bishop Victor Vitense: “Je voy dans cest auteur un tableau si bien effigié des miseres de nostre temps, et la rage si vivement tirée, qu’il semble qu’il n’y ait difference que des noms, et de l’intervalle du tems” (“In this author, I see such a lifelike picture of the miseries of our times, and the rage so well

45  Remember that the third edition was published in 1595 ([Geneva]), Heritiers de Eustache Vignon) and that this was an important period for the reception of Tacitus (the famous Discorsi . . . sopra Cornelio Tacito by Scipione Ammirato are from 1594), whose political sententiae would be collected in many anthologies. The inclusion of the collection of political pieces of advice in this third edition of Belleforest would be worth studying in this context. In connection with this, consider the case of the anthology of Lorenzo Capelloni Ragionamenti vari sopra essempii (Genoa: Marc’Antonio Bellone, 1576), a collection of sententiae of political and military content, illustrated with episodes from contemporary history. 46  Breisach (2007) 171. See also Huppert (1970) 25: “The conviction that the old histories would not do and that a breakthrough was needed was firmly implanted in the minds of the leading scholars of the 1560s onwards.” 47  B.L.O. Richter (1986) 32.

252

Pineda

drawn, that it seems that the only difference lies in the names, and the time interval”).48 Belleforest was one of those agents of cultural mediation who, without seeking originality, and through the vital work of translation (but not only through it), helped forge the intellectual physiognomy of modern Europe.49 We have seen that the global significance of the anthology of collected speeches, not just as a literary document but as a cultural object and intellectual product, is based on a series of factors that favored its creation. These include the impetus of the disciplines of history as an instrument for interpreting the present, the rise of translation in sixteenth century France, the economic and political components of the relationships between writers and publishers, the partisan struggles and religious wars, François de Belleforest’s profile and career as a writer, particularly in relation to the anthology as a genre and, finally, the “literary” and rhetorical tradition of collections of speeches of historiographical origin to which our work belongs. In reality, all these phenomena are so closely interrelated that they influence and feed back into each other in complex and subtle ways. Here we have only been able to mention them briefly in order to suggest the extent to which Belleforest’s collection of speeches is a piece in harmony with the cultural landscape in which it was conceived.50

48  He will express himself again in more general, though not substantially different, terms in the preface to L’Histoire des neuf Roys Charles de France: “Or tant plus clairement y veoit celuy qui s’addonne à la contemplation des faicts des anciens, de tant les haults mysteres des choses luy sont manifestes, et mis à descouvert . . . et de là il cognoist purement le profit plus grande, et plus à priser que telle lecture espand, et comme distille sur les esprits desireux de la vraye science, en laquelle gist la felicité de nostre vie” (“Now, the one who devotes himself to contemplating the deeds of the ancients can see all the more clearly, so much so that the deepest mysteries of things are manifested and revealed to him . . . and from that, he becomes thoroughly conversant with the greatest profit and furthermore learns to prize what that reading disseminates and almost distills into the minds eager for true knowledge, which underlies the happiness of our lives,” fol. a iii v). 49  For the role of translation as an intellectual and cultural mediator in the early centuries of the modern age, see the collection of articles in Burke and Po-chia Hsia (2009), particularly the one by Burke himself, “Translating Histories.” 50  Research for this chapter has been possible thanks to the Research Project MICINN FFI2012–31813, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, and the Research Group “Arenga” (HUM-023).

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’



Appendix 1: Comparison Nannini-Belleforest

Nannini 1560

Belleforest 1572

Part I Thucydides Herodotus Xenophon Dionysius of Halicarnassus Polybius Appian Cassius Dio Tacitus Herodian Titus Flavius Josephus Plutarch Part II Titus Livy Sallust Caesar Quintus Curtius

Part I Thucydides Herodotus Xenophon Dionysius of Halicarnassus Polybius Appian Cassius Dio Tacitus Herodian Titus Flavius Josephus Plutarch

Hegesippus Ammianus Marcellinus Procopius Saxo Grammaticus Part III

Hegesippus Ammianus Marcellinus Procopius Saxo Grammaticus Part II Witichinde La vie de Henri IV Eneas Silvio Antonio Bonfini Johannes Aventinus Albert Kranz Marcin Kromer Leonardo Aretino Poggio Machiavelli* Agostino Giustiniani* Marco Antonio Sabellico* Cardinal Bembo*

Leonardo Aretino Poggio Marco Antonio Sabellico Paolo Emilio Bernardino Corio Benedetto Accolti

Titus Livy Sallust Caesar Quintus Curtius

253

254

Pineda

(cont.) Nannini 1560

Belleforest 1572

[Machiavelli] Agostino Giustiniani Galeazzo Capella Cardinal Bembo

Bernardino Corio* Galeazzo Capella* Benedetto Accolti*

Paolo Giovio Girolamo Faletti Ascanio Centorio Origine de’ Barbari Guerre de’ Turchi

Paolo Giovio Girolamo Faletti Ascanio Centorio Barlet, Guerres des Turcs Iaques Fontaine Pierre d’Oudegherst Antonio de Nebrija Callimachus Experiens Paolo Emilio* M & G du Bellay Various orations of our time Janos Lascaris Count of Sanzay Swiss Ambassadors Ambassadors at the Diet Duke of Guise (2) Procurator General King of Navarre Duke of Guise (5) Grand Master of the Order of the Knights of St John of Jerusalem Count of Sanzay Charles IX of France M. de Bellièvre (3)

*An asterisk indicates authors that have changed places in Belleforest compared to Nannini.

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’



255

Appendix 2: Material Added by Belleforest

1) Witichindo or Widukind de Corvey, Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri tres, tenth century. Nine orations. 2) Anonymous, Vita Heinrici IV imperatoris, composed about 1106–1107. Two orations. 3) Pius II (Eneas Silvio Piccolomini), Historia Bohemica, Rome: Johannes Shurener, 1475. Ten orations. 4) Antonio Bonfini, Rerum Ungaricum decades quattuor [writing began in 1489], Basel: Marton Brenner, 1543; first complete edition: Basel: Sambuco, 1568. Twenty-eight orations. 5) Johannes Aventinus (Johann Georg Turmair), Annales Boiorum, posthumous edition, Ingolstadt: Ziegler, 1554. Sixteen orations. 6) Albert Krantz, Chronica regnorum aquilonarium Daniae, Suetiae, Noruagiae, posthumous edition, Strasbourg: apud Johannem Schottum, 1546. Twelve orations. 7) Marcin Kromer, De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX, Basel: per Johannem Opporinum, 1555. Sixteen orations. 8) Jacobus Fontanus, De bello Rhodio libri tres, Rome: in aedibus F. Miniti Calvi, 1524. Eight orations. 9) Pierre d’Oudegherst, Les chroniques et annales de Flandres, Antwerp: Plantin, 1571. Ten orations. 10) Antonio de Nebrija, Crónica de los muy altos y esclarecidos Reyes Católicos don Fernando y doña Isabel, de gloriosa memoria, Valladolid: Sebastián Martínez, 1565. Thirteen orations. The real author, as is well known, was Fernando de Pulgar (see Jiménez Calvente’s chapter in this volume). Nebrija had translated Pulgar’s Spanish text into Latin and published it under his own name; in 1564, Nebrija’s grandson was granted the privilege to publish the Spanish version taken from the original manuscript, which was kept among his grandfather’s papers, but of whose true authorship he was unaware. Juan Millán’s 1567 Zaragoza edition is correctly attributed. 11)  Filippo Buonaccorsi (Philippus Callimachus Experiens), Historia de rege Vladislao [written in 1444], Augsburg: in officina Sigismundi Grimm, 1519. Five orations. 12)  Les memoires de Mess. Martin du Bellay . . . et quelques fragmens . . . de Mess. Guillaume du Bellay, Paris: P. l’Huillier, 1569. Ten orations. 13) Janos Lascaris’s oration to the Emperor, in the name of Pope Clement VII, urging him to undertake the war against the Turks. This translation by Belleforest (if it is not an apocryphal text invented by the “translator” himself) may constitute the first appearance of the speech in block letters (Heath [1986] 29).

256

Pineda

14) Two orations by René de Sanzay (not placed consecutively), one addressed to Pope Paul IV “against the calumnies directed at the King of France,” the other to the king of Portugal about France’s sacking of the island of Madeira. See, among other catalogs, Du Verdier (1773) 411, s.v. “René, Comte de Sanzay”: “Harangue du Seigneur Comte de Sanzay devant le Pape Paul IV, contre les calomnies qu’on mettoit sus au Roi de France. Harangue du même Comte de Sanzay, Ambassadeur pour le Roi, vers le Roi de Portugal, après le fac fait par les François de l’Isle de Madere, en la mer Athlantique. Icelles deux Harangues, contenues au volume des Militaires de Belleforest” (“Harangue by the Count of Sanzay before Pope Paul IV against the calumnies that were directed at the King of France. Harangue by the same Count of Sanzay, the King’s ambassador, to the King of Portugal after the deed carried out by the French on the island of Madeira in the Atlantic Ocean”). 15) Oration by the ambassadors of the Swiss Leagues to King Henry II on behalf of the inhabitants of the valley of Angrogna. In his history of the persecutions of the Protestants, published for the first time in 1563, John Foxe alludes to this episode: “and certeine of the Suitzers sent vnto the Frenche kyng, desiryng him to haue pitie on the foresayd Churches [Waldensian], and from that tyme vntill three yeares after, the people of the foresayd Valleys, were not molested by any of the kinges officers” (Foxe [1570] 1129). Another contemporary source which refers to it is Jacques-Auguste de Thou, Historiarum sui temporis (1604), cited here in the French translation: “Depuis ce tems-là, soit que le Sénat crût avoir suffisammente rempli son devoir, par les rigoureux arrêts qu’il avoit prononcés, soit qu’on ne voulût pas aigrir et irriter des sujets d’ailleurs doux et tranquilles, soit qu’on eût égard à la recommandation des Suisses et des Princes Protestants d’Allemagne, qui sollicitoient sans cesse le Roi en leur faveur, trois ans se passérent sans qu’on leur fît aucune peine, et le calme dura jusqu’au traité de paix, par lequel ce païs fut rendu au Duc de Savoye” (“After that time, whether because the Senate thought that it had sufficiently complied with its duty through the harsh judgments that it had handed down or whether there was no wish to embitter or irritate subjects who were otherwise gentle and peaceful, or whether notice was taken of the recommendation of the Swiss and Protestant Princes from Germany who constantly appealed to the King on their behalf, three years passed without any punishment being inflicted on them, and calm lasted until the peace treaty whereby this country was returned to the Duke of Savoy”) (De Thou [1740] 17). 16) Oration by the ambassadors of Henry II of France, Bourdillon and Marillac, who attended the coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand I, in Augsburg. Some sources mention “une très-belle harangue” (“a very beautiful harangue”) (De Voyer [1782] 325).

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’

257

17) Two battle exhortations by François of Lorraine, Duke of Guise, one to the soldiers at Metz and the other to the captains before the Battle of Renty. He rallied the soldiers during the Siege of Rouen. Various speeches on his deathbed: to the Queen Mother expressing his wish that peace should be sought, to his wife, his eldest son, and to the gentlemen present. The speeches of Guise do not all appear consecutively in the Belleforest collection. Of the Metz speech, Ronsard’s poetic version of 1553 “La Harangue de tres-illustre prince François, duc de Guise, aux soldats de Metz” (“The harangue of the most illustrious Prince François, Duke of Guise, to the soldiers in Metz”) is well known (see Iglesias-Zoido [2003]). Another prose version appears in de Thou (1659) 623–625. Guise took part in and emerged victorious from both the Battle of Metz as well as the Battle of Renty, both against the Imperial troops of Charles V. The historian Julien Peleus relates the speech delivered in Rouen in his history of King Henry IV of France in the following terms: “Succeda pour commander à l’armée Monsieur de Guise, lequel sur la mort du Roy de Navarre anima ainsi ses soldats à la vengeance: ‘Ie perds auiourd’huy, mes compagnons, un bon seigneur et amy, et des plus proches de sang et parenté que j’eusse apres mes freres en ce royaume, et qui representoit la personne du Roy. Vengez, mes amis, la mort d’un chef si brave’ ” (“Monsieur de Guise, who succeeded as commander of the army, upon the death of the King of Navarre encouraged his soldiers to take revenge with these words: ‘My comrades, today I have lost a good lord and friend, and one of the closest in blood and kinship that I have had in this kingdom after my brothers, and who represented the person of the King. Avenge, my friends, the death of such a brave leader”) (Peleus [1613] 332). See also testimony of the reception of the speech to the Queen in Sarpi’s history of the Council of Trent: “Le 9 de Mars on reçut à Trente la nouvelle de la mort du Duc de Guise, frere du Cardinal de Lorraine. Ce seigneur assiégoit Orléans. A son retour de la tranchée il fut blessé d’un coup d’arquebuse, qui lui tira Jean Poltrot, gentilhomme huguenot, et en mourut six jours après, au grand regrest de toute la cour. Avant que de mourir il exhorta la Reine à faire la paix, et dit ouvertement que ceux qui ne la vouloient pas étoient ennemis du royaume” (“On March 9, news was received in Trent of the death of the Duke of Guise, the brother of Cardinal Lorraine. This lord was laying siege to Orleans. Returning from the trenches he was wounded by a shot fired from an arquebus by Jean Poltrot, a Huguenot gentleman, and he died six days later, to the great sorrow of the whole court. Before dying he exhorted the Queen to make peace, and said openly that those who did not want it were enemies of the kingdom”) (Sarpi [1751] 609). 18) Speech delivered by Gilles Bourdin, Procurator General, to the Parliament of Paris, calling for court officials to make a profession of faith. This is how Claude Fleury (1734) 154 describes the session, before summarizing the main points of

258

Pineda

the speech: “La profession de foi fut donc signée et reçûë . . . Et ce même jour le procureur général Gilles Bourdin fit un excellent discours, pour loüer la conduite du parlement dans la défense de la foi, par la profession qu’il en exigeoit, en obligeant tout le monde de la faire, et montrant combien les troubles sur la religion étoient pernicieux à l’Etat” (“The profession of faith was then signed and received . . . And that same day, the Procurator General Gilles Bourdin delivered an excellent speech praising the Parliament’s handling of the defense of the faith by means of the public profession that it demanded, obliging everybody to do it, and showing how much troubles over religion were harmful to the State”). 19) Exhortatory speech by Antoine de Bourbon, King of Navarre to his captains and soldiers during the Siege of Rouen in 1562, and another one by the leader of the Protestants, the Count of Montgomery on the same occasion. This is an interesting case of two opposing speeches, such as are often found in history books. The taking of Rouen from the Protestants after the siege of the city was a decisive victory for the Catholic army, marred only by the death of Bourbon. Peleus describes the occasion of both speeches: “Le Roy de Navarre qui commandoit à l’armée, faisant donner un soudain assault à la ville, anima ses soldats, et leur dit ainsi: ‘Vous allez, mes compagnons et amis, contre des gens que vous avez desia chassez de Bourges, Poictiers et Tours, qu’ils avoient occuppées. Vous n’allez pas maintenant pour peu de chose, vostre gloire aussi ne sera pas petite. Suivez-moi auiourd’huy comme autres fois vous avez faict en Picardie. Toutesfois en la victoire souvenez-vous que vos ennemis sont François, qu’ils estiment bien faire, pardonnez aux bon citoyens, à la chasteté des dames, et à la saincteté des temples; gaignez, ie vous prie, la reputation d’estre aussi courtois que vous aves tousiours esté vaillans’. Et peu apres telles paroles, fut frappé d’une balle en l’espaule, dont il mourut quelques iours apres, grandement Catholique et regretté extremement de tous les gens de bien” (“The King of Navarre, who commanded the army, launching a sudden attack on the town, encouraged his soldiers, and spoke to them as follows: ‘My comrades and friends, you are going against people you have already driven out of Bourges, Poitiers, and Tours, which they had occupied. What you are about to do now will be no small feat, and your glory will not be small either. Follow me today as you did at other times in Picardy. However, in victory remember that your enemies are French, that they think they are doing the right thing, pardon the good citizens, respect the chastity of the ladies, and the sanctity of the temples; I beg you to earn a reputation for being as courteous as you have always been valiant.’ And shortly after having pronounced these words, he was hit in the back by a bullet, from which he died some days later, a great Catholic and much mourned by all people of virtue”) (Peleus [1613] 330–331); “Et lors le Comte de Montgommery encourageoit aussi les siens à se bien deffendre en ceste sorte: ‘Vous sçavez, mes compagnons et

François de Belleforest ’ s ‘ Harangues militaires ’

259

amis, qu’elle tyrannie ont tousiours exercé noz ennemis sur nostre liberté? S’ils en sont une foit saisis, qu’esperons-nous autre chose que le boulversement de tous estats en ce Royaume! Si nous cedons à leur furie, quel coeur pensons-nous qu’ils prendront pour defaire le reste de nos forces qui sont en attente de l’issuë de ce siege?’ ” (“And meanwhile the Count of Montgomery was also encouraging his soldiers to defend themselves well as follows: ‘My comrades and friends, do you know what tyranny have our enemies have always exerted over our freedom? If they have seized it once, what else can we expect but the upheaval of all the estates in this kingdom! If we yield to their fury, what heart do we think they will take to overcome the rest of our forces, which are awaiting the end of this siege?’ ”) (Peleus [1613] 334). 20) Speech by Jean Parisot de la Valette, Grand Master of the Order of the Knights of St John of Jerusalem, to his knights during the Great Siege of Malta in 1565. An eye-witness, the soldier Francesco Balbi, summarizes the speech: “El gran Maestre . . . para desengañar la gente dixo publicamente que el no aguardava soccoro ya si no era el del omnipotente Dios, el qual era el soccoro verdadero, y el que hasta entonces nos havia librado, y que ni mas ni menos nos libraria por el avenir de las manos de los enemigos de su santa fee, tuviendo en su divina Magestad la confianza que deviamos, . . . que lo que rogava a cada uno por si era que se acordasse que era Christiano, y que combatia principalmente por la fee de Iesu Christo nuestro Señor, y por la vida y libertad, y que cada uno se acordasse que los que quedavamos no hallariamos en los Turcos mas clemencia o piedad de la que havian usado con los de San Ermo, y que el en todos los peligros queria siempre ser el primero. Esta habla del gran Maestre luego fue muy divulgada . . .” (“The Grand Master . . . in order to open the people’s eyes said publicly that he was no longer expecting relief unless it was from Almighty God, who was the true bringer of relief, and the one who up until then had kept us free, and who would free us, no more and no less, in the future from the hands of the enemies of His Holy faith, by keeping the trust in his Divine Majesty that we should . . . that what he pleaded of each one for himself was that he should remember that he was a Christian, and that he was fighting principally for the faith of Jesus Christ our Lord, and for life and liberty, and that each one should remember that those of us who remained would not find with the Turks any more clemency or pity than that which they had shown to those of St. Elmo, and that he always wanted to be the first in every dangerous situation. This speech by the Grand Master was later widely disseminated . . .”) (Balbi de Correggio [1568] 81r–81v). 21) Speech by King Charles IX of France to the Parliament of Paris about the need to reform the administration of justice. Various historiographical sources record the event; see the comment by Daubresse (2005) 390: “Le 12 mars 1571, six jours après son entrée solennelle dans la capitale, Charles IX vient au Parlement. Dans

260

Pineda

son discours, il déplore la ‘corruption des moeurs en toutes sortes d’hommes et de la discipline en tous estats’, et spécialement en ‘l’estat’ de la justice. Et Charles IX d’appeler les parlementaires à se réunir pour trouver des solutions aux abus” (“On March 12, 1571, six days after his solemn entry into the capital, Charles IX comes to the Parliament. In his speech, he laments the ‘corruption of customs in all sorts of men, and of discipline in all estates,’ and especially in ‘the estate’ of justice. And Charles IX appealed to the Parliament members to meet in order to find solutions to the abuses”). 22) Three speeches by the ambassador of France to Switzerland, Pomponne de Bellièvre, addressing the lords of the cantons and the Leagues. The diplomatic work of Bellièvre is detailed in Poncet (1998).51 23) Oration by Charles de Pérusse des Cars, Bishop-Duke of Langres to the ambassadors of Poland at Metz, dated 1573. It was published in Jean Bodin’s translation, also 1573, with the identical title to the one in this second edition of the Belleforest collection (although he clearly had no part in it since it was published after his death): La harangue de Messire Charles des Cars, evesque et duc de Langres . . . aux magnifiques ambassadeurs de Poulongne, estans à Metz. It does not appear in the first edition and is the only addition to the second. It lacks the “argument” and “effect” sections.

51  Estienne’s collection of speeches was dedicated to Bellièvre; see Pérez Custodio in the present volume.

CHAPTER 13

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches in the Teaching of Rhetoric David Carmona 1

Introduction: Junius and his Didactic Calling

Melchior Junius was born in Wittenberg, the cradle of Lutheranism, in 1545, and spent his childhood there. In 1559 he began his secondary education at the gymnasium in Strasbourg where the head teacher was Johannes Sturm, who was to be a key influence on Junius’s vocation, as we shall see presently. In 1566 he entered the University of Strasbourg. After travelling around Europe and visiting the principal universities of France, Flanders and the Low Countries, he returned to Strasbourg as a teacher of Rhetoric. Here, in 1581 he founded an Academy, of which he was the head until 1593. He devoted his life completely to the Academy and its students until his death in 1604, four years after suffering a stroke.1 Such a learned man as Junius owed his didactic calling to his teacher, Sturm, who was regarded as the greatest educator of the Reformed Church; in fact, the model he used, both in the school of which he was headmaster and for his own teaching methods, was the prevailing humanistic one in sixteenth century Europe.2 According to Morhof’s glowing eulogy of Junius in his Polyhistor, however, the pupil surpassed the master as a teacher: E Sturmi schola prodiit Melchior Junius, orationis quidem facultate Sturmio inferior, sed praeceptis, ac artificio dicendi, non postponendus. Diligentia enim sua superavit magistri industriam; et tironibus eam ob causam aptior est, quod ad minutias se demittat, ad quas se Sturmius non demittit (p. 948).3 Melchior Junius excelled at Sturm’s school. While he was not as articulate as Sturm, he did not lag behind him in the precepts or the art of 1  On his life, cf. Adam (1615) 455–457 and Neue Deutsche Biographie (1974) X 690. 2  For Sturm’s humanistic pedagogy, cf. Sher Tinsley (1989). 3  Morhof (1747).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_015

262

Carmona

speaking. In fact, his diligence surpassed the intelligence of the master; and for this reason, he is better suited to students, because he pays attention to details and Sturm does not. These minutiae, these details to which Junius paid attention, would chart the course of his teaching of rhetoric. 2

The Creation of Teaching Manuals

Towards the middle of the sixteenth century, the Strasbourg Academy run by Junius was famous for its teaching manuals. Its influence was such that it even spread as far as the humanists in Valencia. Melchior Junius published several works on the subject for his pupils, in which he set out to cover the different aspects and levels of rhetoric and oratory.4 The basic level of his educational program was represented by the Methodus eloquentiae comparandae of 1585,5 a classic handbook that describes the technique for acquiring eloquence and which is designed to encourage the orator to compile compositional material through reading, imitating, and performing exercises on commonplaces, mainly historical ones.6 In the Artis dicendi praecepta, secundum oratorii officii partes, of 1590, he proposed a model of oratory taken from the classical preceptors, whose teachings and tendencies he wanted to bring together as a single art, supported by the prestigious authors of Antiquity. The way in which the subject matter is arranged shows he had an obvious didactic purpose in mind, and indicates his practical approach to the teaching of oratory.7 3

The First Anthology of Speeches and the Exercitationes Rhetoricae

The 1586 Anthology of Speeches In 1586, a year after the publication of the Methodus eloquentiae comparandae, Melchior Junius decided to prepare a selection of speeches taken from the works of the Greek historians, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, and 4  Sánchez Manzano (2004) 445. 5  It was printed as many as nine times. 6  Mack (2011) 162. 7  Both works were still being reissued after his death in the seventeenth century. For more details, cf. Sánchez Manzano (2004) 445ff.

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

263

the Latin historians, Livy, Caesar, and Sallust. From the very beginning of the preface of this Orationes aliquot ex Herodoti, Thucydidis . . ., he appears to feel the need to justify why he, a teacher of rhetoric, is bringing out a selection of speeches from Greek and Latin historiography: Historicorum ego veterum, Herodoti, Thucydidis, Xenophontis: Livii itidem, Caesaris et Salustii hac a me hyeme collectas orationes Eloquentiae explicare Studiosis constitui. Etsi enim Ciceronis, Demosthenis, Isocratis, aliorumque nonnullorum oratorum singulari DEI beneficio scripta asservata, principem merito bene in constitutis Academiis obtinere locum debeant, nec in nostra, uti scis, negligantur: tamen his ipsis non, opinor, inutiliter Historicorum adiungi demegoriai conciones possunt (f. 2r). I have decided to publish the speeches that I compiled this winter for the students of Eloquence from the ancient historians, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, as well as Livy, Caesar, and Sallust, although the preserved writings of Cicero, Demosthenes, Isocrates, and all the orators for God’s benefit alone should rightly take precedence in the Academies, including ours, as you know; nevertheless, putting the demegoriai and contiones alongside them is not without its usefulness. He goes on to deploy a battery of arguments to defend the usefulness of the speeches in this selection.8 Then, after quoting nearly every speech in the selection and underlining the outstanding features of each one, he immediately goes on to wonder who, if they were reading them carefully, could consider these oratorical pieces unworthy of annotation, observation, or imitation. Their usefulness is conclusively justified in the following reflection:

8  “Propter rerum varietatem, gravitatem, magnitudinem, homini politico cum primis utilem ac necessariam: dicendi artificium, breve quidem, sed accuratum: vetustatis gratam iucundamque memoriam: decorum in personis, locis, temporibus observatum: sententias insignes, quibus veluti stellis quibusdam, orationes maxime illuminantur: exempla denique minime contemnenda iis, qui stylum exercere cupiunt” (“Because of the variety, seriousness, and importance of the facts, especially useful and necessary for politicians; because of the artifice in speaking, concise, certainly, but precise; because of the graceful and agreeable evocation of antiquity; because of the decorum observed in relation to characters, places, and circumstances; because of the distinguished sententiae, which make the speeches shine exceptionally brightly, I would almost say like stars; and finally because of the exempla, which cannot be dismissed by those who want to practice their style,” Junius 1586 2r–2v).

264

Carmona

Neque enim quia aut aliae imperiorum, regnorum, Rerumpublicarum hodie conditiones: leges diversae: dissimilia instituta: aut domi scriptae ab historicis: non ab iis, quibus tribuuntur, habitae fuerunt orationes: iccirco nullum, vel exiguum admodum earundem esse usum statuendum est. Nam eadem adhuc nostro tempore personis solum mutatis, negotia tractantur: et deliberationes de rebus longe gravissimis in Regum, Principum, Rerumpubl. consiliis instituuntur: et laudationes atque vituperationes adhibentur: et accusationes locum habent (f. 3v). And not because the nature of each state, kingdom, and nation is different today, their laws different, their customs different; or because these speeches were written in their own countries or were uttered by people different from those to whom they are attributed, should we think that there is little or no use to be made of them. Because they deal with the same affairs that happen to us in our own time, except with different protagonists, deliberations about affairs of the greatest importance take place in the councils of Kings, Princes, and States, laudationes and vituperationes are heard and accusationes are levelled. Even so, he warns that imitation should be neither stupid nor puerile, but reasoned, appropriate, and erudite; he hopes that scholars will judge his work positively, on the grounds that what historians did for orators themselves in Antiquity he is now doing as a teacher of rhetoric (4r). Finally, Junius recognizes (and this is the most important thing) that others before him had already made selections of this kind: . . . et clarissimos, deque re literaria optime meritos viros: Ioachimum Perionium: Reinhardum Lorichium Hadamarium: Heinricum Stephanum, aut cunctas singulorum, aut omnium prope utraque in lingua, qui exstat, historicorum collegisse orationes omnes sciant (f. 4r). Let everyone know that very famous men with a good deal of literary merit, Joachim Périon, Reinhard Lorich, and Henri Estienne, have collected all the speeches of one or all of the historians in the two languages in which they were written. The best known and most complete is undoubtedly Estienne’s, because he assembled the speeches of every single one of the Greek and Latin historians.9 9  For Estienne, see the chapter by Pérez Custodio in this volume.

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

265

Périon’s selection was devoted solely to the speeches in Livy,10 whereas Lorich’s took speeches from Livy, Sallust, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Caesar, Tacitus, and Herodian.11 Junius enjoined his students to read those anthologies closely too, on the grounds that the selection he had presented at that time needed amplifying (f. 4r). Conscious that his selection was not as important as others, such as Estienne’s, he promised another anthology that would include speeches from modern historians: Idem in recentiorum quoque historicorum concionibus aliquando tentaturus, ubi non ingratum hunc quantulumcunque meum laborem Eloquentiae fuisse Studiosis intellexero (f. 4r–4v). I also intend to do the same thing one day with the speeches of modern historians, once I have seen that this little work of mine has been of some use to students of Eloquence. He makes it clear, both at the beginning of the preface and here, that the selection was intended for his students, just like the rest of his works were, as we shall see. This 1586 selection is a simple one, but marks the starting point of the great anthology of 1598. It contains sixty-five speeches, with an index listing the title, orator, and work from which each of them is taken. Although the speeches are not explicitly divided into deliberative, demonstrative, and judicial types, they are arranged in that order: speeches I to XLVI correspond to the first type; then, only three, from XLVII to XLIX, to the second; and finally, from L to LXV, to the third.12 The way the speeches are presented no longer has anything to do with the selections (Périon and Lorich) seen so far. Constantly endeavoring to be as didactic as possible, Junius does not introduce the historians’ speeches individually, nor does he follow the order in which they appear in their works, but rather presents the speeches by type and topic, even going so far as to group a number of them under the same epigraph.13 He follows the same approach 10  Périon (1532). 11  Lorich (1537). 12  Cf. Appendix I, which gives the Index of speeches in this selection. 13  For example, whereas speech IV is selected from the seventh book of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia and is part of a group of deliberationes (“Cyri ad proceres, de ratione retinendi semel parti imperii, ex Xenophontis lib. 7. disciplinae Cyri”), a speech from the first

266

Carmona

for the huge 1598 selection. Furthermore, if the historian is Greek, the original text is given with a Latin translation. For example, in the first case, under the epigraph Deliberatio de optima reipublicae forma ex Herodoti Lib. III, three different orations are provided: Oratio I. Otanis pro δημοκρατία, populi imperio. Eiusdem Interpretatio Latina Laur. Vallae. Oratio II. Megabysi Pro ἀριστοκρατία Optimatum gubernatione. Oratio III. Darii Pro μοναρχία unius dominatu. The speeches are excerpted from just six historians, although the majority come from Livy. The number of speeches selected from the Greek historians is fairly evenly distributed, since eleven come from Thucydides, a similar number from Herodotus, and fourteen from Xenophon. As far as the Latin ones are concerned, a total of twenty-six speeches are from Livy, and only two from Sallust and two from Caesar.14 Aliquot Orationes (1590) Four years later, in 1590, Junius published Aliquot orationes in Argent. acad. exercitii gratia scriptae & recitatae ab illustr. generos. nobilibus, a collection of rhetorical exercises in imitation of historiographical contiones—a third of them Greek and Latin15—composed, curiously enough, by the students themselves to be declaimed. Some exercises have prefaces addressing the very nobles who delivered the speeches. For example, the Actio Parricidii ad imitationem Orationum Philippi Macedoniae regis eisudemque filiorum Persei ac Demetrii book of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia is number XIX and forms part of a group of the adhortationes (the “Adhortatio ad strenue fortiterque pugnandum: Oratio Cyri ad milites, ex Xenophontis lib. I, Disciplinae Cyri”). 14  For Herodotus and Thucydides, Junius uses Valla’s Latin translations. As for Xenophon, he uses Francesco Filelfo’s translation of the Cyropaedia; Romulo Amaseo’s of the Anabasis, and Willibald Pirckheimer’s of the Hellenica. 15  We have a total of seven of the twenty epigraphs included in the work. Except for number III, all the rest appear both in the 1586 selection and the 1598 one, Orationum ex historicis, tam veteribus quam recentioribus, which will be analyzed later: I. Actio Parricidii ad imitationem Orationum Philippi Macedoniae regis eisudemque filiorum Persei ac Demetrii apud Livium Decad. 4. lib. 10, exercitii gratia orationibus duodecim instituta; III. Oratio de Intaphernis uxoris apud Herodotum lib. 3. facto et fraternae charitatis causis; IV. De pacis ac concordiae studio vitandoque bello orationes sex, ad Hermocratis Syracusani apud Thucydidem lib. 4. imitationem scriptae; X. De animadversione ac poenis Orationes novem ad Cleonis et Diodoti apud Thucyd. lib. 3. Orationum contexta imitatione; XIV. De luxu et novitatis ac peregrinatis studio in vestitu Orationes duae contrariae ad M. Catonis et L. Valerii apud Livium Decad. 4. lib. 4. Orationum imitationem contextae; XV. Oratio ­funebris ad imitationem Periclis epitaphios logos apud Thucydid. lib. 2. scripta; XVII. De optima Reipub. forma Orationes VIII. ad Otanis, Megabysi, Darii apud Herodot. lib. 3. Orationum institutae imitationem.

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

267

(p. 1) begins with a “Praefatio Generosi D. Leopoldi A Landav. L. Baronis in Haus et Rappottenstein, &c.” Furthermore, each section may, in turn, comprise several orationes, in other words, different versions delivered by different people, such as this Actio Parricidii, which has twelve in all. Three points should be emphasized about the preface. The first is that, it is in this work that Junius remembered his teacher Sturm, his predecessor in the post (Preface, 4v). The second is that Junius hinted at the fact that he was publishing these oratiunculae, as he called them, urged on by his students (Preface, 4v): “tandem quoque (ut amicorum preces cogendi habere vim solent) quod peterent, vel invitis diuque repugnantibus extorquerent”). In the third place, after admitting that they needed to be polished, precisely because they were exercitationes, he stressed their value. It is no coincidence that the teacher of rhetoric went on to take the opportunity to make a spirited defense and sing the praises of the Academy that he headed and to exhort these nobles and distinguished men in particular to continue supporting it as they had up until then. Its value was reflected in the very publication of that work, which would bring to light not only the talent of the students, but also, and most importantly, what they had learned (7v–8r). 4

Practical Works and the Selection of Historiographical Letters Before the 1598 Anthology

The Resolutio brevis and Other Practical Manuals In 1594, Junius published the Resolutio brevis orationum Ciceronis, an analysis, in almost 900 pages, of all of Cicero’s speeches.16 The same year saw the publication of Ex M. Tul. Ciceronis orationibus loci aliquot communes, in which the teacher shows his students how to construct commonplaces: first, before a fragment of the speech in question, he gives them the title of a commonplace; next, how it is used and the purpose it serves; then, a complete analysis of the commonplace in the fragment and of its tractatio and collocatio; lastly, examples of the way other authors used this commonplace, and his own imitation of the Ciceronian commonplace.17 The work is obviously designed to show the practical use to which the commonplace can be put. Two years later, in 1596, he published the Animorum conciliandorum et movendorum ratio, another analytical work providing, in extenso, every

16  Cf. Junius (1594c). 17  Cf. Junius (1594b).

268

Carmona

example of páthos and éthos in Demosthenes, Cicero, and Livy.18 The publication of this collection of examples of oratory is an indication of the demand for resources for fine eloquence in Latin. All these elements would be taken up again in an analysis of the speeches carried out by Junius in the 1598 anthology. Epistolae ex Historicis Congestae (1595) Before looking at this anthology, however, we should highlight the importance of a work published in 1595, the Epistolae ex historicis congestae,19 an anthology of letters also extracted from the historians. Once again, the teacher of rhetoric reiterates his decision to make this selection simply because he believes it will be useful to his students: Non honoribus ego hic meis velificari: sed, dum prae manibus Orationes Historicas habeo, simul et ad Epistolas de variis et gravibus rebus artificiose accurateque scriptas, legendas atque imitatione effingendas Eloquentiae excitare Studiosos volui (fols. 4r–4v). It has not been my wish to seek honors here, but, while I am busy with the Orationes that I am extracting from the historians, at the same time I also wanted to encourage the students of Eloquence to read and imitate letters skillfully and carefully written on a variety of important topics. Junius’s note on the Orationes Historicas prae manibus to the effect that he was preparing a major selection—which would come out three years later— immediately catches the reader’s eye. It is no coincidence that both selections include tam veteribus, quam recentioribus in the title.20 Each letter has a title (for example, Demetrius Ptolemaeo Philadelpho, Aegypt. Regi) and a reference to the author and work from which it has been taken (“Ex Iosephi antiquitatum Iudaicarum lib. 12”). With his students in mind, Junius then provides an Argumentum about the letter in question and takes sententiae out of the text before setting out the speech. 18  Cf. Junius (1596). 19  The complete title is Epistolae ex historicis, tam veteribus, quam recentioribus, secundum materias ita congestae ac digestae: ut singularum periochai notentur: argumenta resoluantur: cum sententiis insignioribus usus monstretur. 20  The majority of the authors from whom the letters are taken would also appear in the 1598 selection of speeches: Paolo Emilio, Sleidanus, Quagninus, and so on. A list of the authors from whom these Epistolae are taken is in Appendix II.

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

5

269

Orationum ex historicis, tam veteribus, quam recentioribus

In 1598, Junius published what he had promised: an improved selection of historiographical speeches, entitled Orationum ex historicis, tam veteribus, quam recentioribus, in eloquentiae studiosorum gratiam, secundum tria causarum genera . . . In fact, three volumes were published, one for each rhetorical genre, in which speeches from ancient historians were mixed with modern ones. This monumental work, which marked the pinnacle of his profession as a teacher of rhetoric, could only be addressed—as its title indicates (“in eloquentiae studiosorum gratiam”)—to his students of Eloquence. The preface, dedicated to the illustrious and generous lord Andrea Ungnadio (1575–1623), Baron of Sonneg, is shorter than usual, as if almost everything had already been said in the first anthology. After stressing the oratorical virtues of the baron, a former student of his, he uses Thucydides himself—just once, but emphatically—to justify the usefulness of these historiographical contiones: Nec interim eas esse negligendas orationes arbitraris, quae apud Historicos, tam veteres, quam recentiores sunt: ut, quas rerum ac sententiarum varietate uberes: verbis puras et tersas: concinas atque elegantes tractatione: vetustatis memoria iucundas: utiles decori observatione: imitatione necesarias, hisce maxime temporibus, scis esse: quibus eaedem, quae olim, fabulae peraguntur, non nisi personae mutantur: verum deprehenditur id, quod Thucydides quodam in loco scribit: contexi Historiam: ut thesaurus sit potius ad omnem posteritatem, quam ludicrum quoddam, quo ad praesens solum tempus aures demulceantur (Preface, f. 2v). Meanwhile, do not consider that the speeches that are found in the historians, whether ancient or modern, are to be scorned. You know that they are rich in the variety of events and sententiae, pure and fluent in words, appropriate and elegant in style, agreeable in the remembrance of Antiquity, useful in their observation of decorum, necessary in imitation, especially nowadays, when the same stories are enacted as they were long ago, only with different actors. It brings out what Thucydides writes somewhere: I apply myself to history so that it will be a possession forever, rather than an entertainment that the ears delight in but is then forgotten. The mention of the Thucydidean κτῆμα ἐς ἀεί (“a possession forever”) is clearly a declaration of intent about the usefulness of the speeches to be found in history. After discussing the education received by the baron as a result of his

270

Carmona

father’s concern for him, Junius reminds him that he was a first class orator and had had the good fortune to have received the teachings, in Wittenberg, of Philip Melanchthon, oddly enough, who was one of the first sixteenth century scholars to compile a selection of historiographical speeches of the first two books of Thucydides’ History.21 Junius ends by reminding the baron of the value of the dedication and urges him, much as he had done at the end of the preface to the first selection, to add this work to Estienne’s and others like it.22 At this point, Junius has come full circle and presented his students of rhetoric with a complete work whose characteristics made it extremely useful. Both at the beginning and the end, everything was designed with his students in mind and for their benefit. Organization of the Selection: Authors and Speeches In the 1586 collection, the speeches were arranged according to the three genres of oratory, that is, first, the deliberative, next the demonstrative or epideictic, and finally the judicial. In this anthology, Junius divides the speeches, selected by genre, into three volumes. In addition, in each volume he includes an “Index Orationum”; an index of the authors (and works), in alphabetical order, from which the orations have been excerpted (“Autores, ex quorum scriptis orationes hostoricae primae [secunda / tertia] desumptae sunt”); and, at the end, a complete subject index (“Index Rerum ac Verborum, quae in primo [secondo / tertio] Orationum Historicarum Tomo sive parte continentur, locupletissimus”). A total of 173 speeches are brought together in this anthology, as against sixty-five in the 1586 selection, almost three times as many. The first volume contains 102 deliberative speeches, as against the forty-six that appeared in 21  Melanchthon (1562). 22  “Interim, ut meae in Te observantiae promptaeque voluntatis iuvandi ac promovendi tua studia, publicum aliquod documentum extaret, Orationes hasce, ex Historicis, tam veteribus, quam recentioribus, in Eloquentiae Studiosorum gratiam, a me collectas, ac secundum materias varias digestas et resolutas, Illustri Tuo inscribere nomini volui. Quas serena, uti spero, fronte accipies: cum clarissimi viri D. Henrici Stephani, aliorumque concionibus Historicis coniunges: etiam imitando effingere et ad usum transferre conaberis” (“Meanwhile, as a public demonstration of my consideration for you and of my manifest desire to help and promote your studies, I wanted to dedicate to your illustrious name these Orationes taken from both ancient and modern historians for the use of students of Eloquence. I have personally selected, classified, and analyzed them according to various criteria. Accept them, as I hope, with a serene brow. You will put them together with the historical Conciones by the most renowned Henri Estienne and by others, and you will even endeavor to imitate them and apply them in practice,” Pref., f. 4r).

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

271

1586. The second volume contains thirty-three demonstrative speeches, compared to only three previously, and the third includes thirty-eight judicial speeches, compared to sixteen in 1586. The list of historians whose works have been excerpted includes modern, as well as ancient, authors. In the first anthology, Junius drew only upon the triads formed by Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon, on the one hand, and by Caesar, Sallust, and Livy on the other. In this selection, however, many more authors appear, although there is barely any increase in the speeches of those represented in the first edition. So, whereas Herodotus goes from eleven to seventeen speeches, Thucydides, from eleven to fourteen, and Livy, from twentyfour to thirty-seven, others decline in importance. Xenophon, for example, is reduced from the fifteen orations that were in the first selection to only eight in the new one; Julius Caesar no longer has any; and the same two speeches from Sallust as before are included.23 What is the reason for these alterations? More Greco-Latin historians have been included, as well as medieval and, above all, Renaissance authors. On the one hand, the list of Greek historians has increased considerably with speeches taken from later authors such as Appian of Alexandria, Arrian, Dio Cassius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Hegesippus, Herodian, Flavius Josephus, and Polybius. On the other hand, with respect to the Latin writers, only Tacitus, three of the authors of the Augustan History (Julius Capitolinus, Flavius Vopiscus, and Trebellius Pollio), and an almost token selection from Ammianus Marcellinus have been added to the list.24 On various occasions, Junius replaces speeches in the first selection with others taken from new historians. For example, in the second volume of the 1598 anthology, under the epigraph “IX. ACCUSATIO defectionis,” speech LXII. “Accusatio seditionis et defectionis. Oratio Scipionis ad milites ex Livii Decad. 3. lib. 8” has been replaced by one from Polybius, entitled “Oratio P. Scipionis ad milites: ex XI. lib. Polybii,” which corresponds historically to the same oration.25 In this anthology, Junius includes four deliberative speeches from three medieval sources: Paul the Deacon’s Roman History; Gesta Danorum by Saxo 23  Appendix III shows a table with the speeches of the 1598 selection arranged by authors according to the volume in which they are included and, therefore, according to the type of oration. 24  Quintus Curtius is conspicuous by his absence, perhaps replaced by Arrian. 25  Cf. XLVIII: “Gratulatio de victoria parta. Oratio Cyri ex Xenophontis lib. 4. disciplinae Cyri” in the 1586 anthology, which has now been replaced by two speeches: one drawn from Elio Lampridio, from the Augustan History, and another from Ammianus Marcellinus, under the identical epigraph “Gratulatio de victoria parta.”

272

Carmona

Grammaticus; and the Suda. However, it is the historians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that are Junius’s greatest contribution. Although the presence of these modern authors seems rather sparse compared to the GrecoLatin authors (thirty-five speeches in all versus 133 taken from Greco-Latin historians), it is also true that orations taken from modern authors occasionally displace those present in 1586. For example, in the 1586 anthology, there were three orationes excerpted from Xenophon (XXIX–XXXI) under the epigraph “Adhortatio ad strenue fortiterque pugnandum,” which have now been replaced, in volume 1 of the 1598 selection, by two from Livy, one from Albert Krantz, and another from the Appendix Ungaricarum Historiarum. Nonetheless, this is not the only reason why Junius includes these modern authors. His selection includes speeches from numerous historical works (with four speeches at most excerpted from each)26 concerning the majority of the states and countries of Europe, with the exception of Spain and its empire, whose tradition was clearly Catholic. For the most part, the works give an account of events that took place in Austria, Hungary, and Poland—the same countries, we should not forget, as those from which a large number of the students belonging to the nobility hailed—rather than from Strasbourg or any other of the “German” towns that were reasonably close, as can be seen from the list of the students who produced the rhetorical exercises in 1590.27 With this variety, therefore, Junius sought to give his pupils easier access to

26  At the beginning of the third volume, cf. the following Indices: “Elenchus Orationum Historicarum, Brevis Orationum Historiarum” and “Index Orationum Historicarum,” respectively. Cf. also Appendix III, which shows the number of speeches taken from each historian and work. 27  Cf., for example, from the “Actio Parricidii,” on p. 27, “Generosi D. Ioachimi Andreae Schilich: Comitis a Passaun [Bassano, Veneto] et Weissenkirchen [Austria], etc.: Oratio IV” on p. 29, cf. “Generosi D. Sandivogii: Comitis ab Ostrorog [Poland]: Cosminecii Domini, etc: Oratio V” from the “Actio Parricidii,” as well as p. 34. On p. 38, cf. “Generosi D. Petri De Rewa: Comitis Thuroczensis [Hungary]: Oratio VIII.” From the versions of the De Animadversione et Poenis orationes aliquot ad Cleonis et Diodoti . . ., cf., on p. 318, “Oratio III. Christophori Polaei Francosteinensis Silesii,” and, on p. 331, “Oratio VIII M. Caspari Benedicti Silesii, Pro Clementia et Mansuetudine,” both figures coming from the region of Silesia, situated in present-day Poland. Similarly, see, on p. 323, “Oratio V.M. Gabrielis Hameli Pomerani, Pro Severitate,” from the region of Pomerania, also in Poland. There are even people from the Baltic regions, such as those who appear on pp. 326 and 384, which gives some idea of the fame that the Strasbourg Academy had acquired at the end of the sixteenth century.

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

273

historiographical speeches, many of which had been delivered in their places of origin a relatively short time before.28 Arranging the speeches by topics in the order that is followed in the selection serves an obviously didactic function which was already indicated in the 1586 anthology: to offer the students, who were mainly nobles or from wellto-do families, a complete, overall guide to the kind of speeches, ordered by topic and situation, that they had to master if, at any time, they were called upon to give a speech. With the addition of the orations excerpted from these historians, some modern and others ancient, it was easier for Junius to achieve his objective, particularly in the most important volume of the selection, the first one, which focused on deliberative speeches. Herein is a large and varied selection of models of the deliberative speeches that rulers, councillors, and generals might have to deliver. Unlike the selections made by earlier compilers, such as Henri Estienne, in which the speeches of each historian are presented according to where they appeared in the original work, Junius structures this anthology by interspersing speeches from one historian or another, grading the topics and situations, to some extent, from less to more specific, irrespective of the position they occupied in the original work. So, it was no longer necessary to include every one of an author’s speeches, just those that Junius considered the best, and it was less monotonous for the student to read the selection since he could go directly to what most interested him. A good deal of thought had been given to the way the epigraphs with their respective speeches were arranged. It is no coincidence that the first volume of this anthology (like the 1586 one) should begin with three speeches from Herodotus under the epigraph “Deliberatio de optima Reipublicae forma eligenda,” leaving the final oration by Darius, which was in favor of the 28  The following appear in the first volume: Historia Sueciae by Albert Krantz; De rebus Ungaricis by Antonio Bonfini; the Appendix Ungaricarum Historiarum; De Historiis Gallicis by Arnoldus Ferronus; Historia Veneta by Pietro Bembo; De rebus Scoticis by George Buchanan; Historia Bohemica by Jan Dubravius; Comentarii by Johannes Sleidanus; De rebus Gallicis by Martin de Bellay; De rebus gestis Francorum by Paolo Emilio; Historiarum sui temporis libri by Paolo Giovio; Historia Anglica by Polydore Vergil. The second volume includes speeches from Historiae Polonicae by Alexander Quagninus; the anonymous Historiae Polonicae; Epitomis Rerum Ungaricarum by Pietro Ranzano; Historiae Polonicae by Filippo Buonaccorsi (or Philippus Callimachus). The following works are used again: De rebus Ungaricis by Antonio Bonfini; the Appendix Ungaricarum Historiarum; Historia Veneta by Pietro Bembo. In the third volume, the only new modern source that Junius uses is De Historiis Daniae by Albert Krantz, and the following works used in the first volume are repeated here: De rebus Scoticis by George Buchanan and De rebus Gallicis by Martin du Bellay.

274

Carmona

monarchy, as the most convincing. This one is followed by two other speeches that were not in the first selection: one is a “Deliberatio de principatu aut retinendo aut deponendo, et cum Democratia commutando,” which addresses the same issue with the same outcome (II–III). Once it has become clear that the best form of government ought to be the monarchy, several epigraphs follow with deliberationes on choosing emperors and kings (IV and V), and the taking and renouncing of power (VI and VII). All these speeches were taken from modern authors, such as Sleidanus and Bonfini, or from ancient writers, such as Julius Capitolinus, who did not appear in the 1586 anthology. There was also room to debate whether women should govern (VIII. “Dissuasio muliebris Imperii”) and whether marriages of convenience should be contracted (IX). The speeches taken from Tacitus and Herodian serve to illustrate the Conciliatio Imperii (XI). All these sudden changes in circumstances culminate in four epigraphs on ways to transfer power and to inherit the throne—from Herodian and Polydore Vergil—and ways to abdicate (XIV), from Dio Cassius. In this volume, Junius proposes deliberations on how the new prince or ruler should wield power and rule over the people. He presents three speeches corresponding to the same number of epigraphs under the title of Adhortationes extracted from Paul the Deacon (XV), the Suda (XVI), and Josephus (XVII), and another three referring to laws that must be passed or abolished (XVIII, XIX and XX). Next, come two deliberationes on the punishment that should be meted out to anyone who attempts to overthrow the State, headed by the two contrasting speeches of Cleon and Diodotus taken from Thucydides (XXI) and followed by those of Caesar and Cato with respect to Catiline, excerpted from Sallust (XXII). Junius is in favor of peace and concord, and so provides five adhortationes to achieve them in different scenarios (XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, and XXVII). He concludes this segment of deliberations with a variety of situations that have no connection with each other but which might occur, such as a “Dehortatio ab αὐτοχειρία et caede propria” (XXVIII), a speech from Josephus, and a “Consolatio in obitu mariti” (XXXI) from Ferronus. Once he has set out all possible situations of a strictly “political” nature that a ruler or councillor should be able to handle, Junius then shifts the focus to the other scenario that also requires oratory: war. He starts by putting forward examples of speeches from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Saxo Grammaticus about whether to wage war or not (XXXIII and XXXIV), adhortationes to initiate war rapidly (XXXV), and then, to prosecute the war once it has begun (XXXVI). Next, he provides different situations that could arise, such as whether to continue a siege or not (XXXVII), a possible defection (XXXVIII), signing a possible pact or alliance (XXXIX and XL), going to the aid of allies (XLI), requesting

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

275

assistance against enemies (XLII and XLIII), and discouraging accepting as allies those who are bound only by necessity (XLIV). He goes on to present different situations in which decisions are made to go to war and enter into battle (XLV, XLVI, XLVII, and XLVIII), and whether or not to surrender before fighting (XLIX and L). We straightaway go into action and there is a request to occupy the most distinguished position on the battlefield (LI); more importantly, however, there are exhortations and harangues to fight bravely (LII, LIII, and LIV), in which the harangues taken from Thucydides and Livy are complemented by those from Albert Krantz and the Appendix Ungaricarum Historiarum. Once the battle is over, of course, a variety of situations may arise immediately, such as refusing to loot (LV), requests for the heroic deeds performed in battle to be rewarded (LVI and LVII) or for the enemy to release prisoners (LVIII). At the end, we are left with the adhortationes and petitiones for a treaty of peace and reconciliation between the warring parties (LIX, LX, LXI, LXII, and LXIII), as well as consolation in situations of adversity and desperation in war (LXIV). As we have shown, in this first volume, Junius comprehensively reviews the possible speeches that a ruler, councillor or general—positions to which his students aspired—should deliver in the very many different situations that might arise. In the second volume, devoted to the epideictic genre, Junius organizes the speeches according to their different types. In the first place are the Laudationes (from I to XII), in which Orationes Funebres predominate, culminating in Pericles’s funeral oration (XII). Then, there are two Laudes and Commendationes (XIII and XIV). Following on from these are several Reprehensiones and Vituperationes (XV–XXII), in which speeches on sedition in the army (XIX–XXII) stand out. The volume ends with a large number of Gratulationes and Gratiarum actiones associated with Emperors (XXIII–XXXI), the overwhelming majority of which come from modern historians and the Augustan History. As for the third volume, devoted to judicial speeches, these are organized in the same way as the previous volume. First of all, there are various Accusationes, mainly related to political questions (I, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, and XI) and civil lawsuits (II, III, IV, and XII); secondly, four Querelae against soldiers or nobles because of their wrongdoings (XIII–XVI) and an “Expostulatio de pertinacia subditorum” (XVII); thirdly, an “Excusatio libri et scripti liberioris” (XVIII) serves as a link or transition, because it is immediately followed by a long list of defences against the different types of accusations that were introduced at the beginning. So, to accusations of defamation (XIX) and libel (XX), there is a response defending the need for assassination (XXI–XXII) or Seneca’s own

276

Carmona

defence against Nero’s allegations, with the latter’s rebuttal (XXIII). To conclude, Junius makes use of two modern authors: a “Defensio contra Delationes” (XXIV), taken from Albert Krantz, and a plea for pardon for rebellion with its response (XXV), both orations being selected from Martin du Bellay. The Presentation of the Speeches His endeavor to make his selection as didactic and useful as possible includes organizing the anthology by speech genres or topics, as we have just seen, but also presenting complete analyses of the speeches. In 1586, he provided the orations unadorned, without a single annotation; twelve years later, each speech was accompanied by a complete analysis exemplifying the categories described in his 1594 and 1596 works.29 Each speech is introduced in the following way: As in the first selection, Junius indicates the type of speech, the topic it addresses and the work from which it is taken: “Deliberatio de optima reipublicae forma eligenda. Ex Herodoli Lib. III. Oratio prima Otanis pro democratia, imperio populari ad Persiae electores” (p. 1). Then, before translating the speech straight into Latin (he no longer gives the Greek version), Junius’s major contribution is to insert a resolutio. This is a brief explanation of the background that led to the speech being made (“Sublato e vivis Cambyse, Persarum Rege: interempto et Smerdi mago, qui dolo atque fraude regiam ad dignitatem peruenerat: de Reipub. Forma Persiae consultare proceres ceperunt . . .”, “When Cambyses, king of Persia, had passed away and magus Smerdis, who had become king by deceit and trickery, had been killed, the dignitaries began to debate about the most convenient government system for Persia”) and a meticulous rhetorical analysis of the speech itself, which rarely varies from one to another.30 First of all, Junius points out the arguments used by the orator (“Contra Monarchiam Otanes quinque argumenta adfert . . .,” “Otanes provides five arguments against monarchies . . .”). Secondly, in order to put into practice the lessons that had been learned from the manual Animorum conciliandorum et movendorum ratio of 1596, he highlights where the categories of éthos (“Conciliationi illud inseruit: quod in Ortationis vestibulo dubitanter suam Otanes sententiam exponit, verbum διώκει, videtur, usurpat,” “For the conciliation, he has introduced the following: Otanes uses the verb διώκει, “it seems”, because he gives his opinion hesitatingly”) and páthos (“Motus duo hac in oratione dominantur: Spes et 29  Goyet (2006) 16. 30  For a more detailed and thorough analysis of these Resolutiones, cf. Goyet (2006), who establishes a comparison with Caussin.

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

277

metus. Excitatur spes cum Democratiae commoda recensentur: ut metus cum mala exponuntur: qua in Monarchia reperiuntur,” “Two passions prevail in this speech: hope and fear. Hope is boosted when the advantages of democracy are described; fear when the ills that appear in monarchy are exposed”) appear, as well as the positioning and use of these and of the arguments in the speech (“Collocatio et tractatio horum tribus partibus absoluitur. Propositione . . . Confirmatione, in qua argumentis notatis . . . Conclusione . . .,” “The disposition and use of these are developed in three parts: in the propositio, which expresses the opinion; in the confirmatio, where, by means of the given arguments, monarchy is criticized on the one hand, and democracy is praised on the other; in the conclusio, where the opinion that had been expressed is taken up again and repeated”).31 In the third place, there is a reference to the commonplaces in the speech (“Loci communes hic de Monarchiae incommodiis et Democratiae utilitatibus observandi sunt,” “One must pay attention to the commonplaces related to the disadvantages of monarchy and the advantages of democracy”), commonplaces to which he had paid so much attention in Ex M. Tul. Ciceronis orationibus loci aliquot communes in 1594.32 Finally, as was to be expected in view of the practical intent that led to the creation of this selection, he explains when and in which situation this type of speech is to be used (“Usus erit: cum de Reipub. forma atque gubernatione deliberatio atque consultatio instituitur: pugnandum contra Monarchiam pro Democratia est,” “It will be used when a deliberation and consultation concerning the system of government of a state are put in place and you have to defend democracy against monarchy”). In short, the pupil sees here a practical example of everything that he has learned. 6 Conclusion This overview enables us to appreciate how this monumental 1598 collection of historiographical speeches, inclusive of contemporary authors, marked the culmination of Junius’ efforts to make his students’ learning in the field of eloquence more straightforward. The act of compiling and presenting a meticulously prepared anthology of 173 orations culled from almost forty authors, ordered first by rhetorical genre, then by topic and situation, following a guiding thread, and analyzed rhetorically represented a major innovation with 31  Cf. Junius (1596). 32  Cf. Junius (1594b).

278

Carmona

respect to selections that had preceded it. More importantly, however, it is an example of one teacher of rhetoric’s unstinting effort to provide his students with the most educational selection possible. This anthology applies the finishing touch to what we might refer to as the complete course in rhetoric—a volume the student can use at all times, with the theory on the one hand and the practical application of it on the other. It is a book using a system in which the relationship between theory and practice has been carefully thought out.33 Appendix I: Junius’ Orationes aliquot (1586)

List of Speeches

I.

Deliberatio de optima Reip. forma: Oratio Otanis pro Democratia ex Herodoti lib. 3 (Deliberatio about the best government system: Otanes’ speech in defense of Democracy, from Hdt. III). II. Megabysi pro Aristocratia eiusdem autoris (Megabysus’ speech in defense of Aristocracy, from the same author). III. Darii pro Monarchia, eiusdem (Darius’ speech in defense of monarchy, from the same author). IV. Cyri ad proceres, de ratione retinendi semel parti imperii, ex Xenophontis lib. 7 disciplinae Cyri (Cyrus’ speech to the dignitaries about how to keep the empire intact, from Xen. Cyr. VII). V. Chrysantae superiori proximae respondens, de subditorum obedientia, ex Xenophontis lib. 8 (Chrysantas’ reply to the previous speech, about the obedience of the subjects, from Xen. Cyr. VIII). VI. Deliberatio de bello Graecis inferendo. Oratio Xerxis Persarum regis ex Herodoti lib. 7 (Deliberatio about waging war on the Greek people. Speech by the Persian King, Xerxes, from Hdt. VII). VII. Mardonii suadentis bellum, eiusdem autoris ibid. (Mardonius tries to persuade [Xerxes] to wage war, from the same author, ib.). VIII. Contraria Artabani, dissuadentis bellum (Artabanus’ opposing speech, against waging war). IX. Xerxis respondentis Artabano ib. (Xerxes’ response to Artabanus, ib.). X. Deliberatio de ratione belli gerendi. Oratio Q. Fabii Maximi ex Livii Decad. 3. lib. 8 (Deliberatio about waging war. Q. Fabius Maximus’ speech, from Livy’s 3rd Decade, book 8). 33  This paper is related to the Research Project MICINN FFI2012–31813 and the Research Group “Arenga” (HUM-023).

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches XI.

279

P. Cornelii Scipionis contraria, ibid. (P. Cornelius Scipio’s opposing speech, ibid.). XII. Annibalis, eiusdem generis, ex Livii Decad. 4 lib. (Hannibal’s speech, on the same topic, from Livy’s 4th Decade, book 6). XIII. Deliberatio de Imperatore eligendo. Oratio Fabii Maximi ex Livii Decad. 3. lib. 4 (Deliberatio about the Emperor’s election. Fabius Maximus’ speech, from Livy’s 3rd Decade, book 4). XIV. Deliberatio de animadversatione et poena. Oratio Cleonis pro summo iure ex Thucydidis lib. 3 (Deliberatio about punishment and penalty. Cleonis’ speech pro summo iure, from Thucydides III). XV. Diodoti contraria pro aequitate, eiusdem autoris (Diodotus’ opposing speech about equity, from the same author). XVI. Oratio Caesaris eiusdem generis, ex Salustii coniuratione Catilin. (Caesar’s speech, on the same topic, from Sal. Catil.). XVII. Oratio Catonis contraria: eiusdem autoris (Cato’s opposing speech, from the same author). XVIII. Deliberatio de lege abroganda, aut retinenda. Oratio Catonis pro lege ex Livii Decad. 4. lib. 4 (Deliberatio about the repeal of a law, from Livy’s 4th Decade, book 4). XIX. Oratio Valerii Trib. pl. contra legem eiusdem autoris (Speech by Valerius, tribune of the plebs, against the law, from the same author). XX. Adhortatio ad concordiam. Oratio Cyri ad filios ex Xenophontis lib. 8 (Adhortatio to reach an agreement. Cyrus’ speech to his children, from Xen. Cyr. 8). XXI. Adhortatio ad pacis studium. Oratio Hermocratis Syracusani ad Siciliae civitates, ex Thucydidis lib. 4 (Adhortatio to work for peace. Speech of Hermocrates the Syracusan to the Sicilian cities, from Thucydides’ book IV). XXII. Adhortatio ad reconciliationem. Oratio Q. Caecilii Metelli ad Censores ex Livii Decad. 4. lib. 10 (Adhortatio to reconciliation. Q. Caecilius Metellus’ speech to the censors, from Livy’s 4th Decade, book 10). XXIII. Adhortatio ad societatem ineundam. Oratio Alexandri, Persarum legati ad Athenienses ex Herodoti lib. 8 (Adhortatio to make an alliance. Speech of Alexander, Persian ambassador, to the Athenian people). XXIV. Eiusdem generis oratio Lacedaemoniorum legati ad eosdem ex Herodoti lib. 8 (On the same topic, speech of a Spartan ambassador to the Athenians, from Hdt. 8). XXV. Atheniensium ad Persarum legati Alexandri orationem responsio ibi. (Alexander, Athenian ambassador, replies to the Persian people). XXVI. Atheniensium ad Lacedaemoniorum petitionem responsio (Athenian people’s reply to the Spartan people’s request).

280 XXVII.

Carmona

Adhortatio ad stipendia numeranda militibus oratio Xenophontis ex lib. 7. Cyri expeditionis (Adhortatio to pay the soldiers their wages, Xenophon’s speech, from Xen. Anab. 7). XXVIII. Adhortatio ad deditionem faciendam Oratio Brasidae ex Thucydidis lib. 4 (Adhortatio to surrender, Brasidas’ speech, from Th. 4). XXIX. Adhortatio ad strenue fortiterque pugnandum: Oratio Cyri ad milites, ex Xenophontis lib. I, Disciplinae Cyri (Adhortatio to fight vigorously and bravely, Cyrus’ speech to his soldiers, from Xen. Cyr. I). XXX. Eiusdem generis oratio Scipionis ad milites, ex Livii Decad. 3. lib. 1 (On the same topic, Scipio’s speech to his soldiers, from Livy’s 3rd. Decade, book 1). XXXI. Eisudem generis oratio Annibalis ad milites ibid. (On the same topic, Hannibal’s speech to his soldiers, ibid). XXXII. Dehortatio a castrorum oppugnatione. Oratio Curionis ad milites, ex Caesaris de bello civili lib. 2 (Dehortatio from a camp attack. Curio’s speech to his soldiers, from Caes. Civ. II.). XXXIII. Dehortatio a defectione. Oratio Curionis ad milites, ex Caesaris de bello civili lib. 2 (Dehortatio from desertion. Curio’s speech, from Caes. Civ. 2). XXXIV. Petitio pacis. Oratio Annibalis ad Scipionem ex Livii Decad. 3. lib. 10 (Petitio for peace. Hannibal’s speech to Scipio, from Livy’s 3rd Decade, book 10). XXXV. Responsio ad eandem Scipionis, ibid. (Scipio’s reply, ibid). XXXVI. Eiusdem generis oratio Calliae Atheniensis ad Lacedaemonios, ex Xenophontis rerum graecarum lib. 6 (On the same topic, speech by Kallias the Athenian to the Spartan people, from Xen. Hell. 6). XXXVII. Eiusdem generis Oratio Autoclis ad eosdem ibid. (On the same topic, Autocles’ speech to the Spartans, ibid). XXXVIII. Eiusdem generis Oratio Callistrati ad eosdem. ibid. (With the same topic, Callistratus’ speech to those, ibid). XXXIX. Petitio auxilii. Oratio legatorum Campanorum ad Senatum Romanum, ex Livii Decad. 1. lib. 7 (Petitio for help. Campanian ambassadors’ speech to the Roman Senate, from Liv, 1st Decade, book 7). XL. Responsio Senatus Romani ad eandem orationem ibid. (The Roman Senate’s reply to this speech, ibid). XLI. Eiusdem generis oratio legatorum Campanorum ibid. (On the same topic, Campanian ambassadors’ speech). XLII. Petitio societatis et foederis. Oratio Corcyraeorum ad Athenienses ex Thucydidis lib. 1 (Petitio for alliance and pact. Corcyran people’s speech to the Athenian people, from Th. 1). XLIII. Eiusdem generis superiori proximae respondens. Oratio Corinthiorum ibid. (On the same topic, the Corinthian people’s speech in response to the previous one. Ibid).

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches XLIV.

XLV.

XLVI.

XLVII. XLVIII. XLIX.

L.

LI. LII. LIII.

LIV.

LV. LVI.

LVII. LVIII.

LIX.

281

Petitio praemii. Oratio Eumenis regis ad Senatum Romanum ex Livii Decad. 4. lib. 7 (Petitio for reward. King Eumenes’ speech to the Roman Senate, from Livy’s 4th Decade, book 7). Eiusdem generis et ad superiorem respondens. Oratio Rhodiorum ib. (On the same topic, the Rhodian people’s speech in response to the previous one. Rhodian people’s speech. Ib.). Consolatio in rebus desperatis. Oratio Xenophontis ad milites, ex Xenophontis lib. 3. expeditionis Cyri (Consolatio in desperate situations. Xenophon’s speech to his soldiers, from Xen. Anab. III). Laudatio in praelio interfectorum. Oratio Periclis ex Thucydidis lib. 2 (Laudatio to the fallen in battle. Pericles’ speech, from Th. 2). Gratulatio de victoria parta. Oratio Cyri ex Xenophontis lib. 4. disciplinae Cyri (Gratulatio for a victory. Cyrus’ speech, from Xen. Cyr. 4). Gratiarum actio. Oratio legatorum Saguntinorum ex Livii Decad. 3. lib. 8 (Gratiarum actio. Saguntian ambassadors’ speech, from Livy’s 3rd Decade, book 8). Actio parricidii. Oratio Philippi regis Maced. ad filios ex Livii Decad. 4. lib. 10 (Actio of parricide. Speech of Philip, the Macedonian king, to his children, from Livy’s 4th Decade, book 10). Accusatio parricidii. Oratio Persei. ibid. (Accusatio of parricide. Perseus’ speech, ibid.). Defensio. Demetrii fratris. ibid. (His brother Demetrius’s defensio. Ibid.). Actio repentundarum. Oratio Locrensium ad Senatum Romanum, ex Livii Decad. 3. lib. 9 (Actio repetundarum. Locrian people’s speech to the Roman Senate, from Livy’s 3rd Decade, book 9). Accusatio caedis. Oratio Sicyonii Magistratus ex Xenophontis rerum graecarum lib. 7 (Accusatio of murder. A Sicyonian magistrate’s speech, from Xen. Hell. 7). Defensio caedis. Oratio contraria Sicyonii civis. ibid. (Defensio of murder. A Sicyonian citizen’s opposing speech. Ibid.). Accusatio foederis violati. Oratio Corinthiorum apud Lacedaemonios, ex Thucydidis lib. 1 (Accusatio of breaking a treaty. Corinthian people’s speech to the Spartan people, from Th. 1.). Oratio superiori contraria, et defensio Atheniensium, ibid. (The speech opposing the previous one, and the Athenian people’s defensio, ibid.). Archidami Spartani regis de dissidio inter Corinthios et Athenienses orto. ibid. (Speech of Archidamus, the Spartan King, about the disagreement between the Corinthians and Athenians. Ibid.). Sthenelaidae Ephori Spartani eodem de negotio (Speech of the Spartan ephor, Sthenelaidas, about the same matter).

282

Carmona

LX.

Accusatio proditionis ac perfidiae. Oratio Critiae Atheniensium Tyranni, ex Xenophontis libro 2 de rebus gestis Graecorum (Accusatio of betrayal and perfidy. Speech of Critias, Athenian tyrant, from Xen. Hell. II). Defensio et purgatio Theramenis ibid. (Theramenes’ defensio and expiation, ibid.). Accusatio seditionis et defectionis. Oratio Scipionis ad milites ex Livii Decad. 3. lib. 8 (Accusatio of sedition and desertion. Scipio’s speech to his soldiers, from Livy’s 3rd Decade, book 8). Accusatio iniuriae illatae. Oratio Martii Romanorum legati ex Livii Decad. 5. lib. 2 (Accusatio of slander. Speech of Marcius, Roman legate, from Livy’s 5th Decade, book 2). Responsio Persei Macedoniae regis. ibid. (Reply of Perseus, the Macedonian King).

LXI. LXII.

LXIII.

LXIV.

Appendix II: Junius’ Epistolae (1595)

List of Authors

Ancient

Modern

Thucydides Xenophon Flavius Josephus Arrian Appian Herodian Sallust Quintus Curtius Tacitus Flavius Vopiscus (Historia Augusta) Julius Capitolinus (Historia Augusta) Elius Lampridius (Historia Augusta) Trebellius (Historia Augusta) Vulcatius Gallicanus (Historia Augusta) Amiannus Marcelinus

Antonio Bonfini Marin Barleti Philippus Callimachus Albert Krantz Paolo Emilio Hector Boece Martin du Bellay Johannes Sleidanus Lambert Hortensius George Buchanan Arnoul Le Ferron Melchior Soiter Uberto Foglietta Petrus Bizarus Christianus Cilicius Simon Schardius Alexander Guagnini Iacobus Fontanus

283

Melchior Junius: Anthologies of Historiographical Speeches

Ancient

Modern

Galfred von Monmouth Galleacius Capella Hyeronimus Petrobonus Alexandrinus Historia Rerum Polonicarum

Appendix III: Number of Speeches in Junius’ 1598 Anthology Ancient Historians

Herodotus Thucydides Xenophon Polybius Dionysius of Halicarnas. Flavius Josephus Hegessipus Arrian Appian Herodian Cassius Dio Caesar Sallust Titus Livy Tacitus Flavius Vopiscus

Medieval and Modern Historians

Vol. I 17 11 4 1 1

Vol. II ___ 1 ___ ___ ___

Vol. III ___ 2 4 1 ___

Vol. I Paul the Deacon 2 Suida 1 Saxo Grammaticus 1 Antonio Bonfini 3 Pietro Ranzano ___

Vol. II ___ ___ ___ 1 1

Vol. III ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

2

___

2

1

___

___ 2

___ ___

2 1

Philippus Callimachus Albert Krantz

3 4

1 4

1 2

___ 2 24 3 ___

___ ___ 4 4 2

___ ___ 9 6 ___

___ ___ 2 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 2

1 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 2 ___ 1 ___ ___

___

1 1 Pietro Bembo 1 Polydorus Vergilius 2 Paolo Giovio 2 Jan Dubravius 2 Martin Bellaius 1 Johannes Sleidanus 2 George Buchanan 3 Arnoul Le Ferron 1 Alexander Guagnini ___

284

Carmona

(cont.) Ancient Historians

Julius Capitolinus Elius Lampridius Trebellius Ammianus Marcellinus

Medieval and Modern Historians

1

___

___

Historia Poloniae

___

3

___

___

3

___

Appendix Ung.

___

2

___

___ ___

1 1

___ ___

CHAPTER 14

L’utilità che si caua d’un libro: The Culture of compendia and the Reading of Contemporary Italian Warfare in Nannini’s Orationi militari Carmen Peraita Remigio Nannini’s Orationi militari (Venice, Giolito, 1557, henceforth Orationi) is a quarto volume of more than 750 pages. This first Renaissance collection of military orations shaped an interest and tradition in the compendia of harangues.1 In 1560, three years after the editio princeps, Giolito printed a second, extended version with over a thousand pages. A testimony to the book’s success, Orationi was published a third time in 1585, five years after Nannini’s death, again in Venice, “all’Insegna della Concordia,” reprinting basically the text of the second edition. The French author François de Belleforest (1530– 1583) published in 1573 in Paris a collection of speeches, Harengues militaires et concions des princes, capitaines, ambassadeurs (reprinted in 1588 and 1595), based on Naninni’s compilation, although notably refashioned and expanded.2 This study aims to delineate a panorama for a concise understanding of the making and implications of the compendium. It contextualizes Orationi within diverse, interrelated fields: the reading of history and the Renaissance culture of compilation and centos; a renewed interest in oratory and public speaking; the Italian nobility’s links with the profession of arms in a volatile geopolitical situation; a notable literary and visual arts production centered on warfare and 1  Cherchi (1998) 200 affirms, “se non è nuova la concezione della storia come ‘opus rhetoricum’, del tutto nuova è l’idea di mettere insieme un corpus di orazioni . . . le antologie di Doni o di Sansovino raccoglievano orazioni con una vita autonoma, anche come tali, declamate davanti a un auditorio e poi pubblicate come opere od opuscoli indipendenti, mente le orazioni entrate nel corpus di Nannini provenivano da altri libri e forse erano del tutto fittizie, almeno per quel che riguarda la lingua” (“If the concept of history as ‘opus rhetoricum’ is not new, the idea of putting together a corpus of speeches is utterly new . . . Doni’s or Sansovino’s anthologies brought together speeches that existed independently, which had been delivered orally as such before an audience and subsequently published as books or independent pamphlets, whereas the speeches in Nannini’s corpus were extracted from other books and were probably entirely invented, at least as regards the language”). 2  For Belleforest’s borrowings from Nannini see Hester (2003) and Pineda and Tubau in this volume.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_016

286

Peraita

military exploits; and finally, the business strategies and editorial innovations of the influential Venetian printer and book merchant, Gabriele Giolito de’ Ferrari (ca. 1508–1578).3 In this last aspect, my work considers textual elements and editorial features, which justified the printing of the expanded edition in 1560.

…

Nannini’s compendium was a successful piece in a book market that was generating a vernacular readership interested in the connections between ancient Greek and Latin military oratory with the culture of warfare that characterized the Italian Peninsula in the sixteenth century. The collection illustrates an interest in the artes arengandi, a reanimated consideration of military discourses as models of practical oratory, which capitalized on a Renaissance concern with public speaking: “The system of classic rhetoric inherited by the Renaissance had theorized public speaking, rather than private writing, and was an expression of the political and legal cultures of ancient Greece and Rome.”4 The cultural interest and bookmarket demand for military and diplomatic discourses that Orationi seems to have shaped can be contextualized at an intersection of historiography and oratory, an intersection that Eric Cochrane has brillantly characterized: “If history was really the foundation of oratory, then there was no reason why readers should wade through the works of historians now that the best orations had been extracted, translated, and summarized ‘for the better understanding of what they contain’ by Remigio Fiorentino.”5 1

“Senza conoscerla alla presenza”: Patronage and Contemporary Condottieri in Orationi

Numerous condottieri were actively involved in the military and political role Spain was playing in the Italian Peninsula. Events such as the Habsburg-Valois Wars (1551–1559), still being fought when Orationi’s first edition was published, and figures such as Giovanni Battista Castaldo, Count of Piadena and Marquis

3  Established in Venice in 1538, Giolito published around 850 books before he died. His business was dissolved in 1606. His printing shop was the most prestigious at the time for printing in volgare; see Coppens and Nuovo (2005). 4  Adamson, Alexander, and Ettenhuber (2007) 1. 5  Cochrane (1981) 486.

L ’ utilità che si caua d ’ un libro

287

of Cassano (ca. 1493–1562), shaped significant topical dimensions of Nannini’s collection. Orationi opens with a laudatory dedication, addressed to Castaldo, and a short prologue to the readers (“Ai Lettori”). The dedication fashions Castaldo as the book’s ideal reader: a nobleman involved at the highest level in those offici di guerra as a worthy condottiero, who was supposed to undertake the roles of wise political councillor, persuasive ambassador and astute commander-in-chief. Gran maestro di guerra, military confident to the Emperor Charles V, Castaldo fought in the Low Countries, the Battle of Pavia (1525), as well as at the siege of Vienna (1529), and was captain of the Imperial army against the Turks in Transylvania. But Castaldo is more than an eminent dedicatee of the work and the compiler’s and printer’s powerful patron.6 The ambassador and captain—one of the various condottieri Tiziano portrayed in full armor—is an exemplary orator in Orationi. The dedication links his exploits, still fresh in the memory of the contemporary reader, to the topic of the compendium: “ha fatto marauigliosamente tutti quegli offici di guerra, che s’appartengono a quegli huomini, che fauellano nel presente libro . . . Ambasciadori, Consiglieri, e Capitani generali e priuati” (fol. *iii v, “He has brilliantly accomplished all those wartime duties, which belong to those men who speak in this book . . . Ambassadors, Councilors, General and Private Captains”). The collection, framed by Castaldo’s intrepid words and deeds, concludes with a selection of his haranges excerpted from Ascanio Centorio’s Commentarii della guerra di Transilvania dalla rotta del re Lodovico XII fino all’anno MDLIII libri VI,7 dealing with the successful battlefield of the dedicatee, who, as mentioned, was commander-in-chief of the Imperial army. No other figure in Orationi delivers more speeches than the heroic Castaldo. Likely, Giolito intervened in the decision to dedicate Orationi to Castaldo, whom Nannini had never met before writing his panegyrical dedication. The collection, which could have played a specific role in the printer’s strategy for patronage, reveals the editore-mercante’s connections by intertwining patronage and business decisions. Giolito had links with the Count, as a contemporary letter (August 6, 1557) attests, asking him for a relative’s safe-conduct 6  The dedicatee is not mentioned in the title page, something usual in Giolito’s books. Centorio mentions Castaldo among the signori and cardinals who supported financially La Fenice’s publications (Coppens and Nuovo [2005] 139 n. 61). 7  Giolito printed Centorio’s Commentarii in 1665 (reprinted in 1669, and 1689); see Coppens and Nuovo (2005) for Centorio’s prolific collaboration with Giolito. Likely, Nannini had access, while composing Orationi, to Castaldo’s harangues that Centorio had already drafted.

288

Peraita

across the Imperial territory.8 In 1557, one year after Giolito became the sole proprietor of the business, and the same year Orationi was published, one of the most beautiful books La Fenice published was dedicated again to Castaldo: Il primo discorso di Ascanio Centorio, sopra l’ufficio d’un capitano generale di essercito. It was rumored that Castaldo himself, not his secretary Centorio, wrote Il primo discorso, a brief pamphlet pondering a captain’s military duties and addressed to Francesco Ferdinando d’Avalos (ca. 1530–1571), Marquis of Pescara, whose father Nannini praises in his dedication to Castaldo. Centorio indicated that the battle of Saint Quentin, fought earlier that same year of 1557, led him to write the discorso. A year after, Giolito published Il secondo discorso di guerra del signor Ascanio Centorio, sopra l’ordine che deue tenere un Capitan generale per espugnar una provincia, which again refers to Saint Quentin, where Emmanuel Philibert (1528–1580), Duke of Savoy, was in command of Philip II’s international forces.9 Il secondo discorso further reveals the scope of the printer’s patronage of prominent condottieri. Resorting again to a pluridedicatory, Il secondo discorso is addressed to the mentioned Duke of Savoy, but is dedicated to Ottavio Farnese (1524–1586), Duke of Parma and Piacenza, a figure who delivers an oration in Orationi. Prominent contemporary Italian condottieri were therefore linked to Giolito’s publishing strategy, in an astutely designed patronage network from which Orationi cannot be excluded.10

…

Orationi can be positioned within a celebrative culture of warfare, which generated a considerable visual and literary production: new forms of epic poetry, treatises on the art of war,11 celebrative medals, military architecture, parade weapons and armors, as well as sculptures and paintings, with extraordinary works such as the shield displaying the Prince-Elector Johann Friedrich of Saxony (1503–1554) surrendering to Charles V,12 and Titian’s The Allocution of the Marquis del Vasto to his Soldiers (ca. 1540–1541), portraying Alfonso d’Avalos (1502–1546) with full armor in Milan in 1537 dissuading his troops from mutiny 8  Coppens and Nuovo (2005) 311–312. 9  Giolito published in 1559 and 1562 Quarto discorsi and Quinto et ultimo. 10  See, among others, Giolito’s letter in March 1558 to Guglielmo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua (1550–1574), mentioning to have sent him Orationi (Coppens and Nuovo [2005] 312). 11  See Cuneo (2002) and Martínez (2011) for the “rhetoric of gunpower.” 12  The shield (Milan, 1560–1570), after an engraving by Maerten van Heemskerck (1498– 1574), depicts the surrender of the Prince-Elector to Emperor Charles V after the Battle of Mühlberg in 1547.

L ’ utilità che si caua d ’ un libro

289

over lack of pay.13 Orationi includes speeches delivered by both Frederick of Saxony (Faletti, p. 959) and d’Avalos (Giovio II, p. 942).14 Titian’s Allocution illustrates a distinctive visual dimension of the adlocutio, a classic Roman discourse by a captain to his troops before a battle—a genre of oration excerpted by Nannini—that inspired numerous textual and visual representations, such as the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius or the reliefs of Trajan’s column. Importantly, Orationi was contextualized in Italian politics—in military and political events—in which its reader was immersed. The collection presents discourses excerpted from contemporary Italian historians and delivered by commanding, aristocratic Italian politicians still alive when Orationi was published. Combining historical classical captains with conspicuous condottieri, Nannini provides a repository of classic and modern historical military discourses, oratorical exempla for readers more concerned with war than with other affairs. Nannini indirectly echoes circumstances of the Italian culture of warfare, such as the Venetian elites’ struggle to protect their interest in the shadow of Spanish power.15 As J.R. Hale has observed, “Venetian neutrality had perforce to be armed” since Venice was encircled by “active enemies, the Turks in the east, the Austrian archdukes in the north, and two potential new ones, Spanish Milan in the west and the papacy in the south.”16 Several harangues were added in 1560 and centered on Venice. Orationi’s title page emphasizes the work’s aspiration to be exhaustive. The speeches are “da tvtti gli historici greci e latini, antichi e moderni.” Moderni here underscores Nannini’s choice of contemporary Italian historians: Paolo Giovio, Pietro Bembo, Girolamo Faletti, and the mentioned Ascanio Centorio. The 1557 collection included a total of eleven Italian historians, writing in Latin or the vernacular, covering the history of Florence, Genoa, Milan, Venice, and occasionally Naples: Leonardo Bruni (1370–1444); Poggio Bracciolini (1380– 1459); Marco Antonio Sabellico (1436–1506); Paolo Emilio (ca. 1460–1529); Benedetto Accolti (1415–1464); Bernardino Corio (1459–1519?); Machiavelli 13  D’Avalos fought at the Battle of Pavia, later commanded the Imperial Army in Italy during the Italian War of 1542, and was defeated by the French at the Battle of Ceresole. Titian received a pension from him and painted another d’Avalos’ portrait in full armor; see Panofsky (1969). 14   Orationi quotations are from the editio princeps. 15  Martin (2007) 228–229. For an account on how, in the case of Venice, the growth of Spanish power had a relevant impact on ideology, see Martin (2007), Donati (2007) and Dandelet (2002). 16  Quoted in Martin (2007) 233.

290

Peraita

(1469–1527); Agostino Giustiniano (1470–1536); Giovio (1483–1552); Faletti (ca. 1518–ca.1598); and Centorio (1493–ca.1565). Galeazzo Capella and Bembo were added in 1560. Orationi thus linked the works of Italian historians to the canonical repertoire of Greek and Latin historians, the historici moderni providing volgare eloquence and historical exempla that could rival the Classics.17 A (celebratory) key component of Orationi is the Italian modern historians, which distinctly fits into Giolito’s marketing strategies of volgarizzamento. Orationi’s involvement with contemporary political circumstances was an innovative dimension of the collection, a feature Belleforest adapted to the French situation in his recueil of harangues. Along with classical historical figures such as Pericles, Themistocles, or Caesar, Orationi presents late fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Italian captains delivering speeches, such as the mentioned condottieri Castaldo and Ottavio Farnese (by Faletti, p. 962); Alfonso d’Avalos, painted by Titian (by Giovio II, p. 942); Federico II Gonzaga, Marquis of Mantua (by Giovio I, p. 917); Prospero Colonna (1452–1523) (by Giovio I, p. 921): Massimiliano Sforza, Duke of Milan (1493–1530) (by Giovio I, p. 930); Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse (1504–1567) (by Faletti, pp. 960, 966); Frederick of Saxony (by Faletti, p. 959), as well as, among other Venetians, cardinal and Papal legate Marino Grimani (ca.1489–1546) (by Giovio II, p. 949), Vittorio Cappello (p. 995) and Florio Scodrese (p. 998). Popes, kings, sultans, and the emperor Charles V (by Faletti, p. 957), who had died the year before Orationi was published, are other conspicuous figures in the collection. Surprisingly, Orationi does not include an index of the orators’s names, making it difficult to locate the historical agents in the work.

…

Nannini articulates the usefulness of the work, “l’utilità che si caua d’un libro,” and delineates its ideal readers: three types of people, councillors, ambassadors, and captains “ragionano” in Orationi. The tripartite conceptual division of the collection is based on the protagonists’ activities. The work’s practicality resides in counseling princes and republics, through deliberations dealing with historical circumstances, on the good and evil originating from war: “persuadere a pigliarle e non le pigliar secondo l’opportunità delle cagioni, sopra delle quali si debbe fare alcuna deliberatione” (fol. *iv, “to persuade to 17  Cherchi (1998) 191 affirms: “per lui [Nannini] anticho e moderno non sono categorie storiche, ma termini applicabili soltanto quando si tratti di ‘traslatare’ da una lingua all’altra” (“For him [Nannini], ancient and modern are not historical categories, but terms applicable only when translating from one language into another”).

L ’ utilità che si caua d ’ un libro

291

engage [in war] or not, according to the opportuneness of the causes, about which there must be some deliberation”). The volume will not be disutile to those sent as ambassadors to negotiate “peace, confederations, or truces,” who would be able to understand “ageuolmente con quale efficacia di ragioni possino trattare si fatti negotii” (fol. *iv, “with ease how effectively reasons can be used in negotiations”).18 Orationi is pleasing to “general or private captains” when exhorting their soldiers to combat, when comforting them (“confortargli”) after a defeat, or thanking them (“ringratiargli”) after a victory. The compiler considered a variety of circumstances: captains exhorting to or dissuading from a fight; ambassadors persuading a senate to decide on a course of action; consigli on gaining an alliance or negotiating a truce; parole on not surrendering; riprensioni not to fear the enemy; ragionamenti on the advantages of a confederacy; parlamenti defending freedom; etc. When those actions are accomplished in a timely manner and “con garbo” (“politety”)—Nannini explained, underlining his aim of producing a collection with a practical use— they are useful (“utile”). 2

Main Paratextual Features and Their Function

In contrast to the obsequious language of the dedicatory, Nannini’s prologue is terse and laconic, and even more succinct in the 1560 edition. Direct communication with his general reader, reduced to a minimum, didn’t seem a priority. The rhetorical genre of military speeches was well defined. The prologue does not dwell on the method, sources, or criteria for selecting the authors or extracting specific speeches. To a certain extent, this lack of explanations situates Orationi within the tradition of Renaissance compilations, in which the compiler conveys information without expressing his opinions.19 Criteria for excerpting speeches and selecting authors are, however, partially conveyed by various paratextual devices; in circumscribed, almost passing remarks, Nannini occasionally expressed some rhetorical opinions.20 A series of paratexts, demarcating and labelling the material presented, reveals the hand of Nannini and his printer in organizing ways of reading his collection, in formulating pathways for accessing different sections, and for approaching the speeches: epigraphs to the harangues, argomenti and effetti, 18  For authority and early modern diplomatic language see Powell and Rossiter (2013). 19  Blair (2010) 2. 20  See Iglesias-Zoido in this volume for an overview of Orationi’s classic corpus and Nannini’s comments on Herodotus, Hegesippus, and Plutarch.

292

Peraita

and the sentenze. The Orationi’s paratextual structure, composed of interrelated paratexts, creates for the reader ways to navigate the work and to engage with diverse functions, practical interests, and concerns proposed by the collection. The argomenti and effetti recontextualize the de-contextualized harangues within an historical scenario. The sentenze demarcate topics and emphasize the general validity of a harangue, or a passage in a harangue, creating a network of commonplaces and maxims, of extractable and quotable knowledge. Each speech is preceded by an epigraph identifying who delivered it, the location in which it took place, the circumstances and objectives or “narrative settings,” as well as by an argomento, an elaborated summary of the historical context in which, supposedly, it was delivered (“gli argomenti chi dichiarono l’occasioni, per le quali furono fatte doue sommariamente si toccano l’Historie,” “Ai Lettori”: “the subjects dictated by the circumstances for which they were written, where the Histories are referred to in summary form,” “To the readers”). The 1560 edition adds an effetto following each speech, pondering its effect on the audience and the historical implications for the course of action taken, suggesting considerations that were oftentimes moral. For instance, the effetto of Castaldo’s harangue “to his soldiers on crossing the river Tisza to fight in Transylvania against the Turks” explains that the soldiers were eager to cross the Tisza. Seeing the soldiers’ fervor and fearing an ambush, Castaldo sent soldiers to scout the terrain, and then crossed the river first. Marching in Transylvania but remembering what their captain had said to them, the soldiers did not loot, but were “restrained, faithful, loyal, and obedient to their captain.” The effetto concludes: “si uide in questo, quanto possa l’autorità d’un huomo riputato sauio” (p. 968, “in this, one could see how powerful is the authority of a man who is considered wise”). The prologue emphasizes that the effetto—providing “spirito” and “forza”—improves the new edition: “ho giudicato di darle un poco piu di spirito, e di forza ch’ella non haueua prima, e questo è stato, mettere in fin, l’effeto che fece l’oratione ne gli animi di chi l’udi” (“Ai Lettori”). The argomenti and, to a lesser extent, the effetti are paratexts widely found in a variety of Renaissance genres: florilegia, collections, epic poems, and especially, historical writings. Probably some of Nannini’s sources, the books he used to excerpt the orations, included argomenti. Tables and indexes are important searching tools in any type of compendium. Nannini’s prologue dwells on the usefulness of the first and second table, although curiously, the title page does not publicize any instrument— tables or indexes—to navigate the volume, and they were important selling points at the time.21 Orationi addressed a reader familiar with the methods of 21  For conceptual differences between index and table see Tavoni (2009) 23–24.

L ’ utilità che si caua d ’ un libro

293

reading compendia, with books that categorized diverse layers of information. Efficiency in navigating the work, in consulting, finding and extracting information, was essential to this genre of book. As usual with collections, Orationi’s tables facilitated a fragmentary reading of the work. Readers expected to deftly locate topics and retrieve efficiently those specific orations or passages of their particular interest. 1557 Orationi includes three tables. The second edition incorporated an additional table, and an index of topics, the first the reader encounters, probably drafted in the last stages of the printing process.22 The “Tavola delle materie, che si contengono nella presente opera” classifies the speeches into seventeen categories; most of them deal with waging war: “Per esortar soldati a combattere” and “Per persuadere una guerra.” Speeches related to peace—“Per trattar di pace,” “Per dissuadere una guerra”—are less numerous. Indexing the topics made it easier to retrieve information and clearly improved the 1560 edition. The heading of the table “Fatte a diversi propositi e materie come pvo vedere il cortese lettore,” which indexes the orations by epigraphs, shows the diversity of issues, topics and circumstances, decisive criteria in Nannini’s task. The table is divided into three sections, according to the role of the agents (councilor, ambassador, captain) who pronounced the speech.23 Each of the three sections registers the orations in the order readers encounter them. The entries consist of a short epigraph explaining who delivered the oration, who the audience was, and what the circumstances were in which it was delivered. It does not mention, however, who wrote the oration. The last table, “Tavola de gli historici contenvti nella presente opera,” is a list of 29 historians in 1557. The 1560 edition reelaborates this Tavola to include the reference to the work from which the speeches are excerpted. This table follows the order of the pages—starting with Thucydides and ending with Centorio—charting the topography of the sequence of historians in the volume. Moreover, the table displays for prospective readers (and buyers) the names of all the historians excerpted in one place, publicizing the impressive corpus of classical and Italian humanist historians. A minor but revealing detail in the table shows its potential role as advertising tool: two new sections added in 1560 (without the author’s name)—“Dell’origine de’ Barbari” and “Dell’Historie de’ Turchi”—are actually the last two sections of the volume. The Tavola indicates the correct pages for both sections (985 and 995), but 22  The table, a single page, is printed in the verso of the last page of the preliminary quire, which problaly was remaining blank. 23  The subheadings of councilors and ambassadors in the 1560 table are slightly more elaborated: “orationi appartenenti a ambasciadori, per trattar di leghe, di chieder soccorsi, e fermar paci;”; “ . . . a conseglieri, per deliberar di pligliare ò non pigliare una guerra.”

294

Peraita

displays Dell’origine and Dell’Historie not at the bottom, closing the section, as it would correspond, but in the 5th and 6th lines from last. After Dell’origine and Dell’Historie, four entries indexed three historici moderni: Giovio’s two sections (p. 908 and p. 933); Faletti’s (p. 957) and, as expected, Centorio’s (p. 966). Giovio, Faletti, and Centorio are thus displayed in the four concluding segments, one of the Tavola’s most conspicuously visible areas. The misplacing of Dell’origine and Dell’Historie could have been an error of the compositor when preparing the table for printing. More likely, it could have been a printer’s deliberate stratagem to enhance at first glance the presence of contemporary Italian historians in Orationi. Other explanations for the error are, undoubtedly, plausible. The second table alphabetically indexes the sententiae “sparse per le margini del libro.” “Ai lettori” underlines the table’s function as a memory aid. The reader will be better able to memorize them: “accio che hauendole raccolte tutte insieme, possa meglio il lettore metterle in memoria.” The sentenze, drafted by Nannini, function also as a running index and help to locate topics and subtopics in the orations. Indeed, they introduce rubrics, but also emphasize a definition, praise a behavior, underscore certain attitudes, bring attention to a moral virtue, ponder values, explicate or clarify meaning, spell out implications, provide moral or pragmatic advice, and—as the compiler claims—encourage the reader to remember a speech’s message.24 Cochrane has emphasized the moral component of history: “Lorenzo Valla had already proven history to be more effective than poetry in stimulating moral behavior.”25 A major tool to encourage excerpting loci and moral dicta, the sentenze direct the Renaissance reader to glean the edification that supposedly could be extracted from historical writings.26 The sentenze—“tools of textual interpretation and reader management”27—map and emphasize in various ways what were considered points of interest in the harangues, implying that one of the possible senses of specific passages was preferred. They provide indications of how Nannini envisaged the way in which his audience would comprehend the variety of issues and topics, the nuances of behavior and strategy. A variety of 24  Slights (2001) 685–686. In this section I follow Slights’ study (2001) on printed marginalia. 25  Cochrane (1981) 485. 26  See in Orationi, for instance, Thucyidides’s parlamento from the ambassadors of Corinth to the Lacedemonian senate in order to exhort to war against the Athenians—the third oration in the volume—that includes five sentenze in the margin; “what is a tyrant” (p. 8); “What is lament and accusa” (p. 8); “wit (“ingegno”), and praise of the Athenians” (p. 9); “The ociosa quiete is more detrimental (damnosa) than the operosa fatica” (p. 9); “In a peaceful pacific city it is more useful not to change the old habits” (p. 9). 27  Slights (2001) 683.

L ’ utilità che si caua d ’ un libro

295

Renaissance books, from humanist treatises to botanical manuals, and especially historical works, included sentenze, commonplaces or loci printed in the margins. 3

Changes and Continuity Between the 1557 and 1560 Orationi

Both Orationi editions have similar layouts with similar esthetic effects, were printed with the same fonts, frequently using the same iniziali parlanti and typographic ornaments.28 The use of blank spaces and contrasting fonts— roman and italics—corresponds. The page contains 42 lines in both editions, but the 1560 edition was printed in a larger font, thus enhancing its legibility. The 1560 edition has some textual changes or corrections. Most of the orationi, argomenti and sentenze remain unchanged. Several features, however, provided editorial justification for a second edition; as mentioned, the inclusion of an effeto following each discourse and the table indexing the speeches’s topics. Also noteworthy is the inclusion of five new sections: two without the author’s name (“Dell’origine de’ Barbari”29 and “Dell’Historie de’ Turchi”) and three from authors (Plutarch,30 Capella,31 and Bembo32). Occasionally, the 1560 Orationi added speeches from Italian historians excerpted in the 1557 edition. These include an additional speech by Castaldo excerpted from Centorio’s Commentarii,33 possibly a harangue not available to Nannini when 28  For the iniziali parlanti see Petrucci Nardelli (1991). 29  Hester (2003) 257 has identified Dell origine de’ Barbari, as De l’origine de’ Barbari, che distrussero per tutto ‘l mondo l’imperio di Roma, onde hebbe principio la città di Venetia, published in Venice by Plinio Pietrasanta in 1557, the same year of the Orationi editio princeps. 30  Plutarch’s five orations are from the Lives of Luculus, Pyrrhus, Cleomene, and Otho. 31  Capella’s three speeches are from “Gli otto libri delle cose fatte per la restitutione di Francesco Sforza, Secondo Duca di Milano” (p. 889), and include two ragionamenti by Monsieur de Lautrech and one by Milanese ambassadors to Charles V (p. 892). 32  Bembo’s orations, “tratte da’ dodici libri delle sve historie di Venetia” (pp. 895–897), include five speeches, each with notably elaborated argomenti: from Luca Pisani advising not to fight against Trento; Misser Girolamo Marcello’s response, “ribattendo le ragioni del Pisani;”; Marco Bolani’s advice of accepting Pisa as allied; a speech by Domenico Moresini to the senate of Venice dissuading from war against Maximiliam (p. 902); and Luigi Molino’s speech to the senate of Venice considering the opposite point of view, exhorting to reconquest Padoua (p. 903). 33  “Parole del Castaldo a tvtti i soldati delle Provincie di Transiluania, che non uoleuano per odii loro occulti, uenire insieme alla mostra generale, che si douea fare di tutte le Nationi a Deua” (pp. 971–972). Seven orations are delivered by Castaldo and one by the Queen of Transylvania.

296

Peraita

first composing Orationi, as well as a few discourses written by Giovio.34 With minor exceptions, the argomenti and sentenze remained practically unchanged. 4

La Fenice: Compendia, Collaborators and Volgarizzamento

Orationi belongs to a novel genre of collections fashioned by polymaths, together with influential book merchants such as Giolito, “ritrovatori di nuovi soggetti e temi di interesse pubblico, centonatori e adattatori di materiali.”35 It was one more inventive product in Giolito’s strategy of making available, through various collections, Italian translations of Classic and humanist historians. In sixteenth-century Venice, at a crucial time for the consolidation of the Italian language, Giolito published a relevant product that successfully fashioned a market of texts in volgare for a non-professional reader. Although his instrumental role in shaping and disseminating a canon of national literature has received extensive scholarly attention, the contribution of the non-literary corpus, his numerous anthologies and compendia, which were significant volgarizzamento pieces, have not been fully examined.36 Orationi’s title page indicates that Nannini, one of Giolito’s many authors and editorial collaborators, corrected the text: “dal medessimo con diligenza corrette.”37 The compiler’s involvement in the printing process was indeed the usual editorial practice in Giolito’s idiosyncratic business. Collaborators were, as Quondam observed, “essenziali all’economia produttiva dell’impresa giolitina.”38 One fourth of La Fenice’s production was in the hands of collaborators, who with a novel margin of intervention (different from that of other printers, such as Manuzio), showed different degrees of creativity and 34  I cannot examine here this central aspect of the added orations by authors already excerpted in 1557. 35  “Finders of new subjects and issues of public interest, makers of centos, and adapters of materials”, Coppens and Nuovo (2005) 107. 36  It is difficult to fully understand the culture of the second part of the sixteenth century without taking into account “il ruolo capitale svolto dai volgarizzamenti . . . nel tener vivo il passato, e nell’ isolare, fino a sostituirlo, il mondo della filologia umanistica” (Cherchi [1998] 188, “the crucial role played by ‘vernacularization’ . . . in keeping the past alive, and in isolating, almost to the point of replacing it, the world of humanistic philology”). 37  For an overview of editing processes of Italian texts in the sixteenth century printers, and for Nannini as grammatician, see Richardson (2002) 125; see Caputo (2007) for Giolito’s collaborators who composed vitae, Dolce, Porcacchi, and Varchi, in addition to Nannini. See also Quondam (1977). 38  “Essential for the productive economy of GIolito’s enterprise”, Quondam (1983) 646; also quoted in Coppens and Nuovo (2005) 91.

L ’ utilità che si caua d ’ un libro

297

originality. Those curatori / correttori had the most intense activity between 1540 and 1560, in the period in which the morphological, even the ortographic, aspects of writing in volgare were being established. The collaborators supervised book production.39 They incorporated philological changes when preparing texts, wrote innumerable prologues, dedications, and vitae, as well as summarized writings, designed compendia, and mainly translated, adapted, and even plagiarized texts.40 Importantly, as mentioned, they succeeded in creating new topics of public interest, as Nannini’s two collections of speeches (Orationi militari and Orationi in materia ciuile 1561) reveal. The business of translating was a central aspect in the printer’s publishing enterprise. At some time, Giolito had over fifty translators collaborating with La Fenice. The 1557 Orationi’s title-page affirms that Nannini translated the texts (“dal medessimo . . . tradotte”), although he was not the translator of most of the speeches. The indication, which disappeared from the 1560 edition, could have been a compositor’s error made in the print workshop. Cherchi showed that Nannini excerpted the speeches from translated editions, not from original Greek or Latin texts.41 Orationi made available in topical fragments an extensive corpus of translated classical as well as Italian humanist historical works and, in some cases, recently published translations of discovered Greek texts. For instance, in 1545 and 1546 Giolito published Polibio, historico Greco, tradotto per M. Lodovico Domenichi, con due fragmenti ne i quali si ragiona delle Repubbliche, & della grandezza di Romani, the first five books and two fragments from book 6.42 In 1553, the printer published a second Polybius volume, translating the fragments of the eleven books recently retrieved. Orationi excerpted orations from both of Polybius’ works. Indeed, a group of texts were excerpted from works recently published by La Fenice. Orationi fits into Giolito’s strategy of reprinting, reutilizing, and recycling works, or fragments of works, translated by his collaborators; some of the works were later included in the collana istorica. Some puzzling questions regarding Giolito’s strategy of reemploying texts, of attributing authorship among collaborators, remain. In the 1557 Orationi, “Ai lettori” concludes speculating on a printing of a second collection, deriving 39  See Coppens and Nuovo (2005) and Di Filippo Bareggi (1988). 40  Coppens and Nuovo (2005) 92. 41  Cherchi (1998) 192–203. Nannini was a prolific Latin translator; among others, he translated Petrarca, Ovid, and Olao Magno, as well as and Ammianus Marcellinus’ Delle guerre de romani, printed by Giolito in 1550, excerpted in Orationi, and reprinted in 1560, and the Anello X of Collana latina (Bongi [1890–1895] I 277–278). 42  Bongi (1890–1895) I 91, 117 and 387.

298

Peraita

from the task of excerpting harangues. Nannini intended to print a new raccolto, provided he perceived interest; if not, he would leave it unpublished: “i quali darò in luce s’io uedrò che sieno per piacere, quanto que nò, gli lacierò stare in quel luogo doue si stanno al presente.” The future work was a collection of stratagemi up to his own time, “un raccolto di Stratagemi bellissimi & accortissimi, fatti infino a’ tempi nostri,” whose order and style, Nannini remarked, differs from Polienus’. Seven years before, in 1552, Giolito had published Polienus’ Stratagemi.43 In his prologue to the 1560 Orationi, after mentioning again the Stratagemi “promessiui l’altra uolta,” Nannini claimed to have written three more works he intended to print: Orationi in materia ciuile e criminale de’ medessimi Historici, the collection Giolito printed a year after; “due volumi di lettere, nelle quali, a guisa di Discorsi, si tratteranno diuerse materie,” a collection published posthumously; and “gli Errori de’ Capitani fatti in maneggi, e cariche di guerre,” which could be a perplexing case of attributing authorship to Giolito’s workshop. Both works, Stratagemi and Errori, remained unpublished; no manuscript seems to be extant. However, in 1568 Giolito printed Bernardin Rocca’s Imprese, ­stratagemi et errori militari, a collection excerpted from Greek and Latin historians.44 Could Imprese have included sections of Nannini’s Errori and Stratagemi? What happened to those two works Nannini affirmed he had produced? Hester has identified the editions of the Greek and Latin texts used by Nannini, which shows that La Fenice had published several of the works excerpted. Something similar occurred with the Italian historians—which Hester did not examine—such as Giovio, whose Storie dei suoi tempi received special attention in Orationi, or Machiavelli, whose complete works Giolito published before they were banned by the Inquisition in 1558. In fact, except for five authors—Agostino Giustiniano, Bernardino Corio, Paolo Emilio,45 Sabellico,46 and Bracciolini47—Giolito had already published the Italian

43  It was translated by Carani (Bongi [1890–1895] I 360). 44  Bongi (1890–1895) II 227–28; and Coppens and Nuovo (2005) 424 for the privilege to print the work. 45  The orator and historian Paolo Emilio wrote De rebus gestis Francorum usque ad 1488, a history of France, published in 1518 and 1539 in Paris (Josse Bade, Michel de Vascosan). 46  Nannini excerpted seven speeches from Sabellico’s Historiae rerum Venetarum ab urbe condita (Venice, 1487): Pope Urban (p. 786); the Doges of Venice Francesco Dandolo LII (p. 789) and Francesco Foscari (p. 801); Luchino Vermio (p. 791); Boraccio Malaspina (p. 793); the Florentine ambassador Lorenzo Ridolfi (p. 794); and the ambassador of the Duke of Milan, Giovanni Aretino (p. 798). 47   Orationi includes three orations from the humanist Bracciolini’s Historia Florentina, which spans from 1350 to 1455. Bracciolini was interested in the rhetorical techniques of the oratio, in the use of speeches by Thucydides, Livy, and Sallust to explain decisions.

299

L ’ utilità che si caua d ’ un libro

historians’ works excerpted in Orationi: Bruni,48 Aretino, Machiavelli, Accolti, Giovo, Faleti, and Centorio, as well as Capella49 and Bembo, both added, as mentioned, to the 1560 edition.

…

The success in juxtaposing an extensive corpus of classical historical texts with Italian writings in volgare, linking legendary historical figures with contemporary condottieri immersed in pressing circumstances, such as the consolidation of the Venetian borderlands or the fight against the Ottoman empire and the Habsburgs, shaped Orationi as a versatile collection attracting a wide and varied readership. This innovative genre of the compendium was one element among others in Giolito’s resourceful business strategy that fashioned, to an important extent, the competitive Venetian and Italian bookmarket. Proposing a non-scholarly approach to antiquity, Orationi probably represented one more step—deeply rooted in local pride—toward a loss of direct commerce with the classics. In exchange, Orationi offered its contemporaneous reader, as Cherchi has observed, the joy derived from synthetizing a rediscovery of the ancient world with modern experiences and innovations.50

48  Giolito printed in 1542 and 1548, Leonardo Bruni’s Libro della Guerra de Ghotti, Lodovico Petroni’s translation of Bello italico adversus Gothos (Bongi [1890–1895] I 41–42, 209). 49  In 1549 Giolito printed La Guerra fatta da Christiani contra Barbari per la ricuperatione del sepolcro di Christo et della Giudea, di Benedetto Accolti Aretino, tradotta per Francesco Baldelli da Cortona. Allegedly, De bello provided Tasso with the historical basis for Gerusalemme liberata. In 1552 Giolito printed Faletti’s Prima parte della guerra di Alamagna, humanist chronicle on the imperial wars against the Lutheran German princes. In 1539 Giolito published Francesco Philipopoli’s Italian translation of Comentarii di M. Galeazzo Capella delle cose fatte per la restitutione di Francesco Sforza Secondo Duca di Milano (Bongi [1890–1895] I 9), later included in Anello XIX of Collana Latina. Capella’s original Latin text had been published in 1531. Giolito dedicated Comentarii to Federico Gonzaga (1500–1540), Duke of Mantua, claiming that Federico’s decisive role in the war for the restitution of Sforza had decided him to translate Capella’s work, an author who, as mentioned, was not included in Orationi 1557. 50  “il godimento derivato dal sintetizzare la riscoperta del mondo antico con le esperienze e le innovazioni moderne” (Cherchi [1998] 21).

CHAPTER 15

Modern History in Nannini’s and Belleforest’s Anthologies Xavier Tubau Both Remigio Nannini’s Orationi militari (1557) and François de Belleforest’s Harengues militaires (1573) are anthologies of military speeches taken from Greek, Latin, and modern historiographical works.1 The speeches originating from the modern texts deal with issues that were current for the mid-sixteenth century reader, even when they were about historical events that had happened many centuries before. The histories of Florence by Leonardo Bruni, Poggio Bracciolini, and Niccolò Machiavelli, as well as the more recent texts by Galeazzo Capella, Benedetto Accolti, and Paolo Giovio, concern Italy’s political instability, the roles of Popes and Emperors in political negotiations in Italy and Europe, the interest of the French and Spanish monarchies in controlling the Italian peninsula, and the determination of various Popes to carry out a crusade against the Turks. A French or Italian reader of the sixteenth century could pick a side for each of these topics; he could do the same for the Peloponnesian War or the Punic Wars, without a doubt, but the implications would be different. It is, therefore, fair to question Nannini’s and Belleforest’s attitudes toward these orations taken from modern historiographical works. They both certainly felt an affinity for particular dynasties and political or religious positions, and this empathy would influence to a certain degree the selection of the speeches, the presentation of the content or the general orientation of the anthology as determined in the prologues or dedications of their 1  Saxo Grammaticus (ca. 1150–1220) is the only medieval author that Nannini included in his anthology, an author whose Latin had a certain prestige among the humanists (Erasmus cites him with admiration in his Ciceronianus); see Davidson (1980) 3. The jump from the Byzantine historian Procopius de Caesarea (500–565) to the Florentine humanist Leonardo Bruni (1369–1444) can be explained in part by the Italian translations available to Nannini to prepare his anthology, but it is also clear that this selection reflects a common humanist prejudice toward the medieval world. For more information regarding Nannini’s sources, see Hester (2003) 255–258. Belleforest, less restrictive in this sense, includes the five speeches from Saxo Grammaticus that Nannini chose, but also adds nine more from the Saxon chronicler Widukind de Corvey’s Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri tres (ca. 925–ca. 980), cited as Witichinde, and two from the anonymous Vita Heinrici IV imperatoris (ca. 1106–1107).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_017

Modern History in Nannini ’ s and Belleforest ’ s Anthologies

301

respective works. The objectives of this chapter are to establish whether their voices are present in the speeches on modern history in their anthologies and, if so, to evaluate the significance of these observations. 1 Nannini’s Orationi Militari Remigio Nannini quickly demonstrated an interest in disseminating historical works. In 1550 translations of Cornelius Nepos’ biographies (Degli uomini illustri di Grecia) and Ammianus Marcellinus’ text (Delle guerre de Romani) were published by the well-known Venetian printer Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. His collaboration with this printer, who was also interested in historiography, became even closer when the Dominican Nannini was transferred from Ancona to the convent of Santi Giovanni e Paolo in Venice in 1556.2 Giolito’s printing press published the first and second editions of the Orationi militari (1557 and 1560, with addendums) and another anthology of speeches on civil questions (Orationi in materia civile e criminale, 1561), in addition to a reprint of Francesco Guicciardini’s La Historia d’Italia (1567).3 Nannini took the modern speeches for his Orationi militari from Italian historians, and for this reason a large number of the speeches he included in his anthology deal primarily with military conflicts in Italian territory. The majority of these Italian chroniclers wrote on commission and had political messages to transmit in their texts, and these points of view were reflected in the speeches included in Nannini’s anthology. The Florentine Leonardo Bruni has a negative view of the political power enjoyed by the Popes and the foreign policy of the Visconti family.4 Paolo Giovio is sometimes sympathetic to Charles V’s imperial policies.5 Galeazzo Capella favors the Sforza family over the Viscontis.6 All of these points of view appear in the speeches; Nannini, however, does not include them for their political thoughts, but rather for their military subjects. For example, both the French monarchs and the French Popes are sometimes represented in a negative light, although if Nannini had had a particular interest in reinforcing this perception of the French monarchy, he would not have included the Italian translation (1547) of Paolo Emilio’s 2  For more about Nannini’s relationship with Giolito, see Peraita’s contribution to this volume. 3  For more about Nannini’s life and works, see Tomei (2012). 4  Cf. Ianziti (2012) 222–232. 5  Cf. Grendler (1969) 145 and Zimmerman (1995) 111 and 323 n. 31. 6  See the author’s “Prefatione” addressed to “Francesco Sforza, illustrissimo secondo Duca di Milano.”

302

Tubau

De Rebus gestis Francorum, texts in which the role of the French monarchy in the battle against the Saracens is glorified. In summary, the Florentine editor includes, without exception, all the speeches from each source with which he is working, if, from his point of view, they comply with the requirement of being about a military subject. Nonetheless, apart from the speeches, we have the narrative settings with which Nannini—starting with the 1560 edition—began and ended every one of the anthology’s speeches. A reading of the argomenti and effetti highlights the fact that Nannini almost always gave preference to information over personal opinions. Nannini’s texts that precede and follow the speeches are prepared on the basis of the fragments and ideas found in the original source. He copies or paraphrases entire expressions from the sources that he is using and organizes all of this material so that the reader can read the speech with all the necessary information about the original context in which the speech had been given. In general terms, it can be affirmed that Nannini respects the version of the events that is found in the sources. He does not take on the role of historian, but rather that of editor. There are very few instances, as we will see next, in which it can be said that Nannini gives his opinion of what he is summarizing. 2

The Marquis of Mantua in Fornovo (1495)

In Charles VIII’s retreat toward France, the Battle of Fornovo proved to be of critical importance.7 The French found their path blocked by the military forces of the Holy League—one that united Pope Alexander VI, Maximilian I, Ferdinand the Catholic, the Republic of Venice and the Duchy of Milan—created to expel the French from Italy. The French forces achieved their objective of continuing to push forward and defeat the enemy army, but not without losing all of their spoils from the conquest of Naples. Nannini reproduces various speeches from this battle that were found in Paolo Giovio’s Historie del suo tempo. One of these was the condottiero Gian Giacomo Trivulzio’s speech “all’esercito Francese, esortandolo a farsi la via con l’arme, e non venire co’ 7  Italian historiography from the sixteenth century recognized in the French invasion of 1494 the beginning of an era marked by the constant subordination of Italian powers to the interests of foreign monarchies; it is no coincidence that Guicciardini’s and Giovio’s histories begin precisely in 1494. Nannini (1560) 911, as well as Belleforest (1573) 1676, reflect this historical perception of the episode in the section dedicated to the effetti of the first speech taken from Paolo Giovio.

Modern History in Nannini ’ s and Belleforest ’ s Anthologies

303

nimici ad alcuno accordo.”8 Nannini drafts the effetto section for this speech by taking various ideas mentioned by Giovio just after quoting Trivulzio’s speech. Giovio describes the battle in detail and the defeat of the League under the command of the Marquis of Mantua, Francesco II Gonzaga, highlighting the secure position of the French army, the bad luck of the allies, and the Marquis of Mantua’s determined efforts to avoid defeat. At the end of this description he criticizes the latter’s behavior during the battle: I Francesi s’erano fermati in un luogo molto securo, il quale da quella parte ove s’entrava era aspro et impedito da gli alberi spessi, talche gli Italiani salivano da una parte erta et essendo eglino dispersi combattevano con nemici molto ferrati insieme, con maggior forza che arte e finalmente con iniqua fortuna . . . Ne però in tanta iniquità di cose si perdè d’animo il Marchese di Mantova, benche fosse travagliato da incredibil dolore . . . Il Marchese di Mantova paresse d’haver fatto piu tosto l’ufficio di valoroso cavaliere che di prudente capitano.9 The French had stopped in a very safe place, the entrance to which was rugged and difficult to gain access to because the trees were so dense, so that the Italians were climbing up by a steep part and, being scattered, were fighting against heavily armed enemies with more strength than skill and in the end with unjust fortune . . . However, not even in the face of such injustice did the spirit of the Marquis of Mantua waver, in spite of suffering incredible pain . . . despite the fact that the Marquis of Mantua had behaved more like a brave soldier than a prudent captain . . . The following is Nannini’s description of the defeat: Mise il Capitan della lega e de’ Venetiani anch’egli in ordine il suo esercito, ma per haver preso luogo mal commodo e svantaggioso, non potette reprimere l’impeto de’ Francesi . . . nel campo della lega nascesse discordia e grande uccisione, a’ quali tanti accidenti non potendo ripa-

8  Giovio (1551) II 133–137. 9  Giovio (1551) 142, 145 and 150. The Venetian doctor Benedetti, present at the battle, wrote that “he acted more like a soldier than a leader” (Benedetti [1967] 98). See other comments in Santosuosso (1994) 248–249, who offers a complete description of the battle.

304

Tubau

rare il Marchese di Mantova poi ch’egli hebbe fatto tutto quello che s’apparteneva a ­honorato cavaliero, bisognò che cedesse alla Fortuna.10 The Captain of the League and of the Venetians lined up his army, but because he had chosen a place that was impractical and disadvantageous [for doing battle], he was unable to contain the onrush of the French . . . Discord and slaughter were born in the army of the League, and the Marquis of Mantua, incapable of remedying so much damage, in spite of having done everything that an honorable gentleman should, had to surrender to Fortune. Nannini mentions Giovio’s main ideas, but remains silent about the objection to the Marquis of Mantua’s conduct, granting Fortuna a greater role while playing down the achievements of the strategic and military action attributed to the French army.11 3

Lautrec and the Battle of Bicocca (1522)

The House of Valois in France had been surrounded since 1516 by the dominions of Charles V: to the south, by the Crown of Aragon, and to the east, by Flanders, Hainaut, Luxembourg, and the Franche-Comté. The election of Charles as the Holy Roman Emperor (1519) merely increased Habsburg pressure on the eastern borders of the French kingdom. The Duchy of Milan was a key piece in this geopolitical situation, because it was the only space that prevented the Habsburgs from completely encircling the French realm. Francis I had expelled the Sforzas from Milan after the Battle of Marignano (1515), alleging, as Louis XII had done in 1498, that the Duchy belonged to the House of Orleans and not to the Sforzas. Charles V likewise wanted to expel the French from Milan, bearing in mind that the Duchy was a feudal grant 10  Nannini (1560) 916–917 (I always quote from the second edition of Orationi militari because it is the edition in which Nannini includes the effetto section at the end of every speech. Belleforest used this edition to prepare his anthology). Belleforest (1573) 1194 modifies Nannini’s text, coming to the conclusion that “la victoire fut des François, qui feirent un grand massacre de leurs ennemys et contraignirent le Marquis de Mantove de se retirer avec sa honte” (“Victory went to the French, who made a great massacre of their enemies and forced the Marquis of Mantua to retreat in disgrace”). 11  See the interesting letter from Nannini to Salviati about the meaning of Fortuna and its iconography in Fletcher (1979) 794–795.

Modern History in Nannini ’ s and Belleforest ’ s Anthologies

305

from the Emperor and Francis I had obviously not received the investiture from Maximilian I or from the new King of the Romans. Charles V led an antiFrench league comprised of the Pope, the Republic of Florence, and the Duchy of Mantua. The French army, led by Lieutenant General Odet de Foix, Viscount of Lautrec, attempted to fend off the League’s attack, but ultimately lost Milan after the Battle of Bicocca (1522).12 Nannini copies the three speeches from Galeazzo Capella’s Commentarii delle cose fatte per la restitutione di Francesco Sforza Secondo Duca di Milano (1539), which are about this historical episode. Two of them are by Lautrec himself. The two speeches included by Capella in his Comentarii do not present a positive image of the governor of the Duchy of Milan, which was to be expected up to a point, taking into account the political leanings of the ­chronicle.13 In the first of these speeches, Lautrec acknowledges that he spent a large portion of the taxes of the people of Milan on financing this war against the League (“et se io, che sono qui vice Re, ho messo mano nelle borse de’ privati, niuno debe però havere della fede del Re dubitanza,” “[even] if I, who am the Viceroy here, have spent the money of private individuals, nevertheless, nobody should doubt the loyalty of the King”).14 In the second, breaking with conventional rhetoric, he accuses the Marquis of Pescara, Ferdinando Francesco d’Avalos (1489–1525), a general in the Imperial army, and the condottiero Prospero Colonna (1452–1523), a general in the papal army, of cowardice: Che bisogna che faccia mentione del Signor Prospero Colonna loro Capitano? Il quale come huomo consumato dalla vecchiaia, a niuna cosa nella zuffa piu che al fuggirsi, per uscire delle vostre mani, terra volto il suo pensiero? Ricordandosi negli anni passati d’essere stato molti mesi prigione del nostro Re, per esserli venuto con l’armi contra. Che diro io del Marchese di Pescara Capitano de la Fanteria? Huomo di timidezza equale e che poco conto tiene del suo honore? Il quale poco innanzi essendo stato per giustissime cagioni da Giovanni Cabanneo chiamato 12  Kohler (2000) 162–172, Mallett and Shaw (2012) 139–145 and J. Black (2014). 13  For Lautrec, see Potter (2008) 49. 14  Capella (1539) I 7r and Nannini (1560) 890 (as usual, Nannini copies the source speech literally). Before Lautrec’s commentary, Belleforest (1573) 1167 feels the need to add a comment in his translation of the speech: “Que si, comme Viceroy, j’ay mis la main aux bourses des particuliers par emprunt, que personne ne se doubte de perdre rien qui soit, ou entre en soupçon de la foy et parolle du Roy nostre Prince” (“For if as Viceroy I have borrowed money from private individuals, let nobody think that he will lose the slightest thing, nor have suspicions about the loyalty and word [of honor] of the King our Prince”).

306

Tubau

a combattere a corpo a corpo non ha havuto mai di venire alle mani ardimento.15 Is it necessary to mention their captain, Lord Prospero Colonna, who, as a man consumed with age, in order to escape from your hands, thought about nothing else than running away during the battle, remembering the months he spent in the past as a prisoner of our King for attacking him? What shall I say of their infantry captain, the Marquis of Pescara, a man similarly cowardly and unconcerned for his honor, who having been challenged shortly before with good reason to hand-to-hand combat by Giovanni Cabanneo, has never had the courage to fight? The dedication to the Orationi militari is addressed to Giovanni Battista Castaldo (1493–1563), who had been captain of the Imperial Army’s cavalry and taken part in the Italian wars during the 1520s.16 Castaldo had been a friend of the Marquis of Pescara and had fought alongside him and Colonna at the Battle of Bicocca and the Battle of Pavia (1525). These circumstances would explain Nannini’s intervention in the effetto section that he composed for this speech: Ancor che i soldati si rincorassero per queste parole, e che gli Suizzeri non havessero molto bisogno d’esortatione, per essere stati i primi a chieder facultà di combattere, tuttavia il Lutrech non conseguì il desiderato fine di questa impresa. Peroche, appiccato che fu il fatto d’arme, il campo Franzese, non potendo resistire alla virtù di Prospero, nè al valor degli Imperiali, fu costretto a piegare, la qual piega, si potette più tosto chiamar ritirata che rotta, però che salvarono l’artiglierie, e la maggior parte delle bagaglie.17 In spite of the fact that the soldiers were cheered to hear these words and the Swiss did not really need to be exhorted to fight, taking into account that they had been the first to ask permission to do so, Lautrec did not however achieve the desired outcome for that venture. In short, once the war broke out, the French army, being unable to withstand Prospero’s 15  Capella (1539) II 17v–18r and Nannini (1560) 892 (Nannini copies the text literally). 16  For Castaldo’s life, see De Caro (1978) 562–566. For his participation in the Transylvanian wars, as well as Ascanio Centorio’s chronicle, see Setton (1984) 569–581. 17  Nannini (1560) 892 (italics are mine). In Galeazzo Capella’s text there is no commentary on Lautrec’s speech.

Modern History in Nannini ’ s and Belleforest ’ s Anthologies

307

force or the bravery of the imperial soldiers, found itself obliged to yield, even though it was more of a retreat than a defeat, since they saved the artillery and most of the baggage. It was necessary to refer to the French defeat in this section, but not to present it as a defeat due to the “virtù” and “valor” of the papal (“Colonna”) and Imperial troops, for that would highlight the two qualities that Lautrec had called into question in his speech. Apart from these two cases, I have found only one other comment made by Nannini about the speeches he was compiling. Leonardo Bruni portrays the oration of the Florentine Ambassador Donato Barbadori to Pope Gregory XI as that of a frank and eloquent man.18 For Nannini, however, it is the speech of a man who is “audace e libero di lingua.”19 A Dominican involved in the CounterReformation movement, as Nannini was, would probably have found Bruni’s favorable description inappropriate:20 Barbadori addressing Christ with his eyes focused on the crucifix and protesting at the excommunication of the people of Florence and the papal interdict on their city.

18  For the historical context, cf. n. 33. 19  Nannini (1560) 760. In L. Bruni’s text (2001–2007) VIII 506–507, it is the Florentine ambassadors, not Barbadori alone, who “said many things (multa dicta) in that place with frankness (libero animo) and eloquence (multa facunde).” In Donato Acciaiuoli’s translation (1861) 460–461, the text says: “in quel luogo pare che fossero dette da loro molte cose con grande eloquenza e libertà.” Nannini did not use Acciaiuoli’s widely circulated translation for the Bruni speeches, as Hester highlighted (2003) 258. It is possible that he translated them himself. In any case, he probably had a copy of Acciaiuoli’s translation in his library. For this translation, cf. Bessi (1990). In Belleforest’s version, we read that Barbadori was an “homme libre, et de grand coeur” who appealed “devant tous, à Dieu, comme juste juge de l’iniure qu’il luy sembloit que Gregoire faisoit aux siens” (1573) 1063 (“a free man with a great heart” who appealed “in front of everyone to God as the just judge of the insult that he believed Gregory was doing to his people”). The irreverent tone evident in the anecdote told by Bruni and still present in Nannini’s text disappeared from the French version. 20  His translation into Italian of the Epistles and the Gospels (Epistole et evangelii, Venice, Gabriele Giolito de’ Ferrari, 1567), for example, was the only one the Inquisition allowed to circulate after the Council of Trent. See Fragnito (1997) 139, 294–298. For all the works connected to the new religious orientation articulated in the Council of Trent, see Tomei (2012).

308

Tubau

4 Belleforest’s Harengues Militaires Belleforest’s anthology was published a few months after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre (August, 1572). France was immersed in religious wars. Belleforest, who had been Charles IX’s and Henry III’s chronicler, rejected the Protestant Reformation. Harengues is dedicated to Louis Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers (1539–1595), who played a prominent role in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. In addition, the book was printed by Nicolas Chesnau, known for his editions defending Catholicism.21 These circumstances are manifested in various ways in our author’s anthology. Belleforest includes all the material compiled by Nannini except for the following texts: the three speeches taken from the anonymous work, Dell’origine de’ Barbari, che distrussero per tutto ‘l mondo l’imperio di Roma (1557), and a speech delivered by the Grand Vizier Hadim Suleiman to the French Ambassador, Antoine Escalin des Aimars (“Polino”), which Nannini had taken from Paolo Giovio’s Historie del suo tempo. The three speeches excerpted from Dell’origine de’ Barbari are given by a Gothic king, an Ostrogoth king, and a Vandal king. These speeches appear after Giovanni Battista Castaldo’s speeches during the Transylvanian War (1551) and before the speeches taken from George Kastrioti Skanderbeg’s biography (1405–1468).22 It is obvious that the subjects of the three speeches do not belong to the section on modern history, which is probably why Belleforest decided not to include them. The absence of the speech by the Grand Vizier Hadim Suleiman Pasha is related to its content. The vizier’s speech validated the military alliance between Suleiman and Francis I, the Sultan’s support of the French king in the war against Charles V, and the alleged failure of Francis I to remain loyal to Suleiman, for which he accused the monarchy’s representatives of being unjust, shameless, insolent, and disrespectful. Finally, Suleiman reaffirmed the promise to send a number of ships once the winter had passed.23 Belleforest must have considered the inclusion of such a speech inappropriate in Harengues 21  Holt (1995) 93 (I am indebted to Victoria Pineda for this note about Louis Gonzaga). For the printer of Belleforest’s anthology, involved in the dissemination of Catholic books, see Racaut (2009). 22  Hester (2003) 254–255. 23  “Parlamento di Solimano eunuco a Polino, ambasciador del Re di Francia, risolvendolo che’l gran Signore non gli poteva concederé l’armata,” Nannini (1560) 947–949 and Giovio, book 41. The French Ambassador’s speech had been given in 1542 or 1543, after the start of the hostilities of Francis I against Charles V (July 12, 1542), but before the declaration of war by the English-Imperial coalition (June 22, 1543).

Modern History in Nannini ’ s and Belleforest ’ s Anthologies

309

militaires. The relationship between Francis I and Henry III with the Turk is touched upon in his historical works. The French monarchies’ alliances with the Turk—which was not in itself to be condemned, Belleforest points out, since the Pope was also doing it—24were formed with the desire to protect not only the specific interests of the French monarchy, but also the interests of all of Christendom: “Sa Majesté [Francis I] avoit refuse d’avoir paix, alliance, ny amitié avec Suleiman, s’il ne comprenoit en icelle toute la Chrestienté et Princes et Potentats d’icelle” (“His Majesty [Francis I] had refused to make peace, or enter into any coalition or friendship with Suleiman unless the whole of Christendom and its princes and potentates were included in them”).25 Charles V, on the other hand, had acted in a hypocritical manner, using a mask of devotion and piety to conceal his desire to increase his political power and to ruin everyone else: “l’Empereur pipast ainsi chascun avec un masque fardé de devotion et sainte pieté, et ce-pendant on voyoit que tout son estude estoit à semer la division par tout et faire prouffit de la ruine des autres” (“So, the emperor deceived each one with a mask of false devotion and holy piety, and yet, one could see that all his efforts were set on sowing division on all sides and of taking advantage of the ruin of others”).26 Belleforest must have considered that this speech from Giovio’s Historie was a piece of political propaganda that was favorable to Charles V, and for this reason decided to discard it.27 In addition to the speeches that he takes from Nannini, Belleforest enlarges the Italian’s anthology in two ways: first, by adding speeches that were in the sources that Nannini had used but had decided against including, a subject I do not broach in this chapter;28 second, by including a large number of speeches taken from twenty-three historiographical works that Nannini had not ­consulted.29 In these new sources used by Belleforest, there are a few 24  “la promesse qu’il [Alfonso II of Naples] avoit des secours tans du costé du Turc (pratiqué par le Pape mesme) que des venitiens” (Belleforest [1573] 1190). 25  Belleforest (1579) VI 1489r. Later on he accuses Charles V of having paid taxes to Suleiman, (1579) VI 1554v. 26  Belleforest (1579) VI 1554v. 27  Nannini takes nine speeches from the Second Part of Giovio’s Historie del suo tempo ([1560] 932–952). Belleforest eliminates the vizier’s speech and adds three more speeches that were not in Nannini’s text: Hibraim Bassa’s speech to Sultan Suleiman, encouraging him to wage war against the Persians ([1573] 1212–1214; Giovio, book 33); another by Barbarossa about the imminent battle against Charles V in Tunis (1214–1215; Giovio, book 34); and a final speech about the accusation of treason brought against Pietro Pereno of Hungary (1220–1221; Giovio, book 42). 28  Cf. previous note. 29  Hester (2003) 242.

310

Tubau

speeches that pertain to the political and religious situation in contemporary France, which are discussed in Pineda’s chapter in this book. Furthermore, Belleforest also translates argomenti and effetti from Italian to French, but with slight changes.30 For the most part, these changes are of a stylistic order and not relevant to our purposes here. Nevertheless, as I will demonstrate shortly, on other occasions, Belleforest deliberately changes the original text when Nannini’s makes observations about the actions of the French in Italian territory. These changes can be divided into two groups: the responses to negative comments about the French that appear in Nannini’s text and the original source, and support for the dynastic claims of the House of Orleans over the Duchy of Milan and of the House of Anjou over the Kingdom of Naples. 5

Remarks about the French

Hester indicated a typical example of these types of changes: when Nannini talked about the “cattivo governo de’ Legati Francesi,” (“bad government of the French legates”) Belleforest censured this reference to the French and translated it as “à cause du rude gouvernement des Legats de sa saincteté en Italie” (“because of the harsh government of His Sanctity’s legates in Italy”).31 Nannini’s remark was in the argomento of the first of the speeches taken from the Italian translation of the Historia Fiorentina (1476) by Poggio Bracciolini.32 The speech had been given by a Florentine, in the context of the confrontations between Pope Gregory XI and Florence in 1376. Gregory XI, born Pierre Roger de Beaufort, was the last Pope in Avignon and the one who moved the papal residence back to Rome (1377). Gregory maintained the “full power and authority” of the French prelates in Italian territory after his election as Pope in 1370, which angered the Florentines and provoked various insurrections in the papal territories.33

30  For Belleforest’s talent as an Italian translator, see Stoyle (1987). Regarding the translation, as Hester highlights (2003) 245, “Belleforest either in the interest of providing a stylistically and rhetorically adequate French version, or in order to avoid accusations of directly translating from the Italian, tends to avoid a word-for-word translation.” 31  Hester (2003) 250–251. 32  Nannini reproduces the point of view of Poggio, who spoke about the “maligni preti oltramontani che governavono lo stato della chiesa in Italia et delle loro cattive opere et tyranniche voglie” ([1476] II B4v). 33  See a detailed description of the conflict in Hayez (2000) 554, whom I quote here.

Modern History in Nannini ’ s and Belleforest ’ s Anthologies

311

Besides Bracciolini, Leonardo Bruni (VIII, 92) also made reference to the actions of the papal legates sent from France who, according to the Florentine Chancellor, not only wanted to govern the cities belonging to the papal territories, but also all the free cities: “Dominatus eorum superbus erat ac paene intolerandus; nec ecclesiae tantum urbes, verum etiam liberas civitates sibi subdere cupiebant.”34 Nannini paraphrases Bruni’s text and leaves the commentary about the French legates’ arrogance intact: “[fu una gran ribellione] perché governando i francesi con intollerabile alterezza le città suddite, e cercando ancora di soggiogar le libere, furon cagione . . .” (“[there was a great rebellion] because the French governing the aforementioned cities with intolerable arrogance, and also trying to subdue those that were free, were the reason why the Florentines started to think about their own situation”).35 Belleforest translates Nannini’s text, but also mocks the touchy nature (“chatouilleux”) of the Italians: Le pontificat avoit esté entre les mains des François un fort long temps, à cause que les Papes Clement V, Innocent VI, Urbain V et Gregoire XI estoyent tous François, et lesquels n’avançants que les hommes de leur nation, faisoient que les Cardinaux Françoys seuls sans autres auoyent les legations en Italie. Cecy fut cause d’une fort grande rebellion és citez de Romaigne, la Marche d’Ancone, et de Toscane, entant que les Françoys se monstrantz hauts à la main, et insuportables en leur gouvernemens, ou (pour mieux dire) les Italiens estants si chatouilleux, qu’ils ne pouvoyent supporter qu’autre que ceux de leur nation les maniast, et les Legats taschants d’assuiettir au saint siege, les citez mesme qui se disoyent libres, il aduint que les Florentins commencerent à penser à leur affaire.36 The papacy had been in the hands of the French for a long period of time due to the fact that Popes Clement V, Innocent VI, Urban V and Gregory XI were all Frenchmen, and as they promoted only men from their own country, it meant that only French cardinals had legations in Italy. This caused a great rebellion in the cities of Romagna, the March of Ancona and Tuscany, since the French were highhanded and unbearable in the way that they governed—or, to put it another way, as the Italians were 34  “Their dominion was arrogant and nearly intolerable, and they yearned to subject to themselves not only the cities of the Church, but the free cities as well” (L. Bruni [2001– 2007] VIII 480–481; italics are mine). Cf. Acciaiuoli’s translation: “La loro signoria era altiera e quasi intollerabile: e non solamente le città della chiesa, ma ancora quelle che erano chiamate libere volevano sottomettere” ([1861] 448). 35  Nannini (1560) 753–754 (italics are mine). 36  Belleforest (1573) 1058 (italics are mine).

312

Tubau

so touchy, they could not abide being ordered about by anyone who was not from their own nation—and when the legates tried to make the cities that claimed to be free submit to the Holy See, what happened was that the Florentines began to think about their own situation . . . According to Bruni (VIII, 98), the Florentines addressed the Pope in order to convince him that it had not been the people of Florence who had instigated the insurrections in the papal territories, but rather the behavior of the French legates (“all the blame should be laid at the door of the wicked ministers of the Pope”).37 Nannini ends this statement by highlighting that the “cattivo governo de’ Legati Francesi e non del popolo Fiorentino” was at the root of the rebellion.38 Belleforest again censors the adjective “Francesi,” puts a positive gloss on the fear of the Florentines at Gregory XI’s interdict, and shows them to be directly responsible for all that had happened by labeling them “seditieux”: Cecy entendu par le Pape envoya quelques troupes Angloises en Italie, et avec ce excommunia et interdit les Florentins: le peuple effroyé de telles censures (estant plus Chrestien qu’on n’est à present) delibera d’envoyer des Embassadeurs vers la sainteté, afin de luy faire entendre que leur revolte et desobeissance procedoyent des mauvais deportements des Legatz par elle envoyez, et non du naturel mutin des seditieux.39 This being understood by the Pope, he sent some English troops to Italy, and at the same time excommunicated and interdicted the Florentines. The Florentine people, who were more Christian then than they are now, were terrified by such severe papal censures and decided to send ambassadors to His Holiness with the purpose of making him understand that their rebellion and disobedience had been caused by the bad behavior of the legates that His Holiness had sent and not because the seditious were naturally rebellious.

37  “culpam omnem in pessimos illius ministros esse” (L. Bruni [2001–2007] VIII 98, 488– 489); “che tutta la colpa si poteva riferire ne’ suoi perversi ministri” (L. Bruni [1861] VIII 451). 38  Nannini (1560) 53. 39  Belleforest (1573) 1058. In the Geneva version of Harengues militaires (1595), the phrase “plus Chrestien” had been changed, significantly, to “plus superstitieux” ([1595] II 1668). It is likely that there are other modifications in the same first edition that that follow the same trend.

Modern History in Nannini ’ s and Belleforest ’ s Anthologies

313

Another of Nannini’s argomenti that Belleforest alters is the one that precedes the “Ragionamento di Guido Guerra a Carlo Re di Sicilia.” In his History of the Florentine people (III 86–87), Leonardo Bruni describes the admiration that Charles of Anjou’s army would have felt upon the arrival of the Florentine Guelph troops (allies of the French monarchy in their battle against Manfred, King of Sicily).40 The meeting took place in Mantuan territory just before the decisive Battle of Benevento (1266): Their fine appearance attracted the attention of the French, beautifully equipped as they were with arms and horses and all the other gear that bestows distinction on military men. Even among the French they were a striking sight.41 Nannini follows Bruni’s text: the Florentine Guelphs “feron maravigliar l’esercito francese” because “erano huomini valorosissimi in arme” (“enchanted the French army” because “they were most courageous men”).42 Again, Belleforest does not mention the French reaction and comments only that the army arrived with “fort beau equipage” (“a very fine equipment”).43 A little further along in the text, Bruni (II, 87) emphasizes Charles’s generosity when promising the Florentine Guelphs all the riches and bounty that would come with victory over King Manfred.44 According to Bruni, Charles himself would have been content with the simple title of King of Sicily: “For himself, he was disposed to return home and so would be content with the mere title of king, but riches and the prizes of victory would be allotted to all who fought alongside him.”45 Nannini mentioned these promises made by 40  For Charles of Anjou, see Dunbabin (1998). 41  “. . . ac ubi primum regis copias appropinquare cognitum, obviam illis in agro mantuano profecti Gallos in admirationem decoris sui converterunt. Ornati siquidem armis equisque et ceteris quibus militares insigniuntur viri, etiam inter Gallos longe conspicui erant” (L. Bruni [2001–2007] 194–198); “. . . e messo insieme tutta la loro compagnia, si fecero incontro alle genti francesi; e trovatele in quello di Mantova, s’appresentarono al cospetto loro tanto ornati d’arme, di cavalli e sopraveste, che mossero tutto quello esercito a grande ammirazione” (“and with the whole company assembled, they went to face the French, and after they found them in Mantua, they presented themselves before them beautifully arrayed with arms, horses and surcoats, leaving the whole of that army awe-struck,” Bruni [1861] 92–93). 42  Nannini (1560) 738. 43  Belleforest (1573) 1028. 44  Runciman (1958) 88–95, Galasso (1992) 15–26 and Dunbabin (1998). 45  “se quidem ita animatum domo venisse, ut nomine dumtaxat regio contentus esse velit; ceterum opes ac victoriae praemia iis qui secum militaverint partiturum” (Bruni

314

Tubau

Charles to the Guelphs, but considered that they were excessive for a monarch: “quasi trapassò i termini della Maestà reale” (“he almost went beyond the limits of royal majesty”).46 Belleforest alters the text he is translating in order to project a different image of the king and diminish the military importance of the Guelph army: “Charles, qui a esté de son temps des plus modestes et courtoys Princes de la terre, usa de telle gracieuseté, et si grandes promesses à ces pouures bannys” (“Charles, who was, in his time, one of the humblest and most courteous princes on earth, behaved with such graciousness and made such great promises to those poor exiles . . .”).47 6

Dynasty Claims

The coronation of Charles of Anjou as King of Sicily and Naples by Pope Clement IV—opposed by the then Imperial House of Hohenstaufen—implied the beginning of the Angevin claims to the throne of Naples.48 Belleforest refers to the coronation in his Grandes annales and insists that the succession of the kingdom was awarded to all of his descendants, regardless of gender or time limitations.49 Later on, while describing Charles VIII’s journey to the Kingdom of Naples (1495), he would again recall “le droit que sa Majesté avoit en ceste seigneurie, estant substitué par Charles d’Anjou au Roy Louys onziesme, et avec luy tous ses successeurs Rois de France” (“the right that his Majesty had over this lordship, handed down in inheritance by Charles of Anjou to King Louis XI, and with him to all his successors as kings of France”).50 Nannini included a speech by Ambassador Carlo da Balbiano in which he encouraged Charles VIII to declare war against Ferdinand the Catholic and recover the Kingdom of Naples for the House of Anjou. In the effetto section of this speech, Nannini evaluated the consequences of Charles VIII’s entry into Naples in 1495: [2001–2007] 198; “e ch’egli si era partito delle parti di Francia con questo proposito: ottenendo la impresa, di restare contento solamente al nome di re, e tutte le altre cose e premj della vittoria distribuire a quelli tali che avessero vinto con lui” (“and that he had left France with this intention: if he was successful in his enterprise, the title of king would be enough to satisfy him, and he would distribute everything else and the spoils of victory among those who had been victorious with him,” Bruni [1861] 93–94). 46  Nannini (1560) 738. 47  Belleforest (1573) 1028. Cf. a more detailed description of Charles of Anjou’s generosity can be found in Belleforest (1579) IV 695v. 48  For Clement IV’s role, see Kamp (2000) 406–407. 49  Belleforest (1579) IV 693v–694r. 50  Belleforest (1579) V 1311r. Cf. VI 1583r.

Modern History in Nannini ’ s and Belleforest ’ s Anthologies

315

Così passato [Carlo VIII] in Italia, ridusse gli Aragonesi a mal partito, e s’accese una guerra che durò successivamente molti anni, e non s’è veduto segno di fine alcuno se non a’tempi nostri l’anno 1559 nella pace di Filippo Re di Spagna e d’Arrigo secondo Re di Francia, laquale nostro Signore Iddio voglia perpetuamente mantenere.51 Thus, once Charles VIII had entered Italy, he left the Aragonese in a bad situation, and a long war began that lasted for many years, without there being any sign of its possible end until our times with the peace of 1559 between Philip, the King of Spain, and Henry, the King of France, which Our Lord be pleased to maintain perpetually. Belleforest translates Nannini and also mentions the Italian wars and the Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559) between Philip II and Henry II. However, he defends the House of Anjou’s rightful claim to the Kingdom of Naples; that is to say, he does not consider that the peace agreement had removed the French monarchy’s right to Naples, despite the fact that it had formally renounced its ambitions in Italy by signing the treaty. The Peace of 1559 is recognized today as “a turning point” in modern European History, but at the time was seen only as “a pause in an unending conflict.” In fact, the political faction in the French Court that was interested in the Italian territories vigorously protested against the signing of the treaty.52 Belleforest agrees with this position, which certainly explains why he does not translate the final sentence of Nannini’s text: Ainsi, et souz ces belles promesses, il passa en Italie, et reduit les Aragonois à tel party, qu’il les deposseda de leur usurpation et laissa des semences de guerre, qui ont duré jusqu’à nostre temps, que les maisons de France et d’Espaigne ont apres une longue guerre, mis fin à ceste querelle.53 In this way, and using these fine promises as an excuse, he entered Italy and left the Aragonese in such a poor way that he dispossessed them of what they had usurped, leaving seeds of war that have lasted down to our times when the Houses of France and Spain put an end to this dispute after a lengthy war. 51  Nannini (1560) 911. 52  Rodríguez-Salgado (1988) 326 (the quotes in the previous sentence are taken from this book) and 327. Cf. also Usunáriz (2006) 167–181. 53  Belleforest (1573) 1189. In the margin of the text, it reads: “Cecy aduint l’an 1559 par la paix entre le Roy Henry et le Roy Catholique Philippe.” (“This happened in the year 1559 because of the peace between king Henry and Philip, the Catholic king”).

316

Tubau

Likewise, Belleforest defends the House of Orleans’ right to the Duchy of Milan against the Sforzas. The Sforzas defended their right to the Duchy of Milan through the marriage of Francesco Sforza to Blanca Maria Visconti, the illegitimate daughter of Filippo Maria Visconti. The House of Orleans, for their part, claimed the same right through the marriage of Louis de Orleans to Valentina Visconti, the daughter of Galeazzo Visconti, the first Duke of Milan. After the death of Charles VIII, the ascent to the throne of Louis XII (son of Charles, Duke of Orleans and grandson of Valentina Visconti) once again triggered the House of Orleans’ claim to the Duchy of Milan.54 Nannini recalled the league formed between Charles V and Leo X “per cacciare i Francesi d’Italia, i quali havevano tolse al Duca di Milano lo stato e lo tenevano guardato con bonissime guardie.”55 Belleforest translates Nannini’s text, but also introduces changes: the league between the Emperor and the Pope is now a “conspiracy,” and the Sforzas have usurped the Duchy from the House of Orleans: Pape Leon dixiesme et Charles Quint Empereur avoyent fait ligue ensemble avec deliberation de chasser les Françoys d’Italie, lesquels avoyent osté le duché de Milan aux Sforzesques usurpateurs du Milanois sur la maison d’Orleans, les Françoys y tenans bonnes et fortes garnisons pour le garder.56 Pope Leo X and Emperor Charles V had formed an alliance for the purpose of chasing the French out of Italy. They had taken the Duchy of Milan away from the Sforza usurpers of the Milanese belonging to the House of Orleans; the French had good strong garrisons there to defend the Duchy. The same defense of the House of Orleans against the Sforzas explains the following addition by Belleforest to the argomento written by Nannini for one of Machiavelli’s speeches. The events took place in 1448, when the death of Filippo 54  Cf. Belleforest (1579) VI 1342v. Cf. Azzolini (2013) 65–98 and Gagné (2014). 55  “To expel the French from Italy, who had taken away the state from the Duke of Milan and had kept it with fine guards”. Nannini (1560) 889. Nannini was working with the first folio of the Commentarii by Capella. 56  Printed marginalia: “Conspiration du Pape et de l’Empereur contre le Roy de France.” Belleforest (1573) 1166 (italics are mine). These comments contain the same language that we find in his historiographical works: “la tyrannique usurpation faicte per les Seigneurs de la race Sforzesque depuis la mort de Philippe Marie troisieme Duc de Milan” ([1579] VI 1342v) (“the tyrannical usurpation by the Lords of the Sforza clan after the death of Philippe Marie, the third Duke of Milan”).

Modern History in Nannini ’ s and Belleforest ’ s Anthologies

317

Maria Visconti sparked a struggle for the control of the Duchy of Milan. In Machiavelli’s speech, the people of Milan ask Francesco Sforza to his face why he had turned traitor by coming to an agreement with the Venetians because they wanted to “to see with what face and what words he would accompany his wickedness”.57 Nannini utilizes the same noun as Machiavelli: “sceleratezza.”58 Belleforest, on the other hand, writes: “voir avec quelles raisons il deffendroit ceste siene meschanceté et abominable conspiration” (“seeing what reasons he would use to defend his wickedness and his abominable conspiracy”).59 Belleforest tends, on occasion, to augment the original Italian text, although in this case the addition is not for stylistic purposes. 7 Conclusions As a general rule, Nannini does not express personal opinions about the events that he is summarizing. There are only a few occasions when we can conclude without a doubt that Nannini is offering his perspective about them. The change in the representation of the Florentine Ambassador Barbadori’s speech is unquestionably due to the compiler’s own sensibilities to a type of scene that he deemed to be too irreverent. The positive image of the Marquis of Mantua’s actions at Fornovo and the comments about the virtue of Prospero Colonna and the Imperial troops could be Nannini’s personal opinions, but they are also comments in line with the expectations of a reader, such as Giovanni Battista Castaldo. There are at any rate very few examples in the context of such an extensive work, and they are also of minor importance. Nannini’s goal is to compile and then present to the reader as many speeches as possible about military subjects, using sources in Venice to which he had access around the middle of the 1550s. The political implications of the texts and the possibility of utilizing them to reinforce or undermine the prestige of various political actors are not matters that concern the author. In this way, Nannini did not want the reader of his work to focus on the contemporary political situation. If he had wanted this, the comments before and after the speeches—the argomenti as well as the effetti—would have been the ideal space to guide the reader in this direction.

57  Machiavelli (1988) 250–251 (“vedere con che viso e con quali parole questa sua scelera­ tezza accompagnasse”, Istorie Fiorentine VI, 20, in Machiavelli [1971] 777). 58  Nannini (1560) 875. 59  Belleforest (1573) 1107.

318

Tubau

In Belleforest’s case, we encounter translations of Nannini’s comments. Usually the translations are not literal, as Belleforest tends to expand upon the Italian original, but it is always easy to identify the source of Nannini’s comments, as Hester (2003) has previously noted. Belleforest does not hesitate to modify or interpret Nannini’s commentary that he is translating. The actions of the French people are redeemed, while in Nannini’s work—that is to say, the original source—they appear to be questioned, irrespective of whether it concerns the French legates of the fourteenth century during Gregory XI’s papacy in Avignon or Lieutenant Lautrec before the Battle of Bicocca. On the other hand, the importance that Belleforest continues to attach to the dynastic claims of the House of Orleans (Milan) and the House of Anjou (Naples) is not surprising in a chronicler of the King of France, despite the fact that the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559) had put an end to French ambitions in these territories. In this sense, Belleforest’s historiographical works present the same panegyric approach and defense of French history that we find in his comments to the speeches in the Harengues militaires. It is undoubtedly this same approach that led Belleforest to make the important decision to eliminate Vizier Hadim Suleiman’s speech to Ambassador Antoine Escalin des Aimars.

CHAPTER 16

Oratory and Political Debate in the Last Decades of the Roman Republic: Cassius Dio’s Reconstruction (with Some Notes from Remigio Nannini’s Orationi Militari) Ida Gilda Mastrorosa 1 Introduction The Roman History, composed between the second and fourth decades of the third century ce by Cassius Dio, historian, member of the Senate, and consul on two occasions,1 contains numerous speeches attributed to the leading figures of the political scene considered in the work.2 Although most scholars regard these pieces as fictitious, allegedly segments of narrative appositely introduced by the historian to express his own position on significant questions or subjects,3 they provide insights into how Dio interpreted the attitudes of some of the key protagonists of ancient Rome, as well as the way he used earlier classical sources that recorded information about them. Moreover, these speeches may contribute to the study of Dio’s opinion about the use of oratory in both political and military contexts during some of the most critical 1  There is a substantial bibliography on Cassius Dio and his work. In addition to Gabba (1955) and Millar (1964), see especially among the most recent monographic studies, FreyburgerGalland (1997); for Dio’s consulates, cf. Leunissen (1989) 163 n. 147; for the date of the composition of the Roman History, see especially Millar (1964) 28–40 and Letta (1979); for recent remarks, cf. also Schettino (2001) 555–558 and Letta (2003) 616–618. 2  In this respect, Cassius Dio follows a well-known tradition; for a recent overview of the meaning and use of speeches in classical historiography, see Marincola (2007). It goes without saying that the presence of these speeches is not a guarantee that they were in fact delivered on the various occasions in question. 3  As highlighted by Millar (1964) 83: “Their interest must lie not in what they can contribute to historical knowledge, but in the insight they can give into the mind of a senator writing under the Severi, the political questions which were uppermost in his mind and the sort of reasoning they could apply to them.” For further discussion on this matter, among the many contributions, besides Schwartz (1899) 1718–1719, see especially Millar (1961), A.V. van Stekelenburg (1971), Martinelli (1990), and, more recently, Burden-Strevens (2016).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_018

320

Mastrorosa

phases of the Republican period,4 and also his reception of publicly debated topics and trends from the earlier tradition. As regards the last century of Roman Republican history,5 and more particularly the years between the biennium after the so-called First Triumvirate and the Battle of Actium (from 58 to 31 bce),6 the Roman History includes various speeches delivered by Caesar, Cicero, Antony, and Octavian, among others. In the sixteenth century, the orationes that Cassius Dio attributes to some of these leading figures of ancient Rome’s political arena attracted the attention of Remigio Nannini,7 a Florentine Dominican known for his activity as a compiler, who worked for Giolito de’ Ferrari, the renowned bookseller and publisher from Venice.8 Nannini selected many of these rhetorical pieces and included them in both his anthologies of classical and modern speeches, namely the Orationi militari9 and the Orationi in materia civile e criminale,10 very probably using Nicolò Leoniceno’s Italian translation of Dio.11 The first of these works, published in 1557 and then again in a second augmented edition in 1560, was dedicated to the condottiere Giovanni Battista Castaldo12 and was conceived as a collection of military orationes taken from Greek and Roman sources and some modern texts. It also includes, among other things, the Italian translations of the speeches attributed by Cassius Dio to Caesar, Cicero, and to Antony and Octavian before the Battle of Actium.13 4  For the role played by oratory in the period of the Republic, see, among recent studies, Osgood (2006), David (2007), and M.C. Alexander (2007); and the contributions included in Steel and van der Blom (2013). 5  For Dio’s interpretation of late republican Rome, besides Gowing (1992) 289–297, who stresses the historian’s tendency to evaluate the past in relation to his own times, see especially Lintott (1997). 6  For a recent sketch of this period, see Tatum (2006) 202–209. 7  Further biographical details on the figure of Nannini and his activity are found in Hester (2003) and Tomei (2012). 8  For a fuller discussion on Giolito’s activity, see especially Coppens and Nuovo (2005). 9  Cf. Nannini (1557) and Nannini (1560). Cf. the chapters by Iglesias-Zoido, Peraita, and Tubau in this book. 10  Cf. Nannini (1561). 11  As suggested by Hester (2003) 240, and actually confirmed by an analysis of the speeches attributed by Dio to the above mentioned figures included in the Orationi militari. Nannini’s translations are from Dione historico Delle guerre e fatti de Romani, tradotto di Greco in lingua vulgare, per M. Nicolò Leoniceno, impresso in Vinegia per Nicolò d’Aristotile di Ferrara detto Zoppino, 1533. 12  For this figure, see De Caro (1978). 13  The Italian translations of the speeches made by Octavian-Augustus after Actium are included in the Orationi in materia civile e criminale.

Oratory AND Political Debate

321

In view of the distinction, based on content, that Nannini used when collecting texts for his two anthologies, some of these rhetorical pieces should not have been placed in the Orationi militari, since they are neither addressed to the troops, nor do they deal with military subjects. As concerns the group of speeches from Cassius Dio that Nannini inserted into the Orationi in materia civile e criminale, published in 1561, the selection was probably made at the same time the Florentine compiler was revising the Orationi militari for the second augmented edition (1560). This timing can be deduced from an additional reference included in this later edition of the work,14 in which Nannini explains the omission of Calenus’s speech and indicates that the reader would find it in the Orationi in materia civile e criminale. Moreover, the anthology of orationes from Cassius Dio contained in this latter work indicates that both political and judicial points of view governed their selection, as can be seen from the space devoted to speeches delivered by Octavian-Augustus in 27 bce, and to other orations delivered during other politically important events of the first Principate, such as Cinna’s conspiracy.15 If we look in more detail at the orationes given in translation in the Orationi militari, an overview of their themes and topics enables us to see that even the speeches that Nannini selected from the Roman History for inclusion in this anthology reveal, at times, his wide-ranging vision. Particularly noticeable is Nannini’s conception of war, which he understood not only as an armed attack against external enemies, but also as an armed conflict within the civitas itself. This conception does not coincide with Cassius Dio’s distinction between speeches delivered in the Senate and speeches delivered to the troops. Nonetheless, in order to understand the significance of the corpus that Nannini selected from Cassius Dio and included in his Orationi militari—in other words, the criteria that the compiler used both to make his selection and to illustrate their meanings in the effetto (added at the end of each of the Italian translations of the speeches in the second augmented edition of the work), and the marginal notes found in each piece—we first need to examine the settings and arguments in the original source, bearing in mind their chronological distribution.

14  Nannini (1560) 364. 15  See the translations of Augustus’ orationes selected from Dio 53.3–10; 55.14–21; 56.2–9 in Nannini (1560) 73–89.

322 2

Mastrorosa

The Orations by Julius Caesar: How to Reconcile Imperialism, Discipline, and Service to the State

It should be stressed that of the orationes taken from Cassius Dio, three attributed to Julius Caesar come first in Nannini’s selection. Two of these were made to the troops on the battlefield (the first one during the Gallic wars and the second during the war against Pompey), while the third was delivered to the Senate before the celebration of his victories over Numidia. The first speech (Dio 38.36–46), according to the historian, was delivered by Caesar in 58 bce, in order to avert the possibility of mutiny during the campaign against Ariovistus (Dio 38.35.3) and was probably16 inspired by Caesar’s own account of the incident (bell. gall. 1.40). The content reveals the orator’s firmly held conviction that he had the right to command and also that he intended to continue the advance with just the Tenth Legion (Dio 38.46.3). At the same time, it also shows a conception of war that can be interpreted as an opportunity to extend the territorial dominion of Rome (Dio 38.36.5), which very probably reflected Cassius Dio’s personal evaluation of Rome’s imperialist behavior. Seen in this light, we cannot rule out the possibility that his approval of the use of aggression as a means of defence or pre-emptive war (Dio 38.42.1) originates from the historian17 rather than the general.18 In addition, the choice of having Caesar make significant references to glorious 16  The identification of Dio’s sources for the Vesontio episode has long been discussed by scholars; besides Hagendahl (1944), who considers that the historian must have followed a source favorable to Caesar’s prerogatives over Ariovistus, as well as Caesar’s Commentarii, many have suggested that Dio used his account as his principal or only source; cf. Millar (1964) 81–82, van Stekelenburg (1971) 31–35, Christ (1974) 275–276, and most recently Millar (2005) 32–33. In favor of the hypothesis of a secondary source, which may or may not have been hostile to Caesar, see Gabba (1955) 302, Zecchini (1978) 33–36, who states that the speech was an original creation by Cassius Dio and that he did not adopt arguments from de bello gallico; cf. also ibid. 180–181. Among recent contributions, see Chrissanthos (2001) 66, according to whom “the account of the causes for the Vesontio mutiny . . . related by Dio may be traced back to Asinius Pollio.” For further insights, see, in addition to McDougall (1991), Lachenaud and Coudry (2011) lxi–lxvi . 17  For Dio’s adherence to defensive imperialism, see Gabba (1955) 303–311, who thinks it is possible that Cassius Dio adopted this position from the experience of the invasion of the Marcomanni and the Quadi in 167 CE. Against this hypothesis, see Millar (1961) 14 and Millar (1964) 81–82; for other interpretations, see the discussion by Letta (1979) 163–166, for whom the passage could reflect the situation after Caracalla. 18  Nonetheless, Caesar’s attitude toward pre-emptive war should not be underestimated either; for this aspect, see Loreto (1993) 264–269.

Oratory AND Political Debate

323

victories achieved by the Romans in previous centuries (Dio 38.37.3–39.1) may also be regarded as a reflection of Cassius Dio’s rhetorical skills.19 It is highly unlikely that Caesar would have quoted historical examples to his troops in order to encourage them to fight, whereas citing such episodes is more consistent with the precepts of ancient rhetorical treatises, which recommend the use of exempla taken from the past.20 Another attempted mutiny, this time at Placentia at the time of the outbreak of the civil war with Pompey (Dio 41.1–14), was the occasion for the speech that, according to Cassius Dio, Julius Caesar delivered to his troops in 49 bce (Dio 41.27–35).21 There is no reference to this oratio in De bello civile,22 which, in fact, offers no evidence of the troops’ opposition on that occasion, although other sources do mention it.23 Despite this lack, the speech quoted by Cassius Dio shows that Caesar advocated a strong war ethic, based on the distinction between punishment and reward, and that he endorsed the advantages of virtue (Dio 41.29.3–4). More particularly, the arguments that are attributed to him indicate his commitment to training his men not to plunder (Dio 41.30.2–3; 31), his view that it was right to use arms solely to punish the guilty (Dio 41.32), and his encouragement of the soldiers to discipline themselves and to show the necessary respect for rank towards their general (Dio 41.33.3–4), a general who was nonetheless ready, if need be, to dismiss unruly elements (Dio 41.34– 35). In spite of the difficulty of verifying the authenticity of Dio’s account in any way, it seems highly likely that these arguments reflect his desire to stress the absolute need for respect for discipline in the army, which we know was a

19  For the rhetorical skill the historian acquired in his youth, see Dio 74.12.2–3, with further comments in Millar (1964) 42–45, Lintott (1997) 2501–2503, and Freyburger-Galland (1997) 18–22. 20  The use of exempla in historiographical expositions was widely recommended in ancient rhetorical treatises; see, for example Rhet. Her. 4.62; Cic. inv. 1.49, de or. 1.18; orat. 120; Quint. 3.8.36; for references to the past in classical historiography, in addition to David (1998), see especially, among recent contributions, Hölkeskamp (1996) and Roller (2009). 21  For comments on this, see, among others, van Stekelenburg (1976) 43–57 and Berti (1987) 80–84. 22  Cf. Caes. Bell. Civ. 2.22, where it states only that Caesar left Massilia with three veteran legions. 23  Cf. App. bell. civ. 2.47; Suet. Div. Iul. 69.2; see also Plut. Caes. 37.5–9; Polyaen. 8.23.15; Front. Strat. 4.5.2. With respect to Lucan. 5.240–373, it seems probable that he was referring to a later rebellion, datable to 47 BCE according to Carsana (2007) 161. More generally on this episode, see also Chrissanthos (2001) 68.

324

Mastrorosa

central theme, not only during the Republican period24 and in the age of the Severans, but also in the view of the historian himself.25 Regarding the oratio attributed to Caesar in 46 bce (Dio 43.15–18), the fact that it was addressed to the Senate in Cassius Dio’s reconstruction makes Nannini’s inclusion of it in the Orationi militari, at first sight, somewhat surprising. However, its inclusion becomes clearer if we look at the arguments that characterize the piece. According to the historian, after Caesar returned to Rome following his victories over Scipio and Juba, and after Cato’s suicide, he delivered a speech designed not only to allay the fears of those who suspected him of aspiring to absolute power (Dio 43.15.1), but also to show that he was a democratic and just leader, with a paternal concern for protecting the interests of the civil state as a whole (Dio 43.17.2–5), and to explain to the patres that the army was at the service of the state and not at his exclusive service (Dio 43.18.1). Aside from the question of authenticity, which is denied by those who consider it purely fictitious or even more easily attributable to Cassius Dio’s own time,26 what emerges from this oratio of the year 46 bce is the use Dio made of it to show Julius Caesar as a politician trying to find reassuring arguments about his intentions but not quite managing to do so (Dio 43.18.6). Nannini also interpreted Caesar’s motives similarly, as can be seen in the effetto of this speech: Quietaronsi alquanto gli animi perturbati de’ Romani per le parole di Cesare, ma tutta volta eglino non erano ben liberi dal sospetto, e non gli credevano cosi agevolmente ogni cosa, peroché lo vedevano aspirare a cose troppo grandi. Ma Cesare si sforzò di mantenere la città allegra, e con quattro trionfi diversi, tenne quattro giorni la città in festa, per le quali cose, egli tirò molto a sé l’animo del popolo, ma i nobili l’hebbero sempre a sospetto, il quale finalmente videro condotto a fine, quando lo videro assoluto Imperador di Roma.27 The unsettled feelings of the Romans calmed down somewhat with Caesar’s words, but still they were not entirely free of suspicion, and they 24  For discipline as a key factor in the Roman war ethic, see especially Phang (2008) and Chrissanthos (2013). 25  See Dio 80.3–4; for further comments on this matter, cf. Letta (1979) 185, Berti (1987) 82–83, de Blois (1997) 2663–2664, and de Blois (1998) 366–367. 26  See the discussion in Millar (1961) 12–13 and Millar (1964) 80–81. 27  Cf. Nannini (1560) 336.

Oratory AND Political Debate

325

did not so easily believe everything he said, because they saw him as too ambitious. But Caesar strove to keep the city happy, and, with four different triumphs, he held celebrations in the city for four days, thanks to which he very much won the people’s hearts, but the noblemen still mistrusted him, and they saw their suspicion finally confirmed when they saw him as absolute Emperor of Rome. 3

The Speeches of Cicero: In Defense of Rome and Self-Promotion

Two speeches attributed to Cicero in Books 44 and 45 of the Roman History are similarly incongruous in the military context that the Orationi militari ostensibly deals with. The first of these (Dio 44.23–33)28 is presented as part of the debate prompted by Marc Antony immediately after the assassination of Julius Caesar, on March 17, 44 bce.29 Cicero’s tone is calm and conciliatory, as he tries to encourage the members of the Senate to exercise their role as arbiters and to work towards eliminating differences of opinion, so favoring a climate of concord (Dio 44.23.3).30 It seems likely that Nannini saw this speech as an example of an attempt to prevent conflict within the body of the state, which would therefore make it an appropriate choice, broadly speaking, for a military context. However, Cassius Dio pointed out that the speech not only contained many examples taken from events in the past31 along with an explicit invitation to the audience to draw lessons from them for the future (Dio 44.25.6; 26.1), but also references to episodes and characters from history who were used to underline the negative consequences resulting from recent bouts of

28  On which see also Fechner (1986) 58–63 and Cristofoli (2002) 100–102, according to whom the historian does not report the speech that was really given although his account does reflect the actual content of the oratio. 29  With respect to Antony’s position in this situation, see Cristofoli (2008) 175–176. It is noteworthy that according to App. bell. civ. 2.142, who does not, however, mention Cicero’s presence on that specific occasion, the speech was delivered the day after the meeting of the Senate in the Temple of the Tellus. 30  Useful insights concerning the special role played by Cicero in this period can be found in Knight (1968). 31  See Dio 44.25, with reference, among others, to negative episodes, such as the secession of the plebs and the speeches by individuals, such as the consuls Valerius and Horatius or the Gracchi.

326

Mastrorosa

civil strife, which had provided an opportunity for the rise of power-seeking individuals.32 This line of argument reflects Cicero’s view of historia magistra vitae and his endorsement of historical exempla,33 both of which Cassius Dio evidently shared. Cicero’s reference to the glory that is attained by dying for the State34 can also be interpreted as a way of underlining that those who die during a civil war deserve particular recognition, since they die against their will (Dio 44.30.5). Another equally compelling point is that, according to Dio’s report, Cicero attacked the behavior of those who were guilty of wrongdoings against their fellow citizens but who had been referred to as benefactors of the state (Dio 44.30.7–8). Apart from the tone of condemnation directed toward the guilty, Cicero used a softer tone towards the Senators, encouraging them to play a paternal role in accordance with their name (Dio 44.32.2–3) and to choose the path of moderatio and concord (Dio 44.32.4–5). He also justifies his own position by emphasizing that he was not driven by hostility towards Caesar because he had formerly supported Pompey. He also recalls that he had always acted super partes, and taken a position against anyone irrespective of who they were, with the sole purpose of supporting public freedom and harmony (Dio 44.33.1–2). Cicero stated all these ideas before going on to propose an amnesty to anyone who committed crimes against the law under Caesar. He also proposed that any honors, offices and gifts that Caesar had granted should be preserved (Dio 44.33.3–4). This proposal can, on the one hand, be traced back to the position that Cicero himself expressed directly in a passage in the First of the Philippics, from which, among other sources, Cassius Dio very probably took his inspiration.35 On the other, though, the whole structure of the argumentation presents a portrait of Cicero that was already established in tradition—the self-proclaimed

32  See the references in Dio 44.28 to the rise of various military leaders such as Marius, Sulla, Cinna, Lepidus, Sertorius, Catiline, Clodius, Pompey, and finally Caesar. 33  Cf. Cic. de orat. 2.36; for a recent overview of Cicero’s use of historical exempla, see van der Blom (2010) 61–147. 34  For the topos attributed to Cicero, namely, dulce et decorum pro patria mori, see the recent discussion by Speidel (2010), with further bibliography. 35  See Cic. Phil. 1.1, as suggested by Millar (1961) 17–18 and Millar (1964) 51–52. For further evidence of Cicero’s speech in favor of the amnesty, cf. also Vell. Pat. 2.58.4; Plut. Cic. 42.3. More generally, with regard to the amnesty, as well as the role played by Antony, see Plut. Caes. 67.8; Brut. 19.1; Ant. 14.3; Flor. 2.17.4; App. bell. civ. 2.133.

Oratory AND Political Debate

327

savior of the state, devoid of personal interests—36and presumably taken into account by Dio in order to make the speech attributed to Cicero in his work more convincing. Nonetheless, the resolute and confident image of Cicero that this speech projects—which was in fact effective enough, according to Cassius Dio, to persuade the patres to decree that the Romans should not harbor thoughts of revenge (Dio 44.34.1)—matches the one attributed to him in the second oratio, in Book 45. In this second speech (Dio 45.18–47),37 Cicero comprehensively lists the accusations against Antony in January 43 bce, after the first clashes between him and Octavian had broken out. Although the tone of the speech is equally resolute, it reveals an attitude that is far from favoring the reconciliation that Cicero had proposed only a few months earlier. Inspired by arguments that would probably also have been suggested to Cassius Dio through his reading of Cicero’s literary works,38 his second oratio broadly acknowledges the accusations levelled against Antony39 on one of the first three days of the session held by the Senate at the beginning of the month (Dio 45.17.1).40 Indeed, on that occasion, according to Cassius Dio’s reconstruction, Cicero first expressed his opposition to a state ruled by a single individual with the motivations of a tyrant, unable to guarantee just laws and freedom of speech, and then declared himself ready to face danger in the interests of Rome (Dio 45.18.2–3). Finally, having called attention to the difficulties they faced at the time, and alluding 36  In fact, it reflects Cicero’s self-portrait as conservator rei publicae: cf. Cic. Phil. 2.2; 2.51; 2.60; 3.28; 14.24. For further remarks on this topic, see Hall (2013). 37  As regards the overall structure of this section of the work, we cannot fail to notice that Cicero’s speech appears as the first part of a diptych that includes an oratio in response, attributed to Calenus (Dio 46.1–28), in which the latter explains, among other things, that Antony had organized the attempt to crown Caesar at the Lupercalia so as to make him aware of the opposition that was beginning to spread because of his autocratic tendencies and to embarrass him into abandoning his ambitions. 38  According to Millar (1961) 18, the piece is “not a transcript or paraphrase of an original speech by Cicero” but was composed “at least in part from material from the Philippics;” in the same vein, see also Millar (1964) 54, Zecchini (2001) 26 n. 66, and Fromentin and Bertrand (2008) xxi–xxviii, among others. 39  For Cicero’s representation of Antony as a public enemy, see Cic. Phil. 2.1; 2.17; 3.1; 4.14–15. For a fuller discussion of this matter, cf. Manuwald (2007) 105–109, and more recently, Cristofoli (2014). 40  For the exact date, see Gabba (1957) 325. According to Gabba, it appears from Dio 46.29.2, that Cicero and Calenus spoke on the first day; for a different proposal, see Millar (1964) 52, who states that, although it is not clear on which of the days Dio intended the speeches of Cicero and Calenus to have taken place, a reference to the temple of Concordia in Calenus’s oratio leads us to think they took place on the second or third of January.

328

Mastrorosa

also to the soldiers who had been sent to defend the Aula (Dio 45.19.1), his speech became a litany of accusations against Antony, guilty, among other things, of violating the orders of both the Senate and the people and of having committed raids and acts of arrogance that deserved harsh and immediate punishment (Dio 45.20–24). Convinced of the need to take up arms (Dio 45.21.2), Cicero also criticized the excessively submissive line adopted by the Senate and the inconclusiveness of their measures to establish peace, given that Antony had ignored their orders (Dio 45.23.3–4). He went on to attack Antony for stealing the public money left by Caesar, his arrogant behavior, despite having refused the title of dictator, and his lack of respect for his duties as a consul (Dio 45.24.1–4). After Cicero had accused Antony of immoral behavior and of offending the dignity of the Lupercalia Feast (Dio 45.25.2; 45.28–29; 45.30), he drew the Senate’s attention to the threat to Rome posed by a man who had once dared to place the royal diadem on Caesar’s head (Dio 45.31.3).41 He also suggested that it was fitting that Antony, who had given many demonstrations of cruel and violent behavior, should share the same fate as Caesar, who was suspected only of harboring autocratic intentions (Dio 45.34.3; 35.2),42 and called him an enemy of and plotter against the political regime and the freedom of the Romans (Dio 45.37.1–2). Finally, in order to cast Antony in a totally negative light, he called up the contrasting image of young Octavian, who, despite his tender years, had already shown that he was eager to defend the welfare of the state (Dio 45.38.2–3).43 According to Dio’s account, after encouraging the patres to take up a clear and consistent position between the two sides (Dio 45.39.1–2), Cicero reproved Antony for his duplicity in accepting wealth and honors from Caesar but then helping spread calumnies about him sufficient to bring about his assassination (Dio 45.40.3), and also for his cowardice in not taking part himself in the assassination, but contributing to the murder by the very nature of his conduct (Dio 45.41.1–2). Dio also recounts that once Cicero had demolished his adversary by illustrating his actions over the previous year, he went on to make a final attack, highlighting Antony’s weaknesses compared to Octavian in the military sphere, and asked the Senate to sign a decree recognizing Octavian’s decisions, 41  For the detail concerning Antony’s attempt to place the diadem on Caesar’s head, see Cic. Phil. 2.86; for this episode, among numerous contributions, see Sordi (1999), Zecchini (2001) 11–34, and Cristofoli (2008) 140–152. 42  For this argument, see also Cic. Phil. 2.86. 43  Dio’s passage may be compared with the presentation of Octavian in Cic. Phil. 3.5; 4.2– 4; on this matter, see also Ortmann (1988) 171–175; 180–186; 527–528; Humpert (2001) 245–270.

Oratory AND Political Debate

329

so as to consolidate and legitimize both his position and his initiatives (Dio 45.42.2–5). In addition, Cicero demonstrated the value of his own past experience, by mentioning particularly his intervention against Catiline and Lentulus (Dio 45.42.6).44 He went on to encourage the patres to set aside respect for legality and fairness in the presence of someone who had already been seen to violate them and who represented a threat to the security of the Republic, and thus to declare open war on him without further delay (Dio 45.44–45). The speech of accusation above, which is put into Cicero’s mouth in Book 45 of the Roman History, reflects, on the one hand, specific arguments that were presumably taken from his actual writings as well as from anti-Ciceronian literature;45 on the other, though, it also reveals Cassius Dio’s desire to portray Cicero in a particular way. Indeed, the second oratio attributed to him is marked throughout by a confident tone befitting the role of defender of the civitas, and the conclusion demonstrates that he was so convinced that it was inappropriate to adopt a peaceful line and was so moved by the need to express himself freely as to declare that he was ready to risk death in defense of the state (Dio 45.46.2). According to the historian’s account, he was also ready to put himself forward as an authority in defense of the civitas, based on his previous successes, which he reminded the audience of by mentioning the honors awarded him in the past (Dio 45.46.3). In fact, his speech stressed his achievements, so revealing that he was a homo novus, intent on legitimizing his own role,46 which was clearly perceived by the historian Cassius Dio, who was also a senator. The two speeches attributed to Cicero in Books 43 and 44 of the Roman History have often been considered in relation to references from his own work or other sources for the purpose of proving either that they are authentic or that they were elaborated by Cassius Dio himself; nonetheless, when they are considered in parallel they may be seen to have an ulterior significance. In particular, the content that the historian gives to the two orationes seems to illustrate very clearly that, in the space of just a few months, Cicero had moved from a line of appeasement to one of open opposition. Furthermore, it leads the reader to believe that, once Cicero had abandoned the role of guardian of legality, he encouraged war against Antony in a tone that, though it echoes the propaganda against Antony—just as Cassius Dio also does in the speech 44  For this argument see also Plut. Cic. 24.3. On Cicero’s tendency to stress his merits see e. g. Cic. Phil. 2.1–2; 2.119; 14.20–21; Fam. 9.24.4; 12.7.1; 12.22.2; 12.24.2. 45  As noted especially by Gabba (1957) 327, Millar (1964) 53–54, and Millar (2005) 33. 46  For the rhetorical strategies used by Cicero to show his merit as homo novus, see recent comments by van der Blom (2010) 41–59.

330

Mastrorosa

he attributes to Octavian before Actium—it portrays Cicero nonetheless as an arrogant figure for taking upon himself the role of principal defender of Rome’s freedom and welfare.47 On this point, we cannot rule out the possibility that Dio’s negative verdict of the figure of Cicero, which is borne out in other sections of his Roman History,48 was influenced by certain assessments taken from Plutarch’s Life of Cicero (24.1–3). It is likely that Nannini saw these two speeches—especially the first ­oration—as an example of an attempt to prevent conflict within the body of the state. This interpretation helps us see the perspective from which Nannini selected this piece as a model speech, since he seems to favour the conciliatory approach Cicero used to encourage the members of the Senate to work towards removing differences and favouring a climate of concord. 4

Antony’s Rhetorical Strategies: Exploiting Funeral and Military Oratory

Further evidence of Dio’s tendency to highlight the significance of oratory in the political dialectic of the final decades of the Republican Age—which is so evident in the speeches attributed to Caesar and Cicero considered above— can also be found in the two orationes attributed to Antony, one supposedly in March 44 bce on the occasion of Caesar’s funeral, the other before the Battle of Actium in 31 bce. While, from the point of view of rhetorical structure, one of the pieces can be classified as a laudatio funebris and the other as an exhortatio militaris, they both allow us to examine how Cassius Dio wanted to characterize the figure of Antony, taking into consideration elements of his image that had been passed down in tradition. In the opening passage of the first of these orationes (Dio 44.36–49),49 Dio notes that the speech was brilliant but inappropriate to the occasion (Dio 44.35.4). Antony immediately makes it clear to those present that his speech is a public act intended to commemorate a public figure, stating that 47  With regard to this, cf. Millar (1961) 15, according to whom Dio avoids making judgments about Cicero’s career, while nonetheless making “comments, markedly unfavorable, on his political activities and ambitions.” 48  See Dio 36.43.4–44.2. 49  For further references to the laudatio funebris and Antony’s conduct on that occasion, see Cic. Phil. 2.90; Plut. Ant. 14.6; Plut. Brut. 20.7; App. bell. civ. 2.144–146. For a different reconstruction of the episode, see Suet. Iul. 84.3, whose account is followed by Mangiameli (2012) 12.

Oratory AND Political Debate

331

if Caesar had died as a private citizen, the speech would not have required a long presentation of his merits, but would rather have been concerned simply to draw attention to the nobility of his birth, his education, his habits, and possibly any of his actions that benefited the state (Dio 44.36.1). This point seems to reflect Cassius Dio’s familiarity with a topic that was normally applied in commemorative oratory and is clearly set out in a wellknown passage by Polybius (6.53.5–54.2).50 At the same time, it is an effective preamble that Dio uses to alert the reader to the ambiguous nature of Antony’s speech. In this respect, it is significant that in the opening passage of the text, Antony stated that he was speaking in his dual capacity as designated heir and consul (Dio 44.36.2). According to the oratio that Cassius Dio attributed to Antony, in addition to his statement hinting at his institutional ambitions, the orator emphasized not only Caesar’s noble origins, military successes and clemency (Dio 44.37.3–5, 38.6–7; 39.5), but also the cruel nature of his death, thus metaphorically contrasting Caesar’s generosity with the brutality of his assassins (Dio 44.49). The authenticity of this speech is not easy to establish, and many scholars hold it to be pure invention on the part of the historian.51 According to a reference in Suetonius’ account, Antony left the herald the task of reading a senatus consultum that decreed all honors to the dead man and merely confined himself to delivering a short speech (Div. Iul. 84.3). Nonetheless, the arguments that Cassius Dio records present a picture of Antony as well able to wield the sharpest of dialectical weapons, in accordance with some details reported by Plutarch (Ant. 5.2; 40.8; 43.5). The same tendency can be seen in the second speech attributed to Antony in the Roman History (Dio 50.16–22),52 which certainly can be classified as an adlocutio militaris.53 Indeed, its aim was to encourage the troops and to reassure them, first of all, that they had supremacy over the enemy in terms of 50  See also Dion. Halic. Ant. Rom. 5.17.5–6; for a fuller discussion among many contributions on this subject, see especially Kierdorf (1980) 49–93 and Flower (1996) 128–158. 51  In favor of Dio’s reconstruction, see among others, Traina (2003) 42–44, Fraschetti (2005) 49, and Cristofoli (2002) 131–133, with a review of previous contributions and different interpretations; cf also Cristofoli (2008) 184 n. 79, for whom Antony actually delivered the speech and used this circumstance to set in motion a subtle strategy intended to isolate the conspirators, in contrast to what had been agreed on March 17, given the imminent entry of Octavian into the field. 52  For this passage, see also recent remarks in Mangiameli (2012) 249–257. 53  For military adlocutiones, among the many contributions, see Hansen (1993), IglesiasZoido (2007), Iglesias-Zoido, ed. (2008), Harto Trujillo (2008), Buongiovanni (2009), and Mangiameli (2012).

332

Mastrorosa

numbers, military prowess, experience, and equipment for fighting on both land and sea, and also that funds from legitimate sources were readily available to finance their exploits (Dio 50.16). Cassius Dio’s account of this oratio, supposedly given in the late summer of 31 bce, suggests that Antony portrayed himself effectively as an accomplished general who could win battles, even with little equipment and soldiers lacking in courage, was gifted with physical and intellectual strength deriving from a fine education, and had an uncommonly wide military experience (Dio 50.17). This argumentation was followed by the denigration of his enemy, described as a physically weak individual, with no history of victory in battle, either on land or at sea (Dio 50.18.2–3). According to the historian, after Antony rallied the soldiers by telling them that victory in the present battle would ensure victory in the whole campaign (Dio 50.19.5), he then turned to the reasons behind the conflict and outlined the need to take an offensive line as the best means of defense. In this regard, Antony accused Octavian of acting arrogantly and of having obtained his will by underhanded means. He further remarked on the need to oppose him in order to avoid risking the rule of a tyrant, and finally represented himself as the guardian of liberty, in contrast to this negative picture of his rival (Dio 50.20.5–21). Structured as an accusatio of the enemy and a denunciation of his autocratic intentions,54 this speech attributed to Antony appears as the first part of a diptych in Cassius Dio’s Roman History, being matched by another speech attributed to Octavian. 5

Octavian’s Speech Before Actium: Use of the Harangue to the Troops to Defame the Adversary

With respect to the authenticity of this oratio (Dio 50.24–30),55 since Augustus had the habit of writing down the speeches he made (Suet. Aug. 84.2), it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that there existed portions of an original document containing the speech that he delivered before the Battle of Actium which, three centuries later, Cassius Dio was able to read.56 Nonetheless, leaving aside questions of authenticity, a review of the argumentation attributed 54  For this, see especially Dio 50.20.6. 55  For a fuller analysis of this speech, in addition to Mangiameli (2012) 257–268, see, more recently, Mastrorosa (2014), with further bibliography. 56  In this respect, see also Freyburger-Galland and Roddaz (1991) xxx. More generally, Dio’s use of documents for the composition of some sections of his work has been demonstrated by Letta (1979) 139–148 and Letta (2003) 597–607.

Oratory AND Political Debate

333

to Octavian enables us to notice, first of all, certain analogies with passages from Plutarch’s Life of Antony and, secondly, that it is structured as an encouragement to face battle without hesitation.57 According to Dio’s account of the speech, Octavian emphasized the legitimacy of the war as a defensive measure against an enemy who was capable of destroying the security of Rome by essentially following his own personal interests. In this case, interest focused mainly on Antony’s love for Cleopatra, who could be taken as a symbol of the East, and in turn regarded emblematically as a threat to the survival of the urbs.58 Enriched once again by references to events from the history of Republican Rome,59 Octavian’s oratio can be classified as an accusatio of the vitia of the enemy, rather than a cohortatio militaris. From this point of view, beyond being able to identify its particular rhetorical category in technical terms, it shows above all Cassius Dio’s ability to make use of anti-Antony propaganda that had been passed down in tradition in order to construct a piece to fit the mouth of the future Augustus and to show him, in 31 bce, as being actively engaged in defending and guaranteeing the government of Rome, free from any kind of autocratic yoke and from the threat of the East.60 In summary, the overall analysis of the argumenta dealt with in the speeches of Caesar, Cicero, Antony, and Octavian above leads us to hypothesize that Cassius Dio regarded the period between the years following the so-called First Triumvirate and the Battle of Actium, namely from 58 to 31 bce, as a time when some of the principal exponents of the political scene used oratory in order to guide crucial decisions. Furthermore, it enables us to think that, through the reconstruction of their orationes, Dio took the opportunity to express his own views in favour of republican values, such as military discipline, concord, and respect for Roman institutions and traditions. 6

Cassius Dio Under the Lens of Nannini: Reading the Past in the Light of the Present

The reasons why Remigio Nannini selected these pieces for his Orationi Militari seem to point in a similar direction, especially when we consider the effetto following each of the Italian translations of the speeches in the second augmented edition of the work (1560). The effetto was an element intended to 57  See Mastrorosa (2014) 6. 58  See Dio 50.24.5–7; 25; 26.4–27.2 and the remarks in Mastrorosa (2014) 3–4. 59  For references to victories achieved by the Romans in previous centuries, see Dio 50.24.3–4. 60  Concerning this, see further observations in Mastrorosa (2014) 5–8.

334

Mastrorosa

demonstrate the practical outcome of the orations. If we also take into account the content of the orationes that were culled from Cassius Dio, which is more often political than strictly military, we can see that Dio’s conception of war was sufficiently broad to encompass not only conflicts with external enemies, but also those arising among elements of the civitas. Furthermore, if we read the notes—almost glosses—that were added to the speeches, we discover that the ethical perspective and didactic intention that inspired Nannini’s selection of oratorical sections of Cassius Dio’s work were to extract models of conduct that could be used to educate as well as inform his sixteenth century readers. In this respect, from Caesar’s speech at Vesontio, Nannini takes a few suggestions about the need to align individual interest with the protection of the state,61 about the risk of any individual committed to the defense of the res publica succumbing to envy,62 and also about the need to be decisive in punishing the enemy, even for malevolent intentions not yet carried out.63 With respect to the cohortatio delivered by Caesar at Piacenza in 49 bce, the glosses show Nannini’s interest in using it to elicit a model of the condottiere made stronger by a small yet obedient army,64 able to punish wrongdoers,65

61  Nannini (1560) 323: “Il modo del viver privato, non è simile al modo del viver delle Republiche” (“The way of life of private individuals is not like the way of life of republics”); “La salute privata de’ cittadini, consiste nella publica salute della città” (“The private health of citizens consists in the public health of the city”). 62  Nannini (1560) 325: “Chi è superiore ad altri, è sempre sospetto, & invidiato” (“He who is superior to others is always mistrusted and envied”); “Ciascuno che viene in grandezza di stato, o signoria, non può vivere sicuramente come privato” (“Anyone who successfully attains a position of prominence or power most certainly cannot live as a private individual); “Quei che posseggono molte cose, son soggetti all’insidie di molti” (“Those who have a lot of possessions are subject to the snares of many”). 63  Nannini (1560) 327: “Un nimico si deve punire non solo del male che ei fa, ma di quello ancora, ch’egli ha in animo di fare” (“An enemy must be punished not only because of the evil he causes, but also because of the evil that he intends to cause”). 64  Nannini (1560) 330: “A un Capitano è meglio haver uno esercito piccolo, e obediente, che grande, e licentioso” (“It is better for a captain to have a small obedient army than a large licentious one”); “Chi vince i nimici, e non vince le voluttà, non si può chiamar veramente vittorioso” (“He who conquers enemies and does not conquer their will cannot be truly called victorious”). 65  Nannini (1560) 331: “Nessuna compagnia di huomini, può durar se non puniti i cattivi” (“No group of men can last unless the wicked are punished”); “Dove i mali non puniti, è impossibile vivervi quietamente” (“Where evil is not punished it is impossible to live peacefully”).

Oratory AND Political Debate

335

to impose justice,66 even to prefer voluntary death over an offense to his dignity.67 Overall, what emerges from the effetto is the image of a commander who is able to combine ratio and perspicacity, is gifted with certain qualities that demonstrate his superiority, and makes decisions with successful outcomes: “Circa la qual cosa è d’avvertare, che ad un Capitano il conviene con una certa sorte d’huomini mostrarsi amorevole, e cortese, e con un’altra severo e bestiale” (“About which it should be noted that a Captain should behave in a friendly and courteous manner with a certain type of man, and severely and brutally with another type”).68 This war ethic can also be related to suggestions made in Machiavelli’s Arte della guerra.69 Nor can we rule out the possibility that Nannini’s interest in the usefulness of knowing how to make the most of good fortune, which, as one gloss shows,70 he extracted from Caesar’s speech to the Senate in 46 bce, can be traced back to Machiavelli’s work. With regard to the orationes attributed to Cicero, the declarations in favor of reconciliation and amnesty that he made, according to Cassius Dio, in the Senate in 44 bce, provide Nannini with an opportunity to remind his readers of the disastrous consequences for Rome of civil war,71 and to emphasize the need to move beyond mistakes in order to draw lessons from them and so avoid repeating them in the future.72 What emerges from the effetto to this speech is the paradigmatic value of Cicero’s behavior in working in the interests of harmony: 66  Nannini (1560) 332: “L’arme senza giustitia, sono il più delle volte inutili, né si può operare in loro” (“Weapons without justice are more often than not useless, and cannot even be used”). 67  Nannini (1560) 333: “A un Capitano è più honesto elegger voluntaria morte, che far contra alla sua dignità” (“It is more honorable for a captain to choose a voluntary death than to act against his own dignity”). 68  Nannini (1560) 334. 69  See Machiavelli, The Art of War (1521) book 4, for whom captains, among others, must also be excellent orators. 70  Cf. Nannini (1560) 335: “Un generoso principe, quanto più sia la fortuna prospera, tanto più la deve usare prosperamente” (“The more a generous prince’s fortune prospers, the more prosperously he should use it”), and some references to the role played on the battlefield by fortune and opportunity found in N. Machiavelli, The Art of War (1521) book 7. 71  Nannini (1560) 338: “Rovina di Roma hebbe principio dalle guerre civili” (“Rome’s ruin had its origin in civil war”). 72  Nannini (1560) 341: “Il lamentarsi delle cose fatte, e che non posson tornar a dietro, e cosa vana. Il frutto che si cava de’ mali è, che l’huomo si guarda di non cadervi un’altra volta” (“Complaining about things that have been done and that cannot be undone is pointless. The fruit that can be obtained from mistakes is that man takes care not to make them again”).

336

Mastrorosa

Veramente, ch’egli è molto importante il consigliar bene in casi di tanta importanza, come era quello, nel quale si trovava allhora la città di Roma. Tuttavia in questi tumulti il persuadere alla concordia non è se non bene, perché quando i sangui son raffredati e gli animi sono diventati più quieti, si può più facilmente deliberare le cose appartenenti alla salute publica. A questo fine hebbe l’occhio Cicerone, il quale con questo suo grave ragionamento dispose il Senato talmente, che per allhora ei fece un decreto, ch’e’ si levassero l’offese, e s’assicurassero così quegli che erano in Campidoglio, come quegli c’havevano preso la piazza.73 It is indeed very important to offer good advice in situations important as the one the city of Rome was in at that time. Nevertheless, encouraging harmony in such riots does nothing but good, because once the blood has cooled down and tempers are calmer, it is much easier to deliberate on issues relating to public well-being. This was the purpose Cicero had in mind, and with his grave speech he then persuaded the Senate to issue a decree to lift the offenses, and to reassure both those who were at the Capitol and those who had taken the square. An appreciation of Cicero’s merits can also be seen in Nannini’s interpretation of Cicero’s speech against Antony in 43 bce, particularly his agreement with the appeal about the necessity of punishing anyone who sets himself against the state. Seen in this light, it is especially significant that Nannini recognizes this figure as the archetype of the true free citizen, one who truly loves public freedom.74 This interpretation takes on greater meaning when we notice that Nannini also found aspects that he approved of in the ethics of Cicero’s rival, Antony, going beyond the historical character to see him as a spokesman for values and ideals worth proposing to his sixteenth century readers. Significant in this regard is his approval of Antony’s position in one passage of the effetto about the fact that it is incumbent upon those of noble birth to be virtuous, and that he becomes a hero neither to despise the wretched nor envy the fortunate.75

73  Nannini (1560) 342. 74  Nannini (1560) 363: “Esempio in Cicerone, d’un vero libero Cittadino, e vero amatore della pubblica libertà” (“Example in Cicero of a true citizen and true lover of public liberty”). 75  Nannini (1560) 344: “L’esser nobile di sangue, da grande splendore alla virtù” (“Being noble by blood gives great splendor to virtue”); “Egli è difficilissimo che uno medesimo uomo sia

Oratory AND Political Debate

337

Nannini’s notes—apart from receiving certain of the affirmations attributed to Antony by Cassius Dio in the funeral laudatio for Caesar as gnomic and timeless—openly approve and endorse Antony’s observations in his speech before Actium, which the historian also attributes to him, about the need to have a worthy captain76 and to avoid creating a climate of discord in an army.77 Very similar, too, is the ethic that he derives from the declarations of Antony’s rival, Octavian, with whom he is in agreement concerning the importance that should be given to the legitimacy of a war rather than strength of arms,78 in his condemnation of unmanly behavior that is inappropriate for battle79 and his conviction that it is necessary to avoid making mistakes at the beginning of an enterprise.80 7 Conclusions In conclusion, an examination of the section of Remigio Nannini’s Orationi Militari that includes the orationes considered above—which were delivered, according to Cassius Dio, by Caesar, Cicero, Antony, and Octavian in the decades immediately preceding the crucial event of the Battle of Actium— seems to show that the sixteenth-century compiler was following in the footsteps of the ancient historian. Whereas Dio, a writer skilled in rhetoric and convinced of the functional value of oratory, did not hesitate to re-work information taken from earlier tradition in order to construct speeches with a distinct ethical tone to be attributed to key actors in the last years of the Republic, Nannini selected and used his pieces to transmit to Early Modern readers, not perfettamente integro in parole, e in fatti” (“It is extremely difficult for the same man to be perfectly honest in word and deed”). 76  Nannini (1560) 365 “Coloro, che debbon combattere valorosamente, bisogna che abbiano un Capitano valente” (“Those who must fight courageously need to have a brave captain”). 77  Nannini (1560) 368: “La discordia di uno esercito è dannosa e promette la vittoria al nimico” (“Discord in an army is harmful and promises victory to the enemy”). 78  Nannini (1560) 369 “Un Capitano debbe confidarsi più nella giustitia della guerra, che nella forza delle armi” (“A captain must trust in the justice of the war rather than in the force of arms”). 79  Nannini (1560) 371 “Da uno huomo effeminato non possono uscire consigli, né fatti virili” (“From an effeminate man there cannot proceed any advice or manly act”). 80  Nannini (1560) 373 “Chi erra nel principio delle sue imprese, diventa da poco nel seguitarle”. (“He who errs at the beginning of his endeavors becomes worthless when trying to pursue them”).

338

Mastrorosa

only the mores and ideals of the ancient Romans, but also his own principles, which were inspired by them. As a result, when Nannini recognized the effectiveness of the speeches that Cassius Dio attributed to major figures of the late Roman Republic, he appears to have considered it useful to offer his readers Italian translations of them, accompanied by “sentences,” which reduced the lessons that could be learned from the ancients to specific ethics that were functional within the schemes of behavior of Early Modern society.

CHAPTER 17

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular: The Speeches in Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories Robert D. Black There can be no doubt that Machiavelli approached the writing of history as a humanist. His father, Bernardo, a legal pundit who collected classical and humanist Latin texts and even compiled an erudite index to Livy,1 had not neglected his son’s humanist education, choosing a series of competent and even distinguished teachers. Matteo da Rocca San Casciano, Niccolò’s first recorded instructor, was Florence’s official grammar school master for sixteen years. Battista da Poppi, Niccolò’s second teacher, was a book collector, lending Bernardo a copy of Pliny’s Natural History at about the time he was teaching Niccolò. Benedetto Riccardini, known as “Philologus,” was a pupil of Poliziano’s, who would teach grammar at the school of S. Lorenzo in Florence for ten years. Riccardini worked as an editor for the Florentine publisher Filippo Giunti too, preparing numerous Greek and Latin texts for the press. He dedicated an intermediate Latin grammar, Erudimenta grammatices latinae linguae, to Niccolò and his cousin Alessandro Machiavelli, whom he taught as a pair probably between 1477 and 1480. Paolo Sassi da Ronciglione, Niccolò’s last-known Latin master, held a communal teaching post, also serving as grammar teacher in the church schools at S. Lorenzo and the Florentine Cathedral; he was the Latin master of humanists, including Pietro Crinito and Michele Verino.2 Bernardo Machiavelli thus prepared the ground for his son’s higher education. There is no explicit evidence for Niccolò’s further humanist study at university. The biographer and historian Paolo Giovio suggested that Machiavelli attended the lectures of Marcello Virgilio Adriani, successor at the University of Florence to the great philologist, Angelo Poliziano: Machiavelli admitted to us that he infused his writings with the refinements (flores) of the Greek and Latin languages that he received from

1  Atkinson (2002). 2  R. Black (2012) 18–24 and R. Black (2015).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_019

340

Black

Marcello Virgilio Adriani, whose notary and disciple in public office he was.3 Some have disputed the obvious meaning here,4 but other passages in Giovio’s writings,5 as well as Machiavelli’s particular work with the texts of Lucretius and Terence, support Giovio’s statement.6 Positive evidence of Machiavelli’s humanist education comes from his early scholarly activities and first writings. His work as a copyist extended to Terence’s Eunuch, a standard school text in the Renaissance. Including a simple marginal grammatical explication, his activities with this text at first sight do not appear to go beyond the basic commentary characteristic of a grammar school reader; nevertheless, his version offered a number of readings outside the usual variants employed to establish the text and so might indicate a more sophisticated approach.7 As a copyist, Machiavelli’s engagement with Lucretius went further. Not only did he incorporate the erudite corrections apparently proposed by Adriani, but when the manuscript source offering these emendations ceased near the end of the poem’s first book, Machiavelli launched in a new direction, including readings that would soon appear in two cutting-edge versions of the text. Whether this activity represented Machiavelli’s own interventions, or, more probably, derived from further original study of the text by the likes of Adriani, the upshot is that Machiavelli was associated with efforts to produce a version of Lucretius more critical than the feeble efforts emanating from various printers before the mid-1490s.8 His early engagement with Lucretius has now been shown to extend to autograph marginal comments to the text, especially to book two. A number of these marginalia are narrowly philological, dealing with alternative readings or supplying omitted verses, but some treat Lucretius’s argument; largely paraphrase or simple explication, they are standard student’s fare.9 Further evidence of Machiavelli’s humanist interests in the 1490s has emerged from his activity as a translator. Until recently it had been believed, 3  Giovio (1999) 196: “Constat eum, sicuti ipse nobis fatebatur, a Marcello Virgilio, cuius et notarius, et assecla publici muneris fuit, graecae atque latinae linguae flores accepisse, quos scriptis suis insereret.” 4  Bausi (2005) 18–19. 5  Dionisotti (1980) 414 n. 9. 6  R. Black (2012) 24–28. 7  Gaeta (1961) 553–555. 8  Bertelli (1965) 285. 9  Brown (2010) 74–75, 121–122.

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular

341

on the basis of an orthographical analysis (originally published in 1912) of the autograph manuscript, that the first version of Machiavelli’s translation of Terence’s comedy Andria dated from 1517 or early 1518.10 However, a recent study has shown that the spellings in this first version of Andria do not correspond to Machiavelli’s orthography in the surviving dated autographs (from 1498 to 1527). The consequent hypothesis that the first version of Andria actually dates from before 1498 is confirmed by the crude and clumsy language of the translation, not consistent with the mature writer that Machiavelli had become by 1517. In this first version, Machiavelli dismisses Savonarola sarcastically, whereas by 1517 Savonarola had become a weighty figure in Machiavelli’s political thought.11 A further point is Machiavelli’s reliance on commentaries in preference to the text itself in preparing the translation,12 an immature approach characteristic of medieval and Renaissance schools, whereas in his maturity (for example with Livy in the Discourses or Ovid in the Serenata) he followed original versions, not the commentary tradition. If Machiavelli’s first version does date from the years before 1498, then the translation of Andria offers a window onto Machiavelli’s humanist culture before entering the chancery. Machiavelli’s work with Andria can be connected with his own Latin grammar studies. His teacher, Benedetto Riccardini, brought out an edition of Terence in 1505, intended to aid adolescent readers, and one can imagine that Terence had formed part of Machiavelli’s own curriculum under Riccardini. Terence was also held up as a stylistic model in the school operated by Machiavelli’s second grammar teacher, Paolo Sassi; indeed Terence had become a standard author in fifteenth-century Italian grammar schools. Andria had been the subject of lectures at the University of Florence by Riccardini’s own teacher, Poliziano, who also taught Adriani. Translation from Latin into the vernacular never played a role in formal Latin study at the school or university level during the Renaissance, but it was an activity associated with learned humanist circles; the mid-1490s—the likely date of Machiavelli’s own translation of Andria—witnessed a flowering of vernacular translations of Plautus and Terence at Ferrara. In Florence itself, Andria had been staged in 1476 by the pupils of the prominent grammar teacher Giorgio Antonio Vespucci, in his school premises, in the Medici palace, and in the Palazzo della Signoria.13 So it is hard not to see Machiavelli’s translation of Andria as part of the current 10  Gerber (1912) 41–44. 11  Stoppelli (2005) 29–36. 12  Fumagalli (1997) 205. 13  Godman (1998) 208–209, R. Black (2012) 19, Poliziano (1973) x-xii, Bausi (2005) 272, Stoppelli (2005) 39, and R. Black (2007) 164.

342

Black

humanist scene. Machiavelli’s version of Andria is, by and large, a literal translation of the text, remote from the loose and often fanciful translations of the classics made by medieval Italian writers; Machiavelli is at times so literal as to distort the meaning of the text and occasionally to produce nonsense.14 His dependence on the commentary tradition places him in the mainstream of classical studies in Renaissance schools and universities.15 In 1515 Machiavelli began to frequent the Florentine gardens owned by Cosimo Rucellai.16 Here a circle of aristocrats and littérateurs met to discuss not only the beauty of the location, but also their neo-classicizing endeavors. Much of the activity associated with the circle at the Rucellai gardens was literary: neo-classical tragedies and comedies were composed, the status of the Italian language was considered, the quarrel of the ancients and moderns was debated. Members of the circle were key figures in the revival of classical poetic genres in the Italian language.17 Machiavelli’s own contribution at the Rucellai gardens was the Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livy. As his younger friend, Filippo de’ Nerli, wrote, during the lifetime of Cosimo Rucellai—who died very young, having shown great promise in Latin—a group of young Latinists of high intellect had met for a considerable time in the Rucellai gardens, and Niccolò Machiavelli was constantly among them (and I was a great friend of Niccolò and of all of them, and very often conversed with them). They exercised themselves a great deal, through the medium of Latin, with lectures on histories; and on these histories, at the instigation of his companions, Machiavelli composed his book of discourses on Livy.18 The Discourses belong to a long-established genre of classical and humanist study: the commentary on an ancient author—a basic literary form in antiquity 14  Stoppelli (2005) 26–27 and 33–34, Fumagalli (1997) 205, and Bausi (2005) 273–74. 15  R. Black (2001) 325–330. 16  F. Gilbert (1977) 128–129. 17  F. Gilbert (1965) 140–41, Cantimori (1937) 88 and 99, Hauvette (1903) 19, and Brand and Pertile (1996) 242–243, 257, 269 and 288–289. 18  Cited by H. Baron (1956) 420: “che avendo convenuto assai tempo nell’orto de’ Rucellai una certa scuola di giovani letterati e d’elevato ingegno, mentreché visse Cosimo Rucellai, che morì molto giovane ed era in grande aspettazione di letterato, infra’ quali praticava continuamente Niccolò Machiavelli (e io ero di Niccolò, e di tutti loro amicissimo, e molto spesso con loro conversavo) s’esercitavano costoro assai, mediante le lettere, nelle lezioni dell’istorie e sopra di esse, ed a loro istanza compose il Machiavello quel suo libro de’ discorsi sopra Tito Livio.”

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular

343

itself, subsequently taken up by numerous humanists. It was Machiavelli’s assimilation into the Rucellai gardens circle that provided the context for the humanism characteristic of his later works. Members of the group were attempting to classicize Italian literature, and Machiavelli adopted an analagous programme in the Discourses: the classicizing of politics. Machiavelli’s main literary activities were now in other neo-classical genres or based closely on classical sources: Mandragola, aptly described as the most purely neoTerentian vernacular comedy of the Italian Renaissance;19 The Art of War, a quintessential neo-Ciceronian dialog; Serenata, a long poem elaborating the story within a story from book XIV of Ovid’s Metamorphoses with a third narrative, and so creating a yet more complex artifice; and Dell’occasione, twentytwo verses concentrating a diffuse epigram by Ausonius.20 In 1520 the possibility arose of a public commission to write a humanist history of Florence. Machiavelli needed to compose a test piece—a “modello di storia.”21 The topic he chose was the life of the early fourteenth-century Lucchese signore, Castruccio Castracani. Humanist historiography was subject to literary and rhetorical conventions,22 and Machiavelli filled his text to overflowing with appropriate material: the protagonist’s remarkable birth and adolescence, exaggerated numbers of enemy slain in battle, and, not least, speeches by the protagonist before engagements and on his deathbed.23 Machiavelli’s larger historical project turned out to be the Florentine Histories, commissioned by the Medici through the Florentine Studio on 8 November 1520,24 and presented to Pope Clement VII in May 1525.25 Modelled implicitly on Livy and Sallust and explicitly on Leonardo Bruni’s and Poggio Bracciolini’s earlier Florentine histories,26 Machiavelli’s Florentine Histories constituted the earliest significant effort to write a neo-classical humanist history in the Italian vernacular. As in The Life of Castruccio, speeches by leading figures in direct discourse—a quintessential feature of classical and humanist historical ­writing—play a central role in the Florentine Histories. In the genre of humanist history, truth, derived from the norms of rhetoric, meant not absolute adherence to fact but rather probability or verisimilitude: 19  Stoppelli (2005) 50. 20  Machiavelli (1971) 868–890, 299–398, 998–1003, and 987. 21  Machiavelli (1984) 512. 22  R. Black (1981) and R. Black (1985) 298–317. 23  Trovato and Brakkee (1986) 26–30. 24  Ridolfi (1978) 285–286. 25  Ridolfi (1978) 331 and 571 n. 25–26 and Machiavelli (1984) 542–543. 26  Machiavelli (2010) 89 (proemio 1).

344

Black

like an advocate in court, a humanist historian’s job was to create the semblance of fact, not to follow the sources scrupulously. As Florence’s official historian, Machiavelli would have had access to the rich documentary source material preserved by the Florentine chancery, where he had worked for more than fourteen years. But in line with normal humanist practice, Machiavelli preferred to fill the Florentine Histories with his own inventions, not least its numerous speeches. For example, the remarks he put in the mouth of Lorenzo the Magnificent following the Pazzi conspiracy bear no relation to the summary of the speech Lorenzo is recorded to have delivered to the Florentine consultative assembly, as preserved in the Florentine archives.27 According to Machiavelli, Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici (or Clement VII, as he was known after his elevation to the pontificate) instructed him to be objective, particularly with respect to his own Medici forbears: “Your Blessed Holiness especially charged and required me to write in such a way of the things done by your ancestors that it should appear that I should be far removed from all flattery.”28 Machiavelli had hardly failed to be frank in past dealings with the Medici—most recently in the Discourse on Florentine Affairs after the death of the younger Lorenzo de’ Medici, where he criticized the regime run by Leo X’s and Clement VII’s ancestors in the fifteenth century—29and doubtless his inclination was to tell the truth in the Florentine Histories and so comply with Cardinal Giulio’s prescription. Although published only in manuscript during Machiavelli’s lifetime, nevertheless this was a project publicly known and sanctioned in Florence. Machiavelli’s appointment as Florentine historian had been made by a communal magistracy and carried with it an official salary; the work also achieved some early circulation in manuscript.30 The manuscript publication of the Florentine Histories was thereby different in status from privately originating works such as The Prince or the Discourses, whose circulation would have been restricted to a limited range of intimates. Machiavelli needed, in the circumstances, to be guarded in his candor: on 17 May 1521, he joked to Guicciardini, “if indeed I do sometimes tell the truth, I hide it behind

27  Rubinstein (1987a) 722. 28  Machiavelli (1958) 1029 (adapted); Machiavelli (2010) 86 (Dedica 6): “dalla V.S.ma B.ne mi fu imposto particularmente e comandato che io scrivessi in modo le cose fatte dai suoi maggiori, che si vedessi che io fussi da ogni adulazione discosto.” 29  Machiavelli (1971) 24–25. 30  Machiavelli (1927) I ix–xxvii and Machiavelli (1984) 620.

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular

345

so many lies that it is hard to find.”31 He confessed his anxieties more seriously to Guicciardini on 30 August 1524: Here in the country I have been applying myself, and continue to do so, to writing the history [of Florence], and I would pay ten soldi—but no more—to have you by my side . . . I would need to learn from you whether or not I am being too offensive in exaggerating or understating of the facts.32 In 1533, six years after his death, his friend and disciple Donato Giannotti reported remarks in a similar vein that Machiavelli had made to him: Donato, I cannot write this history from the time when Cosimo took power to the death of Lorenzo as I would write it if I were free from all obligations. The facts will be accurate and I will not leave anything out; I will simply avoid discussing the general causes of events. Thus I will describe the events which occurred when Cosimo seized power, but I will not say how and with what means a man may attain such heights. Anyone who also wishes to know this should note well what I make his adversaries say, because what I do not wish to say as coming from myself I shall put into the mouths of his adversaries.33 Following Cicero’s recommendations in De oratore, humanist histories were rhetorical works that aimed to get a message across. It was the capacity to teach that made history, in Cicero’s words, magistra vitae, life’s tutor (II.36). For Machiavelli, the message of his history was more important than factual accuracy: as Giovanni Battista Busini perceptively observed, Machiavelli’s “history

31  Machiavelli (1996) 337 and Machiavelli (1984) 522: “se pure e’ mi vien detto qualche volta il vero, io lo nascondo fra tante bugie, che è difficile a ritrovarlo.” 32  Machiavelli (1996) 351 (adapted) and Machiavelli (1984) 539: “Ho atteso et attendo in villa a scrivere la istoria, e pagherei dieci soldi, non voglio dir più, che voi fosse in lato . . . arei bisogno di intendere da voi se offendo troppo o con lo esaltare o con lo abbassare le cose.” 33  Ridolfi (1963) 198–99 (adapted) and Ridolfi (1978) 310: “Donato, io non posso scrivere questa Istoria da che Cosimo prese lo stato sino alla morte di Lorenzo come la scriverei se fossi libero da tutti i rispetti. Le azioni saranno vere e non tralascerò cosa alcuna, e solo lascerò i casi che successero quando Cosimo prese lo stato; ma non dirò in che modo e con che mezzi uno pervenga a tanta altezza. E chi vorrà anco intendere questo, noti molto bene quello ch’io farò dire ai suoi avversari, perché quello che non vorrò dire io, come da me, lo farò dire ai suoi avversari.”

346

Black

was more wise than true.”34 Frequently such lessons were moral in character, as in the case of Livy, who wrote in his Preface, “The special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behavior set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.”35 Sometimes humanists added to their moral remit a more concrete political purpose. For example Bruni aimed to point out the merits of aristocratic government in contrast to the disadvantages of democracy (exemplified by the contrast between the disastrous Ciompi regime and the subsequent oligarchic regime). Machiavelli’s message in the Florentine History was similarly political. But Machiavelli would not have been Machiavelli if he had not taken the political brief often characteristic of humanist historiography onto a new level of specificity and candor. Here he miraculously balanced the public character of his history with a particular message directed to Pope Clement VII as potential reformer of Florence. It would have been ill-advised to subject the pope’s forbears to public humiliation by vilifying the fifteenth-century Medici as tyrants, and so Machiavelli superficially whitewashed their regime by using sympathetic sources and eliminating overt criticism, such as that offered by Guicciardini, whose Florentine History he used extensively in his own work.36 But even a casual reading of his words could have left no doubt that Machiavelli considered the earlier Medici regime, as presided over by Cosimo, Piero and Lorenzo the Magnificent, an unsuitable model for Florence in the 1520s. In putting Machiavelli’s political message across, the speeches in the Florentine Histories play a crucial role. Thus, implicit criticism of Cosimo, the founder of the Medici regime, begins with the advice offered to him on his deathbed by his father Giovanni di Bicci, warning against the grasping ambition for which he would become notorious: Nothing so much causes me to die happy as remembering that I have never injured anyone, but, on the contrary, I have, so far as possible, served everyone. I encourage you to do the same. As far as the regime is concerned, if you wish to live securely, take the part given to you by the 34  Busini (1860) 207: “Credo bene che la sua Storia [sc. di Guicciardini] sia più savia che vera, come anche del Machiavello.” 35  Livy (1998) 4: “Hoc illud est praecipue in cognitione rerum salubre ac frugiferum, omnis te exempli documenta in inlustri posita monumento intueri; inde tibi tuaeque rei publicae quod imitere capias, inde foedum inceptu foedum exitu quod vites.” 36  Pieraccioni (1989) and Bausi (2005) 265–66.

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular

347

laws and by men. This will bring you neither envy nor danger, because what a man grasps for himself, not what is given to him, makes us hated (IV.16.3–4).37 Machiavelli’s criticisms of Cosimo were put into the mouth of his opponent, Niccolò da Uzzano, as suggested in Giannotti’s letter: The actions that make us suspect Cosimo are that he uses his money not only for private individuals but for the public, not only for Florentines but for condottieri; that he favours this or that citizen who has to have recourse to the magistrates; that, with the goodwill he commands among the populace, he secures higher grades of offices for his allies . . . all methods that carry men hurtling towards a principate” (IV.27.15).38 Niccolò da Uzzano ends his denunciation with an allusion to Cosimo’s schemes to buy Florence with his riches: “All these citizens, partly through ignorance, partly through wickedness, are prepared to sell this republic, and fortune has befriended them to the extent that they have found a buyer” (IV.27.24).39 After his defeat at the hands of the Medici in 1434, Cosimo’s arch-enemy, Rinaldo degli Albizzi, becomes portavoce for Machiavelli’s vilification of Cosimo’s tyranny: a city is a desirable place to live where a man’s home, property and friends can be safely enjoyed, not one in which your property can easily be taken from you and where, for fear of their own possessions, your friends desert you in your greatest necessity. (IV.33.5; tr. Machiavelli 1958, 1230 [adapted]; Machiavelli 2010, 445–46: quella patria è desiderabile 37  Machiavelli (1958) 1204 (adapted) and Machiavelli (2010) 404–405: “niuna cosa mi fa tanto morire contento quanto mi ricordare di non avere mai offeso alcuno, anzi piuttosto, ­secondo che io ho potuto, beneficato ognuno. Così conforto a fare voi. Dello stato, se voi volete vivere securi, toglietene quanto ve ne è dalle leggi e dagli uomini dato: il che non vi recherà mai né invidia né pericolo, perché quello che l’uomo si toglie, non quello che all’uomo è dato, ci fa odiare.” 38  Machiavelli (2010) 430: “L’opere di Cosimo che ce lo fanno sospetto sono: perché gli serve de’ suoi danari ciascuno, e non solamente i privati ma il publico, e non solo i Fiorentini ma i condottieri; perché favorisce quello e quell’altro cittadino che ha bisogno de’ magistrati; perché e’ tira con la benivolenzia che gli ha nello universale questo e quell’altro suo amico a maggiori gradi di onori . . . modi tutti che tirono gli uomini volando al principato.” 39  Machiavelli (2010) 432: “tutti questi cittadini, parte per ignoranza parte per malizia, sono a vendere questa republica apparecchiati.”

348

Black

nella quale le sustanze e gli amici si possono sicuramente godere, non quella dove ti possino essere quelle tolte facilmente, e gli amici per paura di loro propri nelle tue maggiori necessità t’abbandonono.) Urging Filippo Maria Visconti to take up arms and restore the rebels to Florence, Rinaldo paints a vivid picture of Florence’s weakness under Cosimo’s tyranny: “what power do you think a city can have that has recently driven away the greater part of its wealth and industry?” (V.8).40 Again using a speech, Machiavelli censures the regime of Cosimo’s son and successor, Piero, whom he has vilify his own regime and so, implicitly, himself: “You plunder your neighbor’s goods, you sell justice, you escape civil justice, you oppress the peaceful, and you empower the arrogant. I do not believe that in all Italy there are so many instances of violence and avarice as in this city” (VII.23.6–7).41 If the example of the first Medici regime was thus rejected by Machiavelli as a model for their successors in the sixteenth century, they were implicitly warned not to go one step further and attempt to seize absolute power. In this connection Machiavelli uses the occasion of the speech by the Signoria cautioning the duke of Athens against such a step: You seek to enslave a city that has always lived free . . . Have you considered how important and how strong in a city like this is the name of liberty, which no force crushes, no time wears away, and no gain counterbalances? Consider, my lord, what forces are needed to keep so great a city in slavery. Those whom—foreigners—you can always get are not enough. Those within you cannot trust, because they who are now your supporters and who encourage you to make this decision, first, using your authority, will overcome their enemies, and then will try to find a way to destroy you and make themselves rulers . . . in a short time you must fear that this whole city will be hostile. (II.34.10–13).42 40  Machiavelli (1958) 1243 (adapted) and Machiavelli (2010) 468–69: “quale potenza vuoi tu che sia in una città che abbia da se nuovamente scacciato la maggiore parte delle sue ricchezze e della sua industria?”. 41  Machiavelli (1958) 1366 (adapted) and Machiavelli (2010) 672: “Voi spogliate de’ suoi beni il vicino, voi vendete la giustizia, voi fuggite i giudicii civili, voi oppressate gli uomini pacifici e gli insolenti esaltate. Né credo che sia in tutta Italia tanti esempli di violenza e di avarizia quanti sono in questa città.” 42  Machiavelli (1958) 1124–1125 (adapted) and Machiavelli (2010) 268: “Voi cercate fare serva una città la quale sempre è vivuta libera . . . Avete voi considerato quanto in una città simile a questa importi e quanto sia gagliardo il nome della libertà, il quale forza alcuna non doma, tempo alcuno non consuma e merito alcuno non contrappesa? Pensate, signore,

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular

349

Machiavelli had not always maintained a consistent commitment to humanism. He had already begun to move in a contrary direction before joining the chancery in 1498, composing a series of popular-styled vernacular poems. In his verses to his father, he entered into the Florentine tradition of burlesque poetry, typified by Burchiello, who had also made abundant use of extravagant vocabulary, enigmatic allusions, idiomatic expressions, and linguistic inventions. In the capitolo pastorale, the canzone, the two strambotti, and the sonnet “Se sanza a voi pensar solo un momento”43—all datable to the period of Machiavelli’s Medicean prehistory (to adopt a felicitous label coined44 but then, unfortunately and erroneously,45 rejected by Mario Martelli)—there are echoes of Francesco Cei, Antonio Pucci, Antonio Bonciani and particularly of Luigi Pulci’s Morgante, not to mention Petrarch, Poliziano, and Lorenzo the Magnificent himself.46 Machiavelli’s preoccupation with the vernacular continued in his chancery years, when his literary production consisted of a lengthy Italian historical poem, the Primo decennale (1504),47 and three long capitoli, or sets of tercets, Di fortuna, Dell’ingratitudine and Dell’ambizione, written respectively in 1506, 1507 and the end of 1509.48 The poetic narrative of the Primo decennale and the three capitoli represented a return to an earlier civic and communal style of verse, in vogue during the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries.49 These early literary efforts had nothing to do with humanism. The youthful short poems were in non-classicized literary forms while his longer chancery poetry mainly belonged to the genre of the capitolo morale, a non-classicizing type of moral and political verse, popular in Florence before the Laurentian period. quante forze sieno necessarie a tenere serva una tanta città. Quelle che, forestiere, voi potete sempre tenere, non bastano; di quelle di dentro voi non vi potete fidare, perché quelli che vi sono ora amici e che a pigliare questo partito vi confortano, come eglino aranno battuti con l’autorità vostra i nimici loro, cercheranno come e’ possino spegnere voi e fare principi loro . . . in modo che in poco tempo voi potete temere di avere tutta questa città nimica, il che fia cagione della rovina sua e vostra.” 43  Machiavelli (1971) 993–998. 44  Martelli (1971). 45  Inglese (2006) 82, Richardson (2007) 184, Vivanti (2008) 6 and 77, and Richardson (2009) 164–165 n. 38. 46  Martelli (1971) 398–402, Machiavelli (1981) 23–25, Martelli and Bausi (1996) 274–275, Casadei (1987) 450, and Bausi (2005) 157. 47  Machiavelli (1971) 940–950. 48  Machiavelli (1981). 49  Dionisotti (1980) 68, 92ff., 232, 235, 239, and 250–252, Matucci (1978) 297, 304–309, and 312–315, and Matucci (1982) 93–118 passim and 150–151.

350

Black

Similarly non-classical and popular were three carnival songs datable to the chancery years.50 Machiavelli’s first extended literary prose composition was The Prince. The Prince is not a true humanist work. This is not because it is written in Italian, given that many great humanists had been writing prose works in Italian for generations. The Prince is a treatise in the genre of moral / political writing divided into short numbered chapters with Latin titles. There is no ancient precedent for such a format. The model here was the medieval scholastic mirror of princes, such as Giles of Rome’s De regimine principum. The most significant role of the ancients and the humanists in The Prince was to reject their heritage. Machiavelli challenged the idealism of a Plato in Chapter XV51 and overturned Cicero’s moral philosophy as transmitted via De officiis and via humanists such as Platina or Pontano in their treatment of the virtues.52 In The Prince Machiavelli gives the impression of an erstwhile student of the classics and humanism seeking to move beyond that heritage. His suspicion of humanism is symbolized by the comparison of himself, in the letter to Vettori of 10 December 1513, to the character Geta, who, in the Tuscan tale dating from the early fifteenth century, comes to grief despite his seven years of classical studies in Athens.53 A clear indication of Machiavelli’s rejection of humanism in The Prince is the preface where he explicitly disavows the Ciceronian rhetorical style favoured by the humanists: “I haven’t embellished this work, or stuffed it with grandiloquent clauses or pompous and striking words or with any of the other stirring and superficial features that people use to describe and embellish their material”—an apt characterization of The Prince’s nonclassicizing telegraphic style.54 Machiavelli’s rejection of humanism went further than style and form: in The Prince and the Discourses (not to mention Mandragola and The Ass), he blatantly rejected the Ciceronian moral and political values at the heart of humanism. The Prince is an egotistical text in which the new prince’s selfish interests are paramount, with little room left for the greater political good. With the focus on the prince’s own glory, it is no accident that Machiavelli 50  Machiavelli (1971) 988, 992–993. 51  Cf. Palmieri (1982) Proemio. 52  Skinner (2000) 41ff and Skinner (1978) 128–138. 53  Machiavelli (1984) 424 and Najemy (1993) 63ff. 54  Connell (2005) 40 and Machiavelli (1995) 4–5 (Dedica 4): “La quale opera io non ho ornata né ripena di clausule ample o di parole ampullose e magnifiche o di qualunque altro lenocinio e ornamento estrinsiceco, con e’ quali molti sogliono le loro cose descrivere e ornare.” See Trovato and Brakkee (1986) 33–34.

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular

351

hardly speaks of the common or public good in the work; the effects of his rule on his subjects are relevant only insofar as they support his “regime” (stato). In The Prince Machiavelli never uses the term “politico”—a word normally employed to describe a good and unselfish political order, in the sense of the public good (“vivere politico”) or of someone dedicated to the public good (“uomo politico”).55 Even his praise for Cesare Borgia’s good government in the Romagna is ultimately about Borgia himself: “Cesare Borgia was said to be cruel; but his cruelty put the Romagna in order, brought it unity, and restored peace and obedience.”56 Here the climax of the sentence is in the last word: obedience. The stress is on securing the prince’s power; the benefits to the subjects are means to an end: “cruelty should not be persisted in but as far as possible turned to the good of one’s subjects . . . Those who use [this] method can . . . find some means of consolidating their position.” The new prince needs to act in such a way “that he will be able to set men’s minds at rest and win them over to him when he confers benefits.”57 The prince redeemer acts first to win honor and glory for himself, and only secondarily to benefit the Italian people.58 By marginalizing the common good in The Prince, Machiavelli’s language approaches traditional descriptions of tyranny (without, of course, ever explicitly using the word, which would have been insulting to its Medici dedicatees): as Giles of Rome had written, “the king is concerned with the common good, the tyrant with his own good,”59 a view reiterated about 1430 by Poggio (“the king . . . thinks of the advantage of those whom he rules, while the tyrant is intent on his own advantage”).60 By contrast, in his late political and historical works—and most notably in the Florentine Histories—Machiavelli returned to the key political values of humanism. In the Discourses, Machiavelli had made the unprecedented

55  Hexter (1973) 170–171, H. Baron (1988) 116 n. 21, Rubinstein (1987b) 53–54, Viroli (1990) 160–161, and Viroli (1992) 8, 128–131. 56  Machiavelli (1961) 95 and Machiavelli (1995) 108 (XVII.2): “Era tenuto Cesare Borgia crudele: nondimanco quella sua crudeltà aveva racconcia la Romagna, unitola, ridottola in pace e in fede.” 57  Machiavelli (1961) 66 and Machiavelli (1995) 61 (VIII.24–27): “[la crudeltà] non vi si insiste dentro, ma si convertono in più utilità de’ sudditi che si può . . . Coloro che osservono [questo] modo possono . . . avere allo stato loro qualche rimedio . . . di assicurare li uomini e guadagnarseli con benificarli.” 58  Machiavelli (1995) 168 (XXVI.1). 59  A. Gilbert (1938) 60: “rex respicit bonum commune: tyrannus vero bonum proprium.” 60  A. Gilbert (1938) 94: “Hoc enim differt rex a tyranno, quod alter eorum quos regit commodis invigilat, alter suis intentus est.”

352

Black

suggestion that civic divisions had been the foundations of Rome’s liberty,61 but in the Florentine Histories he returned to the more traditional theme of republican and humanist political thought, arguing that unity was beneficial and dissension detrimental. Consequently, a speech was included in which Luigi Guicciardini was reported to have spoken in favour of unity: To what will your dissensions bring this your city? Do you not recall that, when it was disunited, Castruccio, a vile Lucchese citizen, defeated it? a duke of Athens, your private condottiere, subjugated it? But when it was united, was it not able to overcome an archbishop of Milan and a pope, who after so many years of war were reduced to infamy?62 Machiavelli now reverses the political morality that had made The Prince such a controversial work. The infamous admonition in The Prince (and the Discourses) regarding the necessity of bad faith is reversed in the speech of the anonymous good citizen in 1372: “When religion and the fear of God has been universally extinguished, an oath or one’s word lasts only as long as it is useful; men have recourse to these not to keep them but because they enable them to deceive more easily” (III.5.5).63 The morality of The Prince is the morality of the criminal leader of the rebels in 1378, so that by denouncing his speech, Machiavelli reverses The Prince’s morality: You will see that all those who achieve great wealth and power have got there by fraud or by force . . . Those who avoid such ways, through folly or lack of foresight, inevitably end up in servitude and poverty; for faithful servants are always servants, and good men are always poor; only the deceitful and the bold, the rapacious and the fraudulent escape servitude and poverty . . . When necessity presses, audacity is known as

61  Machiavelli (2001) 33–36 (I.iv.5–11). 62  Machiavelli (2010) 323–24 (III.11.13–14): “A che condurranno queste vostre disunioni questa vostra città? Non vi ricordate voi che quando l’è stata disunita, Castruccio, uno vile cittadino lucchese, l’ha battuta? uno duca d’Atene, privato condottiere vostro, l’ha subiugata? Ma quando la è stata unita, non l’ha potuta superare uno arcivescovo di Milano e uno papa, i quali dopo tanti anni di guerra sono rimasi con vergogna.” 63  Machiavelli (2010) 303: “perché in tutti la religione e il timore di Dio è spento, il giuramento e la fede data tanto basta quanto l’utile; di che gli uomini si vagliono non per osservarlo, ma perché sia mezzo a potere più facilmente ingannare.”

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular

353

prudence . . . the opportunity that occasion brings you is fleeting; when it has escaped, one seeks in vain to seize it again. (III.13.13–14, 17, 20).64 Machiavelli then proceeds to condemn such remarks: “These arguments strongly inflamed spirits already feverish with evil” (III.13.22).65 In chapter fifteen of The Prince Machiavelli had famously warned that “anyone who wants entirely to play the part of a good man is bound to come to ruin among so many who are not good,”66 but in the Florentine Histories Benedetto Alberti comes to grief because he is too good among so many who are bad. The moral norm has now been reversed, Alberti being spotlighted as a paragon of virtue: “You see . . . how fortune has ruined me . . . it always happens thus to those who want to be good among so many wicked men . . .” (III.23.7).67 In The Prince, Machiavelli had championed the political cloak (or to use the contemporary cliché, spin-doctoring): naked power had to be wrapped in the trappings of piety and probity. In that work (as well as in the Discourses [I.xi–xv]) he regarded morality, like religion, as a cloak to be exploited to promote or to vindicate the ruler or the state; morality and religion were key tools that regularly had to be subverted for selfish ends. He had rejected conventional morality not only as idealistic but as dangerous; the only place left for traditional ethics was as an artifice, or, in his words, a cloak to protect and disguise the necessarily unscrupulous prince. The contemporary individual best demonstrating the merits of the cloak for Machiavelli was Ferdinand of Aragon, who “never preaches anything except peace and good faith,68 . . . making use of religion, he turned his hand to a pious work of cruelty when he chased out the Moriscos [in 64  Machiavelli (1958) 1159–1161 (adapted) and Machiavelli (2010), 330–332: “vedrete tutti quelli che a ricchezze grandi e a grande potenza pervengano, o con frode o con forza esservi pervenuti . . . quegli i quali o per poca prudenza o per troppa sciocchezza fuggono questi modi, nella servitù sempre e nella povertà affogono; perché i fedeli servi sempre sono servi, e gli uomini buoni sempre sono poveri; né mai escono di servitù se non gli infedeli e audaci, e di povertà se non i rapaci e frodolenti . . . dove la necessità strigne è l’audacia giudicata prudenza . . . La opportunità che dalla occasione ci è portata, vola; e invano quando ella è fuggita si cerca poi di ripigliarla.” 65  Machiavelli (2010) 332: “Queste persuasioni accesono forte i già per loro medesimi riscaldati animi al male.” 66  Machiavelli (1995) 103 (XV.5): “uno uomo che voglia fare in tutte le parte professione di buono, conviene che ruini in fra tanti che non sono buoni.” 67  Machiavelli (2010) 358: “Voi vedete . . . come la fortuna ha rovinato me . . . sempre così avvenne a coloro i quali intra molti cattivi vogliono essere buoni.” 68  Machiavelli (1961) 101–102 and Machiavelli (1995) 120 (XVIII.19): “non predica mai altro che pace e fede.”

354

Black

1502] and rid his kingdom of them: there could not have been a more pitiful or striking enterprise. Under the same cloak of religion he assaulted Africa.”69 In the Florentine Histories, by contrast, Lorenzo de’ Medici, speaking in the wake of the Pazzi conspiracy, disparages the political cloak: “the powerful always cover the injuries they inflict with a cloak less dishonorable in appearance” (VIII.10.27).70 In The Prince, Machiavelli had praised Francesco Sforza as a model new prince: “Francesco, using appropriate means and by his own great virtù, from being a private citizen became duke of Milan. What he won only after endless struggles he then held with little effort.”71 In the Florentine Histories, by contrast, Francesco is vilified as a tyrant in the speech made by the Milanese citizens whom he has betrayed: We know . . . your cruelty, ambition and arrogance . . . O those unhappy cities forced to defend their liberty against the ambition of him who wishes to oppress them! . . . We cannot . . . be accused of any other fault except that we placed our trust where we should not have trusted at all; your past life, your overweaning ambition, never satisfied with any rank or position, should have warned us. We should not have placed our hopes in someone who betrayed the lord of Lucca, held the Florentines and the Venetians to ransom, showed scant regard for the duke [of Milan], despised the king [of Naples] and above all inflicted countless injuries on God and the Church. (VI.20.5, 13–14).72 69  Machiavelli (1961) 120 and Machiavelli (1995) 147–48 (XXI.5–6): “servendosi sempre della religione, si volse a una pietosa crudeltà cacciando, e spogliando, del suo regno e’ marrani: né può essere questo esemplo più miserabile né più raro. Assaltò, sotto questo medesimo mantello, l’Affrica.” 70  Machiavelli (2010) 723: “sempre le ingiurie che i potenti fanno con qualche meno disonesto colore le ricuoprono.” 71  Machiavelli (1961) 54 (adapted) and Machiavelli (1995) 40 (VI.6): “Francesco, per li debiti mezzi e con una grande sua virtù, di privato diventò duca di Milano; e quello che con mille affani aveva acquistato, con poca fatica mantenne.” 72  Machiavelli (1958) 1308–1309 (adapted) and Machiavelli (2010) 574–577: “Noi . . . conoscendo . . . la crudeltà, l’ambizione e la superbia tua . . . O infelice quelle città che hanno contro a l’ambizione di chi le vuole opprimere a difendere la libertà loro . . . Non possiamo . . . essere d’altra colpa accusati, se non d’avere confidato assai in quello in cui noi dovavamo confidare poco; perché la tua passata vita, lo animo tuo vasto, non contento mai di alcuno grado o stato, ci doveva ammunire; né dovavamo porre speranza in colui che aveva tradito il signore di Lucca, taglieggiato i Fiorentini e Viniziani, stimato poco il duca, vilipeso un re, e sopratutto Idio e la Chiesa sua con tante ingiurie perseguitata.”

A Humanist History in the Italian Vernacular

355

Above all, Francesco Sforza is condemned by the Milanese speakers for the deceit and bad faith that Machiavelli had recommended so outrageously in The Prince (chapter XVII): We should not have imagined that such great princes would have less influence than the Milanese over the heart of Francesco Sforza, and that he would feel obliged to keep with us the faith he had so many times broken with others.73 The speeches in Machiavelli’s Florentine History might have been invented and far removed from historical fact, but they offered the opportunity to put into others’ mouths political sentiments which, although potentially unwelcome to his dedicatee and patron, nevertheless represented his deepest and most cherished political convictions.

73  Machiavelli (1958) 1309 (adapted), VI.20.14 and Machiavelli (2010) 577: “né dovavamo mai credere che tanti principi fussero, nel petto di Francesco Sforza, di minore autorità che i Milanesi, e che si avessi ad osservare quella fede in noi, che si era negli altri più volte violata.”

CHAPTER 18

The Trésor des livres d’Amadis as an Anthology of Speeches Florence Serrano Amadís de Gaula is a long Spanish chivalric romance, which was first composed in the fourteenth century, although it has come down to us in a later version written by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo. This latter version, organized in four books, was published in 1508. Montalvo’s work was such a success that many later authors would write new adventures about Amadís in the years that followed. Montalvo himself offered avid readers a fifth book, Las sergas de Esplandián, in which he invited other writers to continue the story of Amadís; a total of thirteen “books” in fact were published up until 1551, when the thirteenth, and last book, written by Feliciano de Silva, was published in Salamanca.1 During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the works of the Amadís cycle were present in most libraries of the time. When Cervantes was writing his famous Don Quijote de la Mancha (1605 and 1615), his contemporaries were still reading the Amadís cycle, although the trend was definitely over. As is well known, the impact of the Amadís was especially marked in Renaissance France. The particular success of the Amadís cycle in France was the result of a process that can be summed up in just a few stages: the first (1540–1548) was the French translation by Nicolas Herberay des Essarts (books I–VIII, starting with the books composed by Montalvo and finishing with Feliciano da Silva’s second part of the Amadís de Grecia); the second stage (1551–1574) was the publication of new translations from Spanish into French (books IX–XIV in the French version); finally, the third stage (1577–1615) was the French cycle, inspired by works that were not taken from the Spanish Amadís, such as a novel written directly in French by Nicolas de Montreux, in the case of book XVI, or translations from Mambrino Roseo’s Italian novels, as in books XVI–XXI, or from German, as in books XXII–XXIV.

1  Cf. Cacho Blecua (1979), Carro Carvajal, Puerto Moro, and Sánchez Pérez (2002), GómezMontero, König, and Gernert (2004), Cacho Blecua, coord. (2007); Lucía Megías, Marín Pina, and Bueno Serrano (2008), Letras (2010), and W.P. Smith (2012).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_020

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

357

The French Amadís cycle was not just a succession of translations, but an original “product,” mainly a collection of speeches and letters extracted from each book. The story of the Trésor des livres d’Amadis begins at the end of the first stage mentioned above, that is, after the publication of the twelfth book of the French cycle. This collection, made up of excerpts selected for rhetorical reasons, became so successful and attained such a degree of autonomy that it seems fair to regard the collection as an Early-Modern editorial venture in its own right. Different editions of the Trésor were published between 1559 and 1606, first in Paris (reissued in Poitiers from 1559), then Antwerp, and lastly in Lyon. There have only been a few critical perspectives and analyses to illuminate our understanding of the Trésor. To Vaganay we owe an article that was published as an appendix to his book on the editions of the first twelve books of Amadís, which focuses on bibliographical and iconographical issues that have to do with the Trésor.2 The last lines of Vaganay’s book suggest that reception of the Amadís depended in part on readers who aspired to perfect their French by using the work as a linguistic model.3 This hypothesis was recently confirmed; Huchon includes references that highlight the cultural and sociolinguistic impact of the Trésor.4 Bourciez interpreted the existence of the Trésor as an indicator of the new reign of préciosité in the French language.5 Place (1954) compared the Herberay des Essarts translation with Montalvo’s original, and Guillerm (1988) also compared the two texts, but, unlike Place, concluded that the excerpts whose translation differed most from the original Spanish text were the speeches. In every instance in the history of Trésor scholarship, the Trésor is mentioned as a product that was derived from the Amadís without taking into account the originality of the collection. Place (1954) 255, however, did focus on developing a key idea previously suggested by Reynier (1908), who considered the Trésor to be the most important courtesy book of the French Renaissance. For a profound understanding of the Trésor and its reception, Benhaïm’s article is simply outstanding.6 No editions of the Trésor have been published since 1606. Even though Classiques Garnier (Paris) plans to publish critical editions of the whole of the French Amadís in its “Romans de Chevalerie de la Renaissance” series, so far, no edition of the Trésor has been announced. A critically edited digital 2  Vaganay (1923) and Vaganay (1906) respectively. 3  Vaganay (1906) 151. 4  Huchon (2000) 187 and 198–199. 5  Bourciez (1967) 400–403. 6  Benhaïm (2000).

358

Serrano

edition of the Trésor would contribute to discovering more about the creation and dissemination of the collection. The aim of this chapter is to describe the circumstances of the dissemination and the criteria that guided the Parisian compiler when excerpting the morceaux de bravoure from the French translation of the Spanish Amadís books. Our approach will lead us to consider the short literary genres represented in the collection (particularly different types of harangue and letters) and their frequency and use in French contemporary fiction. Finally, we shall examine the collection in connection with the classical tradition of rhetoric. 1

The Dissemination of the Trésor (1559–1606) in French

Since the Trésor is a consequence of the success of the Amadís, it may be useful to consider the publication of the main editions of the Trésor in comparison with those of the French Amadís in chronological order. As Benhaïm reminds us, no fewer than 25 publishers and booksellers took part in the Trésor venture. The following chart shows the publication timeline of the two sets of works:7 Year

French Amadís

1556

Le douziesme livre d’Amadis de Gaule, contenant quelle fin prindrent les loyalles amours d’Agesilan de Colchos, et de la princesse Diane, et par quel moyen la royne Sidonie se rapaisa, apres avoir longuement pourchassé la mort de don Florisel de Niquée, Paris: Estienne Groulleau.

1559

Trésor

Le Thresor des douze livres d’Amadis de Gaule, Assavoir les harengues, concions, epistres, complaintes, et autres choses les plus excellentes et dignes du lecteur françois, Paris: Estienne Groulleau.

7  Editions of Amadís published before 1556 are not included in this table. Devoto (1972) offers a list of Amadís editions in Parisian libraries.

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

359

Year

French Amadís

1560

Le Trésor des Amadis: contenant les epitres, complaintes, concions, harangues, deffis, et cartels: recueillis des douze livres d’Amadis de Gaule: pour servir d’exemple, à ceus qui desirent apprendre à bien écrire missives, ou parler françois, avec une table, dont l’epitre suivante enseigne l’usage, et rend raison de l’orthographe, Antwerp: Christophe Plantin. Thresor des livres d’Amadis de Gaule, Le treizieme livre d’Amadis de Gaule assavoir les harengues, concions, traittant les hauts faits d’armes du epistres, complaintes, et autres choses gentil chevalier Sylves de la Selve fils les plus excellentes, de nouveau de l’Empereur Amadis de Grece et augmenté et orné du recueil du 13. de la Royne de Thebes Finistée: avec livre, et d’une infinité des propos et les aventures estranges d’armes et d’amours de Rogel de Grece, Agesilan de devis bien gentils, tirez dudict livre, Colcos et autres, avenus sur l’entreprise Lyon: Jean Huguetan. et cours de la guerre du grand Roy Bultazar de Russie contre les Chrestiens. Et après, les mariages de Diane, Leonide et autres, Antwerp: Lucas Breyer. Thresor des quatorse livres d’Amadis Le quatorzieme livre d’Amadis de Gaule, traitant des gestes et genereux de Gaule contenant les epistres, complaintes, concions, harangues, faicts d’Armes et d’amours de plusieurs grands Princes et Seigneurs, deffis, cartels, deuis et pourparlers, pour servir d’exemple à ceux qui specialement du tres-preux et gentil desirent apprendre à bien ecrire Prince dom Silves de la Selve, filz de missives, ou parler françois, Antwerp: l’Empereur Amadis de Grece, et de la Royne Finistée de Thebes. Nouvellement Jean Waesberghe. mis en François par Antoine Tyron, Antwerp: Jean Waesberghe. Le seizième livre d’Amadis de Gaule traitant des amours, gestes et faits héroïques des illustres et vertueux princes Sféramond et Amadis d’Astré, Lyon: Benoist Rigaud.

1571

1574

1578

Trésor

360

Serrano

(cont.) Year

French Amadís

1581

Le vingt et unième et dernier livre d’Amadis de Gaule, contenant la fin et mort d’iceluy, les merveilles faits d’armes et amours de plusieurs grands et notables princes de son sang, Lyon: Loys Cloquemin.

1582

1605

1606

Trésor

Trésor de tous les livres d’Amadis de Gaule, contenant les harangues, epistres, concions, lettres missives, demandes, responces, repliques, sentences, cartels, complaintes, et autres choses, les plus excellentes, pour instruire la jeune noblesse françoise à l’éloquence, grace, vertu et generosité, Lyon: Jean Huguetan (also known as Le Thresor des XXI livres d’Amadis). Trésor de tous les livres d’Amadis de Gaule, contenant les harangues, epistres [. . .] pour intruire la jeune noblesse françoise, Lyon: Pierre Rigaud. Thresor de tous les livres d’Amadis de Gaule, contenant les harangues, epistres, concions, lettres missives, demandes, responces, repliques, sentences, cartels, complaintes, et autres choses, les plus excellentes, tres-utile pour instruire la noblesse françoise à l’eloquence, grace, vertu et generosité, Lyon: Jean-Anthoine Huguetan.

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

Year

French Amadís

1615

Le vingt et deuxième livre d’Amadis de Gaule traitant les hauts faits d’armes, amours et vertus non pareilles avec les étranges aventures mises à fin, tant par les princes illustres issus de la noble maison d’Amadis qu’autres vaillants chevaliers en la quête des princes Safiraman et Hercule d’Astré, Paris: Gilles Robinot, Olivier de Varennes, Claude Rigaud. Le vingt et troisième livre d’Amadis de Gaule continuant à traiter des amours, gestes et faits héroïques de plusieurs princes . . . descendus de la race du grand Amadis et notamment du vaillant Fulgoran, fils de Rogel de Grece et de la reine Florelle. Discours fait d’espagnol en français, Paris: Gilles Robinot, Olivier de Varennes, Claude Rigaud. Le vingt quatrième et dernier livre d’Amadis de Gaule continuant à traiter des amours, gestes et faits héroïques de plusieurs illustres et vertueux princes descendus de la race du grand Amadis et notamment du vaillant Fulgoran fils de Rogel de Grece et de la reine Florelle, Paris: Gilles Robinot, Olivier de Varennes, Claude Rigaud.

361

Trésor

As we can see, the most “creative” period in the publication of the Trésor ran from 1559 to 1582, after which there were several reprints issued in 1605 and 1606. The Trésor was published for the first time during the fifteen-year interval between books XII and XIII of the Amadís. Four forms of the Trésor succeeded each other as new books were added; first came the collection of the twelve

362

Serrano

books, then three extended collections based on books XIII, XIV and XXI of the Amadís. As might be expected, as the French cycle grew so did the Trésor. Botero García describes the Trésor as “four anthologies in small format (8vo or 16mo) published between 1559 and 1606 that bring together various passages” (“cuatro antologías publicadas de 1559 a 1606 en pequeños formatos (en octavo y en dieciseisavo) que reúnen pasajes variados”).8 The latest version of the Trésor, containing twenty-one books, was published in two volumes: volume one corresponded to books I–XVI and volume two to books XVII–XXI. Benhaïm stresses the intention of the Paris, Lyon and Antwerp publishers to keep the Trésor up to date and traces in detail the different stages in the dissemination of the work.9 She also refers to the work of the first compilers as a joint venture that was set up in 1554, as shown by the privilege obtained by Vincent Sertenas for the publication of the first eleven Amadís books.10 She regards Sertenas as the “véritable artisan de 1547 à 1563 d’une forme de ‘démocratisation’ de la série.”11 Some attempts were made to issue a Trésor—either in manuscript form or as pirated editions—without Sertenas’s knowledge before 1559.12 The Trésor was a new editorial venture undertaken by the architects of the distribution of the works in the cycle, the publisher Sertenas in partnership with the booksellers Jean Longis and Estienne Groulleau. The peculiarity of the distribution of the Trésor, in fact, is that the publishers were exclusively responsible for each stage in the process, with no participation from other literary figures, such as translators. Benhaïm describes the Paris group as follows: “le groupe de libraires réunis autour de Vincent Sertenas, composé de Jean Longis, Robert le Mangnier, Gilles Robinot et de l’imprimeur Étienne Groulleau. Gabriel Cotier et Jean d’Ogerolles distribuent des exemplaires à Lyon, peut-être au prix d’une entente avec le groupe parisien.”13 The distribution of the work designed by this group was more commercial than anything, and in fact the project does not seem too different from the publishing ventures of well-established retail chains today.

8  Botero García (2010) 23. 9  Benhaïm (2000) 158–159 . 10  Benhaïm (2000) 161–162. 11  Benhaïm (2000) 161. 12  Benhaïm (2000) 169. 13  Benhaïm (2000) 160: “the group of booksellers gathered around Vincent Sertenas, comprising Jean Longis, Robert le Mangnier, Gilles Robinot, and the printer Étienne Groulleau. Gabriel Cotier and Jean d’Ogerolles distributed copies in Lyon, perhaps at a price agreed with the Parisian group.”

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

363

No single Trésor includes all twenty-four books. The title of Amadís book XXIII indicates that either the publisher or the translator tried to deceive the readers by pretending that the book was a translation from Spanish into French, when in fact its source was German. This was not the first attempt at manipulation, since it had happened before with the translations from Italian into French, which were presented as translations from Spanish, the original source of the story. At the beginning of France’s classical century, the Amadís was no longer fashionable; in fact, the publication in 1614 of César Oudin’s translation of the first book of Cervantes’ Don Quijote de la Mancha, which parodies chivalric romances, underlines this point. 2

The Dissemination of the Trésor (1559–1606) in Europe

The dissemination of the Trésor in Europe is different from that of the Amadís cycle.14 There is no Trésor that contains all twenty-four books and there are none in Spanish or Italian; there was, however, an English edition and also a German one. The English translation was done by Thomas Hacket and published by Henry Bynneman in London with the title The moste excellent and pleasant booke: entituled: The treasurie of Amadis of Fraunce: Contenying eloquente orations, pythies Epistles, learned Letters, and fervent Complayntes, serving for sundrie purposes, the vvorthinesse vvhereof and profite, dothe appeare in the preface or table of this boke. Translated out of French into English. The date does not appear on the title page or indeed anywhere else in the book. Benhaïm, without referring to any sources, advances a publication date of 1567, while the EEBO-TCP database hypothesizes the date of 1572.15 This last date must be preferred; the table of contents of the English translation, as transcribed on the EEBO-TCP webpage, reads: “A Letter of Amadis de Gaule, and of the Emperours Esplandian and Amadis of Grece, to all their friends and vassals. In the .13. booke, and the fyrst Chapter.” Since the last text in the English collection was the first chapter of book XIII, the first edition could not have been published prior to 1571, when the French version of book XIII was published. The original language of the last three books of Amadís was German. Books XXII and XXIII were published in Frankfurt in 1594, and book XXIV, the last in the series, a year later.16 It is to Lazarus Zetzner that we owe the German Trésor, 14  Neri (2008). 15   Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, accessed August 31, 2014. 16  Weddige (1975) 26–28.

364

Serrano

which circulated in print in German from 1596 to 1624. The princeps was published by Zetzner in Strasbourg in 1596 with the title Schatzkammer schöner, zierlicher Orationen, Sendbriefen, Gesprächen, Vorträgen, Vermahnungen und dergleichen. Auß den vier und zwentzig Büchern deß Amadis von Franckreich zusammen gezogen. Und allen derselben Liebhabern und sonderlich allen denen so sich Teutscher Sprach Lieblichkeit und Zierd befleissigen zu gutem in Truck gegeben.17 The prologue (“Vorrede”), dated July 7, 1596, confirms that the Amadís was considered at that time as embodying the perfect idea of the French language. Mathurin Héret had first expressed this concept in 1553, when he stated that the Amadís was the “parfaicte idée de nostre langue françoise.”18 But the Amadís was also a model for the German language, as we read in the prologue to the German Trésor: “Unnd eben dasselb mit solcher Zierlichkeit Wolredenheit wolgesezten lieblichen anmütigen Phrasibus, dass sich Deutschland eben dessen inn seiner als die Franzosen inn ihrer Sprach zu berühmen” (fol. 3v, “And this precisely with such elegance and eloquence, with well-made, graceful, and charming phrases that Germany will be as renowned for its language as the French are for theirs”). The prologue emphasizes the variety of contexts provided by the texts and their didactic usefulness. The debate in Europe to determine which language was the best formed the cultural context. Zetzner wanted to prove that the Schatzkammer was as distinguished as the Trésor. The Spanish background of the Amadís was by then totally forgotten. 3

Reception: The Reported Aim of the Collection

Many critics who have touched briefly upon the Trésor have been misguided about the collection’s purpose, thinking that it was a simple summary of the Amadís cycle. One of these critics, Vargas Díaz-Toledo, who specialized in Iberian romances of chivalry, holds this opinion: “the Trésors des Amadis . . . are just an anthology of the most representative episodes taken from the great work” (“los Trésors des Amadis . . . no son más que una antología de los episodios más representativos de la genial obra”).19 To my mind, the success of the Trésor is far too important and enduring to be reduced to a micro-Amadís. Bideaux is critical of this common mistake: “L’histoire des Thresors des Amadis, qui sont moins des résumés du roman que des répertoires rhétoriques 17  Mulertt (1923) 92. 18  Huchon (2000) 183. 19  Vargas Díaz-Toledo (2008) 828.

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

365

sur le modèle des extraits de Tite-Live ou des recueils de lieux communs, enseigne en premier lieu que le succès des Amadís en France est redevable à l’élégante plume d’Herberay” (“The history of the Thresors des Amadis, which are not so much summaries of the novel as rhetorical repertoires along the lines of Livy’s excerpts or collections of commonplaces, teaches us in the first place that the success of Amadís in France is indebted to Herberay’s elegant pen”).20 Furthermore, Mireille Huchon illustrates how Amadís has been considered as a model of eloquence and good writing in French.21 The reception of the work in French-speaking areas has been considered in relation to the circulation of chivalric romances, especially the Iberian ones. However, the Trésor cannot be regarded as an abstract of a chivalric romance because it only incorporates parts of the speeches and letters and none of the narrative. Readers of the Trésor probably already knew about Amadís’ life and wanted to be able to speak and/or write as elegantly as “he,” that is, Nicolas Herberay des Essarts. The Trésor seems to have reached a socially much more diverse readership than the Amadís novels. Such readers of the Trésor would have forgotten its foreign origins; it was not read as a translation from Spanish, but as a French work. Unlike some of the sentimental novels that were translated at the same period and in the same context,22 there is no bilingual edition either of an Amadís book or of the Trésor, which may have been due to the length of the work. The reception of the book must be put into context. The reported aim of the publishers changed over time and from place to place, as the evolution of the title in the successive editions reveals. In the 1559 princeps edition, emphasis is placed on the literary genre’s variety: “Assavoir les harengues, concions, epistres, complaintes, et autres choses les plus excellentes et dignes du lecteur françois,” as the title-page has it. To Christophe Plantin (1560) we owe the pragmatic use of the collection as a textbook for the courtier, with a practical table of contents added: Le Trésor des Amadis: contenant les epitres, complaintes, concions, harangues, deffis, et cartels: recueillis des douze livres d’Amadis de Gaule: pour servir d’exemple, à ceus qui desirent apprendre à bien écrire missives, ou parler françois, avec une table, dont l’epitre suivante enseigne l’usage, et rend raison de l’orthographe. The editions that followed targeted a specific readership, characterized as being either upper class (“de nouveau augmenté et orné du recueil du 13. livre, et d’une infinité des propos et devis bien gentils,” 1571) or part of the younger generation who wanted to learn how to write and speak French 20  Bideaux (2000) 206. 21  Huchon (2000) 183. 22  Duché-Gavet (2008).

366

Serrano

well (“contenant les epistres, complaintes, concions, harangues, deffis, cartels, deuis et pourparlers, pour servir d’exemple à ceux qui desirent apprendre à bien ecrire missives, ou parler françois,” 1574). These two qualities, nobility and youth, appear together in the 1582 edition: “contenant les harangues, epistres, concions, lettres missives, demandes, responces, repliques, sentences, cartels, complaintes, et autres choses, les plus excellentes, pour instruire la jeune noblesse françoise à l’éloquence, grace, vertu et generosité.” The French seventeenth century was not only witness to the democratization of the Amadís, as we have seen, but also to the growing feeling of being part of the nobility and belonging to a nation of excellence, one which just a few decades before had lived through a lengthy conflict with Spain, the Franco-Spanish War of 1635–1659 (“tres-utile pour instruire la noblesse françoise à l’eloquence, grace, vertu et generosité,” 1606). The publisher played with the aspirations of the younger members of the upper classes to become nobles, or simply to enjoy reading what noblemen and noblewomen read: les Amadis devenaient, du moins en Flandre, accessibles à d’assez modestes bourses . . . Le Thresor, plus encore que les collections in-8°, transmet ainsi l’Amadis et ses vertus civilisatrices à un public “populaire,” nouveau venu dans l’univers des livres imprimés, composé non seulement des dames, mais encore de leurs domestiques, de marchands, d’élites villageoises et de collégiens.23 4 Defining Harangue and Contio As we have seen, most Trésor titles include different names for different speech genres, the two most important ones being harangue and contion. Some clarification might be useful at this point. The etymology of harangue is still uncertain. It may have come from the Italian ar(r)inga (with the meaning of “public speech”), attested in the thirteenth century, and which spread soon afterwards into Catalan and old Provençal. Ar(r)inga itself was a loanword from the Gothic, *hriggs, related to the Frankish word *hrigg, which means (and also gave birth to) “ring.” The author of the entry “Harangue” in the Trésor de la 23  “The Amadís books became, at least in Flanders, accessible to quite modest purses . . . The Thresor, more so than the editions in 8vo, transmitted the Amadís and its civilizing virtues in this way to a “popular” audience, a recent arrival to the world of printed books, one made up not only of ladies, but even more so of their servants, merchants, village elites, and students,” Benhaïm (2000) 162–163; see also Chevalier (1968) and Cooper (1990).

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

367

Langue française informatisé stresses that the term *hari-hring, meaning “army assembly,” cannot be considered the etymological root of the French word. Contion, on the other hand, does have a clear origin: it derives from the Latin contio, and not *concio, as Gaffiot (1934) 419 reminds us in the entry for this word in his Dictionnaire. According to the entry for “Contio” in the Thesaurus Linguæ Latinæ, the word is an abbreviated form of co(n)ventio and refers to an assembly or to a speech addressed to an assembly. As far as the French term harangue is concerned, in the Middle Ages the word referred only to speeches that were actually given at a formal meeting in a military context, which is consistent with its Gothic etymology.24 In the early Renaissance, a semantic extension of the term can be observed, and in fact a few years before the Trésor was first published, the term harangue referred to a speech in both the general and literary senses; it is described as follows: “contes, fables que chacun faisoit à son tour: ‘Catherine cogneut que la troisieme harangue de la premiere nuict luy appartenoit, tellement qu’avec un visage riant, luy commença a dire en ceste manière.’ ”25 This quotation comes from the French translation of Giovanni Francesco Straparola’s Le piacevoli notti, contemporary with the earliest dissemination of the Trésor. In the sentence quoted, the meaning of harangue is similar to “story” (in the sense of fabula), because it refers especially to a tale, the oral form of a novella in a hypothetical performance in the tradition created by Boccaccio’s Decameron. In the central decades of the sixteenth century harangue and concion were equivalent. The two terms were juxtaposed in all editions of the Trésor, with slight variations in the order of appearance. Concion is evidently the learned word from Latin and differs from harangue in that it recalls the universe of Roman historiography. Harangue however is considered the perfect translation for the Latin term, as attested in R. Estienne’s French-Latin dictionary (1549) 306: Harangue, Oratio ad populum. L’oraison et harangue de celuy qui parle a l’assemblee, Concio. Propos et harangues seditieuses pour inciter le peuple a tumulte, Conciones turbulentæ. La raison du parler appartenant au faict des harangues publiques, Concionale genus causarum.

24  Godefroy (1881–1902) and Dictionnaire du Moyen Français (2012). 25  “Stories, fables that everyone took turns to tell: ‘Catherine knew that her turn was the third harangue of the first night, and with a smiling face, she started to speak to him in this way,’ ” quoted in La Curne De Sainte-Palaye (1875–1882) s.v. Harangue.

368

Serrano

Faire une harangue ou oraison, Orationem ad populum habere, Orationem agere. Faire une harangue au peuple, sans ce toutesfois que par icelle l’on interrogue le peuple sil ueult ordonner quelque chose, Concionem habere. Qui fait une harangue, Concionans. Qui fait souuent harangues, Concionabundus. Haranguer, Concionari. Harangueur, Concionator. Harangue, Oratio ad populum. The speech and harangue by the one who speaks to the assembly, Concio. Seditious propositions and harangues inciting people to riot, Conciones turbulentæ. The reason for speaking that pertains to the fact of public harangues, Concionale genus causarum. Give a harangue or oration, Orationem ad populum habere, Orationem agere. Give a harangue to the people, without however asking the people whether they wanted something to be ordered, Concionem habere. He who gives a harangue, Concionans. He who often gives harangues, Concionabundus. Haranguer, Concionari. Harangueur, Concionator. As we can see, the semantic field was particularly extensive and the two terms were clearly distinguished in French (harangue and derivatives) and Latin (contio and derivatives). Harangue was more dynamic than concion, in particular because of the possible derivation haranguer, which was more useful than the expression appeller en concion or the rare concioner. In his entry for “concion,” Huguet adds the meaning of “political meeting” to concion. He also gives examples proving that, in a historiographical context, harangue and concion were often coordinated or coexisted: La profondité et excellence des oraisons et harengues que lon appelle concions. Seyssel, trad. de Thucydide, Prologue.—Ceulx qui usent aux histoires longues harengues et concions, ou qui souvent en usent pevent justement estre reprins par ceulx qui entendent lart oratoire. Seyssel, trad. de Diodore, III, 1 . . . —Je voudroy’ bien . . . en batir le cors entier d’une belle histoire, y entremeslant à propos ces belles concions et harangues à l’immitation de celuy que je viens de nommer [Tite Live].

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

369

Du Bellay, Deffence, II, 5.— . . . —Philippus mesme, quand on luy rapportoit les concions et harengues qu’il avoit faittes contre luy, . . . Amyot, Vies des dix Orateurs, Démosthène . . . —L’un et l’autre, par honnestes concions et harangues excita chacun à son devoir. E. Pasquier, Recherches, III, 29 . . . —De soy et de son naturel, il n’estoit point tant prollixe, ny copieux en propos et concions, ny si grand harangueur. Brantôme, des Dames, part . II . . . —Nous lui avons remonstré la longueur des harangues, entre autres celles de la Renaudie, choisi pour soldat determiné; et il lui fait faire, pour encourager ses gens de guerre, une concion des affaires d’entre les familles des Valois, de Bourbon et Lorraine. Aubigné, Hist. Univ., Préface.26 The depth and excellence of the oraisons and harengues that are called concions. Seyssel, transl. of Thucydides, Prologue.—Those who use long harengues and concions in histories, or who use them often can be reprimanded with reason by those who are familiar with the oratorical art. Seyssel, transl. of Diodorus, III, 1 . . . —I would like to build the whole body of a beautiful story, interweaving these beautiful oraisons and harengues opportunely into it in imitation of the [author] I have just named [Livy]. Du Bellay, Deffence, II, 5.— . . . —Philippus himself, when he was told about the oraisons and harengues that had been made against him, Amyot, Vies des dix Orateurs, Demosthenes . . . —Both of them, by means of honest oraisons and harengues, urged everyone to their duties. E. Pasquier, Recherches, III, 29 . . . —Of himself and by nature he was neither so long-winded nor so full of words and concions, nor such a great harangueur. Brantôme, des Dames, part. II . . . —We showed him the length of the harangues again, among them those by la Renaudie, chosen for being a determined soldier; and to encourage his soldiers, he made him give a concion about affairs between the Valois, Bourbon and Lorraine families. Aubigné, Hist. Univ., Preface. Looking at almost all the examples cited by Huguet for this meaning of the word, we realize that Claude de Seyssel’s translations, published during the first decades of the century, were essential to the increased use of the term with historiographical associations. It might be useful to compare the life and death of concion in French with the attempt to introduce this Latinism into Castilian. The Corde (Corpus diacrónico del español) in fact lists only one instance of contio (a neologism and a hapax) in Alfonso de Palencia’s Universal vocabulario 26  Huguet (1925–1967) s.v. Concion. Italics of the terms are mine.

370

Serrano

en latín y en romance (1490), with the meaning of “assembly,” Yet, Seyssel used harangue and not concion, which shows that harangue was more common.27 Seyssel’s translations of Justin, Thucydides, Appianus of Alexandria, Diodorus Siculus, and Xenophon helped shape the French language in the sixteenth century.28 In the prologue to Les Histoires universelles de Trogue Pompée, abbregees par Justin historien, Seyssel did state his desire to “Latinize” the French language: si je vay imitant le style du Latin, ne pensez point, que ce soit par faute que ne l’eusse peu coucher en autres termes plus usitez, à la façon des Histoires françoises: mais soyez certain, Sire, que le langage Latin de l’aucteur a si grande venusté et elegance, que dautant qu’on l’ensuit plus de pres, il en retient plus grande partie. Et c’est le vray moyen de communiquer la langue Latine avec la Françoise.29 if I imitate the Latin style, do not think that it is because I could not have couched it in more commonly used terms, in the manner of French histories; but be assured, Sir, that the author’s Latin language has such great beauty and elegance that if one follows it closely, one will retain a great part of it. And it is the true means of communicating the Latin language through the French language. After that, when the fashionable writing style was less florid, this meaning of concion disappeared and, for a short period at the end of the century, the term became restricted to the meaning of “sermon.”30 In due course, harangue also became less acceptable when it acquired a pejorative connotation and was used to refer to speeches considered to be long and boring.31 There is no doubt that the success of these terms in French increased interest in the Trésor. The interesting case of Seyssel’s translations in stimulating literary uses of harangue and concion is not an isolated one. A collection of harangues was published, before the Trésor in fact, which established a new tradition for readers in the French Renaissance: Les Concions et harengues de Tite Live, nouvellement traduictes en François par Jean de Amelin (Paris, Vascosan, 1554). The title 27  Huguet (1925–1967) s.v. Harangue. 28  For an analysis of other concepts from the point of view of translation theory, see Torrens (2010) 183–200. 29  Quoted by Guillerm (1988) 560. 30  Huguet (1925–1967) s.v. Concion. 31  Furetière (1690) s.v. Harangue.

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

371

of this Latin to French translation also explains the presence of both harangue and concion in the title of the Trésor, on which other titles of collections were modelled: Le trésor des Histoires tragiques de François de Belleforest, contenant les Harangues, Discours, Complaintes, Remonstrances, Exhortations, Missives, & autres Propos remarquables, contenus en icelles (Paris: Gervais Malot, 1581). In the “Épître au lecteur” of this last collection, Malot admits his debt to our Trésor. The second hypotext we shall mention brought out the intertextuality in the title: Trésor des Vies de Plutarques: Contenant les beaux dicts & faicts, sentences notables, responses, apohtegmes & harangues des Empereurs, Roys, Ambassadeurs & Capitaines, tant Grecs que Romains: aussi des philosophes & gens sçavants: nouvellement recueillis et extraicts hors des Vies de Plutarque de Cheronae: pour servir d’exemple à ceux qui desirent sçavoir et ensuyvre leur haults faitcts és guerres, & de mesme leur police, conseil et gouvernement en temps de paix (Antwerp: Guillaume Sylvius, 1567). As we can see, in this title, only harangue is mentioned. However, the best example proving that concion did not remain long in the French language is the absence of the term from the Trésor’s table of contents, while harangue—undoubtedly the most repeated form in the collection from book I to book XXI—is omnipresent. If we take the princeps edition (Groulleau, 1559), all the texts included in book I are described as harengue (nine texts); in book II, composed of fifty-two texts, seventeen of them also formally belong to this genre; and seven—mostly included in the second half of the book, which is devoted to military arguments—are responses to these. Included in the appendix to this chapter is a table with the first twelve books of the Trésor; this table does not indicate whether a response should be interpreted as a harangue or a letter, since our interest lies in the terms that were used. We can see that the frequency of harangue is proportional to the importance of the subject of the battle or conflict (both individual and collective) to the narrative. Its presence is particularly high in books I, III, IV, VII and X, low in books VI, XI, XII, and absent from book IX. The low frequency is due to the increasing number of letters in those books. 5

Towards a Rhetorical Analysis of the Trésor: Varietas and Copia

The genres that were selected by the compiler were harangues, concions, cartels, epistres, lettres missives, demandes, responces, repliques, sentences, complaintes, according to the titles in the collection, although other terms also appear when we check the list of genres in the table of contents: consolation, regret, lamentation, exhortation, deffiement (as a synonym of cartel de deffi) (book I); prophetie

372

Serrano

(book II); oraison (book III); enhortement (book IV); devis and remonstrance (book XIII); ambassade, recit and propos (book XV); requeste (book XVI). The literary genres, as understood and practised in the Renaissance, were as unstable as French semantics. Nonetheless, it seems fair to regard these labels as literary forms (associated with models of perfect French style) rather than specific examples of rhetorical genres that were described using fixed criteria. The rhetorical use of speeches extracted from the novel would be the consequence of the intellectual environment contemporary with the creation and circulation of the Trésor. The different labels applied to the speeches also point to different rhetorical practices; some, such as harangue and concion, have a rhetorical interpretation and function as key words evoking a literary background; the link between the Trésor and anthologies of historiographical speeches that circulated in ­sixteenth-century France is even more evident, since the same terms are used to give titles to these anthologies. It may be useful to classify these labels. In a first opposition between oral and written forms, harangue and lettre seem to be exclusive (the classical opposition between dicendo and scribendo). Some categories show significant flexibility: demandes, responces, repliques can easily describe both types of text. These labels are not only related to the speeches, they also point to the tradition of dialogic poetry, which was very frequent in medieval Iberian Cancioneros,32 a form that drew inspiration from French Lyric poetry.33 The influence of Wisdom Literature, a philosophical tradition originating during antiquity, can be seen in sentences. This form was also compiled in many anthologies, especially in medieval and Golden Age Spain. The absence of a generic name shows a rhetoric of varietas and copia, which is completely consistent with the period.34 Benhaïm sums up this view by considering the place of the collection in the French history of literature: Les Thresors contribuèrent de surcroît à façonner le goût littéraire de ce nouveau public, friand de variété rhétorique autant que de la profusion des aventures. Le penchant que le florilège permit de cultiver pour les “ornements romanesques” perdura jusque vers 1620.35 the Thresors contributed, moreover, to shaping the literary taste of this new audience, as partial to rhetorical variety as to an abundance of 32  Chas (2002). 33  Le Gentil (1949 II) 180–208. 34  McIntosh-Varjabédian and Gély (2007). 35  Benhaïm (2000) 180.

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

373

adventures. The florilegium helped to cultivate a liking for the “fictional embellishments,” which lasted until about 1620. Varietas and copia were the rhetorical key to this success. The edition of the Trésor published by Christophe Plantin in Antwerp (1560) introduced a novelty: a table of contents aimed at readers and writers that was designed to make the collection easy to use as a manual of courtesy. In this list, different labels serve to express the same rhetoric associated with ways of declaring, asking for or giving advice or doing favors, writing, promising, congratulating, thanking, excusing, threatening, challenging, and prophesying in different social contexts, and addressing all possible recipients (“Manieres de declarer son avis, de demander, ou donner conseil de quelque chose à ses signeurs, amis, parens, aliés, ou sujets,” “Harengues pour inciter ses vassaus, amis, ou aliés à prendre les armes, & encourager les soudars prêts de combattre,” fols. 3–4v). The expression “par écrit ou parole” shows that the collection was useful for practising oral and written competencies. Guillerm’s brief analysis defines the rhetorical distribution of the thirty rubrics included in the list: Au “délibératif” correspondent celles qui rassemblent les différentes manières de demander ou de donner avis ou conseil, les discours d’exhortation ou de prière, à “l’épidictique” les modèles de panégyriques, de remerciements, mais aussi les discours injurieux, au “judiciaire” enfin toutes les façons d’accuser, de s’accuser, de défendre et de se défendre.36 To the “deliberative” correspond those that assemble the different ways of asking for or giving advice or counsel, the speeches of exhortation or entreaty; to the “epideictic” correspond the models for panegyrics, thanksgiving, but also insulting speeches; to the “forensic,” finally, correspond all manner of accusation, self-accusation, defense, and self-defense. Guillerm adds that each rubric mixes social rules and situations, as well as literary genres and arguments. Fiction somehow resists this artificial organization and the reader might find this mixture a heterogeneous ensemble (fourre-tout or “catch-all phrase,” is the term that Guillerm uses). Guillerm also mentions the categories of Aristotelian discourse and suggests that Aristotle’s classification of genre does not seem to be totally effective in this context. From a different point of view, the various literary nuances might be helpful for classifying the various texts in the collection: epic or heroic for military 36  Guillerm (1988) 82.

374

Serrano

harangues, epideictic or elegiac for texts dealing with love, satirical for accusations, pathetic and tragic for texts about death, and so on. This classification, well known to scholars in French Studies, has the advantage of combining labels while also proposing a micro- or macro-textual approach (within a text or between texts in the collection). Other perspectives can also be added, such as when referring to the section on prayers or prophecies.37 Avoiding the rigidity of all generic classifications that Blanchot criticized (1955), we may say that these registres littéraires can be adapted to the richness of the raw material, the novel. Actually, this classification was first proposed by the first critic of the Spanish chivalric novel, Cervantes: [Don Quijote] hallaba en ellos [chivalric books] una cosa buena, que era el sujeto que ofrecían para que un buen entendimiento pudiese mostrarse en ellos, . . . describiendo . . ., pintando un capitán valeroso con todas las partes que para ser tal se requieren, mostrándose prudente previniendo las astucias de sus enemigos y elocuente orador p ­ ersuadiendo o disua­ diendo a sus soldados, maduro en el consejo, presto en lo determinado, tan valiente en el esperar como en el acometer; pintando ora un lamentable y trágico suceso, ahora un alegre y no pensado acontecimiento . . . representando bondad y lealtad de vasallos, grandezas y mercedes de señores . . . Puede mostrar las astucias de Ulixes, la piedad de Eneas, la valentía de Aquiles, las desgracias de Héctor, las traiciones de Sinón, la amistad de Eurialio, la liberalidad de Alejandro, el valor de César, la clemencia y verdad de Trajano, la fidelidad de Zópiro, la prudencia de Catón, y, finalmente, todas aquellas acciones que pueden hacer perfecto a un varón ilustre, ahora poniéndolas en uno solo, ahora dividiéndolas en muchos . . . sin duda compondrá una tela de varios y hermosos lizos tejida, que después de acabada tal perfección y hermosura muestre, que consiga el fin mejor que se pretende en los escritos, que es enseñar y deleitar juntamente, como ya tengo dicho. Porque la escritura desatada de estos libros da lugar a que el autor pueda mostrarse épico, lírico, trágico, cómico, con todas aquellas partes que encierran en sí las dulcísimas y agradables ciencias de la poesía y de la oratoria: que la épica tan bien puede escribirse en prosa como en verso.38 [Don Quixote found that] there was one thing in them [chivalric books] which he could not but approve; namely, the subject they presented for a good genius to display itself, . . . description . . . painting a valiant general 37  González (2010) and González (1994) respectively. 38  Cervantes (2007) 491–492; my italics.

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

375

with all his necessary accomplishments, sage and penetrating into the enemy’s designs; eloquent and effectual, either in persuading or dissuading his soldiers, ripe in council, prompt in execution, and equally brave in standing or in giving an assault. One while, recounting a piteous, tragical story; at another time, describing a joyful and unexpected event . . . not forgetting to describe the faith and loyalty of vassals, together with the grandeur and generosity of great men . . . He may represent the cunning of Ulysses, the piety of Aeneas, the valour of Achilles, the misfortunes of Hector, the perfidy of Sinon, the friendship of Euryalus, the liberality of Alexander, the ability of Caesar, the clemency and candor of Trajan, the fidelity of Zopyrus, the wisdom of Cato, and finally, all those qualifications which constitute the perfection of an illustrious hero; sometimes, uniting them in one, sometimes dividing them into several characters . . . [he] will, doubtless, produce a web of such various and beautiful texture, as when finished, to display that perfection which will attain the chief end and scope of such writings, which, as I have already observed, is to convey instruction mingled with delight. Besides, the unlimited composition of such books gives the author opportunities of shewing his talents in epics, lyrics, tragedy and comedy, and all the different branches of the delicious and agreeable arts of poetry and rhetoric: for, epics may be written in prose as well as verse.39 The literary categories allow us to consider the three officia of rhetoric: movere (which is what these categories are about); docere (using the longstanding historiographical model based on epic); and delectare (the main goal of the novel). Cervantes’s insistence on the presence and value of description is linked to these three rhetorical aims. There are two differences between the Trésor and the chivalric novels described here: namely, the lines of the Trésor are not the product of an “escritura desatada” (“unlimited composition”), as Cervantes had it, and the importance of the description has been almost eliminated in order to emphasize the speeches and writings of the characters. 6 Conclusions With the Trésor and Herberay’s shaping of a linguistic ideal with his elegant translation, the publishers added rhetorical prestige to the Amadís cycle. The texts of the Amadís tradition, both the complete novels and the Trésor, are a 39  Translation by Tobias Smollett, The History and Adventures of the Renowned Don Quixote [1755], with an introduction by Keith Whitlock, London: Wordsworth Editions, 1998, p. 411.

376

Serrano

closed fictional universe, combining the literary utility of the work as a model of good French and its use as a manual of courtesy with an undeniable rhetorical purpose. The huge success of the collection, understood in the context of the presence of other collections of speeches from historiographical sources, highlights a similar phenomenon that points to a common process of reading.

Appendix: Speech- and Letter-Related Terms in the Books of the Trésor

Book Number Harangues Letters Responses Other of texts response or replicque

I II

 9 52

 9 17

5

11

III

51

24

2

10

IV

56

25

5

15

17 exhortation (5) complainte (4) prophetie (3) consolation (2) lamentation (2) deffiement requeste regret exhortation/s (2) complainte (4) regretz (3) oraison consolation lamentation complainte (2) enhortement resolution priere lamentation consolation confortation

No label

“Comment Nascian recommande . . .” “Comme Amadis rend graces . . .” “Comme Oriane se complaint . . .” “Comment Lisuard reproche . . .” “Comme Amadis est misericordieux . . .” “Comme Balan redargue . . .”

377

The ‘ Trésor des livres d ’ Amadis ’ as an Anthology

Book Number Harangues Letters Responses Other of texts response or replicque

V VI

10 14

 4  4

 4  8

 1

complainte

VII

 9

 5

 2

 1



VIII

51

16

14

12

IX

22



18

 3

complainte (4) regretz (2) exhortation cartel

X

38

15

 9

 9

XI XII

 7 21

 1  3

 3  9

 2

cartel (3) complainte narration complainte (3) complainte (7)

No label

“Comme Frandalo offre son service . . .” “Comme Miramomolin respond . . .” “Comme Zirfée parle . . .” “Comme Lisuard loue . . .”

“La sentence de raison . . .”

CHAPTER 19

From Italy to Europe: Seventeenth Century Collections of Orationes Fictae Valentina Nider In the seventeenth century there was a renewed interest in Italy in orationes fictae, just when historiography, the genre that had first embraced them, began to repudiate them in favor of a more scientific method. Naturally, orationes fictae in the sense of autonomous exercises rather than as enhancing parts of other literary genres continued to be given ample room in schools and academies, and the Jesuits reassessed them for their teaching programmes.1 This chapter reviews this microgenre of collections of speeches, which was started in Italian by Giovanni Battista Manzini and Giovan Francesco Loredan before spreading throughout Europe. We shall analyze the works with particular reference to structure, types of speakers, and their audiences. Prosopopoeia and ethopoieia played a very important role in the teaching of rhetoric in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The framework of the Ratio studiorum envisaged exercises for imitation. In a manual that had long been used in colleges—the De Arte rhetorica libri III by Cipriano Suárez, which was based on Quintilian, Cicero, and the Rhetorica ad Herennium—­prosopopoeia and ethopoeia were covered in the chapter on Figurae sententiarum. They were accorded more space in the progymnasmata, which introduced models in which ethopoeia figured as an independent exercise. Aphthonius, for example, as is generally known, distinguished three main types of orationes fictae, mainly in the first person: idolopoeia, a speech attributed to a dead person or a ghost; prosopopoeia, in which abstract entities are given a voice; and, finally, ethopoieia proper, in which historical or fictitious characters speak. This latter category is subdivided into three types: in the first, affectum prevails, as in the words of Hecuba facing the destruction of Troy; in the second, mores prevails, as in the words of a peasant who sees the sea or a ship for the first time; in the third, which is mixed, the two preceding types are combined, as in the

1  For orationes fictae and the Boccaccian tradition, see for example, Kolsky (2005) and Franklin (2006). For seventeenth century Spanish literature, see Moner (1989) for Cervantes and Bueno (2003) for women’s speech in Calderón de la Barca.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_021

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

379

speech of Achilles over the corpse of Patroclus, after he had decided to fight.2 In addition, Priscian subdivides ethopoeia into a simple type, when the person is thinking out loud (as in Scipio Africanus the Elder’s reflections when he was returning from Carthage), or double, if the words are addressed to an audience (like the victorious Scipio to his army). According to Aphthonius, ethopoeiae should be brief, in a middling style, and without rhetorical figures or complicated syntax. Translations and printed commentaries of the collections of classical progymnasmata, which abounded in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe, contributed examples of the various types of ethopoeia from sacred history, hagiography, and profane history, both medieval and contemporary.3 This classification of speeches was also considered in the gatherings of the Italian literary academies. According to Egido,4 the output of the European academies—whose verse compositions in particular have been studied—was for the most part oral and intended for the restricted circle of their members, while written compositions were used when the members of the academy took part in official functions that were open to the public. There is insufficient data to offer a complete picture of this oratorical output. Furthermore, these speeches tend to belong to the rhetorical genre of controversy or are eulogies in which the voice is the author’s own. Yet, some examples document the existence of orationes fictae in an academic context, to which most of the authors that we are considering here belonged. Vincenzo Gramigna published various collections of the speeches that record his activity in the Accademia degli Umoristi in Rome and the Accademia degli Oziosi in Naples. He, like many intellectuals of the time, moved about from place to place and resided for a period in Trento, where, in 1625, he published a volume of Orationi. The speeches in the second section of the work concentrate on classical figures. In the first of these, Ariadne speaks in the first person, while in the others (“Narciso ammaliato,” “Ocno cangiato in rapa,” and “Endimione”), it is the author who is speaking. Later—and so perhaps inspired by a speech from the Ferrante Pallavicino collection, which we shall analyze below—came 2  For Aphthonius, I use the Latin translation, partly from Agricola, partly from Cattaneo (1517). As regards the structure, according to Aphthonius, after a brief account of prior events, or argumentum, in ethopoeia, three parts based on time can be distinguished: first, the theme is dealt with, beginning with causes and effects, and considerations of their repercussions in the present; second, we move to the past, for example, by comparing the present with earlier events; and finally, the event is evaluated in a future perspective by anticipating what will happen. 3  For the influence of Aphthonius, see Margolin (1979). Fumaroli (2002) 212ff stresses the need to study the influence of the Second Sophistic on the seventeenth century in greater detail. 4  Egido (1988).

380

Nider

the Delirii academici de’ signori Ottusi di Spoleto (1642), collected by Giovanni Battista Tutorio, which are texts that had been declaimed previously at Academy meetings. The first section of the book reproduces the texts of the first gathering, which was given over to the episode of Gyges and Candaules. After recounting what had happened previously and citing Herodotus as the source, the various orazioni were written down. The first of these are in the first person impersonating the voice of Gyges, whereas in other orazioni, the different speakers address Candaules accusingly. In the final speeches, an attempt is made to take stock by weighing up the points of view of the two characters. The speeches given in the Spanish Academies are also, in general, ­controversies—with at least two speakers, each one embracing an opposing or simply different argument—and of the epideictic or demonstrative genre. Although we know that some sessions were devoted to characters from literature or classical history, the ethopoeiae were not autonomous compositions, but rather short speeches in direct discourse inserted into the orationes as “rhetorical proofs” of the characters these orations presented. For example, members of the famous Academia de los Nocturnos in Valencia dealt with themes such as the chastity of Lucretia and the deaths of heroines such as Dido, Portia and Cleopatra. The “Discurso sobre las últimas palabras que la reyna Dido habló antes de matarse” (“Speech about the last words that Queen Dido spoke before killing herself”), reproduced in the Actas,5 constitutes an example of how an oratio recta put into the mouth of a character could be utilized in the framework of an academic speech. The heroine takes well-known verses from popular lyrical tradition and makes them her own. Mirroring the Spanish cultural and moral horizons of the seventeenth century, she is the embodiment of the heroine burlada of contemporary Spanish theatre rather than a relicta from the Ovidian tradition.6 Another important influence to be taken into consideration for reconstructing the cultural climate is the relationship between poetry and prose and, in particular, the relationship between ethopoieia and epistle in the Ovidian tradition. In Italy, the latter poetic genre was being modernized during these same years by Antonio Bruni (Epistole eroiche, 1625), who enriched the predominant theme of love with others such as the master-disciple relationship (Seneca-Nero the Younger). Each epistle is preceded by an argomento that narrates earlier events and background and provides an allegoria that offers a moral interpretation. The elements reveal an open structure. The characters are various: Seneca appears and addresses Nero, and Catherine of Aragon 5  Actas de la Academia de los Nocturnos de Valencia (1994) III 248–249. 6  Malosse (2005).

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

381

addresses King Henry VIII. This last epistle is a good illustration of the CounterReformation militancy of Bruni in the circle of Pope Urban VIII. In general, however, the epistles are variations on the theme of the relicta in the Ovidian tradition. In a few cases, there is a general reference to the sources, and in the others, the author discloses their auctores.7 Gino Rizzo perceives in the work a fundamental need for introspective analytical exploration, which is carried out by means of monologues in which extreme passions are reviewed in an elegiac, anti-mimetic framework and whose narrative elements are limited.8 Against this background, we observe in the third decade of the seventeenth century the publication of fictitious speeches by classical figures in collections by the same author, with the amplification, however, of various sources. There is a succession of speeches with no clear continuity. Each oration is preceded by a short “argument” providing information about the background, generally without scholarly references. To complete the picture of the cultural context in which these collections arose, we should briefly mention the fact that both painting and contemporary music demonstrated an obvious interest in representations of classical heroic themes. Artists such as Guercino, Guido Reni, and Poussin bring the ancient heroes to life in their paintings in order to allude allegorically to the major themes of contemporary history. The convergence of literature and works of art is fully realized in the Rape of Helen by Guido Reni; this painting was inspired by the poetics of the Academia dei Gelati in Bologna, whose members, in turn, gave it their blessing in the volume entitled Il trionfo del pennello (1633), a series of compositions collected by Giovanni Battista Manzini, one of the founders of the microgenre. The texts of the litterati of Bologna, including Manzini and Virgilio Malvezzi, future historian and diplomat of Philip IV of Spain, indicate the true meaning of the painting as the exaltation of ideal Beauty, represented in the main characters, and celebrate the non-traditional interpretation of the episode given by Guido Reni.9 In contemporary music, we also observe a renewed interest in the solitary figures of the hero and heroine 7  Apuleius (Cupid-Psyche), Homer (Nausicaa-Ulysses), Ovid (Diana-Venus, Iole-Hercules), Plutarch (Ipsicratea-Mithridates VI Eupator, Skedasus-Theban Senate), Virgil (TurnusLavinia), Nonnus of Panopolis (Jupiter and Semele), Flavius Josephus (Jewish MotherVespasian), Justin Justinian (Semiramis-Ninus), Tacitus (Radhamistus-Zenobia, Seneca the Younger-Nero), Livy (Sophonisba-Masinissa), and Italian writers such as Boccaccio, Ariosto, and Tasso, and lesser known historians and writers, such as Bonarelli, Strozzi, Polydore Vergil (Catherine of Aragon-Henry VIII), and Nicephorus Gregoras (Tomyris-Clearchus of Sparta). 8  Rizzo (1993) 35. See also E. Russo (2005) 116–121. 9  In the actual picture, based on post-Homeric sources, the painter depicts a procession that resembles a wedding dance, in which Helen is following Paris of her own volition. For a

382

Nider

and in their words; composers, in fact, devote more space in their melodramas to the laments of women. Musicologists have frequently underlined the possible relationships between these works and the ethopoieiae contained in the collections that we are studying in this chapter.10 1

The Founders: Giovanni Battista Manzini and Giovan Francesco Loredan

The texts that instituted this microgenre of seventeenth-century profane ­oratory11 are I furori della gioventù (1629), by the Bolognese Giovanni Battista Manzini, and the Scherzi geniali (1632), by Giovan Francesco Loredan, the undisputed prince of the Accademia degli Incogniti, founded in 1630. The information available to us does not enable us to settle the issue of paternity. In one of the letters to Niccolò Santo Fiore, published in the first editions of the work of Loredan that have come down to us, Guido Casoni recollects that Loredan composed Scherzi geniali when he was sixteen, that is, in 1623. This information is provided in the biography by Brunacci, who even speaks of an edition of the work going back to that date and citing Manzini and Ferrante Pallavicino as imitators.12 The other biographer, Antonio Lupis, asserts that the Scherzi geniali enjoyed a huge and immediate commercial success, comparable only to that of the publication in Paris of Adone by Marino, also in 1623. He recalls, moreover, that the work was attributed to other authors, aroused the envy of the Italian Academies, stimulated translations into Spanish and French, and was mocked by twisting the title into “Scherzi genitali.”13 Some references to poetics can be seen in the paratexts. Manzini refers to “rhetorical exercises” in the dedication and the prologue to the reader. In the literary point of view, see Raimondi (1995) 21–54; for an artistic view, see Colomer (1990) 74–87, Bonfait (1988) 326–329, and Fumaroli (1994). 10  For relations between the epistle and heroic speech literary genres, and the tendency to amplify the lamento in contemporary opera, see L. Bianconi (1991) 219–234 and Heller (2003) 77–78. For a complete list of the orations and their subjects, see the Appendix to this chapter. 11  See Lattarico (2012a) and Lattarico (2012b) for the libertinism of the microgenre. 12  Brunacci (1662) 11. For Loredan, see Carminati (2005); for Manzini, see Matt (2007). 13  Lupis (1663) 10–12. For editions (at least twenty-seven editions for the first, and twentyfour for the second part in the seventeenth century) and translations (in French, Spanish, German, and Greek) of the Scherzi geniali, see Menegatti (2000) 53–87 and 331–340; for an analysis of the French translation, Caprices héroïques by François de Grenaille, see Stangalino (2014); for translations of I Furori della gioventù, vide infra.

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

383

prologue, on the one hand, the elements are defined first as “fievolezze” and then as “piuttosto deliri che studi;” on the other hand, he recalls that the renown of the orators was based on similar compositions. Manzini goes on to say that, in recent years, the decline of the schools had put readers off profane oratory, because of the rigorous nature of the subjects treated and the terseness of the style. The renewal that was necessary was interpreted by some in an exclusively lexical sense, without taking into consideration “concetti” (“concepts,” “ideas”), “tessitura” (“structure,” “texture”) or “numero” (“flow,” “cadence”); others thought of elevating the style by “macchinando maniere ardite l’hanno reso trabocchevole” (“contriving bold ways, have made [the style] overflow”); and yet others “ammassando una congerie di sentenze” (“amassing a muddle of sentences”) were guilty of obscurity because they spoke like oracles. Still others wrote in too plain a manner. The speaker should direct his attention to great things; he should arouse wonder, not depend excessively on imitation. He should take the middle way and not be too prolix in his speech or too laconic either. He should control the substance rather than the form. The model to be imitated is that of the “olmi maritati” that support the grapevines and not the cypresses or ornamental laurel. These exercises, however, should be judged rather for their fantasy than for their doctrine. In I Furori della gioventù by Manzini there is a first section of eight Orationi delivered by characters from classical history and literature, followed by a second section of four Discorsi in the third person. The orations are preceded by the narration of earlier events, or the argumentum. The titles in general allude to characters and/or the dominant virtue or passion in the speeches (“Affetti paterni,” “Catone generoso,” “Cleopatra umiliata”), although “Coriolano intenerito” alludes to the person addressed. In general, the protagonists, seen at key moments of their lives, are speaking to family members and even the two opposing orations are delivered by relatives: the brother Troilus in “Paride combattuto” and the father of the Horatii in “Orazio reo.” The exception is Agamemnon, who speaks about the sacrifice of Iphigenia to his soldiers (“Affetti paterni”). The sources are not specified, although they have obviously been amplified and all the orations are of a similar length. Only two are delivered by females, neither of whom are lovers: in “Coriolano intenerito,” the speech is given by Coriolanus’s mother, and in “Cleopatra umiliata,” after the death of Marc Antony, Cleopatra tries to persuade Octavian not to take her to Rome as a prisoner. The Scherzi geniali is a collection of twelve characters’ speeches, to which another dozen were added from the 1638 edition onwards. All are in the first person and all preceded by a dedication, a useful paratext for reconstructing the network of relationships established by the author. They are arranged in alphabetical order, as the printer specifies, to indicate that each oration is

384

Nider

independent. The female characters are relatively numerous (five in the first collection and four in the second). Some of the cases about love are taken from Ovid, such as the words of “Enone gelosa” (Heroides V), while others examine difficult topics like incest, such as “Caracalla amante,” who passionately addresses Julia Domna (described as a relative, but with no further details). Poppaea tries to reconquer Nero after he has recalled the repudiated wife, Octavia, and a dying Marc Antony addresses Cleopatra. There is no shortage of examples of female strength in characters, such as Lucretia or Sisygambis, the mother of the defeated Darius III, who consoles his daughters and wives after Alexander’s victory. A political theme is present, in particular, in the orations in which Marc Antony Orator addresses the murderers sent by Marius; Seneca the Younger speaks to Nero, stating that he wants to renounce all his wealth; Sejanus laments his fate. This last speech is the only one that is simple, according to Priscian’s definition. Five speeches are based on the texts of Tacitus,14 although Plutarch and Valerius Maximus are also well represented. 2

The Italian Imitators: Pallavicino, Lupis, Pasqualigo and Battista

Most of the Italian authors formed part of the Venetian Accademia degli Incogniti. Ferrante Pallavicino, author of Scena Retorica (1640), a collection of twelve speeches with each one preceded by an argument, was the most illustrious of the imitators of Loredan and Manzini. He alluded to his predecessors in justifying the very existence of the microgenre as distinct from scholastic rhetorical exercises. Like Loredan, he adopted an alphabetical order and individual dedications for every speech. On the other hand, he was the first author to indicate the sources in the prologue: Justin and Plutarch, chosen for “un supposto di curiosità singolare” (p. 7). Pallavicino favors unusual themes, such as Cato the Younger who “loans” his wife to his friend Hortensius; the widows of Scythia who chose to live without men, giving rise to the Amazons; the lame Hippotas who asked his fellow conspirators to kill him so that he would not hold up their assassination of the hated tyrant, Ptolemy. The vindicatory speech of Ovid— banished for writing the Ars amandi—in which he says that whoever is in his situation “cangi luogo” when “non voglia variar pensiero” can be read as an autobiographical plea on behalf of the future author of the Retorica delle puttane. In the same year, in fact, as the publication of the Scena Retorica, Pallavicino had seen his Corriero Svaligiato—an extremely anti-Spanish document in which he also sharply attacked Pope Urban VIII—refused publication by the 14  Questa (1996) 321.

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

385

lay censor.15 This event lay at the root of his decision to abandon Venice. The last composition, “Eolo dolente,” was quite topical. It had been published the year before in Genoa, an encomium to the engineer who had constructed the new wharf, as is explained in the Argument. In the speech, the god of the wind laments the way that this new construction challenges his powers (“Eolo dolente per l’edificio del nuovo molo di Genova,” dedicated to Ansaldo Mari, 1639). Pallavicino writes that his characters are placed in extreme situations that evoke the impassioned tone of the speeches. He acknowledges that he can be accused of “troppo licentioso inferire, ma non [di essere] improporzionato alla lingua di chi li proferisce” (“inferring [from the sources] in too licentious a manner, but not [of being] disproportionate to the language of the speaker”). To these elements, he adds: “non ho insomma speso che un talento naturale in profluvi di parole quali a guisa di torrente, scendono da una mente agitata” (“In other words I have only made use of a natural talent [for generating] floods of words that flow, like a torrent, from an agitated mind”). Still in the Venetian Accademia, but many years later, Antonio Lupis, the biographer of Loredan, whose secretary he was, published Teatro aperto (1664).16 Again the book is a collection of twelve speeches, each one preceded by the argument and a dedication along the lines of the Scherzi geniali, although not in alphabetical order. In the prologue, he cites Manzini and Loredan among his distinguished predecessors. Among his orations, there are a couple from literature (from the Heroides and Ariosto put in the mouths of Hero and Rinaldo) and a nucleus of three speeches about the conspiracy against Julius Caesar: “Marco Antonio adirato,” where Marc Antony shows the populace Caesar’s blood-stained clothing; “Ottavia inumana,” where an observer pronounces a tirade against Octavia the Younger for stabbing the tongue of the dead Cicero; and “Cassio difeso,” where Cassius defends the reasons for Caesar’s assassination. The last two speeches of the collection take up themes that Ferrante Pallavicino had already dealt with from another perspective: in “Gige inanimito,” Candaules’s wife speaks to Gyges to persuade him to kill her husband and then marry her; and in “Ovidio bandito,” a courtier addresses Augustus, who has exiled Ovid, having accused him of seducing his daughter Julia. Other speeches are “Diogene generoso,” where the philosopher declines Alexander the Great’s offer of a city; and “Timone prudente,” where Timon, from his retreat, addresses the Athenians, who censure him for withdrawing from the world. The opening of “Crate insensato,” in which a neighbor of the

15  Infelise (2014). 16  Cirilli (2006).

386

Nider

philosopher criticizes him for his extreme decision, stands in contrast to these examples of sobriety. The Venetian nobleman Vincenzo Pasqualigo—author of La galleria dei ritratti morali (1671) and also of Praelectiones Geniales Ad Philosophiam (1678)—moves away in part from the literary model of the predecessors. In the long allegorical “Introduzione,” he starts with the creation of Man and ends up at the theory of the four humors. The work has a closed structure, subdivided into three Partimenti: the first devoted to the passions, the second to vices, and the third to virtues. Each section is further subdivided into four, following the model of the houses of the planets corresponding to the months of the year, for example, passions (sorrow, fear, love, anger); vices (unchastity, revenge, ambition, greed); virtues (peace, temperance, justice, perseverance). In every section we find first the moral portrait proper, a learned theoretical treatise full of Latin quotations, generally from the Bible or classical philosophers, with precise footnoted references, and second, the speech of a character. For example, the section dedicated to sorrow (“Dell’Afflizione”) includes a general dissertation on the subject, and after the oration of Calpurnia (“Calpurnia afflitta”). In the prologue, Pasqualigo states that his speeches “dalla pratica d’una varia e geniale lettura furono . . . all’improvviso (quasi dirò) concepiti” (“[the speeches] were conceived almost on the spur of the moment from the personal reading of various materials”) and that only afterwards did he decide on the structure to contain them. In his dedication to the Giornate accademiche, which was published in 1673, Giuseppe Battista17 asserts that he wrote those rhetorical exercises straight out of school when Giovanbattista Manso was running the Accademia degli Oziosi in Naples, perhaps in 1649. In a long second dedication to the academics of the Oziosi, Battista mentions the history of oratory in Greece and Rome. The customary argomento precedes his twelve orations. Battista may have known the earlier collections, although they are not explicitly mentioned. We notice, in fact, that the topics coincide with those of the preceding works, although they are treated from different standpoints. For example, the argomento and the oration of “Ovidio bandito” about the poet’s exile in Tomis allude to both the literary cause adopted by Ferrante Pallavicino (in other words, the authorship of the Ars amandi), and Ovid’s flirting with Augustus’ daughter Julia, to which Lupis refers. In the speech, however, he departs significantly from his predecessors. The figure of Ovid in Battista’s collection, for example, does not remonstrate by asserting the quality of his work and saying how despicable Augustus is, but prostrates himself in the manner of a confessed criminal, weeping and 17  Girardi (1970), De Miranda (2000) 240, and Rasulo (2011) 155–160.

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

387

asking to be pardoned, lingering over the description of Tomis and its inhabitants. He concludes by begging to be allowed to live nearer to Rome to be closer to his family. Dido is another of the protagonists, although she does not complain about Aeneas forsaking her, as in the Heroides; her speech is a diatribe against Virgil, who has tarnished her reputation. Diogenes addresses Aristippus rather than Alexander the Great, as in traditional representations. The sentences are short but not curt; examples are drawn from the classics and also from everyday experience, as when he likens the voice of Socrates’ wife to the “cigolare della girella [catena] di un pozzo [che] non offende l’ortolano” (“the squeaking of a well pulley that does not offend the farmer”). Socrates is the protagonist of two speeches, as is Solon, and if we add Diogenes, Ovid, and Virgil—who, even though he is the figure being addressed, guides Dido’s speech in a literary sense—and Phalaris—who addresses his son Paraula in the tone of the apocryphal Epistles that are attributed to him—we may regard the figure of the philosopher as predominant. In the case of Semiramis, the argomento, unusually, also alludes to the sources: “il suo esercito è descritto da Suida con verità storica, il suo valore da Valerio Massimo in parte, le sue invenzioni da Plutarco non tutte” (“her army is described by the Suda with historical accuracy; her courage, partly by Valerius Maximus; her inventions—not all of them—by Plutarch”). 3

Scudéry: French Translator and Imitator

Femmes illustres ou Harangues heroiques (1642) by Georges de Scudéry, with the probable collaboration of his sister Madeleine, is a collection of twenty speeches spoken by famous women and dedicated to the fairer sex. The second part was published two years later. In the “Epistre aux dames,” the author states that the style is appropriate to its audience, the lexicon is simple, and the rhetorical figures are used to create a natural effect, like a woman’s coiffure, artificially arranged without appearing to be. After all, women are naturally “eloquent” even without having studied rhetoric; nevertheless, their eloquence is different from the male eloquence of the university or politics, since any woman who followed its precepts would be considered a monster. Scudéry here cites his translation of I Furori della gioventù entitled Les Harangues, ou Discours académiques, published in the same year.18

18  The work of Scudéry was reprinted three times: in 1659, 1662, and 1670; in 1681 it was translated from French into English. See R. Zuber (1968) 73 and 365.

388

Nider

In the translation, Scudéry introduces important innovations that he maintains even in his original collection: he chose not to reproduce the titles of individual orations and to introduce an “Effect de cette harangue” at the end of each one, in other words, a kind of conclusion drawn from narrating the exposition of the events evoked, which, along with the initial argument, created a frame for the oration. Very often, this effect is ineluctable, since the words of the heroine do not save her from death. Another addition with respect to the model, which was already announced in the subtitle (“avec les véritables portraits de ces héroines des medailles antiques”), is the insertion of the portrait of each heroine in an antique medallion after the argument. In the main, just the face is reproduced, set within the medallion, with the heroine identified by an inscription in French around the edge. Scholars underline the links between the work and French cultural institutions at the time: the salons, protofeminism and galanterie, and the vogue for oratory and the novel. The main figures are generally drawn from the history of Rome and are, for the most part, queens or aristocrats. They are used as illustrations of feminine virtues. The author informs the reader that the order of these compositions—even if the characters are classical figures, they are subject to the influence of modern tragedy—is not chronological but corresponds rather to the ideal of variatio. In the second collection, the protagonists are mostly drawn from literary works, such as Ariosto and Tasso, and the classics, such as the Heroides, Homer, Virgil, and Heliodorus. The themes are revealed in the “Table des suiets” and include “discorsi contrapposti” (for example, Bradamante shows Ruggiero that love is preferable to honor, while in the following oration, Marfisa shows Bradamante that the opposite is true). According to Galli Pellegrini, the sources determine the rhetorical genre: demonstrative in the second collection and deliberative in the first.19 4

Spanish Imitators Inside and Outside Spain: Lucio Espinosa y Malo and Penso de la Vega

Although there are Spanish translations of the collections of Loredan (1688 and 1731) and Lupis (1697), the two well-known imitators of the microgenre were not translators, but writers who lived in Italy and took part in the literary academies and had direct access to the models.

19  Galli Pellegrini (1977) 113. For this collection, see the bibliography in Rolla (2005). I do not deal here with the role that his sister Madeleine actually played in writing the work.

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

389

As a young man, Félix de Lucio Espinosa y Malo (1646–1691) took part in the Academy of the Prince of Esquilache in Zaragoza, then in other Academies in Naples where he graduated in utroque iure. He immediately returned to Spain and became a member of an Academy in Madrid. Back in Italy, from 1687 to 1691, he became “secretario de Estado y Guerra en el reyno de Sicilia.” He inserted several orations of the kind that interests us in Declamaciones: escarmientos políticos y morales (1674).20 The Italian model is not followed strictly because some of the twelve orations are in the third person and are very short. However, as the author writes in the prologue “To the reader,” the differences may be due to the reworking. He states in fact that he wrote his speeches several years before and had decided to shorten them with a view to publication, turning the “declamaciones” into “escarmientos,” that is, “warnings,” “lessons.” Various Spanish writers intervene in the paratext of Declamaciones. In general, they claimed an hispanidad before the fact for the genre, citing Seneca the Elder and Marcus Porcius Latro. Only Alonso Siliceo points out that the work is an imitation of Italian models, Mascardi and Manzini, and especially, the Neapolitan marinisti. The heroes of the Declamaciones are the same as those in the famous Italian collections: Gaius Mucius Scaevola, Crates, Sejanus, Belisarius, Veturia, Cicero, Seneca the Younger, Hannibal, and Octavia the Younger. The first two orations by Gaius Mucius Scaevola and Crates, and the one featuring Octavia, are pastiches, or rather abridged versions (possibly a shortened version of an original full translation) from Lupis’ Teatro aperto. A curiosity of these compositions is the characters’ insistence on their own bodies, evoking their injuries or mutilations, which the reciting voice refers to as if dissociated from them and as if using gestures that can easily be inferred. This aspect leads us to hypothesize a “theatrical” reading, somewhat like a monologue where this technique is common. This performative aspect is particularly evident in the speeches of Gaius Mucius Scaevola; of Belisarius blinded by Justinian; of Cicero who, with his head cut off, addresses his murderer, Popilius; and of Octavia the Younger, who stabs the dead Cicero’s tongue with the pins from her hair. Even themes that are traditionally less macabre become so in Lucio Espinosa y Malo’s reading of them. In the second part of the following volume, Ocios morales: divididos en descripciones symbolicas y declamaciones heroycas (1691), the author is inspired by figures from European history, including both anonymous and popular characters (Masaniello), in order to outline a new concept of the heroic that 20  For this collection, see Nider (2011).

390

Nider

was also extended to the sphere of private life. The collection includes thirtythree speeches (twelve of which are from the first collection), but in only one case is there a character who speaks (Mary Stuart to Queen Elizabeth). In only a few cases is the source specified in the argument. For the most part, they are speeches in which the author comments in the third person on the exemplary actions of the characters; in many cases, the speeches involve a tirade against the characters. Lucio’s legal training may have had some bearing on the formulation of theoretical cases—like those in Aphthonius’ manual on mores— based on anecdotes that lacked any kind of reference to history or even names of people or places. Declamación XI deals with the case of a dying father who says that only one of his children is really his and that he wants to leave his inheritance to him. The judge orders the father’s dead body to be exhumed and his alleged sons to shoot their alleged father with a bow and arrow. Obviously, the real son is the one who refuses to follow the order. The other collection in Spanish is the Ideas possibles of José Penso de la Vega Passarinho.21 The writer was a Sephardic Jew, born in 1650, in Espejo, Andalusia. He moved to Amsterdam with his family as a child, then lived for some years in Livorno (Leghorn), probably between 1675 and the early 1680s. Ideas possibles, which was only published in Holland in 1692, was partly composed about ten years earlier. The collection includes a section of five speeches translated from collections of Italian authors, followed by seven more that the author wrote himself. In the prologue, Penso asserts the originality of his work, declaring that he was the first writer in the new genre in Spanish and the first to present an anthology of the most important authors in translation: Inventaron un modo de discursos los etruscos (a que fueron imitando después otros ingenios relevantes que sirvieron de lustre a la Italia, y de suspensión a la fama) que sin atarse a la erudición, admiraron con la elegancia, pintando con tanta eficacia lo que podía ser que dan a entender que fue, pues que como si hubiera sido expresión con tan vivos colores lo que es posible que fuera, que quasi le juzga por imposible que no fuese. (p. 15). The Etruscans invented a type of speech (that was later imitated by other major wits who brought luster to Italy and astonishment to Fame herself) which, without being restricted to erudition, caused wonder because of their elegance, depicting what might be so effectively that they gave the 21  Den Boer (1995) 55 demonstrates that the edition was published in Amsterdam. For this collection, see Nider (2010).

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

391

impression it really did exist, as though it were an expression with such vivid colors of what might have been, that it was almost impossible to credit that it had not. The speeches of the Italian authors whose works were translated are taken either from the foundational collections of the genre (“Paride innamorato” from Manzini’s I furori della gioventù; “Candaule pentito,” from Pallavicino’s Scena Retorica; “Cicerone dolente,” from Loredan’s Scherzi geniali) or from works printed shortly before Penso arrived in Livorno (“Crate insensato” from Teatro aperto by Lupis, and “Domiziano ambizioso” from La galleria de’ ritratti morali by Pasqualigo). All the authors imitated were members of the Accademia degli Incogniti, whose prestige, and that of Loredan in particular, heavily influenced Penso, as well as the Ideas possibles, to judge from the list of works quoted in the prologue to the reader of his collection of novellas, Rumbos peligrosos (1683), which he said he composed during his Italian period.22 With regard to the structure of the twelve speeches, unlike the Italian collections, we find thematic correspondences that were used as the basis for constructing the work and that seem to put the translated works and the originals on an equal footing. The orations are arranged in a sequence of opposing pairs: for example “Paride innamorato” (I) corresponds to “Candaule pentito” (II); power-hungry “Domiziano ambizioso” (III) to Crates, who displays indifference (IV); Cicero, who bewails his depraved disobedient son (V) to Abraham, who simultaneously weeps over and praises the silent obedience of Isaac as he is led to the sacrifice (VI); a victorious Jonathan, destined nevertheless to be sacrificed by his father, who does not accept his fate because it appears unjust to him and then pleads his cause in an impassioned speech to his soldiers (VII), to David, who speaks to Saul to convince him to let him fight Goliath (VIII). The last four orations involve themes about love. Here, female characters make their appearance: Tamar raped by her brother (IX) corresponds to Samson betrayed by Delilah (X), and finally, Potiphar’s wife (XI) corresponds to Joseph (XII). These last two Ideas are also structured differently. The reasons given by Potiphar’s wife to convince her lover are articulated in thirty-five numbered paragraphs, with a similar number in Joseph’s response. The change to the biblical theme in this work represents a development comparable to the selection of exclusively female characters in Scudéry’s collection and is in line with the author’s confessional sermons, which he had composed in Livorno. Ideas possibles is interesting as a document of Penso 22  Cf. Den Boer (1995) 55. For the Italian influences on Penso de la Vega, see also Liebermann (2001).

392

Nider

de la Vega’s italianismo, probably owing both to his desire to distance himself from Spanish culture and to the perceived originality of the Italian collections. Another reason may be that his readings of profane texts can be traced back to the time he spent in Livorno, where the Jewish community was culturally more open than the Dutch, who tended to be more strictly orthodox. In Italy, the elements of rhetorical skill represented by the speeches in the degli Incogniti collections were also considered useful for training preachers, and in his original declamaciones Penso’s intention was none other than to renew sacred oratory. 5

Some Final Observations

Fumaroli states that, for the Italian authors who concentrated on the particular oratorical genre that we are considering here, the novel was an almost inevitable next step.23 The same thing also occurred with the French imitators, such as Scudéry. With respect to Penso, we can see that he made the most of the influence of the translated models in the collected novellas of his Rumbos peligrosos, composed during the same period. Without wishing to enter into the seventeenth-century debate about the legitimacy of the orationes in historiography,24 we may broaden the discussion to also include genres that are as difficult to classify as the storie meditate and historical-political treatises, which seem to set up a dialog with some of the speeches cited. Think, for example, of “Seiano disfavorito” from the Scherzi geniali and Manzini’s Peripetia di Fortuna, ovvero Sopra la caduta di Seiano, composed in 1628, a “breve considerazione” that is almost always published in conjunction with I Furori della gioventù.25 This analytical review of the collections of orationes fictae enables us, in any case, to make some observations of a general nature. First of all, we should reiterate the importance of Venice and the Accademia degli Incogniti in the genesis and dissemination of this microgenre. This publishing success was due primarily to the existence of a public that appreciated the popularization of classical subjects and the vogue, in the most diverse arts, for looking at the “heroic” character from the inside. Second, the claim of such compositions to be “literary” is based on the very fact that they were publications, and so differed from the oral “exercises” used in schools and academies. Nevertheless, 23  Fumaroli (1994) 219–222. 24  For this, see Pineda (2007) and Bellini (2008). 25  Aricò (2007). For the literary genre of the storie meditate, see Carminati (2007).

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

393

this distinction does not appear to have been fully achieved, since most authors declared that the composition of these works went back to their youth. Another trace of their original limited circulation in the academies—at least in the case of the “founders” and their Italian imitators—is the presence of individual dedications. Third, these speeches show the following similarities: similar lengths; the absence of erudition (even when, as in Pasqualigo, the speeches are framed in such a way as to make a display of it); and audiences composed of a single listener who is constantly evoked. Famous figures of the classical world are represented but, in some cases, the best-known character is the addressee of an oration that is spoken by an anonymous voice (a fellow citizen, for example) or a fictitious name (Titus Tatius in the work of Loredan). In addition, some authors, such as Pallavicino, search for lesser-known episodes and characters, while others prefer different figures, such as the philosopher in Pasqualigo. This is also true of the female characters, who do not always correspond to Ovid’s relictae. The figures of mothers (Veturia, Sisygambis, Agrippina the Younger) are well represented, as are forceful, resolute women. Even when the characters are canonical (in the case of Dido), the theme of their speeches is not necessarily typical, as in the compositions of Pasqualigo or Battista, which show some unusual aspect of them. The initially “open” structure of the works, clearly indicated by the alphabetical order, tends to become less flexible, or “closed,” in the later collections, when it is based on internal cross-references and oppositions between different speeches (as in the case of Penso) or by using allegorical schemata (Pasqualigo and Penso de la Vega). The later Italian collections (Pasqualigo) and the imitations by foreign authors indicate the directions in which the genre developed within the framework of the protean European Baroque. Interesting avenues of research in this field open up for a study of ­eighteenth-century collections such as Varios discursos eloquentes y politicos sobre las acciones mas heroycas de diferentes personages antiguos by Mariano Nipho (1755).26 This collection contains nine speeches attributed to characters from classical antiquity, illustrating philosophical, ethical, and above all, political and social theses. Some of them are reworkings of those by Lupis but there are also interpolated passages from other books. It would be interesting to study how the influence of the Enlightenment changed the microgenre.

26  See Álvarez Barrientos 2006 and Conrieri (2016).

394

Nider



Appendix: Seventeenth-Century Collections of Orationes Fictae



Giovanni Battista Manzini I furori della gioventù, Venice, 1629.

• • • • • • •

“Affetti paterni”: Agamemnon speaks in favour of Iphigenia to the soldiers.

“Catone generoso”: Cato speaks to his eldest son Porcius before dying. “Cleopatra umiliata”: after the death of Marc Antony, Cleopatra tries to convince Octavian not to take her to Rome as a prisoner. “Paride innamorato”: Paris speaks to his father and brothers. “Paride combattuto”: Troilus, brother of Paris, speaks against him in front of his father and brothers. “Coriolano intenerito”: Veturia begs her son Coriolanus, allied with the Volsci, to break off the siege of Rome. “Orazio supplicante”: the Horatius who survived the battle between the Horatii and Curiatii appeals against the verdict that condemns him for killing his sister. He addresses Rome and his father. “Orazio reo”: The father speaks against the surviving Horatius. Speeches: “Le glorie della notte,” “Gli otii del carnevale,” “I magnanimi rivali,” “Seleuco pusillanime.”

• •



• • • • • • • • • • • •

Giovan Francesco Loredan, Scherzi geniali, Venice, 1632.

“Achille Furibondo”: to Patroclus.





•

“Agrippina calunniata”: to Nero. “Antonio Caracalla amante”: to Julia Domna. “Cicerone dolente”: Cicero to his son Marcus. “Ennone gelosa”: Oenone to Paris. “Lucrezia violata”: to her father, husband and brothers. “Marco Antonio eloquente”: Marc Antony Orator to his killers sent by Gaius Marius. “Marco Antonio moribondo”: to Cleopatra. “Poppaia supplichevole”: to Nero after he recalls his wife from exile. “Seiano disfavorito”: Lucius Aelius Seianus laments his donwfall. “Seneca prudente”: Seneca to Nero abandoning his riches. “Sisigambi consolante”: Sisygambis, mother of Darius, comforting his wife and daughters after Alexander the Great’s victory.

Giovan Francesco Loredan, Scherzi geniali, Part II, Venice, 1638.

“Alessandro pentito”: Alexander speaks to friends about killing Cleitus.

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

395

• • • • • • • • • • •

“Annibale invitto”: Hannibal meets the friends who invited him to ask the Romans for clemency after the arrival of Quintus Flaminius. “Ciro animoso”: Cyrus speaks to his captains and friends, and Clearchus in particular advised him not to put lives at risk. “Curzio ripreso”: Titus Tatius criticizes Marcus Curtius for sacrificing himself. “Elena piangente”: Helen to Priam. “Elena supplicante”: Helen to Menelaus. “Germanico tradito”: last words of Germanicus to his family. “Pirro rimproverato”: Pyrrhus rebuked by Cineas (Plutarch). “Rossane modesta”: to Alexander. “Teagene generoso”: Theagenes against Phryne’s offer to finance the rebuilding of Thebes. “Frine lasciva”: Phryne to Xenocrates. “Xenocrate continente”: to Phryne.



• •

Ferrante Pallavicino, Scena Retorica, Venice, 1640.

“Amilcone infelice” = Himilco. “Antigono ardito”: Antigonus Doson guardian of Philip the son of Demetrius II of Macedonia to the people in arms to prevent him from taking control of the kingdom. “Arsinoe dolente”: after being abandoned by Ptolemy Ceraunus. “Candaule ravveduto”: Candaules states that he was wrong. “Catone amorevole”: Cato of Utica gives his wife Marcia to Quintus Hortensius. “Curio temperante”: Manius Curius Dentato to Samnite ambassadors. “Donna risoluta”: women of Scythia to the other widows who settle in the town of Themiscyra and from whom the Amazons sprang. “Ippota supplicante”: Hippotas, the lame, asks the rest of the conspirators against Ptolemy to kill him so that he will not delay Cleomenes’ mission to assassinate the tyrant. “Ovidio bandito”; to Octavian and his wife Perilla. “Semiramide lasciva”: to Ninus. “Silla amante”: Sulla to Valeria. “Teogene affettuosa”: the wife of Agathocles responds to her husband who wants her to go into exile after his fall. “Eolo dolente”: Aeolus, the god of the winds, laments the way a new construction challenges his powers (cf. Pallavicino’s Eolo dolente per l’edificio del nuovo molo di Genova, dedicated to Ansaldo Mari, Genoa, 1639).

• • • • • • • • • • •

396

Nider

Antonio Lupis, Teatro aperto, Venice, 1664.

• • • blood-soaked robe. • “Agrippina dolente”: Nero’s mother to the assassins before she dies. • “Diogene generoso”: Diogenes declines Alexander the Great’s offer of a city. • “Timone prudente”: retired to a hermitage in Athens. • “Ottavia inumana”: an observer accuses Ottavia Turina of sticking pins in the tongue of the dead Cicero. • “Hero infelice”: to Leander after his death. • “Cassio difeso”: Cassius defends the reasons for Caesar’s murder. • “Angelica rimproverata”: Angelica rebuked by Rinaldo for choosing Medoro. • “Gige inanimito”: the wife of Candaules to Gyges to persuade him to kill her husband and then marry her. • “Ovidio bandito”: a courtier to Emperor Augustus who exiled Ovid having accused

“Muzio Scevola invitto”: to Porsenna. “Crate insensato”: a local man angry with the philosopher. “Marco Antonio adirato”: Marc Antony speaks to the people, showing Caesar’s

him of flirting with his daughter, Julia.



•

Vincenzo Pasqualigo, La galleria de’ ritratti morali, Venice, 1671.

Partimento I. Passioni o “Dell’Afflizione,” ritratto: “Calpurnia afflitta”: to the dead Caesar. o “Del Timore,” ritratto: “Dionisio timido”: Dionysius II, tyrant of Syracuse, to Damocles, seated on his throne with a sword suspended over his head to show the perils faced by rulers. o “Dell’amore,” ritratto: “Marco Antonio innamorato”: the dying Marc Antony to Cleopatra o “Dello Sdegno,” ritratto: “Semiramide sdegnata”: Semiramis to Ninus Partimento II. I vizi o “Dell’impudicizia,” ritratto: “Messalina impudica”: Messalina to her vassals. o “Della vendetta,” ritratto: “Tomiri vendicativa”: Tomyris, queen of the Massagetae, to the decapitated head of the enemy, Cyrus the Elder. o “Dell’ambizione,” ritratto: “Domiziano ambizioso”: Domitian proclaimed himself Emperor of the Romans. o “Dell’avarizia,” ritratto: “Vespesiano avaro”: Titus Flavius Vespasian speaks to his son Titus. Partimento III. Le virtù o “Della pace,” ritratto: “Numa Pompilio pacifico”: to the Romans.

•

•

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

397

o “Della Temperanza,” ritratto: “Demetrio temperato”: Demetrius the philosopher to Caligula. o “Della giustizia,” ritratto: “Zaleuco giusto”: to the Locrians. o “Della costanza,” ritratto: “Didone costante”: Dido to Hiarbas.



Giuseppe Battista, Giornate accademiche, Venice, 1673.

• “Il tebano generoso a Alessandro.” • “Semiramide innamorata”: to Ninus. • “Ovidio supplicante a Cesare Ottaviano.” • “Socrate sofferente ad Alcibiade”: Socrates explains why he tolerates Xanthippe. • “Socrate prigioniero ai magistrati ateniesi”: Socrates prisoner of the magistrates of Athens. • “Tolemeo traditore a Cesare”: with Pompey’s head. • “Didone sdegnata a Virgilio.” • “Rutilio sbandeggiato a Silla”: Publius Rutilius Rufus refuses to return to Rome. • “Diogene riprensore a Aristippo.” • “Falaride tiranno a Paurola suo figliuolo.” • “Solone veridico a Creso”: Solon’s contempt for the riches of Croesus. • “Pisistrato clemente a Solone”: Solon invited Pisistratus to return home.



• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



Georges de Scudéry, Femmes illustres, ou les Harangues héroïques, Paris, 1642. “Artemise à Isocrate.” “Mariamne à Herodes.” “Cleopatre à Marc Antoine.” “Sisigambis à Alexandre.” “Sophonisbe à Massinisse.” “Zenobie à ses filles.” “Porcie à Volumnis.” “Berenice à Titus.” “Panthée à Cirus.” “Amalasonthe à Theodat.” “Lucrece à Colatin.” “Volumnia à Virgile.” “Athenaïs à Theodose.” “Pulcheria au Patriarche de Constantinople.” “Calpurnie à Lepide.”

398

• • • • •



• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •



• • • • • • •

Nider

“Livie à Mecene.” “Cloelia à Persenna.” “Octavie à Auguste.” “Agripine au peuple romain.” “Sapho à Erinne.”

Georges de Scudéry, Femmes illustres, ou les Harangues héroïques . . . Seconde Partie, Paris, 1644. “Polixène à Pirrhe.” “Bradamante à Roger.” “Marphise à Bradamante.” “Laodamie à Prothesilas.” “Amarille à Titire.” “Clorinde à Tancrede.” “Herminie à Arsete.” “Hélène à Paris.” “Hecube aux Femmes troyennes.” “Angélique à Medor.” “Andromache à Ulisse.” “Briseis à Achille.” “Didon à Barcé.” “Chariclée à Theagene.” “Alceste à Admete.” “Penelope à Laerte.” “Enone à ses compagnes.” “Genevieve à Ariodant.” “Sophonie à Olinde.” “Armide à Renaud.”

Félix de Lucio Espinosa y Malo, Declamaciones: escarmientos politicos y morales, Madrid, 1674.

“Mucio Scevola”: (see Lupis). “Crates”: (see Lupis). “Nerón.” “Memnón.” “Perilo.” “Seyano.” “Absdrúbal.”

17th Century Collections of ‘ Orationes Fictae ’

399

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

“Volunia”: Veturia to Coriolanus. “Octavia”: (see Lupis). “Belisario a Justiniano.” “Dionisio siracusano el viejo.” “Cicerón a Popilio.” “Séneca a Nerón.” “Empédocles.” “Bautista Mirandulano.” “Midas.” “Cambises.” “Bayaceto.” “Jerjes.” “Eróstrato.” “Aníbal.”

José Penso de la Vega, Ideas possibles de que se compone un curioso ramillete de fragrantes flores, [Antwerp], 1692.

• de la juventud.” • “Idea segunda: ‘Candaule arrepentido,’ de Ferrante Pallavicino en su Scena Rethorica.” • “Idea tercera: ‘Domiciano ambicioso’, de Vincenzo Pasqualigo, noble veneciano, en su Galería de Retratos Morales.” • “Idea cuarta: ‘Crates insensato,’ de Antonio Lupis en su Teatro abierto.” • “Idea quinta: ‘Cicerón quejoso,’ de Juan Francisco Loredano, noble veneciano, en sus Juguetes del Genio.” • “Idea sexta: ‘Obediencia enternecida’ ”: Abraham to Isaac. • “Idea septima: ‘Suerte contra suerte’ ”: Jonathan to his soldiers. • “Idea octava: ‘Alientos de la devoción y bríos de la humildad’ ”: David to Saul. • “Idea nona: ‘Quejas de la honestidad y odios de la posesión’ ”: Tamar to Amon. • “Idea décima: ‘Flaquezas del valor’ ”: Samson to the Philistines. • “Idea undécima: ‘La capa de los engaños y los engaños de la capa’ ”: Potiphar to Joseph. • “Idea duodecima: ‘Triumpho de la virtud y tropheo de la castidad’ ”: Joseph to “Idea primera: ‘Paris enamorado’, del caballero Juan Bautista Manzini en sus Furores

Potiphar.

Appendix

Contiones. Printed Anthologies of Speeches (1471–1699) Juan Carlos Iglesias-Zoido and Victoria Pineda This appendix brings together 115 collections of harangues, published in the early modern period, whose origin and theme are historiographical. This is the element that distinguishes these collections from other miscellanies. The anthologies we present excerpt contiones from the text of one or several historical works. Anthologies of an oratorical origin (for example, the collections of speeches of ancient orators such as Aeschines, Demosthenes, Licurgus, or Cicero) are not included in this catalog; nor are the compilations that assemble speeches composed by modern authors but do not derive from larger works (an example would be the various anthologies of orations published by Filippo Beroaldo, Francesco Sansovino, or other Italian writers in the sixteenth century and by French authors in the seventeenth century). Nonetheless, the list does include those anthologies that are closely associated with the creation, circulation, and success of historiographical collections, even though they do not originate in history books. These anthologies involve selections of speeches culled from epic works such as the Iliad and novels like Amadís de Gaula, as well as progymnasmatic collections of fictitious speeches, Rodomontadas (“Rodomontades”), and so on. We have also included theoretical treatises published during the second half of the seventeenth century that introduced rules for the rhetorical use of contiones and which must have circulated in schools in parallel with the anthologies. An overall view of the material described here will highlight the way in which the genre that we examine in this volume marks a crossroads. “Anthologies” and, in general, works classed as miscellanies; collections of rhetorical pieces with their own identity (such as speeches, letters, descriptions, panegyrics, “sayings and deeds,” etc.); historical works transmited in a fragmentary way; different varieties of historical writing; school manuals or political treatises would be longue durée categories of texts that overlap with the works that we study in this book. At the same time, the chronological order that we have followed in the catalog shows the evolution of the collections of speeches, including their various specialities and ramifications, their interrelationships, and influences, particularly from the first third of the sixteenth century onwards, which was when Périon, Lorich, Nannini, Estienne, Belleforest, and Junius published the essential works in this editorial genre.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���7 | doi ��.��63/9789004341869_022

402

Appendix

The list, which includes only printed works, covers the period up until the end of the seventeenth century. During the eighteenth century, as well as in the nineteeth and twentieth centuries, anthologies continued to be published, although they were mainly reissues of earlier works, adapted to new tastes and mindsets. When more than one edition of the same book exists, the various editions are included as part of the entry of the first edition, unless the later editions present significant novelties, in which case the new edition is recorded separately. The list does not claim to be exhaustive, but it does intend to be a reliable guide and aid in the study of the type of material analyzed in this book. We have reduced the secondary bibliography to a minimum, and we have only included those studies that either consider the works that we have cataloged from the point of view of their belonging to the anthology genre or because they have supplied some of the data that appear in the entries.1 The fields that that make up each entry, with corresponding abbreviations, are as follows: C: Compiler T: Title P: Publication data: place, publisher, year TA: Type of anthology N: Notes B: Bibliography [1] T: Invectiva in Ciceronem P: [Cologne: Printer of Dares (Schilling), ca. 1471] TA: Single Latin author (Sallust) N: This book with the invective against Cicero attributed to Sallust also includes the “Responsio in Sallustium,” as well as the “Epistola contra Vernandum legisperitum de recommendatione poesis ad Guillelmum de Lapide,” and an “Epitaphium Leonardi Aretini.” The Paris edition, printed by Pierre de Kaysere and Jean Stoll ca. 1473, brings together the two complete, preserved monographs by Sallust, the Jugurthine War and the Conspiracy of Catiline, with the two invectives and another two speeches, the “In Catilinam invectiva,” and the “Oratio responsiva in Ciceronem.” Another edition ca. 1474 (Cologne: Printer of the Historia S. Albani) prints only the two invectives. 1  Other members of the “Arenga” Research Group have also contributed to this catalog. Our special thanks to David Carmona, Florence Serrano, and Joaquín Villalba (who has also assembled the three lists that complete this Appendix: compilers, places of publication, and printers).

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

403

B: Hain 14236; ISTC is00090600; Novokhatko (2009) 193. [2] T: Ex libris Historiarum orationes et epistolae P: Rome: Arnold Pannartz, 1475 TA: Single Latin author (Sallust) N: First printed version of the speeches taken from Sallust’s historical works. It includes the speeches and the two letters to Caesar from the lost Historiae. A simple title appears at the top of the orations. Another edition was published in the same year in Mantua by Johann Schallus. Based on the 1490 Rome edition of Sallust’s Opera, printed by Eucharius Silber, there are frequent editions of the historian that include the monographs, invectives, orations, and letters. B: Hain 14244; ISTC is00091000; Osmond and Ulery (2003); Osmond (2010). [3] T: Orationes duae de Alexandro Magno habitae in senatu Atheniensi; Exhortatio ad Athenienses; Dehortatio adversus exhortationem Aeschinis; Epistola ad Aristotelem; Noctes Atticae IX.3.5 P: Rome: Johann Reinhard, 1475 TA: Fictitious speeches with a historical theme N: There are four speeches probably written by Pietro Marcello, the bishop of Ceneda. A few years earlier, these speeches had appeared as part of another work with various texts of Seneca’s and other authors (Cologne: Johann Koelhoff, 1471–1472; Cologne: Johann Guldenschaff or Conrad Winters?, 1472; Paris: Pierre de Kayser and Jean Stoll, 1473). B: ISTC id00139500; Sabbadini (1915) 241. [4] T: Orationes legatorum Francorum ad Venetos et ceteros cum responsionibus P: Leipzig: Melchior Lotter (the Elder), after July 26, 1495 TA: Speeches, possibly fictitious, about a recent historical event N: This is the first book printed by Melchior Lotter the Elder, a printer whose career focused on the publication of rhetorical textbooks and classical texts at the University of Leipzig. A brief dedication “ad lectorem” after the incipit points to the rhetorical nature of the compilation. The speeches in question were allegedly addressed by the ambassadors sent by the French King Charles VIII (1470–1498) to a variety of prominent figures (including the Pope and King Alfonso of Aragon) in the year when a League was being formed against the French during the first of the Italian Wars (1494–1498). The respective responsiones are also included, giving a total of nineteen speeches. Each oration is introduced with a simple title that indicates the speaker, the person addressed,

404

Appendix

and the day (and in one case, the year) when the speech was given. All the speeches are dated between March and July 1495. B: Hain 12035; ISTC io00067300. [5] C: Marco Antonio Sabellico T: Enneades ab orbe condito ad inclinationem Romani imperii P: Venice: Bernardino and Matteo Vitali, 1498 TA: Universal history with a set of orations from Thucydides N: This is a universal history from the creation of the world until the end of the Roman Empire, organized in groups of nine books (enneads) combined with biblical sources. According to Connell (2012), Enneades set out to offer a historical account which combined biblical and pagan sources. Sabellico made use of material relating to the same period that had already been assembled and published in 1485 in the Supplementum chronicarum. As Pade (2003) 128–129 points out, this work offers an early example of a selection of Thucydides’s orations, in which the text of eleven speeches in a translation adapted from Lorenzo Valla’s Latin version has been interspersed in the account of the events of the Peloponnesian War (Enneades III 5–8). The eleven speeches are identified by their titles: Oratio Corcyrensium (Enneades III, liber 5: fol. 181r-v), Corinthiorum oratio (Enneades III, liber 5: fol. 181v–182r), etc. Other editions: Venice, 1498; Venice, 1503; Venice, 1504 (augmented edition that goes as far as 1503); Paris, 1509 (posthumous edition published by Josse Bade with the title Rapsodie historiarum Enneadum ab orbe condito ad annum salutis humani 1504). During the sixteenth century, when the “rhapsody” came to be recognized as a historical genre, a number of successors continued to publish augmented editions under the titles Rapsodiae historiarum or Rapsodiae historicae. B: ISTC is00007000; Pade (2003) 128–129; Connell (2012) 356–357; MacPhail (2014). [6] C: Jean Le More T: Quinti Curtii Elegantissime orationes et epistole P: Paris: Jean Barbier, 1507 TA: Classical author (fake) N: Collection of letters and speeches by a Pseudo-Quintus Curtius, prepared by Jean Le More or Le Maure, a humanist and printer who, in the same year, supervised the edition of the Facta et dicta memorabilia by Valerius Maximus, also published by Barbier. B: Pendergrass (2007) 308.

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

405

[7] C: Matthias Fromuth T: Tris Titi Livii Patavini orationes lactei eloquentie fluminis luculentissime P: Leipzig: Martin Landsberg, 1509 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: Three speeches from the Ab Urbe condita: Titus Quinctius to the Roman people; Marcus Furius Camillus to the Roman senate and people; and Marcus Valerius Corvinus to the army. B: McDonald (1971). [8] C: Johann Alexander Brassicanus T: Leonardi Aretini viri undecunque docti tres orationes in triplici dicendi genere, ex Homero in Latinam linguam erudita quadam metaphrasi conversae, studiosis omnibus inaestimanda fruge conducibiles; Ioannis Alexandri Brassicani de vanis mortalium studiis atque sectis Hecatosticha P: Nuremberg: Peypus, 1523 TA: Speeches from epic literature N: Brassicanus’s edition of the prose translation of Leonardo Bruni’s Orationi Homeri produced at the beginning of the fifteenth century. These are the speeches of Ulysses, Achilles, and Phoenix from book IX of the Iliad, each of a different oratorical genre. Numerous manuscripts of Bruni’s translation of these model speeches have been preserved as well as his translation into various vernacular languages, such as Spanish. The edition of the Homeri opera e Graeco traducta (Venice: Bernardino Veneto dei Vitali, 1516) already contained the whole of the three orations with a “Prohemium in orationes Homeri” and their respective arguments, although Brassicanus’s edition is the first free-standing edition. The volume is completed with some lines of poetry by Brassicanus himself, “De vanis mortalium studiis atque sectis.” B: Grafton (1992) 149–172; Thiermann (1993); Kircher (2014) 61–91. [9] C: Bartholomaeus Latomus T: Artificium dialecticum et rhetoricum in tres praeclarissimas orationes ex T. Livio, et Cicerone, videlicet, M. Furii Camilli dictatoris de non migrando Veios, ad po. Ro. contra Trib. ple. Appii Claudii patricii contra legem de plebeio consulatu, ad po. Ro. in Trib. ple.; M. Tullii Ciceronis pro A. Licinio Archia poeta, ad iudices P: Cologne: Johann Gymnich, 1529 TA: Classical authors; oratory and historiography

406

Appendix

N: Latomus assembles three of Cicero’s speeches and one of Livy’s to compose this small anthology with a clearly rhetorical purpose in mind. Each speech is preceded by its argument. The printed marginalia indicate the most important rhetorical issues, while the “Artificium” at the end of each speech points out details related to style, oratorical type, the parts, and so on. The 1532 edition (same city and printer: Artificium dialecticum et rhetoricum in quattuor praeclarissimas orationes ex T. Livio) adds Cicero’s speech, Pro Marcello. B: Classen (2003) 227–228; Montagne (2010); Maréchaux (2015). [10] C: Gerhard Bucolds T: De partitione oratoria dialogus, atque adeo compendium adiectis scholiis, item orationibus duabus artificio rhetorico illustratis a Gerardo Bucoldiano. Oratio M.T. Ciceronis pro rege Deiotaro ad Caesarem. Oratio Q. Fabii Maximi apud Livium de Pu. Scipionis in Africam trajectione P: Cologne: Johann Gymnich, 1531 TA: Classical authors; oratory and historiography N: Author of several writings and commentaries on rhetoric, on this occasion Bucolds offers readers his edition of Cicero’s De partitione oratoria and Pro rege Deiotaro with notes, accompanied by a speech of Quintus Fabius Maximus’s taken from the Ab Urbe condita. Before the text of the speech, he includes its argument, an analysis of its rhetorical genre, and the parts that comprise it. The printed marginalia steer the reader towards a rhetorical reading of the speeches. [11] T: Orationes adversariae Marci Portii Catonis et L. Valerii de lege Oppia P: Paris: Christian Wechel, 1531 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: Wechel was a celebrated Parisian printer of many fine editions of Greek and Roman classics and well known for his commercial strategy, publishing excerpts of Ancient authors. This collection is a good example. The volume includes orations of Cato the Elder (Marcus Porcius Cato) in support of the Lex Oppia, and of Lucius Valerius opposing it, taken from Livy, book 34. It is a well-known historiographical debate in the form of an antilogy. B: Timperley (1839) 320. [12] T: Θουκυδίδου Δημηγορίαι. Thucydidis Conciones P: Paris: Christian Wechel, 1531

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

407

TA: Single Greek author (Thucydides) N: Wechel began to print Greek authors in 1530. This book offers an anthology of the Greek text of the contiones in book I of Thucydides’s History. The closeness to the publication date of Claude Seyssel’s French translation (1527) points to one of the possible motives for its publication: having access to the text of Thucydides’s highly praised speeches without needing to search the complete work. The physical characteristics of the book (a free-standing edition) and its brevity (barely 34 pages) lead us to think that the collection might have ended up forming part of a larger whole in its final binding. There is neither introduction nor paratextual elements. The various speeches only have a brief heading in Greek, running consecutively from the Demegoría Kerkyraíôn to the Demegoría Perikléous. As far as its didactic purpose is concerned, it has been suggested that there is a possible association between this volume and Johannes Sturm, Melchior Junius’s teacher, who in those years was teaching rhetoric in Paris. B: Meerhoff (2009) 109–130; Iglesias-Zoido (2011b) 178–179. [13] C: Joachim Périon T: T. Livii Patavini conciones, cum argumentis et annotationibus Ioachimi Perionii Benedictini Cormoeriaceni. His accesit index locupletissimus omnium concionum, simul et tabula insigniores conciones suo quamque generi subiectas complectens P: Paris: Simon de Colines, 1532 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: The French Benedictine Friar Joachim Périon’s anthology inaugurates what would become a long tradition as a didactic tool for teaching the Latin language and rhetoric. This is the intention indicated by the table placed by the compiler at the beginning of the anthology, in which he arranges the orations according to the three rhetorical genres and, under each of these, by their various “species.” Périon brings together 191 contiones extracted from the entire text of the Ab Urbe condita. To this table, a general index of the work has been added indicating the title of the speech, the number of its order in the anthology, and the page where it appears. There is another index that includes subject matter and important terms. In the argumentum that precedes each speech, Périon gives a summary of the context in which the speech is made and the events leading up to such a situation, and in the commentaries, the compiler provides historical, geographical, and linguistic notes about the text. The printed marginalia summarize the points considered most important. Each one of these parts of the text is clearly differentiated typographically to

408

Appendix

improve the reading and practical use of the work. This work enjoyed later reissues, with slight variations in the title, such as this one in Basel (Robert Winter, 1545): In omnes T. Livii Conciones, ut breviusculae, ita cum primis eruditae annotationes. Una cum ipsis T. Livii concionibus, per genera causarum distinctis, ut vix quicquam rhetorices ac Latinitatis studiosis proponi accommodatius possit. Accessit quoque rerum ac verborum locuples index. B: Cf. the chapter by Villalba in this volume. [14] C: Joachim Périon T: T. Livii Conciones per Joachimum Perionium collectae. His accessit oratio L. Catilinae ad milites, ex C. Crispi Sallustii historiis P: Antwerp: Joannes Steelsius, 1535 TA: Two Latin historians: Livy and Sallust N: The speeches appear in the same order as in the original works. The initial index only includes Livy’s orations. The speeches are introduced with a simple title, without any further paratextual elements. Sallust’s oration does have printed marginalia with a markedly rhetorical orientation. B: McDonald (1971). [15] T: Conciones aliquot elegantissime selecte P: Paris: Prigent Calvarin, 1536 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: Selection of speeches from Livy. B: McDonald (1971). [16] C: Reinhard Lorich T: Titi Livii Patavini orationes omnes, ex libris de II. Bello Punico, Artificio Dialectico & Rhetorico illustratae. Ex iisdem libris Miscellanea, Observationes, et Apophthegmata, rerum omnium memorabilium ac insignium, diligenter excerpta, Per Reinhardum Lorichium Hadamarium P: Frankfurt: Christian Egenolff (Christianus Egenolphus Hadamarius), [1537] TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: The orations are taken from books XXI–XXX of the Ab urbe condita, which would have had a free-standing circulation, as is shown, among other testimonies, by the MS. of the University of Valencia Titi Livii Patavini De secundo bello Punico, copied in Florence, possibly by Piero Strozzi, ca. 1479. In the introduction, Lorich, a teacher of rhetoric and author of influential and well-known

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

409

manuals on the art of rhetoric, stresses the value of Livy’s work (“magis quam Salustium,” fol. aa2v), and particularly his speeches, for educating the young. The volume, with a clearly didactic approach, is headed by a table of the orations included, divided into books, and a detailed index of names and matters. Each speech is preceded by an argumentum and followed by a commentary in which, as the title of the work indicates, the “dialectical and rhetorical artifices” are set out: textual questions, sources, rhetorical genre, historical context, rhetorical figures, parallel loci, and so on. The volume is completed by a “miscellany” of noteworthy matters, culled from the same books and numbered from 1 to 214, which include, for example, the description of Hannibal, prodigies, unusual deaths, and so forth. B: McDonald (1971); cf. Villalba’s chapter in this volume. [17] C: Pierre Saliat T: L’oraison que feit Crispe Saluste contre Mar. Tul. Ciceron. Plus l’oraison de Ciceron responsive a celle de Saluste. Avec deux aultres oraisons dudict Crispe Saluste a Jules Cesar, affin de redresser la Republique Romaine. Le tout translaté nouuellement de Latin en Francoys, par Pierre Saliat. P: Paris: Simon de Colines, 1537 TA: Classical authors N: Saliat published his French translations of the Sallust Against Cicero invective, attributed since antiquity to Sallust, and Cicero Against Sallust, of uncertain attribution, together with two other orations, also attributed to Sallust, the Epistulae ad Caesarem senem de re publica. The collection sets out to introduce these texts to the non-specialist reader and to enhance the French language with the inspiration of Latin. Apart from the “Exhortatory prologue” that precedes the translations, this brief work is devoid of paratextual material. B: Chocheyras (1965); Vignali (2014). [18] C: Johann Sleidan T: Frossardi, nobilissimi scriptoris Gallici, historiarum opus omne, iam primum et breviter collectum et Latino sermone redditum P: Paris: Simon de Colines, 1537 TA: Fragments of the historical work of a medieval author N: In the 1530s, Johann Sleidan formed part of the circle of German scholars and students who had moved to Paris, a group that also included Johann Sturm and Ulrich Geiger and with links to Cardinal Jean du Bellay. On the instigation of Cardinal du Bellay, to whom he refers warmly in the introduction, Sleidan

410

Appendix

selected and translated into Latin fragments of the chronicles of Jean Froissart (1337–1404), which included several harangues. The next edition appeared in 1562, and in 1572, François de Belleforest published a French translation with the title Recueil diligent et profitable auquel sont contenuz les choses plus notables à remarquer de toute l’histoire de Jean Froissart, mis en un abrégé et illustré de plusieurs anotations, par François de Belleforest Comingeois (Paris, with different imprints for Guillaume de la Noue and an issue for Jean Hulpeau). B: Kess (2008) 23–25. [19] C: Johannes Vasaeus T: T. Livii Patavini Conciones aliquot in genere deliberativo P: Salamanca: Gonzalo de Castañeda, 1538 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: Partial compilation of the speeches from the Ab Urbe condita with a rhetorical purpose. B: Roersch (1929) [20] C: Reinhard Lorich T: T. Livii Patavini, lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantis, Orationes: separatim cum argumentis editae in iuventutis studiosae commoditatem, quibus acceserunt orationes omnes, quae iam extant, apud C. Crispum Sallustium, Q. Curtium, C. Caesarem, P. Cornelium Tacitum, Herodianum P: Marburg: Christian Egenolff, 1541 TA: The classical authors included are Livy, Sallust, Quintus Curtius, Caesar, Tacitus, and Herodian N: Like the title, Lorich’s dedication to the count of Nassau-Weilburg stresses the educational intention of the compiler, which in this case coincides with the count’s support of certain teaching establishments. After the dedication, the volume presents the testimony of a number of authorities (St. Jerome, Quintilian, George of Trebizond, and others) on the eloquence of Livy. For Livy’s speeches, he follows Périon. The speeches of Livy, Sallust, and Quintus Curtius are preceded by an argumentum that stands out from the speech proper by being written in italics. The final index arranges the orations by author and, within each author, by the name of the person who makes the speech. Two editions exist, produced by Pietro Maria Marchetti’s printers in Brescia, one from 1560, with a dedication by the printer, which replaces Lorich’s, and another from approximately 1600, in which the first part of the title, “T. Livii Patavini, lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantis,” has disappeared. B: McDonald (1971); cf. Villalba’s chapter in this volume.

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

411

[21] T: Πλάτωνος, Θουκυδίδου καὶ Δημοσθένους ἐπιτάφιοι λόγοι. Platonis, Thucydidis, et Demosthenis funebres orationes. P: Venice: Sons of Aldo Manuzio, 1549 TA: Greek funeral orations of an oratorical and historiographical nature N: A short work that brings together a number of texts in Greek of various origin. The content is as follows: the Mexenus dialog by Plato (fols. 1–13r), in which there is an example of a funeral oration delivered by Aspasia; Pericles’s funeral oration (Th. 2. 36–46) in Thucydides’s History (fols. 13v–18r); Demosthenes’s funeral oration (fols. 18v–24r). The case of the historiographical speech taken from Thucydides is especially interesting since the compiler offers the following structure: the titulus of the speech in Greek, next the complete initial narrative setting has been included (Th. 2.35), and, after Pericles’s speech, the closing phrase (Th. 2.47.1). [22] C: Celio Secondo Curione T: Philippicae orationes XIIII in M. Antonium, a Caelio Secundo Curione post omnes omnium castigationes diligentius emendatae et novis iisque perpetuis explicationibus illustratae. His accessere orationes quatuor, ad Philippicarum argumentum pertinentes, ex Dione historico, eodem Caelio Secundo Curione interprete et explicatore. Omnia cum copioso atque utili Indice P: Basel: Hieronymus Froben, 1551 TA: Classical history and oratory N: After Cicero’s Philippics, the volume contains the Latin translation of the four orations on the theme found in Cassius Dio. It is one of the numerous works that Curione sent to the printers during the more than twenty years that he practiced as a teacher of rhetoric in Basel (see another example in number 25). After the dedication to King Edward VI of England, Curione inserts a dissertation on the Ciceronian Philippics and a “general argument” taken from Plutarch and from other texts of Cicero’s. These are followed by the texts proper, accompanied by a detailed rhetorical analysis. After the fourteen Philippics, the Orationes quatuor ex Dione ad Philipicarum argumentum pertinentes begin. Dio’s text was translated into Latin by Curione himself. Each speech is preceded by an introduction that offers a general analysis of the texts and a succinct commentary that includes the epigraphs “Causae genus,” “Status,” “Forma orationis,” and “Dispositio partium.” Then comes the text of the speech followed by a detailed rhetorical analysis. A complete final index includes the subjects, words, histories, and rhetorical norms and resources that the reader can find in the book. B: Kutter (1955).

412

Appendix

[23] C: Jakob Leich T: T. Livii Patavini secundi dicendi magistri, eloquentiaeque Romanae alterius parentis conciones priorum quinque librorum primae decadis XXXXV, iam primum ab aliis avulsae, et compendiosa quadam dialectici, et Rethorici artifici ratione illustratae, in usum et gratiam candidatorum eloquentiae P: Cologne: Henricus Mameramus, 1551 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: After the epistola nuncupatoria, there is a printed index of the speeches according to their rhetorical genre and, after the index, a series of testimonies on Livy taken from ancient and modern authors. The collection comprises forty-five speeches extracted from the first five books of Livy. Each oration is accompanied by an argument and an effect. Each speech is followed by a rhetorical commentary. At the end of the anthology an index of names and subject matter is included. Collection for rhetorical use. B: McDonald (1971). [24] C: János Zsámboky T: Δημηγορίαι, hoc est, conciones aliquot ex libris Xenophontis de Paedia Cyri, breviores et selectiores, versae pro tyronibus Graecae linguae, a Ioanne Sambuco Tirnaviensi Pannone. Additae sunt duae orationes contrariae, Critiae et Theramenis, ex libro secundo de rebus gestis Graecorum. Ad haec, oratio, quod oratores ante poetas a pueris cognoscendi sint, eodem Joanne Sambuco autore. Adiectis quoque eiusdem Poematiis aliquot aliorum propediem edendorum velut primitiis P: Basel: Johannes Oporinus, 1552 TA: Single Greek author, Xenophon; Greek-Latin bilingual text N: This anthology of speeches from Xenophon with a didactic purpose is, together with a school edition of Homer, one of the first works published by Sambucus during his time in Ingolstadt. The collection is composed of twelve speeches from the Cyropaedia, plus the exchange between Critias and Theramenes from the second book of the Hellenica, as well as an oratio and several poems from the pen of the compiler himself. Sambucus admits to having used Francesco Filelfo’s translations, which, he says, are not always faithful to the original. For Sambucus, Xenophon’s speeches make useful reading for training young men in rhetoric, being full of sententiae and models of inventio and dispositio, on a par with the dialogs of Lucian. The anthology is preceded by a “Vita Xenophontis ex Suida.” The orations are not accompanied by paratextual material. The anthology is not indexed. B: Hieronymus (1992) n. 55; Marsh (1992); Visser (2005) 38–40; Almási (2009).

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

413

[25] C: Celio Secondo Curione T: Caelii Secundi Curionis selectarum epistolarum Libri duo, ejusdem orationum (inter quas et Agrippae contra monarchiam et Mecaenatis pro monarchia adversariae orationes duae, lectu dignissimae, ex Dione Latinitate donatae) continentur, liber unus. Varia eruditione ac rerum cognitione referta magnaque parte nunc primum in lucem edit P: Basel: Johannes Oporinus, 1553 TA: Single Greek author (Cassius Dio) N: In this case, Curione once again takes Cassius Dio’s history as his source (see also number 22) selecting from it speeches that summarize the debate between Maecenas and Agrippa and offering them to the reader in a Latin translation. This section is the second in the book and accompanies the selection of letters from Curione himself to various people. In their turn, the speeches in the second part are mixed with others by the author. A general argumentum supplies the reader with the background to the debate between Agrippa (“contra monarchiam”) and Maecenas (“pro monarchia”). There is no other paratextual material. B: Kutter (1955). [26] C: Jean de Amelin (or Hamelin) T: Les Concions et Harengues de Tite Live, nouvellement traduictes en François P: Paris: Michel de Vascosan, 1554 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: This anthology falls into the group of partial translations of Livy that Jean de Amelin began to publish in the 1550s. The collection was inspired by Joaquim Périon’s of 1532 (see number 13). The order of the speeches, numbered 1 to 192, is the same as their appearance in each of the decades. Every oration is accompanied by an argument. The printed marginalia point out especially noteworthy themes or events. The book was reissued in 1568 (Paris: Vascosan) and 1576 (Lyon: Benoît Rigaud and Jean d’Ogerolles, with title expanded to Les concions et harengues de Tite Live, dans lesquelles l’on voit pourtraicté au naturel la perfection de toutes les vertus qui sont requises en celuy que l’on dit eloquent. L’invention y est merveilleuse, les sentences hautes et graves, et le tout y est conduict avec une varieté si delectable, que le plaisir qu’on prend à les lire se peut mieuz sentir de l’esprit qu’exprimer de parolle); the Blaise Vigenère edition of 1585 is said to be a corrected version of Amelin’s translations, although in fact the modifications amount to only a few words.

414

Appendix

[27] C: Remigio Nannini T: Orationi militari raccolte per M. Remigio Fiorentino da tutti gli historici Greci e Latini, antichi e moderni, con gli argomenti che dichiarono l’occasioni per le quali elle furono fatte, doue sommariamente si toccano l’Historie, dal medesimo con diligenza corrette e tradotte P: Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari, 1557 TA: Classical and modern authors N: This is the first anthology of an encyclopaedic character of the modern age, unlike previous selections that concentrate on just one or a few authors. It introduces Italian translations of the most important classical historians and some modern Italian ones. A first index arranges the speeches according to the addressees: military commanders, councillors and ambassadors. The second table groups together the significant sententiae that the book offers. The third and final index gives the list of historians from whose works the speeches that comprise the anthology have been taken. The volume is organized chronologically by author, although with the occasional modification (for example, Thucydides appears before Herodotus). It is clearly indicated within each author to which section or book the orations belong. Each speech is headed by a title—which gives information about the author of the oration, the audience, the occasion, and the topic—as well as by an argomento. The printed marginalia direct attention towards themes considered important. The compilation had a second augmented edition (see number 30) and became a model for another of the best known collections of the period, François de Belleforest’s (see numbers 40, 54 and 60). Nannini completed this anthology with another of “civil and criminal” material (see number 31). B: Hester (2003); Cherchi (1998); cf. the chapters by Iglesias-Zoido, Peraita, Tubau, and Villalba in this book. [28] T: Orationum seu concionum selectiores P: Paris: Guillaume Morel, 1558 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: Selection of speeches from Livy. [29] C: Vincent Sertenas T: Le thresor des douze livres d’Amadis de Gaule, assavoir les harengues, conciones, epistres, complaintes, est autres choses les plus excellentes et dignes du lecteur François

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

415

P: Paris: Vincent Sertenas, 1559 TA: Collection of speeches and letters culled from the French translation of the Spanish chivalric novel Amadís de Gaula N: Two other Paris editions exist (“pour Etienne Groulleau” and “pour Jean Longis et Robert Le Mangnier”) as well as two others from Poitiers (“pour Pierre Requart” and “pour Pierre Regnault”) from the same year, although the privilege was granted to Sertenas. The letter to the reader offers the collection as a model for “harenguer, concionner, parler, et escrire de tous affaires” (fol. aiii). The index of texts at the front of the volume reflects the order in which the speeches and letters appear in the book, which in its turn reproduces the order in which the successive “books” of the original work are inserted. Each speech is preceded by a title where the speaker, the receiver, the theme, and the location of the text in the source work are indicated. From this very first edition, the anthology was a great publishing success, as can be judged from the thirty reprints and new editions that succeeded each other until 1606, some of which incorporated new material. The following appeared in 1560: Paris: “pour Vincent Sertenas;” Paris: [Vincent Sertenas] “pour Gilles Robinot; Paris: Etienne Groulleau; Paris: “pour Jean Longis pour Robert Le Mangnier;” Lyon: Jean d’Ogerolles pour Gabriel Cotier; Antwerp: Christophe Plantin. In the 1560s these editions came out: Paris: Jeanne Bruneau, 1561; Lyon: Jean d’Ogerolles et Gabriel Cartier, 1562; Paris: Jean Ruelle pour Jacques Kerver, 1563; Antwerp: Jan van Waesberghe, 1563 (the title announces that the aim of the work is to “servir d’example à ceux qui desirent apprendre à bien escrire missives ou parler François”); Paris: Robert Le Mangnier, 1564; Paris: “pour Vincent Normant et Jeanne Bruneau,” 1564; Paris: Jérôme de Marnef et Guillaume Cavellat, 1565; Paris: “pour Vincent Normant et Jeanne Bruneau,” 1567 (“revueu et corrigé,” it incorporates a table of contents and rhetorical uses for which the different speeches and letters could be helpful); Paris: Robert Mangnier, 1567; Lyon: “pour Jean Pigot,” 1567. Nine more were published in the 1570s: Paris: Jeanne Bruneau, 1571; Paris: “pour Robert Le Mangnier,” 1571; Lyon: Jean Huguetan, 1571; Lyon: François Durelle et Benoît Rigaud, 1571; Lyon: veuve Gabriel Cotier, 1572 (“augmenté et orné du recueil du 13 livre et d’une infinité de propos,” includes poems and the statutes of the chivalric order); Antwerp: Jan van Waesberghe, 1572 (it goes from twelve to fourteen books); Paris: Olivier de Harsy, 1573; Antwerp: Jan van Waesberghe, 1574; Paris?: Claude Gautier, 1574?; Paris: “pour Robert Le Mangnier,” 1575. In the 1580s only the Lyon edition of Jean Huguetan was published, in 1582, and after that date only two more editions came out, those of Lyon: Pierre Rigaud in 1605, and Jean-Anthoine Huguetan in 1606. There were translations into German and English. B: Vaganay (1923); Place (1954); Benhaïm (2000); cf. the chapter by Serrano in this book.

416

Appendix

[30] C: Remigio Nannini T: Orationi Militari raccolte per M. Remigio Fiorentino, da tutti gli historici greci e latini, antichi e moderni, con gli argomenti, che dichiarano l’occasioni per le quali elle furono fatte; con gli effetti, in questa seconda editione, che elle fecero ne gli animi di coloro, che l’ascoltarono, doue sommariamente si toccano l’historie di tutti i tempi; con l’aggiunta di molti historici, et orationi non impresse nella prima; dal medesimo autore diligentemente corrette . . . P: Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari, 1560 TA: Classical and modern authors N: Second edition of number 27. It includes some new authors. It also includes, as the title indicates, an effetto after each speech. B: Hester (2003); Cherchi (1998); cf. the chapters by Iglesias-Zoido, Peraita, and Villalba in this book. [31] C: Remigio Nannini T: Orationi in materia civile e criminale, tratte da gli historici Greci, e Latini, antichi, e moderni, raccolte e tradotte per M. Remigio Fiorentino, con gli Argomenti a ciascuna Oratione, per maggione intelligenza di quanto si contiene in esse, e con gli Effetti che seguirono da dette Orationi. Nelle quali, oltre alla cognitione dell’Historie, s’ha notitia di governi di Stati, e di Republiche, d’accusare, e difender Rei, e di molte altre cose utili a ciascuno, ch’attende alla vita civile P: Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari, 1561 TA: Classical and modern authors N: On this occasion Nannini gathers together orations from eighteen authors, both ancient and modern. Much of the material already appears in the anthology of Orationi militari that Nannini himself had published four years before (see number 27). Three tables form a guide to the use of the anthology: one of authors, another of the anthologized speeches, and another of the sententiae culled from the speeches. The orations are accompanied by arguments, effects, and printed marginalia. B: Hester (2003); Cherchi (1998); cf. the chapters by Iglesias-Zoido and Peraita in this book. [32] C: Caspar Peucer T: Orationes ex historia Thucydidis, et insigniores aliquot Demosthenis et aliorum oratorum graecorum conversae in latinum sermonem a Philippo Melanthone, editae a Casparo Peucero

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

417

P: Wittenberg: Georg Rhaw, 1562 TA: Single Greek author (Thucydides) N: This collection contains speeches from the seven books of Thucydides, Aeschines’s speech against Ctesiphon, as well as Demosthenes’s speeches and letters. This is Philipp Melanchthon’s translation of Thucydides’s speeches, published after his death by his son-in-law and successor as Protestant leader, Caspar Peucer. During the years when he was a professor at the University of Wittenberg, where he gave courses on Thucydides, Peucer would have been putting together a collection of oratorical texts for teaching purposes. The rhetorical aim of the collection is plain, even from the epistle dedicatory in the quotations that the editor takes from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Cicero, Quintilian, and Demetrius of Phaleron. The orations are not accompanied by arguments or any other complementary material. The book has no indices. B: Pade (2003) 131–136; Pade (2015). [33] C: Jean Pescheur T: Conciones ex historia Crispi Sallustii decerptae non minus utiles quam necessariae perfacile aditu, scholiis, argumentis et annotationibus illustratae P: Paris: Thomas Richard, 1563 TA: Single Latin author (Sallust) N: Pescheur makes it clear, both in the dedication and the letter to the reader, that the compilation has a rhetorical approach, given the oratorical value of the harangues that Sallust includes in his two monographs. As the title announces, each oration is accompanied by commentaries on the historical events, annotations to the text and the argument, and rhetorical analysis of each address. The printed marginalia condense the main points of the text. B: Osmond and Ulery (2003) 259–260. [34] C: Joachim Camerarius T: Conversa ex Thucydidis Historia quaedam in Latinum sermonem, et de autore illo, deque scriptis ipsius exposita, nec non explicata aliqua a Ioachimo Camerario Pabepergensi P: Wittenberg: Johann I Krafft, 1565 TA: Single Greek author (Thucydides) N: Camerarius, who dedicates the book to Henri Estienne, comments in detail on the Latin text of some passages from Thucydides’s History, among which are to be found Sthenelaidas’s speech, Pericles’s funeral oration, as well as the proem and description of the plague. B: Pade (2003).

418

Appendix

[35] C: Willem Canter T: Aristidis orationes Latine, Guil. Cantero interprete. His accedunt Gorgiae Oratio in Helenam et Oratio Palamedis; Thucydidis Or[atio] funebris in Periclem; Lesbonactis Hortatio; Herodis Attici de Republica; Antisthenis Ajacis et Ulissis; Lysiae contra Eratosthenem, Dinarchi contra Demosthenem et Alcidamantis Oratio Ulissis contra Palamedem; Aristotelis Pepli Fragmentum, sive Heroum Homericorum Epitaphia Latine vertit et animadversionibus illustravit G.C., acc. Ausonii Heroum Epitaphia qui bello Trojano interfuerunt P: Basel: Pietro Perna, 1566 TA: Mixed compilation N: Canter’s translations of the speeches of Aelius Aristides and several other Greek authors. The presence of one of Thucydides’s speeches in volume IV of this anthology of a markedly oratorical (Gorgias, Antisthenes) rather than historiographical kind shows the extent of the particular appreciation for the rhetorical value of the historian’s speeches. Of special interest is the hortatio of Lesbonax, a fictitious speech that reproduces the model of the historiographical military harangue. A Ratio emendandi Graecos autores, by Canter himself, is added to the orations. At least two other editions are in existence, from Antwerp, 1571, and Geneva, 1604. B: Pade (2003). [36] C: Guillaume Silvius T: Trésor des vies de Plutarque, contenant les beaux dits et faits, sentences notables, réponses, apophthegmes et harangues des empereurs, rois, ambassadeurs et capitaines, tant Grecs que Romains; aussi des philosophes et gens savants nouvellement recueillis et extraits hors des vies de Plutarque de Cheronaee P: Antwerp: Guillaume Silvius, 1567 TA: Single Greek author (Plutarch) N: The compiler of the selection is the printer himself, who uses Jacques Amyot, Abbot of Bellosane’s highly influential French translation of Plutarch, which first appeared in 1559 (Paris: Vascosan) and was reissued in 1567, and in which the translator expressed his wish to pass on to the French people a “trésor de la vie humaine qui preserve de la mort d’oubliance les faicts et dicts memorables des hommes” (“Aux Lecteurs”). The material selected is announced in the title. The preliminaries include a dedication, a foreword to the reader, a life of Plutarch, a poem by Agathias Scholasticus in honor of the author, and two tables or indices. The circulation of an editorial product of this

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

419

nature should be considered in relation to others like the Trésor of the Amadís (see number 29). B: Billault (2002) 223–230; Cazes (2008a). [37] C: Antonio Zeno T: In concionem Periclis et Lepidi ex libro primo historiarum Thucydidis et Sallustii Commentarius P: Venice: Bolognino Zaltieri, 1569 TA: Classical authors. Commentary on contiones N: Commentary on Pericles’ oration 1.140–144 from Thucydides’ History and the Oratio Lepidi from Sallust’s Histories. Zeno explains in the dedication that, after having worked on the translation of Thucydides and his commentary on it when he was studying at the Universities of Padua and Bologna, he considered, once he was back in Venice, that the publication of his research would be beneficial for his country. He justifies the choice of these two orations from the vast corpus available in the work of each author because they are political speeches and, besides, are very well constructed rhetorically and may be of use to the Venetians. Zeno transcribes fragments of text, which he then analyzes word for word. For Thucydides’ speech, he first gives the sections in Greek and then the Latin translation. The only index that appears in the book is of authors cited in the commentaries. [38] C: Thomas Norton T: Orations of Arsanes agaynst Philip the trecherous kyng of Macedone, of the Embassadors of Venice against the prince that vnder crafty league with Scanderbeg, layed snares for Christendome and of Scanderbeg prayeng ayde of Christian Princes agaynst periurous murderyng Mahumet and agaynst the old false Christian Duke Mahumetes confederate: with a notable example of Gods vengeance vppon a faithlesse Kyng, Quene, and her children. P: London: John Daye, [1570?] TA: Latin author (Justin), modern author (Marinus Barletus); fictitious orations. N: This miscellaneous work contains three sets of speeches. First of all, based on one of Trogo’s speeches abridged by Justin in his Epitome, Norton amplifies the words pronounced by the Persian Arsanes against Philip of Macedonia’s dangerous ambitions. Secondly, there follows a translation from Latin into English of two speeches urging George Castriot (Skanderbeg) to

420

Appendix

fight against the Turks. Both speeches are culled from Historia de vita et gestis Scanderbegi Epirotarum principis (Rome, 1508–1510) by the humanist Marinus Barletus. Thirdly, based on the main character of Barletus’ Historia, the compiler includes a fictional speech pronounced by Skanderbeg requesting the help of the Christian princes in the fight against the Turks. All the speeches are preceded by preambles that inform the reader of the circumstances in which the orations were pronounced. The work combines the anthology of speeches with the practice of the ethopoiia. B: Graves (1994); Worden (1996) 161–163. Warm thanks to Patricia Osmond for having signaled this collection to us. [39] C: Henri Estienne T: Conciones sive orationes ex Graecis Latinisque historicis excerptae. Quae ex Graecis excerptae sunt, interpretationem Latinam adiunctam habent, nonnullae nouam, aliae iam antea vulgatam, sed nunc demum plerisque in locis recognitam. Argumenta singulis praefixa sunt, lectori adiumento magna futura. Additus est index artificiosissimus et utilissimus, quo in rhetorica causarum genera, velut in communes locos, singulae conciones rediguntur P: [Geneva]: Henri Estienne, 1570 TA: Collection of Latin and Greek texts, some of which are translated into Latin N: One of the most important collections of the modern age. Estienne made use of existing translations (such as those by Poliziano, Filelfo, Valla, Romulus Amaseus and Jobus Veratius), which he combines with his own, for the Latin versions of the Greek texts. The index at the beginning of the volume presents the material organized in accordance with the three rhetorical genres within which various types of speeches are differentiated. In the deliberative genre suasio, exhortatio, monitio, petitio, etc. are included; in the judicial, accusatio, excusatio, defensio, concitatio, etc.; in the demonstrative, laudatio, vituperatio, gratiarum actio, expositio historica, etc. The body of the anthology, however, is arranged by author. The Greek historians selected are: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Arrian, and Herodian. The Latin authors are: Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, Curtius, Julius Capitolinus, Aelius Lampridius, Trebellius Pollio, and Ammianus Marcellinus. The order of the sections (Greek authors, Latin authors) varies depending on the copy as each is numbered separately. Each speech is preceded by a heading as a title and a brief argumentum. B: Pade (2003) 171–174; cf. the chapters by Pérez Custodio and Villalba in this book.

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

421

[40] C: François de Belleforest T: Harengues militaires et concions de princes, capitaines, ambassadeurs et autres, manians tant la guerre que les affaires d’Estat. Comprenant les grandes et urgentes negotiations de toutes les anciennes monarchies, et representant l’image et office des rois, legislateurs, orateurs, ambassadeurs de rois, empereurs, potentats, republiques et des excellens capitaines; le succez des divers estudes de factieux; les moyens de se prevaloir (és choses desplorées) de ceux qui sont estonnez; les moeurs de diverses nations, et les loix et coustumes de plusieurs villes et provinces; le discours des faicts et plus secrets affaires des Hebrieux, Persans, Grecs, Romains, François, Allemans, Goths, Wandales, Lombards, Espagnols; comme aussi des pays plus esloignez et septentrionaux, et jusques aux remuements faicts par les Barbares. Recueillies et faictes Françoyses par François de Belle-Forest, Comingeois. Avec trois tables, l’une des matières et suject d’une chascune Harangues, l’autre des autheurs d’où elles sont prises, et la troisième, des sentences et choses plus memorables contenues en tout l’oeuvre. P: Paris, Nicolas Chesneau, 1572 (some copies are dated 1573) TA: Classical and modern authors N: The first of the three editions of François de Belleforest’s anthology that were published (see numbers 54 and 60). Belleforest takes the second edition of Remigio Nannini’s Orationi militari (number 31), translates the speeches, changes the order of some of them, includes new orations—especially in the part on modern authors—, and, above all, adds a section of “Harangues diverses de notre temps.” The added material amounts to two dozen harangues, which did not appear in Nannini. As the title states, the reading and use of this large collection (more than 1,500 pages) is supported by three tables, one about the themes dealt with in the harangues; another, an index of the authors from whom the speeches have been taken; and a third one that brings together the sententiae that appear in the book. The first two come at the beginning and the third at the end of the volume. Each speech is flanked by an “argument” at the beginning and by an “effect” at the end, clearly marked typographically. The printed marginalia that run throughout the text (except for the new additions) are another aid to reading. B: Hester (2003); cf. the chapters by Pineda, Tubau, and Villalba in this book. [41] C: François de Belleforest T: Harangues militaires des guerres des Turcs contre les chrétiens P: Frankfurt, 1575 TA: Modern authors

422

Appendix

N: No copies survives. It cannot be ruled out that this was an edition based on the corresponding section in the compiler’s Harengues militaires (see number 40). B: Pétrovitch (1881) 30–31. [42] T: Le trésor des vies de Plutarque, contenant plusieurs sentences notables et harangues des empereurs, rois, ambassadeurs, capitaines, philosophes & gens scavans, tant Grecz que Romains; plus quelques vers singuliers, et epitaphes que sont faicts en l’honneur d’iceux, nouvellement recueillis des vies de Plutarque de Cheronee, & enrichis des portraicts d’iceux empereurs P: Paris: Claude Micard, 1577 TA: Single Greek author (Plutarch) N: As the title states, this edition includes engravings, in medallion form, with portraits of each one of the emperors whose life is extracted. In the preliminaries, all that remains is the letter to the readers and a Plutarch’s life from Suidas. Agathias Scholasticus’s poem and the catalog of “illustrious men” go to the end of the volume. There is no mention of its relationship to number 36 (Silvius). B: Billault (2002) 223–230; Cazes (2008a). [43] C: François Le Tort T: Le trésor des morales de Plutarque de Chaeronaee, tresexcellent historiographe et philosophe, contenant les préceptes et enseignments qu’un chachun doit garder pour vivre honnestement selon son estat et vocation, non moins necessaires & utiles à ceux qui desirent bien ordonner une oeconomie privée ou particulière, qu’à ceux qui gouvernent les republiques & manient les affairs d’estat. Aves les beaux dicts et faicts, sentences notables, responses . . . des empereurs, rois, embassadeurs et vaillans capitaines tant Grecs que Romains. Premièrement recueillis et extraicts en langue Latine des commentaires des Morales de Plutarque, et depuis rédigez en bon ordre et disposition en langue Françoise par François Le Tort P: Paris: Jean Poupy, 1577 TA: Single Greek author (Plutarch) N: See numbers 36 and 42. B: Frazier (2006); Cazes (2008a). [44] T: Περὶ τῆς Σολῶνος πρὸς Κροῖσον ἐντεύξεως. De Solonis cum Croeso congressione P: Paris: Jean Bienné, 1578 TA: Single Greek author (Herodotus)

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

423

N: The book includes the encounter between Solon of Athens, considered one of the seven sages of Greece, and Croesus, the King of Lydia, according to book I of the Histories (1.29ff.) of Herodotus. It is a dialog about the relativity of wealth and the attitude of man in the face of death that resonated deeply in antiquity, in the Middle Ages (through authors like Valerius Maximus and Plutarch), and in the Renaissance precisely because of Herodotus’s text. B: Boudou (2003). [45] C: John Polemon T: All the famous battels that haue bene fought in our age throughout the worlde, as well by sea as lande set foorth at large, lively described, beautified, and enriched with sundry eloquent orations, and the declaratio[n]s of the causes, with the fruites of them. Collected out of sundry good authors P: London: Henry Bynneman and Francis Coldock, 1578 TA: Modern authors N: An anthology of descriptions of battles taken from a variety of historians and translated into English. The title of the collection stresses the presence of orations. The texts are organized following the chronological order of the battles described, from Taro in 1495 to Lepanto in 1572. Paolo Giovio, Natalis Comes, Luigi Guicciardini, La Popelinière, and Pietro Bizari are some of the authors who served as sources for the anthology. 1587 (London: Gabriel Cawood) saw the publication of The second part of the booke of battailes, fought in our age taken out of the best authors and writers in sundrie languages. Published for the profit of those that practise armes, and for the pleasure of such as love to be harmlesse hearers of bloudie broiles, which includes battles that took place up until 1582. B: Levy (1967) 208–209. [46] T: Les combats des Français contre les espagnols en Flandres. Avec les harangues faictes, et les prisonniers pris, d’une part, et d’autre P: Paris: Nicolas de Nivelle, 1581 [47] C: Alexandre Van den Bussche T: Epitome de cent histoires tragicques, partie extraittes des actes des Romains et autres, de l’invention de l’autheur, auecq’ les demandes, accusations et deffences sur la matiere d’icelles. Ensemble quelques poëmes. Le tout par Alexandre Sylvain.

424

Appendix

P: Paris: Nicolas Bonfons, 1581 TA: Classical historians, fictitious orations N: In the dedication of this set of “epitomes” of “tragic stories” the author admits to having taken his arguments from Latin historians and cites, specifically, the oration of the tyrant Nabis to Titus Quinctius culled from Livy, which he says he translated and inserted without any modification. The schema of the epitomes and stories—inspired by Seneca’s Suasoriae and Controversiae—is as follows: title, which contains the name of the orator and the most important circumstances of the speech; presentation of the case with the background to the story; oration delivered by the character; the other character’s response. The volume ends with several poetic compositions by the autor. The book was translated into English and published in London in 1596 by Adam Islip with the title Le Sylvain, The orator; handling a hundred severall discourses, in forme of declamations; some of the arguments being drawne from Titus Liuius and other ancient vvriters, the rest of the authors owne invention; part of which are of matters happened in our age. Written in French by Alexander Siluayn, and Englished by L.P. [48] C: Nicolaus Cornapaeus (translator) T: Deliberatio sapientissima de constituenda optima forma reipublicae, habita post obitum Cambysis in senatu principum electorum regni Persici: ex tertio historiae Herodoteae libro Latine conversa P: Copenhagen: Laurentius Benedictus, 1582 TA: Single Greek author (Herodotus) N: Debate on forms of government taken from Herodotus (3.80–2), with the speeches of the three participants. B: Boudou (2003). [49] C: Fulvio Orsini T: Ἐκ τῶν Πολιβίου Μεγαλοπολίτου ἱστορίων ἐκλογαί περὶ πρεσβείων. Ex libris Polybii Megalopolitani selecta de legationibus, et alia quae sequenti pagina indicatur: nunc primum in lucem edita. Ex bibliotheca Fulvi Ursini P: Antwerp: Christophe Plantin, 1582 TA: Classical historians N: Princeps edition of the excerpta De legationibus, or embassy speeches, of Polybius made by Fulvio Orsini based on manuscripts found in Spain and sent by Antonio Agustín, according to the compiler in the dedication to Cardinal Granvela. It is not the complete edition of the Excerpta de legationibus gentium

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

425

and Excerpta de legationibus Romanorum ad gentes, since it is based on a selection of authors that appear in both categories, and besides, Orsini does not include the parts of Polybius that had already been published (the fragments of books VI to XVIII published in 1549 in Basel, taken from the excerpta antiqua). Texts in Greek. The authors collected are Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Diodorus Siculus, Appian, and Cassius Dio. The orations do not have titles, arguments or any other paratextual material, perhaps reflecting the manuscript that was the source for the book. At the end of the volume, there are commentaries by Orsini (in Latin) on Polybius’s speeches and also a list of amendments to the Greek text. B: Nolhac (1887) 46–48; de Boor (1912); Moore (1965); Pernot (1979) 468; Mouren (2002) 27–45. [50] C: Johannes Caselius T: Orationes Thucydidis pleraeque, Ioan. Casa interprete P: Rostock: Stephan Möllemann, 1584 TA: Single Greek author (Thucydides) N: The humanist and teacher of rhetoric Caselius, a disciple of Melanchthon and Camerarius, brings together in this small volume some orations taken from The History of the Peloponnesian War translated into Latin by Giovanni della Casa. Della Casa had translated Thucydides throughout the 1540s but his translations were not published until 1564, in the context of his Latina Monimenta (Florence, 1564). In this case, it is a Latin text of seventeen speeches extracted from the first three books of the History. Campana (1907) has suggested that Della Casa translated Thucydides’s speeches as a rhetorical exercise with the intention of using them for the composition of his own official speeches. Pade (2015) also contributes the information that Della Casa himself alludes to Pericles’s epitaph as a rhetorical model of a funeral oration that he himself composed and that today is held in the Vat. Lat. 14825 manuscript. In the Caselius edition, apart from the title at the top of each speech, the orations are not accompanied by any other paratextual material. B: Campana (1907); Pade (2003); Pade (2006) 798–800. [51] C: Alessandro Guagnini T: Rerum Polonicarum tomi tres: quorum primus omnium Poloniae regum, a Lecho primo gentis duce, ad Stephanum Bathoreum, etiamnum regem; tum principum Lituaniae, chronologicam recensionem, ac singulorum res gestas complectitur; adiecta recens historiarum in nostram aetatem incidentium continua

426

Appendix

narratione. II. Provinciarum, quae vno Sarmatiae Europae nomine vulgo veniunt, chorographicam descriptionem continet. III. Res singulariter a Polonis in Valachia gestas, orationes item et epistolas sceptri Polonici negocia concernentes habet. Alexandro Guagnino . . . authore P: Frankfurt: Johann Wechel and Sigmund Fayerabend, 1584 TA: Modern authors N: The third part of the work includes speeches and letters selected from the recent history of Poland, organized by year. The speeches are identified in the printed marginalia. [52] C: Remigio Nannini T: Orationi Militari raccolte per M. Remigio Fiorentino da tutti gli Historici Greci, e Latini, antichi e moderni. Con gli Argomenti che dechiarano l’occasioni per le quali furon fatte. Con gli Effetti, che elle fecero ne gli animi di coloro che l’ascoltarono, dove sommariamente si toccano le Historie di tutti i tempi. Con l’aggionta di molti Historici & Orationi, non per avanti stampate & dal medesimo auttore ultimamente corrette P: Venice: alla Insegna della Concordia, 1585 TA: Encyclopaedic collection, ancient and modern authors N: Third and final edition of the collection compiled by Remigio Nannini (see numbers 27 and 30), published posthumously. It faithfully follows the second edition. [53] C: Melchior Junius T: Orationes aliquot ex Herodoti, Thucydidis, Xenophontis; Livii itidem Caesaris, & Sallustii historiis in usum Academiae Argentinensis collectae a Melchiore Iunio Witebergensi, Eloquentiae in eadem professore P: Strasbourg: Bernhard Jobin, 1586 TA: Greco-Latin historians N: Anthology in Greek and Latin with a didactic approach. The orations are grouped according to rhetorical criteria, by speech genres. Complete index of anthologized orations. For the Latin translations of Greek texts, existing versions are used, and in each case the name of the translator is given (Valla, Filelfo, etc.). Every oration is preceded by a title with information about its rhetorical genre, content, and speaker, as well as where the text comes from according to the author and, where relevant, its location in the work. B: Cf. the chapters by Carmona and Villalba in this volume.

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

427

[54] C: François de Belleforest T: Harangues militaires et concions de princes, capitaines, ambassadeurs et autres, manians tant la guerre que les affaires d’Estat. Comprenant les grandes et urgentes negotiations de toutes les anciennes monarchies, et representant l’image et office des rois, legislateurs, orateurs, ambassadeurs de rois, empereurs, potentats, republiques et des excellens capitaines; le succez des divers estudes de factieux; les moyens de se prevaloir (és choses déplorées) de ceux qui sont estonnez; les moeurs de diverses nations, et les loix et coustumes de plusieurs villes et provinces; le discours des faicts et plus secrets affaires des Hebrieux, Persans, Grecs, Romains, François, Allemans, Goths, Wandales, Lombards, Espagnols; comme aussi des pays plus esloignez et septentrionaux, et jusques aux remuements faicts par les Barbares . . . Revueu, corrigé, augmenté et enrichi de plusieurs belles harangues de nostre temps pour la seconde edition P: Paris: Pierre Ménier, 1588 TA: Classical and modern authors N: Second of the three editions of the François de Belleforest anthology that were published (see numbers 40 and 60). The table of commonplaces that was included in the first edition after the dedication moves to the end of the volume. The material introduced into the second edition is the “Harangue du monsieur le Cardinal de Lorraine” and the “Harangue de l’Evesque de Langres faite aux ambassadeurs de Pologne estans à Mets.” The orations are presented following the same schema as in the first edition: argument, text of the speech, and effet. B: Cf. the chapters by Pineda and Tubau in this volume. [55] C: Girolamo Brunelli T: Selecta quaedam e Xenophontis operibus quorum index in sequenti pagina cernitur P: Rome: Francesco Zanetti, 1588 TA: Classical authors N: Collection of texts from Xenophon and Plato for use in Jesuit schools compiled by Girolamo Brunelli, Professor of Greek at the Collegio Romano. The introduction to the volume, which treats oratorical themes in Latin, is followed by the texts in Greek. Along with fragments of the Anabasis and the Apology of Socrates, the compiler also includes the text of the Agesilaus.

428

Appendix

[56] C: Nicodemus Frischlin T: Selectae Orationes e Q. Curtio, T. Livio, C. Sallustio, C. Caesare, M. Cicerone in usum Scholae Martinianae apud Brunsvicenses P: Wolfenbüttel: Conradus Corneus, 1588 TA: Latin authors N: Frischlin’s later works suggest the importance that he attached to exercitatio, as opposed to praecepta, in the study and teaching of rhetoric while he taught at Brunswick. An example of his teaching method is this anthology of orations taken from the usual canon of Roman historians, albeit with the omission of Tacitus and the addition of Cicero. B: Kecskeméti (2005) 108–109. [57] C: Melchior Junius T: Aliquot orationes, in Argent. acad. exercitii gratia scriptae et recitatae ab illustr. generos. nobilibus, et aliis; et ad tractandum propositae a Melchiore Iunio Witebergensi, eloquentiae professore P: Strasbourg: Lazar Zetzner, 1590 TA: Rhetorical exercises N: Rhetorical exercises composed in imitation of historiographical contiones (for example: “De animadversione et poenis orationes aliquot ad Cleonis et Diodoti apud Thucydidem orationum institutae imitationem”). Some exercises have a preface, and each exercise may have, in its turn, several orationes adapted to suit different speakers. Another edition, printed in Basel by Konrad von Waldrich in the same year, also exists. B: Cf. the chapter by Carmona in this book. [58] C: Henri Estienne T: Ἀππιάνου Ἀλεξανδρέως Ρωμαϊκά. Appiani Alexandrini Rom. historiarvm, Punica, siue Carthaginiensis, Parthica, Iberica, Syriaca, Mithridatica, Annibalica, Celticae et Illyricae fragmenta quaedam. Item, De bellis civilibus libri V. Henr. Steph. annotationes in quasdam Appiani historias, et in conciones per totum opus sparsas. P: Geneva: Henri Estienne, 1592 TA: Commentary. Classical Greek author (Appian) N: Along with the Greek-Latin bilingual edition of the texts of Appian’s History of Rome, Estienne offers the reader a section, paginated separately, entitled In Appiani librum de rebus a Romanis, in which he includes some pages that carry the title “Henrici Stephani annotationes in conciones per Appiani libros

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

429

sparsas” (pp. 49–71) and contain commentaries on the speeches in the book. In the corpus of Appian’s text the orations are clearly marked typographically. B: Considine (2008) 72–85. [59] T: Livianarum orationum pars prima. In usum studiosorum Societatis Iesu P: Antwerp: Jan Moretus, 1594 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: Collection of speeches from Livy for use in Jesuit schools. [60] C: François de Belleforest T: Harangues militaires, et concions de princes, capitaines, ambassadeurs, et autres manians tant la guerre que les affaires d’Estat, comprenant les grandes et urgentes negotiations de toutes les anciennes monarchies, et representant l’image, et office des rois, legislateurs, orateurs, ambassadeurs de rois, empereurs, potentats, republiques, et des excellens capitaines; le succez des divers estudes de factieux; les moyens de se prevaloir (és choses desplorées) de ceux qui sont estonnez; les moeurs de diverses nations, et les loix et coustumes de plusieurs villes et provinces; le discours des faicts et plus secrets affaires des Hebrieux, Persans, Grecs, Romains, François, Allemans, Goths, Wandales, Lombards, Espagnols; comme aussi des pays plus esloignez et septentrionaux, et jusques aux remuements faicts par les Barbares. Seconde édition, revueue et corrigée en divers endroits sur le texte Grec et Latin, augmentée de DCCC conseils politiques et militaires P: [Geneva], Héritiers Vignon, 1595 TA: Classical and modern authors N: In two volumes. Although the title page indicates that this is the second edition, it is really the third edition of the Belleforest anthology (see numbers 40 and 54). Posthumous. The subtitle of the work is Seconde édition, reveuë et corrigée en divers endroits sur le texte grec et latin, augmentée de DCCC conseils politiques et militaires, tres utiles à ceux qui manient tant la guerre que les affaires d’Estat, recueillis et traduits de plusieurs auteurs grecs, latins, françois, italiens, espagnols et allemans. As this subtitle indicates, the work is completed with hundreds of pieces of “political advice” in the form of sententiae, which do not appear in the original version. This edition does not include the section on contemporary orations. The dedication page has also been changed: Pyrame de Candolle signs a dedication letter to François de Bonne. The second volume has a table of names and contents in alphabetical order. B: Cf. the chapters by Pineda and Tubau in this volume.

430

Appendix

[61] C: Nikolaus von Reusner T: Selectissimarum orationum et consultationum de bello Turcico variorum et diversorum auctorum volumina quatuor P: Leipzig: Henning Grosse, 1595 TA: Various modern authors on the war against the Turk N: The compiler, “iurisconsulto et consiliario Saxonico,” according to the title page of the book, put the work together after his return from Poland, where he had gone to negotiate a league against the Turk. It is not strictly speaking a historiographical compilation, but more of a florilegium of orations—about two hundred in the four volumes—that were actually uttered (or written) at a time not too long before its publication. The final index lists the most important themes of the speeches. Each of the volumes has its own indices and dedications. In 1603, in the same city and printers, the Consilia bellica a summis pontificibus, imperatoribus, caeterisque Sac. Rom. Imperii electoribus, principibus ac statibus . . . proximis duobus seculis, pleraque in summis christiani orbis concilijs atque comitijs contra Turcam explicata. Indicem auctoris cuiusque consilij proxima post praefationem pagella significabit were published. In 1598 (Frankfurt: Johann Kollitz and Paul Brachfeld) Reusner had brought out the collection Epistolarum Turcicarum variorum et diversorum authorum, libri V. In quibus epistolae de rebus Turcicis, summorum pontificum, imperatorum, regum, principum, aliorumque mundi procerum, iam inde a primordio regni saracenici et Turcici usque ad haec nostra tempora ultro citroque scriptae leguntur, with continuations in 1599 and 1600. [62] T: Orationes ex Tito Livio Selectae P: Ingolstadt: Adam Sartorius, 1596 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: It has no prologue or index. The orations are reproduced in the same order as in Livy’s original work. Each speech is preceded by a title giving the speaker and addressee of the oration, as well as its theme. The title is also accompanied by an argumentum. [63] C: Melchior Junius T: Animorum conciliandorum et movendorum ratio, non tam dicendi summorum magistrorum praeceptis, quam exemplis veterum oratorum tradita, Demosthenis, Aeschinis, Dinarchi, Isocratis, Ciceronis, Historicorum itidem Thucydidis ac Livii P: Montbéliard: Lazar Zetzner, 1596

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

431

TA: Classical authors N: Some speeches from Thucydides and Livy are put forward, along with several orators from antiquity, as rhetorical examples of how to stir the passions. The structure of the chapters consists of an accumulation of examples and passages. In the same city and by the same printer Junius had published the year before a collection of letters excerpted from historical works, Epistolae ex historicis tam veteribus quam recentioribus, organized by genres (cohortatoriae, suasoriae, disuasoriae, petitoriae, etc.), where every letter is preceded by an argumentum and a list of sententiae, in addition to the identification of the source. B: Cf. the chapter by Carmona in this volume. [64] T: Orationes ex Tacito collectae P: Paris: Philippe Du Pré, 1597 TA: Single Latin author (Tacitus) N: Selection of speeches from Tacitus. [65] T: Orationes ex Livio collectae P: Paris: Philippe du Pré, 1598 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: Selection of speeches from Livy. [66] T: Titi Livii Patavini, Historici Clarissimi Orationes Omnes. Hoc modo ad commodiorem lectoris usum seorsim excusae P: Cologne: Arnold Mylius, 1598 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: Collection of the speeches from the Ab Urbe condita, presented in the same order as in the original work. The only paratextual element accompanying the texts is a simple title that includes the name of the speaker, the receiver, and the theme of the speech. The book has the Jesuit emblem on the title page, but not the name of the compiler. [67] C: Melchior Junius T: Orationum ex historicis, tam veteribus, quam recentioribus, in eloquentiae studiosorum gratiam, secundum tria causarum genera, et res his convenientes tres in partes ita congestarum ac digestarum: ut singularum periochai extent:

432

Appendix

argumenta docentia, conciliantia, moventia, una cum collocatione, locis communibus atque sententiis, usu denique deprehendatur P: Strasbourg Lazar Zetzner, 1598 TA: Classical and modern authors N: The work is in three parts, one per rhetorical genre. The Greek texts are translated into Latin. In each part, the speeches of ancient and modern historians are mixed together. Histories written in vernacular languages are not included. An index of orations comes at the beginning of the book and another of names and contents at the end. The speeches are grouped into subsections devoted to the different illocutionary modalities (for example, in the deliberative genre: deliberation, rejection, dissuasion, etc.). Each oration is preceded firstly by the identification of the speaker, the addressee, and the origin of the text (example: “Oratio Clodii Albini ad milites ex Iulii Capitolini Clodio Albino”); secondly, by the circumstances, background, and context in which the speech was delivered; and thirdly, by a detailed rhetorical analysis of the oration that identifies arguments, parts of the speech, commonplaces, and so on. B: Cf. the chapter by Carmona in this volume. [68] C: David Hoeschel T: Eclogae Legationum, Dexippi Atheniensis, Eunapii Sardiani, Petri Patricii et Magistri, Prisci Sophistae, Malchi Philadelphensis, Menandri Protectoris. Cum corollario Excerptorum ex libris Diodori Siculi amissis, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI. Omnia ex M.SS. Cod. a Davide Hoeschelio Augustano edita P: Augsburg: Johann Praetorius, 1603 TA: Byzantine authors N: Selection of embassy speeches based on the work of Byzantine authors, with the addition, as a corollary, of the embassies of Diodorus Siculus. Greek text. B: Mouren (2002) 27–45. [69] C: Bernardus Gualtherius T: Orationum ex Latinis Historiographis selectarum syntagma. Eloquentiae amatoribus utilissimum P: Cologne: Bernardus Gualtherius, 1605 TA: Latin historians N: The historians collected in the Syntagma are: Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, Quintus Curtius, Julius Capitolinus, Aelius Lampridius, Trebellius Pollio, Ammianus Marcellinus, Julius Caesar, and Herodian. After a general index of orations, the compiler provides a table of the three rhetorical genres and their respective

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

433

species, and then goes on to assign the speeches that are going to appear in the volume to each of the modalities. The speeches are accompanied by arguments. [70] C: Nicolas Baudouin T: Rodomuntadas castellanas, recopiladas con los commentarios de los muy espantosos, terribles y invincibles Capitanes, Matamoros, Crocodillo y Rajabroqueles. Rodomontades espagnoles. Colligées des Commentaires des tres-espouventables, terribles et invincibles Capitaines, Matamores, Crocodilles et Rajabroqueles. Rodumontadas castellanas, recopiladas de diversos autores y mayormente del Capitan Escardon Bonbardon. Por N. Baudouin. Rodomontades espagnoles. Recueillies de divers autheurs, et notamment du Capitaine Escadron Bonbardon. P: Paris: Pierre Chevalier, 1607 TA: Fictitious satirical speeches N: Although some examples of this genre had already circulated in the sixteenth century, this work is considered to have initiated the series of “rodomontades” or collections of sayings and anecdotes attributed to the figure of the Spanish miles gloriosus. The fundamental precedent is the Rodomontades et jurements des Espagnols, written by Pierre de Bourdeille (1540–1614) in the last third of the sixteenth century. Although Bourdeille’s book was not published until the seventeenth century, it circulated in manuscript and was widely disseminated. Along with the boasting, the author interspersed some military harangues that seemed to have been culled from history books. In one of them, Bourdeille gives his opinion on the historiographical military harangue, its nature and characteristics, its types, etc. He cites the Belleforest anthology (see number 40) and announces that he himself is preparing an anthology of orations “with a hundred or so very short military speeches, both from our times and those of others.” The name of Baudouin’s collection comes from Rodamonte, a character in Boiardo’s Orlando innamorato. Text in French and Spanish. Other editions: Rouen: Claude le Villain, 1610; n.p.: Ibarra, 1611; Rouen: Cailloué, 1612; Paris: Chevalier, 1612; Paris: Veuve de J. Petit, 1612; Lyon: Jean Baptiste Caesar, 1619; Rouen: Cailloué, 1623; Rouen: Claude le Villain, 1621; Rouen: Cailloué, 1623; Rouen: Claude le Villain, 1626; Rouen: Cailloué, 1627; Venice: Franciosini, 1627 (an Italian translation by Giovan Pietro Cardi added, see number 77); Rouen: Cailloué, 1637; Milan: Franciosini, 1643 (with an Italian translation by Cardi); n.p., n.p.: 1644; Paris: n.p., 1649; Rouen: Cailloué, 1650; Venice: Franciosini, 1675 (with an Italian translation by Cardi). Abundant translations during the seventeenth century, not only into Italian, but also into English, Dutch, and German.

434

Appendix

B: López Barrera (1923); Cioranesco (1937) 339–355; Chevalier (1988); Quiroga (1996); Losada Goya (1999); Infantes (2011); Infantes (2013). [71] C: Charles Chanteclair T: Excerpta de Legationibus ex Dexippo Atheniense, Eunapio Sardiano, Petro Patricio et Magistro, Prisco Sophista, Malcho Philadelphensi, Menandro Protectore. Haec Carolus Cantoclarus in S. Regis Christianissimi Consist. Cons. et libellorun supplicum Magister e Graecis Latina fecit et notas addidit P: Paris: Pierre Chevalier, 1609 TA: Classical Greek authors N: Texts translated from Greek to Latin. The volume opens with a few brief biographical notes on each of the authors in the collection and a general argument about this collection of embassy speeches. At the end of the book, Chanteclair includes about thirty pages of notes and amendments to the Greek text. The texts brought together in this edition are translations of those edited by David Hoeschel in Augsburg, 1603 (see number 68). Reissued in 1648 (Paris: Typographia Regia). B: Mouren (2002) 27–45. [72] C: Jacopo Mascardi? T: Orationes T. Livii ex eius, qui extant, libris. In hunc libellum cum brevibus argumentis collectae, vt et rhetoricae, humanitatisque studiosis ad manum ubique sit scriptor eloquentissimus, ex quo vim, copiam, artem dicendi hauriant; et magistris ad exercendos discipulos abunde declamationum suppetant argumenta P: Rome: Jacopo Mascardi, 1618 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) N: After the printer’s foreword to the reader, the volume brings together several critical judgements about Livy, followed by an index of the speeches organized in the same manner as in the original. Each oration has a title, its provenance, and a few very brief words to help the reader place it and understand it. There are no more paratextual elements. As can be seen from the title, and as the Jesuit shield printed on the title page also indicates, the anthology is obviously designed for teaching. [73] C: Marie Le Jars de Gournay T: Versions de quelques pieces de Virgile, Tacite, et Saluste, avec l’Institution de monseigneur frere unique du roy. A Sa Majesté. Par la damoiselle de Gournay

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

435

P: Paris: Fleury Bourriquant, 1618 TA: Classical authors N: Translations into French of various oratorical pieces—with some speeches among them—taken from Virgil, Tacitus, and Sallust. In 1626 the author would go on to publish a work that collected together all her writings up to that moment, L’ombre de la damoiselle de Gournay, oeuvre composée de meslanges (Paris: Jean Libert), in which she includes her translations of a speech from Tacitus and another from Sallust in the same section where, together with the Latin texts, her translations of Ovid, Virgil, and Cicero, and a “Lettre sur l’art de traduire les orateurs” appear. In a later edition, Les Advis, ou les Presens de la Demoiselle de Gournay (Paris: Toussainct du Bray, 1634), the author adds other speeches, although not culled from history books. [74] C: Nicolas Caussin T: Eloquentiae sacrae et humanae parallela libri XVI P: Paris: Sébastien Chappelet, 1619 TA: Classical authors N: This important and well-known manual by the Jesuit Caussin offers, in book XIII, an anthology of speeches of historiographical origin with the title “Characteres civilis eloquentiae. Liber decimus tertius in quo generis deliberativi et iudicialis exempla ex antiquis auctoribus Graecis et Latinis.” There are thirty-eight orations that are proposed as examples for oratorical genres. The texts are preceded by a brief introduction and followed by a detailed rhetorical analysis. In the case of Greek authors, the text is given in its original version. The historians whose harangues are commented on are Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Herodian, Sallust, Livy, Quintus Curtius, and Tacitus. Two indices are placed before the treatise, one with the titles of the sixteen books and the other with the names of the authors cited, organized into categories (rhetors, sophists and philologists, orators, philosophers, historians, etc., all of them divided into two columns, one for the Greeks and the other for the Romans). Other editions: La Flèche: Chappelet, 1619; Paris: Chappelet, 1623 (2nd ed.); Cologne: Wolter, 1626; Cologne: Kinckius, 1626 (2nd ed.); Paris: Chappelet, 1627 (3rd ed.); Paris: Mathurin Hénault, Nicolas de La Vigne, Philippe Gaultier (de Rouillé), and Nicolas de La Coste, 1630 (3rd ed.); Cologne: Kinckius, 1634 (3rd ed.); Cologne: Wolter, “1534” [1634] (3rd ed.); Paris: Pelé, 1636; Lyon: Candy, 1637 (5th ed.); Paris: Huguetan, 1637; Lyon: Borde, 1643 (6th ed.), Lyon: Mathurin Hénault, 1643; Paris: Mathurin Hénault and Jean Libert, 1643 (6th ed.), Paris, 1644; Lyon: Philippe Borde, Laurent Arnaud, and Claude Rigaud, 1651 (7th ed.); Cologne: Demen, 1681. B: Goyet (2006) 1–48.

436

Appendix

[75] C: Johann Ulrich Mueffling T: Orationes selectae ex Jac. Aug. Thuani, Q. Curtii et C. Cornelii Taciti Historiarum operibus, quae ad eloquentiam et politicam sive civilem doctrinam comparandam maxime collineant. Additae praefationes in easdem perpetuae, tum et noviter ad oram notulae P: Jena: S. Grüner, 1625 TA: One modern and two Latin historians N: The speeches extracted from de Thou’s History are divided into two parts: the first includes new speeches by military men or addressed to soldiers, while the second includes 28 political or “forensic” speeches, such as those by an ambassador addressing a king. B: Kinser (1966). [76] C: Joachim Périon and Henri Estienne T: Conciones et orationes ex Latinis historicis excerptae. Argumenta singulis praefixa sunt, quae causam cuiusque et summam ex rei gestae occasione explicant. Opus recognitum recensitumque in usum scholarum Hollandiae & Westfrisiae P: Leiden: Andreas Cloucquius, 1626 TA: Four Latin historians N: This is a separate edition of the Latin section of Estienne’s anthology (see number 39), although reduced to Sallust, Livy, Tacitus, and Quintus Curtius. The speeches are preceded by an argument. At the end of the book, an index arranges the speeches according to their order in the volume, not by rhetorical genre. The preliminaries to the book reproduce the letter by Jobus Veratius in praise of eloquence. Its “use in schools” guaranteed that the work was frequently reissued until well into the eighteenth and even the nineteenth centuries. In the seventeenth century alone there were editions in, at least, 1626, 1636 (Amsterdam); 1641 (Marburg; Amsterdam: Jansson); 1647, 1649 (Leiden: Elzevier; Amsterdam: Jansson); 1650, 1652 (Amsterdam: Elzevier); 1653 (Amsterdam: Elzevier); 1659 (Amsterdam: Jansson); 1660, 1662 (Amsterdam: Elsevier; Cologne); 1663, 1667 (Oxford: Hall); 1672 (Amsterdam, Elzevier); 1673 (Antwerp: Slegers’s widow); 1674 (Leipzig); 1683, 1686 (Amsterdam: Elzevier); in these editions, the title varies between Conciones and Contiones. B: Cf. Pérez Custodio’s chapter in this volume. [77] C: Lorenzo Franciosini T: Rodomontadas espanolas, Recopiladas de los Comentarios de los muy espantosos, terribles e inuencibles Capitanes, Matamoros, Crocodilo y Rajabroqueles.

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

437

Rodomontate, Brauate Spagnole . . . Hora nuovamente alla dichiarazion Franzesa aggiunta l’Italiana, e corretta la Composizione Spagnola da Lorenzo Franciosini, da Castelfiorentino, Professore in Siena della Lingua Italiana e Spagnuola P: Venice: Giacomo Sarzina, 1627 TA: Fictitious satirical speeches N: In the foreword to the readers, the French editions of Baudouin’s recueil (see number 70), published in Lyon, are censured and the advantages of the present version highlighted. The present version has an anthology of 49 rodomontades, which, together with other texts (some dialogs, proverbs, and translations of literary texts) is characterized by its didactic purpose, since they are understood above all as complementary readings for teaching Spanish grammar. Franciosini is in fact known for being the first translator of Don Quixote into Italian and for composing an influential Spanish grammar in 1624. B: Riquer (1942) 21–28. [78] T: Graecae orationes selectae ex Basilio et Chrysostomo, quibus adjectae sunt Isocratis Oratio ad Demonicum; ex Xenophonte, Thucydide, Herodoto nonnullae; Demosthenis Orationes Olynthiacae. In usum scholarum, in quibus auctores Graeci primum explicantur P: Geneva, Pierre Aubert, 1629 TA: Mixed anthology. Historiography, oratory, Fathers of the Church N: A mixed compilation in Greek that includes a set of orations, speeches, and homilies by the authors cited in the title. The volume has no paratextual material of any kind. The historiographical orations are identified by the name of the author at the beginning of the section within which they are then numbered. The historiographical selection is in a minority compared to the other two. The volume is completed, from page 127 onwards, with brief treatises entitled Tractatus duo accommodatissimi, nempe Luciani vita et Plutarchi de Educatione puerili Tractatus. [79] C: Giovanni Battista Manzini T: I furori della gioventù, esercitii rhettorici P: Venice: Andrea Baba, 1629 TA: Fictitious speeches N: Contains twelve speeches of the epideictic genre in the conceptist style. Descriptions of festivities are mixed in with the prosopopeiae of heroes and heroines in dramatic situations: “Affetti paterni” (Agamemnon and Iphigenia), “Catone generoso,” “Cleopatra humiliata,” “Paride innamorato,” “Paride combattuto,” “Coriolano intenerito,” “Horatio supplicante,” “Horatio reo,” “Le glorie della

438

Appendix

notte,” “Gli otii del carnevale,” “I magnanimi rivali,” “Seleuco pusillanime.” Each speech is accompanied by an introductory paragraph. At the end of the volume, two brief separately numbered treatises are added: a “breve consideratione” Della peripetia di Fortuna overo sopra la caduta di Sejano and the treatise Del servire negato al savio. The collection enjoyed considerable success and was reprinted several times: Bologna: Ferroni, 1629; Milan: Bidelli, 1630; Rome: de Rossi, 1633; Venice: Baba, 1636; Bologna: Montini and Zenero, 1636; Geneva: Aubert, 1636; Rome: de Rossi, 1639; Geneva: Aubert, 1647; Venice: Giunti and Baba, 1644; Geneva: Aubert, 1647; Venice: Baba, 1653; Venice: Pezzana, 1663; Venice: Giunti and Baba, 1664. Georges de Scudéry translated the work into French and published it in Paris (Courbé, 1641) with the title Harangues ou discours académiques de Jean Baptiste Manzini; the “effects” of the speeches were added in this version. The French edition was also reissued several times. B: Cf. the chapter by Nider in this volume. [80] C: Charles Sorel T: Nouveau Recueil de Lettres, Harangues et Discours differens, ou il est traité de l’Eloquence Françoise, et de plusieurs matieres Politiques et Morales P: Paris: François Pomeray, 1630 TA: Ancient and modern authors N: Translation into French of various speeches by Quintus Curtius, published within the complete set of this miscellaneous collection of letters, orations, and other oratorical speeches. The harangues of Quintus Curtius, eight in all, are on pages 292 to 360. As with the other texts, the speeches are simply introduced with a short title indicating only the speaker and receiver of the harangue. Attribution of the work to Sorel was recently proposed by Olivier Roux. B: Roux (2009). [81] C: Heinrich Kloss T: X. Orationes historico-politicae Graecae cum Latina interpretatione, pro Primo Ordine Primariae Vratislaviensium Scholae ad D. Elisabethae, e Romana historia. Graeco Herodiani stylo scripta exscriptae et congestae a . . . Henrico Closio P: Breslau: Müller, and Leipzig: Ritzsch, 1631 TA: Single Greek author (Herodian) N: An anthology of harangues (in Greek, with Latin translations) extracted from Herodian’s Roman History, following Poliziano’s Latin translation of the text at the end of the fifteenth century. B: Fryde (1984) 109–111.

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

439

[82] C: Giovan Francesco Loredano T: Scherzi geniali P: Venice: Sarzina, 1632 TA: Fictitious speeches N: A collection of orations of an academic or rhetorical nature, given by figures—real and fictitious—from the past (“Achille furibondo,” “Cicerone dolente,” “Poppea supplichevole,” etc.). Each speech is devoted to a different character, and the speech is preceded by a dedication as well as the argument of the oration. A second part was published in the same city and publishing house in 1634. The first part ran to twenty-seven editions; the second, twenty-four. The Scherzi appeared translated into French under the title Les caprices héroïques du Loredano (Paris: Anthoine Robinot, 1644), although the version was not complete (the speeches by Pyrrhus, Roxane, Theogenes, and Xenocrates are missing). There are also translations in Spanish, German and Greek. B: Menegatti (2000). Cf. the chapter by Nider in this volume. [83] C: Famiano Strada T: Eloquentia bipartita. Pars prior Prolusiones academicas, sive prolixiores exhibet orationes ad facultatem oratoriam, poeticam, historicamque spectantes; altera Paradigmata eloquentiae brevioris proponit, usui futura imitaturis ad dicendam breviter quacumque de re sententiam, excerptae decade prima Historiae de bello Belgico eiusdem auctoris P: Cologne: Johannes Kinckium, 1638 TA: One modern author N: A volume that gathers together, on the one hand, the academic speeches of its Jesuit author, Famiano Strada, and, on the other, perfect examples of historical models of eloquence using orations taken from the De bello Belgico, which Strada himself had started publishing the previous year. The orations are analyzed from a rhetorical point of view. Other editions: Amsterdam: Joannis Ravesteynii, 1658 (also with orations from the 1620s); Venice, 1684; Gouda: Willem van der Hoeve, 1694. [84] T: Raccolta delle orationi che si contengono nell’historia di Fiandra del cardinal Bentivoglio. Con una simile raccolta aggiuntavi degli elogi, nel modo che s’intenderà meglio dopo il fine delle orationi P: Cologne: n.p., 1640 TA: Modern author

440

Appendix

N: The anthology is organized in the two sections indicated by the title, and in each of these sections, according to the three parts of the history Della guerra di Fiandra, published by Guido Bentivoglio in 1632. There is a letter from “Lo stampatore a’ lettori” at the front of each of the two sections, and a “Tavola” at the end of both of them. Each oration is preceded by an argument (which explains the context of the speech, who gives it, to whom it is addressed and its subject as well as a summary of its content) that is clearly marked typographically. Written in Italian. B: Conley (1990) 152–153. [85] C: Ferrante Pallavicino T: Scena retorica P: Venice: Bertani, 1640 TA: Fictitious orations N: A collection of orationes fictae in the style of Manzini (number 79) and Loredano (number 82), whom Pallavicino refers to in the introduction to the volume. The subjects of the thirteen speeches are taken, according to Pallavicino’s own testimony, from the historical works of Justin and Plutarch. The names of the speakers are in alphabetical order from “Amilcone infelice” to “Theogene affettuosa” (with “Eolo dolente” out of place). The dedications are different for each oration and, together with the arguments, precede the text of the speech proper. Battista Cester published an edition in Venice in 1652, and the Turrini printing house also in Venice issued other editions in 1654, 1659, and 1669. B: Cf. the chapter by Nider in this volume. [86] C: Antoine Dubreton T: Harangues héroïques des hommes illustres P: Paris: Toussainct Quinet, 1642 TA: Four Latin historians N: Speeches by Quintus Curtius, Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus collected together in French translations by Dubreton. [87] C: Madeleine [and Georges?] de Scudéry T: Les Femmes illustres, ou les Harangues héroïques de Monsieur de Scudéry, avec les véritables portraits de ces heroïnes tirez des Medalles Antiques P: Paris: Antoine de Sommaville and Augustin Courbé, 1642

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

441

TA: Fictitious speeches placed in the mouths of “illustrious women” N: The collection presents a set of twenty historic female figures delivering fictitious speeches about situations and events from ancient history. The dedication “Aux dames” establishes a connection between this work and Giovanni Battista Manzini’s collection Furori della gioventù (see number 79), which Georges de Scudéry had translated into French. There is a succinct index with a list of the speeches in the volume. Each oration is preceded by an argument, an engraving with the portrait, or “medallion,” of the speaker, and a few lines summarizing or commenting on the content of the speech; it is followed by the “effect” of the speech on the receiver. The work has a “Second part,” focussing on literary figures (mainly taken from Homer, Ariosto, and Tasso), rather than historical ones, and was published in 1644 (Paris: Toussaint Quinet and Nicolas de Sercy; it includes a table of contents). There were reissues in 1651 (Rouen: Viret, second part); 1654 (Paris: Courbé, second part); 1655 (Paris: Courbé, first part); 1660 (Lyon: Comba, first part); 1661 (Paris: Louis Billaine, first and second parts); 1665 (Paris: Veuve Trabouillet, first part); 1666 (Lyon: Comba, second part); and 1667 (Lyon: Comba, first part). B: Breitenstein (2008); cf. Nider’s chapter in this volume. [88] C: Antoine Dubreton T: Harangues heroïques des hommes illustres modernes P: Paris: Antoine de Sommaville and Augustin Courbé, 1643 TA: Anthology of four modern authors N: Dubreton states that he made this compilation based on the success of his previous one, which collected the harangues of four Latin historians Quintus Curtius, Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus (see number 86). This selection—which was also intended to offer a guide to delivering better speeches and acquiring a sound body of political advice—includes orations by Paolo Emilio, Machiavelli, Paolo Giovio, and Pietro Bembo. The speeches are almost always preceded by an argument and followed by an effet. Although Dubreton claims that he is the translator of the speeches, the fact is that he copied those from the Belleforest collection (see number 40); the arguments and effects are almost word-forword summaries of his source. [89] C: Tristan L’Hermite T: Plaidoyers historiques P: Paris: Antoine de Sommaville and Augustin Courbé, 1643 TA: Fictitious speeches

442

Appendix

N: This is a reworking of some of the stories contained in the Epitome de cent histoires tragicques by Alexandre Sylvain. More specifically, L’Hermite completely rewrites thirty-five of these stories in order to put them “en meilleur langage,” and adds another two of his own. There are, therefore, thirty-seven “plaidoyers”, or polemical speeches. Each plaidoyer consists of a title, an “exposition du fait” or “sujet,” followed by an “accusation” or “plainte” and the “réponce.” A simple index closes the volume. Some years later, the book was reprinted in Lyon (Claude La Rivière, 1649). B: Bernardin (1895) 229–230. [90] C: Valentin Thilon T: Curtius Orator, sive Orationes Curtianae Brevi Analysi et Pleniori Locorum Communium Evolutione Illustrata P: Königsberg: Martin Hallervorden, 1646 TA: Single Latin author (Curtius) N: Selection of speeches in direct discourse found in the work of Quintus Curtius. In addition to the dedication, the preliminaries include various verse compositions paying tribute to Thilon, the compiler of the collection and author of various treatises and rhetorical compilations (see, for example, number 92), and the critical opinion of Ericio Puteano on the work of Curtius. Each speech is made up of the following parts: the title and book to which it belongs, the text of the speech itself, a general analysis of the text, and an analysis of the rhetorical parts. Other seventeenth-century editions: Amsterdam: Jansson, 1655; Amsterdam: Jansson, 1665; Leipzig: Fick and Seubold, 1667; Frankfurt and Leipzig: Kloss, 1694. [91] C: Georges de Scudéry T: Discours politiques des Rois, dédiez à Monseigneur le Cardinal Mazarin par Monsieur de Scudéry P: Paris: Augustin Courbé, 1647 TA: Anthology of fictitious speeches N: Five years after the publication of Femmes illustres (see number 87) and three after the second part of that work, Georges de Scudéry sent this new collection of speeches to be printed. On this occasion, it is a collection of twenty speeches delivered by a similar number of kings selected from universal history. The compiler concentrates on fundamental acts of their respective reigns, trying to get to the heart of the reasons that led them to commit such acts, and adds the speculations and reasonings that allow the hidden causes of the

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

443

deeds to be uncovered. To this, Scudéry adds certain political reflections that give the anthology some cohesion and enables it to be read as a kind of mirror of princes. Scudéry, who confesses that he preferred kings who were not very well known, turns to medieval history (Pépin le Bref, Tamerlaine, Hugh Capet . . .) as well as to modern (Charles V, Louis XIV, Matthias Corvinus, Mehmed II, Ferdinand the Catholic, Henry IV, Suleiman II, Scanderberg, Henry VIII . . .), although the speeches do not appear in chronological order of the dates of their alleged authors. The list covers various European kingdoms: Spain, Venice, France, England, the Ottoman Empire, the Tartar Empire. The anthology was reissued in Paris in 1663 (Jacques Cochart, with a table of the most important subjects contained in the orations; Jacques Legras; Compagnie des libraires de Paris); 1681 (Veuve Bobin); 1682 (Nicolas le Gras); and in 1688 (Jerôme Bobin). B: Galli Pellegrini (1981). [92] C: Valentin Thilon T: Königsberg: Martin Hallervorden, 1647 P: Pathologia oratoria, seu affectuum movendorum ratio succinctis præceptis proposita, classicis exemplis illustrata, accuratis ideis expressa TA: History, epic, and the Bible N: A rhetorical treatise that takes examples from the Bible, epic, and history in order to illustrate how to stir human passions. The preliminaries are similar to those in the collection of speeches by Quintus Curtius, also compiled by Thilon (see number 90): dedication, laudatory poems, and a critical opinion, in this case Quintilian’s, about stirring the passions. The text is divided into thirteen chapters that treat the same numbers of passions. Each chapter offers a theoretical explanation and, immediately afterwards, the fragments selected to illustrate the theory, which are then analyzed from a rhetorical point of view. Livy, Philo, Plutarch, Tacitus, and Justin are historians whose work Thilon cites. The volume ends with a thematic index. Other editions: Magdeburg: Fick, 1665; Frankfurt and Leipzig: Kloss, 1687. B: Kühlmann (2008). [93] C: Johann Tesmar T: Exercitationum rhetoricarum libri VIII. Quorum primi quinque analytici sunt, exempla ex illustribus poetis, historicis, et oratoribus, eaqua omnia ad scopum et summum revocata, nonnulla etiam plenius excussa, suppeditantes, et quidem secundum genera causarum quae dicuntur; quae Eloquentiae studiosis juxta

444

Appendix

artis praecepta examinanda imitandaque. Reliqui tres synthetici sunt, dispositionem adumbrantes carminum, epistolarum, orationum, quibus exaedificandis et illustrandis iidem dicendi usum sibi comparabunt P: Amsterdam: Elzevier, 1652 TA: Ancient, oratorical epic historiography. Rhetorical commentary N: Rhetorical analysis of 205 speeches from Livy and all of Sallust, along with commentaries on orations from other ancient and modern authors. The exercises for each speech of historiographical origin follow a schema that consists of identifying the oration by its location in the original work, a title, a thorough rhetorical analysis, a section referring to the eventus of the speech and another to its usus, and a list of the sententiae it contains. [94] C: Louis Gibault T: Le trésor des harangues, remonstrances et oraisons funèbres des plus grands personnages de ce temps, rédigées par ordre chronologique P: Paris: Michel Bobin, 1654 TA: Modern authors N: Composed of the three sections indicated in the title, with separate pagination. It is a collection of French speeches, mainly political in content, delivered between 1610 and 1648. It consists of fifty-two harangues, fourteen remonstrances, and two funeral orations, preceded by a brief introductory paragraph that gives an account of the occasion on which the speech was made. A table of speeches at the beginning of the work contains the basic information about each oration. The compiler, the lawyer Gibault, admits in the prologue to having retouched the texts. A second part was published in Paris (Nicolas Le Gras, 1685), with the inclusion of twenty harangues, ten remonstrances, and three funeral orations. Gibault was also the author of other collections, such as the Harangues célèbres et remonstrances faites aux roys, aux princes et aux autres personnes d’éminente condition; et quelques oraisons funèbres (Paris: H. Le Gras, 1655) and the Trésor des harangues faites aux entrées des rois, reines, princes, princesses (Paris: H. Le Gras, 1680). [95] C: Giuseppe Ricci T: Conciones militares, et senatoriae ex ejus Germanicis bellis et rerum Italicarum narrationibus ad majus eloquentiae studentium commodum collecta P: Venice: Hertz, 1655 TA: Modern authors

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

445

N: This an anthology of military and political contiones excerpted from De bellis Germanicis libri decem, the first account of the Thirty Year’s War, a work that Ricci (Brescia 1600–1669) himself had published in Venice in 1647, dedicated to Rogelio Tasso, baron of the Holy Roman Empire. Following the model of anthologies of Livy’s speeches, as the author states in the letter to the reader, he has selected the 93 contiones that he considers more rhetorically developed in order to create a collection about current events for use in the schools. Each speech is preceded by a brief argumentum which contains information about the speaker, the occasion, and the place of the speech. B: Griffante, Giachery, and Minuzzi (2006). [96] C: Ferenc Orosz T: Orationes regum et principum Hungariae, ab Attilae primi Hunnorum regis temporibus usque ad annum Christi 1548 inclusive P: Cologne, 1656 TA: Modern authors N: Eighty-four orations collected from the works of modern historians. The orations are accompanied by individual commentaries of a historical and political content. They have titles but no arguments. The index of speeches comes at the end of the volume. Reissued in Ginsburg in 1754. [97] C: Jobus Veratius T: Sylloge concionum seu orationum selectissimarum ex historicis Latinis excerptarum: in usum scholarum Hollandiæ Westfrisiæ . . . recognitum, & recensitum opus P: Amsterdam: Gilles Jansz Valckenier, 1657 [98] C: Antonio Lupis T: Teatro aperto P: Venice: Zatta, 1664 TA: Fictitious speeches N: Collection of twelve orationes fictae in the style of Manzini (number 79) and Loredano (number 82), whom Lupis cites in his introduction. The format of the presentation of the orations is taken from Loredano. Lupis takes historical and literary sources and in two cases presents the same themes as Pallavicino (see number 85). At least one later edition (1687) exists. B: Cf. the chapter by Nider in this volume.

446

Appendix

[99] C: Antoine Verjus T: L’academie de l’ancienne et de la nouvelle Eloquence, ou Harangues tirées des historiens grecs et latins. Premier volume P: Lyon: Barthemely Rivière, 1666 TA: Latin authors (Quintus Curtius, Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus) N: Despite the book’s generic title, the anthology only collects harangues from Quintus Curtius, Sallust, Livy, and Tacitus. Each harangue is preceded by a framing paragraph that summarizes the context in which it was delivered. The exact origin of the collected speeches is not identified (books, decades, etc.). The translation is owed to the Jesuit Antoine Verjus. [100] C: François Eudes de Mézeray T: Harangues tirées de l’Histoire de France de Mézeray P: Lyon: Barthélémy Rivière, 1667 TA: Single Modern author, Mézeray N: The speeches come from the Histoire de France, depuis Faramond jusqu’à maintenant, oeuvre enrichie de plusieurs belles et rares antiquités et d’un abregé de la vie de chaque règne, published in three volumes in Paris between 1642 and 1651. B: Radouant (1911) 515–516; Zonza (2010). [101] C: Vincenzo Pasqualigo T: La galleria dei ritratti morali P: Venice: Bodio, 1671 TA: Fictitious speeches N: Collection of orationes fictae inserted in a more general work of moral portraits. The author makes a display of his erudition not only in the allegorical “Introduction,” but also in the descriptions of the passions, which he illustrates with numerous Latin quotations. These descriptions of the passions precede each “portrait” or speech. Pasqualigo declares in the introduction that the speeches are the product of reading and practice. B: Cf. the chapter by Nider in this volume. [102] C: Giuseppe Battista T: Le giornate accademiche P: Venice: Combi and La Nou, 1673

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

447

TA: Fictitious speeches N: Battista himself writes in the dedication that the speeches collected in the volume are rhetorical exercises produced in the Accademia degli Oziosi in Naples. An argument precedes each speech. B: Cf. the chapter by Nider in this volume. [103] C: Joachim Gesenius T: Conciones Civiles seu Orationes ex Historicis Latinis, non tantum Livio, Salustio, Curtio, Tacito, sed etiam Caesare, Historiae Augustae Scriptoribus, item Ammiano Marcellino & Justino excerptae, longe plenius quam nunquam antea. Argumenta orationibus praefixa sunt, quae causam et summam ex rei gestae occasione explicant. Opusculum ita denuo editum opera et studio P: Leipzig: Fuhrmann and Breuer, 1674 TA: Latin historians N: The compiler presents the work explicitly as an alternative—or a complement—to the anthology Conciones et orationes ex Latinis historicis excerptae, which brought together speeches from four Latin historians and had enjoyed an enormous success during the seventeenth century (see number 76). The letter to the reader presents, in an erudite fashion, a kind of state of the art on anthologies of speeches from Latin historians, as well as opinions on them by four modern treatise writers. Although he does not say so explicitly, Gesenius takes as a model for his anthology the Syntagma that Bernardus Gualtherius had published at the beginning of the century (see number 69) as can easily be demonstrated by comparing the list of historians added to the four canonical ones: Caesar, three of the authors of the Historia Augusta (Julius Capitolinus, Aelius Lampridius, and Trebellius Pollio), Ammianus Marcellinus, and Justin. The only one he does not include from the Gualtherius collection is Herodian. As the title announces, each oration is supplied with an argument that states the author, the addressee, the theme, the background to, and the occasion of, the harangue. The general index of orations brings the volume to a close. In the seventeenth century, at least one more edition was published, in 1684. [104] C: Félix de Lucio Espinosa y Malo T: Declamaciones: escarmientos politicos y morales, que escrivio el doctor Don Felix de Lucio Espinosa y Malo P: Madrid: Ioseph Fernández de Buendía, 1674 TA: Fictitious orations

448

Appendix

N: A collection of declamations composed in imitation of Italian models, Manzini (number 79) and Lupis (number 98) among them. All are referred to ancient characters and bear a moral reading. See also number 112. B: Cf. the chapter by Nider in this volume. [105] C: Johann Olearius T: Herodoti Halicarnassei Orationes, conciones, sermocinationes et epistolae, quae Histori. libris IX Musarum nominibus inscriptis alias insertae visuntur, nunc primum cum Vallae interpretatione latina ab H. Stephano recognita, seorsim edita opera et studio L. Joannis Olearii . . . qui his omnibus Argumenta et Titulos, tum Graecos tum Latinos praefixit, Nobilium aliquot Orationum Artificium Rhetoricum ex Nicol. Caussini de Eloqu. . . . adjecit, Varias variorum Notas, hinc inde dispersas, juxta seriem textus Graeci congessit, Praefationem, cum Elogiis veterum ac recentiorum de Eloquentia Herodoti praemisit, Opusculum Graecae Literaturae, ac Civilis praesertim Eloquentiae studiosis perquam utile P: Leipzig: Fuhrmann and Breuer, 1675 TA: Single Greek author (Herodotus) N: One year after the compilation of Latin orations made by Gesenius (see number 103), the presses of Fuhrmann and Breuer brought out this new collection of speeches, confining themselves in this case only to Herodotus. The volume opens with a long, scholarly introduction in Latin that touches on literary and textual matters. At the same time, there is a series of critical opinions about Olearius’s own compilation, as well as several passages from ancient and modern authors about Herodotus (“De eloquentia Herodoti”). The text of the speeches is shown in two columns, one for the original Greek and the other for the Latin translation. Each oration has a title and argument and the text is annotated. At the end of the anthology, there is an index of texts and an index of names, followed by several pages with Nicolas Caussin’s critical opinion of Herodotus’ speeches. The book ends with textual annotations of a variety of authors and some miscellaneous observations of a historical and literary nature. B: Boudou (2003). [106] C: Christoph Schrader T: Livianarum orationum duodeviginti Analysis Rhetorica. Adjectis imitationum materiis P: Helmstedt: Heinrich David Müller, 1676

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

449

TA: Theoretical work. Single Latin author (Livy) N: Rhetorical commentaries on eighteen orations from the Ab Urbe condita, identified in the index. Every speech has a title indicating where it comes from in the original work, a rhetorical analysis that consists of a few initial introductory words, the text of the speech, and the commentaries. At the end of the volume there is a list of sixty-nine of Livy’s speeches worth imitating. B.: Le Cam (1996) 167–168. [107] C: Abraham Vechner T: Suada gallicana, h.e. conciones et orationes Thuanaeae, una cum argumentis praefixis ac mantissa elegantissimarum ex eiusdem illustris viri Iac. Aug. Thuani historiarum continuatione excerptarum orationum, uti et Teutonicarum quarundam appendice; prudentiae civilis quodam veluti tameion exhibentes. Accedit analyseos Logico-Rhetoricae. Specimen duplex cum indice gemino concionum P: Frankfurt and Leipzig: Johann Adam Kästner, 1679 TA: A single modern author, Jacques-Auguste de Thou N: In this collection, Vechner assembles ninety-one speeches taken from de Thou’s Histoire universelle. Each speech is headed by an argument or summary that also includes rhetorical concepts. At the end of the anthology, two of the orations are examined from a “logical-rhetorical” point of view. The volume provides two indices: in the first, the conciones are listed in alphabetical order by author, the first words of each one, when they were spoken, and the page of the original book and of the anthology; the second groups the speeches by year. B: Ferretti and Goyet (2014). [108] T: Recueil de diverses harangues, discours, et autres pieces d’eloquence. Composées par les plus celebres auteurs de ce temps P: Brussels: François Foppens, 1681 TA: Modern authors N: Collection of orations composed and delivered shortly before the publication of the book. Every speech is introduced by a presentation in which the date, orator, place, and occasion are indicated. At the end of the book, there is a table of the eloquent pieces contained in the volume, which are referred to with different names: harangues, speeches, congratulations, panegyrics, thanksgivings, epistles, eulogies.

450

Appendix

[109] C: Pierre Ortigue de Vaumorière T: Harangues sur toutes sortes de sujets, avec l’art de les composer P: Paris: Jean Guignard, 1688 TA: Theoretical work. Mixed anthology. N: At the request of the bookseller Guignard, who said that this volume was in response to a widespread demand, Vaumorière compiled an anthology of harangues and speeches complemented with a method of composing them. The book assembles a small treatise on eloquence in sixteen chapters (a third of which treat “De la lecture des historiens”) and three sets of speeches of the demonstrative genre, the deliberative genre, and the judicial genre respectively. There are dozens of texts that include, apart from speeches as such, other genres or oratorical pieces like apostrophes, descriptions, portraits, eulogies, paintings, panegyrics, etc. Vaumorière does not state the provenance of the texts that deal, in many cases, with recent French history. The speeches sometimes have accompanying annotations that the compiler places either before or after the text, or in both positions. After the dedication, a general index opens the volume and a table of contents closes it. Jean Guignard would bring out a second edition in 1693, and Michel Guignard and Claude Robustel another in 1713. [110] T: Orationes ex Tito Livio collectae ad usum juventutis studiosae P: Poitiers: Xavier Mesnier, 1691 TA: Single Latin author (Livy) B.: Compère and Pralon-Julia (1992). [111] C: José Penso de la Vega T: Ideas possibles de que se compone un curioso ramillete de fragrantes flores, cultivadas y cogidas por Don José de la Vega. Parte dellas en limitado jardin de sus continuas meditaciones, regadas con los sudores de su rostro, y corrientes de su pluma: y las más pomposas para la vista, y mas agradables para el olfato, trasportadas por el mismo Vega, de los mas amenos pensiles de la Hetruria, a los huertos de la Hyberia, para ornato de sus vergeles, y delicia de sus prados. P: Antwerp: Jahacob de Córdoba, 1692 TA: Fictitious orations N: The collection includes seven speeches composed by Penso himself plus five that he translated from Italian authors: Manzini (see number 79), Pallavicino (number 85), and Loredano (number 82). The orations are organized in pairs of opposing components, for example “Paris enamorado” (“Paris in love”) as

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

451

opposed to “Candaule arrepentido” (“repentant Candaules”). Male and female characters, as well as classical and biblical figures, are the protagonists of these “ideas”. B: Cf. the chapter by Nider in this volume. [112] C: Félix de Lucio Espinosa y Malo T: Ocios morales: divididos en descripciones symbolicas y declamaciones heroycas P: Zaragoza: Manuel Román, 1693 TA: Fictitious orations N: As the title indicates, the book is divided into two parts, one devoted to descriptions, and the other one to declamations. Conceived as an expanded edition of Declamaciones, published by the author two decades before (see number 104), this volume presents thirty-three orations mainly referred to European figures. Each declamation is preceded by an argument. See also number 104. B: Cf. the chapter by Nider in this volume. [113] C: Marco Antonio Ferrazzi T: Exercitationes Rhetoricae in orationes Titi Livii Patavini P: Padua: Tipografia del Seminario, 1694 TA: Theoretical work. Single Latin author (Livy). N: School manual based on the speeches in Livy. Speeches in their entirety are not copied. They are only identified by the decade and book number. Similarly, both the speaker of the speech and the receiver are briefly identified. An abridged “argument” is followed by the commentary on the texts, in which the commonplaces, sententiae, the parts of the speech, the meaning of some terms or constructions, etc. are indicated. Various indices are located at the end of the volume: one of commonplaces; another of affects (according to Aristotle’s classification); and another of descriptions, customs, laws, magistrates, priests, etc. extracted from Livy’s speeches. The work was republished at least ten times between 1707 and 1710 and less frequently in the following decades of the eighteenth century. See also Ferrazzi’s collection of poetic speeches (number 114). B: Sans (2014). [114] C: Marco Antonio Ferrazzi T: Exercitationes Rhetoricae in praecipuas P. Virgilii Maronis Orationes, quae in Aeneidum libris leguntur P: Padua: Tipografia del Seminario, 1694

452

Appendix

TA: Poetic Latin speeches (Virgil) N: A collection of eighty-eight speeches in direct discourse extracted from the Aeneid. The presentation is similar to the Ferrazzi’s own selection of orations by Livy (number 113), without transcribing the speeches in full and with a detailed rhetorical commentary. B: Kallendorf (2007); Goyet (2013b); Noille (2014). [115] C: Cristoph Keller T: Conciones civiles sive Orationes ex optimis quibuscunque historicis latinis excerptæ, post editionem Batavam et Lipsiensem superiorem denuo recognitae, et ab innumeris mendis repurgatae, auctae etiam et in meliorem ordinem redactae a Christophoro Cellario P: Leipzig: Johann Ludwig Gleditsch, 1699 TA: Classical authors N: A collection of orations by historians of Latin antiquity. The work was reissued in 1710 (Gleditsch and Weidmann) and 1732 (Leipzig: Weidmann). B: Beck (2012).

Lists of Compilers, Places of Publications, and Printers

NB: The three lists that we present here—compilers, places of publication, and printers—refer to the main work described in each entry. Other editions of the same anthology, even if mentioned in the section “Notes”, are not included. Numbers indicate the place of order in the Appendix. Compilers Amelin (or Hamelin), Jean de 26 Battista, Giuseppe 102 Baudouin, Nicolas 70 Belleforest, François de 40, 41, 54, 60 Brassicanus, Johann Alexander 8 Brunelli, Girolamo 55 Bucolds, Gerhard 10 Camerarius, Joachim 34 Canter, Willem 35 Caselius, Johannes 50

Caussin, Nicolas 74 Chanteclair, Charles 71 Cornapaeus, Nicolaus 48 Curione, Celio Secondo 22, 25 Dubreton, Antoine 86, 88 Espinosa y Malo, Félix de Lucio 104, 112 Estienne, Henri (with Joachim Périon) 39, 58, 76 Eudes de Mezeray, François 100

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

Ferrazzi, Marco Antonio 113, 114 Franciosini, Lorenzo 77 Frischlin, Nicodemus 56 Fromuth, Matthias 7 Gesenius, Joachim 103 Gibault, Louis 94 Guagnini, Alessandro 51 Gualtherius, Bernardus 69 Hoeschel, David 68 Junius, Melchior 53, 57, 63, 67 Keller, Cristoph 115 Kloss, Heinrich 81 L’Hermite, Tristan 89 Latomus, Bartholomaeus 9 Le Jars de Gournay, Marie 73 Le More, Jean 6 Le Tort, François 43 Leich, Jakob 23 Loredano, Giovan Francesco 82 Lorich, Reinhard 16, 20 Lupis, Antonio 98 Manzini, Giovanni Battista 79 Mascardi, Jacopo (?) 72 Mueffling, Johann Ulrich 75 Nannini, Remigio 27, 30, 31, 52 Norton, Thomas 38 Olearius, Johann 105 Orosz, Ferenc 96 Orsini, Fulvio 49 Ortigue de Vaumoriere, Pierre 109 Pallavicino, Ferrante 85 Pasqualigo, Vincenzo 101 Penso de la Vega, José 111 Périon, Joachim (with Henri Estienne) 13, 14, 76 Pescheur, Jean 33 Peucer, Caspar 32 Polemon, John 45 Ricci, Giuseppe 95

453

Sabellico, Marco Antonio 5 Saliat, Pierre 17 Schrader, Christoph 106 Scudéry, Georges de 87, 91 Scudéry, Madeleine de 87 Sertenas, Vincent 29 Silvius, Guillaume 36 Sleidan, Johann 18 Sorel, Charles 80 Strada, Famiano 83 Tesmar, Johann 93 Thilon, Valentin 90, 92 Van den Bussche, Alexandre 47 Vasaeus, Johannes (?) 19 Vechner, Abraham 107 Veratius, Jobus 97 Verjus, Antoine 99 von Reusner, Nikolaus 61 Zeno, Antonio 37 Zsámboky, János 24 Places of Publication Amsterdam 93, 97 Antwerp 14, 36, 49, 59, 111 Augsburg 68 Basel 22, 24, 25, 35 Breslau 81 Brussels 108 Cologne 1, 9, 10, 23, 66, 69, 83, 84, 96 Copenhagen 48 Frankfurt 16, 41, 51, 107 Geneva 39, 58, 60, 78 Helmstedt 106 Ingolstadt 62 Jena 75 Konigsberg 90, 92 Leiden 76 Leipzig 4, 7, 61, 103, 81, 105, 107, 115

454 London 38, 45 Lyon 99, 100 Madrid 104 Marburg 20 Montbéliard 63 Nuremberg 8 Padua 113, 114 Paris 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 26, 28, 29, 33, 40, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 54, 64, 65, 70, 71, 73, 74, 80, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 94, 109 Poitiers 110 Rome 2, 3, 55, 72 Rostock 50 Salamanca 19 Strasbourg 53, 57, 67 Venice 5, 21, 27, 30, 31, 37, 52, 77, 79, 82, 85, 95, 98, 101, 102 Wittenberg 32, 34 Wolfenbuttel 56 Zaragoza 112 Printers Aubert, Pierre 78 Baba, Andrea 79 Barbier, Jean 6 Benedictus, Laurentius 48 Bertani 85 Bienné, Jean 44 Bobin, Michel 94 Bodio 101 Bonfons, Nicolas 47 Bourriquant, Fleury 73 Breuer, Johann see Fuhrmann Bynneman, Henry & Francis Coldock 45 Calvarin, Prigent 15 Castañeda, Gonzalo de 19

Appendix

Chappelet, Sébastien 74 Chesneau, Nicolas 40 Chevalier, Pierre 70, 71 Cloucquius, Andreas 76 Coldock, Francis see Bynneman, Henry Colines, Simon de 13, 17, 18 Combi & La Nou 102 Córdoba, Jahacob de 111 Corneus, Conradus 56 Courbé, Augustin 91 see also Sommaville Daye, John 38 Du Pré, Philippe 64, 65 Egenolff, Christian 16, 20 Elsevier 93 Estienne, Henri 39, 58 Fayerabend, Sigmund see Wechel, Johann Fernández de Buendía, Ioseph 104 Foppens, François 108 Froben, Hieronymus 22 Fuhrmann, Johann & Johann Breuer 103, 105 Giolito de’ Ferrari, Gabriel 27, 30, 31 Gleditsch, Johann Ludwig 115 Grosse, Henning 61 Grüner, Salomon 75 Gualtherius, Bernardus 69 Guignard, Jean 109 Gymnich, Johann 9, 10 Hallervorden, Martin 90, 92 Héritiers Vignon 60 Hertz 95 Insegna della Concordia 52 Jobin, Bernhard 53 Kastner, Johann Adam 107 Kinckium, Johannes 83 Krafft, Johann 34

Printed Anthologies of Speeches ( 1471–1699 )

Landsberg, Martin 7 La Nou see Combi Lotter (the Elder), Melchior 4 Mameramus, Heinrich 23 Mascardi, Jacopo 72 Ménier, Pierre 54 Mesnier, Xavier 110 Micard, Claude 42 Möllemann, Stephan 50 Morel, Guillaume 28 Moretus, Jan 59 Müller, David 81 Müller, Heinrich David 106 Mylius, Arnold 66 Nivelle, Nicolas de 46 Oporinus, Johannes 24, 25 Pannartz, Arnold 2 Perna, Pietro 35 Peypus, Friedrich 8 Plantin, Christophe 49 Pomeray, François 80 Poupy, Jean 43 Praetorius, Johann 68 Printer of Dares (Schilling) 1 Quinet, Toussainct 86

455

Reinhard, Johann 3 Rhaw, Georg 32 Richard, Thomas 33 Ritzsch, Gregorius 81 Rivière, Barthélémy 99, 100 Román, Manuel 112 Sartorius, Adam 62 Sarzina, Giacomo 77, 82 Sertenas, Vincent 29 Silvius, Guillaume 36 Sommaville, Antoine de & Augustin Courbé 87, 88, 89 Sons of Aldo Manuzio 21 Steelsius, Joannes 14 Tipografia del Seminario 113, 114 Valckenier, Gilles Jansz 97 Vascosan, Michel de 26 Vitali, Bernardino & Matteo 5 Wechel, Christian 11, 12 Wechel, Johann & Sigmund Fayerabend 51 Zaltieri, Bolognino 37 Zanetti, Francesco 55 Zatta, Alessandro 98 Zetzner, Lazar 57, 63, 67

Bibliography

(Including Primary and Secondary Sources)

Abbamonte, G., L. Miletti, and C. Buongiovanni (2009), “Le allocuzioni alle truppe nella storiografia antica”, in G. Abbamonte, L. Miletti, and L. Spina, eds., 27–86. Abbamonte, G., L. Miletti and L. Spina, eds. (2009), Discorsi alla prova. Discorsi pronunciati, discorsi ascoltati: contesti di eloquenza tra Grecia, Roma ed Europa, Atti del Quinto Colloquio italo-francese, Napoli, S. Maria di Castellabate (Sa) 21–23 settembre 2006, Naples: Giannini. Achilli, I. (2012), Il proemio del libro 20 della Biblioteca storica di Diodoro Siculo, Lanciano: Carabba. Actas de la Academia de los Nocturnos de Valencia (1994), J.Ll. Canet, E. Rodríguez, and J.Ll. Sirera, eds., vol. III, Valencia: Institució Alfons el Magnànim. Adam, M. (1615), Vitae Germanorum philosophorum, qui seculo superiori, et quod excurrit, philosophicis ac humanioribus literis clari floruerunt, Frankfurt am Main and Heidelberg: N. Hoffmann. Adams, H.M. (1967), Catalogue of Books printed on the Continent of Europe, 1501–1600 in Cambridge Libraries, vol. I, Cambridge: University Press. Adamson, S., G. Alexander, and K. Ettenhuber, eds. (2007), Renaissance Figures of Speech, Cambridge: University Press, 1–14. Adler, E. (2006), “Who’s Antiroman? Sallust and Pompeius Trogus on Mithridates”, Classical Journal 101: 383–407. Adler, E. (2011), Valorizing the Barbarians. Enemy Speeches in Roman Historiography, Austin: University of Texas Press. Ahrweiler, H. (1967), “Un discours inédit de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète”, Travaux et Mémoires 2: 393–404. Aldama Roy, A.M. and M.J. Muñoz Jiménez (2005), “Los florilegios”, in J. Signes Codoñer, B. Antón Martínez, P. Conde Parrado, M.Á. González Manjarrés, and J.A. Izquierdo, eds., Antiquae lectiones. El legado clásico desde la Antigüedad hasta la Revolución Francesa, Madrid: Cátedra, 217–223. Alexander, G. (2007), “Prosopopeia: The Speaking Figure”, in S. Adamson, G. Alexander, and K. Ettenhuber, eds., 97–112. Alexander, M.C. (2007), “Oratory, Rhetoric, and Politics in the Republic”, in W. Dominik and J. Hall, eds., A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, London: Blackwell, 98–108. Almási, G. (2009), The Uses of Humanism: Johannes Sambucus (1531–1584), Andreas Dudith (1533–1589), and the Republic of Letters in East Central Europe, Leiden: Brill. Almelooven, Th.J. van (1683), De vitis Stephanorum celebrium typographorum dissertatio epistolica, Amsterdam: Jansson-Waasberg.

Bibliography

457

Alonso Núñez, J.M. (1987), “An Augustan World History. The Historiae Philipppicae of Pompeius Trogus”, Greece & Rome 34: 56–72. Alonso Núñez, J.M. (1992), La Historia Universal de Pompeyo Trogo. Coordenadas espaciales y temporales, Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. Alonso Núñez, J.M. (1998–1999), “El Praefatio de Justino a las Historiae Philippicae de Pompeyo Trogo”, Acta Classica Debrecenensis 34–35: 437–442. Álvarez Barrientos, J. (2006) “La ilustración de Francisco Mariano Nifo”, Dieciocho. Hispanic Enlightenment 29.2: 205–227. Álvarez Rodríguez, A. (1986), “J. Fernández de Heredia y las traducciones del griego medieval al aragonés”, Erytheia 7: 113–131. Álvarez Rodríguez, A. (1989), “Los italianismos en las traducciones medievales—del griego al aragonés—de J. Fernández de Heredia”, Actes XVIII Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, vol. IV, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 371–378. Álvarez Rodríguez, A., ed. (2007), Tucídides. Discursos de la guerra del Peloponeso. Versión aragonesa de la Historia de la guerra del Peloponeso patrocinada por Juan Fernández de Heredia, Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico. [Amadís de Gaula] (1581), Le vingt et unième et dernier livre d’Amadis de Gaule, contenant la fin et mort d’iceluy, les merveilles faits d’armes et amours de plusieurs grands et notables princes de son sang, Lyon: Loys Cloquemin. [Amadís de Gaula] (1615), Le vingt et deuxième livre d’Amadis de Gaule traitant les hauts faits d’armes, amours et vertus non pareilles avec les étranges aventures mises à fin, tant par les princes illustres issus de la noble maison d’Amadis qu’autres vaillants chevaliers en la quête des princes Safiraman et Hercule d’Astré, Paris: Gilles Robinot, Olivier de Varennes, Claude Rigaud. [Amadís de Gaula] (1615), Le vingt et troisième livre d’Amadis de Gaule continuant à traiter des amours, gestes et faits héroïques de plusieurs princes . . . descendus de la race du grand Amadis et notamment du vaillant Fulgoran, fils de Rogel de Grece et de la reine Florelle. Discours fait d’espagnol en français, Paris: Gilles Robinot, Olivier de Varennes, Claude Rigaud. [Amadís de Gaula] (1615), Le vingt quatrième et dernier livre d’Amadis de Gaule continuant à traiter des amours, gestes et faits héroïques de plusieurs illustres et vertueux princes descendus de la race du grand Amadis et notamment du vaillant Fulgoran fils de Rogel de Grece et de la reine Florelle, Paris: Gilles Robinot, Olivier de Varennes, Claude Rigaud. Amador de los Ríos, J. (1861–1865), Historia crítica de la Literatura Española, 7 vols., Madrid: Imprenta de José Rodríguez. Amato, E. and J. Schamp, eds. (2005), ἨΘΟΠΟΙΙΑ. La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et réalité vivante à l’époque impériale et tardive, Salerno: Helios. Amato, E. and G. Ventrella (2005), “L’éthopée dans la pratique scolaire et littéraire”, in E. Amato and J. Schamp, eds., 213–231.

458

Bibliography

Ammirato, S. (1594), Discorsi . . . sopra Cornelio Tacito, Florence: F. Giunti. Appian (1557), Ἐκ τοῦ Κτησίου, Ἀγαθαρκίδου, Μέμνονος, ἱστορικῶν ἐκλογαί. Ἀππιανοῦ Ἰβηρικὴ καὶ Ἀννιβαική. Ex Ctesia, Agatharchide, Memnone excerptae historiae, Appiani Iberica. Item, De gestis Annibalis. Opera nunc primum edita. Cum Henrici Stephani castigationibus, Paris: H. Estienne. Argentieri, L. (1998), “Epigramma e libro. Morfologia delle raccolte epigrammatiche premeleagree”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 121: 1–20. Aricò, D. (2007), “Le ‘prosperità infelici’ di Seiano. Note sul tema del favorito nella narrazione di Pierre Matthieu e di Giovan Battista Manzini”, in C. Carminati and V. Nider, eds., 185–222. Armstrong, E. (1954), Robert Estienne, Royal Printer: An Historical Study of the Elder Stephanus, Cambridge: University Press. Arnaud-Lindet, M.P. (2003), Marcus Junianus Justinus. Abrégé des Histoires Philippiques de Trogue Pompée, . Artifoni, E. (2001), “L’éloquence politique dans les cités communales (XIII e siècle)”, in I. Heullant-Donat, ed., Cultures italiennes (XII e–XV e siècles), Paris: Les éditions du Cerf, 269–276. Ash, R. (2003), “Aliud est enim epistulam, aliud historiam . . . scribere (Epistles 6.16.22): Pliny the Historian?”, Arethusa 36: 211–225. Asheri, D. (1988), “Carthaginians and Greeks”, Cambridge Ancient History, vol. IV, Cambridge: University Press, 739–780. Atkinson, C. (2002), Debts, Dowries, Donkeys. The Diary of Niccolò Machiavelli’s Father, Messer Bernardo, in Quattrocento Florence, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Atkinson, J.E. (1980), A Commentary on Q. Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri Magni Books 3 and 4, Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben. Aubert de Poitiers, G. (1556), Le douziesme livre d’Amadis de Gaule, contenant quelle fin prindrent les loyalles amours d’Agesilan de Colchos, et de la princesse Diane, et par quel moyen la royne Sidonie se rapaisa, apres avoir longuement pourchassé la mort de don Florisel de Niquée, Paris: Estienne Groulleau. Aubert de Poitiers, G. (1571), Le treizieme livre d’Amadis de Gaule traittant les hauts faits d’armes du gentil chevalier Sylves de la Selve fils de l’Empereur Amadis de Grece et de la Royne de Thebes Finistée: avec les aventures estranges d’armes et d’amours de Rogel de Grece, Agesilan de Colcos et autres, avenus sur l’entreprise et cours de la guerre du grand Roy Bultazar de Russie contre les Chrestiens. Et après, les mariages de Diane, Leonide et autres, Antwerp: Lucas Breyer. Augustin (1570), Sainct Augustin, De la cité de Dieu . . . illustrée des commentaires de Jean Louys Vives . . . Le tout fait Françoys par Gentian Hervet . . . et enrichi de plu­ sieurs annotations et observations en marge, servans à la conference et intelligence des histoires anciennes et modernes par François de Belleforest, avec une table des choses plus memorables, ordonnée par lieux communs, Paris: N. Bruslé chez N. Chesneau.

Bibliography

459

Avenarius, G. (1956), Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung, Meisenheim am Glan: Hain. Azzolini, M. (2013), The Duke and the Stars. Astrology and Politics in Renaissance Milan, Harvard: University Press. Balavoine, C. (1984), “Bouquets de fleurs et colliers de perles: sur les recueils de formes brèves au XVI e siècle”, in J. Lafond, ed., Les Formes brèves de la prose et le discours discontinu (XVI e–XVII e siècles), Paris: Vrin, 51–71. Balbi de Correggio, F. (1568), La verdadera relación de todo lo que el año MDLXV ha sucedido en la isla de Malta, 2nd ed., Barcelona: Pedro Reigner. Ballesteros Pastor, L. (1996), Mitrídates Eupátor, rey del Ponto (Biblioteca de Estudios Clásicos 6), Granada: Universidad. Ballesteros Pastor, L. (2003), “Le discours du Scythe à Alexandre le Grand (QuinteCurce 7.8.12–30)”, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 146: 23–37. Ballesteros Pastor, L. (2006), “El discurso de Mitrídates en el Epítome de las Historias Filípicas de Pompeyo Trogo (XXXVIII 4–7): un estudio sobre las fuentes”, Mediterraneo Antico 9: 581–596. Ballesteros Pastor, L. (2009a), “Aproximación al estudio de los discursos en el Epítome de Justino”, Talia dixit 3: 29–42. Ballesteros Pastor, L. (2009b), “Pompeyo Trogo, Justino y las críticas a Roma: a propósito del discurso etolio (Iust. XXVIII, 2)”, Mediterraneo Antico 12: 381–392. Ballesteros Pastor, L. (2009c), “Troy, between Mithridates and Rome”, in J.M. Højte, ed., Mithridates VI and the Pontic Kingdom (Black Sea Studies 9), Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 217–231. Ballesteros Pastor, L. (2013a), “Nullis umquam nisi domesticis regibus. Cappadocia, Pontus and the Resistance to the Diadochi in Asia Minor”, in V. Alonso Troncoso and E.M. Anson, eds., After Alexander: The Time of the Diadochi (323–281 BC), Oxford: Oxbow Books, 183–198. Ballesteros Pastor, L. (2013b), Pompeyo Trogo, Justino y Mitrídates. Comentario al Epítome de las Historias Filípicas (37,1,6–38,8,1), (Spudasmata 154), Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York: Olms Verlag. Balmas, E. (1994), “La cultura italiana di Scudéry. Nuovi appunti”, in G. Dotoli, ed., Il Seicento francese oggi. Situazioni e prospettive della ricerca. Atti del Convegno internazionale. Monopoli, 27–29 maggio 1993, Bari and Paris: Adriatica and Nizet, 61–69. Balsamo, J. (1998), “Traduire de l’italien: ambitions sociales et contraintes éditoriales à la fin du XVI e siècle”, in D. de Courcelles, ed., Traduire et adapter à la Renaissance, Paris: École Nationale des Chartes, 89–98. Balsamo, J. (2015), L’amorevolezza verso le cose italiche: le livre italien à Paris au XVI e siècle, Geneva: Droz. Bandello, M. (1560), Continuation des histoires tragiques extraites de l’Italien Bandel, mises en langue Françoise par François de Belleforest, Paris: J. Longis and R. Le Mangnier.

460

Bibliography

Baños Baños, J.M. (2001), “Antologías de la literatura latina”, in G. Santana and E. Padorno, eds., La antología literaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Fundación Mapfre and Publicaciones de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 117–154. Barns, J. (1950), “A New Gnomologium: With Some Remarks on Gnomic Anthologies”, Classical Quarterly 44: 126–137. Barns, J. (1951), “A New Gnomologium: With Some Remarks on Gnomic Anthologies”, Classical Quarterly 45: 1–19. Baron, C.A. (2009), “The Use and Abuse of Historians. Polybius’ Book XII and our Evidence for Timaios”, Ancient Society 39: 1–34. Baron, C.A. (2013), Timaeus of Tauromenius and Hellenistic Historiography, Cambridge: University Press. Baron, H. (1956), “The Principe and the puzzle of the date of the Discorsi”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 18: 405–28. Baron, H. (1988), “Machiavelli the Republican Citizen and Author of The Prince”, in In Search of Florentine Civic Humanism, Princeton: University Press, vol. II, 101–51 (slightly revised version of “Machiavelli: the republican citizen and the author of The Prince”, English Historical Review, 76 [1961], 217–53). Battista, G. (1673), Giornate accademiche, Venice: Combi e La Nou. Battista, G. (1991), Opere, G. Rizzo ed., Galatina: Congedo. Bausi, F. (2005), Machiavelli, Rome: Salerno. Baynham, E.J. (1998), Alexander the Great. The Unique History of Quintus Curtius, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Beck, M. (2012), “Cellarius, Christophorus”, in P. Kuhlmann and H. Schneider, eds.: Geschichte der Altertumswissenschaften. Biographisches Lexikon (= Der Neue Pauly. Supplemente. Band 6), Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler, 210–212. Belleforest, F. de (1568), L’Histoire des neuf Roys Charles de France, Paris: Pierre L’Huillier. Belleforest, F. de (1572) [some copies dated 1573], Harengues militaires et concions de princes, capitaines, embassadeurs, et autres manians tant la guerre que les affaires d’Estat. Comprenant les grandes et urgentes negotiations de toutes les anciennes monarchies, et representant l’image et office des roys, legislateurs, orateurs, embassadeurs de roys, empereurs, potentats, republiques, et des excellens capitaines; le succez des divers estudes de factieux; les moyens de se prevaloir (és choses desplorées) de ceux qui sont estonnez; les moeurs de diverses nations, et les loix et coustumes de plusierus villes et provinces; le discours des faicts et plus secrets affaires des Hebrieux, Persans, Grecs, Romains, Françoys, Allemans, Goths, Vvandales, Lombards, Espagnols; comme aussi des pays plus esloignez et septentrionaux et jusques aux remuëmens faicts par les Barbares. Recueillis et faictes Françoyses par Françoys de Belle-Forest, Comingeois. Avec trois tables, l’une des matieres et subject de chascune harangue; l’autre des autheurs d’où elles sont prises; et la troisiesme, des sentences et choses plus memorables contenues en tout l’oeuvre, Paris: Nicolas Chesneau.

Bibliography

461

Belleforest, F. de (1575), La Cosmographie universelle de tout le monde, Paris: Michel Sonnius. Belleforest, F. de (1579), Les grandes annales et histoire générale de France, 2 vols., Paris: Chez Gabriel Buon. Belleforest, F. de (1581), Le trésor des Histoires tragiques de François de Belleforest, contenant les Harangues, Discours, Complaintes, Remonstrances, Exhortations, Missives, et autres Propos remarquables, contenus en icelles, Paris: Gervais Malot. Belleforest, F. de (1595), Harangues militaires, 2 vols., Geneva: De l’Imprimerie des heritiers Vignon. Bellini, E. (2008), “Le conquiste di Clio: letteratura e storia da Tasso a Manzoni”, in Studi in memoria di Cesare Mozzarelli, Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1083–1111. Bembo, P. (1552), Della historia vinitiana di m. Pietro Bembo card. volgarmente scritta. Libri XII, Venice: G. Scoto. Benedetti, A. (1967), Diario de bello Carolino (1496), D.M. Schullian, ed., New York: Renaissance Society of America. Benhaïm, V. (2000), “Les Thrésors d’Amadis”, in N. Cazauran and M. Bideaux, eds., 157–181. Bernardin, N.-M. (1895), Un précurseur de Racine: Tristan L’Hermite, sieur du Solier (1601–1655). Sa famille, sa vie, ses oeuvres, Paris: Alphonse Picard et Fils. Bertelli, S. (1965), “La conoscenza e la diffusione di Lucrezio nei codici umanistici italiani”, Rassegna degli archivi di stato 25: 271–86. Berti, M. (2013), “Istro alla scuola di Callimaco. Produzione e diffusione della ricerca nella biblioteca di Alessandria”, in F. Gazzano and G. Ottone, eds., Le età della trasmissione. Alessandria, Roma, Bisanzio, Rome: Tored, 157–173. Berti, N. (1987), Le Guerra di Cesare contro Pompeo. Commento storico a Cassio Dione libro XLI, Milan: Jaca Book. Bessi, R. (1990), “Un traduttore al lavoro: Donato Acciaiuoli e l’elaborazione del ­volgarizzamento delle Historiae”, in P. Viti, ed., Leonardo Bruni cancelliere della Repubblica di Firenze, Florence: Olschki, 321–338. Bessone, L. (1982), “La tradizione epitomatoria liviana in età imperiale”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.30.2, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1230–1263. Bevilacqua, L. (2012), “Basilio parakoimomenos, l’aristocrazia e la passione per le arti sotto i Macedoni”, in A. Acconcia Longo, G. Cavallo, A. Guiglia, and A. Iacobini, eds., La Sapienza bizantina. Un secolo di ricerche sulla civiltà di Bisanzio all’Università di Roma, Rome: Campisano, 183–197. Bevilacqua, L. (2013), “Basilio parakoimomenos e i manoscritti miniati: impronte di colore nell’Ambrosianus B 119 sup.”, in A. Rigo, A. Babuin, and M. Trizio, eds., Vie per Bisanzio. Atti del VII Congresso nazionale dell’Associazione italiana di Studi bizantini. Venezia, 25–28 novembre 2008, Bari: Edizioni di Pagina, 1013–1030.

462

Bibliography

Bianconi, D. (2004), “Haec tracta sunt ex Dionysio Alicarnasseo. Francesco Filelfo e il Vaticano Urb. gr. 105”, Medioevo greco 4: 31–63 Bianconi, L. (1991), “Il Seicento”, in Storia della musica, vol. IV, Turin: Einaudi. Bideaux, M. (2000), “Conclusions”, in N. Cazauran and M. Bideaux, eds. (2000) 201–208. Biffi, N. (2010), Scampoli di Mithridatika nella Geografia di Strabone, Bari: Edizioni dal Sud. Billanovich, G. (1981), Tradizione e fortuna di Livio tra medioevo e umanesimo, 2 vols., Padua: Antenore. Billault, A. (2002), “Plutarch’s Lives”, in G.N. Sandy, ed., The Classical Heritage in France, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 219–238. Bing, P. and J.S. Bruss (2007), “Introduction”, in P. Bing and J.S. Bruss, eds., Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1–26. Binham, W.J. (1978), A Study of the Livian Periochae and their relation to Livy’s Ab urbe condita, diss., University of Illinois. Binkley, P. (1997), Pre-Modern Encyclopaedic Texts, Leiden: Brill. Black, J. (2014), “The Duchy of Milan in Contemporary Historical Writing, ca. 1400– 1540”, in Ch.Th. Callisen, ed., Reading and Writing History from Bruni to Windschuttle. Essays in Honour of Gary Ianziti, Farnham: Ashgate, 57–72. Black, R. (1981), “Benedetto Accolti and the beginnings of humanist historiography”, English Historical Review 96: 36–58. Black, R. (1985), Benedetto Accolti and the Florentine Renaissance, Cambridge: University Press. Black, R. (2001), Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy. Tradition and Innovation in Latin Schools from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century, Cambridge: University Press. Black, R. (2004), “The School Miscellany in Medieval and Renaissance Italy”, in E. Crisci and O. Pecere, eds., 213–244. Black, R. (2007), Education and Society in Florentine Tuscany. Teachers, Pupils and Schools, c. 1250–1500, Leiden: Brill. Black, R. (2012), “A pupil of Marcello Virgilio Adriani at the Florentine Studio”, in S. Baldassarri, F. Ricciardelli, and E. Spagnesi, eds., Umanesimo e Università in Toscana (1300–1600). Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi (Fiesole-Firenze, 25–26 maggio 2011), Florence: Le Lettere, 15–32. Black, R. (2015), “Machiavelli and the grammarians: Benedetto Riccardini and Paolo Sassi da Ronciglione”, Archivio storico italiano 173: 427–481. Blair, A.M. (2010), Too Much to Know. Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age, New Haven: Yale University Press. Blanchot, M. (1955), L’Espace littéraire, Paris: Gallimard. Blois, L. de (1997), “Volk und Soldaten bei Cassius Dio”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.3, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2650–2676.

Bibliography

463

Blois, L. de (1998), “The World a City: Cassius Dio’s View of the Roman Empire”, in L. Aigner Foresti, A. Barzanò, C. Bearzot, L. Prandi, and G. Zecchini, eds., L’ecumenismo politico nella coscienza dell’Occidente, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 359–370. Blom, H. van der (2010), Cicero’s Role Models. The Political Strategy of a Newcomer, Oxford: University Press. Boaistuau, P. (1571), Histoires prodigieuses, extaictes de plusieurs fameux autheurs Grecs et Latins, sacrez et prophanes, divisées en deux tomes. Le premier mis en lumière par P. Boaisteau . . . Le second par Cl. de Tesserant, et augmenté de dix histoires par F. de Belleforest, Paris: J. de Bordeaux. Boiardo, M.M. (1533), Herodoto Alicarnaseo historico delle guerre de Greci et de Persi, tradotto di greco in lingua italiana per il conte Mattheo Maria Boiardo, Venice: Melchiore Sessa. Boltanski, A. (2006), Les Ducs de Nevers et l’état royal. Genèse d’un compromis (ca. 1550– ca. 1600), Geneva: Droz. Bonfait, O. (1988), Seicento. Le siècle de Caravage dans les collections françaises, Paris: Musées nationaux. Bongi, S. (1890–1895), Annali di G. Giolito de’ Ferrari, 2 vols., Rome: Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. Bongi, S. (2000) Annali di Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari da Trino di Monferrato stampatore in Venezia, 2 vols., Rome: Ministerio della Pubblica Istruzione, 1890–1895 (Reprint: Mansfield Centre, CT: Martino Publishing). Bonner, S.F. (1969), The Literary Treatises of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, A Study in the Development of Critical Method [1939], Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. Borgna, A. (2013), Uno sguardo intorno a Roma. Commento a Giustino, Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi, XXXVIII.8–XLIV, diss., Università di Torino. Borgna, A. (2014), “Il De Animalibus e la leggenda delle origini in Pompeo Trogo (Iust. 43.2)”, Athenaeum 102: 111–125. Borsetto, L. (1990), Il furto di Prometeo. Imitazione, scrittura e riscrittura nel Rinascimento, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’ Orso. Bosio, J. (1594), Dell’Istoria della sacra religione e illustrissima militia di San Giovanni Gierosolimitano. Parte Seconda, Rome: Stamperia Vaticana. Botero García, M.M. (2010), “De Montalvo a Herberay des Essarts: el Amadís de Gaula en Francia, entre traducción y adaptación”, Literatura: teoría, historia, crítica 12: 15–37. Botley, P. (2004), Latin Translation in the Rennaisance. The Theory and Practice of Leonardo Bruni, Giannozzo Manetti and Desiderius Erasmus, Cambridge: University Press. Boudou, B. (2000), Mars et les Muses dans l’Apologie pour Herodote d’Henri Estienne, Geneva: Droz.

464

Bibliography

Boudou, B. (2001), “Henri Estienne éditeur d’historiens, ou Comment écrire l’Histoire”, Nouvelle revue du seizième siecle 19: 37–50. Boudou, B. (2003), “La réception d’Herodote au XVI e siècle”, in G. Lachenaud and D. Longrée, eds., Grecs et Romains aux prises avec l’Histoire. Représentations, récits et idéologies, vol. 2, Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 729–743. Boudou, B. (2007), Henri Estienne. Traité preparatif à l’Apologie pour Herodote, Geneva: Droz. Bouquiaux-Simon, O. and P. Mertens (1991), “Les papyrus de Thucydide”, Chronique d’ Égypte 66: 198–210. Boura, L. (1989), “῾Ο Βασίλειος Λεκαπηνός παραγγελιοδότης ἔργων τέχνης”, in Κωνσταντίνος Ζ´ ὁ Πορφυρογέννητος καὶ ἡ εποχή του. Β´ Διέθνης Βυζαντινολογική Συνάντηση, Δελφοί, 22–26 Ιουλίου 1987, Athens: Eurōpaïko Politistiko Kentro Delphōn, 397–434. Bourciez, É. (1967), Les mœurs polies et la littérature de cour sous Henri II, Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. Bouza, F. (2005), “Letra de España. La nueva fábrica tipográfica de Pedro de Disses (1685)”, Hispania 65: 957–972. Bracciolini, P. (1476), Historia fiorentina, Venice: Iacopo de Rossi. Brand, P. and L. Pertile, eds. (1996), The Cambridge History of Italian Literature, Cambridge: University Press. Breccia, G. (2001), “ ‘Con assennato coraggio . . .’. L’arte della guerra a Bisanzio tra Oriente e Occidente”, Medioevo Greco: Rivista di Storia e Filologia Bizantina 1: 53–78. Breccia, G. (2009), L’arte della guerra. Da Sun Tzu a Clausewitz, Turin: Einaudi. Breisach, E. (2007), Historiography. Ancient, Medieval, Modern, 3rd ed., Chicago: University Press. Breitenstein, R.-C. (2008), “Représentation de l’histoire et parole féminine dans Les Femmes illustres ou les Harangues héroïques des Scudéry”, in S. Steinberg and J.-C. Arnold, eds., Les Femmes et l’écriture de l’histoire, 1400–1800, Mont-Saint-Aignan: Publications des universités de Rouen et du Havre, 341–353. Brock, R. (1995), “Versions, ‘inversions’ and evasions: Classical Historiography and the ‘published’ speech”, Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 8: 209–224. Brokkar, W.G. (1972), “Basil Lecapenus. Byzantium in the tenth century”, Studia Byzantina Neohellenica Neerlandica 3: 199–234. Brown, A. (2010), The Return of Lucretius to Renaissance Florence, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Brown, V., J. Hankins, and R.A. Kaster, eds. (2003), Catalogus translationum et commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, vol. VIII, Washinghton D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press. Brown, V., P.O. Kristeller, and E. Cranz, eds. (1992), Catalogus translationum et commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, vol. VII, Washinghton D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.

Bibliography

465

Brunacci, G. (1662), Vita di Gio. Francesco Loredano senator veneto, Venice: Guerigli. Bruni, A. (1627), Epistole eroiche, Rome: G. Facciotti. Bruni, A. (1993), Epistole eroiche, G. Rizzo, ed., Galatina: Congedo. Bruni, L. (1861), Istoria fiorentina, trans. D. Acciaiuoli, Florence: Felice Le Monnier. Bruni, L. (2001–2007), The History of the Florentine People, J. Hankins, ed., 3 vols., Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Brunt, P.A. (1980), “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes”, Classical Quarterly 30: 477–494. Buchheit, V. (1960), Untersuchungen zur Theorie des Genos Epideiktikon von Gorgias bis Aristoteles, Munich: Max Hueber Verlag. Bueno. L. (2003), Heroínas con voz propia: el discurso femenino en los dramas de Calderón, Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura. Buongiovanni, C. (2009), “Il generale e il suo ‘pubblico’: le allocuzioni alle truppe in Sallustio, Tacito e Ammiano Marcellino”, in G. Abbamonte, L. Miletti, and L. Spina, eds., 63–80. Burke, P. (1966), “A Survey of the Popularity of Ancient Historians 1450–1700”, History and Theory 5: 135–152. Burke, P. (2000), A Social History of Knowledge I. From Gutenberg to Diderot, Cambridge: University Press. Burke, P. (2011), “Historical discourse in Renaissance Italy”, in N.H. Petersen, E. Ostrem, and A. Bücker, eds., Resonances: Historical Essays on Continuity and Change, Turnhout: Brepols, 113–126. Burke, P. and R. Po-chia Hsia, eds. (2007), Cultural Translation in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: University Press. Busini, G. (1860), Lettere a Benedetto Varchi sopra l’assedio di Firenze, G. Milanesi, ed., Florence: Felice Le Monnier. Büttner-Wobst, J.R.Th. (1906), “Die Anlage der historischen Encyklopädie des Konstantinos Porphyrogenitos”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 15: 88–120. Cacho Blecua, J.M. (1979), Amadís: heroismo mítico cortesano, Madrid: Cupsa and Universidad de Zaragoza. Cacho Blecua, J.M. (1991), “Introducción a la obra literaria de Juan Fernández de Heredia”, in T. Buesa Oliver and A. Egido, eds., I Curso sobre Lengua y Literatura en Aragón (Edad Media), Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico, 171–195. Cacho Blecua, J.M. (1997), El Gran Maestre Juan Fernández de Heredia, Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico. Cacho Blecua, J.M., coord., A.C. Bueno Serrano, P. Esteban Erlés, and K.X. Luna Mariscal, eds. (2007), De la literatura caballeresca al “Quijote”, Zaragoza: Prensas Universitarias. Campana, L. (1907), “Monsignor Giovanni della Casa e i suoi tempi”, Studi storici 16: 3–84.

466

Bibliography

Canard, M. (1953), Histoire de la Dynastie des H’amdanides de Jazîra et de Syrie, vol. 1, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Candau, J.M. (2004–2005), “Plutarco como transmisor de Timeo. La Vida de Nicias”, Ploutarchos, n.s. 2: 11–34. Candau, J.M. (2010), “Timeo en el léxico Suda”, in G. Vanotti, ed., Il lessico Suda e gli storici greci in frammenti, Rome: Tored, 295–305. Candau, J.M. (2011), “Plutarco y la historiografía trágica”, in J.M. Candau, F.J. González Ponce, and A.L. Chávez, eds., Plutarco Transmisor. Actas del X Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Plutarquistas, Sevilla: Universidad, 147–170. Canfora, L. (1974), Teoria e tecnica della storiografia classica. Luciano, Plutarco, Dionigi, Anonimo su Tucidide, Rome: Laterza. Canfora, L. (1986), “Per una storia del canone degli storici: il caso del corpus sallustiano”, in A. Giardina, ed., Società romana e impero tardoantico, vol. IV, Rome-Bari: Laterza, 3–10. Canfora, L. (1987), “Per una storia del corpus sallustianum”, in Filologia e forme letterarie. Studi offerti a Francesco della Corte, vol. 2, Urbino: Università, 377–398. Canfora, L. (2002), Il copista come autore, Palermo: Sellerio Editore. Cannetus, P., ed. (1759), Ambrosii Traversarii Generalis Camaldulensium aliorumque ad ipsum, et ad alios de eodem Ambrosio latinae epistolae a Domino Petro Canneto Abbate Camaldulensi in libros XXV tributae variorum opera distinctae, et observationibus illustratae, Florence: ex typ. Caesareo. Cantimori, D. (1937), “Rhetoric and politics in Italian humanism”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 1: 83–102 Capella, G. (1539), Commentarii delle cose fatte per la restitutione di Francesco Sforza Secondo Duca di Milano, trans. F. Filipopoli, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Capelloni, L. (1576), Ragionamenti vari sopra essempii, Genoa: M.A. Bellone. Caputo, V. (2007), “Le vite in tipografia: Dolce, Porcacchi, Varchi e Nannini nella stamperia del Giolito”, Studi rinascimentali 5: 87–102. Carlini, A. (1970–1971), “Appunti sulle traduzioni latine di Isocrate di Lapo da Castiglionchio”, Studi classici e orientali 19–20: 302–309. Carminati, C. (2005), “Giovan Francesco Loredan”, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 65, Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Treccani, 761–770. Carminati, C. (2007), “Narrazione e storia nella riflessione dei romanzieri secenteschi”, in C. Carminati and V. Nider, eds., 37–108. Carminati, C. and V. Nider, eds. (2007), Narrazione e storia tra Italia e Spagna nel Seicento, Trent: Università di Trento. Carmona, D. (2009), “Épica, historiografía y retórica: la epipólesis a diferentes naciones en la historiografía grecolatina”, Talia dixit 4: 1–28. Carmona, D. (2014), La escena típica de la epipólesis. De la épica a la historiografía, Rome: Edizioni Quasar.

Bibliography

467

Carrasco Manchado, A.I. (2000), Discurso político y propaganda en la corte de los Reyes Católicos (1474–1482), diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Carrasco Manchado, A.I. (2006), Isabel de Castilla y la sombra de la ilegitimidad. Propaganda y representación en el conflicto sucesorio (1474–1482), Madrid: Sílex. Carriazo, J. de M. (1943), Pulgar: Crónica de los Reyes Católicos. “Versión inédita”, Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Carriazo, J. de M. (1954), “Las arengas de Pulgar”, Anales Universidad Hispalense 15: 43–74. Carro Carvajal, E.B., L. Puerto Moro, and M. Sanchez Pérez, eds. (2002), Libros de caballerías (de “Amadís” al “Quijote”). Poética, lectura, representación e identidad, Salamanca: Seminario de Estudios Medievales y Renacentistas. Carsana, C. (2007), Commento storico al libro II delle Guerre Civili di Appiano, Pisa: ETS. Casadei, A. (1987), “Note Machiavelliane”, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe Lettere e Filosofia, ser. III, 17: 447–464. Cassius Dio (1548), Dione delle guerre de’ Romani, tradotto da M. Nicolò Leoniceno, Venice: [Pietro Nicolini da Sabbio]. Cassius Dio (1591), Τῶν Δίωνος τοῦ Κασσίου Ρωμαικῶν ἱστοριῶν βιβλία πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι. Dionis Cassii Romanarum Historiarum libri XXV, ex Guilielmi Xylandri interpretatione, Geneva: H. Estienne. Castro Sánchez, J. (1995), Justino. Epítome de las “Historias Filípicas” de Pompeyo Trogo. Prólogos. Pompeyo Trogo. Fragmentos, Madrid: Gredos (Biblioteca Clásica 212). Cátedra, P.M. (1985), “Algunas obras perdidas de Enrique de Villena con consideraciones sobre su obra y su biblioteca”, El Crotalón 2: 53–73. Cattaneo, G.M. (1517), Aphtonii Sophistae Preexercitamentorum libellus, Milano: Mazzocchi. Cavallo, G. (2001), “ ‘Foglie che fremono sui rami’. Bisanzio e i testi classici”, in S. Settis, ed., I Greci. Storia cultura arte società. I Greci oltre la Grecia, Turin: Einaudi, 593–628. Cawsey, S.F. (2002), Kingship and Propaganda. Royal Eloquence and the Crown of Aragon 1220–1450, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cazauran, N., ed. (1988), Henri Estienne, Paris: Editions Rue d’Ulm. Cazauran, N. and Bideaux, M., eds. (2000), Les Amadis en France au XVI e siècle, Paris: Editions Rue d’Ulm. Cazes, H. (1994), “De sortilèges en florilèges, suites et séries livresques au XVI e siècle”, en B. Rougé, ed., Suites et séries, Pau: Vrin, 15–22. Cazes, H. (2002), “Les mille et une pages d’Henri Estienne et de ses lecteurs: le recueil infini”, Études Françaises (numéro thématique Le simple, le multiple: la disposition du recueil à la Renaissance) 38.3: 71–80. Cazes, H. (2008a), “Genèse et renaissance des Apophthegmes: aventures humanistes”, in O. Guerrier, ed., “Moralia” et “Oeuvres morales” à la Renaissance, Paris: H. Champion, 15–36.

468

Bibliography

Cazes, H. (2008b), “Le rameau et les couronnes: deux oliviers aux titres d’Henri Estienne (1530–1598)”, in A. Vanautgaerden and J.-F. Gilmont, eds., La page de titre a la Renaissance, Turnhout: Brepols and Musée de la Maison d’Érasme, 185–209. Celenza, Ch. (1997), “Parallel Lives: Plutarch’s Lives, Lapo da Castiglionchio the Younger (1405–1438) and the Art of Italian Renaissance Translation”, Illinois Classical Studies 22: 121–155. Celenza, Ch. (1999), Renaissance Humanism and the Papal Curia: Lapo da Castiglionchio the Younger’s De Curiae Commodis, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Centorio, A. (1566), Commentarii della Guerra di Transilvania, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Centorio, A. (1558), Il primo discorso di Ascanio Centorio, sopra l’ufficio d’un capitano generale di essercito, Venice: G. Giolito de Ferrari. Centorio, A. (1558), Il secondo discorso di guerra del signor Ascanio Centorio, sopra l’ordine che deue tenere un capitan generale per espugnar una provincia, Venice: G. Giolito de Ferrari. Cervantes, M. de (2007), Don Quijote de la Mancha [1605–1615], F. Rico, ed., Madrid: Punto de Lectura. Cevolini, A. (2006), De arte excerpendi. Imparare a dimenticare nella modernità, Florence: Olschki. Chaix, P., A. Dufour, and G. Moeckly (1966), Les livres imprimés a Genève de 1550 à 1600, Geneva: Droz. Chaplin, J.D. (2010), “The Livian Periochae and the Last Republican Writer”, in M. Horster and Ch. Reitz, eds., 451–468. Chas, A. (2002), Preguntas y respuestas en la poesía cancioneril castellana, Madrid: Fundación Universitaria Española. Cherchi, P. (1995), “1561: Hamlet Born Anew in Italy”, Classicorroena 6: 1–7. Cherchi, P. (1998), Polimatia di riuso: Mezzo secolo di plagio (1539–1589), Rome: Bulzoni. Chevalier, M. (1968), Sur le public des romans de chevalerie, Talence: Institut d’Études Ibériques et Ibéro-américaines de l’Université de Bordeaux. Chevalier, M. (1988), “Brantôme Hispanista”, in K.-H. Körner and M. Vitse, eds., Las influencias mutuas entre España y Europa a partir del siglo XVI, Wiesbaden: Wolfenbütteler Forschungen, 49–56. Chocheyras, J. (1965), “Les traductions françaises de Salluste au cours de la Renaissance”, Revue de littérature comparée 39: 22–30. Chrissanthos, S.G. (2001), “Caesar and the Mutiny of 47 bc”, Journal of Roman Studies 91: 63–75. Chrissanthos, S.G. (2013), “Keeping Military Discipline”, in B. Campbell and L.A. Tritle, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World, Oxford: University Press, 312–329. Christ, K. (1974), “Caesar und Ariovist”, Chiron 4: 251–292.

Bibliography

469

Christesen, P. (2007), Olympic Victor Lists and Ancient Greek History, Cambridge: University Press. Cicero (1566), Les epistres familieres de Marc Tulle Ciceron, père de l’éloquence, faites Françoises par E. Dolet et F. de Belleforest . . . avec les argumens sur chacune epistre, tables et maniere d’entendre la date des Latins, Paris: F. Prévost pour V. Normant et J. Bruneau, 1655. Cioranesco, A. (1937), “Les Rodomontades espagnoles de N. Bauduoin”, Bulletin Hispanique 39: 339–355. Cirilli, F. (2006), “Antonio Lupis”, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 66, Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Treccani, 615–616. Classen, C.J. (1883), Untersuchungen über Timaios von Tauromenios, Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer. Classen, C.J. (2003), Antike Rhetorik im Zeitalter des Humanismus, Munich: Saur. Clément, L. (1899), Henri Estienne et son ouvre francaise, Paris: Picard et fils. Cochrane, E. (1981), Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance, Chicago: University Press. Codoñer, C. (1986), Evolución del concepto de historiografía en Roma, Barcelona: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Cole, Th. (1986), “Le origini della retorica”, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 23: 7–21. Cole, Th. (1991), The Origins of the Rhetoric in Ancient Greece, Chicago: University Press. Collart, P. (1943), “Les fragments des tragiques grecs sur papyrus”, Revue de Philolologie 17: 5–36. Colomer, J.L. (1990), “Un tableau littéraire et académique au XVI e siècle. L’enlevement d’Hélène de Guido Reni”, Revue de l’Art 90: 74–87. Compagnon, M.A. (2007), “Joseph Reinach et l’éloquence française”, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 151: 1117–1140. Compere, M.M. and D. Pralon-Julia (1992), Performances scolaires de collégiens sous l’Ancien Régime. Études d’exercices latins rédigés au collège Louis-le-Grand vers 1720, Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne. Comploi, S. (2002), “Frauendarstellungen bei Fremdvölkern in den Historiae Philippicae des Pompeius Trogus / Justin”, in C. Ulf and R. Rollinger, eds., Geschlechter, Frauen, fremde Ethnien in antiker Ethnographie, Theorie und Realität, Innsbruck: Studien, 331–359. Conley, Th. (1990), Rhetoric in the European Tradition, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Connell, W.J., tr. and ed. (2005), Machiavelli, The Prince, Boston: Bedford / St. Martin’s. Connell, W.J. (2012), “Italian Renaissance Historical Narrative”, in J. Rabasa, M. Sato, E. Tortarolo, and D. Woolf, eds., The Oxford History of Historical Writing: Volume III: 1400–1800, Oxford: University Press, 347–363.

470

Bibliography

Considine, J. (2008), Dictionaries in Early Modern Europe: Lexicography and the Making of Heritage, Cambridge: University Press. Conrieri, D. (2016), “Una traduzione settecentesca spagnola dai Ritratti critici di Francesco Fulvio Frugoni”, in M. Graziani and S. Vuelta García, eds., II Giornata di Studi Relazioni linguistiche e letterarie tra Italia e mondo iberico in età moderna, Florence: Olschki, 41–51. Conte, G.B. (1991), Generi e lettori. Lucrezio, l’elegia d’amore e l’enciclopedia di Plinio, Milan: Arnaldo Mondadori. Cooper, R. (1990), “ ‘Notre histoire renouvelée’: the reception of the Romances of Chivalry in Renaissance France (with Bibliography)”, in S. Anglo, ed., Chivalry in the Renaissance, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 175–191. Coppens, Ch. and A. Nuovo (2005), I Giolito e la stampa nell’Italia del XVI secolo, Geneva: Droz. CORDE: Corpus diacrónico del español. Online database. http://www.rae.es Corio, B. (1554), L’historia di Milano volgarmente scritta dall’eccellentissimo oratore m. Bernardino Corio gentil’huomo milanese . . . Con le vite insieme di tutti gli imperatori incominciando da Giulio Cesare fino a Federico Barbarossa scritte dal medesimo. Di nuovo ristampata et in molti luoghi per quanto s’a potuto riformata e ristaurata con belle postille nel margine, Venice: G.M. I Bonelli. Cortés Arrese, M. (1983), “Juan Fernández de Heredia, Gran Maestre de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén: una aproximación a su imagen”, Anuario de Estudios Medievales 13: 330–336. Cortés Arrese, M. (1987), Juan Fernández de Heredia. Empelte I, Caspe: Grupo Cultural Caspolino. Cortés Arrese, M. (1996), “Algunos aspectos del mecenazgo artístico de Juan Fernández de Heredia”, in A. Egido and J.M. Enguita, eds., Juan Fernández de Heredia y su época. IV Curso sobre Lengua y Literatura en Aragón, Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico, 31–56. Cosentino, S. (2001), “Per una nuova edizione dei Naumachica ambrosiani. Il De fluminibus traiciendis (Strat. XII B, 21)”, Bizantinistica 3: 63–107. Cosentino, S. (2009), “Writing about War in Byzantium”, História das ideias 30: 83–99. Costa, V. (2007), Filocoro di Atene 1. Testimonianze e frammenti dell’Atthis, Tivoli: Tored. Cresci, L.R. (2002), “Diplomazia tra retorica e ideologia nella monografia storica del xii secolo”, in L.R. Cresci, F. Gazzano, and D.P. Orsi, eds., La retorica della diplomazia nella Grecia antica e a Bisanzio, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 133–166. Cresci, L.R. (2004), “Exempla storici greci negli encomi e nella storiografia bizantini del XII secolo,” Rhetorica 22: 115–145. Crisci, E. (2004), “I più antichi codici miscellanei greci. Materiali per una riflessione”, in E. Crisci and O. Pecere, eds., 109–144.

Bibliography

471

Crisci, E. and O. Pecere, eds. (2004), Il codice miscellaneo. Tipologie e funzioni. Atti del Convegno internazionale. Cassino 14–17 maggio 2003, Turnhout: Brepols. Cristofoli, R. (2002), Dopo Cesare. La scena politica romana all’indomani del cesaricidio, Naples: ESI. Cristofoli, R. (2008), Antonio e Cesare: anni 54–44 a.C., Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Cristofoli, R. (2014), “Contro Antonio e contro il console Antonio. Piani cronologici e riflessi politici degli attacchi della divina Philippica”, in R. Cristofoli, A. Galimberti, and F. Rohr Vio, eds., Lo spazio del non-allineamento a Roma fra tarda Repubblica e primo principato. Forme e figure dell’opposizione politica, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 59–78. Cuneo, P., ed. (2002), Artful Armies, Beautiful Battles. Art and Warfare in Early Modern Europe, Leiden: Brill. Curtius, R.E. (1981), Literatura europea y Edad Media Latina, trans. M. Frenk and A. Alatorre, 2 vols., Mexico, D.F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Cyrillo, S. (1832), Codices Graeci MSS. Regiae Bibliothecae Borbonicae descripti atque illustrati a Salvatore Cyrillo, vol. 2, Naples: Biblioteca Nazionale. Dagron, M.G. (1983), “Byzance et le modèle islamique au Xe siècle. À propos des Constitutions Tactiques de l’empereur Léon VI”, Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres 127.2: 219–243. Dain, A. (1931), “Les cinq adaptations byzantines des Stratagèmes de Polyen”, Revue des Études Anciennes 33: 321–345. Dain, A. (1946), Histoire du texte d’Élien le Tacticien. Des origines a la fin du moyen âge, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Dain, A. (1946–1947), “Inventaire raisonné des cent manuscrits des Constitutions tactiques de Leon VI le Sage”, Scriptorium 1: 33–49. Dain, A. (1953), “L’encyclopédisme de Constantin Porphyrogénète”, Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé 4: 64–81. Dain, A. (1954), La transmission des textes litteraires classiques de Photius a Costantin Porphyrogenete, Harvard: University Press. Dain, A. and J.-A. de Foucault, eds. (1967), “Les stratégistes byzantins”, Travaux et Mémoires 2: 317–392. Dandelet, Th.J. (2002), “Politics and the State System after the Habsburg-Valois Wars”, in J.A. Marino, ed., Early Modern Italy, Oxford: Univeristy Press, 11–29. Darrouzès, J. (1960), Épistoliers byzantins du Xe siècle, Paris: Institut Français des Études Byzantines. Daubresse, S. (2005), Le Parlement de Paris ou la voix de la raison (1559–1589), Geneva: Droz. David, J.-M. (1998), “Les enjeux de l’exemplarité à la fin de la République et au début du Principat”, in J.M. David, ed., Valeurs et mémoire à Rome. Valère Maxime ou la vertu recomposée, Paris: De Boccard, 9–17.

472

Bibliography

David, J.-M. (2007), “Rhetoric and Public Life”, in N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx, eds., A Companion to the Roman Republic, Oxford: Blackwell, 383–438. Davidson, H.E. (1980), Saxo Grammaticus’ History of the Danes, tr. P. Fisher, ed. H.E. Davidson, 2 vols., Cambridge: D.S. Brewer. De Boor, C. (1912), “Suidas und die Konstantinische Excerptsammlung I”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 21: 381–424. De Boor, C. (1914–1919), “Suidas und die Konstantinische Excerptsammlung II”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 23:1–127. De Caro, G. (1978), “Castaldo, Giovanni Battista”, in Dizionario Biografico degli italiani, vol. 21, Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, 562–566. De Jonge, C.C. (2008), Between Grammar and Rhetoric. Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature, Leiden and Boston: Brill. De Jonge, C.C. (2011), “Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the Scholia on Thucydides’ Syntax”, in S. Matthaios, F. Montanari, and A. Rengakos, eds., Ancient Scholarship and Grammar. Archetypes, Concepts and Contexts, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 451–478. De Mattei, R. (1961), “Dispute filosofico-politiche nelle Accademie romane del Seicento”, Studi romani 9: 148–167. De Miranda, G. (2000), Una quiete operosa. Forma e pratiche dell’Accademia napoletana degli Oziosi, Naples: Fridericiana Editrice Universitaria. De Voyer, M.A.R., marquis de Paulmy d’Argenson (1782), Mélanges tirés d’une grande bibliothèque, Paris: Chez Moutard. Debofle, P. (1995), François de Belleforest (1530–1583). Un écrivain de Samatan au siècle de l’Humanisme et des Guerres de religion, Samatan: Association “Autour de François de Belleforest”. Dell’origine de’ Barbari, che distrussero per tutto ‘l mondo l’imperio di Roma (1557), Venice: Plinio Pietrasanta. Den Boer, H. (1995), La literatura sefardí de Amsterdam, Alcalá de Henares: Instituto Internacional de Estudios Sefardíes y Andalusíes and Universidad de Alcalá. Dennis, G.T. (1997), “The Byzantines in Battle”, in Το εμπόλεμο Βυζάντιο (9ος–12αι.). Byzantium at War (9th–12th c.), Athens: Goulandri-Horn Foundation, 165–178 (= Byzantine Warfare [2007], J. Haldon, ed., Aldershot: Ashgate, 223–236). Dennis, G.T. (2014), The Taktika of Leo VI, text, tr., and comm. G. Dennis, 2nd rev. ed., Washington: Dumbarton Oaks. Devincenzo, G. (2002), Marie de Gournay: un cas littéraire, Paris: Sorbonne. Devoto, D. (1972), “Amadís de Galia”, Bulletin Hispanique 74: 406–435. Di Filippo Bareggi, C. (1988), Il mestiere di scrivere. Lavoro intelletuale e mercato librario a Venezia nel Cinquecento, Rome: Bulzoni. Dictionnaire du Moyen Français (1330–1500) (2012), Nancy: ATILF—CNRS and Université de Lorraine.

Bibliography

473

Didot, A.-F. (1856), Nouvelle Biographie générale depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’à nos jours, vol. 16, Paris: F. Didot Frères. Dionisotti, C. (1980), Machiavellerie, Turin: Einaudi. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, www.treccani.it/biografie Domenichi, L. (1547), I sette libri della Imprese di Ciro Minori, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Domenichi. L. (1548), I Sette Libri de i Fatti dei Greci di Senofonte tradotti per Ludovicho Domenichi, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Domenichi, L. (1548), Della vita di Ciro re de Persi, tradotto per messer Lodouico Dominichi, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Domínguez Bordona, J. (1920), “Libros miniados en Aviñón para Juan Fernández de Heredia”, Museum 6: 319–327. Donati, C. (2007), “The Profession of Arms and the Nobility in Spanish Italy: Some Considerations”, in Th.J. Dandelet and J.A. Marino, eds., Spain in Italy. Politics, Society, and Religion 1500–1700, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 299–324. Dorandi, T. (2000), Le stylet et la tablette: dans le secret des auteurs antiques, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Douay-Souvlin, F. (1997), “Les recueils de discours français pour la classe de rhétorique (XVIIIe–XIXe siècles)”, Histoire de l’éducation 74: 151–185. Douay-Souvlin, F. (1999), “La Rhétorique en France au XIXe siècle à travers ses pratiques et ses institutions: Restauration, renaissance, remise en cause”, in M. Fumaroli, ed., 1071–1214. Du Verdier, A. (1773), Bibliothèque françoise [1585], vol. 3, Paris, Saillant and Nyon: Michel Lambert. Duché-Gavet, V. (2008), “Si du mont Pyrenée / N’eussent passé le haut fait . . .” Les romans sentimentaux traduits de l’espagnol en France au XVI e siècle, Paris: Champion. Dunbabin, J. (1998), Charles I of Anjou: Power, Kingship and State-Making in ThirteenthCentury Europe, London and New York: Longman. Dunn, F.M. and T. Cole, eds. (1992), Beginnings in Classical Literature, Yale Classical Studies 29. Dupont, P. (1854), Histoire de l’imprimerie, vol. 2, Paris: Tous les Libraires. Early English Books Online: Text Creation Partnership, . Egido, A. (1988), “Literatura efímera: oralidad y escritura en los certámenes y academias de los Siglos de Oro”, Edad de Oro 7: 69–87. Eichel-Lojkine, P., ed. (2010), Claude de Seyssel. Écrire l’histoire, penser le politique en France, à l’aube des temps modernes, Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Eleuteri, P. and P. Canart (1991), “Lapo da Castiglionchio il Giovane (c. 1406–1438)”, in Scrittura greca nell’umanesimo italiano, Milano: Edizioni Il Polifilo, n. lxxiv. Elia, P., ed. (1982), Pulgar: Letras, critical edition, introduction, and notes, Pisa: Giardini.

474

Bibliography

Elm, K., ed. (2000), Florilegien. Kompilationen. Kollektionen, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (Wolfenbütteler Mittelalter-Studien 15). Emilio, Paolo (1518), De rebus gestis Francorum, Paris: J. Bade. Eramo, I. (2007), “῏Ω ἄνδρες στρατιῶται. Demegorie protrettiche nell’Ambrosianus B 119 sup.”, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Bari 50: 127–165. Eramo, I. (2008), “Omero e i Maccabei: nella biblioteca di Siriano Μάγιστρος”, Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università degli Studi di Bari 51: 123–147. Eramo, I., ed. (2010a), Siriano, Discorsi di guerra, ed., tr. and notes, with a presentation by L. Canfora, Bari: Dedalo. Eramo, I. (2010b), “Retorica militare fra tradizione protrettica e pensiero strategico”, Talia dixit 5: 25–44. Eramo, I. (2011), “Sul compendio militare di Siriano Magister”, Rivista Storica dell’Antichità 41: 201–222. Eramo, I. (2012), “Composition and structure of Syrianus Magister’s military compendium”, Classica et Christiana 7: 97–116. Erasmus, D. (1551), Adagiorum chiliades quatuor, Basel: Froben. Erskine, A. (2001), Troy between Greece and Rome. Local Tradition and Imperial Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Estienne, H. (1564), Θουκυδίδου τοῦ Ὀλοροῦ περί τοῦ Πελοποννησιακοῦ πολέμου βίβλια ὀκτώ. Thucydidis Olorii filii de bello Peloponnesiaco libri octo. Iidem Latine, ex interpretatione Laurentii Vallae ab Henrico Stephano recognita, n.p.: H. Estienne. Estienne, H. (1566a), Herodoti Halicarnassei historiae lib. IX et de vita Homeri libellus. Illi interpretatione Laur. Vallae adscripta, hic ex interpret. Conradi Heresbachii, vtraque ab Henr. Stephani recognita. Ex Ctesia excerptae historiae, n.p.: H. Estienne. Estienne, H. (1566b), Poetae Graeci Principes Heroici Carminis, Geneva: U. Fugger. Estienne, H. (1568), Varii historiae Romanae scriptores, partim Graeci, partim Latini, in unum velut corpus redacti, de rebus gestis ab Vrbe condita usque ad imperii Constantinopolin traslati tempora. Nomina eorum quos habes hic authorum, proxime sequentes paginae te docebunt, Geneva: H. Estienne. Estienne, H. (1569), “Index librorum qui ex officina Henrici Stephani hactenus prodierunt”, in Epistola, qua ad multas multorum amicorum respondet de suae typographiae statu, nominatimque de suo Thesauro Linguae Graecae. In posteriore autem eius parte quam misera sit hoc tempore veterum scriptorum conditio in quorumdam typographorum prela incidentium exponit. Index librorum qui ex officina eiusdem Henrici Stephani hactenus prodierunt, n.p.: H. Estienne. Estienne, H. (1570a), Conciones siue orationes ex Graecis Latinisque historicis excerptae. Quae ex Graecis excerptae sunt, interpretationem Latinam adiunctam habent, nonnullae nouam, aliae iam antea vulgatam, sed nunc demum plerisque in locis recognitam. Argumenta singulis praefixa sunt, lectori adiumenta magno futura. Additus

Bibliography

475

est index artificiosissimus et utilissimus, quo in rhetorica causarum genera, uelut in communes locos, singulae conciones rediguntur, Geneva: H. Estienne. Estienne, H. (1570b), Ἡροδοτου τοῦ Ἁλικαρνασσέως Ἱστορία ἤ ἱστοριῶν λόγοι Θ҆ ἐπιγραφόμενοι Μοῦσαι. Herodoti Halicarnassei Historia, siue Historiarum libri XI, qui inscribitur Musae, ex uetustis exemplaribus recogniti. Ctesiae quaedam, Geneva: H. Estienne. Estienne, H. (1575), Τῶν Παλαιῶν ῥητορῶν λόγοι: Αἰσχίνου, Λυσίου, Ἀνδοκίδου, Ἰσαίου, Δεινάρχου, Ἀντίφωντος, Λυκούργου, Ἡρώδου, καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν. Oratorum veterum orationes, Aeschinis, Lysiae, Andocidis, Isaei, Dinarchi, Antiphontis, Lycurgi, Herodis et aliorum, Geneva: H. Estienne. Estienne, R. (1531), Dictionarium seu Latinae linguae Thesaurus, Paris: R. Estienne. Estienne, R. (1549), Dictionnaire Francois-Latin, autrement dict les mots Francois, avec les manieres d’user d’iceulx, tournez en Latin, corrigé et augmenté, Paris: R. Estienne. Estienne, R. (1595), De Lipsii Latinitate (ut ipsimet antiquarium Lipsii stylum indigitant), Frankfurt: H. Estienne. Estienne, R. (1770), Roberti Stephani lexicographorum principis Thesaurus linguae Latinae in IV tomos divisus, Basel: E. and J.R. Thurneisen. Faulhaber, Ch.B., Á. Gómez Moreno, D. Mackenzie, J.J. Nitti, and B. Dutton, eds. (1984), Bibliography of Old Spanish Texts, 3rd ed., Madison: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies. Falivene, M.R. (2010), “Greek Anthologies on Papyrus and their Readers in Early Ptolemaic Egypt”, in T. Gagos and A. Hyatt, eds., Proceedings of the 25th International Congress of Papyrology. Ann Arbor, July 29–August 4, 2007, Ann Arbor: American Studies in Papyrology, 207–215. Fantuzzi, M. and R. Hunter (2004), Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge: University Press. Favalier, S. (2012), “Pensare un nuevo prodotto editoriale: T. Porcacchi, G. Giolito de’ Ferrari e la loro Collana historica”, Line@ Editoriale 4: 20–36. Fechner, D. (1986), Untersuchungen zu Cassius Dio Sicht der römischen Republik, Hildesheim: Olms. Feeney, D. (2007), Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Times and the Beginnings of History, Berkeley: University of California Press. Ferretti, G. and F. Goyet (2014), “La Suada Gallicana (1679) et son ‘double spécimen d’analyse logico-rhétorique’ ”, Exercises de rhétorique 3: 1–6. Feugère, L. (1853), Essai sur la vie et ouvrages de Henri Estienne, Paris: J. Delalain. Flamerie de Lachapelle, G. (2010), “Les discours directs dans l’oeuvre de Florus”, Ancient Society 40: 265–290. Fletcher, J. (1979), “Francesco Salviati and Remigio Fiorentino”, Burlington Magazine 121: 793–795. Fleury, C. (1734), Histoire ecclesiastique [1691], vol. 33, Paris: Chez Emery.

476

Bibliography

Fleury, P. (2006), Lectures de Fronton: Un rhéteur latin à l’époque de la Seconde Sophistique, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Flower, H. (1996), Aristocratic Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Flusin, B. (2002) “Les Excerpta Constantiniens: logique d’une anti-histoire”, in S. Pittia, ed., Fragments d’historiens grecs: autour de Denys d’Halicarnasse, Rome: École Française de Rome, 537–559. Forcina, A.M. (1987), Lettori bizantini di Zosimo: Le note marginali del cod. Vat. Gr. 156, Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Ford, A. (2002), The Origins of Criticism: Literary Culture and Poetic Theory in Classical Greece, Princeton: University Press. Formentin, M.R. (2008), “Uno scriptorium a Palazzo Farnese?”, Scripta 1: 70–95. Fornara, C.W. (1983), The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Forni, G. and M.G. Angeli Bertinelli (1982), “Pompeo Trogo come fonte di Storia”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.30.2, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1289–1392. Fournet, J.L. (2002), “Un papyrus strasbourgeois inédit de Thucydide, III 42,1; 43,3–4”, Ktéma 27: 65–70. Foxe, J. (1570), Acts and Monuments, London: John Day. Fragnito, G. (1997), La Bibbia al rogo. La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471–1605), Bologna: Il Mulino. Franklin, M.A. (2006), Boccaccio’s Heroines: Power and Virtue in Renaissance Society, Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Fraschetti, A. (2005), Roma e il principe, 2nd ed., Rome-Bari: Laterza. Frazier, F. (2006), “Deux ‘petits Plutarque’. Les Thrésors des Morales latin et français de François Le Tort”, in R.M. Aguilar and I. Rodríguez Alfageme, eds., Ecos de Plutarco en Europa. De Fortuna Plutarchi Studia Selecta, Madrid: Universidad Complutense, 81–106. Fredouille, J.-C., M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, P. Hoffmann, P. Petitmengin, and S. Deléani, eds. (1997), Titres et articulations du texte dans les oeuvres antiques, Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes. Free, A. (2015), Geschichtsschreibung als Paideia. Lukians Schrift “Wie man Geschichte schreiben soll” in der Bildungskultur des 2. Jhs. n. Chr., Munich: Beck. Freyburger-Galland, M.-L. (1997), Aspects du vocabulaire politique et institutionnel de Dion Cassius, Paris: De Boccard. Freyburger-Galland, M.-L. and J.M. Roddaz, eds. (1991), Dion Cassius. Histoire romaine. Livres 50 et 51, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Froissart, J. (1572), Recueil diligent et profitable auquel sont contenuz les choses plus notables à remarquer de toute l’Histoire de Jean Froissart, mis en un abregé et illustré de plusieurs annotations par François de Belleforest, Paris: G. de la Nouë.

Bibliography

477

Fromentin, V. and E. Bertrand, eds. (2008), Dion Cassius. Histoire romaine livres 45 & 46, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Fryde, E.B. (1984), Humanism and Renaissance Historiography, London: Bloomsbury. Fubini, R. (1978), “Castiglionchio, Lapo da, detto il giovane”, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 22, Rome: Treccani, 44–51. Fumagalli, E. (1997), “Machiavelli traduttore di Terenzio”, Interpres, 16: 204–239. Fumagalli, E. (2005), “Machiavelli e l’esegesi terenziana”, in G. Barbarisi and A.M Cabrini, eds., Il teatro di Machiavelli, Milano: Cisalpino, 125–147. Fumaroli, M. (1994), L’École du silence, Paris: Flammarion. Fumaroli, M. (2002), L’Âge de l’éloquence, 3rd ed., Geneva: Droz. Fumaroli, M., ed. (1999), Histoire de la rhétorique dans l’Euope moderne 1450–1950, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Funghi, M.S., ed. (2003–2004), Aspetti di letteratura gnomica nel mondo antico, 2 vols., Florence: Leo S. Olschki. Furetière, A. (1690), Dictionnaire universel contenant generalement tous les mots françois tant vieux que modernes, et les termes de toutes les sciences et des arts, The Hague and Rotterdam: Arnout and Reinier Leers. Gabba, E. (1955), “Sulla storia romana di Cassio Dione”, Rivista Storica Italiana 67: 289–333. Gabba, E. (1957), “Note sulla polemica anticiceroniana di Asinio Pollione”, Rivista Storica Italiana 69: 317–339. Gaeta, F. (1961), “Noterelle machiavelliane. Un codice di Lucrezio e di Terenzio”, Rivista storica italiana 73: 553–555. Gaffiot, F. (1934), Dictionnaire illustré latin-français, Paris: Hachette. Gagné, J. (2014), “After the Sforza: Making History in Milan during the Italian Wars”, in Ch.Th. Callisen, ed., Reading and Writing History from Bruni to Windschuttle: Studies in Honour of Gary Ianziti, Farnham: Ashgate, 35–55. Galasso, G. (1992), Il Regno di Napoli. Il Mezzogiorno angioino e aragonese (1266–1494), Storia d’Italia, dir. G. Galasso, vol. 15, tome I, Milan: Adelphi. Galli Pellegrini, R. (1977), “ ‘Les Femmes illustres’ ” di Georges de Scudéry”, in La prosa francese del primo Seicento, Cuneo: Saste, 91–146. Galli Pellegrini, R. (1981), “Le prince selon Georges de Scudéry dans les Discours politiques des rois”, XVII e siècle 33: 36–51. Gambino Longo, S., ed. (2012), Hérodote à la Renaissance, Turnhout: Brepols. García Solalinde, A. (1916), “Las versiones españolas del Roman de Troie”, Revista de Filología Española 3: 121–165. García Villada, Z. (1923), Paleografía española, 2 vols., Madrid: Junta para la Ampliación de Estudios. Garin, E. (1986), El Renacimiento italiano [1941], tr. A. Vicens Lorente, Barcelona: Ariel. Geffcken, J. (1892), Timaios’ Geographie des Westens, Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.

478

Bibliography

Geijerstam, R. af, ed. (1964), Juan Fernández de Heredia. La Grant Crónica de Espanya. Libros I–II. Edición según el manuscrito 10133 de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells. Gelzer, M. (1964), “Die pragmatische Geschichtsschreibung des Polybios”, in M. Gelzer, Kleine Schriften, vol. 3, Wiesbaden: Steiner, 155–160 (= G. Bruns, ed., Festschrift für Carl Weickert, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1955, 87–91). Gentile, S. and S. Rizzo (2004), “Per una tipologia delle miscellanee umanistiche”, in E. Crisci and O. Pecere, eds., Il codice miscellaneo: tipologia e funzioni, Turnhout: Brepols, 379–407. Georgiadou, A. and D.H.J. Larmour (1994), “Lucian and Historiography: De historia conscribenda and Verae historiae”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II.34.2, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1448–1509. Gerber, A. (1912), Niccolò Machiavelli. Die Handschriten, Ausgaben und Übersezungen seiner Werke im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, Erster Teil, Gotha: Perthes. Gianotti, G.F. (1990), “I testi nella scuola”, in G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, and A. Giardina, eds., Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 3, Rome: Salerno Editrice, 421–466. Gibson, C.A. (2004), “Learning Greek History in the Ancient Classroom: the Evidence of the Treatises on Progymnasmata”, Classical Philology 99: 103–129. Gidel, Ch.A. (1863), Conciones sive orationes ex Titi Livii, Sallustii, Taciti et Quinti Curtii historiis collectae, Paris: E. Belin. Gilbert, A. (1938), Machiavelli’s “Prince” and Its Forerunners: “The Prince” as a Typical Book “de Regimine Principum”, New York: Barnes and Noble. Gilbert, F. (1965), Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Florence, Princeton: University Press. Gilbert, F. (1977), History. Choice and Commitment, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Ginnasi, A. (2009), “La stauroteca di Limburg an-der-Lahn: devozione e lusso nel mondo bizantino”, Acme 62: 97–130. Giovio, P. (1551), La prime parte dell’ Historie del suo tempo, trans. L. Domenichi, Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino. Giovio, P. (1999), Ritratti degli uomini illustri, C. Caruso, ed., Palermo: Sellerio. Giustiniani, A. (1537), Castigatissimi annali con la loro copiosa tavola della eccelsa et illustrissima republi. di Genoa, Genoa: A. Bellone. Girardi, E.N. (1970), “Giuseppe Battista”, Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 7, Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Treccani, 259–261. Godefroy, F. (1881–1902), Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IX e au XV e siècle, 10 vols, Paris: F. Vieweg and Émile Bouillon. Godman, P. (1998), From Poliziano to Machiavelli. Florentine Humanism in the High Renaissance, Princeton: University Press.

Bibliography

479

Gómez Moreno, Á. (1993), “Amador de los Ríos, Abella y cuatro orationes”, in J. Romera, A. Lorente, and A.M. Freire, eds., Ex Libris. Homenaje al profesor José Fradejas Lebrero, Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, 127–142. Gómez Moreno, Á. (1994), Italia y la España de los humanistas: Primeros ecos, Madrid: Gredos. Gómez Redondo, F. (1999), Historia de la prosa medieval castellana, vol. II. El desarrollo de los géneros. La ficción caballeresca y el orden religioso, Madrid: Cátedra. Gómez Redondo, F. (2012), Historia de la prosa de los Reyes Católicos: El umbral del Renacimiento, Madrid: Cátedra. Gómez-Montero, J., B. König, and F. Gernert (2004), Letteratura cavalleresca tra Italia e Spagna. Literatura caballeresca entre Italia y España: del Orlando al Quijote, Salamanca: Seminario de Estudios Medievales y Renacentistas. González, J.R. (1994), “La admonición como profecía en el Amadís de Gaula”, Medievalia 18: 27–42. González, J.R. (2010), “Amadís orante”, eHumanistica 16: 33–56. González Rolán, T. and A. López Fonseca (2014): Traducción y elementos paratextuales: los prólogos a las versiones castellanas de textos latinos en el siglo XV. Introducción general, edición y estudio, Madrid: Escolar y Mayo Editores. González Vega, F. (2003), “Para una tipología del lector en el comentario literario de Jodoco Badio Ascensio (Silvae Morales, 1492)”, Revista de Estudios Latinos 3: 155–168. Goukowsky, P. (2001), Appien. Histoire Romaine. Livre XII. La Guerre de Mithridate, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Gowing, A.M. (1992), The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Goyet, F. (2006), “Les analyses de discours dans le livre XIII des Eloquentiae sacrae et humanae parallela”, in S. Conte, ed., Nicolas Caussin: rhétorique et spiritualité à l’époque de Louis XIII, Marburg: LIT Verlag, 1–48. Goyet, F. (2013a), “Le problème de la typologie des discours. Introduction et biblio­ graphie sur les deux documents de Vossius”, Exercises de rhétorique 1: 1–12, . Goyet, F. (2013b), “Présentation. Redécouvrir, en Virgile, l’immense rhéteur”, Exercices de rhétorique 2: 1–6, . Gracián de Alderete, D. (1564), Historia de Thucydides: que trata de las guerras entre los Peloponeses y Athenie[n]ses: la qual alle[n]de las grandes y notables hazañas por mar y por tierra, delos vnos y delos otros, y de sus aliados y co[n]federados, esta llena de oraciones y razonamie[n]tos prudentes y auisados a proposito de paz y de guerra, Salamanca: Juan de Canova. Grafton, A. (1992), “Renaissance Readers of Homer’s Ancient Readers”, in R. Lamberton and J.J. Keaney, eds., Homer’s Ancient Readers, Princeton: University Press, 149–172.

480

Bibliography

Grafton, A. (2007), What was History? The Art of History in Early Modern Europe, Oxford: University Press. Gramigna, V. (1625), Orationi. All’illustriss. e reuerendiss. sig. monsignor Carlo Madruzzo eletto di Trento, Trent: G. Alberti. Graves, M.A.R. (1994), Thomas Norton, Parliament Man, Oxford: University Press. Greenhut, D.S. (1982), Feminine Rhetorical Culture: Tudor Adaptations of Ovid’s “Heroides”, New York: Peter Lang. Grendler, P.F. (1969), “Francesco Sansovino and Italian Popular History 1560–1600”, Studies in the Renaissance 16: 139–180. Grendler, P.F. (1977), “The Venetian Bookmen”, in The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press 1540–1605, Princeton: University Press, 3–24. Griffante, F., A. Giachery, and S. Minuzzi (2006), Le edizioni veneziani del Seicento, 2 vols., Venice: Regione del Veneto. Griffin, N.E., ed. (1936), Guido de Columnis. Historia destructionis Troiae, Cambridge, Mass.: Mediaeval Academy of America. Grube, G.M.A. (1950), “Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides”, Phoenix 4: 95–110. Guéraud, O. and P. Jouguet (1938), Un livre d’écolier du III siècle avant J.C., Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. Guerrier, O., ed. (2012), Plutarque de l’Âge classique au XIX e siècle. Présences, interferences et dynamique, Grenoble: J. Million. Guicciardini, F. (1567), La Historia d’Italia, R. Nannini, ed., Venice: Nicolò Bevilacqua. Guillerm, L. (1988), Sujet de l’écriture et traduction autour de 1540, Lille: Atelier de Reproduction des Thèses. Gunderson, E. (2009), Nox Philologiae: Aulus Gellius and the Fantasy of the Roman Library, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Gutzwiller, K. (2007), A Guide to Hellenistic Literature, Malden, Oxford, and Carlton: Blackwell. Hagen, H.-M. (1966), Ethopoiia. Zur Geschichte eines rhetorischen Begriffs, diss., Friedrich-Alexander Universität, Erlangen and Munich. Hagendahl, H. (1944), “The Mutiny of Vesontio. A Problem of Tendency and Credibility in Caesar’s Gallic War”, Classica et Mediaevalia, 6: 1–40. Hain, L. (1826–1838), Repertorium Bibliographicum in quo libri omnes ab arte typogra­ phica inventa usque ad annum MD. typis expressi ordine alphabetico vel simpliciter enumerantur vel adcuratius recensentur, 4 vols., Stuttgart and Paris: Cotta and J. Renouard. Haldon, J.F., ed. (1990), Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, intr., ed., tr., and comm., Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Haldon, J.F. (1999), Warfare, State and Society in the Byzantine World, 565–1204, London and New York: Routledge.

Bibliography

481

Haldon, J.F. (2014), A Critical Commentary on the “Taktika” of Leo VI, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks. Hale, J.R. (1986), War and Society in Renaissance Europe 1420–1620, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hall, J. (2013), “Saviour of the Republic and Father of the Fatherland: Cicero and Political Crisis”, in C. Steel, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Cicero, Cambridge: University Press, 215–230. Hamesse, J. (1995), “Parafrasi, florilegi e compendi”, in G. Cavallo, C. Leonardi, and E. Menestò, eds., Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo, vol. 3, La ricezione del testo, Rome: Salerno Editrice, 197–220. Hampton, T. (1990), Writing from History: The Rhetoric of Exemplarity in Renaissance Literature, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Hampton, T. (2010), Fictions of Embassy: Literature and Diplomacy in Early Modern Europe, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Hansen, M.H. (1993), “The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography, Fact or Fiction?”, Historia 42: 161–180. Harto Trujillo, M.L. (2008), “Las arengas militares en la historiografía latina”, in J.C. Iglesias-Zoido, ed., 297–317. Hauvette, H. (1903), Un exilé florentin à la cour de France au XVI e siècle. Luigi Alamanni (1495–1556), sa vie et son œuvre, Paris: Hachette. Hayez, M. (2000), “Gregorio XI”, Enciclopedia dei Papi, Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 550–561. Heath, M.J. (1986), Crusading Commonplaces: La Noue, Lucinge and Rhetoric Against the Turks, Geneva: Droz. Heckel, W. (1997), Justin. Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Volume I. Books 11–12: Alexander the Great, Oxford: University Press. Heckel, W. (2005), Who’s Who in the Age of Alexander the Great: Prosopography of Alexander’s Empire, Oxford: Blackwell. Heller, W.B. (2003), Emblems of Eloquence: Opera and Women’s Voices in SeventeenthCentury Venice, Berkeley: University of California Press. Helmreich, F. (1927), Die Reden bei Curtius, Paderborn: Schöningh. Henry, M. (1994), “On the Aims and Purposes of Aulus Gellius’ Noctes Atticae”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.2, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1918–1941. Herchenroeder, L. (2010), Hellenistic Historiography and the Sciences. Practices and Concepts in Polybius’ Histories, diss., University of Southern California. Hernández González, I. (2002), “Fernando del Pulgar. Crónica de los Reyes Católicos”, in C. Alvar and J.M. Lucía Megías, eds., Diccionario Filológico de Literatura Medieval Española. Textos y transmisión, Madrid: Castalia, 532–549.

482

Bibliography

Herodian (1493), Historia de imperio post Marcum, tr. A. Poliziano, Rome: [Printer of Herodianus]; Bologna: Franciscus (Plato) de Benedectis; Bologna: Bazalerius de Bazaleriis. Herodian (1581), Historiarum Lib. VIII. Cum Angeli Politiani interpretatione Henrici Stephani emendationes. Historiarum Herodianicas (Zosimi Historiae) subsequentium libri duo, [Geneva]: Henri II Estienne. Herquet, K. (1878), Juan Ferrández de Heredia. Grossmeister des Johannitenrordens (1377–1396), Mülhausen: Adolf Foerster. Hester, N. (2003), “Scholarly Borrowing: The Case of Remigio Nannini’s Orazioni militari and François de Belleforest’s Harangues militaires”, Modern Philology 101: 235–258. Hexter, J. (1973), “The Predatory Vision: Niccolò Machiavelli. Il principe and lo stato”, in The Vision of Politics on the Eve of the Reformation. More, Machiavelli, and Seyssel, New York: Basic Books (an earlier version in Studies in the Renaissance, 4 [1957], 113–35). Hieronymus, F., ed. (1992), En Basileia polei tes Germanias. Griechischer Geist aus Basler Pressen, Basel: Verlag der Öffentliche Bibliothek der Universität Basel. Hinojo Andrés, G. (1991), Obras históricas de Nebrija. Estudio Filológico, Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Hoffmann, L. (2007), “Geschichtsschreibung oder Rhetorik? Zum logos parakletikós bei Leon Diakonos”, in M. Günbart, ed., Theatron. Rhetorische Kultur im Spätantike und Mittelalter, Berlin: De Gruyter, 105–140. Holford-Strevens, L. (2003), Aulus Gellius: An Antonine Scholar and His Achievement, Oxford: University Press. Hölkeskamp, K.J. (1996), “Exempla und mos maiorum. Überlegungen zum kollektiven Gedächtnis der Nobilität”, in H.J. Gehrke and A. Möller, eds., Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikation Traditionsbildung und historisches Bewußtsein, Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 301–338. Holloway, J.B. (1993), Twice-Told Tales: Brunetto Latino and Dante Alighieri, New York: Peter Lang. Holmes, C. (2010), “Byzantine Culture and Compilation Literature in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries: some Premilinary Inquiries”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 64: 55–80. Holt, M.P. (1995), The French Wars of Religion, 1562–1629, Cambridge: University Press. Hornblower, S. (1987), Thucydides, London and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hornblower, S. (1995), “The Fourth-Century and Hellenistic Reception of Thucydides”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 115: 46–68. Horster, M. and C. Reitz, eds. (2010), Condensing Texts-Condensed Texts (Palingenesia 98), Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Bibliography

483

Houston, G.W. (2009), “Papyrological Evidence for Book Collections and Libraries in the Roman Empire”, in W.A. Johnson and H.N. Parker, eds., Ancient Literacies. The Culture of Reading in Greece and Rome, Oxford: University Press, 233–267. Huchon, M. (2000), “Amadis, ‘parfaicte idée de nostre langue françoise’ ”, in N. Cazauran and M. Bideaux, eds., 183–200. Huguet, E. (1925–1967), Dictionnaire de la langue française du seizième siècle, Paris: Librairie ancienne Édouard Champion. Humpert, C. (2001), Wege zur Männlichkeit im Rom der Späten. Cicero und die ‘adulescentia’ seiner Zeit, Halle: Trift. Hunger, H. (1978), Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols., Munich: Beck. Hunter, R. (2009), Critical Moments in Classical Literature. Studies in the Ancient View of Literature and its Uses, Cambridge: University Press. Huppert, G. (1970), The Idea of Perfect History: Historical Erudition and Historical Philosophy in Renaissance France, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Ianziti, G. (2012), Writing History in Renaissance Italy: Leonardo Bruni and the Uses of the Past, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2003), “Cómo componer una arenga militar en el siglo xvi: Ronsard y la arenga del Duque de Guise (1553)”, Logo 4: 91–104. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2005), “El Tucídides de Juan Fernández de Heredia: problemas planteados por la selección de discursos”, Anuario de Estudios Filológicos 28: 131–147. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2006), “El sistema de engarce narrativo de los discursos de Tucídides”, Talia dixit 1: 1–25. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2007), “The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Rhetoric”, Rhetorica 25: 141–158. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2008a), “El Tucídides de Juan Fernández de Heredia en el contexto retórico del siglo xiv”, in J.M. Maestre Maestre, J. Pascual Barea, and L. Charlo Brea, eds., Homenaje al profesor Antonio Prieto, vol. IV.2, Alcañiz and Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 941–956. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2008b), “La arenga militar en la historiografía griega: el modelo de Tucídides y sus antecedentes literarios y retóricos”, in J.C. Iglesias-Zoido, ed., 231–258. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2008c), “Retórica e historiografía: la arenga militar”, in J.C. IglesiasZoido, ed., 19–60. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2010a), “Aproximación a las claves de la más reciente investigación sobre la arenga militar (2008–2010)”, Talia dixit 5: 91–110. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2010b) “Una figura olvidada: el rétor Lesbonacte”, en Actas del XII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, vol. II, Madrid: SEEC, 381–388. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2011a), “Arengas, retórica e historiografía: Reflexiones sobre la Rhetorica militaris de Siriano Magister”, Talia dixit 6: 139–157.

484

Bibliography

Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2011b), El legado de Tucídides en la cultura occidental: discursos e historia, Coimbra: Universidade. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2012), “Thucydides in the School Rhetoric of the Imperial Period”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 52: 393–420. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C. (2015), “Thucydides and the Renaissance Anthologies”, in Ch. Lee and N. Morley, eds., 43–60. Iglesias-Zoido, J.C., ed., (2008), Retórica e historiografía: el discurso militar en la historiografía desde la Antigüedad hasta el Renacimiento, Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas. Infantes, V. (2011), “La sátira antiespañola de los fanfarrones, fieros, bravucones y matasietes: las Rodomuntadas españolas y los Emblemas del Señor Español (1601–1608). Primeros apuntes (I)”, in R. Zafra and J.J. Azanza, eds., Emblemática trascendente: hermenéutica de la imagen, iconología del texto, Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra, 363–372. Infantes, V. (2013), “La sátira antiespañola de los fanfarrones, fieros, bravucones y matasietes: las Rodomuntadas españolas y los Emblemas del Señor Español (1601–1608). Apunte final (III)”, Mélanges de la Casa de Velázquez 43: 39–52. Infelise, M. (2014), “Pallavicino, Ferrante”, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 80, Rome: Treccani, 506–511. Inglese, G. (2006), “Machiavelli, Niccolò”, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 67, Rome: Treccani, 81–97. Irigoin, J. (1997) “Titres, sous-titres et sommaires dans les oeuvres des historiens grecs du 1er siècle avant J.-C. au Ve siècle après J.-C.”, in J.-C. Fredouille, ed., Titres et articulations du texte dans les oeuvres antiques: Actes du Colloque International de Chantilly, Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 127–134. Irigoin, J. (2003), “Survie et renouveau de la littérature grecque à Constantinopla (ixe siècle)”, in La tradition des textes grecs. Pour une critique historique, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 197–232. Isocrates (1593), Ἰσοκράτους Λογοὶ καὶ ἐπιστολάι. Isocratis Orationes et Epistolae cum latina interpretatione Hieron. Wolfii ab ipso postremum recognita. Henr. Steph. in Isocratem Diatribae VII, quarum una obseruationes Harpocrationis in eundem examinat. Gorgiae et Aristidis quaedam, eiusdem cum Isocraticis argumenti, Guil. Cantero interprete, Geneva: H. Estienne. ISTC: Incunabula Short Title Catalogue . Jacoby, F. (1909), “Über die Entwicklung der griechischen Historiographie und den Plan einer neue Sammlung der griechischen Historikerfragmente”, Klio 9: 80–123 (= Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung, Leiden: H. Bloch, 1956, 16–64). Jacoby, F. (1919), “Kallisthenes 2”, Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Enzyklopädie X 2, cols. 1674–1726. Jacoby, F. (1921), “Kleitarchos 2”, Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Enzyklopädie XI 1, cols. 622–654.

Bibliography

485

Jacoby, F. (1954), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker IIIb, Supplement (A Commentary to the Ancient Historians of Athens, 323a–334, 1, Text), Leiden: Brill. Jacoby, F. (1955), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker IIIb (Kommentar zu 297– 607, Text), Leiden: Brill. Jal, P. (1987), “À propos des Histoires Philippiques: quelques remarques”, Revue des Études Latines 65: 194–209. Janke, M. (1963), Historische Untersuchungen zu Memnon von Herakleia, diss., Würzburg. Janson, T. (1964), Latin Prose Prefaces. Studies in Literary Conventions, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Jardine, L. and A. Grafton (1990), “ ‘Studied for Action’: How Gabriel Harvey Read his Livy”, Past and Present 129: 30–78. Jardine, N. (1988), The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science. Kepler’s “A Defence of Tycho against Ursus” with Essays on its Provenance and Significance, Cambridge: University Press. Jeffreys, E. (2008), “Rhetoric”, in E. Jeffreys, J. Haldon, and R. Cormack, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 827–837. Jehasse, J. (1988), “Henri Estienne et l’Histoire”, in N. Cazauran, ed., 147–155. Jeune, S. (1994), “Henri Estienne ou la boulimie humaniste”, Revue Française d’Histoire du Livre 84–85: 341–350. Jiménez Calvente, T. (2008), “Los humanistas y sus herramientas filológicas: de polianteas, florilegios y otros útiles similares”, in A. Cortijo and T. Jiménez Calvente, eds., Salió buen latino: los ideales de la cultura española tardomedieval y protorrenacen­ tista (La Corónica 37: 217–244). Jiménez Calvente, T. (2012) “Las orationes de Lucio Marineo Sículo (con unas notas sobre epístolas panegíricas y discursos epistolares)”, eHumanista 22: 537–581. Jiménez Calvente, T. and A. Gómez Moreno (2002), “Entre edenismo y aemulatio clásica: el mito de la Edad de Oro en la España de los Reyes Católicos”, Silva 1: 113–140. Jöcher, Ch.G. (1751), Allgemeines Gelehrten Lexicon, vol. 4, Leipzig: J.F. Gleditschens. Johnston, M.D. (1992), “Parliamentary Oratory in Medieval Aragon”, Rhetorica 10: 99–117. Jouanna, A. (2007), La Saint-Barthélemy: Les mystères d’un crime d’État, 24 août 1572, Paris: Gallimard [Eng. tr. J. Bergin, The Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre. The mysteries of a crime of state, Manchester: University Press, 2013]. Julhe, J.-C., ed. (2014), Pratiques latines de la dédicace. Permanence et mutations, de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance, Paris: Garnier. Junius, M. (1585), Methodus eloquentiae comparandae scholis aliquot Rhetoricis, Strasbourg: Zetzner. Junius, M. (1586), Orationes aliquot ex Herodoti Thucydidis: Livii itidem Caesaris, et Salustii historiis in usum Academiae Argentinensis collectae, Strasbourg: Iobinus.

486

Bibliography

Junius, M. (1590a), Aliquot orationes, in Argent. acad. exercitii gratia scriptae & recitatae ab illustr. generos. nobilibus, et aliis: et ad tractandum propositae a Melchiore Iunio Witebergensi, eloquentiae professore, Strasbourg: Zetzner. Junius, M. (1590b), Artis dicendi praecepta, secundum oratorii officii partes, Strasbourg: Bertram. Junius, M. (1594a), Artis dicendi praecepta, secundum officii oratorii partes breviter ex Platone, Aristotele, Hermogene, Cicerone, Herenniano magistro, et Quintiliano congesta ac digesta, Strasbourg: Bertramus. Junius, M. (1594b), Ex M. Tul. Ciceronis orationibus loci aliquot communes, eum in finem selecti atque explicati, ut eorundem tractandi ratio appareat: cum gemino indice cum locorum communium, tum rerum et verborum memorabilium locupletis, Strasbourg: Zetzner. Junius, M. (1594c), Resolvtio Brevis Orationvm M.T. Ciceronis Secundvm Cavsarvm Genera, Orationum partes, materias, Strasbourg: Rihelius. Junius, M. (1595), Epistolae ex historicis congestae, Strasbourg: Zetzner. Junius, M. (1596), Animorum conciliandorum et movendorum ratio, Strasbourg: Zetzner. Junius, M. (1598), Orationum ex historicis, tam veteribus, quam recentioribus, in eloquentiae studiosorum gratiam, secundum tria causarum genera . . . pars I–III, Strasbourg: Zetzner. Kaegi, W.E. (1983), “Some Thoughts on Byzantine Military Strategy”, in The Hellenic Studies Lecture, Brookline, Mass.: Hellenic College Press, 1–18 (= Byzantine Warfare [2007], J. Haldon, ed., Aldershot: Ashgate, 251–268). Kaldellis, A. (2007), Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition, Cambridge: University Press. Kaldellis, A. (2012), “The Byzantine Role in the Making of the Corpus of Classical Greek Historiography: A Preliminary Investigation”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 132: 71–85. Kaldellis, A. (2015), Byzantine Readings of Ancient Historians, Texts in Translation, with Introductions and Notes, London and New York: Routledge. Kallendorf, C. (2007), The Virgilian Tradition: Book History and the History of Reading in Early Modern Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate. Kallendorf, C. (2012), “Commentaries, Commonplaces, and Neo-Latin Studies”, in A. Steiner-Weber, A. Coroleu, D. Defilippis, R. Green, F. Rädle, V. Rees, D. Sacré, M. Woods, and C. Wulf, eds., Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Upsaliensis: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, vol. 1, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 535–46. Kamp, N. (2000), “Clemente IV”, Enciclopedia dei Papi, vol. 2, Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 401–411. Karapli, K.G. (2010), Κατευόδωσις στρατοῦ. Ἡ ὀργάνωση καὶ ἡ ψυχολογικὴ προετοιμασία τοῦ βυζαντινοῦ στρατοῦ πρὶν ἀπὸ τὸν πόλεμο (610–1081), vol. 1, Athens: Myrmidones.

Bibliography

487

Keaveney, A. and J.A. Madden (2013), “Memnon (434)”, Brill’s New Jacoby, Leiden and Boston: Brill . Kecskeméti, G. (2005), “Hungarian Connections of Nicodemus Frischlin”, Camoenae Hungaricae 2: 93–110. Kecskméti, J., B. Boudou, and H. Cazes (2003), La France des humanistes, Turnhout: Brepols. Kennedy, G.A. (1957), “The Ancient Dispute over Rhetoric in Homer”, American Journal of Philology 78: 23–25. Kennedy, G.A. (1959), “The Earliest Rhetorical Handbooks”, American Journal of Philology 80: 169–178. Kess, A. (2008), Johann Sleidan and the Protestant Vision of History, Aldershot: Ashgate. Kiechle, F. (1979), “Gelon 1”, Der Kleine Pauly 2: 729–730. Kierdorf, W. (1980), Laudatio funebris: Interpretationen und Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung der römischen Leichenrede, Meisenheim am Glan: Anton Hain. Kinser, S. (1966), The Works of Jacques-Auguste de Thou, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Kircher, T. (2014), “Wrestling with Ulysses: Humanist Translations of Homeric Epic Around 1440”, in L. Deitz, T. Kircher, and J. Reid, eds., Neo-Latin and the Humanities: Essays in Honour of Charles E. Fantazzi, Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 61–91. Kleinlogel, A. (1965), Geschichte des Thukydidestextes im Mittelalter, Berlin: de Gruyter. Klotz, A. (1952), “Pompeius Trogus”, Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Enzyklopädie 21.2, cols. 2300–2313. Knight, D.K. (1968), “The political Acumen of Cicero after the Death of Caesar”, Latomus 27: 157–164. Kohl, R. (1915), De scholasticarum declamationum argumentis ex historia petitis, Paderborn: Rhetorischen Studien. Kohler, A. (2000), Carlos V, 1500–1558. Una biografía, Madrid: Marcial Pons. Köhnken, A. (1993), “Antike und moderne Thukydideskritik (Der Redensatz Thuk. 1,22,1 in seinem Kontext)”, in R. Kinsky, ed., Offenheit und Interesse. Studien zum 65 Geburtstag von Gerhard Wirth, Amsterdam: Hakkert, 5–30. Kolia-Dermitzaki, A. (1989), “Η ιδέα του «ιερού πολέμου» στό Βυζάντιο κατά τόν 10° αιώνα. Η μαρτυρία των τακτικών και των δημηγοριών”, in A. Markopoulos, ed., Κωνσταντίνος Ζ´ ὁ Πορφυρογέννητος καὶ ἡ εποχή του. Β´ Διέθνης Βυζαντινολογική Συνάντηση, Δελφοί, 22–26 Ιουλίου 1987. Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and His Age: Second International Byzantine Conference (Delphi, 22–26 July 1987), Athens: Eurōpaïko Politistiko Kentro Delphōn, 39–55. Kolia-Dermitzaki, A. (1997), “Το εμπόλεμο Βυζάντιο στις ομιλίες και τις επιστολες του 10ου και 11 ου αι. μια ιδεολογική προσέγγιση”, in Το εμπόλεμο Βυζάντιο (9ος–12αι.). Byzantium at War (9th–12th c.), Athens: Goulandri-Horn Foundation, 213–238.

488

Bibliography

Kolsky, S. (2005), The Ghost of Boccaccio. Writings on Famous Women in Renaissance Italy, Brepols: Turnhout. König, A. (2009), “From Architect to Emperor: Vitruvius and his Addressee in the De Architectura”, in L. Taub and A. Doody, eds., Authorial Voices in Greco-Roman Technical Writing, Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 31–52. König, J. and T. Whitmarsh, eds. (2007), Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire, Cambridge: University Press. König, J. and G. Woolf, eds. (2013), Encyclopaedism from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Cambridge: University Press. Konstan, D. (2011), “Excerpting as a Reading Practice”, in G. Reydams-Schils, ed., Thinking through Excerpts. Studies on Stobaeus, Turnhout: Brepols, 9–22. Koutrakou, N.-C. (1994), La propagande impériale byzantine. Persuasion et réaction (VIII e–X e siècles), Athens: Saripolou. Krings, V. (1998), Carthage et les Grecs c.580–480 av. J.-C., Leiden: Brill. Kroll, W. (1924), Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur, Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Kroymann, J. (1956), “Phylarchos”, Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Enzyklopädie Suppl. VIII, cols. 471–489. Kühlmann, W. (2008), “Theorie und literarische Hermeneutik der rhetorischen Affektenlehre im 17. Jahrhundert. Zu Konzept und literarischem Umkreis von Valentin Thilos Lehrbuch Pathologia Oratoria (Königsberg 1647)—Mit dem Abdruck zweiter lateinischer Gedichte von Simon Dach”, in H.-P. Marti and M. Komorowski, eds., Die Universität Königsberg in der Frühen Neuzeit, Koln: Böhlau Verlag, 116–138. Kurtz, E. (1925), “Zur Δημηγορία Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ἀνατολῆς στρατηγούς”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 25: 321. Kutter, M. (1955), Celio Secondo Curione. Sein Leben und sein Werk (1503–1569), Basel: Verlag von Helbing & Lichtenahn. Kyriakides, S.P. (1939), [no title], Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 5: 501–505. La Curne de Sainte-Palaye, J.-B. de (1875–1882), Dictionnaire historique de l’ancien langage françois ou Glossaire de la langue françoise depuis son origine jusqu’au siècle de Louis XIV, 10 vols., Niort and Paris: L. Favre and H. Champion. Labande, L.H. (1907), “Les miniaturistes avignonais et leurs ouvres”, Gazette des Beaux Arts 37: 213–240 and 289–305. Lachenaud, G. and M. Coudry, eds. (2011), Dion Cassius. Histoire romaine livres 38, 39 & 40, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. La Penna, A. and R. Funari, eds. (2015), C. Sallusti Crispi Historiae I: fragmenta 1.1–146, Boston: De Gruyter. Laqueur, R. (1936), “Timaios 3”, Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Enzyklopädie VI A 1, cols. 1075–1203. Lasserre, F. (1979), “Polemon 4”, Der Kleine Pauly 4: 971–972. Lasso de la Vega, J. (1962), “Traducciones españolas de las Vidas de Plutarco”, Estudios clásicos 6: 451–514.

Bibliography

489

Lattarico, J-F. (2012a), “Sous l’autorité du bizarre. Le discours académique des Incogniti entre tradition et subversion”, Cahiers du CELEC 6 . Lattarico, J.-F. (2012b), Venise “incognita”. Essai sur l’académie libertine du XVII e siècle, Paris: Honoré Champion. Laurenti, J.L. and A. Porqueras Mayo (1971), Ensayo bibliográfico del prólogo en la literatura, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Lausberg, H. (1975), Manual de retórica literaria, tr. J. Pérez Riesco, vol. I, Madrid: Gredos. Lawrance, J.N.H. (1988), “Nuevos lectores y nuevos géneros: apuntes y observaciones sobre la epistolografía en el primer renacimiento español”, in V. García de la Concha, ed., Literatura en la época del Emperador (Academia Literaria Renacentista, V–VII), Salamanca: Universidad, 81–99. Le Cam, J.-L. (1996), La politique scolaire d’Auguste le Jeune de Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel et l’inspecteur Christoph Schrader 1635–1666/1680, (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 66), 2 vols., Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Le Deist de Botidoux, J. (1823), Conciones et discours choisis dans Salluste, Tite-Live, Tacite et Quinte-Curce, Paris: Librairie classique et d’éducation. Le Gentil, P. (1949), La poésie lyrique espagnole et portugaise à la fin du Moyen Âge, Rennes: Plihon. Lee, Ch. (2003), “Sallustio”, in P. Boitani, M. Mancini, and A. Varvaro, eds., Lo spazio letterario del Medioevo. 2. Il Medioevo volgare, vol. 3, La ricezione del testo, Roma: Salerno, 199–225. Lee, Ch. (2010), “Sallustio nel Medioevo”, in P. Esposito, ed., Da classico a classico. Paradigmi letterari tra antico e moderno, Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 143–152. Lee Ch. and N. Morley, eds. (2015), A Handbook to the Reception of Thucydides, Malden and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Leeman, A.D. (1973), “Structure and meaning in the prologues of Tacitus”, Yale Classical Studies 23: 169–208. Leich, J. (1551), Titi Livii Patavini secundi dicendi magistri, eloquentiaeque Romanae alterius parentis conciones priorum quinque librorum primae decadis XXXXV, iam primum ab aliis auulsae et compendiosa quadam dialectici et Rethorici artificii ratione illustratae, in usum et gratiam candidatorum eloquentiae Iacobo Leichio Cochemensi autore, Cologne: Henricus Mameranus. Leimbach, R. (1985), Militarische Musterrhetorik: Eine Untersuchung zu den Feldherrnreden des Thukydides, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Lemerle, P. (1966), “L’encyclopédisme à Byzance à l’apogée de l’empire, et particulièrement sous Constantin VII Porphyrogénète”, Cahiers d’histoire mondiale 9: 596–616.

490

Bibliography

Lemerle, P. (1971), Le premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignement et culture à Byzance des origines au X e siècle, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Lenfant, D., ed. (2007), Athénée et les fragments d’historiens, Paris: DeBoccard. Leoni, B. (2003), La Parafrasi Ambrosiana dello “Strategicon” di Maurizio. L’arte della guerra a Bisanzio, Milan: Vita e Pensiero. Letras: revista de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina Santa María de los Buenos Aires, Actas de las IX Jornadas Internacionales de Literatura Española Medieval (2008) y de Homenaje al Quinto Centenario de “Amadís de Gaula” (2010). Letta, C. (1979), “La composizione dell’opera di Cassio Dione: cronologia e sfondo storico-politico”, in L. Troiani, E. Noè, and C. Letta, eds., Ricerche di storiografia antica 1. Ricerche di storiografia greca di età romana, Pisa: Giardini, 117–189. Letta, C. (2003), “Documenti d’archivio e iscrizioni nell’opera di Cassio Dione: un sondaggio sulla narrazione fino ad Augusto”, in A.M. Biraschi, P. Desideri, S. Roda, and G. Zecchini, eds., L’uso dei documenti nella storiografia antica, Naples: ESI, 595–622. Leunissen, P.M.M. (1989), Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (180–235 n. Chr.). Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorische Elite im römischen Kaiserzeit, Amsterdam: Gieben. Levy, J. (1967), Tudor Historical Thought, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Liebermann, J. (2001), “Retórica y emoción: el arte de la persuasión en una narrativa de José Penso de la Vega”, Romance Notes 41: 191–198. Lintott, A.W. (1997), “Cassius Dio and the History of the Late Roman Republic”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II.34.3, Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2523. Livy (1554), Les Concions et harengues de Tite Live, nouvellement traduictes en François par Jean de Amelin, Paris: Vascosan. Livy, T. (1998), The Rise of Rome, tr. T. Luce, Oxford: University Press. Lizzi, R. (1990), “La memoria selettiva”, in G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, and A. Giardina, eds., Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 3, Rome: Salerno Editrice, 647–676. López Barrera, J. (1923), Brantôme y el género bufo y grotesco de las “Rodomontadas españolas” en la literatura francesa, Madrid: Tipografía de la Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos. López López, M. (1998), “Ecos de Aselión en la praefatio de Tito Livio”, in J. Jové, ed., El ensayo contemporáneo, Lleida: Universitat (Scriptura 14), 11–16. López Molina, L., ed. (1960), Tucídides romanceado en el siglo XIV, Madrid: Anejos Real Academia de la Lengua. López Moreda, S. (2002), “Introducción”, in Lorenzo Valla, Historia de Fernando de Aragón, Madrid: Akal, 15–64.

Bibliography

491

López Nieto, J.C. (1999), “Nueve cartas, con autógrafos, de Gómez Manrique al Ayuntamiento de Toledo”, Voz y Letra: Revista de Literatura 10: 37–80. López Poza, S. (1990), “Florilegios, polyantheas, repertorios de sentencias y lugares comunes. Aproximación bibliográfica”, Criticón 49: 61–76. López Poza, S. and S. Fernández Vales (2011), “Fuentes de erudición en la Edad Moderna. Polianteas, florilegios, enciclopedias, repertorios de lugares comunes y misceláneas”, . Loraux, N. (1981), L’invention d’Athènes. Histoire de l’oraison funèbre dans la “cité classique”, Paris: École des Hautes Études et Sciences Sociales. Loredan, G.F. (1632), Scherzi geniali, Venice: Sarzina. Loredan, G.F. (1688), Burlas de la fortuna en afectos retóricos de el Loredano traducion del toscano a nuestro vulgar por D. Eugenio de Miranda y Gamboa, Madrid: n.p. Loredan, G.F. (1731), Declamaciones geniales . . . traducidas de idioma italiano en español i adicionadas con varios sonetos por Miguel Egual, escrivano real, Valencia: Antonio Bordazar. Lorenzo Lorenzo, J. (2008), “Florilegios y polyantheas al servicio de los officia retóricos”, in G. Lopetegui Semperena, ed., Retórica y Educación. La enseñanza del arte retórica a lo largo de la historia, Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 247–268. Loreto, L. (1993), “Pensare la guerra in Cesare. Teoria e prassi”, in D. Poli, ed., La cultura in Cesare, Rome: Il Calamo, 239–343. Lorich, R. (1537), Titi Livii Patavini Orationes omnes, ex libris de II Bello Punico, Artificio Dialectico et Rhetorico illustratae, Frankfurt: Christian Egenolff. Lorich, R. (1541), Titi Livii Patavini orationes omnes lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantis Orationes, separatim cum argumenti editae in iuventutis studiosae commoditatem. quibus accesserunt Orationes omnes, quae iam extant apud C. Crispum Salustium, Q. Curtium, C. Caesarem, P. Cornelium Tacitum et Herodianum, Marburg: Ch. Egenolph. Losada Goya, J.M. (1999), Bibliographie critique de la littérature espagnole en France au XVII e siècle, Geneva: Droz. Louveau, J. (1560), Les facétieuses nuits, Lyon: Guillaume Rouille. Lucio Espinosa y Malo, F. de (1674), Declamaciones, escarmientos políticos y morales, Madrid: José Fernández de Buendía. Lucio Espinosa y Malo, F. de (1691), Ocios morales, que escriuia d. Felix de Lucio Espinosa, y Malo cauallero del orden de Calatraua, Mazzarino: J. Vanberge. Lucio Espinosa y Malo, F. de (1693), Ocios morales: divididos en descripciones simbólicas y declamaciones heroycas, Zaragoza: M. Roman. Lucía Megías, J.M., M.C. Marín Pina, and A.C. Bueno Serrano, eds. (2008), Amadís de Gaula quinientos años después: estudios en homenaje a Juan Manuel Cacho Blecua, Alcalá de Henares: Centro de Estudios Cervantinos. Luciani, A. (2003), “Manipolazione strumentale e decontestualizzazione della fonte negli Excerpta historica costantiniani”, Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 45: 143–147.

492

Bibliography

Luiso, F.P. (1899), “Studi su l’epistolario e le traduzioni di Lapo da Castiglionchio juniore”, Studi italiani di filologia classica 7: 205–99. Lundström, V. (1897), “De codicibus graecis olim Escorialensibus, qui nunc Upsaliae adservantur”, Eranos 2: 1–7. Lupis, A. (1663), Vita di Gio. Francesco Loredano, Venice: Francesco Valvasense. Lupis, A. (1664), Teatro aperto di Antonio Lupis accademico incognito consegrato a gli augustiss. eroi DD. Lorenzo Onofrio Colonna, et Maria Mancini, Venice: Alessandro Zatta. Lupis, A. (1697), Teatro abierto, politico y moral, escriviolle en lengua toscana Don Antonio Lupis, Veneciano, Academico insigne, traducele en español el P. Joan de S. Gerónimo, monge del Real Monasterio de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe, del orden de . . . San Geronimo, Madrid: Manuel Ruiz de Murga. Luschnat, O. (1954), “Die Thukydidesscholien. Zu ihrer handschriftlichen Grundlage, Herkunft und Geschichte”, Philologus 98: 14–58. Luttrell, A. (1959), Juan Fernández de Heredia, Castellan of Amposta (1346–1377), Master of Knights of St. John at Rhodes (1337–1396), diss., University of Oxford. Luttrell, A. (1960), “Greek Histories translated and compiled for J. Fernández de Heredia, Master of Rhodes, 1377–1396”, Speculum 35: 401–407. Luttrell, A. (1972), “Juan Fernández de Heredia at Avignon: 1357–1367”, in E. Verdera y Tuells, ed., El cardenal Albornoz y el Colegio de España, vol. I, Bologna: Real Colegio de España, 287–316. Luttrell, A. (2010), “Juan Fernández de Heredia’s History of Greece”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 34: 30–37. Lyons, J.D. (1989), Exemplum: The Rhetoric of Example in Early Modern France and Italy, Princeton: University Press. Machiavelli, N. (1521), L’arte della guerra, Florence: Giunti. Machiavelli, N. (1927), Istorie fiorentine, ed. P. Carli, 2 vols., Florence: Sansoni. Machiavelli, N. (1954), Istorie Fiorentine, in M. Bonfantini, ed., Opere, Milan and Naples: R. Ricciardi. Machiavelli, N. (1958), tr. A. Gilbert Machiavelli. The Chief Works and Others, 3 vols., Durham NC: Duke University Press. Machiavelli, N. (1961), The Prince, tr. G. Bull, London: Penguin Classics. Machiavelli, N. (1971), Tutte le opere, ed. M. Martelli, Florence: Sansoni. Machiavelli, N. (1981), I capitoli, ed. G. Inglese, Rome: Salerno. Machiavelli, N. (1984), Lettere, ed. F. Gaeta, Turin: UTET. Machiavelli, N. (1988), Florentine Histories, ed. L. Banfield and C. Mansfield Jr., Princeton: Princeton UP. Machiavelli, N. (1995), Il principe, ed. G. Inglese, Turin: Einaudi. Machiavelli, N. (1996), Machiavelli and his Friends. Their Personal Correspondence, tr. J. Atkinson and D. Sices, DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press.

Bibliography

493

Machiavelli, N. (2001), Edizione nazionale delle opere di Niccolò Machiavelli. Sezione I. Opere politiche, vol. 2: Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, ed. F. Bausi, 2 vols, Rome: Salerno. Machiavelli, N. (2010), Opere storiche, ed. A. Montevecchi and C. Varotti, 2 vols, Rome: Salerno. Mack, P. (2011), A History of Renaissance Rhetoric, 1380–1620, Oxford: University Press. Mackenzie, J.G. (1984), A lexicon of the 14th-century manuscripts of Juan Fernández de Heredia, Madison: Hispanic Seminar of Medieval Studies. MacPhail, E.M. (2014), “Rhapsody in Prose”, in Dancing Around the Well: the Circulation of Commonplaces in Renaissance Humanism, Leiden: Brill, 75–91. Maestre Maestre, J.M. (1995), “La Diuinatio in scribenda Historia de Nebrija”, Euphrosyne 23: 141–173. Maestre Maestre, J.M. and M. Torreblanca López (2009), “Descubrimiento de un manuscrito en la Iglesia de Santa María la Mayor de Alcañiz con la traducción al castellano de 1511 de la biografía de Juan II de Aragón compuesta en latín por Lucio Marineo Sículo”, in J.M. Maestre, J. Pascual Barea, and L. Charlo Brea, eds., Humanismo y Pervivencia del Mundo Clásico. Homenaje al profesor Antonio Fontán, vol. 3, Alcañiz-Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Humanísticos, 1177–1230. Maittaire, M. (1709), Stephanorum Historiae, vitas ipsorum ac libros complectens, London: B. Motte. Mallett, M. and Ch. Shaw (2012), The Italian Wars 1494–1559: War, State and Society in Early Modern Europe, Harlow: Longman. Malosse, P.-L. (2005), “Ethopée et fiction épistolaires”, in E. Amato and J. Schamp, eds., ἨΘΟΠΟΙΙΑ. La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et réalité vivante à l’époque impériale et tardive, Salerno: Helios Editrice, 61–78. Malosse, P.-L.N.P. Noël and B. Schouler, eds. (2010), Clio sous le regard d’Hermès: l’utilisation de l’histoire dans la rhétorique ancienne de l’époque hellénistique à l’Antiquité Tardive, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Mangiameli, R. (2012), Tra duces e milites. Forme di comunicazione politica al tramonto della Repubblica, Trieste: EUT. Mango, C. (2002), “The Revival of Learning”, in C. Mango, ed., The Oxford History of Byzantium, Oxford: University Press, 214–229. Maniaci, M. (2004), “Il codice greco ‘non unitario’. Tipologie e terminologia”, in E. Crisci and O. Pecere, eds., 75–108. Manuwald, G., ed. (2007), Cicero, Philippics 3–9, ed., intro., tr., and comm., vol. 2, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Manzini, G.B. (1629), I furori della gioventù esercitij rettorici di Gio. Battista Manzini, Bologna: C. Ferroni.

494

Bibliography

Manzini, G.B. (1630), Della peripetia di fortuna overo Sopra la caduta di Seiano, breue consieratione, Milan: G.B. Bidelli. Manzini, G.B. (1633), Il trionfo del pennello raccolta d’alcune compositioni nate a gloria d’vn ratto d’Helena di Guido, Bologna: per N. Tebaldini. Manzini, G.B. (1642), Les Harangues ou Discours academiques de Iean Baptiste Manzini [transl. G. de Scudéry], Paris: A. Corbin. Manzini, G.B. (1654), Manzini his most exquisite academicall discourses, upon severall choice subjects. Turned into French by that famous wit Monsieur de Scudery, Governour of Nostredame. And Englished by an honourable lady, London: Thomas Harper. Manzini, G.B. (1655), Manzini his most exquisite academicall discourses, upon severall choice subjects. Turned into French by that famous wit Monsieur de Scudery, Governour of Nostredame. And Englished by an honourable lady, London: Humphrey Moseley. Marastoni, S. (2007), Metrodoro di Scepsi. Retore, storico, filosofo e mago, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Marchetti, P.M. (1560), T. Livii Patavini lacteo eloquentiae fonte manantis, orationes, separatim cum argumentis editae in iuventutis studiosae commoditatem. Quibus accesserunt Orationes omnes, quae iam extant, apud C. Crispum Sallustium, Q. Curtium, C. Caesarem, P. Cornelium Tacitum, Et Herodianum (Et Scholia ex Carolo Sigonio in Livium), Brescia: P.M. Marchetti. Maréchaud, P. (2015), “The Transmission of Livy from the End of the Roman Empire to the Beginning of the 17th century: Distortion or Discovery, a Story of Corruption”, in B. Mineo, ed., A Companion to Livy, Malden and Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 539–542. Margolin, J.C. (1979), “La rhétorique d’Aphthonius et son influence au XVI e siècle”, in R. Chevalier, ed., Colloque sur la Rbétorique. Calliope I, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 239–269. Marincola, J. (1999), “Genre, Convention, and Innovation in Graeco-Roman Historiography”, in C.S. Kraus, ed., The Limits of Historiography. Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts, Leiden: Brill, 281–324. Marincola, J. (2007), “Speeches in Classical Historiography”, in J. Marincola, ed., A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography, Malden, Oxford, and Carlton: Blackwell, 118–132. Markopoulos, A. (2006), “Roman Antiquarianism: Aspects of the Roman Past in the Middle Byzantine Period (9th–11th centuries)”, in Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies (London, 21–26 August, 2006), vol. I, Aldershot: Ashgate, 277–297. Markopoulos, A. (2012), “The Ideology of War in the Military Harangues of Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos”, in J. Koder and I. Stouraitis, eds., Byzantine War Ideology Between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion. Akten des Internationalen Symposiums (Wien, 19–21 Mai 2011), (“Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung” 30), Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 47–56.

Bibliography

495

Marsh, D. (1992), “Xenophon ”, in V. Brown, P.O. Kristeller, and F.E. Cranz, eds., Catalogus translationum et commentariorum, vol. 7, Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 75–196. Martelli, M. (1971), “Preistoria (Medicea) di Machiavelli”, Studi di Filologia Italiana 29: 377–405. Martelli, M. and F. Bausi (1996), “Politica, storia e letteratura. Machiavelli e Guicciardini”, in E. Malato, ed., Storia della letteratura italiana, vol. IV, Rome: Salerno Editrice, 251–351. Martín Romero, J.J. (2013), La “Batalla campal de los perros contra los lobos”. Una fábula moral de Alfonso de Palencia, San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua. Martin, J.J. (2007), “The Venetian Territorial State: Constructing Boundaries in the Shadow of Spain”, in T.J. Dandelet and J.A. Marino, eds., Spain in Italy. Politics, Society, and Religion 1500–1700, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 228–248. Martinelli, G. (1990), “Motivi originali nei ‘discorsi’ dell’opera di Cassio Dione”, Atti dell’Accademia Ligure 46: 411–425. Martínez, M. (2011), “Género, imprenta y espacio social: una poética de la pólvora para la épica quinientista”, Hispanic Review 79: 163–187. Martini, E. (1922), “Konon (9)”, Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Enzyklopädie 11.2, cols. 1335–1338. Mastrorosa, I.G. (2014), “Octavien à la veille d’Actium chez Dion Cassius L, 24–30: haranguer les troupes en diffamant l’adversaire”, Exercices de rhétorique 3: 1–13. Matt, L. (2007), “Manzini, Luigi”, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 69, Rome: Treccani, 282–285. Matucci, A. (1978), “Sul Decennale I di Niccolò Machiavelli”, Filologia e Critica 3: 297–327. Matucci, A. (1982), “Le terze rime di Machiavelli”, Atti e memorie dell’Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere La Colombaria 47 [n.s. 32]: 91–182. Mazzucchi, C.M. (1978), “Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos (Cod. Ambr. B 119 sup.)”, Aevum 52: 267–316. Mazzucchi, C.M. (1979), “Alcune vicende della tradizione di Cassio Dione in epoca bizantina”, Aevum 53: 94–139. McCahill, E.M. (2004), “Finding a Job as a Humanist: The Epistolary Collection of Lapo da Castiglionchio the Younger”, Renaissance Quarterly 57: 1308–1345. McDonald, A.H. (1971), “Titus Livius”, in P.O. Kristeller and F.E. Cranz, eds., Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum, vol. 2, Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 331–348. McDougall, I. (1991), “Dio and his Sources for Caesar’s Campaigns in Gaul”, Latomus 50: 616–638. McGeer, E. (2003), “Two Military Orations of Constantine VII”, in J.W. Nesbitt, ed., Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations. Texts and Translations dedicated to the Memory of Nicolas Oikonomides, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 111–135. McIntosh-Varjabédian, F. and V. Gély, eds. (2007), La Postérité de la Renaissance, Lille: CeGes.

496

Bibliography

Mecca, A. (2001), “Trogo, Timagene e Polieno”, Quaderni di Storia 54: 199–222. Meerhoff, K. (2009), “Jean Sturm et l’introduction de l’humanisme du Nord à Paris”, in M. Arnold, ed., Johannes Sturm (1507–1589): Rhetor, Pädagoge und Diplomat, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 109–130. Melanchton, Ph. (1562), Orationes ex historia Thucydidis, et insigniores aliquot Demosthenis et aliorum oratorum graecorum conversae in latinum sermonem, Wittenberg: Casparus Peucerus. Memorias de Don Enrique IV de Castilla. Tomo II: La colección diplomática del mismo rey (1835–1913), Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 489–490. Menegatti, T. (2000), “Ex ignoto notus”. Bibliografia delle opere a stampa del principe degli Incogniti: Giovan Francesco Loredano, Padova: Il Poligrafo. Miato, M. (1998), L’accademia degli Incogniti di Giovan Francesco Loredan. Venezia (1630–1661), Florence: Olschki. Michaud, L.G. (1843), Biographie universelle ancienne et moderne, vol. 13, 2nd ed., Paris: A. Th. Desplaces. Miglio, M. (1974), “Una lettera di Lapo da Castiglionchio il Giovane a Flavio Biondo: storia e storiografia nel Quattrocento”, Humanistica Lovaniensia 23: 1–30. Miguélez-Cavero, L. (2008), Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaid 200–600 AD, Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Millar, F. (1961), “Some Speeches in Cassius Dio”, Museum Helveticum 18: 11–22. Millar, F. (1964), A Study of Cassius Dio, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Millar, F. (2005), “Rome in Greek Culture: Cassius Dio and Ulpian”, in L. Troiani and G. Zecchini, eds., La cultura storica nei primi due secoli dell’impero romano, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 17–40. Millares Carlo, A. (1985), Tratado de paleografía española, with J.M. Ruiz Asencio, 3 vols., Madrid: Junta para Ampliación de Estudios. Milne, S.J. (2006), “Communication, Consensus and Conflict: Rhetorical Precepts, the Ars Concionandi, and Social Ordering in Late Medieval Italy”, in V. Cox and J.O. Ward, eds., The Rhetoric of Cicero in Its Medieval and Early Renaissance Commentary Tradition, Leiden and New York: Brill, 365–406. Molin, M. (2004), “De l’interêt des Excerpta historica iussu Imp. Contantini Porphyrogenetii pour le lecture de la dernière decade de Dion Cassius”, Ktema 29: 209–213. Momigliano, A. (1977), “Polybius’s Reappearance in Western Europe”, in Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 79–98. Moner, M. (1989), Cervantès conteur, Madrid: Casa de Velázquez. Monod, G. (1876), “Introduction. Du progrès des études historiques en France depuis le XVI e siècle”, Revue Historique 1: 5–38. Montagne, V. (2010), “Savoir(s) et rhétorique(s) à la Renaissance”, Noesis 15: 45–68.

Bibliography

497

Montana, F. (2009), “Storici, filologi, storici-filologi: intersezioni nella cultura ellenistica”, in F. Gazzano, G. Ottone, and L. Santi Amantini, eds., Ingenia Asiatica. Fortuna e tradizione di storici d’Asia Minore, Rome: Tored, 157–118. Montanari, F. (1984), “Ekphrasis e verità storica nella critica di Luciano”, in G. Arrighetti, ed., Ricerche di Filologia classica, vol. II, Filologia e critica letteraria della grecità, Pisa: Giardini, 111–123. Montanari, F. (1987), “Virtutes elocutionis e narrationis nella storiografia secon­do Luciano”, in A.M. Buongiovanni, ed., Ricerche di Filologia classica, vol. III, Interpretazioni antiche e moderne di testi greci, Pisa: Giardini, 53–65. Montanari, F. (2013), “Gli storici greci e la filologia alessandrina”, in F. Gazzano and G. Ottone, eds., Le età della trasmissione. Alessandria, Roma, Bisanzio, Rome: Tored, 1–32. Montreux, N. de (1578), Le seizième livre d’Amadis de Gaule traitant des amours, gestes et faits héroïques des illustres et vertueux princes Sféramond et Amadis d’Astré, Lyon: Benoist Rigaud. Moore, J.M. (1965), The Manuscript Tradition of Polibius, Cambridge: University Press. Moos, P. von (1993), “L’ Ars arengandi italienne du XIIIe siècle: une école de la communication”, in Entre histoire et litterature: communication et culture au Moyen Âge, Florence: Sismel, 389–415. Morgan, T. (1998), Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds, Cambridge: University Press. Morgan, T. (2007a), Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire, Cambridge: University Press. Morgan, T. (2007b), “Reading Moral Miscellanies”, Scripta Classica Israelica 26: 135–153. Morgan, T. (2012a), “Encyclopaedias of Virtue? Collections of Sayings and Stories about Wise Men in Greek”, in J. König and G. Woolf, eds., The Encyclopaedia from Antiquity to the Enlightenment, Cambridge: University Press, 108–128. Morgan, T. (2012b), “The Miscellany and Plutarch”, in F. Klotz, ed., The Philosopher’s Banquet: Plutarch’s Table Talk in the Intellectual Culture of the Imperial Culture, Cambridge: University Press, 49–60. Morhof, D.G. (1747), Polyhistor literarius, philosophicus et practicus cum accensionibus virorum clarissimorum Ioannis Frickii et Iohannis Molleri, Flensburgensis, Lübeck: Petrus Boeckmannus. Morpurgo, S. (1900), I manoscritti della R. Biblioteca Riccardiana di Firenze. Manoscritti italiani, Rome: Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. Mouren, R. (2002), “Le redécouverte des fragments de Denys et les premières éditions du De Legationibus”, in S. Pittia (ed.), Fragments d’historiens grecs. Autour de Denys d’Halicarnasse, Rome: École Française de Rome, 27-84. Mulertt, W. (1923), Studien zu den letzten Büchern des Amadisromans, Halle: Max Niemeyer.

498

Bibliography

Müller, K.K. (1882), Eine griechische Schrift über Seekrieg, Würzburg: Stuber. Muñoz Jiménez, M.J., ed. (2011), El florilegio: espacio de encuentro de los autores antiguos y medievales, Porto: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales. Murphy, J.J. (1981), Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Murphy, J.J., ed. (1983), Renaissance Eloquence. Studies in the Theory and Practice of Renaissance Rhetoric, Berkeley: University of California Press. Najemy, J. (1993), “Machiavelli and Geta: men of letters”, in A. Ascoli and V. Kahn, eds., Machiavelli and the Discourse of Literature, Ithaca N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 53–79. Nannini, R. (1547), Rime, Venice: F. Bindoni and M. Pasini. Nannini, R. (1555), Epistole d’Ovidio, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Nannini, R. (1557), Orationi militari raccolte per M. Remigio Fiorentino, da tvtti gli historici greci e latini, antichi e moderni, con gli argomenti che dichiarono l’occasioni per le quali elle furono fatte, doue sumariamente si toccano l’Historie, dal medesimo con diligenza corrette & tradotte, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Nannini, R. (1560), Orationi militari raccolte per M. Remigio Fiorentino, da tvtti gli historici greci e latini, antichi e moderni, con gli argomenti che dichiarono l’occasioni per le quali elle furono fatte, doue sumariamente si toccano l’Historie, dal medesimo con diligenza corrette & tradotte, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Nannini, R. (1561), Orationi in materia civile e criminale, tratte da gli historici greci, e latini, antichi e moderni, raccolte, e tradotte per M. Remigio Fiorentino, con gli Argomenti a ciascuna Oratione, per maggiore intelligenza di quanto si contiene in esse, e con gli Efetti che seguirono da dette Oratione. Nelle quali, oltre alla cognitione dell’Historie, s’ha notitia di governi di Stati, e di Republiche, d’accusare, e difender Rei, e di molte altre cose utili a ciascuno, ch’attende alla vita civile, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Nannini, R. (1567), Epistole et Evangelii, che si leggono tutto l’anno alle messe, secondo l’uso del messal nuovo, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Nannini, R. (1582), Considerazioni civili sopra l’Istorie di Francesco Guicciardini, Venice: Zenaro. Nassichuk, J. (2015), “La rhétorique de l’exemple dans les Harangues militaires de François de Belleforest”, Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 33.3: 276–293. Németh, A. (2010), Imperial Systematization of the Past. Emperor Constantine VII and His Historical Excerpts, diss., Budapest: Central European University. Neri, S. (2008), “Cuadro de la difusión europea del ciclo del Amadís de Gaula (siglos xvi–xvii)”, in J.M. Lucía Megías, M.C. Marín Pina, and A.C. Bueno, eds., 565–591. Neue Deutsche Biographie (1974) (Bd. 10), Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Bibliography

499

Neumann, F. (2003), Geschichtsschreibung als Kunst: Famiano Strada S.I. (1572–1649) und die ars historica in Italien, Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Nichols, M.F. (2009), Vitruvius and the Rhetoric of Display: Wall Painting, Domestic Architecture, and Roman Self-Fashioning, diss., University of Cambridge. Nichols, M.F. (2010), “Social Status and the Authorial Personae of Horace and Vitruvius”, in L. Houghton and M. Wyke, eds., Perceptions of Horace: A Roman Poet and His Readers, Cambridge: University Press, 109–122. Nicolai, R. (1992), La storiografia nell’educazione antica, Pisa: Giardini. Nicolai, R. (1995), “KTHMA ES AIEI. Aspetti della fortuna di Tucidide nel mondo antico”, Rivista di Filologia e d’Istruzione Classica 123: 5–26 (= Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Thucydides [2009], ed. by J. Rusten, Oxford: University Press, 381–404). Nicolai, R. (1999), “Polibio interprete di Tucidide: la teoria dei discorsi”, Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca 2: 281–301. Nicolai, R. (2004), Studi su Isocrate. La comunicazione letteraria nel IV secolo a.C. e i nuovi generi della prosa, Rome: Quasar. Nicolai, R. (2006a), “Alle origini dei canoni letterari: da Omero al Museo di Alessandria”, Scienze Umanistiche 2: 43–62. Nicolai, R. (2006b), “Polibio e la memoria della parola: i discorsi diretti”, in R. Uglione, ed., Scrivere la storia nel mondo antico (Atti del Convegno Nazionale di Studi, Torino 3–4 maggio 2004), Alessandria: Edizione dell’ Orso, 75–107. Nicolai, R. (2007), “Il canone tra classicità e classicismo”, in S. Bianchini and A. Landolfi, eds., Il canone europeo. Critica del testo 10: 95–103. Nicolai, R. (2008), “L’uso della storiografia come fonte di informazioni: teoria retorica e prassi oratoria”, in J.C. Iglesias-Zoido, ed., 143–174. Nicolai, R. (2011), “Logos Didaskalos: Direct Speech as a Critical Tool in Thucydides”, in G. Rechenauer and V. Pothou, eds., Thucydides: a violent teacher?, Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 159–169. Nicolai, R. (2012a), “La storiografia come restauro necessario”, Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca (new series) 1: 59–69. Nicolai, R., ed., (2012b), “Sua cuique proposito lex”: i generi letterari e loro leggi quaranta anni dopo”, Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca, Atti del primo seminario di Letteratura Greca “Luigi Enrico Rossi” (Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca 1.2), Roma: Quasar. Nicolai, R. (2013a), “I paradossi del canone”, in M. Berti and V. Costa, eds., Ritorno ad Alessandria. Storiografia antica e cultura bibliotecaria: tracce di una relazione perduta (Atti del Convegno, Roma, Novembre 2012), Rome: Tored, 27–40. Nicolai, R. (2013b), “Luigi Enrico Rossi storico della letteratura greca”, Eikasmos 24: 367–406. Nicolai, R. (2014a), “Cyrus orateur et ses maîtres (grecs)”, in P. Pontier, ed., Xénophon et la rhétorique, Paris: Les Presses de l’Université de Paris Sorbonne, 179–194.

500

Bibliography

Nicolai, R. (2014b), “Gorgia e Isocrate: i poteri della parola e la scoperta della letteratura”, in M. Tulli with M. Magnani and A. Nicolosi, eds., Φιλία. Dieci contributi per Gabriele Burzacchini, Bologna: Patron, pp. 11–32. Nicolai, R. (2014c), “Letteratura, generi letterari e canoni: alcune riflessioni”, in P. Canettieri and A. Punzi, eds., Dai pochi ai molti. Studi in onore di Roberto Antonelli, vol. II, Rome: Viella, 1197–1204. Nicolai, R. (2014d), “Review-Discussion of Achilli, Il proemio del libro XX della Biblioteca storica”, Histos 8: 1–9. Nicolai, R. (2014e), “The Canon and Its Boundaries”, in G. Colesanti and M. Giordano, eds., Submerged Literature in Ancient Greek Culture. An Introduction, Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 33–45. Nider, V. (2010), “José Penso e l’accademia sefardita de los Sitibundos di Livorno nella diffusione di un genere oratorio fra Italia e Spagna: traduzione e imitazione nelle Ideas possibles (1692)”, Studi Secenteschi 51: 153–196. Nider, V. (2011), “L’oratoria degli Incogniti in Spagna: le Declamaciones di Félix Lucio Espinosa y Malo e Antonio Lupis”, in D. Conrieri, ed., Gli Incogniti e l’Europa, Bologna: Libri di Emil, 209–232. Niese, B. (1910), “Gelon 3”, in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Enzyklopädie VII 1, cols. 1007–1013. Nipho, M. (1755), Varios discursos eloquentes y politicos sobre las acciones mas heroycas de diferentes personages antiguos, o modernos, en los que, por medio de prudentes avisos, puede lograr el hombre el verdadero modo de gobernarse, segun los preceptos de las tres partes constitutivas de la sabiduría humana: es a saber, Ethica, Politica, y Economía, Madrid: en la Oficina de D. Gabriel Ramirez. Noille, Ch. (2014), “Commentaires rhétoriques de Ferrazzi sur l’Énéide”, RARE. Rhétorique de l’Ántiquité à la Révolution, . Nolhac, P. de (1887), La bibliothéque de Fulvio Orsini. Contributions a l’histoire des collections d’Italie et a l’étude de la Renaissance, Paris: Hachette. Novokhatko, A. (2009), The Invectives of Sallust and Cicero: Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary‬, Göttingen: Walter de Gruyter. Nünlist, R. (2009), The Ancient Critic at Work: Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia, Cambridge: University Press. Ochoa, J.A. (1990), “La Historia nueva de Zósimo en los Excerpta de legationibus”, Myrtia 5: 77–92. Odorico, P. (1990), “La cultura della συλλογή. 1) Il cosiddetto enciclopedismo bizantino. 2) Le tavole del sapere di Giovanni Damasceno”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 38: 1–21. Olsen, M.B. (1979), “Les classiques latins dans les florilèges médiévaux antérieurs au XIIIe siècle I”, Revue d’Histoire des Textes 9: 47–121. Olsen, M.B. (1980), “Les classiques latins dans les florilèges médiévaux antérieurs au XIIIe siècle II”, Revue d’Histoire des Textes 10: 115–164.

Bibliography

501

Olsen, M.B. (1982), “Les florilèges d’auteurs classiques”, in Les genres littéraires dans les sources théologiques et philosophiques médiévales. Définition, critique et exploitation, Louvaine-la-Neuve: Université de Lovaine-la-Neuve, 151–164. Olsen, M.B. (1995), “Les florilèges d’auteurs classiques”, in La réception de la littérature classique au Moyen Age (IX e–XII e siècle), Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 133–144. Olsen, M.B. (2014), L’étude des auteurs classiques latins aux XI e et XII e siècles. Tome IV—2e Partie: La reception de la littérature classique. Manuscrits et textes, Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Ortmann, U. (1988), Cicero, Brutus und Octavian—Republikaner und Caesarianer: Ihr gegenseitiges Verhaltnis im Krisenjahr 44/43 v. Ch., Bonn: Habelt. Osgood, J. (2006), “Eloquence under the Triumvirs”, American Journal of Philology 127: 525–551. Osmond, P.J. (2010), “Pomponio Leto’s Unpublished Commentary on Sallust: Five Witnesses (and more)”, in B. Wagner and M. Reed, eds., Early Printed Books as Material Objects. Proceedings of the Conference Organized by the IFLA Rare Books and Manuscripts Section Munich 19–21 August 2009, Berlin and New York: IFLA Publications, 135–149. Osmond, P.J. and R. Ulery (2003), “Sallustius Crispus, Gaius”, in V. Brown, J. Hankins, and R.A. Kaster, eds., 183–326. Otranto, R. (2000), Antiche liste di libri su papiro, Rome: Edizione di Storia e Letteratura. Otranto, R. (2009), “Listi di libri su papiro. Tra conservazione e perdita”, Atene e Roma 3: 13–32. Pade, M. (2003), “Thucydides”, in V. Brown, J. Hankins, and R.A. Kaster, eds., 103–182. Pade, M. (2006), “Thucydides’ Renaissance Readers”, in A. Rengakos and A. Tsakmakis, eds., Brill’s Companion to Thucydides, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 779–810. Pade, M. (2015), “The Renaissance: Scholarship, Criticism and Education”, in Ch. Lee and N. Morley, eds., 26–42. Paladini, V. (1967), Sallustii Orationes et Epistulae de Historiarum Libris Excerptae, Bologna: Casa Editrice Prof. Riccardo Pàtron. Pallavicino, F., (1640), Scena Retorica, Venice: i Bertani. [Pallavicino, F.] [Speroncino, G., pseudonym], (1641), Il Corriero svaligiato, Nuremberg: H.J. Stoer [Venice: Giovanni Francesco and Agostinio Piccenini]. Palmieri, M. (1982), Vita civile, ed. G. Belloni, Florence: Sansoni. Paniagua Aguilar, D. (2007), “La arenga militar desde la perspectiva de la tradición po­lemológica grecolatina”, Talia dixit 2: 1–25. Panofsky, E. (1969), Problems in Titian. Mostly Iconographic, London: Phaidon. Parmentier-Morin, E. (2002), “Les fragments de Denys d’Halicarnasse attribués à Nicolas de Damas”, in S. Pittia, ed., 461–476.

502

Bibliography

Pasoli, E. (1976), “De orationibus atque epistulis de historiarum Sallusti libris excerptis,” in E. Coleiro, ed., Acta Omnium Gentium ac Nationum Conventus Latinis Litteris Linguaeque Fovendis, Msida: Malta University Press, 103–114. Pasqualigo, V. (1671), La galleria de’ ritratti morali di Vincenzo Pasqualigo, nobile veneto. Diuisa in tre partimenti, Venice: Bodio. Pasqualigo, V. (1678), Praelectiones Geniales Ad Philosophiam, Venice: F. Brigna. Patillon, M., (1997), Hermogène. L’art rhétorique. Exercices préparatoires, Etats de cause, Invention, Catégories stylistiques, Méthode de l’habilité, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Patillon, M., (2009), Corpus Rhetoricum. II, Hermogène. Les états de cause, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Pattison, M. (1889), “The Stephenses”, in H. Nettleship, ed., Essays by the late Mark Pattison, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 67–123. Pausch, D. (2010a), “Einleitung”, in D. Pausch, ed., Stimmen der Geschichte. Funktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie, Göttingen: De Gruyter, 1–13. Pausch, D., ed. (2010b), Stimmen der Geschichte. Funktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie, Göttingen: De Gruyter. Pavano, G. (1958), Dionisio di Alicarnasso, Saggio su Tucidide, Palermo: Priulla. Pearson, L. (1949), “Callisthenes in the Zenon Papyri”, Classical Philology 44: 200–202. Pearson L. (1960), The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great, New York: American Philological Association. Pédech, P. (1961), Polybe. Histoires. Livre XII. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Peleus, J. (1613), L’Histoire des faits et de la vie de Henry le Grand, Roy de France et de Navarre, Paris: François Huhy. Pellé, N. (2010), “Per una nuova edizione dei papyri di Tucidide”, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology (Ann Arbor 2007), Ann Arbor: American Studies in Papyrology, 597–604. Pelling, Ch. (2000), Literary Texts and the Greek Historian, London: Routledge. Pelling, Ch. (2012), “Aristotle’s Rhetoric, the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, and the Speeches in Herodotus and Thucydides”, in E. Foster and D. Lateiner, eds., Thucydides and Herodotus, Oxford: University Press, 281–315. Pendergrass, J. (2007), Letters and letter fragments, ed. J. de Pins, Geneva: Droz. Penso de la Vega, J. (1683), Rumbos peligrosos por donde navega con titulo de Novelas la çosobrante nave de la temeridad temiendo los peligrosos escollos de la censura surca este tempestuoso mar Don Josseph de la Vega, Antwerp [Amsterdam: Jahacob de Córdoba]. Penso de la Vega, J. (1692), Ideas possibles de que se compone un curioso ramillete de fragrantes flores, cultivadas y regidas por Don José de la Vega. Parte dellas en limitado jardin de sus continuas meditaciones, regadas con los sudores de su rostro, y corrientes de su pluma: y las más pomposas para la vista, y mas agradables para el olfato, trasportadas por el mismo Vega, de los mas amenos pensiles de la Hetruria, a

Bibliography

503

los huertos de la Hyberia, para ornato de sus vergeles, y delicia de sus prados. [. . .] Antwerp [Amsterdam: David de Castro Tartaz]. Pérez Custodio, V. (1991), “Algunas consideraciones en torno a los tópicos de los prólogos en las retóricas neolatinas”, in J.A. Hernández Herrero, ed., Retórica y Poética, Cádiz: Universidad, 209–220. Périon, J. (1532), T. Liuii conciones cum argumentis et annotationibus Ioachimi Perionii Benedictini Cormoeriaceni. His accessit index locupletissimum omnium concionum, simul et tabula insigniores conciones suo quamque generi subiectas complectens, Paris: S. de Colines. Périon, J. (1535), Titi Livii Patavini conciones per Ioachimum Perionium Benedictinum Cormoeriacenum collectae. His accessit oratio L. Catilinae ad milites ex C. Crispi Sallustii historiis, Antwerp: J. Steels. Pernot, L. (1979), “La collection de manuscrits grecs de la maison Farnèse”, Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 91: 457–506. Pernot, L. (1981), Les discours siciliens d’Aelius Aristide (Or. 5–6): étude littéraire et paléographique, New York: Arno Press. Perrochat, P. (1949), Les modèles grecs de Salluste, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Peter, H., ed. (1914), Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, Leipzig: Teubner [reissued in J. Kroymann (1967)]. Pétrovitch, G. (1881), Scanderberg (Georges Castriota): essai de bibliographie raisonée: ouvrages sur Scanderberg écrits en langues française, anglaise, allemande, latine, italienne, espagnole, portugaise, suédoise et grecque, et publiés depuis l’invention de l’imprimerie jusqu’à nos jours, Paris: E. Leroux. Petrucci Nardelli, F. (1991), La lettera e l’immagine. Le iniziali “parlanti” nella tipogragfia italiana (secc. XVI–XVIII), Florence: Leo S. Olschki. Phang, S.E. (2008), Roman Military Service. Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and Early Principate, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, M. (1979), “Machiavelli, Guicciardini, and the Tradition of Vernacular Historiography in Florence”, American Historical Review 84: 86–105. Piccione, R.M. (1994a), “Sulle citazioni euripidee in Stobeo e sulla struttura dell’Anthologion”, Rivista di Filologia e d’Istruzione Classica 122: 175–218. Piccione, R.M. (1994b), “Sulle fonti e le metodologie compilative di Stobeo”, Eikasmos 5: 281–317. Piccione, R.M. (2003), “Scegliere, raccogliere e ordinare. Letteratura di raccolta e trasmissione del sapere”, in E.V. Maltese, ed., Bisanzio tra storia e letteratura (= Humanitas 58), Brescia: Morcelliana, 44–63. Piccione, R.M. and M. Perkams, eds. (2003 and 2005), Selecta colligere, I–II: Beiträge zur Technik des Sammelns und Kompilierens griechischer Texte von der Antike bis zum Humanismus, Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Piccirilli, L. (2002), L’invenzione della diplomazia nella Grecia antica, Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider.

504

Bibliography

Pieraccioni, G. (1988), “Note su Machiavelli storico. I. Machiavelli e Giovanni di Carlo”, Archivio storico italiano 146: 635–654. Pieraccioni, G. (1989), “Note su Machiavelli storico. II. Machiavelli lettore delle Storie fiorentine di Guicciardini”, Archivio storico italiano 147: 63–98. Pineda, V. (2007), “La preceptiva historiográfica renacentista y la retórica de los discursos: antología de textos”, Talia dixit 2: 95–219. Pineda, V. (2008), “Verdad, ficción y estrategias narrativas: nuevas perspectivas historiográficas”, Talia dixit 3: 105–121. Pineda, V. (2008), “La arenga en los tratados historiográficos de la Alta Edad Moderna”, in J.C. Iglesias-Zoido, ed., 199–228. Pineda, V. (2011), “The Rhetoric of the Incidental in Francisco Manuel de Melo’s Guerra de Cataluña”, Storia della Storiografia 59–60: 7–31. Pineda, V. (2012a), “López de Cortegana y la reescritura retórica de la Crónica de Fernando III”, en F.J. Escobar Borrego, S. Díez Roboso, and L. Rivero García, eds., La “metamorfosis” de un inquisidor: el humanista Diego López de Cortegana (1455–1524), Huelva: Universidad de Huelva and Universidad de Sevilla, 183–211. Pineda, V. (2012b), “Rhetoric and the Writing of History in Early Modern Europe: Melo’s Guerra de Cataluña and Mascardi’s Ars historica”, European History Quarterly 42: 25–42. Pineda, V. (2012c), “Un nuevo capítulo de historiografía humanista: los veinte preceptos para el arte de la historia de Jodocus Badius Ascensius”, in E. Fosalba and G. Pontón, eds., Homenaje Alberto Blecua, Madrid: Castalia, 85–120. Pineda, V. (2013), “La prudencia de Cortés: teoría política y práctica retórica en la Historia de la conquista de México de Antonio de Solís”, Colonial Latin American Review 22.3: 343–367. Pineda, V. (2015), “La elocuencia del embajador: Juan Antonio de Vera y Zúñiga y las Orationi militari de Remigio Nannini”, Studia Aurea 9 (2015) 483–530. Pinto, P.M. (2013), “Men and Books in Fourth-century Athens”, in J. König, K. Oikonomopoulou, and G. Woolf, eds., Ancient Libraries, Cambridge: University Press, 85–94. Piras, G. (2001), Luciano di Samosata. Come si deve scrivere la storia, intr. L. Canfora, Naples: Liguori. Pirckheimer, W. (1545), Xenophontis philosophici ac historici excelentissimi opera, quae quidem extant, omnia, tam graeca quam latina hominum doctissimorum diligentia, partim iam olim, partim nunc primum latinitate donata, ac multo accuratius quam antea recognita, Basel: apud Mich. Isingrinium. Pitcher, L. (2010), Writing Ancient History: An Introduction to Classical Historiography, London and New York: I.B. Tauris. Pittia, S. (2006), “La fiabilité des fragments d’Appien sur l’histoire diplomatique et militaire de Rome aux IVe–IIIe siècles”, in E. Caire and S. Pittia, eds., Guerre et diplo-

Bibliography

505

matie romaines (IV e–III e siècles): pour un réexamen des sources, Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence, 113–135. Pittia, S., ed. (2002), Fragments d’historiens grecs: autour de Denys d’Halicarnasse, Rome: École Française de Rome. Place, E.B. (1954), “El Amadís de Montalvo como manual de cortesanía en Francia”, Revista de Filología Española 38: 151–169. Plant, I.M. (1999), “The influence of forensic oratory on Thucydides’ principles of method”, Classical Quarterly 49: 62–73. Plutarch (1518), Le vite di Plutarco, vulgare, novamente impesse et historiate, Venice: G. Rusconi. Plutarch (1567), Tresor des Vies de Plutarques: Contenant les beaux dicts et faicts, sentences notables, responses, apohtegmes & harangues des Empereurs, Roys, Ambassadeurs & Capitaines, tant Grecs que Romains: aussi des philosophes et gens sçavants: nouvellement recueillis et extraicts hors des Vies de Plutarque de Cheronae: pour servir d’exemple à ceux qui desirent sçavoir et ensuyvre leur haults faitcts és guerres, et de mesme leur police, conseil et gouvernement en temps de paix, Antwerp: Guillaume Sylvius. Poliziano, A. (1973), La commedia antica e l’“Andria” di Terenzio, ed. R. Lattanzi Roselli, Florence: Sansoni. Poncet, O. (1998), Pomponne de Bellièvre (1529–1607): un homme d’Etat au temps des guerres de religion, Paris: Droz. Pontón Gijón, G. (1998), La obra de Fernando de Pulgar en su contexto histórico y literario, diss., Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Pontón Gijón, G. (2002a), Correspondencias. Los orígenes del arte epistolar en España, Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Pontón Gijón, G. (2002b), Escrituras históricas. Relaciones, memoriales y crónicas de la Guerra de Granada, Bellaterra: Publicaciones del Seminario de Literatura Medieval y Humanística and Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Pontón Gijón, G. (2008), “Estudio Preliminar”, in J. de M. Carriazo, ed., Fernando del Pulgar. Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, Granada: Universidad, Marcial Pons and Universidad de Sevilla, vii–ciii. Porcacchi, T. (1564), Il primo volume delle cagioni delle guerre antiche, Venice: Gabriel Giolito de’ Ferrari. Pordomingo, F. (2013), Antologías de época helenística en papiro, Florence: Gonnelli. Porqueras Mayo, A. (1957), El prólogo como género literario: su estudio en el Siglo de Oro español, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Porqueras Mayo, A. (1965), El prólogo en el renacimiento español, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Portus, F. (1586), Commentarii in varia Xenophontis opuscula, [Geneva]: Jean Le Preux.

506

Bibliography

Potter, D. (2008), Renaissance France at War: Armies, Culture and Society, c. 1480–1560, Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Powell J. and W.T. Rossiter, eds. (2013), Authority and Diplomacy from Dante to Shakespeare, Burlington: Ashgate. Pownall, F.A. (2004), Lessons from the Past: The Moral Use of History in Fourth-Century Prose, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Prandi, L. (1985), Callistene. Uno storico tra Aristotele e i re macedoni, Milan: Jaca Book. Pitcher, L. (2010), Writing Ancient History: An Introduction to Classical Historiography, London: I.B. Tauris. Pritchett, W.K. (1975), tr., Dionysius of Halicarnassus: On Thucydides, Berkeley and London: University of California Press. Procacci, G. (1965), Studi sulla fortuna di Machiavelli, Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per l’Età Moderna e Contemporanea. Pryor, J.H. and E.M. Jeffreys, eds. (2006), The Age of the δρόμων. The Byzantine Navy ca. 500–1204, with an Appendix translated from the Arabic of Muhammad Ibn Mankali by A. Shboul, Leiden and Boston: Brill. Puglia, E. (1998), “Gli inventari library di P.Vindob.Gr. inv. 39966”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 123: 78–86. Questa, C. (1996), “Presenze di Tacito nel Seicento veneziano”, in F. Passadore and F. Rossi, eds., Musica, scienza e idee nella Serenissima durante il Seicento, Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Venezia-Palazzo Giustinian Lolin, 13–15 dicembre 1993, Venice: Fondazione Levi, 317–324. Quiroga, J., ed. (1996), tr. and ed., Pierre de Bourdeille, señor de Brantôme: Gentilezas y bravuconadas de los españoles, Madrid: Ediciones Mosand. Quondam, A. (1977), “ ‘Mercanzia d’onore’ ‘Mercanzia d’utile’. Produzione libraria e lavoro intellettuale a Venezia nel Cinquecento”, in A. Petrucci, ed., Libri, editori e pubblico nell’Europa moderna, Bari: Laterza, 51–104. Quondam, A. (1983), “La letteratura in tipografia”, in Letteratura italiana, vol. 2, Turin: Einaudi, 555–686. Racaut, L. (2009), “Nicolas Chesneau, Catholic Printer in Paris During the French Wars of Religion”, The Historical Journal 52: 23–41. Raditsa, L.F. (1969), A Historical Commentary on Sallust’s “Letter of Mithridates”, diss., Columbia University. Radouant, R. (1911), “L’éloquence militaire au XVI e siècle”, Revue d’Histoire Litteraire de la France 18: 503–552. Raible, W. (1995), “Arten des Kommentierens—Arten der Sinnbildung—Arten des Verstehens”, in J. Assmann and B. Gladigow, eds., Text und Kommentar. Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation IV, Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 51–74. Raimondi, E. (1995), Il colore eloquente, Bologna: Il Mulino. Rambaud, M. (1948), “Salluste et Trogue-Pompée”, Revue des Études Latines 26: 171–189.

Bibliography

507

Ramos Maldonado, S.I. (1997–1998), “Los prólogos de Bernardino Gómez Miedes. I: naturaleza del prólogo renacentista”, Excerpta Philologica 7–8: 223–239. Ramos Maldonado, S.I. (1999), “Los prólogos de Bernardino Gómez Miedes. II: contenido y estructura”, Excerpta Philologica 9: 285–309. Ramsay, J.T., ed. (2015), Sallust. Fragments of the Histories. Letters to Caesar, London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rance, Ph. (2007), “The Date of the Military Compendium of Syrianus Magister (Formerly the Sixth-Century Anonymus Byzantinus)”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 100: 701–737. Rasulo, P. (2011), “Le ‘Giornate Accademiche’ ”, in R. Quaranta, ed., Cultura e poesia tra Grottaglie e Napoli nell’Italia barocca. Giuseppe Battista (1610–1675). Atti del Convegno di Studi nel IV Centenario della nascita, Manduria: Filo editore, 155–160. Regoliosi, M. (1995), “Res gestae patriae e res gestae ex universa Italia: la lettera di Lapo da Castiglionchio a Biondo Flavio”, in C. Bastia and M. Bologniani, eds., La memoria e la città, Bologna: Il Nove, 273–305. Regoliosi, M. (2005), “Cicerone, Tucidide, Luciano. Per una puntualizzazione su talune fonti della storiografia”, in P. Viti, ed., Letteratura, verità e vita, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 97–106. Reinach, J. (1894), Le “Conciones” français. L’éloquence française, depuis la Révolution jusqu’à nos jours, textes de lecture, d’explication et d’analyse pour la classe de première (lettres), Paris: C. Delagrave. Renouard, A.A. (1837), Annales de l’imprimerie des Estienne, ou Histoire de la famille des Estiennes et de ses éditions. Première partie, Paris: J. Renouard. Reverdin, O. (1988), “Henri Estienne a Genève”, in N. Cazauran, ed., 21–42. Rey, A. and A. García Solalinde (1942), Ensayo de una bibliografía de las Leyendas Troyanas en la Literatura española, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Reydams-Schils, G., ed. (2011), Thinking through Excerpts: Studies on Stobaeus, Turnhout: Brepols. Reynier, G. (1908), Le roman sentimental avant l’Astrée, Paris: Armand Colin. Reynolds, L.D. (1983), “Sallust”, in L.D. Reynolds, ed., Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford: University Press, 341–352. Richardson, B. (2002), Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: The Editor and the Vernacular Text, 1470–1600, Cambridge: University Press. Richardson, B. (2007), “The scribal publication of Machiavelli’s works: ‘copisti per passione’, ‘copisti a prezzo’ ”, in J. Kraye and L. Lepschy, in collaboration with N. Jones, eds., Caro Vitto. Essays in Memory of Vittore Branca, The Italianist, 27, special supplement 2, 174–187. Richardson, B. (2009), Manuscript Culture in Renaissance Italy, Cambridge: University Press.

508

Bibliography

Richter, B.L.O. (1986), “Actualités in the Works of François de Belleforest”, in C.D.E. Tolton and C.M. Grisé, eds., Crossroads and Perspectives: French Literature of the Renaissance. Studies in Honour of Victor E. Graham, Geneva: Droz, 31–47. Richter, J.-D. (1987), Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Historiographie. Die Vorlagen des Pompeius Trogus für die Darstellung der nachalexandrischen hellenistischen Geschichte (Iust.13–40), Frankfurt: Peter Lang (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe III, 333). Rico, F. (1982), Primera cuarentena y tratado general de la literatura, Barcelona: El festín de Esopo. Ridolfi, R. (1963), The Life of Niccolò Machiavelli, tr. C. Grayson, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ridolfi, R. (1978), Vita di Niccolò Machiavelli, 7th ed., Florence: Sansoni. Riggsby, A.W. (2007), “Guides to the Wor(l)d”, in T. Whitmarsh and J. König, eds., Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire, Cambridge: University Press, 88–107. Riquer, M. de (1942), “La obra del hispanista Lorenzo Franciosini, primer traductor del Don Quijote al italiano”, Revista Nacional de Educación 2: 21–28. Riquer, M. de (1969), “Medievalismo y humanismo en la Corona de Aragón a fines del siglo xiv”, in VIII Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragón II (I), Valencia: Universidad, 221–235. Rizzo, Gino (1993), “Antonio Bruni di Manduria e le sue opere”, en A. Bruni, Epistole eroiche, ed. G. Rizzo, Galatina: Congedo, 9–63. Roberto, U. (2001), “Note sulla memoria e sull’uso della storia antica nel lessico della Suda”, Mediterraneo Antico 4: 249–270. Roberto, U. (2005), “Gli Excerpta Salmasiana di storia greca e orientale dello Ps. Giovanni di Antiochia e le Chronographiae di Giulio Africano” in R.M. Piccione and M. Perkams, eds., 253–293. Roberto, U. (2009), “Byzantine Collections of Late Antique Authors: Some Remarks on the Excerpta historica Constantiniana”, in M. Walraff and L. Mecella, eds., Die Kestoi des Julius Africanus und ihre Überlieferung, Berlin: De Gruyter, 71–84. Rocamora, J.M. (1882), Catálogo abreviado de los manuscritos de la Biblioteca del Duque de Osuna e Infantado, Madrid: Imprenta de Fortanet. Rodríguez-Salgado, M.J. (1988), The Changing Face of Empire. Charles V, Philipp II and Habsburg Authority, 1551–1559, Cambridge: University Press. Roersch, A. (1929), “Un historien belge oublié: Johannes Vasaeus”, Bulletins de la Classe des Lettres et des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 15: 164-185. Rolla, Ch. (2005), “Bibliographie de Madeleine de Scudéry”, . Roller, M. (2009), “The exemplary past in Roman historiography and culture”, in A. Feldherr, ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians, Cambridge: University Press, 214–230.

Bibliography

509

Ronconi, F. (2004), “Per una tipologia del codice miscellaneo greco in epoca mediobizantina”, in E. Crisci and O. Pecere, eds., 145–182. Roques, D. (2004), “L’historiographie protobyzantine (IVe–VIIe siècle) et les fragments des historiens grecs de Rome”, Ktema 29: 231–252. Rosand, E. (2013), L’Opera a Venezia nel 17. secolo: la nascita di un genere, Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura. Rossi, L.E. (1971), “I generi letterari e le loro leggi scritte e non scritte nelle letterature classiche”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 18: 69–94. Rossi, L.E. (1983), “Il simposio greco arcaico e classico come spettacolo a se stesso”, in Atti del VII convegno di studio “Spettacoli conviviali dall’antichità classica alle corti italiane del ‘400” (Viterbo, maggio 1982), Viterbo: Il Centro, 41–50. Rossi, L.E. (2000), “La letteratura alessandrina e il rinnovamento dei generi letterari della tradizione”, in R. Pretagostini, ed., La letteratura ellenistica. Problemi e prospettive di ricerca, Atti del Colloquio internazionale, Universita di Roma Tor Vergata, 29–30 aprile 1997, Rome: Quasar, 149–161 (Quaderni di Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca 1). Rossi, M. (1998), “La collana storica giolitiana e la sua eredità”, in L. Bolzoni, V. Erlindo, and M. Morelli, eds., Memoria e memorie, Florence: L.S. Olschki, 107–132. Rothstein, M. (1986), “When Fiction is Fact: Perceptions in Sixteenth-Century France”, Studies in Philology 83: 359–375. Rouse, R.H. (1979), “Florilegia and Latin Classical Authors in Twelfth- and ThirteenthCentury Orleans”, Viator 10: 131–60. Roux, O. (2009), “Le Nouveau recueil de lettres, harangues, et discours differens de Charles Sorel. Réapparition d’un ouvrage égaré”, XVII e siècle 242.1: 159–178. Rubinstein, N. (1987a), “Machiavelli storico”, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, vol. 3.17: 695–727 Rubinstein, N. (1987b), “The history of the word politicus in early-modern Europe”, in A. Pagden, ed., The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe, Cambridge: University Press, 41–56. Runciman, S. (1958), The Sicilian Vespers. A History of the Mediterranean World in the Later Thirteenth Century, Cambridge: University Press. Russo, E. (2005), Studi su Tasso e Marino, Padua and Rome: Antenore. Russo, F. (2009), “Aspetti e temi della propaganda antiromana di Mitridate VI Eupatore”, Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale 51: 373–401. Sabbadini, R. (1905), Le scoperte dei codici latini e greci ne’ secoli XIV e XV, 2 vols., Florence: Sansoni. Sabbadini, R. (1915), “Antonio da Romagno e Pietro Marcello”, Nuovo Archivio Veneto 30: 207–246. Sabellico, M.A. (1544), Le historie vinitiane divise in tre deche con tre libri della quarta deca, [Venice]: C.T. Navò. Sacks, K. (1981), Polybius on the Writing of History, Berkeley: University of California Press.

510

Bibliography

San Vicente, Á., ed. (1992), Ceremonial de Consagración y Coronación de los Reyes de Aragón, ms. R. 14.425 de la Biblioteca de la Fundación Lázaro Galdiano en Madrid, 2 vols., Zaragoza: Centro Aragonés de Documentación Bibliográfica. Sánchez Manzano, M.A. (2004), “La retórica y su significado según las definiciones de tratados de esa disciplina escritos en latín entre 1500 y 1650”, in J.F. Domínguez Domínguez, ed., Humanae litterae: estudios de humanismo y tradición clásica en homenaje al profesor Gaspar Morocho Gayo, León: Universidad, 429–474. Sans, B. (2014), “Obiurgatio siue exprobratio: le discours de Scipion aux soldats rebelles chez Tite-Live”, Exercices de rhétorique 3: 1–17. Sansovino, F. (1546), L’arte oratoria secondo i modi della lingua volgare di Francesco Sansouino diuisa in tre libri: ne quali si ragiona tutto quello ch’all’artificio appartiene, cosi del poeta come dell’oratore con l’autorita de i nostri scrittori, Venice: Griffo e fratelli. Sansovino, F. (1561), Diverse Orationi volgarmente scritte da molti hvomini illvstri de tempi nostri. Nelle quali si contengono ragionamenti conueneuoli a Principi, e Senatori, a Capitani, e ad ogni altra qualità di persone, Venice: Griffo e fratelli. Sansovino, F. (1562), Delle orationi recitate a Principi di Venetia nella loro creatione da gli ambasciadori di diverse Città, Venice: Griffo e fratelli. Santangelo, F. (2009), “With or Without You: some Late-Hellenistic Narratives of Contemporary History”, Scripta Classica Israelica 28: 57–78. Santi Amantini, L. (1981), ed., Giustino, Storie Filippiche. Epitome da Pompeo Trogo, Milano: Rusconi. Santosuosso, A. (1994), “Anatomy of Defeat in Renaissance Italy: The Battle of Fornovo in 1495”, The International History Review 16: 221–250. Sanz Julián, M. (2012), Crónica troyana de Juan Fernández de Heredia, Zaragoza: Fundación Fernando el Católico. Sarpi, P. (1751), Histoire du Concile de Trente [1619], vol. 2, Amsterdam: J. Wetstein and G. Smith. Saxo Grammaticus (1980), History of the Danes, tr. P. Fisher, ed. H.E. Davidson, 2 vols., Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, Sbardella, L. (2012), Cucitori di canti. Studi sulla tradizione epico-rapsodica greca e i suoi itinerari nel VI secolo a.C., Rome: Quasar (Quaderni di Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca 14). Schatzkammer schöner, zierlicher Orationen, Sendbriefen, Gesprächen, Vorträgen, Vermahnungen und dergleichen. Auß den vier und zwentzig Büchern deß Amadis von Franckreich zusammen gezogen. Und allen derselben Liebhabern und sonderlich allen denen so sich Teutscher Sprach Lieblichkeit und Zierd befleissigen zu gutem in Truck gegeben (1596), Strasbourg: Lazarus Zetzner. Schepens, G. (1997), “Jacoby’s FGrHist: Problems, Methods, Prospects”, in G. Most, ed., Collecting Fragments—Fragmente sammeln, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 144–172.

Bibliography

511

Schettino, M.T. (2001), “Cassio Dione e le guerre civili di età severiana”, Gerion 19: 533–558. Schiff, M. (1905), La bibliothèque du marquis de Santillane, Paris: Librairie Emile Bouillon. Schreiber, F. (1982), The Estiennes. An Annotated Catalog of 300 Highlights of Their Various Presses, New York: E.K. Schreiber. Schreiber, F. (1988), “La tyrannie de Renouard sur Henri Estienne”, in N. Cazauran, ed., 13–20. Schröder, B.J., D. Dingel, and J.-P. Schröder, eds. (2003), “Studium declamatorium”. Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit, München: Saur. Schwarz, E. (1897), “Die Berichte über die catilinarische Verschwörung”, Hermes 32: 554–608. Schwartz, E. (1899), “Cassius (40)“, in Pauly-Wissowa’s Real Enzyklopädie III, 2, cols. 1684–1722. Schwarz, E. (1900), “Kallisthenes Hellenica”, Hermes 35: 106–130. Scudéry, M. de (1642), Les femmes illustres, ou Les harangues heroïques de Monsieur De Scudéry: Avec les véritables portraits de ces héroïnes, tirez des medailles antiques, Paris: Antoine de Sommaville and Augustin Courbé. Scudéry, M. de (1644), Les femmes illustres, ou Les harangues heroïques de Monsieur De Scudéry: Avec les véritables portraits de ces héroïnes, tirez des medailles antiques, Paris: Antoine de Sommaville and Augustin Courbé. Scudéry, M. de (1681), Les femmes illustres or The heroick harangues of the illustrious women written in French by the exquisite pen of Monsieur de Scuddery governour of Nostre Dam. Translated by James Innes, Edinburgh: Thomas Brown James Glen and John Weir. Seel, O. (1955), Die Praefatio des Pompeius Trogus, Erlangen: Universitätsbund. Seel, O. (1956), Pompei Trogi Fragmenta, Leipzig: Teubner. Seel, O. (1972), Pompeius Trogus. Weltgeschichte von den Anfängen bis Augustus im Auszug des Justin, Zürich and Munich: Artemio Verlag. Sellge, J. (1882), Symbola ad Historiam librorum Sallustianorum condendam datur I. De studiis in Sallustio Crispo a Pompeio Trogo et Iustino epitomatore collocatis, Sagani: H. Mertsching. Serés Guillén, G. (1994), ed., Don Juan Manuel. El Conde Lucanor, Barcelona: Crítica. Serrano, L. (1924), “Documentos referentes a la prisión de Boabdil”, Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia 84: 439–448. Serrano y Sanz, M. (1913), Vida y escritos de D. Juan Fernández de Heredia, Gran Maestre de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén. Discurso leído en la solemne apertura de los estudios del año académico de 1913 a 1914, Zaragoza: Universidad.

512

Bibliography

Setton, K.M. (1984), The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), IV: From Julius III to Pius V, Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society. Ševčenko, I. (1992), “Re-reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus”, in J. Shepard and S. Franklin, eds., Byzantine Diplomacy. Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, Aldershot: Ashgate, 167–195. Shepard, J. (2003), “The Uses of ‘History’ in Byzantine Diplomacy: Observations and Comparisons”, in J. Herrin and J. Harris, eds., Porphyrogenita: Essays on the History and Literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in Honour of Julian Chrysostomides, London: Ashgate, 91–116. Sher Tinsley, B. (1989), “Johann’s Sturm’s Method for Humanistic Pedagogy”, The Sixteenth Century Journal 20: 23–40. Simonin, M. (1992), Vivre de sa plume au XVI e siècle ou la carrière de François de Belleforest, Geneva: Droz. Skinner, Q. (1978), The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. I. The Renaissance, Cambridge: University Press. Skinner, Q. (2000), Machiavelli. A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: University Press. Slights, W.E. (2001), “The Edifying Margins of Renaissance English Books”, Renaissance Quarterly 42:4 (Winter, 1989), 682–716 [reprinted in Managing Readers: Printed Marginalia in English Renaissance Books, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press]. Smalley, B. (1971), “Sallust in the Middle Ages”, in R.R. Bolgar, ed., Classical Influences on European Culture, A.D. 500–1500, Cambridge: University Press, 165–175. Smith, P.S. (1983), “Le Redoublement de termes et les emprunts linguistiques dans la traduction en France au XVI e siècle: Henri Estienne et François de Belleforest”, Revue de Linguistique Romane 47: 37–38. Smith, W.P., ed. (2012), “Amadís de Gaula for the Twenty-first Century”, La Corónica 40.2: 175–318. Sonnino, M., ed. (2010), Euripidis Erechthei quae extant, Florence: Felice le Monnier. Sordi, M. (1999), “Opposizione e onori: il caso dei Lupercali”, in M. Sordi, ed., Fazioni e congiura nel mondo antico, Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 151–160. Spallone, M. (1990), “I percorsi medievali del testo: accesus, commentarii, florilegi”, in G. Cavallo, P. Fedeli, and A. Giardina, eds., Lo spazio letterario di Roma antica, vol. 3, Rome: Salerno Editrice, 387–471. Speidel, M.A. (2010), “Pro patria mori . . . La doctrine du patriotisme romain dans l’armée impériale”, Cahiers Gustav Glotz 21: 139–154. Spera, L. (2014), “Introduzione” in Due biografie per il principe degli Incogniti Edizione e commento della Vita di Giovan Francesco Loredano di Gaudenzio Brunacci (1662) e di Antonio Lupis (1663), Bologna: I libri di Emil.

Bibliography

513

Spini, G. (1970), “The Art of History in the Italian Counter-Reformation”, in E. Cochrane, ed., The Late Italian Renaissance. 1525–1630, New York: Harper & Row, 91–133. Spironcini, G. [F. Pallavicino] (1641), Il corriero svaligiato, Nuremberg [Venice]: H.J. Stoer, 1641. Stadter, Ph.A. (2014), “Plutarch’s Compositional Technique: The Anecdote Collections and the Parallel Lives”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 54: 665–684. Stangalino, S.E. (2014), “Caprices héroïques di François de Grenaille e la diffusione dell’opera di Giovan Francesco Loredano in Francia”, European Network for Baroque Cultural Heritage . Steel, C. and H. van der Blom, eds. (2013), Community and Communication. Oratory and Politics in Republican Rome, Oxford: University Press. Stekelenburg, A.V. van (1971), De Redevoeringen bij Cassius Dio, Delft: Delftsche vitgeversmij. Stekelenburg, A.V. van (1976), “Lucan and Cassius Dio as Heirs to Livy. The Speech of Julius Caesar at Placentia”, L’Antiquité Classique 19: 43–57. Stoppelli, P. (2005), La Mandragola: storia e filologia, Rome: Bulzoni. Stornajolo, C. (1895), Codices urbinates graeci Bibliothecae Vaticanae, descripti praeside Alfonso cardinali Capecelatro. Recensuit Cosimus Stornajolo, Rome: Biblioteca Vaticana. Stouraitis, I. (2012), “ ‘Just War’ and ‘Holy War’ in the Middle Ages. Rethinking Theory through the Byzantine Case-Study”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 62: 227–264. Stoyle, R.E. (1987), “How to Account for Belleforest’s Command of Italian?”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 49: 389–392. Straparola, G.F. (2000), Le piacevoli notti, ed. D. Pirovano, 2 vols., Rome: Salerno. Strozzi, F. (1545), Gli otto libri di Tucidide delle Guerre, fatte tra i popoli di Morea, e gli Ateniesi, tradotti dal Greco idioma nell’ Italiano da Francesco di Soldo Strozzi Fiorentino, Venice: Vincenzo Valgrisi. Struever, N. (1970), The Language of History in the Renaissance. Rhetoric and Historical Consciousness in Florentine Humanism, Princeton: University Press. Suárez, C. (1562), De arte rhetorica libri III ex Aristotele, Cicerone et Quintiliano deprompti, Coimbra: J. de Barreira. Taragna, A.M. (2000), “Logoi historias”. Discorsi e lettere nella prima storiografia retorica bizantina (Hellenica 7), Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Taragna, A.M. (2003), “Il trono e la penna: imperatori dotti a Bisanzio”, in E.V. Maltese, ed., Bisanzio tra storia e letteratura (= Humanitas 58), Brescia: Morcelliana, 23–43. Tate, R.B. (1985), ed., Fernando del Pulgar, Claros varones de Castilla, Madrid: Taurus.

514

Bibliography

Tate, R.B. (1998), “Poles apart: Two Official Historians of the Catholic Monarchs. Alfonso de Palencia and Fernando del Pulgar”, in J.M. Soto Rábanos, ed., Pensamiento ­medieval hispano. Homenaje a Horacio Santiago-Otero, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 439–463. Tate, R.B. and R. Alemany Ferrer (1982), eds,. Alfonso de Palencia, Epístolas latinas, Bellaterra: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona. Tatum, W.J. (2006), “The Final Crisis (69–44)”, in N. Rosenstein and R. Morstein-Marx, eds., A Companion to the Roman Republic, Malden, Mass., and Oxford: Blackwell, 190–211. Tavoni, M.G. (2009), Circumnavigare il testo: gli indici in età moderna, Naples: Liguori. The moste excellent and pleasaunt booke: entituled: The treasurie of Amadis of Fraunce: Contenying eloquente orations, pythies Epistles, learned Letters, and fervent Complayntes, serving for sundrie purposes, the vvorthinesse vvhereof and profite, dothe appeare in the preface or table of this boke. Translated out of French into English (1572), London: Henry Bynneman for Thomas Hacket. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (TLL) Online , Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. Thiermann, P. (1993), Die Orationes Homeri des Leonardo Bruni Aretino, Leiden: Brill. Thou, J.-A. de (1659), Histoire des choses arrivées de son temps, vol. 1, Paris: Augustin Courbé. Thou, J.-A. de (1740), Histoire universelle, vol. 3, The Hague: Henri Scheurleer. Timperley, Ch.H. (1839), A Dictionary of Printers and Printing, Oxford: H. Johnson. Tomei, C. (2012), “Nannini, Remigio”, in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. 77, Rome: Treccani, . Tompkins D.P. (1972), “Stylistic characterization in Thucydides: Nicias and Alcibiades”, Yale Classical Studies 22: 181–214. Tompkins, D.P. (1993a), “Archidamus and the Question of Characterization in Thucydides” in R.M. Rosen and J. Farrell, eds., Nomodeiktes. Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 99–111 Tompkins, D.P. (1993b), “Thucydides Constructs his Speakers: the Case Of Diodotus”, Electronic Antiquities 1, . Torrens, Ph. (2010), “Claude de Seyssel traducteur des historiens antiques”, in P. EichelLojkine, ed., Claude de Seyssel. Écrire l’histoire, penser le politique en France, à l’aube des temps modernes, Rennes: Presses Universitaires, 183–200. Toynbee, A.J. (1973), Constantine Porphyrogenitus and His World, London and New York: Oxford University Press. Traina, G. (2003), Marco Antonio, Rome and Bari: Laterza. [Trésor d’Amadis] (1559), Le Thresor des douze livres d’Amadis de Gaule, Assavoir les harengues, concions, epistres, complaintes, et autres choses les plus excellentes et dignes du lecteur françois, Paris: Estienne Groulleau.

Bibliography

515

[Trésor d’Amadis] (1560), Le Tresor des Amadis: contenant les epitres, complaintes, concions, harangues, deffis, et cartels: recueillis des douze livres d’Amadis de Gaule: pour servir d’exemple, à ceus qui desirent apprendre à bien écrire missives, ou parler françois, avec une table, dont l’epitre suivante enseigne l’usage, et rend raison de l’orthographe, Antwerp: Christophe Plantin. [Trésor d’Amadis] (1571), Thresor des livres d’Amadis de Gaule, assavoir les harengues, concions, epistres, complaintes, et autres choses les plus excellentes, de nouveau augmenté et orné du recueil du 13. livre, et d’une infinité des propos et devis bien gentils, tirez dudict livre, Lyon: Jean Huguetan. [Trésor d’Amadis] (1574), Thresor des quatorse livres d’Amadis de Gaule contenant les epistres, complaintes, concions, harangues, deffis, cartels, deuis et pourparlers, pour servir d’exemple à ceux qui desirent apprendre à bien ecrire missives, ou parler françois, Antwerp: Jean Waesberghe. [Trésor d’Amadis] (1582), Tresor de tous les livres d’Amadis de Gaule, contenant les harangues, epistres, concions, lettres missives, demandes, responces, repliques, sentences, cartels, complaintes, et autres choses, les plus excellentes, pour instruire la jeune noblesse françoise à l’éloquence, grace, vertu et generosité, Lyon: Jean Huguetan (also known as Le Thresor des XXI livres d’Amadis). [Trésor d’Amadis] (1606), Thresor de tous les livres d’Amadis de Gaule, contenant les harangues, epistres, concions, lettres missives, demandes, responces, repliques, sentences, cartels, complaintes, et autres choses, les plus excellentes, tres-utile pour instruire la noblesse françoise à l’eloquence, grace, vertu et generosité, Lyon: Jean-Anthoine Huguetan. Trésor de la Langue française informatisé, . Trovato, P. and R. Brakkee (1986), Niccolò Machiavelli, La vita di Castruccio Castracani da Lucca, Naples: Liguori. [Tutorio, G.B.] (1642), Delirii academici de’ signori ottusi di Spoleto all’illustrissimo signore, il signore Gio. Francesco Loredano, Venice: T. Pavoni, erede del Sarzina. Tyron, F. (1574), Le quatorzieme livre d’Amadis de Gaule, traitant des gestes et genereux faicts d’Armes et d’amours de plusieurs grands Princes et Seigneurs, specialement du tres-preux et gentil Prince dom Silves de la Selve, filz de l’Empereur Amadis de Grece, et de la Royne Finistée de Thebes, Antwerp: Jean Waesberghe. Usener, H. (1889), Dionysii Halicarnassensis librorum de imitatione reliquiae epistulaeque criticae duae, Bonn: M. Coen. Usher, S. (1999), Greek Oratory: Tradition and Originality, Oxford: University Press. Usunáriz, J.M. (2006), España y sus tratados internacionales: 1516–1700, Pamplona: Eunsa. Utard, R. (2004), Le discours indirect chez les historiens latins: écriture ou oralité? Histoire d’un style, Louvain: Peeters. Vaganay, H. (1906), Amadis en français. Essai de bibliographie et d’iconographie, Florence: Olschki.

516

Bibliography

Vaganay, H. (1923), “Les ‘Trésors d’Amadis’: essai de bibliographie”, Revue hispanique 57: 115–126. Valla, L. (1471), Elegantiae linguae Latinae, Rome: Johannes Philippus de Lignamine; Venice: Nicolaus Jenson; Paris: Ulrich Gering, Martin Crantz, and Michael Friburger. Vallozza, M. (1985), “Kairós nella teoria retorica di Alcidamante e di Isocrate, ovvero nell’oratoria orale e scritta”, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 50: 119–123. Vallozza, M. (1987), “La retorica e il tempo: le valenze di καιρός tra oratoria orale e scritta”, in A. Pennacini, ed., Studi di retorica oggi in Italia, Bologna: Pitagora, 87–91. Van den Hout, M.P.J. (1999), A Commentary on the Letters of M. Cornelius Fronto (Mnemosyne Supplement 190), Leiden: Brill. Van Wickevoort-Crommelin, B.R. (1993), Die Universalgeschichte des Pompeius Trogus. Herculea Audacia Orbem Terrarum Adgressus, Hagen: Margit Rottmann. Vardi, A. (2004), “Genre, Conventions, and Cultural Programme in Gellius’ Noctes Atticae”, in L. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi, eds., The Worlds of Aulus Gellius. Oxford: University Press, 159–186. Vargas Díaz-Toledo, A. (2008), “Huellas del Amadís en Francia (las fiestas cele­ bradas en Châtellerault, en 1541, con motivo de la boda de Jeanne d’Albret y Guillaume de la Marck)”, in J.M. Lucía Megías, M.C. Marín Pina, and A.C. Bueno, eds., 819–834. Vári, R. (1908), “Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 17: 75–85. Vasiliev, A.A. (1968), Byzance et les Arabes. II. Les relations politiques de Byzance et des Arabes à l’époque de la dynastie macédonienne (les empereurs Basile I, Léon le Sage et Constantin VII Porphyrogénète), 867–959 (253–348). I, Les relations politiques de Byzance et des Arabes à l’époque de la dynastie macédonienne. Première période: de 867 à 959, Brussels: Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales. Vattuone, R. (1991), Sapienza d’Occidente: il pensiero storico di Timeo di Tauromenio, Bologna: Il Mulino. Vauchelle, A.-A. (1898), Conciones latinae e sacris necnon e profanis scriptoribus excerptae. Nouveau recueil, publié avec exposés historiques, plans et notes en français, 3rd ed., Paris: Librairie Ch. Poussielgue. Ventrella, G. (2005), “L’etopea nella definizione degli antichi retori”, in E. Amato and J. Schamp, eds., 179–212. Victor Vivensis (1563), Histoire des persécutions faites en Afrique par les Arriens sur les Catholiques . . . faite en Latin par Victor Evesque d’Utique, et à present mise en Françpis par F. de Belleforest, Paris: G. Buon. Vignali, S. (2014), “ ‘L’épître ‘Aux Lecteurs’ de L’oraison que feit Crispe Saluste contre Mar. Tul. Ciceron de Pierre Saliat (1537)”, Corpus Eve. Préfaces de traduction, .

Bibliography

517

Vignolo Munson, R. (2006), “An Alternate World: Herodotus and Italy”, in J. Marincola and C. Dewald, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, Cambridge: University Press, 255–273. Villalba Álvarez, J. (2009), Los proemios en la historiografía latina renacentista, Madrid, Ediciones Clásicas. Villalba Álvarez, J. (2013), “El exemplum en los proemios historiográficos renacentistas”, in M.L. Harto and J. Villalba, eds., Exempla fidem faciunt, Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 263–282. Viroli, M. (1990), “Machiavelli and the republican idea of politics”, in G. Bock, Q. Skinner, and M. Viroli, ed., Machiavelli and Republicanism, Cambridge: University Press, 143–171. Viroli, M. (1992), From Politics to Reason of State, Cambridge: University Press. Visser, A.S.Q. (2005), Joannes Sambucus and the Learned Image: The Use of the Emblem in Late-renaissance Humanism, Leiden: Brill. Vita Heinrici IV. Imperatoris (1990), W. Eberhard, ed., Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Vivanti, C. (2008), Niccolò Machiavelli. I tempi della politica, Rome: Donzelli. Vives, J. (1927), Juan Fernández de Heredia, Gran Maestre de Rodas. Vida, obras, formas dialectales, Barcelona: Biblioteca Balmes. Von Gutschmid, A. (1894), “Die beiden ersten Bücher des Pompejus Trogus”, in Kleine Schriften, vol. V, Leipzig: Teubner, 19–217. Walbank, F.W. (1955), “Tragic History: a Reconsideration”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 2: 4–14. Walbank, F.W. (1960), “History and Tragedy”, Historia 9: 216–234. Walbank, F.W. (1967), A Historical Commentary on Polybius, vol. II, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Walbank, F.W. (1985), “Speeches in Greek Historians”, in Selected Papers. Studies in Greek and Roman History and Historiography, Cambridge: University Press, 242–261. Weaire, G. (2005), “Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Professional Situation and the De Thucydide”, Phoenix 59: 246–266. Weddige, H. (1975), Die “Historien vom Amadis auss Frankreich”. Dokumentarische Grundlegung zur Entstehung und Rezeption, Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Weiss, R. (1953), “Lo studio di Plutarco nel trecento”, Parola del Pasato 8: 321–342. Wertheimer, M.M. (1997), Listening to Their Voices: the Rhetorical Activities of Historical Women, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. West, S.R. (2011), “The papyri of Herodotus”, in D. Obbink, ed., Culture In Pieces: Essays on Ancient Texts in Honour of Peter Parsons, Oxford: University Press, 69–83. Wiater, N. (2010), “Speeches and Historical Narrative in Polybius’ Histories. Approaching Speeches in Polybius”, in D. Pausch, ed., Stimmen der Geschichte. Funktionen von Reden in der antiken Historiographie, Göttingen: De Gruyter, 67–107.

518

Bibliography

Wiater, N. (2011), The Ideology of Classicism. Language, History and Identity in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Widukind (1989), Rerum gestarum Saxonicarum libri tres, eds. H.-E. Lohmann and P. Hirsch, Hanover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung. Wilmart, A. (1933), “L’Ars arengandi de Jacques de Dinant, avec un Appendice sur ses ouvrages De dictamine”, Analecta Reginensia. Studi e testi 59: 113–151. Wilson, N.G. (1983), Scholars of Byzantium, London: Duckworth. Winterbotton, M. (1983), “Curtius Rufus”, in L.D. Reynolds, ed., 148–149. Woodman, A.J. (1988), Rhetoric in Classical Historiography, London and Portland: Areopagita Press. Wooten, C. (1974), “The Speeches in Polybius: An Insight into the Nature of Hellenistic Oratory”, American Journal of Philology 95: 235–251. Worden, B. (1996), The Sound of Virtue: Philip Sidney’s Arcadia and Elizabethan Politics, Yale: University Press. Xenophon (ca. 1474), Cyropaedia, tr. F. Filelfo, Milan: Arcangelo Ungardo. Xenophon (1533), Xenophontis De Cyri Minoris expeditione libri 7. Romulus Amasaeus vertit, [Bologna]: I. Baptista Phaellus. Yardley, J.C. (1994), “The Literary Background to Justin / Trogus”, The Ancient History Bulletin 8: 60–70. Yardley, J.C. (2003), Justin and Pompeius Trogus. A Study of the Language of Justin’s Epitome of Trogus, Toronto, Buffalo, and London: University of Toronto Press (Phoenix Supplement 41). Yardley, J.C. (2010), “What is Justin doing with Trogus?”, in M. Horster and C. Reitz, eds., 469–490. Yardley, J.C. and J.R. Atkinson (2009), eds., Curtius Rufus, Histories of Alexander the Great Book 10, Oxford: University Press. Yardley, J.C. and R. Develin (1994), eds., Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Atlanta: American Philological Association. Yardley, J.C. and W. Heckel (1997), eds. Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Vol. I. Books 11–12: Alexander the Great, Oxford: University Press. Yardley, J.C., P.V. Wheatley, and W. Heckel (2011), eds., Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Vol. II. Books 13–15: The Successors to Alexander the Great, Oxford: University Press. Yeo, R. (2014), Notebooks, English Virtuosy and Early Modern Science, Chicago: University Press. Ymbert, J.G. (1818), Éloquence Militaire, ou L’Art d’Émouvoir le Soldat: D’Après les plus illustres Exemples tirés des Armées des différens Peuples; Et Principalement d’Apres Proclamations, Harangues, Discours et Paroles Mémorables des Généraux et Officiers Français, 2 vols., Paris: Chez Magimel, Anselin et Pochard. Zecchini, G. (1978), Cassio Dione e la guerra gallica di Cesare, Milan: Vita e Pensiero.

Bibliography

519

Zecchini, G. (2001), Cesare e il “mos maiorum”, Stuttgart: Steiner. Zhmud, L. (2006), The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. Zimmerman, T.C. (1995), Paolo Giovio: The Historian and the Crisis of Sixteenth-Century Italy, Princeton: University Press. Zonza, C. (2010), “L’Histoire de France de Mézeray: des plaisirs du texte aux nécessités de l’histoire”, XVIIe siècle 246: 97–118. Zuber, G. (1968), Les “Belles Infidèles” et la formation du goût classique. Perrot d’Ablancourt et Guez de Balzac, Paris: Armand Colin.

Index of Names* Abraham 391, 399 Academia de los Nocturnos 380 Academia del Príncipe de Esquilache 389 Accademia degli Incogniti 382, 384–385, 391–392 Accademia degli Oziosi 379, 386, 447 Accademia degli Umoristi 379 Accademia dei Gelati 381 Accolti, Benedetto 179n11, 197n12, 199, 211, 253, 254, 289, 299, 300 Achaemenes 229 Achilles 41, 53, 133, 134, 135, 179, 375, 379, 392, 398, 405, 439 Actius Tullius 232 Acuphides 231 Adherbal 232 Admetus 398 Adriani, Marcello di Virgilio 339–340, 341 Aelius Aristides 35, 418 Aelius Lampridius 226, 227, 237, 271n25, 282, 284, 420, 432, 447 Aelius Spartianus 226 Aeneas 133, 134, 135, 375, 387 Aeolus 385–386, 395, 440 Aeschines 401, 417 Aeschylus 214 Afranius Silo 46 Agamemnon 41, 53, 128n29, 133, 134, 383, 394, 437 Agathias Scholasticus 418, 422 Agathocles 72, 87, 88, 395 Agesilaus 231, 427 Agesilaus of Colchos 358, 359 Agricola 85n30, 236 Agricola, Rodolphus 379n2, Agrippa 11n44, 67, 105, 106, 113, 413 Agrippina 393, 394, 396, 398 Agustín, Antonio 14, 424 Ajax 30, 46 Alberti, Benedetto 353 Albizzi, Rinaldo degli 347 Alceste 398 Alcibiades 39, 86, 152, 153, 230, 397

Alcidamas 32–33, 418 Aldus Manutius  213 Alexander, son of Mammea 114, 232, 237 Alexander the Great 9, 35, 39, 40, 51, 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, 90, 177, 229, 231, 237, 243n25, 279, 374, 375, 384, 385, 387, 394, 395, 396, 397 Alexander VI, Pope 302 Alfonso II, King of Naples 309n24, 403 Alorcus 234 Amalasonthe 397 Amarille 398 Amasaeus see Amaseo, Romolo Amaseo, Romolo 225, 230, 231, 266n14, 420 Amazaeus see Amaseo, Romolo Amelin, Jean de 370, 413 Ammianus Marcellinus 194, 196, 211, 226, 237, 253, 271, 282, 284, 297n41, 301, 420, 432, 447 Ammirato, Scipione 251n45 Amon 399 Amphicrates of Athens 81 Amphimatus 135 Amyntas 237 Amyot, Jacques 369, 418 Anacreon 214 Andromache 127, 398 Angélique 396, 398 Annas 106, 113 Annibal see Hannibal Annius Setinus 233 Antenor 128, 132, 134, 135 Antigonus Doson 395 Antigonus II Gonatas 236 Antigonus of Carystus 63 Antioch, John of 8 Antiochus Grypus 87, 88, 89, 91n68 Antiochus III 87, 89, 235 Antiochus XIII Asiaticus 82 Antiphon 30, 35 Antisthenes 30, 418 Antonia 106 Antoninus 106

* Special thanks to Joaquín Villalba for his help in the compilation of the indexes.

Index Of Names Aphthonius of Antioch 40, 378, 379, 390 Progymnasmata 40n54 Apollo 133 Apollonius of Rhodes 63 Appian 8n28, 80, 82, 83, 88n53, 91, 92, 93, 195, 204, 205, 211, 215n10, 253, 271, 282, 283, 323n23, 325n29, 326n35, 330n49, 370, 425, 428–429 Appius Claudius 232, 233, 234, 405 Apuleius 381 Archelaus, King of Cappadocia 81 Archelaus, Pontic general 91 Archidamus, King of Sparta 28, 60, 148, 149, 151, 229, 281 Aretino, Giovanni 298 Aretino, Leonardo see Bruni, Leonardo Ariadne 379 Ariamenes 86 Ariodant 398 Ariosto, Ludovico 381, 381n7, 385, 388, 441 Ariovistus 322 Aristagoras 229 Aristhenus 235 Aristippus of Cyrene 387, 397 Aristophanes 43 Aristophon 38 Aristotle 30, 44, 69, 72, 74n52, 214, 373, 403, 418, 451 Poetics 169, 169n29 Rhetoric 44 Sophistical Refutations 30 Topica 32n29 Armide 398 Arnaud, Laurent 435 Arrian 218, 225, 231, 271, 282, 283, 420 Anabasis of Alexander 225, 231 Ars tactica 107 Arrianus see Arrian Arsanes 419 Arsete 398 Arsinoe IV of Egypt 395 Artabanus 207, 229, 278 Artaxerxes 106, 113, 151 Artemidorus 63 Artemise I of Caria 229, 397 Asdrubal Haedus see Hasdrubal Haedus Athenaeus 5, 19

521 Athenagoras  153, 214, 230 Athenais 397 Attilius 235 Aubert, Étienne see Innocent VI, Pope Aubert, Pierre 437, 438 Augustine of Hippo 240, 250 Augustus 29, 177, 205, 320, 320n13, 321, 327, 328, 330, 331n51, 332–333, 337, 383, 385, 386, 394, 395, 396, 398 Aulus Cornelius 233, 234 Aulus Gellius 5, 6, 33, 214 Aulus Virginius 232 Ausonius 343 Autocles 231 Aventinus, Johannes 253, 255 Baba, Andrea 437, 438 Bade, Josse 298n45, 404 Balbi, Francesco 259 Balbiano, Carlo da 314 Balista 237 Bandello, Matteo 238 Barbadori, Donato 307, 317 Barberini, Maffeo see Urban VIII, Pope Barbier, Jean 404 Barbieri, Giovanni Francesco, Il Guercino  381 Barce 398 Barlet, Marin see Barletus, Marinus Barletus, Marinus 244n27, 419–420, 254, 282 Barsine 86 Basil I Lekapenos 101, 102, 103, 109, 109n58, 110 Battista da Poppi 339 Battista, Giuseppe 384, 386, 393, 397, 446–447 Baudouin, Nicolas 433, 437 Bayaceto (Bayezid I) 399 Beaufort, Pierre Roger de see Gregory XI, Pope Belisarius 389, 399 Bellaius, Martin see Du Bellay, Martin Belleforest, François de 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 174, 176, 179, 180, 183n15, 186, 187, 190, 193, 195, 200, 217, 227, 238–260, 285, 290, 300, 307n19310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 371, 401, 410, 414, 421, 427, 429, 433, 441

522 Belleforest, François de (cont.) Cosmographie universelle de tout le monde 238, 243 Harengues militaries 238–260, 308–310 Histoire universelle 243 L’Histoire des neuf Roys Charles de France  248n37, 250n42, 252n48 Recueil diligent et . . . de toute l’Histoire de Jean Froissart 248 Sainct Augustin, De la cité de Dieu . . . par François de Belleforest 250 Bellièvre, Pompone de 176, 190, 191, 193, 217, 218, 254, 260 Bembo, Pietro 199, 211, 244n24, 245, 253, 254, 273n28, 283, 289, 290, 295, 299, 441 Benedetti, Alessandro 303n9 Benedict XIII, Antipope 115 Benedictus, Laurentius 424 Bentivoglio, Guido 439–40 Berenice II of Egypt 397 Bernáldez del Castillo 158n14 Beroaldo, Filippo 401 Bidelli, Giovanni Battista 438 Bienné, Jean 422 Billaine, Louis 441 Bion 214, 215 Biondo, Flavio 146n30, 147, 173n2 Bizarus, Petrus 282 Boabdil 157 Bobin, Jérôme 443 Bobin, Michel 444 Bobin, widow of Jérôme 443 Boccaccio, Giovanni 367, 381n7 Bocchus 232 Bodin, Jean 260 Bodio, Angelo 446 Boece, Hector 282 Boiardo, Matteo Maria 200, 207–208, 433 Bolani, Marco 295 Bonarelli, Guidobaldo 381n7 Bonciani, Antonio 349 Bonfini, Antonio 253, 255, 273n28, 274, 282, 283 Bonfons, Nicolas 424 Bonne, François de 429 Borde, Philippe 435 Borgia, Cesare 351

Index Of Names Borgia, Rodrigo see Alexander VI, Pope Bourbon, Antoine de 258 Bourdeille, Pierre de, Seigneur de Brantôme 369, 433 Bourdillon 256 Bourdin, Gilles 257, 258 Bourriquant, Fleury 435 Bracciolini, Poggio 197n12, 199, 211, 244, 245, 253, 289, 298, 300, 310, 343 Bradamante 388, 398 Braganza, Duke of 158 Brasidas 152, 230, 280 Brassicanus, Johann Alexander 405 Breuer, Johann 447, 448 Breyer, Lucas 359 Briçonnet, Denis 176, 177, 192 Bringas, Joseph 110 Briseis 134, 398 Broch, Friedrich 174, 183, 193 Broch, Heinrich, father 177, 183, 193 Broch, Heinrich, son 174, 177, 183, 193 Brunacci, Gaudenzio 382 Bruneau, Jeanne 415 Brunelli, Girolamo 427 Brunetto Latini 121 Bruni, Antonio 380 Bruni, Leonardo 1, 10, 197, 197, 199, 211, 243, 244, 245, 253, 289, 299, 300, 300n1, 301, 307, 310, 313, 343, 402, 405 Brutus 195 Buchanan, George 273n28, 282, 283 Bucolds, Gerhard 406 Buonaccorsi, Filippo 245, 244n28, 254, 255, 273n28, 282, 283 Burchiello, Domenico di Giovanni 349 Busini, Giovanni Battista 345, 346n34 Bynneman, Henry 363, 423 Cabanneo, Giovanni 305–6 Cabrera, Andrés de 163, 168–169 Caesar see Julius Caesar Caesar, Jean Baptiste 433 Cailloué, Jacques 433 Calchas 133, 134 Calderón de la Barca, Pedro 378n1 Calenus 321, 327n37, 327n40 Calgacus 85, 85n30, 236 Caligula 397

Index Of Names Callias 231, 280 Callicrates 236 Callicratidas 231, 236 Callimachus 63 Callimachus, Philippus see Buonaccorsi, Filippo Callines 231 Callisthenes 7, 27, 33, 45, 47, 50, 52, 55, 61, 73–74, 75 Callistratus 231, 280 Calodiqui, Dimitri 143 Calpurnia 386, 396–397 Calvarin, Prigent 408 Cambyses 228, 230, 276, 399, 424 Camerarius, Joachim 224, 225, 417, 425 Candaules 380, 385, 391, 395, 396, 399, 451 Candy, Jean-Aimé 435 Canter, Willem 418 Capella, Galeazzo 211, 245, 254, 283, 290, 295, 299, 300, 301, 305, 306n15, 316n55 Capelloni, Lorenzo 251n 45 Capet, Hugh 443 Cappello, Vittorio 290 Caracalla 231, 322n17, 384, 394 Carafa, Gian Pietro see Paul IV, Pope Cárdenas, Gutierre de 163, 168 Cardi, Giovan Pietro 433 Carrillo, Alonso 164, 169 Carthalo 86 Cartier, Gabriel 415 Caselius, Johannes 425 Casoni, Guido 382 Cassander 82, 86 Cassandra 122, 133, 134, 135 Cassius Dio 8, 21, 67, 204, 205, 211, 222, 253, 271, 274, 283, 319–338, 411, 413, 425 Cassius Longinus 385, 396 Castaldo, Giambattista, Marquis of Cassano  176, 179, 193, 198, 286–288, 290, 292, 295, 306, 308, 317, 320 Castañeda, Gonzalo de 410 Castiglionchio, Lapo da, the Younger 12n47, 115, 136, 137, 145–149, 150, 151, 152, 153 Castor 132 Castracani, Castruccio 343, 352 Catherine de’ Medici 246, 257 Catherine of Aragon 380, 381n7 Catholic Monarchs 21, 154, 155, 159n18, 160

523 Catiline 9, 93n75, 215, 221, 222, 232, 274, 279, 326n32, 329 Cato the Elder see Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius Cato the Younger see Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis Cattaneo, Giovanni Maria 379n2 Caussin, Nicolas 276n30, 435, 448 Cavellat, Guillaume 415 Cei, Francesco 349 Centorio, Ascanio 197, 198, 199, 211, 212, 254, 287, 288, 289, 290, 293, 294, 295, 299, 306 Cephisodotus 231 Cerial 236 Cervantes, Miguel de 238, 356, 363, 374, 375, 378n1 Don Quixote 374, 375n39, 437 Cester, Battista 440 Chanteclair, Charles 434 Chappelet, Sébastien 435 Chariclea 398 Charidemus 237 Charles I, King of Sicily 313, 314 Charles V, Emperor 245, 257, 287, 288, 290, 295n31, 301, 304, 305, 308, 309, 316, 443 Charles VIII, King of France 302, 314, 315, 316, 403 Charles IX, King of France 245, 254, 259, 260, 308 Cheirisophus 113 Chesnau, Nicolas 227, 239–241, 246, 308 Chevalier, Pierre 433 Chlaeneas 231 Choquart, Charles 239n7 Chrysantas 230, 278 Cicero 11, 27, 72, 94, 182, 183n16, 184, 186, 214, 247, 250n42, 263, 267, 268, 277, 320, 325–330, 333, 335, 336, 337, 345, 350, 375, 385, 389, 391, 394, 396, 399, 401, 402, 405–406, 409, 411, 417, 428, 430, 435, 439 Cilicius, Christianus 282 Cineas 395 Cinna 321, 326n32 Civilis 236 Claudius Pontius 234 Cleadas 86, 89

524 Clearchus 230, 381n7, 395 Cleitarchus 73 Cleitus 394 Clement IV, Pope 314 Clement V, Pope 311 Clement VII, Pope 116, 141, 245, 255, 343, 344, 346 Cleocritus 231 Cleomenes 295n30, 395 Cleon 31n22, 39, 49, 60, 67, 149, 166, 229, 266n15, 272n27, 274, 279 Cleopatra 333, 380, 383, 384, 394, 396, 437 Cleopatra Tryphaena 87 Cligenes 231 Cliteles 231 Clodius 326n32 Clodius Albinus 237, 432 Cloelia 398 Cloquemin, Loys 360 Clorinde 398 Cloucquius, Andreas 436 Cobares 237 Cochart, Jacques 443 Coenus 231, 237 Coldock, Francis 423 Colines, Simon de 215, 407, 409 Colonna, Prospero 290, 305, 306, 317 Comba, François 441 Combi, Sebastiano 446 Commodus 106, 205, 231 Conesa, Jaime 123 Conon 81 Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos 8–9, 99, 99n11, 102, 102n29, 103, 104, 107, 108, 108n55, 109n56, 109n57, 111, 114, 138–139 Excerpta historica 8, 138–139 De insidiis 139n13 De legationibus 8, 14, 39, 138–139, 424–5, 434 De virtutibus et vitiis 139n13 Demegoríai 114 On assembly speeches (Περὶ τῶν δημηγοριῶν) 139 Constantius 237 Corio, Bernardino 197n12, 211, 245, 253, 254, 289, 298 Coriolanus see Martius Coriolanus Cornapaeus, Nicolaus 424

Index Of Names Cornelius Nepos 194, 196, 197, 301 Corneus, Conradus 428 Corvinus, Matthias 443 Cossutianus Capito 236 Cotier, Gabriel 362, 415 Count of Alva de Liste 169 Count of Haro 169 Courbé, Augustin 438, 440, 441, 442 Craterus 237 Crates 385–389, 391, 396, 398–399 Cratippus 34, 45, 48 Cremutius 236 Cressida 41 Crinito, Pietro 339 Crispinus 106, 106n48, 114 Critias 231, 282, 412 Croesus 219, 228, 397, 422–423 Ctesias 224 Ctesiphon 417 Cupid 381 Curiatii 394 Curione, Celio Secondo 413 Curtius Montanus 236 Cyaxares 230 Cyrus 39, 89, 98, 103, 105n44, 112, 113, 209n28, 228, 230, 266, 278, 279, 280, 281, 395, 396, 397 D’Aristotile, Nicolò, “Zoppino” 320n11 D’Aubigné, Agrippa 369 D’Avalos, Alfonso, Marquis of Pescara and Vasto 288, 289, 290 D’Avalos, Francesco Ferdinando, Marquis of Pescara 288, 305 D’Ogerolles, Jean 362, 413 D’Oudergherst, Pierre see Oudergherst da Rocca San Casciano, Matteo 339 Damocles 396 Dandolo, Francesco 298n46 Darius I 87, 89, 228, 266, 273, 278 Darius III 86, 237, 384, 394 David 384, 391, 399 De Rossi, Filippo 438 Decembrio, Pier Candido 9 Decius 237 Deiphobus 132, 134 Delilah 391 Della Casa, Giovanni 425

525

Index Of Names Delle Colonne, Guido 10, 116, 119, 122, 123, 124, 137, 144 Demaratus 229 Demen, Hermann 435 Demetrius, Brother of Perseus 236, 266, 281 Demetrius II of Macedonia 395 Demetrius of Phalerum 27, 38, 417 Demetrius of Pharos, King of Illyria 87, 89, 91n68 Demetrius the Philosopher 396, 397 Demetrius Poliorcetes 82, 83, 86 Demosthenes, Athenian general 50 Demosthenes, Athenian orator 7, 38, 59, 147n33, 149, 229, 263, 268, 369, 401, 411, 417 Dercyllidas 231 Diadumenus 237 Diana 381 Díaz de Cuevas, Alonso 162, 169 Dido 380, 387, 393, 397, 398 Didymus 7, 38 Dinocrates 178 Diodorus Siculus 34, 37, 46, 47, 51, 52, 61, 69, 77, 225, 226, 368, 369, 370, 425, 432 Diodotus 31n22, 49, 60, 107, 152, 229, 266, 272, 274, 279, 428 Diogenes Laertius 27, 38, 215, 231 Diogenes, philosopher 385, 387, 396–397 Diomedes 133, 134, 135 Dionysius II, Tyrant of Syracuse 396, 399 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 8n28, 19, 20, 22n28, 28, 40, 72, 204, 205, 211, 253, 271, 283, 331n50, 417, 425 De Thucydide 42–62, 66n15 Dionysius Phocaeus 229 Dolce, Ludovico 296n37 Domenichi, Lodovico 209, 210, 297 Domitian 27, 189, 391, 396 Doni, Antonio 197, 285 Drusus 29n14 Du Bellay, Guillaume 242n21, 245, 254, 255 Du Bellay, Jean 409 Du Bellay, Joachim 369 Du Bellay, Martin 242n21, 244n28, 245, 254, 255, 273n28, 276, 282 Du Bray, Toussainct 435 Du Pré, Philippe 298n45, 431 Dubravius, Jan 273n28, 283

Dubreton, Antoine 440, 441 Duke of Arévalo 169 Duke of Gloucester 146 Durelle, François 415 Duris 46, 73, 74, 75 Edward VI, King of England 411 Egenolff, Christian 180, 181, 408, 410 Egidio Roman see Giles of Rome Egidio Colonna see Giles of Rome Elizabeth I, Queen of England 390 Elzevier 227, 434, 436, 444 Emilio, Paolo 186n20, 197n12, 211, 244n28, 253, 254, 268n20, 273n28, 282, 289, 298, 301, 441 Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy 288, 290 Empedocles 399 Endymion 379 Eolo see Aeolus Epharmostos 7, 27 Ephorus 39, 46, 69 Erasmus 222, 300n1 Erinnys 398 Erostratus 399 Escalin des Aimars, Antoine 308, 318 Esplandián 363 Estienne, Henri II 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 174, 175, 176, 184, 185, 186, 190, 191, 193, 195, 203, 213–228, 240, 249, 260n51, 264, 265, 270, 273, 401, 417, 420, 428, 436 Conciones sive orationes 193, 213–237, 241n 14, 420 Thesaurus linguae Graecae 214, 216 Thesaurus linguae Latinae 214, 216, 367 Estienne, Robert I 214, 216, 226 Euctemon 237 Eumenes of Cardia 86, 87, 88, 90, 281 Euphemus 60, 153, 230 Euripides 32, 214 Euryalus 374, 375 Euryptolemus 231 Eutropius 79, 196, 226 Faba, Guido 121 Faletti, Girolamo 197n12, 211, 254, 289, 290, 294, 299n49, 197n12, 211

526 Farnese, Ottavio, Duke of Parma and Piacenza 288, 290 Fayerabend, Sigmund 426 Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor 256 Ferdinand the Catholic, King of Aragon 168, 255, 302, 314, 353, 443 Fernández de Buendía, Joseph 447 Fernández de Heredia, Juan 9–10, 20, 150 Crónica troyana 10, 115–135 Tucídides 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124, 126, 131, 136 145, 148, 151 Ferrazzi, Marco Antonio 451, 452 Ferroni, Clemente 438 Fick, Johann Simon 442, 443 Filelfo, Francesco 146, 147, 225, 230, 266n14, 412, 420, 426 Flamininus 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 395 Flavius Josephus 11n44, 101, 103, 113, 196, 201, 204, 205, 211, 240n9, 253, 271, 274, 282, 283, 381 Flavius Vopiscus 226, 271, 282, 283 Florus 79, 94, 196 Foglieta, Uberto 282 Fontanus, Jacobus 245, 254, 255, 282 Foppens, François 449 Foscari, Francesco 298n46 Foucois, Guy see Clement IV, Pope Foxe, John 256 Franciosini, Lorenzo 433, 436–437 Francis I, King of France 304, 305, 308, 309 François de Lorraine, Duke of Guise 245, 254, 256–257 Frederic of Saxony 288–289, 290 Frischlin, Nicodemus 428 Froben, Hieronymus 411 Froissart, Jean 248n37, 410 Fromuth, Matthias 405 Fronto 26, 37, 93n76 Fugger 225 Fuhrmann, Philipp 447, 448 Furius Camillus see Marcus Furius Camillus Gaius Canuleius 233 Gaius Casius 236 Gaius Cottae 232 Gaius Curio 29, 280 Gaius Fannius 27 Gaius Licinius Macer 34n37, 232 Gaius Manlius 221, 222, 232, 233

Index Of Names Gaius Marius 93n75, 232, 326n32, 384, 394 Gaius Memmius 232 Gaius Menenius 234 Gaius Mucius Scaevola 232, 389, 396, 398 Galba 236 Galíndez de Carvajal, Lorenzo 158n13, 161n23, 162n30 Gallicanus, Vulcacius 274 Gaultier, Philippe 435 Gautier, Claude 415 Geiger, Ulrich 409 Gelon 20, 37, 63n2, 65, 68, 69, 70n2, 71, 72, 77, 78, 207, 208, 229 Geneviève 398 George of Trebizond 189n23, 410 Germanicus 205, 236, 395 Gesenius, Joachim 447, 448 Giannotti, Donato 345, 347 Gibault, Louis 444 Gidel, Ch. A. 227 Giles of Rome 350, 351 Giolito de’ Ferrari, Gabriel 194, 198, 200, 204, 206, 209, 210, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 296, 297, 298, 299, 301, 307, 320, 414, 416 Giovio, Paolo 211, 244, 254, 273, 283, 289, 290, 294, 296, 298, 299, 301, 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 339, 340, 423, 441 Giunti, Filippo 339, 438 Giustiniano, Agostino 197n12, 211, 245, 253, 254, 290, 298 Gleditsch, Johann Ludwig 452 Gnaeus Manlius 235, 236 Goliath 391 Gonzaga, Federico II, Duke of Mantua  290, 299n49 Gonzaga, Francesco II 303 Gonzaga, Guglielmo, Duke of Mantua  288n10 Gonzaga, Ludovico, Duke of Nevers 176, 179, 183n15, 186, 187, 193, 246, 308 Gorgias 30, 35, 45, 58, 418 Got, Raymond Bertrand de see Clement V, Pope Gournay, Marie Le Jars de 434–435 Gracchi 320 Gracián de Alderete, Diego 202n19 Gramigna, Vincenzo 379 Granollach, Bernat 10 Granvela, Cardinal 424

Index Of Names Gregoras, Nicephorus 381n7 Gregory XI, Pope (Pierre Roger de Beaufort)  307, 310, 311, 312, 318 Grenaille, François de 382n13 Grimani, Marino, Cardinal 290 Grimoard, William de see Urban V, Pope Grosse, Henning 430 Groulleau, Estienne 358, 362, 371, 415 Grüner, Salomon 436 Guagnini, Alessandro 282, 283, 425–426 Gualtherius, Bernardus 432, 447 Guercino, Il (Giovanni Francesco Barbieri)  381 Guicciardini, Luigi 352, 423 Guicciardini, Francesco 194, 248n38, 301, 302n7, 344, 345, 346 Guignard, Jean 450 Guignard, Michel 450 Guldenschaff, Johann 403 Gyges 380, 385, 396 Gylippus 153, 230 Gymnich, Johann 405, 406 Hacket, Thomas 363 Hallervorden, Martin 442, 443 Hamdanides 102, 108 Hamelin, Jean de see Amelin, Jean de Hamlet 195 Hannibal 27, 84, 84n26, 87, 205, 220, 220n27, 221, 223, 231, 234, 235, 279, 280, 389, 395, 399, 409 Hanno 234 Harsy, Olivier de 415 Hasdrubal Barca 398 Hasdrubal Haedus 220, 221 Hayreddin Barbarossa 309n27 Hecatonymus 231 Hector 128n29, 129n29, 132, 133, 134, 374, 375 Hecuba 134, 135, 378, 398 Heemskerck, Maerten van 288n12 Hegesippus 196, 201, 211, 253, 271, 283, 291n20 Helen of Troy 30, 128, 133, 381, 381n9, 395, 398, 418 Helenus 133 Heliodorus of Emesa 388 Hénault, Mathurin 435 Henry II, King of France 186n20, 245, 256, 315

527 Henry III, King of France 217, 308, 309 Henry IV, King of Castile 154 Henry IV, King of France 253, 255, 257, 300, 443 Henry VIII, King of England 381, 381n7, 443 Heracles 86, 131, 381 Heraclitus 58 Herberay des Essarts, Nicolas 356, 357, 365, 375 Héret, Mathurin 364 Herminie 398 Hermippus 75 Hermocrates 37, 56, 58, 60, 63, 65, 68, 152, 153, 230, 279 Hermogenes of Tarsus 100, 104n42 Hermolaus 237 Hero 385, 396 Herod 113, 397 Herodian 102, 103, 104, 114, 204, 205, 211, 215, 225, 226, 231–232, 253, 265, 271, 274, 282, 283, 410, 420, 432, 435, 438, 447 Herodotus 3, 6, 27, 28, 31, 67, 68, 68n27, 69, 69n31, 77, 78, 138, 147n33, 200, 204, 205, 207, 208, 211, 214, 214n8, 216, 220, 224, 224n36, 228–230, 242, 253, 262, 263, 266, 266n14, 271, 273, 274, 278, 279, 283, 291n20, 380, 414, 420, 422–423, 424, 435, 448 Hertz, Giovanni Giacomo 444 Hesiod 214 Hesychius 215 Hiarbas 397 Hibraim Bassa 309n27 Hieronymus of Cardia 46 Himilco 87, 234, 395, 440 Hipparchus 43n5 Hippocrates 152, 230 Hippotas 384, 395 Histiaeus 229 Hoeschel, David 432, 434 Hoeve, Willem van der 439 Homer 10, 11, 32, 35, 39, 41, 41n55, 53, 74, 179, 183n15, 184, 185, 214, 381n7, 381n9, 388, 405, 412, 418, 441 Horace 181n12, 214, 218 Horatii 383, 394, 437 Hortensius see Quintus Hortensius Hortensius, Lambert 282 Huguetan, Jean 359, 360, 415, 435

528 Hulpeau, Jean 410 Hypsicrateia 381 Ibarra, Diego 433 Icilius 232 Idomeneus 124, 135 Indathyrsus 229 Innocent VI, Pope (Étienne Aubert) 311 Intaphernes 266 Iole 381 Iphigenia 384, 394, 437 Ipsicratea see Hypsicrateia Isaac 391, 399 Isabella the Catholic, Queen of Castile 154, 155, 168 Islip, Adam 424 Isocrates 32, 54n33, 146, 263, 397 Ister the Callimachean 64, 75, 75n60 Jansson, Jan 436, 442 Janus 181, 181n12 Jason 122, 124, 127, 130, 131, 132, 135 Jerome, St. 189, 189n23, 410 Jobin, Bernhard 426 Johann Friedrich of Saxony, Prince-Elector  288, 288n12 John II, King of Castile 154 John V Palaeologus, Emperor 143 Jonathan 391, 399 Joseph 391, 399 Juba 324 Jugurtha 93n75, 232 Julia, Daughter of Augustus 384, 386, 396 Julia Domna 384, 394 Julianus 237 Julius Caesar 3, 9, 11n42, 13, 29, 29n14, 193, 195, 196, 205, 211, 215, 222, 232, 236, 242, 253, 263, 265, 266, 271, 274, 279, 280, 283, 290, 320, 321, 322–325, 326, 326n32, 327n37, 328, 328n41, 330–333, 334, 335, 337, 375, 385, 396, 403, 406, 409, 410, 426, 428, 432, 447 Julius Capitolinus 226, 227, 237, 271, 274, 282, 284, 420, 432, 447 Junius, Melchior 13–14, 16, 21, 174, 177, 193, 203, 203n21, 249, 261–284, 401, 407, 426, 428, 430, 431 Aliquot orationes 266–267, 428

Index Of Names Epistolae ex historicis congestae 268 Orationes aliquot ex Herodoti, Thucydidis, Xenophontis 13, 193, 263, 278–282, 426 Orationum ex historicis, tam veteribus, quam recentioribus 266n15, 269–270, 431 Jupiter 381n7 Justin 19, 20, 79–94, 196, 197, 370, 384, 419, 440, 443, 447 Justinian 381n7, 389, 399 Kästner, Johann Adam 449 Kaysere, Pierre de 402, 403 Kekaumenos 99 Keller, Cristoph 452 Kepler, Johannes 247n36 Kerver, Jacques 415 Kinckius, Johann 435, 439 Kloss, Heinrich 438, 442, 443 Koelhoff, Johann 403 Krafft, Johann I 417 Krantz, Albert 253, 255, 272, 273, 275, 276, 282, 283 Kromer, Marcin 253, 255 La Nou, Giovanni 446 La Noue, Guillaume de 410 La Vigne, Nicolas de 435 Laertes 398 Laetus 231 Lampon 229 Landsberg, Martin 405 Laodamie 398 Laomedon 131 La Popelinière 423 La Rivière, Claude 442 Lascaris, Janos 245, 254, 255 Latomus, Bartholomaeus 405–406 Lavinia 381n7 Leander 396 Le Ferron, Arnould 186n20, 273, 274, 282, 283 Legras, Jacques 443 Le Gras, Nicolas 443, 444 Le Mangnier, Robert 362, 362n13, 415 Le Maure see Le More Le More, Jean 404 Le Tort, François 422

Index Of Names Le Villain, Claude 433 Leich, Jakob 174, 174n6, 177, 183, 183n16, 188, 188n23, 189, 193, 412 Leo the Deacon 109n57 Leo VI the Wise 97, 101, 107, 110–112, 112n70, 112n71 Leo X, Pope 316, 344 Leomarte 123 Leonardo Aretino see Bruni, Leonardo Leoniceno, Nicolò 320, 320n11 Leontiadas 231 Lepidus see Marcus Lepidus Lesbonax 19, 35, 418 Leutychides 229 L’Hermite, Tristan 441, 442 Libert, Jean 435 Livia 398 Livy 10, 11n44, 14, 15, 17, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 29n14, 35, 38, 90, 94, 156, 159, 174n6, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 183n16, 188, 189, 189n23, 190, 196, 202, 202n19, 205, 211, 215, 217, 219, 220, 221, 223, 226, 227, 232–236, 253, 263, 265, 266, 268, 271, 272, 275, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 298, 339, 341, 342, 343, 346, 346n35, 365, 369, 381n7, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 412, 413, 414, 420, 424, 429, 430, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 440, 441, 443, 444, 445, 446, 449, 450, 451, 452 Longis, Jean 362, 362n13, 415 Lope de Vega 238 López de Ayala, Pero 159n17 López de Mendoza, Íñigo, Marquis of Santillana 117n5, 119, 123 Loredan, Giovan Francesco 378, 382–384, 385, 388, 391, 393, 394, 399, 439, 440, 445, 450 Lorich, Reinhard 14, 16, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 188, 189, 192, 203, 215, 215n12, 264, 265, 265n11, 401, 408, 410 Lotter, Melchior 403 Louis XI, King of France 314 Louis XII, King of France 304, 316, 443 Louis XIV, King of France 443 Lucan 323n23 Luceius 235 Lucian of Samosata 46, 46n14, 47, 47n16, 61, 248, 412, 437

529 Lucio Espinosa y Malo, Félix 388–392, 398–399, 447, 451 Lucius Aemilius Paulus 231, 234, 236 Lucius Coelius Antipater 27 Lucius Decius 233, 234 Lucius Furius Purpurionis 236 Lucius Lentulus 234 Lucius Martius 235 Lucius Marcius Philippus 34n37, 232 Lucius Minutius 236 Lucius Papyrius 234 Lucius Pinarius 234 Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus 232–233 Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus 397 Lucius Valerius Flaccus 29 Lucius Valerius Potitus 232, 233, 325n31 Lucius Valerius 235, 406 Lucius Verus 37 Lucretia 380, 384, 394, 397 Lucretius 27, 340 Lucullus 88n53, 177, 295 Lupis, Antonio 382, 382n13, 384–387, 388, 389, 391, 393, 396, 398, 399, 445, 448 Lyciscus 223, 231 Lycophron 63 Lycortas 236 Lycurgus 32, 401 Lysias 11, 137, 146, 147n33, 148, 150 Machiavelli, Alessandro 339 Machiavelli, Bernardo 339 Machiavelli, Niccolò 1, 21, 194, 197n12, 198–199, 211, 244, 245, 253, 254, 289, 298, 299, 300, 316–317, 317n57, 335, 335n69, 335n70, 339–355, 441 Macrianus 237 Macrinus 114, 231, 237 Macrobius 214 Maeandrius 228 Maecenas 67, 398, 413 Maffei, Raffaello  189n23 Mago 27 Malaspina, Boraccio 298n46 Malchus 86, 89, 90 Maldonado, Rodrigo 168 Malot, Gervais 371 Malvezzi, Virgilio 381 Mameramus, Henricus 412

530 Mamercus Aemilius 233 Manfred, King of Sicily 313 Manius Aquilius 29n14 Manius Curius Dentatus 395 Manrique, Gómez 158, 168 Manso, Giovanbattista 386 Manuzio, Aldo see Aldo Manuzio Manzini, Giovanni Battista 378, 381, 382–384, 385, 389, 391, 392, 394, 399, 437–438, 440, 441, 445, 448, 450 Marcello, Girolamo 295, 296n32 Marcello, Pietro 403 Marchetti, Pietro Maria 174, 176, 178, 183–184, 192, 193, 410 Marcia, wife of Cato of Utica 395 Marcus Antonius see Marc Antony Marc Antony 195, 205, 231, 320, 325, 325n29, 326n35, 327–332, 333, 336, 337, 383, 384, 385, 394, 396, 397 Marcus Acilius 235 Marcus Aurelius 26 , 289 Marcus Claudius Marcellus 406 Marcus Curtius 395 Marcus Duillius 233 Marcus Fabius Maximus 234 Marcus Fulvius 236 Marcus Furius Camillus 233, 405 Marcus Horatius Barbatus 232, 233, 325n31 Marcus Hortalus 236 Marcus Lepidus 232, 236, 326, 397, 419 Marcus Manlius Capitolinus 233 Marcus Marcellus 235 Marcus Minutius Rufus 234 Marcus Popilius 233 Marcus Porcius Latro 389 Marcus Porcius Cato 232, 235, 236, 394, 406 Marcus Posthumius 233 Marcus Servilius 236 Marcus Valerius Corvinus 221, 233, 405 Marcus, son of Cicero 394 Mardonius 208n25, 229, 278 Marfisa 388, 398 Mari, Ansaldo 385, 395 Mariamne 397 Marillac 256 Marineus Siculus, Lucius 155, 173n2 Marino, Giovan Battista 382 Marnef, Jérôme de 415

Index Of Names Mars 191 Martinengo, Attilio 178 Martinengo, Curzio, Count 176, 178, 183–184, 192, 193 Martinengo, Ercole 178 Martius Coriolanus 146, 148, 148n36, 232, 383, 394, 399, 437 Masaniello 389 Mascardi, Agostino 389 Mascardi, Jacopo 434 Masinissa 235, 381n7, 397 Maurice, Emperor 98, 98n5, 107 Mauricius Afer 237 Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor 295, 302, 305 Maximinus 114, 232, 237 Medea 122, 127, 132, 135 Medici, Cosimo de’ 146, 345, 345n33, 346–348 Medici, Cosimo di Giovanni see Medici, Cosimo de’ Medici, Giulio di Giuliano de’ see Clement VII, Pope Medici, Giovanni di Bicci 346 Medici, Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ see Leo X, Pope Medici, Lorenzo di Piero di Lorenzo  344–346, 349, 354 Medici, Piero di Cosimo 348 Medoro 396, 398 Megabyzus see Megabysus Megabysus 228, 266, 266n15, 278 Mehmed II 443 Melanchthon, Philipp 270, 417, 425 Meleager 82, 86, 237 Memnon of Heraclea 80, 80n5, 215, 398 Menander Rhetor 72 Mendoza, Cardinal 164 Menelaus 133, 395 Ménier, Pierre 427 Menon 135 Mercurius 132 Merión, King 134 Mesnier, Xavier 450 Messalina 396 Metius Fufetius 232 Metius Pompusianus 27, 29, 189 Metrodorus of Scepsis 81, 81n8

531

Index Of Names Mézeray, François Eudes de 446 Micard, Claude 422 Micipsa 232 Midas 399 Miltiades 229 Minio 235 Mirandulano, Bautista 399 Mises 134 Mithridates VI Eupator 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 87, 90, 91–93, 94, 381n7 Molino, Luigi 295 Möllemann, Stephan 425 Monmouth, Galfred von 283 Montini, Giacomo 438 Montreux, Nicolas de 356 Morel, Guillaume 414 Moresini, Domenico 295n32 Moschus 214, 215 Mueffling, Johann Ulrich 436 Müller, Heinrich David 448 Müller, Henning 438 Mutianus 236 Mylius, Arnold 431 Nabarzanes 237 Nabis 235, 424 Nannini, Remigio 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 174, 176, 179, 190, 190n24, 193, 194–212, 241–246, 247n35, 249, 250, 253–254, 285–299, 300–318, 319, 320–321, 322, 324, 324n27, 325, 330, 333–337, 338, 401, 414, 415, 416, 421, 426 Orationi militari 13, 179, 193, 194–212, 241–246, 285–299, 300–318, 319, 320–322, 324, 325, 333, 337, 414, 416, 421, 426 Orationi in materia civile e criminale 195, 199, 211, 212, 297, 298, 301, 320, 320n13, 321, 416 Narcissus 379 Natalis Comes 423 Nausicaa 381n7 Nebrija, Antonio de 155, 158n13, 160n21, 161n23, 245, 254, 255 Nerli, Filippo de’ 342 Nero 236, 276, 380, 381n7, 384, 394, 395, 396, 398, 399 Nestor 132

Niccolò da Uzzano 347 Nicephorus Gregoras 381n7 Nicholas, Bishop of Drenopolis 143 Nicias 35, 40, 60, 148, 152, 153, 230 Niger 231 Nikephoros Phokas 98 Ninus 381n7, 385, 397 Nipho, Mariano 393 Nivelle, Nicolas de 423 Nonnus of Panopolis 381n7 Normant, Vincent 415 Norton, Thomas 419 Numa Pompilius 396 Ocno 379 Octavia the Younger 384, 385, 389, 398, 399 Octavian see Augustus Odet de Foix, Viscount of Lautrec 304, 305, 306, 307, 318 Oenone 384, 394, 398 Oethes 132 Olaus Magnus 196, 297n41 Olearius, Johann 448 Olinde 398 Onasander 97, 101, 107, 112 Oporinus, Johannes 255, 412, 413 Orosius 89n56, 91n69 Orosz, Ferenc 445 Orsini, Fulvio 14, 424–425 Ortigue de Vaumorière, Pierre 450 Otanes 228, 266, 276, 278 Otho 205, 236, 295 Oudegherst, Pierre d’ 245, 254, 255 Oudin, César 363 Ovid 11n44, 194, 297, 341, 343, 384, 385, 386, 387, 393, 395, 396, 397, 435 Ars amandi 384, 386 Heroides 194, 380–381, 384–385, 387, 388 Pacuvius Calavius 234 Paetus Thrasea 236 Pacheco, Juan 163, 169 Pagondas 152, 230 Palamedes 30, 35, 134 Palencia, Alfonso de 155, 155n5, 369 Pallavicino, Ferrante 379, 382, 384–387, 391, 393, 395, 399, 440, 445, 450 Pannartz, Arnold 403

532 Panthea 397 Paraula, son of Phalaris 389, 397 Paris, Priam’s son 132, 133, 134, 135, 381n9, 383, 391, 394, 398, 399, 437, 450 Parisot de la Valette, Jean 259 Parmenion 237 Pasqualigo, Vincenzo 384–387, 391, 393, 396–397, 399, 446 Pasquier, Estienne 369 Pastrengo, Guglielmo da 9 Patrocles 231 Patroclus 379, 394 Paul IV, Pope (Gian Pietro Carafa)  255–256 Paul the Deacon 271, 274, 283 Pausanias 148, 151, 229 Pelé, Guillaume 435 Peleus 131, 132, 135 Peleus, Julien 257, 258, 259 Penelope 72, 398 Penso de la Vega Passarinho, José 388–392, 393, 399, 450 Penthesileia 135 Pepin the Short 443 Perdiccas 237 Pereno, Pietro 309n27 Periander 228 Pericles 28, 39, 40, 46, 49, 50, 50n24, 55, 56, 57, 57n40, 60, 93n77, 141, 149, 151, 229, 275, 281, 290, 411, 417, 419, 425 Perilla 395 Perillos 398 Périon, Joachim 14, 16, 173, 174–175, 176–177, 181–182, 187, 188, 190, 192, 202, 202n18, 203, 215, 217, 217n18, 220–221, 223, 227, 228, 264–265, 401, 407, 408, 410, 413, 436 Perna, Pietro 418 Perolla 234 Perseus of Macedon 82n16, 236, 281, 282 Pertheus 133 Pertinax 231 Pérusse des Cars, Charles 260 Pescheur, Jean 417 Peter IV the Ceremonious, King of Aragon 115, 123, 140 Petit, widow of Jean 433 Petrarca, Francesco 297n41, 349 Petrobonus, Hyeronimus 283 Petroni, Lodovico 299n48

Index Of Names Peucer, Caspar 416–417 Peypus, Friedrich 405 Pezzana, Niccolò 438 Phalaris 387 Pharnabazus 231 Pheraula 230 Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse 290 Philip II, King of Spain 288, 315 Philip II of Macedon 89, 419 Philip III Arrhideus of Macedon 86 Philip III, Count of Nassau-Weilburg 176, 177, 178, 192 Philip IV, King of Spain 381 Philip V of Macedon 82n16, 85n30, 87, 89, 231, 235, 236, 281, 369, 395 Philipopoli, Francesco 299n49 Philochorus 75, 75n60 Philicrates 38 Philo 443 Philotas 237 Phoenix 405 Phormio 142, 152, 229 Photius 35, 80, 110 Phrynes 395 Phylarchus 73, 74, 74n55, 75 Piccolomini, Eneas Silvio see Pius II, Pope Pietrasanta, Plinio 295n29 Pigot, Jean 415 Pindar 69 Pirckheimer, Willibald 225n42, 266n14 Pisani, Luca 295n32 Pisistratus 397 Piso 236 Pius II, Pope (Enea Silvio Piccolomini)  253, 255 Plantin, Christophe 255, 359, 365, 373, 415, 424, 429 Platina, Bartolomeo 350 Plato 32, 32n26, 247, 247n36, 350, 411, 427 Plautus 341 Pliny the Elder 26, 94n79, 339 Pliny the Younger 9, 11n42, 26, 26n7, 214 Plutarch 5, 16, 17, 33, 34, 34n35, 40, 72, 72n39, 77n66, 117, 137, 141, 143, 146, 146n31, 147n33, 148, 150, 177n10, 206, 211, 253, 291n20, 295, 295n30, 323n23, 326n35, 329n44, 330, 331, 333, 381n7, 384, 387, 395, 411, 418, 422–423, 437, 440, 443

Index Of Names Lives 137, 141, 143, 146, 150, 295n30, 418, 422 Antony 333 Artaxerxes 146 Cicero 330 Coriolanus 146, 148, 148n36 Luculus 295n30 Otho 295n30 Pyrrhus 295n30 Themistocles 146 Moralia 77n66, 422 Praecepta gerendae reipublicae 40 Sayings of Kings and Commanders  33, 34, 34n35 Polemon, John 423 Polemon of Ilium 64, 64n7 Polidoro Vergilio 273, 274, 283, 381n7 Poliziano, Angelo 225, 225n45, 226, 231–232, 339, 341, 341n13, 349, 420, 438 Pollux 132 Poltrot, Jean 257 Polyaenus 99, 101, 298, 323n23 Polybius 3, 8, 8n28, 15, 17, 19, 20, 36, 37, 46–47, 51, 52, 57, 61, 63–78, 203–204, 205, 209, 210, 211, 218, 225, 231, 253, 271, 283, 297, 331, 420, 424–425 Polydamantes 231 Polyxène 398 Pomeray, François 438 Pompey 9, 34n37, 82, 88, 91, 322, 323, 326, 397 Pompeius Trogus 19, 79–94 Pontano, Giovanni 350 Popilius 389, 399 Poppaea Sabina 384, 394, 439 Porcacchi, Tommaso 200, 296n37 Porcius, eldest son of Cato the Younger 394 Porsenna 232, 396, 398 Portia 380, 397 Porto, Francesco 225, 225n42, 231 Potiphar 391, 399 Poupy, Jean 422 Poussin, Nicolas 381 Praetorius, Johann 432 Priam 132, 133, 134, 135, 395 Priscian 379, 384 Procles 231 Procopius 196, 205, 211, 237, 253, 300n1 Protesilaus 398

533 Prusia 231 Pseudo-Plutarch 41 Pseudo-Quintus Curtius 404 Pseudo-Scymnus 63 Psyche 381n7 Ptolemy Ceraunus 384, 395 Ptolemy Soter 237 Publius Cornelius Scipio 84, 85n27, 220, 220n27, 231, 234, 235, 236, 271, 279, 280, 282, 324, 379, 406 Publius Decius Mus 233, 234 Publius Horatius 232 Publius Lentulus 329 Publius Licinius Calvus 233 Publius Rutilius Rufus 397 Publius Sempronius 234 Publius Sempronius Tuditanus 234 Publius Sulpicius 29n14, 235 Publius Valerius Publicola 232 Pucci, Antonio 349 Puertocarrero 162, 168 Pulcheria 397 Pulci, Luigi 349 Pulgar, Fernando de 10, 21, 154–169, 255 Puteanus, Erycius 442 Pyrame de Candolle 429 Pyrrhus 37, 65, 68n25, 84, 84n27, 135, 295n29, 395, 398, 439 Quagninus, Alexander 268n20, 273n28 Queen of Transylvania 295n33 Quinet, Toussainct 440–441 Quintanilla, Alonso de 168 Quintilian 28, 47,181, 182, 189, 323n20, 378, 410, 417, 443 Quintus Caecilius Metellus 236, 279 Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus  29n14 Quintus Caecilius Metellus Numidicus 93 Quintus Curius 93n75 Quintus Curtius Rufus 10n36, 81, 84, 196, 211, 215, 222, 226, 227, 253, 265, 271n24, 282, 410, 420, 432, 435, 436, 438, 440, 441, 442, 443, 446, 447 Quintus Fabius 232, 234, 235, 278, 279, 406 Quintus Flaminius 395 Quintus Hortensius 384, 395 Quintus Marcius 282 Quintus Martius Rex 221, 222, 232, 236

534 Radhamistus 381 Ranzano, Pietro 273n28, 283 Ravesteynii, Joannis 429 Regio, Raffaele 189n23 Regnault, Pierre 415 Reinhard, Johann 403 Reni, Guido 381 Requart, Pierre 415 Rhaw, Georg 417 Rhoxane 86, 395, 439 Riccardini, Benedetto 339, 341 Ricci, Giuseppe 444–445 Richard, Thomas 417 Ridolfi, Lorenzo 298n46 Rigaud, Benoît 359, 413, 415 Rigaud, Claude 361, 435 Rigaud, Pierre 360, 415 Rinaldo 385, 396 Ritzsch, Gregor 438 Rivière, Barthélémy 446 Robinot, Antoine 439 Robinot, Gilles 361–362, 415 Robustel, Claude 450 Rocca, Bernardin 298 Rodríguez de Montalvo, Garci 356–357 Román, Manuel 451 Romanos II, Emperor 108, 108n53, 109, 109n57 Ronsard, Pierre de 257 Roseo, Mambrino 356 Roxana see Rhoxane Rucellai, Cosimo 342–343 Ruelle, Jean 415 Ruggiero 388, 398 Sabellico, Marco Antonio 197n12, 211, 245, 253, 289, 298, 404 Saliat, Pierre 409 Sallust 1, 2n1, 3, 7, 9–10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 28, 29, 34, 35, 38, 67n23, 80, 85, 90, 92, 93, 94, 159, 177, 179, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 189, 192, 196, 205, 211, 215, 219, 221, 226, 227, 232, 253, 263, 265, 266, 271, 274, 279, 282, 283, 298, 343, 402, 403, 408, 409, 410, 417, 419, 420, 428, 432, 435, 436, 440, 441, 444, 446 Bellum Jugurthinum 186, 226, 232

Index Of Names Bellum Catilinarium 185n18, 226, 232 Historiae 2n1, 29, 34, 403 Orationes et epistulae ex historiis excerptae 2n1, 9, 11, 19, 29, 34, 92 Salviati, Francesco 304n11 Samson 391, 399 Sandanis 219, 228 Sansovino, Francesco Tatti da 197, 285, 401 Santa Cruz, Melchor de 155 Santo Fiore, Niccolò 382 Sanzay, René 254, 255, 256 Sappho 398 Sartorius, Adam 430 Sarzina, Giacomo 437, 439 Sassi, Paolo 339, 341 Satyrus of Callatis 75 Saul 391, 399 Savonarola, Girolamo 341 Saxo Grammaticus 195, 196, 211, 243, 253, 254, 271–2, 274, 283, 300n1 Sayf al-Dawla 102, 109, 109n58 Scevola see Mutius Scevola Schallus, Johann 403 Schardius, Simon 282 Schrader, Christoph 448 Scodrese, Florio 290 Scudéry, Georges de 387–388, 391, 392, 397, 398, 438, 440, 442–443 Scudéry, Madeleine de 440 Scotto, Gualtiero 244 Segestes 236 Sejanus, Lucius Aelius 384, 389, 392, 394, 398 Seleucus 394, 438 Semele 381 Semiramis 381, 387, 395, 396, 397 Sempronius Asellio 27 Seneca the Elder 29n15, 389, 424 Seneca the Younger 236, 275, 380, 381, 384, 389, 394, 399, 403 Septimius Severus 114, 205, 231 Sercy, Nicolas de 441 Sertenas, Vincent 362, 414, 415 Sertorius 326 Servius Tullius 233 Seubold, Johann Polykarp 442 Severianus 46

Index Of Names Sextus Aurelius Victor 196 Sextus Tempanius 233 Seyssel, Claude de 368–70, 407 Sforza, Francesco I, Duke of Milan 295n31, 299n49, 301n6, 305, 316, 317, 354, 355 Sforza, Massimiliano, Duke of Milan 290 Shakespeare, William 195, 238 Silber, Eucharius 403 Siliceo, Alonso 389 Silva, Feliciano de 356 Silvius, Guillaume 371, 418, 422 Sinon 374, 375 Sisygambis, mother of Darius III 384, 393, 394, 397 Skanderbeg, George Kastriot 308, 419–420, 443 Skedasus, Theban Senator 381 Slegers, widow of Jonas 436 Sleidan, Johann 268, 273, 274, 282, 283, 409 Smerdes 276 Socrates 32, 59, 112, 387, 397, 427 Soiter, Melchior 282 Solon 387, 397, 422–423 Sommaville, Antoine de 440, 441 Sophocles 46, 74 Sophonie 398 Sophonisba 235, 381n7, 397 Sorel, Charles 438 Sosicles 229 Spurius Ligustinus 236 Spurius Posthumius 234 Steels, Joannes 215, 408 Steelsius, Joannes see Steels, Joannes Stephanus, Henricus see Estienne, Henri II Sthenelaidas 151, 229, 281, 417 Stobaeus 3 Stoll, Jean 402, 403 Strada, Famiano 439 Straparola, Giovanni Francesco 367 Strozzi, Francesco 200, 208, 381 Strozzi, Piero 408 Stuart, Mary, Queen of Scots 390 Sturm, Johann 261, 262, 267, 407, 409 Suárez, Cipriano 378 Suetonius 27, 177n10, 189, 196, 197, 323n23, 330n49, 331, 332 Suleiman I, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire 308–309, 318

535 Suleiman II 443 Sulla 29n14, 81, 88n53, 91, 93n75, 221–222, 232, 326, 395, 397 Sulpitius 235 Syagrus 68 Sylvain, Alexander 442 Syphax 235 Syrianus Magister 8, 12, 99–100, 101, 104, 104n42, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 Tacitus 3, 80, 85, 186, 204, 205, 211, 215, 226, 227, 236, 251, 253, 265, 271, 274, 281–282, 283, 284, 410, 420, 428, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 440, 441, 443, 446, 447 Agricola 67n23, 85n30, 226, 236 Annals 226, 236 Histories 186n19, 226, 236 Tamar 391, 399 Tancrede 398 Tasso, Torquato 299n49, 381, 388, 441, 445 Telamon 132, 135 Teleutias 231 Terence 340–341 Tesmar, Johann 443 Teutiaplus 152, 229 Theagenes 395, 398 Theatus 237 Themistocles 40, 51, 87, 90, 146, 151, 229, 290 Theocritus 214, 215 Theon 40 Theophylact Simocatta 102n27 Theopompus 7, 38, 39 Theramenes 231, 282, 412 Theron of Acragas 68 Thersites 72 Thilon, Valentin 442, 443 Thou, Jacques-Auguste de 256, 257, 436, 449 Thrasybulus 231 Thucydides 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 28, 30–32, 35, 36, 40–41, 42–62, 65, 66, 67, 70, 93, 105, 116, 118, 119, 130–153, 184, 196, 200, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 211, 214, 224, 250, 253, 262, 263, 266, 269, 270, 271, 274, 275, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 293, 298, 369–370, 404, 407, 411, 414, 417, 418, 419, 420, 425, 427, 431, 435 Tiberius, roman Emperor 236 Tiberius Gracchus 27

536 Tigranes II 81–82 Timaeus 19, 20, 37, 46, 57, 61, 63–78 Timagenidas 229 Timolaus 231 Timoleon 37, 63, 65, 68 Timon 385, 396 Tissaphernes 86, 106, 153, 230 Titian 287, 288–289, 290 Titus Gracchus 234 Titus Livius see Livy Titus Manlius 221–222, 233, 234 Titus Quinctius 221, 231, 233, 235, 405, 424 Titus Sempronius 236 Titus Tatius 393, 394–395 Tiziano Vecellio see Titian Tomyris 90, 381n7, 396 Trabouillet, widow of Nicolas 441 Trajan 374, 375 Trebellius Pollio 226, 237, 271, 282, 284, 420, 432, 447 Trivulzio, Gian Giacomo 302–303 Troilus 133, 383, 394 Tullius, Romanorum rex 232 Turnus, King of the Rutuli 381 Turrini, Antonio 440 Tyron, Antoine 359 Tytirus 398 Ulysses 35, 117, 124, 133, 135, 374, 381n7, 398, 405, 418 Ungnadio, Andrea 269 Urban II, Pope (Odo of Châtillon) 298 Urban V, Pope (Guillaume de Grimoard) 311 Urban VIII, Pope (Maffeo Barberini) 381, 384 Urbicius 101, 107 Valckenier, Gilles Jansz 445 Valentinianus 237 Valeria, fifth wife of Sulla 148n36, 395 Valerianus 237 Valerius, tribune of the plebs 232, 233, 279 Valerius Maximus 3, 384, 387, 404, 423 Valla, Lorenzo 10, 149, 151, 182n14, 208, 224, 224n36, 228, 229, 230, 266, 266n14, 294, 404, 420, 426, 448 Valois, House of 304, 369 Van den Bussche, Alexandre 423

Index Of Names Van Waesberge, Jan 415 Varchi, Benedetto 296n37 Varennes, Olivier de 361, 375 Varro 214, 234 Vasaeus, Johannes 410 Vascosan, Michel de 298n45, 370, 413, 418, 427 Vasto, Marchis del 288 Vechner, Abraham 449 Vectius Messius 233 Vectius Sabinus 237 Vega, Lope de 238 Velleius Paterculus 326n35 Venus 381 Veratius, Jobus (Job) 175, 175n8, 184, 185, 186, 190n25, 191, 192, 193, 217, 219–220, 224, 225, 227, 229, 230, 231, 283, 420, 436, 445 Vergil, Polydor 273n28, 274, 283, 381n7 Verino, Michele 339 Verjus, Antoine 446 Vermio, Luchino 298n46 Vernamdus 402 Vertumnus 180–181, 181n12 Vespasian 11n44, 381, 396 Vespucci, Giorgio Antonio 341 Vettori, Francesco 350 Veturia 389, 393, 394, 399, 413 Vezosis 88 Vibius Virius 235 Vibulenus 236 Victor Vitense 251 Vigenère, Blaise 413 Vignon, Heirs of Eustache 429, 251, 429 Villena, Enrique de 10 Viret, Jean 441 Virgil 184, 214, 381n7, 381n7, 387, 388, 397, 434–435, 451–452 Aeneid 451–452 Visconti, Blanca Maria 316 Visconti family 301 Visconti, Filippo Maria, Duke of Milan  316–317, 348 Visconti, Galeazzo 316 Visconti, Valentina 316 Vitali, Bernardino Veneto dei 405 Vitali, Matteo 404 Vives, Juan Luis 250n44 Vladislao see Władysław, King of Poland

Index Of Names Volumnia 148n36, 397 Volumnis 397, 399 Von Reusner, Nikolaus 430 Von Stadl, Erasmus 177, 193 Von Stadl, Gottfried 177, 193 Waesberghe, Jean 259, 415 Waldensians 245, 256 Waldrich, Konrad von 428 Wechel, Christian 406, 407 Wechel, Johann 426 Weidmann, Moritz Georg 452 Widukind of Corvey see Witichinde Winter, Robert 215, 408 Winters, Conrad 403 Witichinde 253, 254, 300n1 Władysław, King of Poland 255 Wolter, Bernhard 435 Xanthippe 397 Xenarchus 236 Xenocrates 395, 439 Xenophon 3, 6, 11, 13, 17, 32, 32n26, 39, 98n7, 101, 101n27, 103, 105, 106, 106n49, 112, 112n72, 113, 147n33, 193, 204, 209–210, 211, 214, 224–225, 230–231, 242, 253, 262, 263, 265–266, 271–272, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 370, 412, 420, 426, 427, 435, 437

537 Anabasis 103, 105, 113, 209, 225, 427, 230, 278, 280, 281 Cyropaedia 112–113, 209, 224, 225, 230, 278, 279 Hellenica 209, 225, 230, 280, 282 Memorabilia 32 Xerxes 86, 148, 207, 208n25, 229, 278 Xylander, Guilelmus 222 Zakyntos 235 Zaleucus 397 Zaltieri, Bolognino 419 Zsámboky, Janos see Sambucus Zanetti, Francesco 427 Zapata, Cardinal Antonio 227 Zatta, Alessandro 445 Zealots 106 Zenero, Carlo 438 Zeno, Antonio 419 Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra 381n7, 397 Zenon 7, 27 Zetzner, Lazarus 363–364, 428, 430, 432 Zeus 57, 74, 74n56 Zeusis 235 Zirfée 377 Zopyrus 374, 375 Zoppino see d’Aristotile di Ferrara, Nicolò Zosimus 8n28

Index of Subjects accusatio 15, 64, 67, 74, 210, 264, 271, 275, 281, 282, 327–329, 332–333, 373–374, 420, 423–424, 442 Achaemenid Empire 81, 86 actio 221, 275, 281, 366–367, 372n27, 420 Aetolians 83, 87, 88, 89 adhortatio 16, 202, 203, 221, 266n13, 272, 274–275, 279, 280 adlocutio  37, 288–289, 331 alliance 70, 190, 200, 250, 274, 279, 280, 291, 308–309, 316 Amadís de Gaula 14, 21, 356–377, 401, 414–415, 419 ambassade 372 ambassador 20, 29n14, 37, 38–39, 63, 68–72, 77–78, 80, 91n69, 139, 142, 190, 195, 200, 203, 204, 208, 217–218, 222, 239n7, 245, 254, 256, 260, 279, 280, 281, 287, 290–291, 293, 293–294, 295, 298n46, 307, 307n19, 308, 308n23, 312, 314, 317, 318, 395, 403, 414, 436 ambassadorial speeches see speeches, embassy amplification 163, 265, 282, 283, 381, 419 anthologies of historiographical speeches   see also collections ancient testimonies 26–29 Byzantine influence 136–153 classification 36–41 encyclopaedic 14–15, 18, 130, 195–212, 199, 200, 201, 202, 205, 210, 214, 414, 426 formal characteristics 33–36 explicit 30–33 implicit 30–33 process of selection 2–3, 33–34 state of the art 2–4 types of 36–41 antilogy 38, 406 apophthegms 3, 5, 214, 218, 408, 418 Aragon 115, 116, 121, 140–141, 144, 163, 168, 304 Aragonese language 116, 123 argomento see argument as summary of speech content

argument as rhetorical device 28, 30, 39, 45–46, 51, 54–56, 58–59, 63, 65, 107, 111, 138, 142, 158, 164–167, 174–175, 179, 202, 263, 276–277, 321, 322, 323–324, 326–327, 329, 331, 333, 340, 353, 371, 373, 379n2, 380 as summary of speech content 13, 15, 175n7, 188, 192, 200, 213, 213n1, 215, 216, 216n14, 217, 219–222, 227, 242, 242n20, 242, 242n20, 249, 260, 268, 268n19, 276, 291, 292, 295, 295–296, 302, 310, 313, 316, 317, 380, 381, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 390, 405, 406, 407, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 416, 417, 420, 421, 424, 425, 426, 427, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 436, 439, 440, 441, 445, 447, 448, 449, 451 see also effect argumenta ficta 104, 107 argumentum see argument as rhetorical device aristocracy 278, 342, 346, 388 ars arengandi 121, 122, 286 ars concionandi 122 ars dictandi 121, 122, 129 ars excerpendi 3, 12, 26, 140, 147, 150 ars tactica 107 Assyrians 113, 230 Athens 43, 53–55, 68, 70, 81, 87, 138, 177, 348, 350, 352, 396, 397, 423 Avignon  115, 119, 121, 136, 141, 150 Papal Court 115–116, 119, 136, 141, 143, 145, 310, 318 battle exhortation see exhortatio battles Actium (31 bce)  320, 320n13, 330, 332–333, 337 Benevento (1266) 313 Bicocca (1522) 304–307, 318 Ceresole (1544) 289n13 Fornovo (1496) 302–304, 317 Himera (480 bce) 68–70, 77

Index Of Subjects Lepanto (1572) 116, 423 Marignano (1515) 304 Mühlberg (1547) 288n12 Pavia (1525) 287, 289n13, 306 Renty (1554) 245, 256, 257 Saint Quentin (1557) 288 Salamis (480 bce) 69 Taro (1495) 423 Vesontio (58 bce) 322n16, 334 Bible 214, 386, 443 characters 391, 399, 451 Epistles 307n19, 387 Gospels  307n19 quotations 109, 109n59 sources 404 themes 391, 404, 450–451 biographer 27, 226, 339, 382, 385 biography 7, 17, 27, 55, 81, 146, 157, 213n1, 247n35, 301, 308, 382, 384, 434 book design 249 incipit 56, 148, 403 index 131, 151, 175n8, 177, 202, 203n20, 213, 213n1, 216, 216n14, 217, 223, 244n27, 249, 250n42, 251, 265, 265n12, 270, 272n26, 290, 292–295, 339, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, 419, 420, 421, 426, 427, 430, 432, 434, 436, 441, 442, 443, 445, 447, 448, 449, 450 marginal notes 111, 136, 138, 150, 250, 251, 294n24, 316n56, 321, 340, 406, 407, 408, 413, 414, 416, 417, 421, 426 paratextual elements 15, 15n14, 182, 189n23, 196, 201–204, 209, 250n42, 250n43, 250n44, 291–295, 382, 383, 389, 407, 408, 409, 412, 413, 425, 431, 434, 437 rubrics 2, 103, 103n36, 104, 112, 114, 118, 123, 124, 125, 126, 130, 131, 142, 143, 294, 373 scholia 49n20, 77n67, 137–138, 149, 180 search tools 217, 223 tables 15, 16, 60, 123, 124, 196, 202, 202n19, 203, 205, 206, 208, 209, 209n28, 210, 239, 249, 250, 250n42, 250n44, 251, 271n23, 292–295, 311, 358n7, 359, 360, 363, 365, 371, 373, 388, 407, 409, 414, 415, 416, 418, 421, 427, 429, 432, 441, 443, 444, 449, 450

539 typeface 213, 218 see also edition, editor, editorial criteria, printers, readership, reading practices book market 216, 226–228, 286 booksellers 181, 181n12, 239, 426n29, 320, 358, 362, 362n13, 450 Byzantium 4, 5n13, 6–8, 12, 14, 19, 20, 37, 39, 97–114, 116–120, 136–153, 196, 205, 300n1, 432 caduceator 229 canon 40, 43, 43n5, 242, 290, 296, 393, 428, 447 capitula finalia 15 cartels 359, 360, 365, 366, 371, 377 Carthaginians 27, 37, 68–69, 220n27, 234 Castile 154–169 Cortes of 154, 160 censorship 20, 90, 155, 227, 310, 437 chivalric romance 14, 21, 123, 131, 356–377, 415 chrestomathy 31–32, 39 civil strife 326 classical tradition 20, 76, 80, 81, 97, 100, 110, 111, 112, 115, 136, 137, 147, 150, 175, 204, 208, 219, 245, 252, 285, 291, 326, 333, 337, 341, 342, 358, 380–381, 387 codex excerptorius 12 see also ars excerpendi cohortatio militaris 333–334 collana istorica 194, 200, 297 Collana latina 297n41, 299n49 collections see also anthologies of Greek poetry 214 of Latin poetry 214 of maxims see apophthegms of oratorical speeches 214, 215, 268 of sayings see apophthegms commonplaces see loci communes compiler 12, 18, 21, 25, 28n10, 36,37, 140, 160, 162, 165, 166, 167, 173, 188, 191, 194, 197, 200, 206, 207, 209, 210, 214, 217, 218, 219, 222, 224, 227, 273, 287, 291, 294, 296, 317, 320, 321, 337, 358, 362, 371, 407, 410, 411, 412, 418, 420, 422, 424, 427, 430, 431, 432, 442, 444, 447, 450 complaintes 358, 359, 360, 365, 366, 371, 376, 371, 376, 377, 414

540 concio (contio) 12, 13, 14, 17, 27, 28, 29, 29n15, 115, 122, 136–137, 140n15, 145–149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 173–193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 205, 206, 207, 208n25, 209, 210, 213, 215–218, 202, 202n18, 203n20, 213–337, esp. 227–229, 238, 239n5, 241n14, 263, 265, 266, 269, 270n22, 285, 358, 359, 360, 365–366, 367–371, 372, 401–452 condottiero 198, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 299, 302, 305, 320, 334, 347, 347n38, 352, 352n62 confortation 376 consolatio 274, 275, 281 consolation 371, 376 Constantinople 8, 101, 138, 147n33, 397 consul 34n37, 84, 114, 217, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 319, 319n1, 325n31, 328, 331, 405 contio see concio copia 176, 371–375, 434 Corinth 37, 69, 116, 142, 151, 200, 229, 231, 280, 281, 294n26, 404 Council of Trent 194, 239n7, 257, 307n20 Counter-Reformation 194, 307, 381 courtesy book 357 courtier 155, 217, 365, 385, 396 criminatio 221 debate 29n14, 42, 46, 48, 52, 55, 67, 77, 142, 157, 200, 251, 274, 319–338, 364, 392, 406, 413, 424 declamation 7, 19, 20, 35, 37, 42, 62, 80, 424, 434, 448, 451 defensio 236, 276, 281, 282, 420 deffiement (cartel de deffi) 371, 376 deffis 359, 365, 366 dehortatio 16, 202, 203, 274, 280, 403 deliberatio 16, 186, 203, 264, 265n13, 266, 273–274, 276, 277, 278, 279, 290, 291, 316, 424, 432 demandes 360, 366, 371, 372, 423 demegoría 8, 48, 51, 51n26, 52, 55, 138, 139, 263, 407 Demegoría Kerkyraíôn 407 Demegoría Perikléous 407 Demegoríai Protreptikaí 8 democracy 49, 67, 277, 278, 346

Index Of Subjects description of battles 138 of civil war 138 of a plague 138 devis 359, 365, 366, 372 didactic models 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 28n10, 40, 72, 75, 77, 104, 155, 167, 176, 185, 261–267, 273, 276, 334, 364, 407, 409, 412, 426, 437 direct speech see oratio recta dispositio 28, 51, 119, 124, 277, 411, 412, 422, 444 editions Venetian 194–210, 241, 285–299 Florentine 197 editorial criteria 218–223 educational purposes 39–40 effect (of a speech) 13, 16, 77, 109, 167, 187, 188, 200, 201, 204, 242, 242n20, 249, 250n43, 260, 268, 291, 292, 294, 295, 303, 304n10, 306, 314, 321, 324, 333, 335, 336, 351, 379n2, 388, 412, 416, 421, 438, 441 see also argument effetto see effect eikós (“probable”) 46, 52, 57, 62 eklogé 33 elocutio 12, 26, 28, 36, 40, 46, 48, 51, 52, 55, 58, 59, 61, 62, 72, 93, 94, 108, 108n55, 109, 130, 160, 166, 208, 263n8, 269, 298, 350, 370, 372, 379, 383, 387, 406, 437, 440, 445 eloquence 12, 30, 31, 31n23, 32, 40, 72, 97, 99, 159n18, 160, 166, 174–178, 183–186, 188–189, 190–191, 192, 193, 202n19, 203, 218, 247, 249, 262, 263, 265, 268, 269, 270n22, 277, 290, 307, 307n19, 360, 363, 364, 365, 387, 393, 394, 405, 410, 412, 413, 423, 426,428, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 438, 449, 443, 444, 446, 448, 449, 450 embassy 29n14, 91, 366, 372, 375 see also speeches, embassy Embassy episode (Homer) 10, 41, 60 emperor 26, 27, 39, 89, 101, 107–109, 178, 205, 245, 255, 274, 275, 279, 300, 304, 325, 396, 422 encyclopaedia 4n13, 210

Index Of Subjects encyclopaedism 8n2 English language 102n29, 238, 363, 363n15, 387n18, 415, 419, 423, 424, 433 enhortements 372, 376 Enneakrounos fountain 177 epigonoi 82, 84 epipolesis (“review of troops”) 105 epistles 20, 29, 60, 80, 81, 83, 83n20, 86, 93, 93n76, 93n77, 101, 102, 104n41, 122, 137, 158, 222, 363, 376, 377, 380–381, 382n10, 449 epistola 174, 175, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 dedicatoria 174, 181, 183n15, 192, 215, 217, 217n18, 218, 417 epistres 358, 359, 360, 365, 366, 371, 414 nuncupatoria 174, 192, 193 preliminary epistle 217, 227 to the reader 217, 218, 219, 225 epitome 19, 20, 74, 79–94, 419, 423, 424, 442 ethopoeia 35, 46, 378–380 ethos 54, 268, 276 exempla 3, 17, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 49, 58, 80, 83, 83n18, 248–249, 263n8, 289–290, 323, 323n20, 326, 326n33, 346, 346n35, 359, 365–366, 371, 390, 430, 435, 443 exhortatio 20, 31, 35, 36, 37, 60, 63, 91, 93, 99, 105, 112, 120, 138–139, 141, 142, 144, 149, 152, 215, 221, 256, 275, 330, 371, 373, 376, 377, 403, 420  exhortations 371, 373, 376, 377, 403 exordium 122, 174 florilegia 1, 3, 4, 5n13, 7n24, 28n10, 33, 83, 111, 373, 292, 420 forms of government, discussion about 67, 266, 273–274, 276, 278, 346, 424 democracy 67, 266, 276–278, 346 oligarchy 67, 266, 276–278, 346 monarchy 67, 266, 273–274, 276–278, 301, 308 France 9, 10, 14, 21, 227, 228, 446 Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659) 366 French language 227, 240–241, 241–246, 256, 258, 285, 307n20, 310–314, 356–377 French Wars of Religion 240, 245, 249

541 Gallic Wars 9, 11n42, 322 genera causarum 408, 443 generals (military) 20, 27, 34, 37, 39, 48, 53, 63, 88, 97, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 110,112, 114, 142, 189, 195, 273 German language 356, 363–364, 382n13, 415, 433, 439 Goths 239n5, 299n48 gratulatio 271n25, 275, 281 Greco-Persian Wars 55, 68–69, 77, 87, 105, 207, 278 Greek poetry 3–4, 5, 35, 43, 50, 73, 214 Habsburg-Valois Wars (1551–1559) 286 hagiography 379 harangue 6, 8, 9, 10 13, 15, 20, 79, 80, 82n16, 84, 85n30, 87, 89, 90–93, 98,104–106, 110–111, 120, 122, 124, 127, 129, 160, 163, 165, 195, 200, 217, 220, 226, 238–260, 275, 285, 287n7, 289, 290, 291, 292, 294, 295, 298, 332, 358, 359, 360, 365, 366–371, 372, 374, 376, 377, 387, 388, 397, 398, 401, 410, 417, 418, 421, 422, 423, 427, 429, 433, 435, 438, 440, 441, 444, 446, 447, 449, 450, 457 see also military speeches Helleniká 69, 70, 78 Hellenistic 20, 36–38, 63, 63, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 205 historical narrative 1, 5, 6, 10, 13, 31n23, 34, 37, 40, 40n54, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50n23, 56, 57, 67, 69, 71, 78, 79, 83, 85, 92, 94, 120, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 141, 144, 152, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 164, 166, 167, 204, 248, 319, 343, 349, 365, 371, 377, 381, 383, 426, 444 see also narrative settings historiographical characters 20, 27, 37, 39, 46, 52, 53, 54, 56, 60, 61, 79, 84, 88, 94, 121, 124, 126, 127, 156, 159, 160, 189, 195, 245, 263n8, 325, 375, 378, 380, 381, 383–385, 388–391, 393, 448, 451 criticism 19, 20, 21, 48n17, 49, 51–61, 63–78, 180, 181, 206, 346–347 letters 2n1, 7, 9, 11, 11n42, 14, 21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 102, 102n29, 103, 104, 107–110, 111, 114, 121, 126, 138, 139, 148, 149, 154–169, 267–268, 357, 358, 363, 365, 371, 376,

542 historiographical (cont.) 377, 401, 403, 404, 413, 415, 417, 436, 431, 438 see also epistles monograph 2n1, 9, 17, 27, 37, 199, 402, 403, 417 theory 247–249, 251 treatises 5, 20, 40, 42, 46, 46n14, 48–59, 60, 64, 74, 99, 392, 401, 435, 437–438, 442, 443, 447, 450 utilitas 6, 12–17, 28, 31, 38, 47, 77, 97, 99n11, 105, 137, 139, 142, 148, 177, 182, 186, 187, 188, 188n22, 189, 190, 190n25, 195, 195n6, 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 206, 207, 213, 216n14, 218, 227, 248, 263, 263n8, 268, 269, 270, 276, 285, 290, 291, 292, 364, 373, 376, 392, 412 Homeric epic 11, 31, 35, 43, 401 Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem 115–116 hypotheseis 107 Iberian Peninsula 10, 115–135, 140–145, 154–169 Iberian romances of chivalry 364 idolopoeia 378 imitatio 186 industria 185–187, 261 imperialism 67, 322–325 imprimeurs-libraires 239, 246–247 incipit see book design incunabula 18 index see book design Index librorum prohibitorum et expurgatorum 227 indirect speech see oratio obliqua industria 185, 186, 187 Inquisition’s censorship 227, 298, 307n20 Insegna della Concordia 285, 426 intertextuality 139, 200, 371, Italian language 143, 146, 194–210, 241, 290, 296–299, 300–301, 309–310, 317, 318, 320–321, 333, 338, 339–355, 356, 363, 378–399 invectiva 402 inventio 28, 47, 51–52, 56–57, 58, 66, 100, 412, 413 Italian Wars 289n13, 306, 315, 403

Index Of Subjects Jesuit schools 227, 378, 427, 429, 431, 434, 439, 446 Jews 106, 239n5, 381, 390, 392, 421 Jewish Wars 106, 113, 205, kairós (“the occasion”) 51–52, 56–57, 111 kantatores 98, 98n5, 111 king 5, 27, 33–34, 82, 84, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 113, 114, 115, 124, 132, 133, 135, 141, 154, 158, 164, 167, 168, 169, 176, 178, 189, 190, 217, 221, 222, 230, 232–236, 274, 276, 278, 281–282, 290, 305–306, 308, 313, 314–317, 318, 351, 381, 403, 411, 423, 436, 442, 443 ktéma es aieí (“possesion forever”) 269–270 La Fenice 287n6, 288, 296–299 lamentations 371, 376 Latinism, learned words 369 laudatio 264, 275, 281, 330, 330n49, 337, 420 legatus 217, 221, 222, 228, 229, 231–237 lettres missives 359, 360, 365, 366, 371 see also epistles léxis 45, 59 libertinism 382 libraries 10, 11, 14, 28, 29n15, 35, 99, 108, 109n57, 116, 117, 137–138, 139–140, 177, 214n3, 225, 227n47, 356, 358n7 loci communes 213, 216, 262, 267, 277, 292, 294–295, 365, 409, 420, 427, 432, 451 Lombards 239n5 Macedonia 34, 82, 84, 86 Macedonian Renaissance 6, 8 Macedonian War, I 90 Marcus Aurelius, equestrian statue 289 marginal notes see book design Massagetae 229, 396 maxims see sententiae medical subjects 214 Melian dialog 48, 50n24, 53–55, 60 Melos 60 methodus excerpendi 140 see also ars excerpendi, codex excerptorius military art see ars tactica manuals 97–114 thought 97, 98

543

Index Of Subjects miscellaneous codex 7, 9, 11n43, 11n44, 148 miscellaneous work 17, 419, 438 miscellany 4–5, 25, 33, 409 see also eklogé, synagogé moralizing purposes 4, 39–40, 138, 155 manuscripts Ms. 1.759 BNE 158n13, 161, 162, 163 Ms. 10.801 BNE 115–135, 136–153 Ms. 18.062 BNE 160–164, 165, 167 Ms. 20.445 BNE 158n14 Ms. 9–5173 RAH 154–172 Ms. Ambrosianus B 119 sup. 97–114 Ms. Holkham 339 11 Ms. Laurentianus LV.4 107 Ms. Marcianus Graecus 976 see Ms. Ambrosianus B 119 sup. Ms. Neapolitanus III-B-8 139–140 Ms. Neapolitanus III-B-10 139–140 Ms. Neapolitanus III-B-15 14 Ms. Neapolitanus III-B-17 140n15 Ms. Parisinus Graecus 2522 Ms. Parisinus Graecus 2991 11n44 Ms. Univ. Valencia BH 384 408 Ms. Upsaliensis Graecus 8 11n44 Ms. Urbinas Graecus 131 Ms. Vaticanus Graecus 126 Ms. Vaticanus Graecus 1418 Ms. Vaticanus Latinus 918 148n36 Ms. Vaticanus Latinus 3864 11n42, 29 Ms. Vaticanus Latinus 14825 425 Ms. Vindobonensis hist. Gr. 113 11n44 Mithridatic wars 80, 93, 428 mythological characters 30 themes 35, 74 Naples 14, 139, 289, 302, 310, 314–315, 318, 354, 379, 386, 389, 447 narration see historical narrative narrative see historical narrative narrative settings 2, 5, 78, 118, 119, 120, 124–126, 127, 130, 140, 142, 164, 302, 411 Naumachica 101 New Testament 194 opera characters 382–284 oraison 367, 368, 369, 372, 376, 409, 444

oratio obliqua 89–90, 106n48, 151, 153, 164, 167 recta 12, 46, 48, 56, 90, 91 106, 127, 129, 145, 149, 156, 164–165, 167, 186, 222, 380 orationes fictae 378–399, 440, 445, 446 Orationes Homeri 10 oratory 9, 17, 28, 31, 32, 34, 214, 215, 405, 406, 411, 437 funeral 275, 330–332, 337 see also Pericles’ funeral oration military see speeches, military models for 20, 38, 41, 42, 121, 139, 142, 144, 203, 204 political see speeches, deliberative profane 9, 121, 159, 382–383 sacred 392 Ovidian epistles 194, 380–381, 384–385, 387, 388 Palatine Anthology 3 Panhellenic 68, 69, 70n2, 71, 78 papyri PColZen 60 27–28 PGenav. 2 28n12 PGiss. 12 28n12 PHamb. II 136 41n55 PMichInv. 4832 41n55 POxy 16 28n12 POxy 225 28n12 POxy 451 28n12 POxy 452 28n12 POxy 696 28n12 POxy 879 28n12 POxy 1245 28n12 POxy 1621 28n12 POxy 1622 28n12 POxy. 13.1621 28 PRyl. 548 28n12 PSI 1195 28n12 PStras.inv. 2374 41n55 PVindob.Gr. inv. 26740 41n55 PVindob.Gr. inv. 39996 28n10 paratextual elements see book design parricide 281 Parthia 37, 46, 81 Parthian War 37, 46 pathos 50, 268, 276

544 patronage 146, 181, 286–288 peace conditions 220 treaties of 256 Peace of Cateau-Cambrésis 315, 318 of Philocrates 38 pedagogical models 139 Peloponnesian War 7, 10, 50, 115, 116, 119, 224, 300, 404, 425 Pericles 39, 40, 149, 290 Pericles’s funeral oration 28, 46, 49–50, 55–57, 60, 93n77, 141, 275, 281, 411, 417, 419, 425 Periochae 28–29 Persia 68n3, 69n4, 77 Persian Wars 69, 77, 105, 207 petitio 16, 203, 223, 275, 279, 280–281 Philippics 326, 411 philosophy 43, 44, 59, 214, 350, 372, 393 plagiarism 210 Plataea 52 Plataean debate 31n22, 48, 52, 55–56, 60, 141, 148 plebeians 217 poetae docti 43, 75–76 political debate 55, 319–338 context 21, 121, 166, 246, 247, 249–252 eloquence 31, 31n23, 36, 49, 66, 67, 78, 139, 157, 185, 203, 204, 249, see also speeches, deliberative leaders 32, 38, 39, 70, 146, 173, 174, 176, 178, 191, 195, 198 propaganda 68n27, 309, 329 popularity of the historians 16–17, 197, 333 préciosité 357 prefaces 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192 dedicatee of 177, 179, 180, 183 foreword to the reader 174, 181, 182, 190 panegyric 173, 176, 191 reflective  173, 176, 182, 187, 191 prépon (“convenient”) 45, 47, 52, 54, 55, 62 prière 373, 376 printers 173, 174, 178, 180, 181, 194n5, 213, 214, 217, 224, 227, 286–288, 291, 294, 296–297, 301, 340, 383

Index Of Subjects catholic 226–227, 239–241, 246–267 Protestant 261–284 progymnasmata 7, 40, 100, 378–379, 401 prophetie 371, 376 Protestant Reformation 256, 258, 308, 417 prosopopoeia 47, 378, 437 propos 359, 365, 367, 369, 371, 372 psychrótes (“coldness”) 58, 61 Punic Wars  63, 300, 408, 428 Pylos 50 querela 275 quotations 5, 54, 57, 109, 183n15, 184, 367, 386, 417, 446 razonamientos 156–157, 160–169 readership 188, 190, 218, 219, 224, 227 reading practices 6, 12, 16–18, 26, 41, 333–337, 386, 406 recit 372 recueil 4, 5n13, 248n37, 290, 359, 365, 410, 415, 437, 438, 449 regrets 371, 376, 377 relicta 380, 381, 393 remonstrances 371, 372, 444 repliques 360, 366, 371, 372, 376, 377 reprehensio 275 requeste 372, 376 resolutio 267–268, 276 resolution 376 responses 371, 376, 377, 422 responsio 221, 236, 237, 279, 280, 282, 402, 403 Rhetorica militaris 8, 97, 101, 104, 107 rhetoric Aristotle 30, 202, 204, 373, 375 Cicero 72, 182, 186, 247, 267, 326–330, 345, 350, 378, 411 Quintilian 28, 47–48, 181, 182, 189, 378 rhetorical argumentation 12, 15, 30–33, 35, 40, 138, 166, 179, 202, 326–327, 332 exercises 108n55, 266–267, 272, 382, 384, 386, 425, 428, 446–447 see also progymnasmata genres (deliberative, judicial, epideictic)  14–16, 37–38, 202–204, 207, 216, 223, 269, 277, 291, 372, 379, 388, 406, 407, 409, 412, 420, 426, 432, 436

545

Index Of Subjects index 217, 270, 272n26, 292–293, 407, 411, 412, 414, 420, 426, 430, 432 models 5, 9, 12, 28, 35, 150, 218, 223, 249, 425 officia (movere, docere, delectare) 188, 375 ornatus 46, 61 purpose 6, 36–39, 139–140, 144, 148, 200, 376, 406, 410 skills 85, 156, 217 tradition 100, 104, 110, 137, 252 training 6, 30–35, 72, 129, 173, 183, 186, 392, 412 treatises 42, 44, 47, 48n17, 104, 107 rhetor 7, 19–20, 107, 435 Rhodes 116, 141, 145 Roman emperors 39, 275, 279 empire 106, 205, 225, 404 republic 28, 82, 90, 93, 319–338 rubrics see book design Sadducees 106 saphéneia (“clarity”) 58, 61 Saguntini 234, 235, 281 scholars 4, 11–12, 75, 100, 138, 140, 143, 145, 150, 167, 215, 225, 270 scholia see book design schools and academies 35, 40, 43, 57, 59, 190, 215–216, 218, 227, 339, 341, 342, 378, 383, 392, 401, 436, 445 schoolbooks 218 see also codex excerptorius scribes 11–12, 138 scriptorium 8–9, 10, 12, 100, 115–116, 123, 131, 136, 143–144 Scythia 228, 229, 237, 384, 395 Scythians 39, 84, 87, 88, 90 search tools see book design secession of the plebs 325n31 Senator 217, 233, 237 Senatus  220, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236 sententiae 214, 248, 251, 251n45, 292, 294, 295, 296, 360, 366, 371, 372 Sforza family 290, 299n49, 301, 304–305, 316, 354–355 Sicily 63, 68, 69, 70–71, 72, 78, 313, 314 Sieges Malta (1565) 259 Metz (1552) 245, 256–257

Rouen (1562) 245, 256, 258 Vienna (1529) 287 Sikeliká 69, 70, 78 sophists 30–33, 53, 435 Sophistic First 30–31 Second 35, 379n3 Spanish language 202n19, 238, 255, 356–357, 374 Sparta 28, 70, 142, 279, 280, 281 speeches  alliance 200, 274–275, 279, 280, 291 councillor see deliberative deliberative 194–212, 270, 373 embassy 80, 91n69, 139, 142, 195, 200, 203, 204, 239n7, 256, 260, 279, 280, 281, 287, 290–1, 294n26, 307, 308, 314, 317, 403, 414, 436 epideictic 30–33, 148, 182–183, 270, 275, 373, 437 in epic 115–135 judicial 30–33, 148, 150, 270–271, 275–276, 373, 420, 450 military 217, 220, 226 model or exemplary 12, 19, 30–32, 139, 142, 203, 207, 273, 286, 287, 439 of blame see epideictic of praise see epideictic protreptic St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre 246, 308 Stoa 177 Strasbourg Academy 261–284 Strategemata Ambrosiana 101, 107 Strategikon 97–98, 101, 107, 101, 111 Strategikós (by Onasander) 97, 101, 107, 112 suasoria 29, 47, 163, 424, 431 Suda 64, 74n54, 74n56, 75n60, 272, 274, 387, 412, 422 Suidas see Suda style see elocutio syllogé 5, 6, 8n26, 33, 102, 110, 445 synagogé 5, 7, 27, 33, 38 Syracusani 153, 235, 266n15, 279 Syracuse 63, 68, 69, 77 Syrian wars 80, 428 tables see book design textual criticism 4, 48, 218, 286, 295

546 Thebans 229, 231 Thermopylae 77 Thessalii 229 Thirty Years War 445 topoi 176, 179, 183, 192 topos 326 of dedication 176, 177 of false modesty 179, 181 of literary dispenser of glory 179 of outdoing 177, 178 tragic historiography 73–74 tragedy 43, 50, 74, 375, 388 Trajan’s column 289 translation 240–246, 252 from Greek into Latin 145–146, 148, 149, 151, 213–237, 266, 297 from Greek into vernacular 116, 118, 140–145, 150, 200–201, 202n19, 207–209, 320, 333, 369–370, 379 from Latin into vernacular 194, 198, 296, 299, 301, 310, 341–342 from Spanish into French 356–363, 365 from Italian into French 238, 241–246, 318, 367, 382, 387–388 from Italian to Spanish 382–383, 388–292 from French into English 363 from French into German 363–364 transversal reading 12, 16–18 Transylvanian War 198, 199, 287, 292, 295n33, 306n16, 308 treaty 256, 275, 281, 315, 318 Trésor 14, 21, 356–377 see Amadís de Gaula trial by arms (Homer) 35

Index Of Subjects tribunes 29, 217, 279, 232–235 Trojan characters 131–135 Chronicle 115–135, 137, 144 cycle 43n5 theme 10, 117 War 120, 123, 418 Turks 141, 199, 243n25, 244, 245, 289, 309 historiography on the 198–199, 419–420, 430 war against the 198, 199, 245, 255, 259, 292, 300, 419–420, 430 typeface see book design universal history 17, 80, 81, 94, 404, 442 university 4, 177, 203, 228, 261, 339, 341–342, 387, 403, 408, 417, 419 utilitas  187, 248 varietas 371–375 Vandals 239, 308 Venice 301, 302, 317, 320, 392, 394–397, 404, 405, 411, 414, 416, 419, 426, 433, 437, 438, 439, 440, 444–445, 446–447 vernacular 10, 13, 16, 197–199, 206, 240, 286, 289, 296, 339–255, 405, 432 vituperatio 264, 275, 420 volgarizzamento 290, 296–299 Volsci 232 warfare, culture of  285–288 Wars of Religion 240, 245, 249, 252 Zealots 106