Hieroglyphs, speaking pictures, and the law : the context of Alciato's emblems 9780852619353

Citation preview

Glasgow Emblem Studies =

=

=

+

=

=>

=

VUE

ÿ:

>

LES

bd NE

É

ES

&

RTE

N

r-

î Fa

y

ET

è

ZT

\

ivON AtF

Le

Volume

NC

Ss

>

>

=

@

16

Hieroglyphs, Speaking Pictures, and the Law: The Context of Alciato’s Emblems by Denis L. Drysdall

Hieroglyphs, Speaking Pictures, and the Law: The Context of Alciato’s Emblems

by Denis L. Drysdall Preface by Jean Michel Massing GLASGOW:

GLASGOW

EMBLEM

STUDIES:

2013

GLASGOW

EMBLEM Vol.

STUDIES

16

Stirling Maxwell Centre for the Study of Word/Image Cultures, University

STIRLING

Contents

Hetherington Building,

of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland

Acknowledgements =

MAXWELL

Preface

Andrea Alciato: Pater et Princeps Andrea Alciato, In Bifum: the Budding Humanist General Editors: Alison Adams, Luis Gomes,

The Emblems in Two Unnoticed Items of

Laurence Grove, Stephen Rawles.

Alciato’s Correspondence

SYMBOLISM

Porteman

(Katholieke

Universiteit

Massing

Leuven);

(University of Pittsburgh); Alison Saunders (University of Aberdeen).

(University

Daniel

Russell

Ron Goveniliasteation Andrea Alciato, Emblematum libellus, Paris, 1534, ‘In Silentium’. Iniversitv

of

Glas

,

of

ibrarv

The Hieroglyphs at Bologna ae.

É

ae

,

t

—

I

Devices as ‘Emblems’ before 1531

.

:

:

The Emblem according to the Italian Impresa Theorists

Title page illustration Portrait of Alciato, from Andrea Alciato, Emblemata / Les emblèmes, Paris 1584 (University of Glasgow, Library)

Gavino Sambigucio and his Interpretation of Achille Bocchi’s ‘“Hermathena’ EDUCATION

Self-Analysis and Self-Awareness: Alciato’s Advice to his Students Defence and Illustration of the German

a

Ge

© Copyright

'

:

:

ee

for the articles rests with the author or publishers indicated;

copyright for the illustrations rests with the library indicated. Volume published in 2013

ISBN: 978-0-85261-935-3

R

An Early Use of Devices: René Bertaut de la Grise, La Penitence damour Budé and Bocchi on Symbols rm

(University of Glasgow, Library)

Res

Filippo Fasanini and his ‘Explanation of Sacred Letters

Language:

Wolfgang Hunger’s Preface to Alciato’s Emblems Barthélemy Aneau: the Profitable and the Polemical i

-

ae

o

:

:

Presence and Absence of Ramus in Mignault’s

Emblematics and Poetics

Un

Michel

I

Karel

Jean

O

Cambridge);

Erlangen-Nürnberg);

Ann

(Universität

© ~]

Héltgen

Authorities for Symbolism in the Sixteenth Century

D D

Peter Daly (McGill University); David Graham (Concordia University); *Karl-Josef

[es]

Michael Bath (University of Glasgow); Pedro Campa (University of Tennessee);

Un

Advisory Board

147

IV

HIEROGLYPHICS, SPEAKING PICTURES AND THE LAW

LAW Alciato and the Grammarians: the Law and the Humanities in the Parergoniuris libri duodecim

227

A Lawyer’s Language Theory. Alciato’s De verborum significatione

251

‘The Good have Nothing to Fear from the Rich.’ Did Alciato really believe that?

271

Hercules Prince of Bastards and Alciato on Illegitimacy

285

JEAN MICHEL MASSING

301

Only four people, including myself, have attended all the nine international conferences of the Society for Emblem Studies, inaugurated in 1987 in Glasgow, home of the magnificent Stirling-Maxwell

APPENDIX Selected Occurrences of the Word Emblema in Printed Works before Alciato

Preface BY

collection of emblem

hardly

surprising,

meaning

books. Denis is, of course, one of those four. It is

given

his long

of classical emblems,

and

intense

involvement

with

the

that he should have turned his attention

to Erasmus’s Adagia. The Dutch scholar and philosopher published his Collectanea in 1500, but it is his collection of Adagiorum chiliades of 1508 which provides a real treasure trove of ancient learning. Proverbs,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere gratitude is due in the first place to Dan Russell for the encouragement he gave in setting me on this road and to Jean Michel Massing for the generous judgement that initiated this volume. My thanks go also to the Stirling Maxwell Centre for its acceptance of the proposal, and to Alison Adams for all the time and care she has given to some arduous copy editing. To all my friends of the Society for Emblem Studies I am grateful for their help and good advice in many particulars. My thanks are due also to the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of the University of Waikato, which grants me privileges as a research associate, and which subsidised this publication. Not least I thank my wife Jocelyn, who makes the home and provides the conditions in which this work is possible in retirement.

for Erasmus, convey an enigma, or at least some mystery; often shrouded in riddling obscurity, they embody allegorical or figurative meaning. In volume 35 of the Collected Works of Erasmus, published by the University of Toronto Press (2005), Denis analysed, annotated and translated Adages III iv I to IV ii 100.' He is preparing another volume in the same series, CWE 73, containing five items of the Controversies, while editing one of these texts, the Responsio ad collationes cuiusdam

iuvenis gerontodidascali, for the great Amsterdam edition of the Opera Omnia.’ Born in 1934 in Southampton, Denis was educated there at Taunton’s

Grammar School and then at The Queen’s College Oxford, where he studied French and Spanish (1955-58 and 59-60). His National Service ! Collected Works of Erasmus, 35, Adages II iv 1 to IV ii 100, translated and annotated by Denis

L. Drysdall, edited by John N. Grant (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005). Some of these translations were University

DIE D:

also published

in The Adages

of Erasmus,

selected by William

Barker (Toronto:

of Toronto Press, 2001), pp. 273-359.

? See also his following publications on Erasmus:

“The

‘Youth Who

Would Teach his Elders”

and the Final Version of Erasmus’ Annotations’, Erasmus of Rotterdam Society Yearbook, 26 (2006), 59-70; ‘Erasmus’ Alleged Error in the Apologia de loco “Omnes

quidem

resurgemus”’, Erasmus of

Rotterdam Society Yearbook, 27 (2007), 76-82 and ‘Erasmus on Tyranny and Terrorism: Scarabaeus aquilam quaerit and the Institutio principis christiani’, Erasmus

of Rotterdam Society

Yearbook, 29

(2009), 89-102. A paper given at the International Association for Neo-Latin Studies,

Uppsala 2-8

August, 2009, ‘The Two Edward

Versions of Erasmus’ Apologia de In principio erat sermo and the Role of

Lee’ has now appeared

vol. 1, pp. 363-372.

in Acta Conventus

Neo-Latini

Upsaliensis...

(Leiden:

Brill, 2012),

VI

JEAN MICHEL MASSING

PREFACE

in the Royal Navy from 1953-55 gave him the opportunity to learn Russian. After a spell of secondary teaching in Christ’s College, Christchurch, New Zealand, he taught English briefly at Rajkumar College, Raipur, in India, then French at Chatham House Grammar School, Ramsgate. He was also assistant d'anglais at the Lycée Potier in Orléans and later at the Institut Pédagogique in Paris. He became Lecturer in French Language and Literature at the University of Waikato (New Zealand) in 1966 from which he retired, as Associate Professor of Romance Languages, in 1996. While in Paris in 1965-66 and 1969-70, Denis completed a Doctorat de III° Cycle at the Sorbonne (1970), studying the influence in France of La Celestina, the Spanish tragicomedy in dialogue form by Fernando de Rojas, first published in 1499. La Celestine en laquelle est traicte des deceptions des serviteurs envers leurs maistres et des macquerelles envers les amoureux, to use the title of its first translation, published by Galliot du Pré in 1527, is a key literary text at the interface of medieval and Renaissance literature. It was later retranslated into French by Jacques de Lavardin (1578), the text edited in 1974 by Denis, with introduction and notes,’ and a third time in 1633. He also wrote on sixteenthand seventeenth-century French comedy, editing Jean de la Taille’s comedy of 1573, Les Corrivaus (1974), and studying Molière.” His linguistic skills, of course, predisposed him to the study of emblems: not just in Latin, in which he is expert, but also Italian, French, Spanish and German. The present volume brings together 20 studies covering material published between 1983 and 2012, the texts re-edited, amalgamated and completed whenever this was felt necessary; they are integrated here in a sustained narrative, while the argument is supported by substantial footnotes often focussing on the original sources. The first, ‘Andrea Alciato, pater et princeps’, introduces the humanist lawyer best known today for his Emblematum liber initially published by Heinrich Steyner in Augsburg in 1531. Alciato first used the term ‘Emblems’ as a title to his collections of verses in a letter to his friend Francesco Calvo dated

philological insights, analysing the meaning of the words and their implications in the writings of Alciato, his correspondents and the various publishers of his book, and concluding that these were quite different from later understandings?° The Emblemata is rightly linked in its form to the neo-Latin Planudean Anthology—in which certain poems were linked to works of art—and in its content to classical mythology, but also to various classical and early modern authors: for example, Aesop, Horapollo and, of course, Erasmus. Here Denis gives us a comprehensive survey of the emblem collections, full of learning and welljudged arguments—all presented in an unpretentious way, as if it were obvious to everyone. Not only does he unravel Alciato’s original motivations, but also what happened to the collection during the century that followed. This introduction on Alciato and emblematics prefaces eight articles on symbolism in the sixteenth century. The first of these surveys various authorities on symbolism in the sixteenth century, with a strong defence of a scholarly historical method which aims ‘to approach another culture on its own terms’. ‘The Hieroglyphs at Bologna’ focuses on Giovanni Battista Pio and Filippo Beroaldo the Elder, and their Aristotelian approach to symbolism as distinct from Ficino’s neo-platonist readings, while the next chapter deals with Filippo Fasanini’s understanding of Horapollo’s Hieroglyphica, which he translated into Latin and published in Bologna in 1517; his Declaratio Sacrarum Literarum is reprinted here, together with an English translation. There follows a chapter on devices and emblems which concludes that, in Alciato’s time, ‘the term insignia could be used for any one of the later distinct categories of imprese, arms, devices, mottos, images and emblems, and some of these could be used for each other’, and that initially the terms were probably interchangeable for Alciato. A loose definition is also found in René Bertaut de la Grise’s La Penitence damour (Lyon, 1537), in which the devices are based on the anonymous Cwestidn de Amor, first published in Valencia in 1513. Another publication included in the present collection shows the dependence of Achille Bocchi’s ‘Symbolum symbolorum’, the prefatory poem of his Symbolicarum quaestionum libri quinque published in Bologna in 1555, on Guillaume Budé’s Commentarii linguae graecae of 1529. Here we learn that the esoteric

9 January

1523,

but this word

later took on a new

meaning

when

the

emblem became a tripartite construction involving text and image, with a tension between the elements. Here as elsewhere, Denis provides

VII

* Fernando de Rojas, La Célestine, in the French translation by Jacques de Lavardin of 1578, a critical edition with introduction and notes by Denis L. Drysdall (London: Tamesis, 1974). * Jean de la Taille, Les Corrivaus, Textes Frangais Modernes (Paris; Didier, > “Molière Univ ersities

and og

Spain: tases and

A

comédie. 1974).

Bibliographical Literature

Edition critique par Denis

L Drysdall. Société des

Survey’, AUMLA: Journal nse iation, 39 (1973), 94-112

of and

the

Australasian ‘L'Avare

and

° This was already developed in the second article of the book: ‘The Emblems in Two Unnoticed Items of Alciato’s Correspondence’, Emblematica, 11 (2001), 379-391. word emblema before Alciato’ are found in the Appendix of this book,

‘Selected occurrences of the

JEAN MICHEL MASSING

PREFACE

and spiritual tradition of Bocchi’s emblems is closer to Christian neoplatonism, through Pseudo-Dionysius, than to the Neo-Platonism of

Andrea Alciato was first and foremost a lawyer, and juridical themes determine the last four articles of the volume. The first deals with Alciato’s Parergon iuris libri duodecim (1538-54). Parerga such as these are digressions on law, but also on rhetorical and historical points more or less concerned with legal texts, but with a few references to the emblems, mainly from the collection published by Aldus in Venice in 1546. Next comes an assessment of Alciato’s De verborum signifi-

VII

Plotinus.

Next,

a

study

of

the

definition

of

impresa

and

emblem

according to the Italian imprese theorists focuses in turn on their view of the origin of the emblem, the nature of the genre, and finally the relationship between image and word in such constructions. The section concludes with a magisterial account of Gavino Sambigucio’s interpretation of Achille Bocchi’s platonico-Christian emblem ‘Hermathena’, in his Symbolicae Quaestiones, seen not only as a philological and theological reading, but also as a political statement, ‘a declaration of neutrality and orthodoxy’ intended for the ears of the dedicatee of the later copies of the 1555 edition of Bocchi’s symbols, the ultra-conservative Cardinal Gian Pietro Carafa, Pope Paul IV. There follows a group of four articles which overall deal with pedagogic aspects, starting from Alciato’s advice to his students in a lecture of 1539. This uses material subsequently appearing in an emblem in the Aldine edition of 1546 with the motto ‘Quo praetergressus, quid agis, quid omittis agendum?’ (‘Where have you gone astray? What are you doing? What are you omitting that should be done?’), an adaptation of a Pythagorean symbolum which Erasmus applied to the worldliness of clerics. For its part, Wolfgang Hunger’s edition, with a German translation of the Emblematum libellus (1542), is seen not only for the moral content of the emblems, but for its real didactic goal. This, as can be deduced from the preface, is a linguistic one: a defence and an ‘illustration’ of the German language. Here, as in the case of the previous essay, and several others, the argument is complemented by an Appendix of the text and translation of the passages discussed. The text of the preface shows incidentally that even at this stage ‘Alciato himself was still not specifying the illustrations, but that Hunger was among those who considered the pictures of emblems to be of value only for young and ignorant readers’. The pedagogical emphasis was further developed by Barthélemy Aneau, who was not only the first editor to add published commentaries to Alciato’s emblems but who ordered them topically by subject matter ‘en lieux communs ... de Dieu iusque aux arbres’, to encourage their use as didactic tools. The next article, on the presence and absence of Ramus in

Mignault’s emblematics and poetics, examines why the latter did not either use Ramus’s ideas in his edition of Alciato’s Emblems, or indeed use Alciato in his commentaries for the 1577 edition of Ramus’ Rhetoric.

catione

(1530),

defined

IX

here as ‘a practical

guide

to the resolution

of

problems of interpretation of legal texts and cases’. The analysis of Alciato’s text is used to suggest a possible association of the semantic theory found in that work to the symbology of the emblem. That such precise philological and historical conclusions have implications of central importance for the meanings of the emblems can also be seen in his study of the ‘Bonis a divitibus nihil timendum’ emblem. Translating the motto not as ‘The good have nothing to fear from the rich’ but rather as ‘The innocent should not have to be afraid of the rich’, Denis shows

how this emblem had for Alciato real personal implications. No naive statement, it refers to some specific disputes in court, so that the passage is nothing less than ‘a cry of disappointment and protest’ against the power of the rich, and confirms the close links between rhetoric and judicial thought in Alciato’s writings. The final essay, on ‘Hercules Prince of Bastards’, deals with the notion of illegitimacy as found in Alciato’s judicial writings and in his emblem ‘In nothos’, suggesting that his attitude is not hostile and that the translation should not be ‘Against bastards’ but rather ‘About bastards’. This is a telling case

study

illustrating, with precision and a command

philological meaning.

learning,

how

emblems

often

have

of historical and

complex

layers

of

In his survey of writers on symbolism in the sixteenth century, Denis

proposes, following John Marenbon’s approach to historical analysis, that ‘the first responsibility of the researcher is not the synthesis which

makes

its own judgements

and provides second-hand

information—

leaving students to go over the same ground again to reach their own

conclusions—but the editing and reporting which make it possible for others to continue an investigation. No doubt the global definitions and

classifications, the synthetic histories, are necessary and become possible eventually, but the former do not seem to me to be a useful the place to start, nor have I, personally, reached where I could write

latter.” This apparently modest and personal assessment 1S much more

significant than some might think, defining as it does the mechanism of scientific progress, and is certainly as valid in the field of emblem studies as for others. The words were written in 1999, but the present

volume

is in fact just such an impressive contribution,

focusing on

X

JEAN MICHEL MASSING

primary sources rather than on bibliographical padding, a study of Alciato’s mind-set—something that very few emblematic scholars could have produced. Denis can look back with satisfaction at his oeuvre, reflecting as Wolfgang Hunger did in his epigram ‘Ad detractorem’ at the beginning of his edition of Alciato (1542): ‘Et tetigi portum, quo mihi cursus erat.’

Andrea Alciato, Pater et Princeps’

Jean Michel Massing King’s College, Cambridge

That Andrea Alciato, the eminent humanist lawyer,’ was in fact the father and initiator of the illustrated poetic genre which is now called the emblem is not in doubt. During the 1520’s his correspondence shows him to be developing the idea; the little book which appeared in print in 1531, though perhaps prematurely, was the first published work to use the term in its title. It was a seventeenth-century writer who ascribed to Alciato

epithet

the

used

in

our

title,’

but

there

were

imitators

and

successors of the sixteenth century who acknowledged him as the first to

produce what they too called emblems.” What is in doubt is how Alciato himself intended the word ‘emblem’ to be understood when he first used it. Nothing he says can be construed with assurance as a definition; he does not specify the number or the relationship of the parts of the composition in the way some modern theorists have tried to formulate definitions, nor does he explain how his subjects function as symbols. All the evidence available gives rise to

uncertainties and questions. Alciato’s contemporaries and successors did

not agree among themselves about how the term should be used. Since it is not appropriate here to survey all the research which the problem has

inspired,’

we

shall

reasonably certain.

*

try to summarise

First published in the Companion

the conclusions

to Emblem Studies, ed. Peter Daly (New

which

York: AMS

seem

Press,

2008), pp. 79-97. Copyright © [2008] AMS Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

in Dizionario biografico degli ' For Alciato’s biography see R. Abbondanza, ‘Alciato, Andrea’ 1960), IL, [DBI], ed. A.M. Ghisalberti et al. (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana,

Italiani

69-77.

de omni Balbinus, Verisimilia humaniorum disciplinarum seu iudicium privatum Schône, humaniores appelant) artificio (first edition: 1687), quoted in Albrecht pp. 24 and 239. 1968), Beck, C.H. (Munich: Barock des Zeitalter im Drama und Emblematik [1540]), p. 6: ‘Alciat a 3 For example La Perriére, Thédtre des bons engins (Paris: D. Janot, .. (Pavia: Bartoli, Ragionamento. Contile, emblemes...’ certains redigez temps, nostre de pareillement Alciato...” 1574), 24”: ‘la voce emblema è greca, usata per titolo d’un suo libro dal divin 2 Bohuslaus (quas

literarum

Augsburg Edition of * For a survey of such work up to 1991 see Bernard F. Scholz. ‘The 1531 213-254. (1991), 5.2 Emblematica, Research’, Alciato’s Emblemata: a Survey of

2

ANDREA

ALCIATO

PATER ET PRINCEPS

The first occasion on which Alciato used the word in writing is almost certainly a letter to his friend and one-time publisher Francesco Calvo. In this letter, now known to be correctly dated 9 January 1523, is the following statement: These past Saturnalia, in order to gratify the noble Ambrogio Visconti, I put together a little book of epigrams to which I gave the title ‘Emblems’, for in each epigram I describe something which is taken from history or from nature and can mean something refined (elegans), and from which artists, goldsmiths, metal-workers, can fashion the kind of objects which we call badges and which we attach to our hats or use as trade-marks, like Aldus’ anchor, Froben’s dove or Calvo’s elephant which is in labour so long and gives birth to nothing.”

It is now agreed by most scholars that Alciato used the word ‘emblems’ here not to specify illustrated poems but as a title for the collection of verses he had composed. These epigrams were to have a symbolic meaning in that they attributed to the thing described (an object, animal, person or event) a ‘refined’ meaning. Elegans means the opposite of banal; history or natural history in medieval and early modern culture suggests familiar, traditional allegory, but elegans suggests something more esoteric. Alciato seems to be saying that his epigrams, while retaining the basis of commonplace knowledge and assumed significances, are chosen to demonstrate his ability to make novel interpretations. But to understand the choice of the word ‘emblem’ we have to see how it was likely to be understood by contemporaries. Of all the meanings which the humanists found in classical texts—and of which they had already made considerable use°—the common factor is the notion of an ornament which can be inserted in or attached to something

3

the choice of the word is not the symbolic use to which the epigrams are put but the notion that what the epigram describes, or the text of the epigram itself,’ can be such a transposable ornament. Thus, although it seems clear that Alciato used the term here as a title for his epigrams, the idea of a representation of the subject is also implied. His successors, influenced by their knowledge of the classical meanings, were not slow to see the implication and to shift the meaning of the new name

in

that

direction;

the

‘emblem’

came

to

be

primarily

the

illustration. A letter to Boniface Amerbach dated four months later on 10 May adds little to this. Amerbach had met Alciato in Avignon during the previous year and even had a manuscript copy of some of his epigrams. would

Alciato

have

no need

to explain

were,

‘emblems’

what

to him

remark does suggest the word is now being used although generically to mean a type of poetic composition, with a subject (inventio) or theme suitable for elaboration in multiple poems or by several writers: his

Some of us here are producing emblems too; I am sending you two pages of them for your pleasure. The author of the verses is Albucio, the subject was set by Ambrogio Visconti, one of our leading aristocrats. I too have composed a book of verse in this genre, but 1 did not want to mix my material with others’. This will be published with the rest of my epigrams...

Amerbach’s reply says clearly that these emblems makes no mention of illustrations:

were verses and

else: a badge to a hat, a carved stone in a ring, embroideries to furniture, mouldings to architecture, figures of speech to discourse. What explains ° ‘His

Saturnalibus

ut

illustri

Ambrosio

Vicecomiti

morem

gererem,

libellum

composui

epigrammaton, cui titulum feci Emblemata: singulis enim epigrammatibus aliquid describo, quod ex hixtoria [sic] vel ex rebus naturalibus aliquid elegans significet, unde pictores, aurifices, fusores, id genus conficere possint, quae scuta appellamus et petasis figimus, vel pro insignibus gestamus, qualis

anchora Aldi, columba Frobenii, et Calvi elephas tam diu parturiens, nihil pariens.” Le Lettere di Andrea Alciato, giureconsulto, ed. Gian Luigi (Florence: Felice le Monnier,

1953; hereafter Lertere),

no 24, p. 46, Il. 28-35, Calvo had been holding some of Alciato’s legal works without publishing

them for some time (Lettere, no 5, p. 12, Il. 44-46). The Saturnalia were what the humanists called the end-of-year holidays. The Visconti family were at the time Alciato’s patrons in Milan,

° See ‘Selected Occurrences of the Word emblema

in Printed Works before Alciato’. Certain

cases suggest that the term was not only in use in the first three decades of the century in the sense of an affixed or inserted ornament, be it picture or text (for example Politian’s complaint), and in the rhetorical sense of a commonplace figure or ‘purple passage’ (the uses made by Budé and Erasmus), but that it may even have been used as the equivalent of a personal device. See below the case of Gattinara and possibly of Pirckheimer.

que i Barthélemy Aneau seems also to have envisaged this possibility: ‘que toutes et quantesfoys , aulcun voudra attribuer, ou pour le moins par fiction applicquer aux choses vuydes accomplissement ung aux nues aornement, aux muetes parolle, aux brutes raison, il aura en ce petit livre (comme en

cabinet tresbien garny) tout ce qu’il pourra, & vouldra inscripre, ou pindre aux murailles de la maison,

verrieres,

aux

aux

tapis,

couvertures,

vaisseaulx,

tableaux,

images,

signetz,

aneaulx,

vestemens, tables, lictz, armes, brief à toute piece et utensile, & en tous lieux: affin que l'essence des choses appartenantes au commun usage soit en tout, et par tout quasi vivement parlante, et au regard plaisante’ (Italics added). SF.

W.

G.

Leeman,

Alciatus’ Emblemata.

Denkbeelden

en

Vorbeelden

(Groningen:

o Bouma’s

F Boekhuis, 1984), p. 12 and note 52. See also Scholz (note 4 above), p. 237. auctor est canminis causa; gustus mitto te ad folia duo quorum emblemata, et nos ° “Eduntur apud Albutius,

libellum

inventionis

composui

Ambrosius

sed

res

meas

Vicecomes

cum

ex primariis

alienis

miscere

patritiis.

nolui;

Eius argumenti

divulgabitur

et ipse carmine

inter caetera

Ga

RE epigrammata.’ Lettere, no 32, p. 59, Il. 14-18; Die Amerbachkorrespondenz, ed. ste as gets see (Basle: Verlag der Universitats-bibliothek, 1942-73), II, no 918. For ‘argumentum’ I: 510 (3), Jacques Chomarat, Grammaire et rhétorique chez Erasme (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1981),

511 (10), 537 (159).

ANDREA

ALCIATO

PATER ET PRINCEPS

Thank you for the emblems. These are verses which, even if you discount the shrewdness of the subject-matter, show very clearly the learned mind of Albucio.'°

The third piece of evidence is the dedication to Conrad Peutinger which appeared in the first edition, published by Heinrich Steyner in Augsburg in 1531:

collection, and that these were combined, along with some of the epigrams in Cornarius’ anthology (described below), in the printed collection.! The reference to tokens (signa) in the fourth line does not warrant the assumption that Alciato himself had a hand in making them or that they were produced at this stage as pictures accompanying the poems. The same

While a walnut beguiles boys and dice beguile young men And old men waste their time with picture cards I forge these emblems in my leisure hours, And the tokens were made by the master-hand of craftsmen. Just as [we can] attach embroideries to clothing and badges to hats So each should be able to write with mute signs. The supreme emperor may make you possessor of precious coins And the exquisite crafts of the ancients. For my part I shall give, as one poet to another, paper gifts Which you should accept as a pledge of my friendship."

This dedication appeared in all subsequent editions. While it is true that it was not necessarily written for the first edition, it was presumably composed some time before 1531. It does not perhaps date from as early as 1518-19, as one scholar has suggested (on the grounds that the emperor in question was Maximilian rather than Charles V);'? the nature of the statement in the letter of 9 Jan 1523 suggests that that is Alciato’s

is true of the reference to ‘mute signs’

That book was published, 1 assure you, without my knowledge, as I also wrote to our friend Palma. In truth, since it is so full of mistakes, whether we consider the absurdities of the pictures or the corrupt text of the poems, I am forced to put my hand to the work and to acknowledge this disowned and exposed offspring, just when it was near the point of death, and to bring it forth again enlarged and better prepared...’

emblems dedicated to Ambrogio Visconti, and since the emblem which appears first in all editions may also be a dedication to Duke Maximilian of Milan, the possibility arises that there were circulating between 1522 and 1531, within or beyond Alciato’s control, more than one manuscript 10 “Pro emblematis Hartmann

II, no 925, '!

acumine

discesseris,

illud Albutii ingenium ad assem exprimentia.’ Die Amerbachkorrespondenz,

ed. Alfred

(Basle:

habeo

Verlag

gratiam.

Carmina

sunt, etiam

der Uniyersitats-bibliothek,

si ab

1942-73;

inventionis

corrections to certain epigrams communicated

nos festivis emblemata cudimus horis, / Artificum illustri signaque facta manu, / Vestibus ut torulos, petasis

ut

13 Most scholars seem to assume that there was only one manuscript circulating before 1531. The

hereafter Amerbachkorrespondenz),

“Dum pueros iuglans, iuvenes dum tessera fallit, / Detinet et segnes chartula picta viros, / Haec figere

parmas,

/ Et

valeat

tacitis

scribere

quisque

notis.

/ At

tibi

supremus

pretiosa

nomismata Caesar, / Et veterum eximias donet habere manus. / Ipse dabo vati chartacea munera

(facitis notis) in the sixth

line, but again visual representations of the objects named in the epigrams are implied as possibilities. There has been much discussion about whether Alciato is referring in his letters and in this poem to the illustrations which eventually accompanied his emblems, whether he had a hand in preparing them and even whether he, as a learned humanist writing epigrams for an erudite circle of friends, was indifferent to them or would have wanted pictures at all, allegedly regarding them as required only to help the less educated to understand the verses.'* The allusions he himself made, all of them casual and not such as can be taken as deliberate definitions, can be read as referring to the epigrams alone. But it is also true that he never expressed any surprise at the inclusion of the pictures or any desire to eliminate them, though he did complain about their inaccuracies. In a letter to Emilio Ferretti of 24 March 1532, referring to the Augsburg edition he remarks:

first use of the term. On the other hand, since there was a collection of

eruditum

5

3 August

1530

possession

since

(Leeman,

p.

1522, which

10) and

entered

found their way

to Amerbach by

him

in two letters dated 3 February

into the manuscript

which

had

1529 and

been

in his

into Steyner’s edition, could of course have reached

the latter by another route. It is not necessary to suppose that Amerbach’s

manuscript went to

Steyner. 14 See

vates, / Quae Chonrade mei pignus amoris habe.”

Hessel

Miedema,

‘The

Term

“Emblema”

in

Alciati’,

Journal

of the

Warburg

and

that the ‘festivae horae’ of the third line refer to the Saturnalia, as in the

Courthauld Institutes, 31 (1968), 234-250; Claudie Balavoine, ‘Les Emblèmes d’Alciat: Sens et Contresens’, in L'Emblème à la Renaissance (Paris: S.E.D.E.S., 1982), pp. 49-59; Daniel Russell,

of his son Claudius, who studied with Alciato in Bourges in 1528 and completed his doctorate under Alciato’s friend Ludovico Cato in Ferrara in 1532. See Friedrich Roth, ‘Zur Lebensgeschichte des Augsburger Stadtadvokaten Dr. Claudius Pius Peutinger (1509-1552), Archiv fiir Reformations-

Scholz, ‘ “Libellum composui epigrammaton, cui titulum feci Emblematta”; Alciato’s Use of the Expression Emblema Once Again’, Emblematica, 1 (1986), 213-226.

It has been suggested

letter to Calvo. On the other hand, the existence of this dedication, and the connection of at least some of the emblems of 1531 with Conrad, may be associated with the presence in France and Italy

geschichte [ARG], 25 (1928), 99-255, p. eS

Claudieè

Emblemata

f Balavoine,

d’André

1981), pp. 9-21.

A

e

i

114, and Lettere, no 80, p. 139, ll. 24-26. À

i

pas

Fok

e

q

‘Archéologie de l’emblème littéraire; la dédicace à Conrad Peutinger des Alciat’, in Emblèmes et devises au temps de la Renaissance (Paris: J. Touzot,

‘The Term

“emblème”

in Sixteenth-Century

France’, Neophilologus,

15 “Editus sane est ille libellus me insciente, quod et ad Palmam admovere,

et

abdicatum

auctioremque et melius curatum

expositumque

partum,

nunc

337-351;

Bernard

nostrum scripsi, verum cum adeo

sit inemendatus, sive ineptias picturarum, sive corruptiones carminum operi

59 (1975),

demum

rursus producere...’ See ‘The Emblems

inspiciamus, cogor manum cum

fere

in Two

periit,

agnoscere,

Unnoticed

Items of

Alciato’s Correspondence’. It is not known who Palma was nor is any letter to such a person extant.

Sa

4

ANDREA

PATER

ALCIATO

The question is whether Steyner, in providing the illustrations, had given expression to his own inspiration or to a suggestion either made to him by an intermediary such as Peutinger or coming ultimately from Alciato himself. Steyner says: It would be unfair, worthy reader, if you were to find us wanting

in diligence

in these figures which are added to this work, and it is true the standing of the very important author and the value of the little book deserved more elegant

illustrations. This

indeed

we admit

and

we

wanted

to present

these

quite illustrious inventions to you as if we set them before your eyes painted in the most accomplished way; and, as far as I know, we have omitted nothing for this purpose.

The letter to Ferretti provides no proof, but it does give the impression that Alciato was not surprised by the presence of the pictures, and it does not exclude the possibility that he expected them. But perhaps the best evidence for Alciato’s attitude to the illustration of texts is to be drawn from his unpublished collection of Roman inscriptions found in his native Lombardy.'’ This was a work of his early years, dating from 1508 to 1518 or 1519 and intended to accompany his history of the region (which also remained unpublished until long after his death). Here one sees the development of what has been recognised as a wholly new method in epigraphy, a method which included, most importantly for emblematics, careful attention to the reproduction of carvings and inscriptions and a developing awareness of new symbolic thinking to be applied in deriving meanings from works such as Artemidorus’ Oneirocriticon and the Hieroglyphics of Horapollo. There can be little doubt that the association of text and illustration in this work and the application of symbolic method to the interpretation of the material were contributing factors in the development of the idea for his emblems.'* Furthermore even if Alciato

He was possibly Johann Bebelius, whose device was a palm tree. '° ‘Haud adiectae

merito candide

sunt,

elegantiores

merebantur, quod quidem eas quam rem

publisher

lector, nostram nanque

picturas,

of the

1529

Selecta epigrammata

desiderabis diligentiam, et

authoris

nos fatemur, cupiebamusque

authoritas,

liber,

et

huic operi

libelli

dignitas

inventiones has illustriores tibi tradere ita, si

1531, al”. Steyner eventually

nihilque (quod

sciam) ad eam

excuses the poor quality

of his

pictures on the grounds of expense. ’ See

Pierre

Laurens

and

Florence

Vuilleumier,

‘Entre

histoire

inscriptions milanaises d'André Alciat’, Revue des Etudes latines, 72 18 See also in this connection the letter to Amerbach an

illustrated

edition

of

Pliny’s

Natural

History

of 26 May

to be prepared

by

et emblème:

(1994),

‘A

Comment

on

the

1531

edition

of

Alciato’s

recueil

des

218-237.

1528 in which the possibility of Beatus

(Lettere, no 42, Die Amerbachkorrespondenz, ed. Alfred Hartmann (Basle, bibliothek, 1942-73; hereafter Amerbachkorrespondenz), no 1261). It W.Callahan,

le

Emblems’,

Rhenanus

is discussed

Verlag der Universitatsis quoted by Virginia Emblematica,

never accepted any responsibility for the illustrations actually used in the various editions, he must by 1534 at the latest have been aware of their success and accepted their desirability. He had after all indicated that his intended public included artisans and printers, as well as erudite humanists; it would also include the patrons, those who would finance the work, and for them too illustrations might well be desirable. The fourth piece of evidence is found in his treatise on duelling, De singulari certamine liber, written for François I in 1528. Here Alciato uses the word three times in a way which can only be understood as intending a personal device.” The first equates emblema with items of apparel or ornament which were used to display the aspiration or the loyalty of the knight in the joust: It is accepted by a number of scholars that the practice of duelling was invented by the Mantineans, mainly on the argument that the military cloak and ancient armour are called mantineae.*' For this reason mantineae can be said in present terms to be the ephestris, which we commonly call the ‘surcoat’, the apex of helmets, pennons and emblems and combatants’ ornaments of that sort.””

The second mentions an emblem apparently as a talisman on helmets:

called

image

the

of Mars,

There are those who think anyone who had on his helmet the emblem E

:

e

à

FRET

is called the image of Mars would be invincible.

21

And the third is the passage quoted by Alciato’s explain the emblem assigned to the duchy of Milan:

worn which

commentators

to

In the Annals there is the well known encounter of Otho Visconti with a certain Saracen in Asia. Having defeated him and struck him down, he took the ornament from his helmet and added it to his own family insignia, that is, a viper vomiting out of its mouth a newly born infant still covered in blood—in fact the emblem taken by Alexander the Great. Indeed you can see the same image on ancient coins of his, to show how that ruler claimed enigmatically that he was born of Jupiter. For Jupiter was worshipped in

(see below)

in his tabellis quae

gravissimi

artficiosissime depictas, nate [sic: ante] oculos poneremus,

nobis defuit.” Emblematum

graeca

ET PRINCEPS

l

6

6.1

(1992),

p. 202. One may

add that Filippo Fasanini also wanted illustrations for his edition of the hieroglyphs

of Horapollo in 1517 (fol. XLIX”™).

(unauthorised) was ‘’ De singulari certamine liber (Lyon: Jacopo Giunta, 1544). The first edition , ‘The by J. Kerver (Paris, 1541). See Lettere, no 42 dated 26 May 1528, and Monika Grünberg-Drôge 315-341. (1995), 9.2 Emblematica, Time’, its of Context the in liber De singulari certamine consensu fere receptum 0 This, it seems, is now confirmed by a finding of Ennio Sandal, who

1500’ Milanese printer Alessandro Pelizzoni, dating it ‘after Cinquecento. 3 vols—Baden Baden: Valentin Koever, 1977—1,

(Editori e Tipografi a Milano nel 73). 1 am grateful to Prof. Stéphane

Rolet for this information. > For

Cotta’s

Memoralia

(Pavia,

1511)

and

the other

work,

of Quinziano Stoa see ‘A Lawyer’s Language Theory...’, note 9.

the

De

syllabarum

quantitate

20

ANDREA

ALCIATO : JN BIFUM

THE BUDDING

versions of his ‘Antiquitates mediolanenses’ and his Rerum Patriae libri IV* The verses described here, we shall suggest, were probably published in 1506 or 1507. The title page has simply /n Bifum [sic]. It is a collection of satirical verse attacking Giovanni Vincenzo Biffi, who appears to have been the writer’s elementary teacher. It has a short preface, by a certain L. Pancharius Pudens,° which tells us the main work is by ‘Alzatus’, a form of the name taken from the family’s native village of Alzate, and found in other early works.° Pancharius praises Alciato’s talent as comparable to that of Catullus and Martial, and adds that he has included other epigrams ‘of similar sentiment’—that is, other satires of Biffi— because this would be gratifying to Alciato. The book contains one poem of 151 lines which has the title ‘Bifiloedoria’—translatable as ‘A Rebuke to Biffi’’—and thirteen short epigrams also by Alciato. Following these, there are seven short epigrams by other writers, two by a Jacopo Landriano, presumably a relative of Alciato’s mother, and the volume concludes with a 91-line ‘idyll’ by one Aurelio Buzio.* I have not yet identified any of these people more exactly. Pancharius calls them ‘some of the best scholars’, meaning probably some of Alciato’s schoolmates. I shall suggest that Alciato’s own short epigrams were written during the actual period of his schooling with Biffi, which must correspond to the elementary or ‘grammar’ stages of his education. The ‘Bifiloedoria’, which re-uses several elements from them, was almost certainly composed a little later. * Pierre Laurens and Florence Vuilleumier, ‘Entre histoire et emblème: was

ever

published

(see

‘The

Emblems

in

Two

Unnoticed

Items

of

Alciato’s

Correspondence...”); the second was published posthumously in 1625. ° Thave found nothing about him and wonder whether ‘Pudens’ ‘nom

de plume’

alluding

to classical

individuals

often

adopted

by

is part of his name or the sort of humanists. If this is the case,

“Pudens’ may be a humorous allusion to a friend of Martial, one Aulus Pudens, a chief centurion, but also a notorious pederast. ‘ See also the record of his doctorate at Fe di Andrea Alciato’, /talia medievale

a (18 March 1516) See R. Abbondanza, ‘La Laurea

e umnaistica, 3 (1960), 325-328.

7

The Greek AowWopia means ‘rebuke, reproach’. Alciato learned it possibly 755. See also note 11 below. * Could

this be Aurelio Albuzio, alleged author of the emblem

from the Suda À 753-

inviting Alciato to go to France

(1621, no 143) and ‘ghost’ author of the /n Stellam et Longovallium Defensio’ , having adopted

later

the name of Titus Albutius, the friend of Cicero famous for his eloquence in Greek and remembered in the well known quotation from Lucilius (Cicero, Orator, 44.149)? Albuzio is described by

Thuilius (p.612), following Bonaventura Castillionaeus, as ‘Mediolanensis’ and by Sanchez de las Brozas, p. 414, as ‘lurisconsultus, Graeci et Latini sermonis peritus’ (a jurist skilled in Greek and Latin language). See also Johannes Kohler, ‘Alciato’s Shadow: Aurelio Albuzio’, Emblematica, 9.2

(1995), 343-367.

21

We know that Alciato acquired his mastery of Greek at an early stage under Aulo Giano Parrasio, attending also the classes of Giovanni Lascaris and Demetrius Chalcondyles.” This was probably during the years 1504-06, so that his schooling with Biffi would have been before that, beginning perhaps in the late 1490s. Biffi’s career is reasonably well known.'° He was born in 1464, in the Milanese, and took orders at an early age. The illegitimate and impoverished peasant origins that Alciato mockingly attributes to him, are contradicted, according to Negri, by the evidence of his own letters. From one of Alciato’s short epigrams we learn that he was entirely ignorant of Greek, though he affected to cite Greek authorities. From late in 1483 he spent some time in Rome. Returning to Milan, he frequented the court of Ludovico il Moro, and was in contact with literary and political figures whom he flattered extrravagantly. He taught in the school run by the Visconti, where presumably Alciato was his pupil, and held several ecclesiastical posts in the city, producing religious verse and some pedagogical works, and putting a great deal of effort into self-advertising. He died in 1516. We are evidently supposed to believe that the ‘Bifiloedoria’ is a response to written attacks by Biffi; it is described in Pancharius’ preface as a retaliatio,'' though who really started the war remains a question; as I have said, Alciato’s short epigrams may have been written while he was actually Biffi’s pupil. Lines 5 and 6 also speak of earlier assaults: Nam bufo Bifus, bifututus buphonus, Conscribere in me gloriatur carmina.

(‘For that toad Biffi, that twice-buggered ox-butcher, Takes pride in writing verse against me.”)

le recueil des inscriptions

milanaises d'André Alciat’, Revue des Etudes latines, 72 (1994), 218-237. Of the first work, only the preface

HUMANIST

The Greek ‘bouphonus’ means ‘one who slaughters oxen’, but it also means ‘one who sacrifices, a priest’,' so bifututus buphonus, suggesting a lecherous priest, foreshadows one of Alciato’s more serious ” Abbondanza, in DB/, II, 69. a Negri, in DBI, IV, 383-385, remarks’ ‘S’ ignora per quanto tempo il B[iffi], forse già avviato al sacerdozio, si trattenesse a Roma, né soccorrono altre tracce autobiografiche nelle sue opere

posteriori, all infuori dei cenni nelle dediche agli amici della corte di Lodovico il Moro, dai quali si apprende che divenne cappellano in S. Satiro, rettore di S. Maria a Mezzago, cappellano di S. Vittore

€ canonico di S. Nazaro a Milano, dove mori il 5 luglio 1516. II B[iffi] fu celebrato ai suoi tempi, e si lui stesso, come prosatore e poeta latino fra i più insigni, operante nell'orbita della fastosa

celebrô

corte sforzesca, a contatto stretto con personalita letterarie... alcuni da lui adulati con scarso ritegno,

come faceva, in modo ancor più pesante, con gli uomini politici.”

!! Classical Latin did not have the noun retaliatio, only the verb (used by Aulus Gellius).The root talio, a juridical term (lex talioni'—cf. Parergon iuris, IX, 8), signifies a like-for-like form of

punishment. For Pancharius, the word appears to serve as a translation of the Greek ‘loidoria’. E

E.g. by Pausanias,

1.28.10 and Aristophanes, Clouds, 985.

22

ANDREA ALCIATO : IN BIFUM

THE BUDDING HUMANIST

allegations. He gives other explanations of the sobriquet elsewhere, but I note here is that it is the first allusion, apart perhaps from the title, that points us to one of Alciato’s principal sources of imagery. This is the Suda, the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopedic dictionary, first printed in Milan in 1499, where he probably got the idea for ‘bouphonus’ from the account of the ‘bouphonia’, a ceremony held annually in Athens. Alciato pretends he would not deign to respond at first, for ‘the Indian

elephant

does

not notice

a gnat’,

but Biffi, it seems,

has

com-

mitted his execrable jokes to writing a second time. Alciato will not ‘eat cabbage served a second time’, and calls on Rhamnusia to help him avenge himself. We have here a little enfilade of images that give us further indications of Alciato’s inspiration and even hint at a few later emblems, though I am not suggesting these are in any way anticipations of emblems. They are of interest as evidence of his reading and of the way he composed this youthful satire, and they point to a second important source, the proverb tradition. Here we have the example of ‘The Indian elephant does not notice a gnat’, which could have been known to him through the Aldus Syntagma of proverbs of 1505. This case does not foreshadow an emblem, but immediately afterwards Alciato complains that Biffi barks at him ‘like a dog at midnight at the shining orb of Phoebe’.

The emblem,

‘Inanis impetus’

comes

immedi-

ately to mind, but Alciato’s source here is perhaps the hieroglyph of the ‘oryx’, according to Sanchez de las Brozas ‘a species of dog that barks at the rising moon’.'* These two cases suggest Alciato knew the Aldus publication, which contained both hieroglyphs and proverbs, from very early days. But Biffi has attacked a second time, and who would ‘eat cabbage served a second time’?—a proverbial expression found in the Suda.'* Alciato invokes his Muse a second time and with her Rhamnusia, the goddess of revenge or Nemesis, again alluding to a proverb, ‘Adrastia Nemesis’ or ‘Rhamnusia Nemesis’, and probably taken from the Aldus

Syntagma.'® ‘second

This sounds like a proverbial expression, but it is not in the Suda or in the Aldus Syntagma, nor is it in CPG or in Otto. The hieroglyph of the ‘oryx’ is the 49th of the first book in Aldus’ Greek (pp.

131-132).

According

to Sanchez

de

las Brozas,

p. 464,

‘Oryx

genus

quoddam canis apud Aegyptios, Hic, teste Oro Apolline, Lunam exorientem adlatrat...’ (Among the Egyptians the oryx is a particular species of dog, which, according to Horapollo, barks at the rising moon). and

However

about

its

there is disagreement among

meaning;

see

Denis

L.

editors of the text both about the animal

Drysdall,

‘A

note

on

the

relationships

of the

in question Latin

and

Vernacular Translations of Horapollo from Fasanini to Caussin’, Emblematica, 4.2 (1989), 225-241,

at pp. 230 and 231.

15 Suda, K 2318. Cf. Juvenal 7.154 and Erasmus, Adagia 1 v 38.

to find fault with

that is, who

Alciato

make

him

tried to find fault with Venus,

a

editions the source given

is the second-century

sophist, Aristides, first

published in Brescia in 1497.'’ The series of allusions concludes with a side-swipe about swans and ravens, which was taken from the Suda. It reminds us of the emblem ‘Insignia poetarum’, but was likely to make Alciato’s schoolmates think of Juvenal’s or Martial’s use of corvus to mean fellator.'® After this, literary allusion is less frequent as Alciato turns to physical and moral personalities. Firstly, Biffi is not so short that he cannot reach

‘even Philonides’ half-grizzled and half-black locks’. I have not been

able to identify this apparently rather tall Philonides. The way Alciato refers to him suggests a contemporary, so it is possibly a nickname invented by his fellow students for an associate of Biffi and based on the Greek pAéveos, lover of youths, a word used by Lucian.'* Then Biffi is ‘long in the neck, like the storks’. Again we think of the emblem ‘Gula’, but Alciato and his readers would think of the ‘epicure’ in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics who wished that he might have a long neck like a crane, so that the pleasure of tasting what he ate could be prolonged.” Epicureans are certainly on Alciato’s mind, because he adds that Biffi has ‘bristling eyebrows, like Pronomus or the Epicureans’. Pronomus was notorious for his beard, not his eyebrows; but this may be a schoolboy slip; Pronomus echoes not only the Suda but Aristophanes, and ‘Epicureans’”’ here probably means no more than the general

stereotype of philosophers who were portrayed by Lucian and Martial and others as disguising their lack of wisdom behind long beards.

!° Cols 6-7 and 146. The Suda A 523, names only Nemesis, not Rhamnusia. Cf. Erasmus, Adagia II vi 38. B. E. Perry, ed., Aesopica

(Cambridge MA:

Harvard University Press, 1965)

it is no 455,

where the source given is Aristides, Orationes, 28.136. The first edition of Aristides is in Cleomedis, De contemplatione orbium excelsorum disputatio. Aristidis & Dionis de concordia orationes...

!3 See lines 55 and 91 of the text, notes 39 and 46, and the last of the short epigrams.

of 1505

attempts

but could find nothing to say, and lamely criticized her sandal because it creaked too much. This particular story is not in the Aldus collection of fables nor in the Suda, but it is found in the fable tradition; in modern

"In

Hieroglyphica

Biffi’s

Momus’—Momus,

23

(Brescia, 1497). 18 An allusion

to the swan, symbol

of poets and the croaking of the raven, symbol

of the bad

orator, which Alciato would have most likely found in the Suda K 2655 and K 2006 respectively (and possibly K 2492, kpovetv). See also Erasmus, Adagia | ii 55. For corvus as fellator, see Juvenal 2.63

and Martial 14.74, a Amores,

24.

It may

also

be

an

allusion

to

the

Athenian

comic

poet,

contemporary

of

Aristophanes, mentioned in the Suda, @ 450, or to an Epicurean philosopher (fl. 200-160 BC). °° Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 3.10; Aristotle is describing an epicure, ÉTIKObPELOG. l

Suda Tl 2527. Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae,

102-103. Cf. Erasmus, Adagia l ii 95 and IV ii 17,

where several instances of jokes about beards are noted in both Lucian and Martial.

24

ANDREA

ALCIATO : IN BIFUM

There is a passing reference to the ears which make Biffi look like an

ass—an image that is repeated and acquires its full importance later— and then Alciato comes to the nose. Three of the short epigrams are

devoted to the nose; one of them, you may think, tends to exaggerate: Biffi cannot pick his nose with his fingers For his hand is smaller and shorter than his nose. And he does not ask Jove’s blessing when he sneezes; his nose Is so far away from his ears that he hears nothing of it.

But the ‘Bifiloedoria’ improves on that: His nose, bigger than an elephant’s trunk, is bent and lumpy and black. But this nose was a help to one man, for when it chanced that a sudden fire took rapid hold on a neighbour’s house, the occupant could see no way of escaping the fire, because the entrance was burning. So the poor man was wailing out of one of the windows, when, seeing Biffi going past, he jumped onto his nose and climbed down in no time as if on a ladder.

Passing from this and other unsavoury physical characteristics (“You

will not easily be able to know whether he is breathing or farting for he

makes the same smell above and below’) to moral and intellectual character, Alciato gives a brief account of Biffi’s genealogy, upbringing and arrival in Milan:

A child dishonestly begotten by a peasant father; born in the bushes and wrapped in rags and yew leaves by a mother oppressed by such deep poverty she could scarcely suckle him. When he grew up he became a shepherd and cowherd guarding cattle. But since he accidentally killed off an ox with his iron goad, he was called ‘buphonus,’ that is, a killer of oxen.’ So he was obliged to leave the countryside immediately and the gloomy wastes of his paternal land. That’s how, after long wanderings, he was driven to this city of the Insubres, and so that this should not reach the ears of the owner of the ox, he announced that his name was Biffi, not Buphonus.

So why tolerate this vagrant jackdaw has no business with Aulus Gellius.”* Worse: he gets from good teachers and boasts

and allow him to recite his bad verse? A a lute—according to the proverb from all his students by diverting them away that he will teach them more suitably.

When fathers find their sons have been corrupted by this idle knave,

they will force him to pay for it, just as plunderers and kidnappers pay penalties under the law or as the ass paid to the lion—probably an allusion to the fable ‘The lion, the ass and the fox’, which Alciato could have seen among the fables of Aesop in the same Aldus volume as the hieroglyphs and proverbs.”* Needless to say, the ass is killed by the lion. ?? Is Alciato questioning the legitimacy of his status as a priest? 23

Aulus Gellius, Noctes atticae, preface §19. Cf. Erasmus, Adagia | iv 37.

* Fabellae Aesopi, p. 32 for the Greek or fol. B[10"] for the Latin, Perry, 149.

THE BUDDING HUMANIST

25

He is not a teacher (paedagogus) but a pander (proagogus). Entrusting boys to him is like entrusting a sheep to a wolf, a woman to a Sybarite, or Ion to Cletorus. This last simile is obscure but proves to be worth elucidating. ‘Ion’ is straight-forward: he is the hero of Euripides’ play of that name, a child secretly fathered by Apollo and brought up in innocence in his sanctuary. ‘Cletorus’ is enigmatic, but turns out to be an imagined name resulting from a mistaken reading of Lucian. The mis-reading seems to have been made by Erasmus in the first edition of his translation. The Greek word ôvouakAñtop (the servant who called the names of clients or visitors) was apparently divided in two in his manuscript and Erasmus took KAMTOp—For reasons that are not too

obscure—as a word for a proverbial lecher,”° If, as seems likely, this is the source of Alciato’s ‘Cletorus’, we have a probable earliest date for

the ‘Bifiloedoria’, for the first edition of Erasmus’ Lucian appeare d in 1506. This places it, not in the period when Alciato was under Biffi’s rod, but when he was studying under Parrasio and learning Greek. He was still in Milan at that time, but probably moved to Pavia the following year to begin his legal studies. The work therefore appears to date from 1506 or 1507. The final section of the poem makes the most serious allegation, suggesting that Biffi abused his pupils in the worst possible way: If any boy wavers, he orders him immediately to undo his straps, to drop his breeches as if preparing himself for a flogging, although Biffi does not do this in order to beat him, but for another reason; I don’t want to say what now. Oh, abomination! That this ignorant man, shameless before and behind, should dare to teach in schools, to nourish these boys with his silliness, and send them back to their parents more barbarous by half than when he took them. For what can this good-for-nothing teach to young men but shamelessness and wickedness? On these subjects he is the best master, for he knows everything that is told in the books of Elephantis and the Milesian jokes of Aristides and the effeminate book of the Sybarite.? #

Lucian, De mercede conductis potentium familiaribus (On salaried posts in great houses),

10.

See Erasmus, Adagia IIL.ii.18, Kiitopiatew, CWE 34 231, and R. A. B. Mynors’ note on page 392. For the text of Erasmus’ first edition of Lucian, see Erasmus, Opera omnia, ASD I-1, 558n. Though the error was not repeated in the second edition of the Lucian (Venice, 1507), in the Adagia of 1508

(ASD

II-5 117, ap. crit., IL 272-273), where Erasmus did repeat the error, he commented: ‘[Adagiun]

Sumptum opinor a moribus xAñtopou cuiuspiam, cuius meminit Lucianus in libro de mercede Servientibus: kai Svopa KAHtopt MBuK@ tatt6pevov, Et cum tibi nomen Cletori Libyco imponitur Quo quidem ex loco satis apparet id nominis in proverbiale convitium abiisse’ (Arising I think from the habits of a certain Cletorus whom Lucian recalls in the tale On salaried posts in great houses: ‘and when the name of Cletorus the Libyan is given you.” It is apparent enough from this passage that such a name became a proverbial insult). °° Cf. Cicero, De Oratore 2.256: ‘et adversus et aversus impudicus es’ (you are shameless both before and behind), BP ras À : o Three notorious collections of erotic verse.

THE BUDDING HUMANIST

ANDREA ALCIATO : IN BIFUM

26

Alciato’s

concluding

image,

from

a proverb

combined

with

an

27

Debitas penas luat.

expression from Horace, is the ass that he has evoked twice before: end But let’s stop chasing this uneducated ass with sticks;”* let’s make an once now to our verses, and not attack him any more, since he will fall in but with a Blackbottom.

the Suda meaning sooner or later —another proverbial expressio. n from 2 . . . him.” punish will he will meet someone who

And so what does this mean? No-one should doubt but that Biffi will suffer his own due punishment. For Killikon too eventually met a butcher. ‘Killikon’ is a little more obscure, but, once again, Alciato would a rogue have found this in the Suda, where we learn that Killikon was

who betrayed both Samos and his native city of Miletos. Whenever

-

people asked Killikon what he thought he was doing he would say ‘Everything good’, meaning ‘Nothing bad’. The dictum became prover-

bial as “Everything good”, as Killikon used to say’. Killikon got his

Nam et Cillicon quandoque lanium repperit.

deserts when a man from Miletos, a butcher from whom he tried to buy

meat, chopped off his hand saying ‘You will never betray another city with that hand.” Alciato would have seized the more gleefully on this image because on xiAAog (‘an ‘For Killikon hemistich ‘He I suggest, the Jorg Breu and

‘Killikon’ could be understood as a diminutive formed ass’). The figure of an ass facing a butcher, with the line too eventually met a butcher’ as the epigram, and the will suffer due punishment’ as the title, would constitute, nearest this poem comes to an emblem. If illustrated by published by Steyner, it might look something like this:

fustem 28 Alciato is certainly alluding to a proverb here, possibly combining ‘Asinus esuriens source is negligit” (‘A hungry ass does not notice the stick”, Adagia Il vii 48), for which the ultimate Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 3.8.11, and a line in Horace, Epistolae

1.20.15, which Erasmus takes

i 76). to be proverbial: “Asinum in rupes protrudere’ (“To push an ass over a cliff, Adagia IV

29 Suda M 987, Mì ov ye Lehapmbyou tügnç (Mind you don’t meet a Blackbottom), which the

that they might dictionary explains as directed against those acting unlawfully and warning them meet someone strong and pay the penalty.

30 Suda K 1610, Kiamcdv: “Nothing bad, but just what Killikon also [did].” This man betrayed

Killikon, who Samos, [It is] as if he said: “I am not doing anything bad, just robbing temples.” For

wickedness. Whenever betrayed Miletos to the Prienians, had been much talked of on account of his

there is a people asked him what he thought he was doing, he used to say, “Everything good.” And to buy proverb: “Everything good, as Killikon said.” Later however, he went to a certain Theagenes out his meat; he [Th.] asked him [K.] to show where he [K.] wanted it cut. When he [K.] stretched hand, he [Th.] cut it off and said, “You will never betray another city with that hand” (Translation, proverb is with slight changes, by Catherine Roth in ‘Suda-on-line’). The earliest source of the the minor in earlier years 20 about of incident an to alluding be may who 363), (Peace, Aristophanes ed. Scholia war between Samos and Miletus, and the ancient scholiast gives the story (F. Dibner, and the graeca in Aristophanem, Paris, 1877; repr. Hildesheim, Olms, 1969, p. 182). The proverb Erasmus. by up picked not was it though 140), (col. Syntagma Aldus the in found also are story

So much for Biffi! But the interesting element in this early work is the glimpse we have, underneath the adolescent satire, of Alciato’s first experiences of the Greek literature from which he took so many of his emblematic images. He makes use on several occasions of two works which must have been the delight of contemporary humanists: the Suda and the volume of fables, hieroglyphs, and proverbs published by Aldus in 1505. It is not known if Parrasius used these as teaching instruments, but it is clear that already in 1506 or 1507 Alciato could read Greek well enough to be able to use them. He also seems to know Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and perhaps some of the comedies of Aristophanes and some of the speeches of Aristides. The less respectable works he mentions he probably knew only by reputation. The text also suggests an acquaintance with Lucian in either Erasmus’ Latin or in Greek, and the sort of familiarity one would expect with major Latin authors:

Cicero,

Virgil,

Horace,

Ovid,

Aulus

Gellius

as

well

as

his

principal models Catullus and Martial. The use of the Aldus volume is strong evidence that he was acquainted with the hieroglyphs long before he may have encountered Fasanini in Bologna.’ ! The only other suggestion I would make is that

there is some support for the idea that the short epigrams are of an

earlier date than the ‘Bifiloedoria’ in the fact that they hardly use the legendary, fabulous or proverbial imagery from the two major Greek a

Filippo Fasanini, whose translation of the Hieroglyphica appeared in 1518, was appointed to a

chair of rhetoric at Bologna in 1511 and remained there until 1528. Alciato was in Bologna, from 1511 to 1514, to study law, but took his doctorate at Ferarra in 1516.

ANDREA ALCIATO : JN BIFUM

28

sources which is a feature of the long poem. They seem to belong to the

pre-Greek period of his education.

1 am not able to judge whether he matches the wit of Catullus, as Pancharius asserts, but there are obvious caveats to observe about his veracity. Negri’s account of Biffi in the Dizionario biografico degli Italiani suggests that we should not take too literally Alciato’s more lurid allegations. On the contrary, a large allowance has to be made for a

decidedly adolescent lack of restraint and taste. Allowance must also be made, on practice. epigrams hensible

the other hand, for the classroom beatings that were accepted Yet it must be admitted that both here and in the shorter a strong resentment burns. Biffi may not have been the repreknave that Alciato portrays or quite as ignorant, but he was

apparently

vain, a toady, and an object of mockery

to his pupils.

Alciato’s experience with him may be an early motive for the anticlericalism that comes to light in the Contra vitam monasticam. However, considering his age at the time, and a budding humanist’s impatience with a teacher like Biffi, much could be forgiven. To conclude I would add to this evidence of Alciato’s early humanist formation the two dedicatory poems mentioned above. In 1511 he contributed a eulogistic verse to the Memoralia of his colleague

Catelliano Cotta, comparing him to the classical jurist Papinian: Papinianus alter an hic est? (‘Is he another Papinian?’)

—a compliment which Zazius later paid to Alciato himself? In the same year a second verse was addressed to Giovanni Quinziano Stoa, author of a manual on metrics, whom he would call a ‘veritable Varro of our times’: An Varro nostro tempore aedepol est?

The name of Papiniam, who enjoyed the highest reputation among the

jurists of the empire for his learning and knowledge of Greek, and that of Varro, polygrapher and encyclopedist, best known of classical philologists, could not suggest more clearly the most admired models and the future programme of our jurist.

The Emblems in Two Unnoticed Items of Alciato’s Correspondence’

The two letters reproduced here appeared in print in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries but were first recorded, among many others, by Roberto Abbondanza in his 1957 review of Barni’s edition of Alciato’s letters.' With typical generosity, he passed on his personal copies to the present author for translation and annotation. The letter to Emilio Ferretti, dated 24 March 1532, was first printed in a volume of Ferretti’s works in 1543.’ Alciato’s correspondent, whom Bayle describes as one of the best lawyers of the sixteenth century, was born on 14 November 1489, at Castelfranco di Sotto which lies betwen Florence and Lucca, and died 15 July 1552 at Avignon. He completed his studies in civil and canon law at Pisa and Siena then moved to Rome where he served as secretary to cardinal Salviati. After an apparently brilliant thesis defense before a bevy of learned cardinals and bishops, he was enrolled as a doctor of laws at the age of 19. It was at this time that, though baptised Domenico, he changed his name to Emilio, the name being given to him, so it is said, because a iôloc otmp bAOG means ‘cunning and fluent’. He became a secretary to Leo X for some years, but left of his own accord to return to his family, and spent two * First published in Emblematica, 11 (2001), 379-391. Copyright © [2001] AMS Press, Inc. All rights reserved. ! Roberto Abbondanza, ‘A proposito dell'epistolario dell’Alciato’, Annali di Storia del diritto, | (1957), 467-500, at p. 472, note 22, no 1, and p. 474, note 30, no III (hereafter ‘Epistolario’). ? Aemylii Ferretti in Tit. de pactis,

transactionibus (Lyon:

M. Bonhomme,

1543); copy in the

BL C.77.h.6(1). The letter is on an unnumbered page following the section on the ‘lex Falcidia’. His Opera omnia were printed in Lyon: Apud Mauricium Roy & Ludouicum Pesnot, 1553 and reprinted in Frankfurt, 1598. The biographical details given here are taken mainly from the ‘Life’ of Ferretti by Helenus Ribittus, written a few months after his death, and published in the editions of his complete

works. See also Guido Pancirolli, De claris legum interpretibus (Leipzig, 1721), lib. II cap. clxviï; Louis Moréri, Grand Dictionnaire historique (Lyon: Jean Girin and Barthélemy Riviere, 1691),

32 See Paul EmileViard, André Alciat 1492-1550 (Paris: Société Anonyme du Receuil Sirey,

42. 1926), p. 49, n. 2: Zasius, Epistolae ad viros aetatis suae doctissimos (Ulm, 1774), pp. 14 et

33 Por the text of both poems see ‘A Lawyer’s Language Theory...’, note 9.

Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique (Rotterdam: M. Bohm,

1720), and the Enciclopedia

italiana (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1949-52). Inexplicably he has been omitted in volume 47 of the Dizionario biografico degli Italiani.

IN TWO UNNOTICED

THE EMBLEMS

30

OF ALCIATO’S CORRESPONDENCE

ITEMS

notes) and Cicero’s speeches. He did not disdain, says Ribittus, to affix a prefatory letter to a French translation of Boccacio, and indeed a letter by him appears in the 1545 edition of Antoine le Maçon’s version.’ In Italian and addressed to Marguerite of Navarre, it eulogises the work and the translator, whom he speaks of as a personal friend. Alciato’s confidence in Ferretti’s literary taste and judgement was probably not unmerited and sincerely affirmed: ‘I shall put up against them [sc. his critics] just one Emilio by whom these emblems are adjudged both aptly conceived and aptly produced.’ Two sentences are of particular interest for the Emblems:

years in study not only of the law but of literature and oratory, in order to perfect his skill and eloquence. When his father was killed in a riot, Emilio and his brother Carlo moved to Tridino, where he served in government and married into a noble family, the marriage eventually producing six sons and one daughter. He then entered the service of the marquis of Monferrato, who commanded part of the French army under Lautrec. On his way home from the expedition to Rome and Naples, near Milan, he was captured by Spaniards and paid a heavy ransom to regain his liberty. He moved to France, under the patronage of the bishop of Rheims, in or about 1528. It was probably at this time that he met or began his correspondence with Alciato, who moved to Bourges in this same year. Ferretti occupied the chair of law at Valence and later taught at Lyon, Florence and finally Avignon. He earned an excellent reputation, and Francis I was sufficiently impressed by his qualities to appoint him as a conseiller to the Parlement of Paris. He later served in diplomatic missions to Venice and Florence for the French king and, at

That book was published, I assure you, without my knowledge, as I also wrote to our friend Palma. In truth, since it is so full of mistakes, whether we consider the absurdities of the pictures or the corrupt text of the poems, I am forced to put my hand to the work and to acknowledge this disowned and exposed offspring, just when it is near the point of death, and to bring it forth again enlarged and better prepared.

This passage seems to support the idea that the work was pirated. It was published ‘without [his] knowledge’ (‘me insciente’) perhaps before he regarded it as a work ready or suitable for publication, and he says that he is ‘forced to put [his] hand to the work’ (‘cogor manum operi admo-

on

he accompanied

for Charles V, whom

the instigation of Monferrato,

his African expedition (1535). In his Opera the title of each work describes him as ‘easily the prince of the lawyers of our age’. Ribittus would put him on the same level as Alciato:

Mciato alone occurs to me as one whom | might compare and equate with him. The latter was indeed a great man, and one to be esteemed for his talents, whom I gladly recognise and declare to be another luminary and founder of jurisprudence. For it seems to me that I can say truly these two were the two luminaries of their times. Avignon bathed in the light of both, but the one [ie. Alciato] at a time when he had barely risen, the other [Ferretti] when he was already world famous and whom that city used as its defender and most acute protector in all its lawsuits. For if some particularly serious affair arose, it was to him they ran as to a refuge and most sure fortress, and he would take up any honourable matter with more care and energy than his own cases, undeterred in any way by authority or power, defending and pursuing to the end with the greatest loyalty and diligence.”

Like

Alciato,

Ferretti

was

an

advocate

of

literary

studies

as

a

necessary support for a legal training and his published works include

annotations on Tacitus’s Annals (in an editon also containing Alciato’s 3 Ferretti, Opera, conferam,

et

lurisprudentiae

1598, **[1]”, col. Magnus

aequem. lumen

ille

et instauratorem

1: ‘Unus autem

profecto lubens

et

suis

et agnosco,

mihi occurrit Alciatus, quem censendus et profiteor.

dotibus, Vere

quemque enim

cum

hoc

alterum

hos duos,

duo

suorum temporum lumina, dicere mihi videor. Utroque illustrata quidem Avenio fuit: sed altero vix dum emergente, altero autem in toto orbe iam celeberrimo, quo defensore, et patrono acerrimo in omnibus usa est. Si quid enim gravioris negotii nasceretur, ad hunc tanquam ad asylum et arcem tutissimam currebatur: qui maiore et cura, et animo, quicquid esset honesti negotii, nullius auctoritaate, aut potentia deterritus, quam proprias res suscipiebat: ac summa et fide et diligentia tuebatur, et exsequebatur.”

31

vere’), not that he is forced to do so again. It was, according to the letter

to Bembo ‘somehow lost’ (‘nescio quo casu amissum’).° Alciato had disowned the work almost immediately, but he now admits the need to acknowledge it and try to revive it. This is about one year after the appearance of the two printings of the first Steyner edition and six

months before the letter to Viglio van Zwickum in which Alciato talks of Francesco Rupilio (a colleague in law and friend of both Alciato and Erasmus) passing on the corrections for the Steyner edition to Claudius

Peutinger when the latter returned to Germany.’ This is therefore not a

* Giovanni

Boccaccio,

Le

Decameron

de

Jehan

Boccace

Florentin,

nouvellement

traduict

à iii-iv"°. d'Italien en Françoys par Maistre Anthoine le Maçon (Paris: Estienne Roffet, 1545), le Monnier, Felice (Florence: Barni Luigi Gian ed. o, giureconsult Alciato, Andrea di Lettere Le 5 (XII Kal. Aprilis 1953), pp. 156-157, no 93, 25 Feb. 1535. Bembo’s reply, dated 21 Mar. 1535 Eiusdem, MDXXXV), is to be seen in Petri Bembi cardinalis epistolarum familiarum, libri VI. Scottus, 1552), two Leonis X. Pontificis Maximi nomine scriptarum, libri XVI (Venice: Gualterus from Bembo to Alciato, volumes in one with separate pagination, pp. 267-268. There are five letters with attempts to persuade Alciato pp. 264-270, dated from 1532 to 1539, The first two are concerned Wechel’s edition (Lettere, to move to Padua. The third is his response to Alciato’s gift of the copy of to comment on the declines explicitly he it In emblems. the no 93) and is the only one to mention work:

‘As

for your poems,

there is certainly

no chance

that 1 could

say anything

new

to you, a

tuis carminibus quod tibi noui thoroughly learned man and one of exceptional judgement’ (‘De est’). sane nihil uiro; iudicii afferam homini pererudito & singularis ‘ Lettere, p. 39, no 80, Bourges, 3 Oct. 1532.

i

32

THE EMBLEMS

IN TWO UNNOTICED

ITEMS

OF ALCIATO’S CORRESPONDENCE

reference to the Paris edition of Wechel, since it antedates the referred to in the letter to van Zwickum. It is also worth noting that this letter to Ferretti, like all relevant documents we have, does not condemn the pictures in but only the errors in them.’ Alciato himself said that the

measures the other principle, epigrams

describe objects or scenes and are intended as a resource for designers

of imprese and badges; they therefore suggest pictures, and as devices and badges would actually be pictures. The question is whether, when Steyner pats himself on the back for providing the illustrations in a book, he has given expression to his own inspiration or to a suggestion either made to him by an intermediary such as Peutinger or coming ultimately from Alciato himself. This letter provides no proof, but it does give the impression that Alciato was not surprised by the presence

of the pictures, and it does not exclude the possibility that he expected

them.

Praestantissimo iureconsulto D. Aemilio Ferretto profitenti Valentiae amico optimo.

To

Noli quaeso, id de me suspicari, Aemyli

Please do not think ill of me, most eloquent Emilio, or consider me unkind or haughty, because my letters were reaching you less frequently. I have not received any of yours these last eight months. If I had received any 1 was certainly not going to commit the sin of failing to answer at once. For on the one hand 1 have great affection for you because of your supreme qualities, and on the other I think by no worthy tribute can I deserve that outstanding kindness of yours. So lay aside, I beg you, any such idea and place the whole blame

facundissime,

ut

inhumanum

me

aut

superbum existimes, quod minus saepe nostrae ad te deferantur literae. Nullas ego tuas his octo mensibus accepi: si accepissem utique non commissurus, quin responderem statim. Et plurimum enim ob summas tuas virtutes te amo, et istam egregiam tuam humanitatem nullo satis digno obsequio me promereri posse arbitror. Quare exue, obsecro, quicquid est huius opinionis, et culpam potius omnem in nuncios conferto, qui suae fidei creditas literas, vel dolo malo non reddunt, vel ceu asellus ille in Emblematis mysteria gestantes, sinunt prae ignorantia perire. Atqui adeo mihi grata est literarum tuarum vicissitudo, ut vel ultro iam ad te meas adornarem, nisi praeventum a te esset; quae tibi laus cessit propter meas occupationes, non ut censes creberrimarum salutationum, sed

the

most

Ferretti,

friends.

rather

excellent

professor

on

the

at

jurist

Valence,

messengers,

who

Emilio best

of

vel assiduae lectionis, vel aliarum curarum. Cogunt enim isti me lovem suum (cur enim tuis verbis non ludam?) sesquiopus et quidem auctiore in dies penso facere. Tradiderunt et materiam sane difficilem, nempe substitutionum, quae mihi plurimum temporis eripit, ut nequeam alacrioribus incumbere studiis; nunc tamen cum iam callum induxerim, prolixioresque

sint

dies,

7 Cf. Pierre Laurens in his preface to the reprint of the 1551 edition of Alciato’s Emblemata

(Paris, Klincksieck, 1997), p. 28.

® «Non tibi sed religioni’ (1531) B7°, (1621) no 7. Cf. Adagia, I ii 4, ‘Asinus portans mysteria”.

adeo

frigidi,

to you already of my own accord, if this had not been anticipated by you. This praiseworthy action falls to your lot because my time is filled, not as you think with crowded visits, but with assiduous reading or with other demands. These people force me to be their Jupiter (for why should I not play on your words?) and to do a day and a halfs

work

and

even

more

in a day.’

incipiam paulisper otiari, eroque epistolis scribendis diligentior. Sed ain’ tu vero, Emblemata plurimae mihi invidiae esse? 0 bene factum, si id cor invidiorum urit. Obiiciam his ego unum Aemylium, cuiea

They consigned to me some exceedingly difficult material, concerning substitutions of heirs in fact, which is robbing me of a great deal of time, so that I am unable to devote myself to more

decenter et cogitata et acta iudicantur. Et

pleasant studies. Now

quid ni? cum ea Alciatus non excogitarit, sed ab opinatissimis acceperit auctoribus. Si negligentiam sordesque illius Augustani impressoris damnarent, suae me haberent sententiae subscriptorem. argumentum ipsum iuste non possunt damnare. Editus sane est ille libellus me insciente, quod et ad Palmam nostrum scripsi, verum cum adeo sit inemendatus,

either

fraudulently do not deliver the letters entrusted to them, or who, bearing sacred objects like the ass in the Emblems,* allow them to be lost out of ignorance. Indeed the exchange of letters with you gives me such pleasure that 1 would actually have drafted mine

nec

33

however,

since I

have developed a thick skin, and the days are longer and not so cold, I shall start to take a little more leisure and I shall be more attentive to letters which have to be written. But do you really say the Emblems are earning me the greatest ill-will? Something must be well done if it gnaws the hearts of the envious! I shall put up against them just one Emilio by whom these emblems are adjudged both aptly conceived and aptly produced. And why not? since Alciato did not invent them but took them from the most highly regarded authors. If it were the carelessness and niggardliness of that Augsburg printer that they condemned, they would have me as supporter of their opinion; the material itself they cannot justly condemn. That book was published, I assure you, without my knowledge, as | also wrote to our friend Palma.'° In truth, since it is

° An allusion to the story of the conception of Heracles. Jupiter lay with Alemene for a night to which he gave the length of three by ordering Hermes to get Helios to quench the solar fires and have the Hours unyoke his team. Hesiod, Shield of Heracles, 11. 27-56; Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, 2.4.8. No letter from Ferretti to Alciato survives to tell us the words to which Alciato was responding.

1° Tt is highly unlikely that this could be any member of the Negretti family of Venetian painters. ‘Palma’ is most probably Johann Bebelius, publisher of the Selecta epigrammata graeca (Basle, 1529) to which Alciato was a major contributor. Bebelius used the device of the palm tree, subject of the emblem

‘Obdurandum

adversus urgentia’, with the words ‘Palma Beb[elii]’. Michael Isengrinus

also used the same device with the words ‘Palma Isen[grini]”, but was not associated with the firm until 1532,

THE EMBLEMS

IN TWO UNNOTICED

sive ineptias picturarum, sive corruptiones carminum inspiciamus, cogor manum operi admovere, et abdicatum exposititumque partum, nunc demum cum fere periit, agnoscere, auctioremque et melius curatum rursus producere; tu interim medium unguem invidis illis ostende, vel idiotis potius, qui bonum a malo nesciunt discernere. Habeo ingentes carminum fasces, quos tamen edere supersedebo, sive quia hoc unico libello non desperem posse me in Poétarum collegium admitti; sive (quod verius est) quia arbitror et tuo et Palmae iudicio acquiescendum esse. Certe quae in eo errata sunt, docti statim deprendent, non esse auctoris. Vale, et quod facis, me ama. Biturigibus nono Calend. Apriles 1532. Andreas Alciatus.

OF ALCIATO’S CORRESPONDENCE

ITEMS

so full of mistakes, whether we consider the absurdities of the pictures or the corrupt text of the poems, I am forced to put my hand to the work and to acknowledge this disowned and exposed offspring, just when it is near the point of death, and to bring it forth again enlarged and better prepared. You meanwhile must point the mocking finger at those envious or rather ignorant people who cannot distinguish good from bad. I have several large bundles of verse, which I shall nevertheless refrain from publishing, either because I must not despair of the possibility of being admitted to the company of poets with this one book, or, as is nearer the truth, because I believe it is necessary to have confidence in the judgement of yourself and Palma. Certainly the educated will perceive immediately that the errors it contains are not the author’s. Farewell, and whatever you do, think of me with affection. Bourges, 24 March 1532. Andrea Alciato.

The second item is a letter written to Alciato ten years later by one of his best known imitators, Hadrianus Junius.'' Junius had studied at Bologna for a Jaurea in medecine and philosophy in 1540; Alciato was teaching there from 1537 to 1541. By January 1542 Alciato had been forced by the duke of Milan to leave Bologna and take up a position in Pavia; however, by the end of the year he was able to accept the invitation of Ercole d’Este to move to Ferrara. This letter is of minor interest for the Emblems, and consists for half its length of the fulsome flatteries which are normal among humanists, though they do give us a glimpse of friendly intellectual discussions ll Hadriani Junii epistolae..., ed. Petrus Junius (Dordrecht: apud Vincentium

Caimax,

1552

[sic]), 98-101. The date in the imprint (1552) is obviously incorrect since the volume contains letters dated up to 1575, the year of Junius’ death. The

Bodleian

Library catalogue (8 I 20 Art Seld.) says

‘really 1652’; the British Library catalogue (1084.a.4) gives ‘1602’ and adds ‘The date is a misprint’. This letter has not passed

completely

Heemskerck and Dutch Humanism

unnoticed—see

for example

[lja M.

in the Sixteenth Century (Amsterdam,

it has not appeared in full in a publication readily accessible to students.

Veldman,

Maarten

1977). p. 102, note 29

van but

we un

34

held in Alciato’s lodgings. Junius’ immediate purpose is to transmit a message from Christian Wechel, the Paris publisher of the Emblems since 1534, who clearly wishes to retain Alciato’s patronage. The first point of interest is the reference to the Emblems and the ‘by no means inconsiderable addition which you had sent him earlier’ (‘accessione illa non poenitenda, quam olim ad illum miseras’). In this same year of 1542, but after this letter was written, Wechel used the same expression in his German and Latin edition, in a note to the reader informing him that: ‘If the “not inconsiderable supplement to the Emblems”, with which this same writer claims to enlarge the book, remains wanting, this is due to the perfidy of a well-known engraver to whom we had entrusted the wood blocks of the pictures’. This in turn refers to what Wolfgang Hunger had said in the letter dated 1 May 1539 which serves as his preface: ‘Moreover Wechel sent me a not inconsiderable supplement to the Emblems (‘auctarium Emblematum non poenitendum’) supplied recently by Alciato from Italy. He asked me to translate this too...’'? Henry Green suggested that this supplement may have been the eighty-six emblems which finally appeared in the Aldine edition of 1546.'° If this is so—and it seems likely—the additional emblems existed as a proposed supplement to the 1534 collection from as early as the first quarter of 1539. At the time of Junius’ letter it seems Wechel still expected to be able to publish them himself and had not yet entrusted the wood blocks to the engraver who subsequently withheld them. Hunger’s translation of the text of these additional emblems into German seems to have been wasted effort. The other point of interest is the mention of an ‘anthology of various inscriptions’ (‘variarum inscriptionum sylvam’), clearly something distinct from the auctarium Emblematum non poenitendum. This may refer to the four books of epigrams (also inscriptiones in Latin) to which Alciato had referred in letters to Francesco Calvo and Boniface Amerbach,'* and which were never published. It seems more likely however that what Junius had been allowed to see in Bologna was the Antiquitates Mediolanenses, a collection of inscriptions copied from

monuments which Alciato had originally made in 1508 in the course of his studies

for a history of Milan,

and which

he continued

to augment

2 «Defence and Illustration of the German Language: Wolfgang Hunger’s preface to Alciati’s Emblems,” 2 Henry Green, Andrea Alciati and his Books of Emblems. A Biographical and Bibliographical Study... (New York, 1872; reprinted by Burt Franklin, n. d.), p. 139, For more on the mysterious genesis of the 1546 edition sce the article by Monika Grünberg-Drôge, ‘The 1546 Edition of Andrea Alciatoi’s Emblemata’, in Emblems from Alciato to the Tattoo (Turnhout: Brepols, 2001), pp. 3-19. Leitere, no 31 of 26 April 1523 and no 32 of 10 May

1523 respectively.

TESTER =

4

and modify.!* That Alciato continued to pursue these studies actively is apparent from a fragment of a letter to Gaudentius Merula published in 1541,'° and we may conclude that Wechel’s eagerness to see and publish them reflects Alciato’s continuing reputation in this field. It should be added that, though modern discussion of the Antiquitates Mediolanenses has always concerned the extant manuscripts, the text of Alciato’s preface and a list of 195 inscriptions were in fact published in the eighteenth century by Jos. M. Saporito in Francesco Antonio Zaccaria’s Excursus litterarii per Italiam."’ The list of inscriptions gives the corresponding numbers in Janus Gruterus’ /nscriptionum corpus,” and descriptive notes on those which differ from that source or had not been recorded there. Although he knows of other manuscript copies, including Vaticanus 6236, the editor declares in a dedicatory letter!” that he prefers to use a manuscript described as being in ‘our [i.e. the Jesuit] library of Santo Fedele’ in Milan, and containing Catelliano Cotta’s letter to the duke of Milan.” Saporito’s letter is addressed to another famous epigrapher, Antonio Francesco Gori, and recalls that Gori had edited the Jnscriptiones antiquae of Giovanni Doni,”' who had also listed manuscripts of Alciato’s Antiquitates. It is clear that the latter’s epigraphical work remained well known in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries too.

Andreae Alciato.

To Andrea Alciato.

Quoties animo mecum repeto, Alciate Jureconsultorum caput, suaveis illas nostras apud te diatribas, quando nimirum Cornelius Pepolus et ego tuas Bononiae aedeis, Musarum videlicet domicilium, frequentaremus subinde una: memet hercle mei poenitet, quod erudito colloquio tuo, quo animos omnium qui tuis fruuntur auribus, pascis: quod venustate et leporibus, quibus omnia condis: quod acri tuo iudicio, nusquam abest: quod denique invicta illa humanitate, quia

How often 1 call them to mind, Alciato, leading light of jurists, those delightful discussions of ours, when Cornelio Pepolo~ and I were such frequent visitors together at your house in Bologna, veritable home of the Muses. By Hercules, how 1 regret that | am denied the pleasures of that learned talk with which you gratify the minds of all who enjoy your attention, the charm and wit with which you season everything, your acute judgement—never wanting in any subject—and your unsurpassed kindness; for you, the most learned of men, never exclude anyone from your friendship, even one with only a modest tincture of letters. Ye gods, what eloquence, what grace, what abundant richness of every sort of learning flows from your lips. Can I blame heaven, the gods, the stars, for being hostile to my approaches? Can I invoke my unfortunate genius in mitigation of the fault? 1 can do nothing; I must rage against my fate, which begrudged me

neminem,

vel mediocriter

had another copy made for the duke of Milan from a copy which he states he had from Alciato’s own

See Pierre Laurens and

Florence

Vuilleumier,

‘Entre histoire et emblème:

le recueil des

inscriptions milanaises d'André Alciat’, Revue des Études latines, 72 (1994). The Rerum patriae libri IV were published posthumously in 1625 (Milan: J.B. Bidelli) and 1704 (in vol. 1 of Graevius’ Thesaurus antiquitatum—Leiden, 1704-25).

16 Denis L. Drysdall, ‘Epimetheus, An Alciati Companion (review of William S. Heckscher, The

Princeton Alciati Companion)’,

Emblematica, 4.2 (1989), 386-387 and 391, This fragment was also

noted by Roberto Abbondanza, ‘Epistolario’, p. 474. 17 Francesco Antonio Zaccaria,. Excursus litterarii per Italiam ... volumen primum (Venice: ex Remondiniano Typographio,

1754), ch. VII, 74-90.

18 First published in 1603; Saporito refers to the 1707 edition.

19 Pp. 72-73. 20 This is not reproduced in 1754. 2!

Florence, 1731.

literis tinctum

ab amicitia tua excludis, ipse doctissimus nimirum, frui negatum sit. Deus bone, quae dicendi vis, quae gratia, quam affluens omnigenae eruditionis copia ab ore promanat? Incusem ne infestum meis successibus coelum, deos, astra? an sinistrum meum Genium in criminis partem advocem? nihil agam; fortunae meae irascar necesse est, quae perpetuum mihi Italiae usum invidit, ne dicam quod tuo orbarit aspectu. Sed prolixius fortasse teretes tuas aures verbero. Attamen extundit istam querimoniam acerba recordatio, quod iam tandem demens video, Epimethei exemplo, quanta sim commoditate, quantis bonis fraudatus, idque mea ipsius (ut ille ait) dtacBahia. Verumtamen placandus est, quibus potest remediis, animus.

15 À Jetter to Francesco Calvo (Lettere, no 5, 19 December 1520) reveals that he took the manuscript to Avignon in order to make a copy for Bernardo Castellano. In 1524 Catelliano Cotta

hand.

37

permanent

residence

in

Italy,

not

to

mention that it deprived me of the sight of you. Perhaps I assail your sensitive ears for too long, yet painful memory drags forth this complaint, for now at

last 1 see foolishly, like Epimetheus,”

how much advantage I am deprived of and how many benefits, and that by my as recklessness, GtacOaAia, own someone said. But I must calm my mind by whatever means | can.

had sold The brother of cardinal Guido Pepolo and a member of the Bolognese family which and become the city to the Visconti of Milan in the fourteenth century but had returned by this time followers of the Bentivogli. when talking of 3 Alciato had used the same figure in his letter to Viglio van Zwickum (1532) the errors of the Augsburg edition (Leftere, 139, no 80); ‘ut postquam Promethei esse non potuimus not be a Prometheus Epimethei saltem fieremus et sapere denique videremur’ (so that, since I could in the [‘man of forethought’], I could at least be an Epimetheus [*man of afterthoughts’) and be seen

sapit” (Trouble end to know what I was talking about). See also Adagia, I I 31: ‘Malo accepto stultus

experienced makes a fool wise).

MONDE EAN EN

OF ALCIATO’S CORRESPONDENCE

IN TWO UNNOTICED ITEMS

CNT

THE EMBLEMS

36

38

THE EMBLEMS

IN TWO UNNOTICED ITEMS

Itaque ut ad id quod primo loco propositum erat deveniam, sic habeto. Christianus Wechelius, typographus cumprimis sedulus (ut tibi perspectum et cognitum esse potest) et qui in conquirendis excudendisque melioris notae libris, multum ponit studii, totus in hoc est,

ut tua

foetura

Emblematum,

acces-

sione illa non poenitenda, quam olim ad illum miseras, adaucta in publicum denuo prodeat. Quare is a me admonitus quod variarum inscriptionum sylvam, quam videre mihi licuit, opus multae et lectionis et observationis, prae manibus habeas, singulari quadam inflammatus cupiditate erga eam operam, identidem institit, ut declarato suo in te studio per literas tecum agerem, ut si quid sit operis sive recens ab incude profectum, sive etiam resartum quod publicare cogites (quando vero foecundum illud ingenium a coepto jam olim demerendae posteritatis praeclaro instituto cessare possit?) id ad se procurare dignaris elegantioribus reddendum typis: interim dissimulanter [sic] se totum suaque omnia tibi offerens. Id autem, quicquid sit, per veredarium istius impensis facile commeare huc poterit. Hane nostram pro amico capite obtestationem

non

iniquo

(qui

tuus

est

candor et facilitus [sic: facilitas]) accipies animo. Vale Jurisconsultorum decus unum et columen. Lutetiae Parrhisiorum Idibus Januariis. 1542.

So let me come to what I had intended in the first place. Christian Wechel, who is one of the most diligent of printers (as you may well have observed and recognised) and who puts great effort into gathering and publishing books of the best quality, is committed to the idea that your young brood of emblems should be published again, augmented with the by no means inconsiderable addition which you had sent him earlier. In this connection,

advised

by me

that

you have to hand an anthology of various inscriptions, a work very worthy to be both read and looked at, which I

Symbolism

had been allowed to see, and fired with

singular desire to see this work, he repeatedly pressed me to write to you and declare his devotion to you, so that

if there is some work, either fresh from the anvil or even refashioned, which you are thinking of publishing (but when could that fertile genius desist from the noble purpose it undertook long ago of deserving well of posterity?) you should consent to let him set it in the most elegant type. Meanwhile he offers himself and everything he has to you in all

sincerity.”4

The

work,

whatever

it

may be, could easily be sent here at his expense by courrier. You will surely accept this entreaty of mine, made in the name

of

friendship,

in

a

favourable

spirit, which is your own spirit of candour and affability. Farewell, unique ornament and most distinguished of jurists. Paris, 13 January 1542.

OMME MIT NIST

4 The Latin has ‘dissimulanter’, secretly, in a dissembling manner. A negative appears to be missing: ‘non (or: ne) dissimulanter’.

Authorities for Symbolism

in the Sixteenth Century’

The theory of relativity has much to answer for. Relativism in history and critical theory, the recognition of the necessary role of the observer and the method in observations, has resulted paradoxically in egocentric criticism. A too rigid insistence on the inescapability of cultural conditioning, on the inaccessibilty of any point of view but our own, has led to the conclusion not only that it is impossible to understand another period in its owm terms, but that the only way to deal with history is to fit former ways of thought into our own framework, to re-interpret it in terms of its significance for us. This extreme ahistorical attitude amounts to a counsel of despair—denying the relevance of history, the possibility of understanding anything but ourselves. In a further step, it has led to the unwarranted attribution of modern concepts and attitudes to others. In certain influential studies of emblems, there was for a while a striking neglect of what contemporaries had said, or not said, about them, a common anachronism especially with respect to the sixteenth century, and a seemingly wilful desire to impose on them unhistorical terms, definitions, and classifications. But a historical approach is both necessary and possible. Necessary because the best justification for all historical, indeed all cultural studies, is precisely the will to understand the ‘other’ in its own terms, to give full recognition to its autonomy. Possible because, though all questions must remain open and though there can never be any assurance of being right at any time, the effort to place oneself as nearly as possible at the viewpoint of contemporaries, to learn their terminology and definitions, to acquire their background and their mental frames, to recognise both their limitations and their advantages, the scholarly (informed and unbiased) reading of everything

À

This paper appeared

first in in Aspects

of Renaissance

1700). AMS Studies in the Emblem, no 14 (New 1999] AMS Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

York: AMS

and Baroque Press,

Symbol

1999), pp.

Theory (1500

11-24. Copyright

©

42

AUTHORITIES

IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

FOR SYMBOLISM

contemporary, with strict philological method, the occasional new discovery, the continual modification of one’s own view—these are cumulative and produce a series of approximations to the unseen goal, always provisional but, it can be reasonably supposed, progressive. It has been on occasions tempting to wonder whether the real concern of some theoretical approaches has not been to avoid this admittedly arduous work. In his very useful 1979 review of developments in emblem theory,’ Peter Daly distinguished three main approaches which had been taken, up to that time, to the characterisation of the emblem genre: 1, A historical-chronological analysis, which sought to avoid preconceptions, in which nothing was considered a priori unemblematic: 2. A selective-comparative method based on an overview of the developing emblem tradition, which made a selection of characteristic emblem books in order to derive a generic description; 3. A formal method which confined itself to form and functional relationships of pictures and words, excluding content, theme or cultural background as non-defining.

The last two clearly set out to create definitions and classifications which

can

be

envisaged

only

with

an

historian’s

hindsight.

Such

classifications may make it possible to digest the material and make it manageable, but they are an extraneous framework into which the material is to be fitted, with the concomitant risk of distortion. For anyone who wishes to understand the emblem in its own right, classifications other than those which contemporary evidence supports are for this reason counter-productive. The historical-chronological approach is at first sight more attractive. But the account of this approach also betrays ideas not mentioned, terms not used by contemporaries, when it speaks of ‘classifying the various motifs’, of an ‘unbiased attempt to describe this relationship

[picture/verse] in neutral terms of single signation and plurisignation’, and of ‘the distance between object and meaning’. The prolonged

discussion about terminology, ending up with terms (inscriptio, pictura, subscriptio) which contemporaries did not use, or did not use consistently, is typical. Although emblem-writers speak of their sources

from the start, this so-called ‘historical’ method supposes a systematic

taxonomy which, generally speaking, they did not use, and certainly would not have agreed on. Some indeed referred the emblems to the hieroglyphs and to proverbs, but none in the sixteenth century seem to have thought of their production as conforming to the sort of clear ' Peter Daly,

Emblem

Theory.

Recent German

Contributions to the Characterisation of the

Emblem Genre, Wolfenbitteler Forschungen, Band 9 (Nendeln/Lichtenstein: KTO Press, 1979).

43

definitions that these critics seek. Two of Alciato’s remarks about his emblems (in the letter to Calvo and in the De verborum significatione) refer to the nature of their meaning, but we need to be convinced that ‘single signation and plurisignation’ are well adapted to express what he was saying. The expression emblema triplex has, as far as | know, no authority

in the

sixteenth

century,

or at least not

in Alciato

and

the

literature surrounding him. The basically ahistorical nature of this approach is revealed when it concludes: ‘As a definition of a genre, however, it [historical-chronological analysis] would need to be modified to incorporate later developments in the emblem-books themselves.’ Now ‘genre’ is an important notion, but it is contemporary notions which matter. There is reason to believe that Alciato himself used the Latin word argumentum of his emblems in the sense of ‘genre’, but is this what is intended here? A definition ‘modified to incorporate later developments’ is one made with hindsight, and includes anachronistic elements. In practice most of these critics have resorted to seventeenth-century

definitions

and

classifications,

regardless

of the

century or more of emblems which precede them. This list of approaches seems to lack a genuinely historical approach, aiming at contemporary definitions and perspectives, avoiding as far as possible any anachronism. The case of the emblem illustrates with peculiar vividness the importance of critical approaches. To take the extreme

case,

the belief that it represents

an outmoded

notion

of the

symbol and of forms of knowledge, a fashion with no appeal to modern tastes, no possibility of revival, except as an antiquarian curiosity, has been current since the eighteenth century and has lasted up to modern

times. It underlines the sterility of approaches which are unrelated to

contemporary views and do nothing to advance understanding of the period. The emblem attracted the attention of modern critics because it is obviously an important component of sixteenth-, seventeenth-, and even

eighteenth-century art, theatre, poetry, and festivals; its importance to

pedagogy and the contemporary concept of the symbol is established. If it is to serve the purpose of enlightening us on these matters, a valid approach must seek the contemporary assumptions and ideas which explain its popularity. We cannot ignore the lessons of relativity; we must recognise the unavoidable influence of our own cultural conditioning on the way we

conceive of anything. But to avoid sterility, we must return to the effort

to understand another culture on its own terms, autonomy of their avowed beliefs and intentions.

recognising

the

LA

44

AUTHORITIES FOR SYMBOLISM

IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

A useful statement of the sort of method required is to be found in a history of medieval philosophy by John Marenbon.? He calls his approach ‘historical analysis’, but it is both more general and more consistent than the one mentioned above. In particular, it imposes two

possible for others to continue an investigation. No doubt the global

definitions and classifications, the synthetic histories are necessary and become possible eventually, but the former do not seem to me to be a useful place to start, nor have I, personally, reached the point where I could write the latter.

special restrictions on its exponents:

1. Historical analysis ... prohibits them from making anachronistic assumptions about the identity of the problems discussed in their texts ... Modern analysts usually assume that medieval texts ... discuss the same problems which engage contemporary philosophers, although in different (often

less

adequate)

terms.

The

historical

analyst

is

forbidden

It was by ‘sleep-walking’, not by good judgement, that I began my investigation of emblem theory with a lexicographical study.’ The occurrences of the word ‘emblem’ in the work of the humanist editors of classical texts and in the dictionaries of the period, showed that the term reached them, and Alciato in particular, on a double stream of legal and literary tradition. Alongside the well-known references in legal texts to emblems as detachable ornaments and the contents of vases, the editors of Cicero and Quintilian in particular discovered figurative meanings—

such

assumptions. He may begin his investigations by noticing that a certain set of problems in medieval writings concerns a similar area to a set of problems tackled by modern philosophers. But only by examining the texts they read and the aims they pursued does the historical analyst discover what exactly were the questions which medieval thinkers posed themselves. Only then is he able to decide whether the questions are in any sense the same as those which philosophers ask today. (My italics)

‘common

This covers in general terms the objections to the methods of definition and the classifications of the various approaches mentioned before. In prohibiting assumptions about the identity of the

of ‘comprehensive

of rhetoric,

‘inserts’ in compositions—

book and the stilo a mosaico. Erasmus and Budé use the word in these

senses, which are central to the humanist notion of imitation. It is certain

that Alciato was familiar with all these uses, not only from Budé, but from Catelliano Cotta’s Memoralia of 1511, to which he contributed a

prefatory poem. The theme of that poem is precisely the one to which he

returns in the dedication of his De verborum significatione, and one of his central concerns as a humanist lawyer, that is, the proper resources

2. Historical analysis is ill-suited as an approach to writing the comprehensive Histories ... which have been favoured by ... modern analysts. The author of such a History has to decide what material constitutes medieval philosophy, and, in doing so, he must choose between being unhistorical and allowing his choice to be decided by his own view of what philosophy is, or else presenting a medley of logical, scientific and theological discussions which would not, for the modern reader, provide a history of philosophy. The historical analyst avoids this problem if he restricts himself to a single topic (or a set of individual topics). The only claim he need make to justify his choice is that the topic once interested medieval thinkers and that questions in the same general area still interest modern philosophers.

albeit provisional,

places’, the ‘colours’

which chimed in with the humanist preference for the common-place

philosophical problems discussed, historical analysis guides us to contemporary statements about ideas and intentions, to contemporary terms and definitions, and in particular excludes, in a first stage of enquiry at least, the anachronistic use of seventeenth-century theory.

This renunciation,

45

and usages of legal language, and the reconciliation of what Valla had attacked as the ‘barbaric’ usages of the lawyers with the demands of humanist grammar. A particular aspect of this question is the role of various sorts of imagery in legal language, which Alciato discusses in book IV of this treatise, with special reference to metaphor and

proverbs. He does not use the word ‘emblem’ here, though by this time (the early 1520’s) he had already started to use it as the title of a

collection of epigrams, and Amerbach use it of poems

in their correspondence both he and by Albuzio, as if it were already a

recognizable genre. The Emblemata are introduced in the famous letter to Calvo as artistic programmes for devices or imprese (insignia). But when he uses the word in the Commentary which accompanies the treatise, it is to compare his emblems with hieroglyphs as ‘things which

Histories’

and the confinement of the enquiry to a single topic chimes in with my

own feeling that the first responsibility of the researcher is not the synthesis which makes its own judgements and provides second-hand information—leaving students to go over the same ground again to

have meaning’, as opposed to words—that is as visible objects which

constitute images. The undoubted fact that the Emblemata were at first a

collection of epigrams and that the word was used in the title as a proper

reach their own conclusion—but the editing and reporting which make it ? John Marenbon, Later Medieval Philosophy (1150-1350). An Introduction (London: Routledge,

? See ‘Occurrences of the Word emblema in Printed Works before Alciato’, Emblematica,

1987), pp. 89-90.

(2004), 299-325,

Ss

a

14

IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

FOR SYMBOLISM

47

noun (like Emaux et Camées) is something of a red herring, for the essential fact is that the word in all its uses implies a representation. Alciato was concerned with the figures of devices, with the use of imagery in legal language, with the nature and use of images in language generally. There is even reason to suppose that he approved of Barthélemy Aneau’s rearrangement of the work to turn it into a common-place book of images for artists and writers. It may be true that he never wished to supply the pictures himself—and Hunger’s preface suggests that this was still the case in 1539*—but his epigrams imply images, and in the printing world of the time the pictures were an inevitable development. Alciato’s remark equating his emblems to hieroglyphs as signs demands an investigation to see how these were understood. The allusions of Ficino and Alberti have been well-known for a long time,

It follows from his argument in the commentary part of the De verborum significatione that the ‘meaningful thing’ does not have to have a meaning added to it, as the word does; it has an inherent meaning. When he says in the letter to Calvo therefore that in his emblems he describes an object or an event which may have an ‘elegant’ meaning, he may be thinking of the object or event not so much as having a figurative meaning added arbitrarily to it, but rather as allowing the figurative meaning to be read in it because of its inherent, natural properties. This meaning moreover is not entirely fixed by tradition or convention, for metaphor is the chief means by which language evolves new terms for meanings not already found (Cicero, De Oratore, II, 155). We have, of course, no evidence that Alciato thought out the semantics of his emblems to this extent, but the idea is clearly consistent with the concept of the hieroglyph to be found in Diodorus

Indeed evidence for followers of Ficino’s concept, based on Plotinus and lamblichus, has been noticeably lacking. The discussions reflected in the writings of the Bolognese academics, Baptista Pio and Filippo Beroaldo, based on texts of Diodorus, Apuleius, and Ammianus Marcellinus, clearly suppose a concept of the hieroglyph in which the meaning is rooted in a natural quality of the object portrayed, and which functions like a simple metaphor in the manner known to all from Aristotle (Rhetoric, 111,9-10). As Alberti observed, such signs might be considered universal because to understand them, the reader needs no other knowledge than what natural history and technology teach.° Erasmus’s commentary on the adage

essential, and therefore immutable, neo-platonic sign described by Plotinus and Ficino. All the indications are that, for Alciato, hieroglyphs, being ‘things’ or

but it was not clear how these were related to Erasmus and Alciato.

‘Festina lente’ is founded on the same concept; the insistence on the need to know the proprietates of things and the peculiaris vis ac natura

of each animal sounds very like Diodorus. He does not go straight to a figurative meaning on the authority of an esoteric tradition; the starting point of the hieroglyph is a natural quality of the object, and the knowledge necessary is natural science and technology. For Erasmus, as

for the Bolognese, these are not divine symbols expressing esoteric knowledge, but humanly created images expressing ideas accessible to anyone who is willing to learn. This ‘Aristotelian’ view of the hieroglyph seems to be by far the more common view in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century. It is also the view of Alciato.

* See

‘Defense

and

Illustration

of

the

German

Language:

Wolfgang

Hunger’s

Preface

images of things, could be thought of, in the context of language theory,

as signs analogous to words which are ‘natural by their etymology’, that

is to words endowed in their original form with a certain similarity to the thing that they named. His emblems therefore are similar, and use the properties of the things they portray to convey meanings, which may

be already accepted, but may also be new ingenious creations of the author. As a disciple of Ficino, Pietro Crinito is likely to have taken the neoplatonist view; unfortunately the work he claims to have written on hieroglyphs is lost. Jean Angelis, responsible for the bilingual 1521

edition, argues for a jealously esoteric approach, and Filippo Fasanini gathers together all the opinions he can find without making

distinctions.’ Apart from these we have no writers of the early sixteenth

century who may be thought to support a neo-platonist view of the

hieroglyphs. There was however one contemporary who may be classified with some confidence as a neo-platonist in the matter of symbols, although

his work did not appear until later. This is of course Achille Bocchi, who taught at Bologna with Pio and Fasanini in the second and third decades of the century. Sambigucius’ commentary on his symbol of the Hermathena is avowedly neo-platonist in its method, and he twice calls

to

Alciato’s Emblems (text and translation)’.

7 See ‘Filippo Fasanini and his “Explanation of Sacred Writing” (text and translation’.

® See ‘The Hieroglyphs at Bologna’, ° Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria [1450], VII, 4. First published L. Alamani, 1485. In the edition by Geoffry Tory (Paris, 1512), fol. 123°°.

and transmitted by the Bolognese and Erasmus, rather than with the

in Florence:

libri quinque. See ‘Budé and ® Symbolicarum quaestionum de universo genere quas serio ludebat

Bocchi on Symbols’.

RNIINEZ

AUTHORITIES

ON

46

48

Bocchi platonicus.? In addition to this, although some of Bocchi’s symbola are intended to be family insignia, they are never imprese in the sense of purely individual or occasional devices, still less military or amorous, but always have, in addition to the name, a religious or moral precept as title for the epigram. Bocchi’s subject matter in fact is almost exclusively religious and, more importantly, expressed in symbols derived from Horapollo, Valeriano, and a wide variety of mystical and patristic sources. What is noticeably absent from these symbols is the

use of natural and artificial objects (animals, plants, instruments, and tools) so common in other emblems and imprese as pictures of properties and actions to be understood metaphorically. Bocchi’s symbols depend, not on recognisable qualities of objects or figures portrayed, but on the mythical meanings associated with them in the sources, often arcane, from which they are derived.

In Sambigucius’ Platonic scheme an exemplar of everything exists in

the divine intellect before it exists materially. Our intellect, alone in our

nature entirely separate from the material, is alone capable of receiving

immaterial forms and species, such as the idea of divine love. But the

intellect has to be stimulated by a phantasma, which is an image of an external object received by the sensible soul via the physical senses, the sensus

communis,

which

coordinates

the

individual

senses,

and

the

phantasia, which identifies the received images. This is the process of intellectio or acquisition of knowledge. From here the image is passed to the possible intellect, which seeks its perfection through amor (the highest type of love). This perfection is said to be that it perceives the forms of universal things intuitively without need of physical perceptions. It is here therefore that the correspondence between the idea inspired by the external image and the universal idea can be perceived potentially. Finally, by means of the rational thinking of the active intellect, the potential understanding is transformed into usus, the

active apprehension of the Idea of beauty, the desire for the good, divine love. In this process, sight and sound have distinct roles, for spiritual beauty is to be considered in two aspects: one as it exists in the universal divine intellect, the second as it exists in the world soul (anima mundi). Corporeal beauty must be correspondingly dual: one aspect, perceived through the sight, is an image (simulacrum) of the intellectual and

music

His

In addition to the philosophers’

disappointing.

through

the

beauty

which

hearing,

and

is ‘infused

this

in the

is

an

world

image

soul’,

a

° Gavini Sambigucii Sardi Sassarensis in Hermathenam Bocchiam interpretatio... See *Gavino Sambigucio and his Interpretation of Achille Bocchi’s “Hermathena”.

are

also

rather

ideas, he says, it is

necessary to know what the poets say and how they concealed all these

ideas about love in the guise of fables and invented figures of gods as

allegories of these types of love. The general ancient notion of allegory or was that it was divided into three types, literal, moral, and allegorical allegory. theological mystical—the latter including both natural and which However, it is apparent that by contrast with the natural qualities

the allow us to discover meanings in the ‘Aristotelian’ view of by ascribed those are figures us’ hieroglyph, the meanings of Sambiguci poetic, esoteric tradition. We have then direct

the

for

evidence

statement that

some

of a representatives of the sixteenth century thought of symbols in terms

neo-platonic

cosmology

a neo-platonic

and

theory

of cognition—in

or ideas is which an intuitive perception of the intellectual forms and natural arbitrary stimulated by contemplation of the essentially of thought others that evidence theological allegories of mythology. The a as is, at manner—th n Aristotelia symbols in what might be called the property supposed or real a on based rational perception of a metaphor not by any of the object used—is only slightly less direct. The two are Aristotle’s to references us’ Sambiguci as means mutually exclusive, Nichomachean

Ethics

nor

show,

is

the

distinction

always

made

writer into one explicitly. It would obviously not be proper to force each

retain the Aristotelean or other category; Sambucus, for example, would

mechanism of the analogy, neo-platonist concept of the it seems reasonable to say sixteenth century refers, and

The potential for which is implicit in his practice, privilege rather

but clearly believes in something like the mystical power of the image. Nevertheless that these are the authorities to which the the frames within which it works.

creating new in Alciato’s seems in the of the newly

images, based on real natural properties, remarks on the emblem and which exists view of the Italian theorists to be the invented impresa. For most of these

represents

an ancient tradition to which

Moreover, with the except suggests that the words of the emblem

of that

symbols

of

nature

the

about

statements

(simulacrum)

perceived

It is

disappointing that Sambigucius does not apply this distinction to the image and the words of the emblem.

writers the emblem

is

concordance.

and

harmony,

order,

of

consists

which

consists of light, and is apprehended only by the light of the mind; the other

49

IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

AUTHORITIES FOR SYMBOLISM

Alciato

traditional allegory. brought a new development, but making use of only these writers among one no cci, Cabura of ion

have the same relation to the

theorists (1555-1612). 10 See ‘The Emblem according to the Italian impresa

50

AUTHORITIES FOR SYMBOLISM

IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

image as those of the impresa. When they are present in the emblem, they serve only to ‘explain’, ‘interpret’, ‘repeat’ the image. The impresistas’ view of the emblem tends in fact to ignore what Alciato seems to have intended. As the letter to Calvo says, his verse describes and explains his chosen image. But this does not mean that he is limited to traditional meanings; on the contrary he clearly envisages deriving new meanings for his own or others’ purposes. Some of his emblems indeed function exactly in the manner later prescribed for the impresa, and it is worth remembering that he talks of his epigrams as programmes for devices or imprese (insignia). But this is not how most of the theorists see the emblem. For them there is apparently no context contributed by the words which would enable the emblem to mean something other than the virtue or vice which its elements traditionally and arbitrarily signify.

period with it may be explained in part by an awareness of this freedom and the feeling that it really did offer a new possibility of expression. | Given the same power to ‘express’ as imprese, as they are in Caburacci, or made interchangeable with them (through replacement of the motto by the emblematic title or verse), as in Capaccio, emblems

all these symbols the impresa remains in contemporary writings a sign which signifies by referring to something else, a ‘sign of a concept’; that is, it is described in terms of what Richard Waswo distinguishes as traditional referential semantics. But once established by Ruscelli as created by the union of an image and a motto, it clearly begins to be felt

replacement, for all forms of discourse, with the logic of the topics or places—an operation carried out primarily by Rudolphe Agricola. Inventio became for both dialectics and rhetoric a matter of the common-places.'' It seems reasonable to suggest that, when Barthélemy Aneau rearranged Alciato’s emblems according to fopoi in 1548, in

stage, but the insistence on the complementary nature of the image and the motto, on the idea that the motto determines in some way how the image is to be understood, that the impresa expresses a personal

not enjoy a monopoly;

In this respect it is the case of the impresa which is interesting. Like

as something semantically different. No one puts this into words at this

proposition

or state of mind,

and

requires

the

freedom

to create

meanings for individual perceptions and situations (which have not existed before as universal moral teachings have done), suggests that

this particular type of sign is a step in practice, though not yet in theory,

towards the idea of meaning created by context. Unlike the emblem, which all agree expresses universal moral teachings and for most

‘signifies’

by traditional

and

fixed allegory,

the impresa

enjoys

a

considerable freedom because the image can be associated with any words, any context the creator may choose, and can ‘express’ his personal, original concept or feeling. Consciously the impresistas think of the concept as an objective reality to which the sign refers; the impresa selects this concept by making two instruments, the image and

the word,

converge

upon

it. But

unconsciously

the two

Bargagli,

Caburacci, and especially Ercole Tasso are on the brink of a perception that the meaning is actually created by the conjoining of the two—that the third element is not a pre-existing reality, but something new, a product of the author’s use of image and words. The impresa in fact seems to suppose a relational semantics, and the fascination of the

51

could have merged with imprese in this evolution of the Aristotelian

metaphor towards the modern symbol. But this does not in fact seem to have occurred. It remained tied to the traditional allegory, probably

because it was generally used, not for private expression, but for public

purposes, pedagogical, didactic, It was this public demand emblem in another path, also seemingly fore-ordained by the

and festive. for imagery perhaps which kept the foreshadowed in Alciato’s thought, and nature of humanist thinking; I mean the

tradition of the common-place book. A fundamental tendency of humanism was the rejection of the formal logic of the categories and its

order to make of them a promptuarium instructissimum, ung cabinet tresbien garny, he was carrying out an essentially Agricolan, or even by this time a Ramist manoeuvre. The sequence established by Aneau did two distinct traditions of editing are apparent.

Alongside the new arrangement, the original, arbitrary sequence continued to be used in the editions published by Jean de Tournes, in those containing Stockhamer’s commentariola, and in the French version by Jean Le Févre. One may suppose that the work was used in

two different ways; in one the arbitrary order would draw the reader on from one emblem to the next to see the whole and its internal relations—the book would be read as a whole, for pleasure. In the other,

the systematic arrangement would enable the user to consult the work to find an emblem suitable to an already chosen purpose. In this case it

would be a common-place book, a resource manual, and as such would be preferred by teachers, and particularly by those of a Ramist peed

such as Mignault, Abraham Fraunce, and Sanchez de la Brozas, 7 required students of artificial memory to familiarise themselves with : e hieroglyphs and to ‘extract emblems from all sorts of authors’. Mass. and See Walter J. Ong, S.J., Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (Cambridge, ' London: Harvard University Press, 1958), ch. V, sec. 5-7.

12 Sänchez de la Brozas. Artificiosae memoriae ars in Opera omnia, ed. G. Mayans jae

bata 1766), 1, 372-373: ‘Hac in parte memoriae [*De Imaginibus’} studiosum, velim exercitatum: evolva: vocantur, ca Hieroglyphi quae litteris, Aegyptiorum in beneficio, naturalis

Tournes,

52

AUTHORITIES FOR SYMBOLISM

IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

Alciato’s own references to his epigrams as material from which artists

protect its votaries philosophy is...'°

could construct insignia, and to lost notes that he made for the emblems

in the Opera of 1547 seem to envisage them in this way, and there is other evidence that he may have approved of Aneau’s work. In a letter

to the reader, dated from Lyon on 4 July 1559 and first printed in the Opera of 1560 (Lyon: P. Fradin), Pardulphus Prateius (Pardoux du Prat) claims that Alciato wrote to Aneau expressing approval of his rearrangement. It is no surprise therefore to find Alciato’s emblems

(except the trees) included in 1604 in one of the most popular commonplace books of the time, the Polvanthea, first published in 1503 and greatly expanded in subsequent editions.

At the beginning of the seventeenth century (leaving aside for the present hermeticists, alchemists and other non-conformists), the Jesuits integrate pagan letters into Christian instruction in a post-tridentine orthodoxy which admits the gods as elements of rhetoric and ornaments of formal discourse. Emblems and hieroglyphs are the medium of the compromise. Caussin’s preface to his edition of Horapollo, as well as his Eloquentiae sacrae set out this position. By now, hieroglyphs and emblems, whatever their origins, are quite clearly no more than a profane imagery.

The question which suggests itself repeatedly in the perusal of sixteenth-

century writings on emblems and imprese is, as Jean Seznec says: “not how but why did the legends and figures of the gods continue to

obsess men’s minds and imaginations since the end of the pagan era’.'*

The pettiness of the obsession in some cases seems to have struck Budé, who puts his own attention to detail in the context of a broad and pertinent purpose:

..to show that the wealth of the Egyptians ... was much greater than is commonly supposed. To show too that, great as it was, it came to no more than the savings of a charcoal-burner, and that all those who in our day put all their efforts into the pursuit of these gifts of fortune are striving tooth and nail for the donkey’s shadow, as the saying goes. And since philosophy can

from

this

mistake

53

... I tried

to explain

what

true

This surely suggests part of the answer: the superficial meanings are trivial, but metaphysical (religious) truth is discovered and conveyed by the use of myth. Above all among the reasons adduced by Seznec, in a pre-scientific age myth occupies the place in contemporary thought which scientific method now claims to hold: it is the language by which one makes

sense of the world,

and which,

in some

minds

(Ficino, the

alchemists) provides the means to manipulate it. For those who lived before empirical science came to dominate western thinking, it was the

best, if not the only means to metaphysical speculation and to the achievement of the sublime, and was therefore to be cultivated and constantly questioned and perfected. ‘Imagery clothes a philosophy’, says Seznec, ‘the Renaissance was aware that mythology was a theology’, and ‘Edgar Wind demonstrates that the Neo-Platonists of the Quattrocento ... had borrowed from them [sc. the classical NeoPlatonists] a particular notion of the mysteries and of the initiation rituals; as a result, they had worked out a theory of cryptic expression ... in the belief that beauty is achieved only by adumbration. ... their works

… become intelligible only when their doctrinal intentions are detected.’ But myth is not an equivalent of empirical thinking. It is a different

method and produces different results. Objects seen as symbols are seen for their meaning in a religious or metaphysical framework; objects seen in a scientific study are observed as assemblages of properties in an

approach which rejects metaphysical assumptions. To adapt a remark of

Ray Bradbury: ‘At base, science is no more than an investigation of a miracle we can never explain, and art [myth] is an interpretation of that

miracle.” Moreover the development from referential to relational semantics that we have glimpsed, seems to parallel this development

from myth to empirical thinking. In the first case an object stands for, refers to something else in a predetermined system of relations; the levels of allegory are correspondences; language is a system of ‘natural’ signs assuming a referential semantics. In the second, the properties and the objects constitute in themselves such meaning as may be admitted, 15 Ina letter of 1516 to Erasmus concerning his De Asse. It is in the same paragraph that Budé, defending apparent digressions such as the passage under discussion, calls them “emblems”: ‘But one

thing I do beg, that you do not count against me that I have made longish digressions in one or two places, and have inserted like pieces of inlay (velut emblemata),

in certain places where there were

Emblemata variorum authorum: ut varias res variis significationibus depinget. Serpens caudam mordens pro anno ponitur: caput leonis pro vigilia: musca pro impudentia, laurus pro victoria, etc.’

gaps, topics that would not have found such a suitable home in writings specially devoted to them...”

' Nicolas Caussin, De symbolica Aegyptiorum sapientia... (Paris: R. de Beauvais, 1618) and Eloquentiae sacrae et humanae parallela (Paris, 1619), ‘De inventione et locis’, ch. vi, pp. 132-133. 14 «Myth in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance’, in Dictionary of the History of Ideas (New

Collected

Works

of Erasmus.

1557; reprint Farnborough: Gregg,

Correspondence

(Toronto,

1977),

IV,

1969), I, 372, as translated in 146.

For

a more

probable

translation of the final phrase (‘writings dedicated to a private person’), see Marie-Madeleine de la Garanderie, La Correspondance d'Erasme et de Guillaume Budé. De Pétrarque à Descartes 13 (Paris: Vrin, 1967), p. 89.

PIDGIN

York: Scribner, 1973-74).

Opera omnia (Basle: N. Episcopus,

54

AUTHORITIES FOR SYMBOLISM

and language is a system of arbitrary signs calling for a relational semantics. The history of symbolism reveals that the movement from the prescientific mythical explanation of the world to the scientific view corresponds to that shifting of balance in epistemology, which we observe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, from the primacy of ‘authority’ and ‘reason’ to the primacy of ‘experience’. Within this context there is a corresponding shift from an intuitive (platonising) notion of language and symbol to a rationalist (Arisotelian) or nominalist view, via a distinction of essential and rational imagery.

The Hieroglyphs at Bologna’

The Renaissance has left us many collective philological publications whose contents, incompletely listed in catalogues, come to light often only by chance. In two such notebooks (see the Appendix), I have come across documents which belong to the history of the hieroglyphs. It is nearly one hundred years since Karl Giehlow reconstructed this story,' and I am not suggesting any major modifications of his conclusions. But any additional piece of information changes our view of everything else,

and the few details which I have to add may alter slightly our reading of the important passages in Erasmus and Alciato, and incidentally in Rabelais too. Giehlow seems to be a little uncomfortable with the question of the role of Diodorus Siculus in the formation of Renaissance ideas on the hieroglyphs, and in particular of Leon-Battista Alberti’s ideas (pp. 3132). He deduces from references to obelisks and pyramids that Alberti knew Poggio’s translation of Diodorus well before it was published in 1472. But the examples of hieroglyphs that Alberti quotes are taken only from Macrobius and Ammianus Marcellinus, a fact which Giehlow

explains by supposing that Alberti had no need to extend his selection of

examples with more of the same sort. Alberti’s failure to refer to Diodorus however is surprising to say the least, for this writer does more

than offer additional examples. He provides the most explicit account of

that particular way of reading the hieroglyphs that Alberti seems to have adopted. This is the way which consists of seeing them as metaphorical figures, universally recognisable to the learned through the properties of the objects portrayed, unlike letters whose phonetic significance is

arbitrary and may easily be lost or forgotten, and quite unlike that esoteric concept of the hieroglyphs which Ficino represents. It seems * This appeared first in

Emblematica, 2.2 (1987), 225-247, Copyright © [1987] AMS

Press, Inc.

All rights reserved.

' “Die Hieroglyphenkunde des Humanismus in der Allegorie der Renaissance,,.’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerh,

Kaiserhauses, Band XXXII,

Heft

1 (Vienna and Leipzig,

1915), For Diodorus see the edition in the Loeb Classical Library, ed, and trans. C. H, Oldfather.

vols (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1933-67)

12

Lei: THE

HIEROGLY PHS

AT BOLOGNA

possible at any rate that Alberti did not know of this passage in Diodorus. The explanation may lie in the fact that the account of the pyramids is part of the history of the Egyptians in Book I, whereas the hieroglyph passage occurs in the history of the Ethiopians in a section of Poggio’s Book IV (Book III in modern editions). In Florence Ficino reads Horapollo in the light of Plotinus and lamblichus. He finds that the Egyptian priests imitated divine thought by means of signs which do not represent, like verbal language, a discursive, linear account of the meaning, but provide a total, unmediated access to its reality, which is the platonic idea itself and is beyond words. To this sort of sign Ficino and Pico also relate magical hermetic and mystical cabalistic signs. In Bologna, on the other hand, the hieroglyphs are read with the help of Diodorus Siculus and Lucius Apuleius. Giehlow introduces Filippo Beroaldo the Elder as ‘the most eminent of a group of young humanists who, with a good knowledge of Greek, but unacquainted with Horapollo, prepared the ground for an independant treatment of the hieroglyphs’ (p. 27). The two texts I am concerned with show that Horapollo was certainly studied by Beroaldo, though perhaps not before he published his commentary on Apuleius in 1500,’ and that he was probably also known to a colleague, whom Giehlow does not mention, Giovanni Battista Pio. More importantly, we find that in 1496 the latter published a short article on the hieroglyphs which quotes in full the passage from Diodorus. He gives this passage as the source for his interpretation of one Egyptian symbol in Apuleius, and makes it the starting point for a discussion of another. The passages in Beroaldo’s commentary on Apuleius, which Giehlow

Un

56

studied, are a later part of this discussion. Pio seems to be the channel whereby the conception of the hieroglyphs which Alberti had begun to form is completed by the effective introduction of Diodorus into the discussion. The role of Horapollo at Bologna can be dealt with very briefly. Pio, who boasts of having deciphered two allusions to the ‘eye of justice’ in Apuleius by means of Diodorus,” had probably seen a manuscript, for he recalls having seen something similar in ‘a Greek work where the hieroglyphs are described’. It is true that there is no hieroglyph of an eye in the text published in 1505, but it is quite possible that the passage Pio remembers is Horapollo’s description of the head of the lion, where he talks of vigilance, guarding, and the lion’s eyes.” Beroaldo, for his part, made a selection of articles from Horapollo and seems to have begun to regroup them. However, this selection was published posthumously and was probably made after 1500, for at that date he accepts without comment the meaning of ‘year’ for the serpent eating its tail, whereas in Horapollo he would have found ‘world’.’ Knowledge of

* Loeb 4ss, W.

Classical

2.22.

Loeb

Heinemann,

Loeb, p.

110:

Library.

Trans.

Classical 1919),

p.

W.

Library

82:

Adlington.

Diodorus

(Cambridge,

Mass.:

‘ut ipsos etiam

oculos

‘solis et iustitiae testatus oculum”.

(note

1 above).

Harvard

solis et lustitiae

Diodorus,

The

Golden

Press;

London:

facile frustrarentur’;

3.4.3, trans.

dpOarpdc Sixne THPHTIs Kai mavtd¢ Tod Gdpatog PHAGE (‘the eye

Apuletus,

University C. H.

Oldfather

is the preserver

and

(p.

96):

3.7, 6 è

of justice and the

guardian of the whole body’) other

> Nor in the fragment of Chaeremon which survived in the scholiast of Tzetzes on Homer. The Greek work which Pio may be remembering is, of course, Plutarch’s /sis and Osiris, but it

seems

unlikely

that

he

would

refer

to

this

vaguely

as

‘graecanico

opusculo

ubi

ieroglyphici

describuntur apices’ There were several partial or complete first edition.

Most remained

P. O. Kristeller, /ter Sandra

Sider,

America

manuscript,

italicum (London:

‘Horapollo’,

in

1984), VI,

15-29.

Press,

saggio introduttiva,

edizione

Latin translations of Horapollo before publication of the

but Beroaldo’s Warburg

Catalogus

‘Epitome’

Institute,

1983),

translationum

According

critica ... e

to

was published I, 140,

(Washington

164;

commento (Naples:

II,

DC:

Francesco Sbordone—Hori Loffredo,

posthumously.

See

119, 323, 341, and

Catholic

University

of

Apollinis Hieroglyphica

1940), p. Ix—the

1505 edition

was based on ms. Marc.gr.391 Pio’s article, which appeared again in 1502 and Apuleius,

and

Fantuzzi,

Notizie

1781-94),

VIL

88;

Elisabeth

Cambridge

Fink,

Valerio

Gareffi,

La

in del

Rinascimento,

of

Contemporaries

Watson,

Existenz:

W.

‘Epitome’

Horapollo

are

reproduced

degli scrittori bolognesi, 9 vols (Bologna:

University

Cinquecento’, 15;

latter's

31-40;

See

humanistiche (Munich:

the

1508, extracts from

Press, Filippo

1971); FM: Nero,

Achille

of

Erasmus

Bocchi

2004),

and

esp.

Beroaldo

Andrea Gareffi,

ch. und

sulla

2e ser.,

XXI

(1981),

Letteratura

delle

immagini

vita

Emblem

Book

1;

Konrad

Krauter,

Kommentar

“Egizerie umanistiche: di

247-263. nel

University

the

Annali dell'Istituto di Filologia ‘Note

in the

Moderna

Giovan Pio’s

Battista

text

cinquecento

Appendix.

Stamperia di San

(Toronto:

sein

Beroaldo’s commentary

was

(Rome:

as

of

Form

2003),

Methode

goldenes

des

(con

3

(Cambridge

Esel

und

Apuleius

geroglifica tra Quatro e

dell ‘Universita di Roma alcune

also published Bulzoni,

d’Aquina,

Press,

Philologische

la mantica io

Giovanni

Tommasso

Toronto

Symbolic

zum

See

on

1980),

in G. pp.

(1977),

lettere Savarese 74-77

14-

inedite)’, and

A

Aldus, (Paris:

J.

1505, p.

Kerver,

sedulumque

126; the nineteenth 1551),

hominem,

pp,

35-36:

hieroglyph ‘Quo

aut etiam custodem

oculos claudit, eosdem

cum

of the first book.

modo

vigilantem

dormit apertos habet, quod quidem

supplement of the editions by

Jean Martin (Paris:

Plutarch, op.

(Loeb,

(Loeb,

pp.

(1577),

p.

and

123-124),

in Cyril

they

of

Alexandria,

Renaissance this symbol

book

IX

J. Kerver,

power

Saturnalia, ¢

of Osiris/the

1.21.12, they

(Patrologia

custodiae atque excubiarum

signum

1543), fol.

n vii” and Mercier, p. 222.

sun;

in lamblichus,

of Osiris; cf.

Mignault of Osiris,

LXXVI,

p.

960)

God;

In

in 3711

are the fore-knowledge and power

graeca,

is found in Alberti, loc. cit.;

autem

Leo vigilans

claustris, leones qui custodum loco sint, of the omniscience of God, appears in the

p. 27), the eye and the sceptre are a symbol

are the royal

In Macrobius,

3

Vigilantem

ostendentes, Leonis caput pingunt, quoniam

est. Unde et non absque significatione sacrorum appinxerunt.’ The hieroglyph of the eye as symbol cit., 354F-355A

In Jean Mercier’s translation

commonstrent,

the divine

Erasmus, Jnstitutio principis

nature.

christiani,

In

the

LB, IV

582 and Adagia, | iii 1, IL 1 1 and III vii 1; J-L. Vives, Satellitia, cxxiii, no 34, Opera (Valencia: B Monfort, 1782), IV, 37; Celio Calcagnini, letter (1509-17?) to Tommasso Calcagnini, Opera (Basel Froben,

1544),

p.

18 (reproduced

by

Giehlow

Horapollo’s Hieroglyphica by Martin, fol. The origin of the meaning says:

xa0 ' 6 Kai 6 èv 1@

translates

as:

‘sic

et

annus

in his second

n v”, and

‘year’ is obscure.

Kdon@ vertens,

appendix),

and

mundi

of

Erasmus notes the disparity, but Horapollo himself

Éviadotoc yp ovog EvahAayTv roto duEvos, qui

in the supplements

Mercier, p. 218

cireumactu

producitur,

ve dCer—which

immutatione

facta

Mercier

renovatur,

ac

58

THE

HIEROGLY PHS

AT BOLOGNA

Horapollo, however, does not seem to be critical for the idea which is formed of the way the hieroglyphs functioned, since he could be read as supporting either position. Indeed, one has the impression that, while his authenticity was unquestioned, he provided more problems than guidance for the humanists in understanding the hieroglyphs. Ernst Gombrich remarks that the famous brief passage in Ficino was ‘one of the foundation charters of the Renaissance art of emblematics’.° However, I suspect that Ficino’s conception was not the commonest even for the early period, and it seems certain that it was not shared by Alciato. In any case we can say that the discussion at Bologna goes back to at least 1494, for Pio, visibly anxious to establish priority for his reading of Apuleius, reminds his readers that he had proposed his interpretation of the ‘eye of justice’ in his inaugural lecture at the university of Bologna,’ and that he had found his solution by referring to Diodorus. The passage from Diodorus, quoted in full by Pio from the translation by Poggio, provides a clear indication of the nature of the ideas that are being formed at Bologna. More particularly, it is enlightening to examine the possible meanings, and the meaning actually accepted, for a word which in classical and humanist rhetoric denotes an important figure. This is @acig (emphasis), which Poggio, following Quintilian’s explanation (‘plus quam dixeris significationem’—9,

2.3), renders as significatio.

According

to Quintilian, the

figure significatio evokes the meaning that one wishes to convey implicitly, or the hidden meaning. In Erasmus the meaning is extended somewhat to the ‘expressive force’ or ‘value’ of a term.” Diodorus’s sentence is translated thus by Oldfather:

Now it is found that the forms of their letters take the shape of animals of every kind, and of members of the human body, and of implements and especially of carpenters’ tools; for their writing does not express the intended concept by means of syllables joined to one another, but by means of the significance of the objects which have been copied and by its figurative meaning which has been impressed on the memory by practice."

The last clause corresponds to dad’ &E EULMaoEMoTt OV HETAYPAPOLEVOV Ka ì pEeTApopGs uvun ovvnbAnuévnc. Poggio, followed by Pio, translates as follows: Sunt aegyptiorum litterae variis animantibus extremitatibusque hominum atque instrumentis sed praecipue artificum persimiles non enim syllabarum compositione aut litteris verba eorum exprimuntur sed _imaginum formatarum significatione “ usu memoriae hominum tradita. (sI‘°)"?

The following suggestion is offered with some hesitation by one who is not a Greek scholar. The English translation seems a liitle unsatisfactory, since ‘significance’ and ‘figurative meaning’ cannot be clearly distinguished. Moreover, in this first occurrence, è éupacewg (‘significance’) is opposed to è1 ot @VovAAGB av ovvO Hoews (‘syllables joined to one another’). If the two elements Diodorus wished to oppose were of the same category, as we might expect, then he would be speaking not of the meanings but of some means of expression. That is, he would oppose to ‘syllables’, a material component of words, some material component of this other means of expression that consists of objects. It would be more logical therefore to read the word as having here, not the secondary meaning of ‘significance’, but the primary meaning of ‘outward appearance’. The phrase could then be translated as: ‘by means of the appearance, i.e. images, of the things copied’. The second term ‘and by the figurative meaning’ (Kai uetapopäçs) would then add a distinct step in the argument.’* It was perhaps because he failed to make this distinction and understood ‘emphasis’ only in the secondary sense that Poggio telescoped the phrase and omitted xa i LETAMOPGc.

This slightly emended reading, I shall suggest, is of some interest for Erasmus. For Pio and Beroaldo, it makes little difference; significatio is understood

reiuvenescit’

which may °

Symbolic

‘Ego

(p. 4).

be due to Images

For

a winged

serpent

eating

its tail signifies

‘time’,

(London:

Phaidon,

publicitus a Bononiensium

1970),

senatu

p.

158

inter professores humanitatis ascitus...’ (‘When

1 was

the

image

serves

as

by the senate of the Bolognese...’), See Umberto Dallari, / Rotuli dei studio bolognese dal 1384 al 1799 (Bologna: fratelli Merlani, 1888-

The first edition of Poggio’s significatione’—which Pio corrects. ‘The especially but by

8.3.83-6

and

9.2.64,

For

a detailed

discussion

of

‘emphasis’

usage, see Jacques Chomarat, Grammaire et rhétorique chez Erasme (Paris, Diodorus (note

meaning’.

The

rest

of the

passage

gives

a mnemonic,

and

transferred

to any

other

a meaning

I, p. 212.

© Quintilian,

‘metaphorical

Eusebius (Praeparationes evangelicae, I, 10).

admitted to the professorship letteri, legisti, e artisti dello 1914), vol.

Ficino,

as

examples which make it quite clear that this is in fact Diodorus’s idea of the hieroglyphs. The starting point for the creation of the symbol is a natural property of the object—in the case of the falcon, for example, the speed of its flight. This quality is then taken in a figurative sense, for which

velut

59

1 above),

1. 97

and

of

Erasmus’s

1981), pp. 806-815.

(my

letters

of the

Egyptians

translation

has

an

look

like

various

very

error

here—‘imaginum animals

and

forma

human

earum

limbs

and

[sic] tools,

those of craftsmen, for their words are not expressed by combinations of syllables or letters

the meaning

of carefully

shaped

‘inherent

meaning’

pictures which

is transmitted

through

the memory

of men’

the word

in this same

passage,

translation) #

The

translation

becomes equally

questionable in this light:

at the

second

occurrence

of

taic ... évoboaic Éupéosot

‘SSE 60

THE

HIEROGLYPHS

AT

object which is characterised by speed.” The hieroglyph in this case is a representation, a sign which is not the idea itself, but an intermediary between the idea and the reader, not unlike the word, but with this difference from the arbitrary verbal sign, that it is rooted in a natural quality of the object portrayed, and functions like a simple metaphor in the manner known to all from Aristotle. This rational link to the natural quality also distinguishes it, of course, from the Ficinian, esoteric, and fundamentally ‘open’ symbol in that it limits its possible meanings. As Alberti observed, such signs might be considered universal because to understand them, the reader needs no other knowledge than what natural history and technology will teach him. Diodorus’s conception of the hieroglyph is shared by Apuleius. He explains the use of the left hand as a symbol of ‘equity’ by referring to its alleged natural ‘sluggishness’: The

fourth

priest

displayed

a token

of equity,

that was

an

image

of a

left

with dexterity

than the right.'°

or craft seemed

In quoting Diodorus, Pio is surprised discrepancy between him and Apuleius: Moreover,

I cannot get over my

hand denotes ‘parsimony’ means ‘liberality’. .

-

.

by

Since the left hand with fingers closed is the symbol of ‘tenacity’, this same hand with the palm open can be the sign of ‘equity’.

He glosses the word genuina as ‘innate, natural’, thus insisting on the scientific basis of the method, and provides a commentary drawing on information concerning the alleged natural weakness from all the sources he can muster: Real sluggishness: innate and natural. It is well known that the left hand is naturally more sluggish in man than the right, except for those people called scaevae who are more dextrous with the left hand.

what

apt to express equity

he

takes

surprise that in Diodorus’s

and ‘avarice’,

.

more

.

to

opinion

be

the left

whereas in Lucius Apuleius

.

17

a

... it

.

He has in fact got himself into a bit of a muddle; ' but this only serves to emphasise more clearly how his authorities, and he and his colleague conceive of the hieroglyph. The point of reference is always the alleged natural quality of the object. Apuleius actually seems to allude to Poggio

renders the phrase corresponding

domesticas res’ (the adjective, oiketoc, may by

Pio.

However

(Diodorus:

the notion

petapépetat

portrayed

to ‘by

mean

of metaphorical

the appropriate

transfer,

trans/atio,

te 6 AGyoc taîc SiKkEinicg Letapopais

is then transferred, by the appropriate

metaphorical

‘familiar’ or ‘naturally é

metaphorical

remains

MaVTO

transfer’ as ‘ad

suited’), and this is copied in the verb

TH dÉÉO

‘transfertur’

[And

the concept

transfer, to all swift things...’] Poggio

*Transfertur haec notatio ad domesticas res quae velociter fiant’.) Apuleius, manum

sinistram

11.10;

Loeb,

porrecta

p.

556:

palmula,

‘Quartus quae

videbatur aequitati magis aptior quam dextera.’ Diodorus’

words

for the meaning

Oldfather as ‘procuring of livelihood’ guarding

of property’.

for the left. later.

Pio seems

Poggio

antistes aequitatis

genuina

pigritia,

of the ‘right

hand

with

‘liberalitatem’

fingers extended’

for the right, and

cupent

authores

distinguerent a liberalitate.”

consonos

et

praedita

are translated

concordes

by

‘tenacitatem ac avaritiam’

to ignore the detail of the position of the fingers, as Beroaldo

In his desire to assimilate the two cases, he muddles qui

deformatam

sollertia

® Beroaldo

with the fingers closed’, ‘a keeping and

things further by attributing

Apuleius for the left hand, and then tries to discount the distinction between ‘Verum

indicium, nulla

He quotes Suetonius as authority for the left-handedness of Tiberius, the Digest to the effect that left-handers are to be regarded as neither sick nor deficient, and Albert the Great on the physiological cause of the condition and the possibility that it may be the result of a habit induced in childhood. He refers again to his own commentary on Suetonius for information on ambidexterity, to Plato, Aristotle, and St Jerome, and, for good measure, throws in the observation that in classical times business men who frequently sealed bargains by clasping the right hand were careful to remove precious rings from the right to the left. The gloss is in fact a typically humanist account of a subject, mustering all available ‘scientific’ reasons to explain the attribution of a meaning to a symbol.'* Beroaldo therefore, like Pio, argues the meanings of hieroglyphs on the basis of the natural qualities of the objects used. When he comes to Apuleius’ description of the sacred rolls of the Egyptian priests later in the same work (11.22), it is not surprising that he quotes the examples from Ammianus Marcellinus which had already suggested to Alberti this way of reading: ‘For example they say that the vulture ... signifies the word “nature”, because as natural history reminds us, no males are

| have preferred to make my own translation here

and for the ‘left hand

translates

ostendebat

nulla calliditate,

61

Diodorus when he says the left seems ‘more apt’ than the right; and he justifies his attribution by referring to the alleged natural weakness of the left hand. This natural quality is then taken, following Diodorus’s prescription, in a metaphorical sense as ‘lack of cunning’, and this in turn is identified with ‘equity’ in the dispensation of justice. Beroaldo resolves Pio’s problem quite easily in his commentary on this passage by pointing out that, if all the details are taken into account, there is in fact no discrepancy between Apuleius and Diodorus:

hand with open palm, which because of its natural sluggishness and because it is not endowed

BOLOGNA

efficere

aequitate

will point out ‘liberality’ to

‘liberality’ and ‘equity’: [sic;

for

aequitatem]

‘Stateram

ne

quotes

the passage

transilias’,

but

does

from not

Apuleius discuss

the

when commenting symbol

further

on there.

the

Pythagorean

Symbola

symbol

Pythagorae

a

Philippo Beroaldo moraliter explicata (Bologna: B. Hectoris, 1503), fols A6"°-7"°. The edition of 1497 quoted by Fantuzzi is probably a confusion with the text published by Ficino at that date Clement

of

Alexandria

this point, another time

also discusses

indication

this symbol

that his account

(Stromateis,

V, 5), but

of the hieroglyphs

was

is not quoted

not known

by

Beroaldo

at

at Bologna at this

THE HIEROGLYPHS

AT BOLOGNA

to be found among these birds.’ Ammianus’ expression ‘rationes memorant physicae’ makes it quite clear that for him the meaning of a hieroglyph is to be explained on scientific grounds. If Pio and Beroaldo use three authorities who provide them with a consistent way of understanding the hieroglyphs, and clearly themselves argue meanings on this basis, they do not at any point discuss their method. The lack of any reference to the difference between this conception and that derived from Plotinus and Iamblichus is surprising, but the omission continues with Erasmus, whose essay is entirely concerned with method.

he does not go straight to a figurative meaning on the authority of an esoteric tradition; the starting point of the hieroglyph is a natural quality of the object, and the knowledge necessary is natural science and technology. For Erasmus, as for the Bolognese, these are not divine symbols expressing esoteric knowledge, but humanly created images expressing ideas accessible to anyone who is willing to learn. He insists on the point, and with a reference to Aristotle’s Physics:

62

They expressed what they thought worthy to be known, by means of drawings of figures of animals and various objects, so that the meaning was not immediately obvious to everyone. But anyone who had learned and carefully observed the properties of each object, and the special power and nature of each animal, could at length, by putting together his conjectures about these symbols, grasp the enigma of their meaning (my translation)."”

In discussing this, Giehlow emphasises the links with Fra Urbano” and the Aldine circle at Venice, and Erasmus’ apparently explicit recommendation to study natural history from life. But during 1507 and 1508, just before this essay appeared for the first time in the Adages, Erasmus had also spent some time in Bologna. Beroaldo had died two years before, but Erasmus was closely associated at this time with Paolo Bombace, who held a chair of rhetoric and poetry and later a chair of

Greek there, and there is some indication His text allows of a reading which could be contacts, for the insistence on the need things and the ‘peculiaris vis ac natura’ of Diodorus, to whom,

of course, Erasmus

that he met Pio (see note 3). the product of his Bolognese to know the proprietates of each animal sounds very like

would

have gone directly. It is

tempting to see these terms, in fact, as a rendering of Diodorus’ ‘emphasis’. Starting from the primary sense of ‘outward appearance’, Erasmus seems to have interpreted the word to mean ‘outwardly visible property’ and ‘particular visible property’ in a way that parallels the use he makes of the term in rhetoric to mean the ‘force’ or ‘peculiar meaning’ (vis) of words, although in that case there is often also a suggestion of a hidden meaning (see note 10). It is clear in any case that Si quid cognitu dignum judicassent, id animantium repraesentabant,

ut non

cuivis statim

promptum

rerumque

esset conjicere:

variarum expressis figuris ita

verum,

si cui singularum

proprietates, si peculiaris cujusque animantis vis ac natura cognita, penitusque

perspecta

rerum

fuisset, is

demum collatis eorum symbolorum conjecturis, aenigma sententiae deprehendebat’ (LB, II, 400).

2 Uncle of Pierio Valeriano, tutor to Giovanni de’ Medici. See Anthony Grafton, Joseph

Scaliger... (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983), p. 51 and note 33; he is said to have discussed the hieroglyph of the eye in lectures on Pindar. See also Valeriano, Hieroglyphica (1556), dedicatory

XXXII, fol. 233".

letter to book

63

This kind of writing not only has great dignity, but gives no little pleasure if only one looks deeply, as I said, into the qualities of things, and this comes partly from the skilful contemplation of things and natural causes, and partly from knowledge of the liberal disciplines. For example, a reader of Aristotle’s work on The Study of Nature may gather that there is an analogy and a similarity between length, movement, and time... (my translation)”

As Giehlow shows, the following analysis of the properties of the objects associated in the symbol of the circle, the dolphin, and the anchor, may be read as a demonstration of the relevance of natural science to the reading of the hieroglyphs. The importance of this, of understanding them as simple metaphors of the known or supposed properties of the objects portrayed, is clear. But what Erasmus is suggesting is no more than what Diodorus prescribes; the role of a bookish source in his conception may be a little greater than Giehlow allowed and may in fact be rather more likely than a sudden taste for empirical science. One further detail reinforces slightly the hypothesis of a link with Bologna. It is that Beroaldo appears to be the first to make use of the scrap of information to be found in the Suda concerning Chaeremon as a writer of hieroglyphs.” The linking of his name with I that of Horapollo is common after Erasmus’ example, but, as far as know, only Beroaldo mentions him earlier. One writer who mentions Chaeremon shortly after Erasmus is Caelius to Rhodiginus. Giehlow would make him for this reason a debtor largely seems lectiones Antiquae his in Erasmus, but the passage

independent. In examining the meaning of the symbols of the partridge, the eel, the hippopotamus’ foot, and the dove, he refers to

verum etiam yoluptatis non 2! “Porro hoc scripturae genus non solum dignitatis plurimum habet, habuerit: id quod partim contingit parum, si quis modo rerum, ut dixi, proprietates penitus perspectas cognitione disciplinarum. solerti contemplatione rerum, causarumque naturalium, partim liberalium Veluti

si quis ex

Aristotelicis

libris, quos

de Naturali

Auditu

inscripsit,

probe

teneret analogiam

(LB, I, 400). quandam esse, et similitudinem inter magnitudinem, motum, ac tempus...” [chi] 170. For Beroaldo’s X and 175 [iota] I , 2 Suidae Lexicon (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1967-1971) m condensis apicibus’ in the Appendix. reference to Chaeremon see his note on Apuleius’s ‘capreolati

himself suspected Rhodiginus 23 Venice: Aldus, 1516, lib. XVI, cap. xxv, pp. 828-831. Erasmus text of adage I i 2 from 1517, of at least duplicating some of what he was doing in his Adagia. See the

with a short obituary for Rhodiginus who died in that year.

64

THE HIEROGLYPHS

AT BOLOGNA

alleged natural properties, following the method of Diodorus and Apuleius, to whom he goes directly and quotes at length. Although there is no proof that he is following the Bolognese here, it is interesting that, when he comes to the point where Diodorus mentions the eye of justice, he interrupts the quotation and amplifies what Pio and Beroaldo had said on the subject with a few details from other sources.”* The third Bolognese student of hieroglyphs,” Filippo Fasanini, borrows Erasmus’ expression (as he borrows practically everything else) for his ‘Explanation of Sacred Letters’, published with his translation of Horapollo in 1517. In fact his account of the hieroglyphs, although the most extensive of the period, adds little to his predecessors’ ideas. He

that he was prepared to risk a further delay in publication, but the remark is possibly important for the question of the humanists’ interest in illustrations. Rabelais’s reference to the hieroglyphs must not be left out of an account of the influence of Diodorus. The link between him and Erasmus, as far as hieroglyphs are concerned, is Geoffroy Tory, who

recommends them as a fund of material for poets and artists, as a cryptic

code, and as a means of explaining obscure literary allusions—this last idea being probably inspired by the example of the ‘eye of justice’ explained by Pio, who contributes a laudatory poem to the volume. He goes on to assemble all the references he can find in classical authors— or rather in Beroaldo, Crinito, Erasmus, Rhodiginus, and the translations of Ficino and Poggio—in a compilation which makes no attempt to arrive at a synthesis. The passages from Diodorus and Apuleius follow

those of lamblichus and Proclus without any attempt to reconcile their

very different conceptions. Only one remark seems to offer something new. Having seen, he says, the symbol of the dolphin and the anchor and realising that it resembled an Egyptian hieroglyph, he conceived the idea of having each symbol in his text illustrated with engraved figures, ‘so that by observation and sight, no less than by hearing and reading one may perceive the meaning, and so that readers will receive greater pleasure and greater profit from it’.°7 Fasanini was not so keen on this

°4 In his De inventoribus rerum, first published at Venice in 1499, Polydor Vergil uses Diodorus, Tacitus, and Ammianus for his information on hieroglyphs (I, 6 and III, 8), but there is no apparent link between him and Erasmus or Rhodiginus. # Achille Bocchi was also teaching at Bologna, but published nothing on hieroglyphs at this time. From his later publication, and from Sambigucius’s commentary, it can be argued however that Bocchi held a neo-platonist view of the hieroglyphs. See ‘Budé and Bocchi on Symbols’. RER cuipiam singularium rerum proprietates, si peculiaris cuiusque animantis vis ac natura ex Aristoteles et aliis cognita...’ ‘Ex diversis auctoribus declaratio sacrarum literarum’ in Hori Apollinis Niliaci

Hieroglyphicis,

sermonem

a Philippo

hoc

est de sacris

Phasianino

Aegyptiorum

Bononiensi

literis

nunc primum

Libelli duo

de

translati (Bologna:

Graeco apud

in Latinum Hieronymum

Platonidem, 1517), p. XLVI". See ‘Filippo Fasanini and his “Explanation of Sacred Writing” (text

and translation)’. AUS

…ut et [sic: ex?] sensu visuque, non minus quam ex auditu et lectione res ista perciperetur, maiorque cum voluptas tum utilitas lectoribus compararetur...’ fol. LX VIII". The originality of even this passage is suspect, since not only does the allusion to the symbol of the dolphin and the anchor recall Erasmus, but it is likely that they had both seen the symbol in the Hypnerotomachia of Colonna. See Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (London: Faber and Faber, 1968), p. 208 and fig. 55.

65

says:

Celles escriptures estoient appellees en Grec Hieroglyphica, c’est a dire sacra scripta, sainctes escriptures, que nul ne pouvoit entendre sans estre grant Philosophe, et qui peult cognoistre la raison et vertus des choses 28 naturelles.

Rabelais’ rather tortuous sentence seems to be a deliberate pastiche of Tory: Bien aultrement faisoient en temps jadys les saiges d'Egypte, quand ilz escripvoient par letres qu’ilz appelloyent hieroglyphicques, lesquelles nul n’entendoyt qui n’entendist et un chascun entendoyt qui entendist la vertus, proprieté et nature des choses par ycelles figurées.”

In this chapter, Rabelais is satirising ignorant misuse of colour symbolism in devices and the fashion for punning rebuses (which Tory and others confuse with hieroglyphs), and he contrasts this ignorance

and triviality with the genuine learning that is required to understand the hieroglyphs. His ‘vertus, proprieté et nature des choses’ clearly harks ‘raison et vertus’ and Erasmus s back again, through Tory’s ‘proprietates ... vis ac natura’, to Diodorus’ ‘emphasis’ taken in the | sense of ‘properties’ or even ‘visible properties’. Pio by Bologna at Ammianus and The study of Diodorus, Apuleius, and Beroaldo, then, seems to be the channel by which the Aristotelian

alternative to the neo-platonic idea of the hieroglyph enters Renaissance

symbolism. As Robert Klein and others have shown, the Aristotelian concept of the metaphor is a fundamental strand in the philosophy of the impresa, exemplified in such exponents as Scipione Bargagli and Tesauro. These authors, taking the hieroglyph to be a neo-platonic

symbol, reject it as a mystical sign based on some fabulous or esoteric association. Another opinion rejects it because it is seen, despite Diodorus, as arbitrary. For Ercole Tasso, for example, the description of

the hieroglyphs given by Clement of Alexandria shows that they are signs with arbitrary allegorical meaning. The impresa, on the other

hand, ‘è Simbolo constante necessariamente di Figura naturale ... overo

% Champfleury, 1529, fols xlii**- xliii””. °° Gargantua, ed. M. A. Screech et al. (Geneva: Droz, 1970), ch. 8, p. 67.

66

THE HIEROGLYPHS

artificiale naturalmente prese’.®° For Tasso, no metaphorical transformation of the natural property of the object must take place; it is the natural property which must contribute to the expression of the concept (the words, on the other hand, may be taken figuratively). This Aristotelian view of the hieroglyph seems, despite the neoplatonists, to be by far the more common view in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century.” It is also the view of Alciato. It is Giehlow’s belief, probably inspired by Fasanini’s remarks, that

Alciato’s emblem is a versified text for a hieroglyph. Alciato finished

his doctoral work at Bologna, while Pio and Fasanini were there, certainly, but they taught rhetoric, not law.** In recent years it has been generally held that the emblems are primarily the product of his interest

in composing and translating epigrams, but it is the view of the present

author that, while this is true, what Alciato dedicated to Ambrogio Visconti in his Christmas vacation in 1522 were versified programmes for devices.” As for the hieroglyphs it is now clear that he knew the Greek edition of 1505,°* which suggestively associates the hieroglyphs with allegory, fable and proverbs. The famous comparison of the

emblems to hieroglyphs is something of an aside, which could have been inserted into the De verborum significatione at any time between its completion in 1521 and the date of the dedication in May 1529.*° On

the other hand Alciato had certainly read Erasmus’ Adages, and speaks

AT BOLOGNA

67

of them with admiration in this same work.*° This one direct reference

he

makes

to the

hieroglyphs,

including

as it does

the

name

of

Chaeremon, and the use to which he puts them in the Emblems, suggest that we do not need to look anywhere else for the main source of his ideas on this subject. The allusion in the De verborum significatione may in fact be the

latest of Alciato’s explicit references to his emblems, and certainly

seems to show that he had been thinking of them in a different context to that of the dedication to Peutinger and the letter to Calvo of 9 January 1523. There the context had been artistic; here it is one of language,

specifically figurative language and the theory of meaning. In a general

way, the writing of the fourth book of the treatise, devoted to figurative

language, could have led Alciato to think of emblems in this context. It

is worth noting that emblema in the classical figurative meaning of ‘rhetorical ornament’, which the humanists discovered in the rhetorical treatises of Cicero and which coincides so nicely with their notion of ‘mosaic’ composition from the common-place book, is also being used by Erasmus and Budé at the time when Alciato probably first uses it.” While the literal meaning of a detachable ornament of plastic art may be uppermost in Alciato’s mind therefore, when he is thinking of providing % Lyon: S. Gryphius, 1530, p. 82: ‘Metaphorae quoque affines sunt paroemiae, de quibus Erasmus Roterodamus locupletissimum, et immortalitate dignum opus iam diu aedidit, in quo solus videtur mihi veteres omnes superasse... *” Erasmus, Encomium moriae (ASD, Ord. IV, tom. III, p. 76): ‘Visum est enim hac quoque parte

nostri temporis rhetori imitari, qui plane deos esse sese credunt, si hirudinum ritu bilingues appareant,

%0 Della Realta, et perfettione delle Imprese... (Bergamo: Comino Ventura, 1612), pp. 12 and 24. See also the positions of later writers such as Le Moyne and Bouhours, described by Madeleine V. David, Le Débat sur les écritures et I’hiéroglyphique aux XVIIe et XVIIe siècles (Paris: S.E.V,P.E.N., 1965), pp. 143-144, 3! Pietro Crinito’s lost. As a disciple of disciplina (1504), lib. Marcellinus, but also,

position is doubtful, since the work he Ficino, he is likely to have taken the VII, cap. II, he quotes the examples of from Rufinus, the ‘ankh’ as a supposed

claims to have written on hieroglyphs is neo-platonist view. In his De honesta the bee and the vulture from Ammianus presage of the ‘cross’. ‘? But graduated at Ferrara on 18 March 1516. See Roberto Abbondanza, ‘La Laurea di Andrea Alciato’, Italia medievale e umnaistica, WI (1960), 325-328. * See the conclusion of ‘Devices as ‘Emblems’ before 1531”. # See Denis L. Drysdall, “Andrea Alciato, Jn Bifum (sind. [Milan? 1506/7?]), transcribed and

translated’, Emblematica,

18 (2010), 241-270.

3° Professor Abbondanza, in a private communication, reported that, in Boniface Amerbach’s manuscript account of Alciato’s lectures, although the Hieroglyphs are mentioned at this point, the

reference to the Emblems does not appear (Basel, UB, Msc. C VI 13, p. 34, col.1). Alciato states in two letters of 1521 (Gian Luigi Barni, Le Lettere di Andrea Alciato, giureconsulto—Florence: Felice

le Monnier, 1953—no 5, 11. 44-48 and no 23, Il. 14-17) that the commentaries on this chapter of the Digest, which he had given as lectures at Avignon in the academic year 1520-21, were ready for publication.

ac

praeclarum

facinus

esse

ducunt

latinis

orationibus

subinde

graeculas

aliquot

voculas

velut

emblemata intertexere, etiam si nunc non erat his locus.’ Id., De duplici copia... lib. 1, cap. XI (LB, vol. I, col. 10): ‘Prisca gratiam addunt, si modice et apte velut emblemata intertexantur.’

Id., the preface to his translation of Plutarch’s De non irascendo and De curiositate (1525), in Opus Epistolarum, VI, 71-2: ‘Mihi certe non mediocre negocium exhibuit ipsa Plutarchicae phraseos

subtilitas,

sensusque

deprompti

connexique,

reconditi

existimes,

ex emblematibus

ut

non

ex

retrusis

orationem

exquisitissimis

omnium sed

autorum

centonum

concinnatum.

aut, Quod

ac ut

disciplinarum melius

dicam,

apothecis

[sic]

musaicum

opus

ut illi fuit facillimum,

qui pectus

habebat instructissimum omni genere literariae supellectilis, ita dificillimum est interpreti quid unde decerpserit observare; praesertim quum plerique scriptores non extent e quorum pratis decerpsit suos floculos, unde corollas hasce contexuit. Praeter hanc difficultatem habet concisum quidd et abruptum,

subito

lectoris animum

transmovens

in diversam

regionem;

ut iam

non solum

requirat

undiquaque doctum verum etiam attentum ac vigilantem.’ Budé, in a letter to Erasmus dated 26 November 1516, ‘Epistolarum latinarum liber quintus’, Omnia opera (Basel, Froben, 1557), I, p. 372: ‘Hoe tamen deprecor ne mihi fraudi sit uno aut altero loco longiusculas disgressiones [sic] fecisse, easque res velut emblemata locis quibusdam hiulcis inseruisse, quae sibi non perinde opportunum locum privatim dicatis operibus vindicavissent.’ This letter, first published in 1517 by Martens and then by Badius in 1520, was known to Alciato, who had seen the latter edition and referred to it in a letter of31 December 1520 to Francesco Calvo (Barni, no 6,1.11).

68

THE HIEROGLYPHS

AT BOLOGNA

programmes for devices which are to take the form of personal badges and printers’ signs, the notion of the emblem and the hieroglyph as analogous to the figures of speech, in particular the metaphor and the allegory, may not be far below the surface here where he is thinking of language. The allusion itself occurs in the commentary part of the De verborum significatione, in the gloss of the title (1529, p. 102). This sets out a brief account of a theory of meaning, where Alciato remarks that things as well as words can sometimes be signs. In what is virtually a parenthesis, he mentions hieroglyphs as an example, his own book of emblems ‘in the same genre’ (‘cuius argumenti’),”® and certain forms of evidence (‘signs’) from which the law can draw presumptions (praesumptiones), and which are also ‘things which signify’. He then gives a short account of words and meaning following the grammatical

theory of language among the humanists, which is the Aristotelian one, that the meaning of words in general is conventional. Moreover, he

tradition

of Quintilian

and

Donatus,

in which

the res, as meaning,

is

seen as being simply added to the verbum, as enunciation, to form the dictio, the meaningful word. This is not directly applied to the emblems and the hieroglyphs, but reflects on them, suggesting what Alciato meant by ‘things which signify’, as opposed to words. If this argument is pursued, it presumably follows that the ‘meaningful thing’ does not have to have a meaning added to it, as the word does. It has an inherent meaning. When Alciato says in the letter therefore that in his emblems he describes an object or an event which may have an ‘elegant’ meaning (‘aliquid describo ... quod aliquid elegans significet’), he may be thinking of the object or event not so much as having a figurative meaning added arbitrarily to it, but rather as allowing the figurative

meaning to be read in it because of its inherent, natural properties. We have, of course, no evidence that Alciato thought out the semantics of

his emblems to this extent, but the idea is clearly consistent with the concept of the hieroglyph to be found in Diodorus and transmitted by the Bolognese and Erasmus, rather than with the essential, and therefore immutable, neo-platonic sign described by Plotinus and Ficino. Alciato’s mention of the hieroglyphs in the context of linguistics raises the question of whether his emblems were more directly related in his mind to current theories of language and meaning. At another point in the De verborum significatione (pp. 39-40), he indicates his position on the main current question of language theory. He states that, although Hebrew or Chaldean may be regarded as the most ancient language, and although the letters in Hebrew are said to have meanings of their own, meaning in all other languages is a matter of usage, and usage can

change

8

the meaning

of words.

He

subscribes,

that is, to the common

For argumentum as ‘genre’, see Chomarat (note 10 above), I, 510(3), 511(10), 537(159).

69

subscribes to the Ciceronian and Quintillian view of the metaphor as the

source of new coinage, a necessary recourse of language which lacks a literal term for every concept.” The creation of metaphors therefore is a continuing process of common usage. The hieroglyphs, however, are not words but images, closely related through the notion of vividness (enargeia or evidentia) and the visual qualities of the metaphor, but not entirely equivalent as regards their possible modes of functioning. In considering the nature of words and images as signs, it seems the humanists had three basic possibilities from which to chose. Firstly Aristotle,

and

Hermogenes

in

the

Cratylus,

authorise

the

view

that

words are purely arbitrary and conventional. Secondly there is the view that words were endowed, in their original form, with a certain similarity to the thing that they named; they are ‘natural by their etymology’. Socrates speculates that this similarity is a matter of the

phonetic representation of the qualities of flow or constraint inherent in all things according to the philosophy of Heraclitus. This seems to be Socrates’

own

view,

that names

have

an inherent correctness, though,

when he turns to argue with Cratylus, he makes some concessions to the role of error and convention. Thirdly there is the group of views, which go back to the idea of the ‘natural sign’ espoused by Cratylus, represented by hermetic, cabalistic or neo-platonic theory, that some signs are magical or miraculous symbols, that they have the power of, or are the thing itself.”

The humanists were keenly interested in the possibility of any sort of sign which escaped the arbitrary into which language had fallen at the time of Babel, and they were absorbed by manifestations of multiple meaning, which would tend to show that the world of ideas is reflected in the world of things and words, including all such genres as fable,

proverb, pun, anagram and enigma. Clearly the purely conventional sign

is not relevant to the question of the hieroglyph; only letters and words could be considered in this light. All the indications are that Alciato’s hieroglyph, being a ‘thing’ or an image of a thing, is a sign of the second kind, that is, analogous to words with an inherent likeness to the thing they represent. Although I do not know of a text of this period, other

than Ficino’s, which discusses the hieroglyphs in terms of a theory of 3° E.g.8. P p. 5: ‘Non tamen, inquit q laborabit: cum multa sint et Graece necessario dicimus.” ‘0 For linguistic theories of the Hermaeus on Plato’s Cratylus and

Fabius, quicquid non erat proprium, protinus improprii vitio et Latine non denominata, quae per translationem Kat éxpnout

period and knowledge of the commentaries of Ammonis Aristotle’s On Interpretation, see M. A. Screech, Rabelais (London: Duckworth, 1979), pp. 377-385.

70

THE HIEROGLYPHS

AT BOLOGNA

signs, it seems that Diodorus’ account of the functioning of hieroglyphs

corporis partium figurae atque instrumenta aliquid certum notabant: quae memoria hominum longo usu ac meditatione observata e vestigio quid ea exprimerent internoscebant. Haec ex Diodori libro quarto. Caeterum mirari non desino sinistram manum parcitatem avaritiamque denotare de sententia Diodori quae Lucio Appuleio [sic] libro metamorphoseon undecimo liberalitatem significat. Uti duorum scriptorum dissidium repugnacemque dissensionem iudices: libuit appuleiana verba substituere. Quartus equitatis ostendebat inditium [sic; ‘indicium’] deformatam manum sinistram: porrecta palmula: quae genuina pigritia nulla calliditate nulla sollertia praedita videbatur aequitati magis aptior quam dextra. Verum qui cupent authores consonos et concordes efficere aequitate [sic: aequitatem?] distinguerent a liberalitate. leroglyphicas litteras his paene verbis delimauit [sic: deliniavit?] Appuleius et descripsit. De opertis adyti profert quosdam libros litteris ignorabilibus praenotatos: partim figuris huiuscemodi animalium concepti sermonis compendiosa verba suggerentes: partim nodosis et in modum rotae tortuosis: capreolatimque condensis apicibus ait curiositate profanorum lectione munita. Has ignorabiles litteras describit ardens et arduus poeta Lucanus his versibus: Nondum flumineas memphis contexere biblos: quas feras volucres et armenta siliceo sculptu figurasse scribit cum ita cecinit: pictaque servabant magicas animalia linguas.* Quae fuerit Appuleio [sic] causa quod ut suscitabulum cum oculo iustitiae et concertatim et solis oculum connumerare haec est quoniam multioculus est** et perspicuo lumine cuncta de caelo contemplari atque rimari Plinius lib. 2, naturalis hist. signat his verbis. Sol est praeclarus: eximius: omnia etiam exaudiens: ut principi litterarum Homero placuisse in uno eo video quem admodum mundi mentem atque animum Plinius et Macrobius*® appellaverunt quem a coruscamine fulgido: splendicantique fulgore planeta graeci nuncuparunt.

accords quite well with Socrates’ theory of natural etymologies and that the writers I have been mentioning, with the exception of Ficino and perhaps Crinito, but including Alciato, would have had little difficulty in classifying them as natural signs in this sense.

APPENDIX I. Giovanni Baptista Pio, ‘Quid oculus nonnulla nec fastitienda nec inscita’.*!

Iustitiae

et de

leroglyphicis

Lucius secundo: tertio quoque libro ait haec solis et iustitiae testatus oculum. quid eruditionis penitioris et intercutaneae praese ferre videtur oculus iustitiae: et qua nam causa memoretur a Lucio pauci sunt qui noverint. Ego publicitus a Bononiensium senatu inter professores humanitatis ascitus plausabiliter et favorabiliter interpretatus sum: hoc scholastici ferre [sic: fere] omnes haud ignorant: mutuatorum Diodori sententia libro quarto” interpretamento: qui leroglyphicas hoc est Aegiptiorum sacrosanctos apices: quos Apuleius de asino aureo libro novissimo vocat ignorabiles: quippe cum nephas scire profanis esset emetiens atque recensens: inquit leroglyphicis utique litteris oculum iustitiae servatorem: et totius corporis interpretari custodem huic geminum? Ferme et cognatum memini legisse ni fallor in graecanico opusculo ubi ieroglyphici describuntur apices. Ergo igitur callenter et observanter rituales aegyptiorum libros scius Apuleius et harum praecipue litterarum utpote qui de his quaedam alibi tradiderit significare volens eum quem Aegyptii iroglyphicis [sic] describunt iusticiae oculum quem sculpunt ipsi iusticiam denotantes frequenter subinde identidem et saepicule nominat oculatam iustitiam quam ita fictuabant sculptili marmoratione [sic] linearique figura megalographiaque quippe una ea proba improbaque lynceo obtutu et perspicabili acie cuncta conspiciente et conspecta librante quemadmodum exadversim exoculatam fortunam quae nullum bonarum quemadmodum malarum rerum discrimen habet. Caeterum ne quid omittatur inerti sterilique properatu de litteris hisce ignorabilibus pauca litterae variis animantibus extremitatibusque Sunt Aegyptiorum dicendum. hominum atque instrumentis sed praecipue artificium [sic: artificum]. Persimiles non enim syllabarum compositione aut litteris verba eorum exprimuntur sed imaginum formatarum significatione usu memoriae hominum tradita. Scribunt quidem accipitrem crocodilum serpentem hominis oculum manus faciem et caetera huiusmodi. Accipiter rem denotat cito factam: quoniam haec aliarum ferme omnium avis sit velocissima. Transfertur haec notatio ad domesticas res quae velociter fiant. Crocodilus malum significat: dextera manus digitis passis liberalitatem designat: sinistra vero compraessis tenacitatem atque avaritiam. Eodem modo et caeterarum

71

II. Filippo Beroaldo, Commentary on Apuleius, book X1:*” Deformatam manum sinistram. Videtur discordare Lucius noster a Diodoro: quod scribit in quarto bibliothecaeque inter sacras litteras Aegyptiorum deformatur manus dextra expansa liberalitatem significans, sinistra vero compressa tenacitatem: atque avaritiam: Verum nullum est inter scriptores super re ista dissidium, cum utrumque fieri commode potuerit: ut sinistra compressis digitis esset symbolum tenacitatis, eadem explicata palma foret indicium aequitatis. Genuina pigricia. Ingenita et naturali: sinistram enim natura, in hominibus pigriorem esse, quam dextram sat notum praeterquam in his qui scaevae nominantur: Tales enim agiliore sinistra. Unde et illis inditum nomen. Scaeam [oxatév], enim, graeci vocant: Talis vir Tiberius quem scribit Tranquillus sinistra manu fuisse agiliore ac validiore, lurisconsulti Titulo ad edilitium edictum, scevam hoc est hominem agilioris sinistrae: neque morbosum neque vitiosum esse tradunt. Albertus

‘3 Pharsalia, 3.220-224. 4! In Ecce tibi lector humanissime: Philippi Beroaldi Annotationes Centum ... Ioannis Baptistae pii Annotameni... sl’. At the end: ‘Bernardinus Misinta papiensis castigatissime impressit: Brixiae. saturnalibus M.ccee.xcvi. Sumptibus Angeli Britannici.’ This note is also to be found in the 1502 and 1508

editions

of the works

of Sabellico,

and

in the Annotationes

virorum

Badius, 1511, etc.), among Pio’s ‘Annotationes priores’ (1551, fol. evii"°).

© Le. 3.4.14.

doctorum...

(Paris:

J.

“4 Diodorus, 1.11.2; Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, 355A. 45 Pliny, Naturalis historia, 2.13. gl Pliny, ibid.; Macrobius, Saturnalia,

1.19.17:

‘sol auctor spiritus caloris ac luminis humanae

vitae genitor et custos est...’ ‘7 Commentarii a Philippo Beroaldo conditi in Asinum aureum Lucii Apulei (Venice: Benedicto Hectoris, 1500), fol. 264”.

72

THE HIEROGLYPHS

AT BOLOGNA

Magnus in secundo in animalibus causam refert sinisteritatis: quia videlicet inquit iecur: Et cor virtutes suas mittant in sinistrum latus et a dextro removeantur: contingit etiam aliquando ut quis a puero sinistram quam dextram frequenti usu exerceat: fiatque inde consuetudo, et ex consuetudine natura: scripsi in tranquilli

talem lectionem assequi nequiret. Cheremon philosophus scripsit Hieroglyphica: adhuc Romae consimiles literae visuntur in minore obelisco, et aliae quaedam iuxta Pantheon Agrippae. Capreolatim autem adverbium est, quod significat implicate et connexe: ductum a capreolis vitigineis. Nam (ut docet M. Varro) collicolus viteus intotius [sic: intortus] ut cincinnus, a capiendo capreolus est dictus: qui se erigit ad locum capiendum, * et vites implicat, vulgo hodieque tales capreoli nominantur.

commentariis

Ambidextros

dici:

qui

utraque

manu

pariter

utantur:

quos

graeci

amphoterodexios vocant, de quibus Plato, Aristoteles, Hyeronimus: sed quod ad sinistrae manus pigritiam pertinet quodque memoratu dignum est: comperior apud auctores quod anuli preciosi Dextra manu exempti sunt: quae multum negociorum gerit, et in sinistram relegati: quae ociosior est, ne crebro motu et officio manus Dextrae praeciosi lapides frangrerentur.

IV. Filippo Beroaldo, ‘Epitome quaedam Apollonii [sic] Beroaldo interprete.*°

73

litterarum Aegyptiarum

Hori

integri sensus significantur. Indidem. ex libris illis, quorum lectio erat impenetrabilis et impervia curiositati eorum qui non forent initiati. illis enim solis erant cognobilia. Capreolatim condensis apicibus. Figuras exprimit Hieraticarum literarum, quae instar capreolorum colligatae, implicataeque ita erant, ut curiositas irreligiosorum

Mundum pingere volentes Aeqyptii Serpentem effigiebant caudam sibi mordentem variis squammis indutum quarum varietate per aenigma astra coeli significarentur gravissimum autem hoc animal est quemadmodum et terra lubricum ac levissimum ut aqua. Singulo quoque anno decoriatur quemadmodum annus perfectus immutationem faciens in mundo iuvenescit. Hoc autem animal quum proprio corpore in cibo vtatur significat quaecumque in mundo sunt ex dei providentia generari rursus et haec in ipsum diminutionem accipere ac corrumpi. (1505: I, 2) Quo modo furorem declarent. Furorem designare volentes leonem depingunt. Est enim animal ingentis capitis pupulas habens igneas et faciem rotundam et circa ipsum iubas ad imitationem solis radios emittentis. Ideo sub thronum Hori leones supponebant animalis signum deo ostendentes. Sol autem Horus quia temporibus dominatur. (1,17) Quo pacto fortitudinem. Fortitudinem autem pingentes anteriores leonis partes depingunt quia huiusmodi corporis sui partes caeteris sunt robustiores. (1,18) Qua ratione vigilantes exprimerent. Vigilantes aut etiam custodem designantes Leonis caput effingunt. Leo enim dum vigilat oculos claudit. Dormiens vero eos patentes habet quod est custodiae signum. Id exemplum sumentes in templorum valvis Leones tanquam custodes effingendos curabant. (1,19) Disciplinae idolum seu characteristicum simulachrum. Disciplinam describentes coelum rorem eiiciens depingunt indicantes quod quemadmodum ros cadens ad omnes plantas descendit et eas madefacit quarum natura apta est madefieri, duras vero ex propria natura efficere non potest. Sic et in hominibus disciplina quidem communis est quam ingeniosus tanquam rorem accipit. Qui vero ineptus aut indocilis est hoc nequaquam facere potest. (1,37) Impudentiae. Impudentiam significare volentes muscam effingunt quoniam expulsa continue revertitur quodquidem et per ranam ab illis exprimebatur. (1,51 and II,101) Cognitionis ac providentiae Cognitionem describentes formicam effigiant propter innatam et genuinam quandam animalis providentiam. (1,52)

48 L Apulei Madaurensis philosophi platonici opera ... cum Ph. Beroaldi ... commentariis. Text of the Lyon edition, widow of De Harsy, 1614, pp. 1066-1067.

4 De re rustica, 1.31.4. 55 In Index eorum quae in hoc volumine continentur. Seruii Honorati vocabula in Vergilium

Ill. Filippo Beroaldo, Commentary on Apuleius, book XI.** Partim huiuscemodi animalium. Religiosa Aegyptiorum volumina designat, quae ex charta hieratica, id est sacrata conficiebantur. In his literas ignorabiles perscribebant, notis volucrum, ferarum, aliarumque rerum praenotatas, quas sacras vocant, quas Marcellinus, Macrobius, caeterique hieroglyphicas nominari tradunt, quibus et obeliscos insculptos habebant. Hine illud Plinianum ex 36. ubi de obeliscis mentio: Etenim sculpturae illae, effigiesque quas videmus, Aegyptiae sunt literae*” De his literis, quae singulae singulis nominibus serviebant, et nonnunquam significabant integros sensus,” Cor. Tacitus sic scribit: Primi per figuras animalium, Aegyptii sensus mentis effingebant, et antiquissima monumenta memoriae humanae impressa saxis cernuntur, et literarum semet inventores perhibent. >! Hoe idem Lucanus eleganter expressit his verbis: Noverat et saxis tantum, volucresque, feraeque, Sculptaque servabant magicas animalia linguas.°* Ut autem tota res planius liquescat, subiicienda sunt ex celeberrimis auctoribus exempla, qui tradunt, per vulturem in literis Aegyptiorum sacris, et consequenter ignorabilibus, naturae vocabulum significari: quia mares nullos posse inter has alites inveniri, rationes memorant physicae. Per figuram apis mella conficientis, designatur rex imperans cum iucunditate. Annus indicatur picto dracone, caudam suam mordente: quia in se vertit. lidem scribunt accipitrem, denotantes rem cito factam: quoniam accipiter sit inter aves velocissimus. Crocodilus malum significat: 53 multaque consimilia, ne infinitus sum [sim?], annotata reperio, quibus nunc libros ad cerimoniarum arcana pertinentes praenotatos fuisse tradit, ne scilicet a prophanis talia nosci possent. Compendiosa verba. Verba compendiosa et literae dicuntur, quibus singulis

4° Pliny, 36.64. 50 «singulae ... sensus’, expressions taken from Ammianus Marcellinus, 17.4.11. si

Annales, 11.14.

5? 3.220-224.

53 Diodorus, 3.4.2-3.

annotata

...

Venales

reperiuntur

eregione

collegii

cameracensis

apud

Aegidium

Gourmontium

diligentissimum ac fidelissimum bibliopolam (Paris, n. d.), fol. 1 ii° I iv. B. Moreau, /nventaire chronologique des éditions parisiennes du XVIe siècle (Paris: Imprimerie municipale, 1977), vol. II, no 454, suggests 1512 for the issue bearing the mark of Jean Petit; the British Library gives *15102° for the Gilles de Gourmont issue.

B ee.

— — —

— .

74

THE HIEROGLYPHS

Dementiae Pelecanum vero pingentes insipientem notabant quoniam quum possit in editioribus ova sua ponere quemadmodum et reliquae volucres hoc minime faciat sed terram fodiens ibidem parta ova apponit (1,54) Gratitudinis Gratitudinem pingentes Cucusam [sic: cuculam] pingunt quoniam senescentibus parentibus suffragatur. Hominem etiam parentum amantem per Ciconiam indicabant illa enim a parentibus educata se nunquam ab illis seiungit sed ad extremam usque senectam permanens obsequium illis prestat unde etiam graeci àvarehapyeiv per paroemiam dicunt.°° (1.55) Ingratitudinis. Ingratum per Columbam notabant quoniam grandior effecta patrem a matre expellens cum illa concumbit. (1,57) Mulierem autem viro insidiantem per viperam designabant. Haec enim quando cum masculo se coniungit os ori imponit, et post coitum mordens caput maris illum interimit. (11,60) Filios etiam matribus insidiantes per hanc viperam exprimebant. Haec enim filios non parit sed corrodentes matris uterum exeunt. (11,60) Quam

varie mores hominum

referrent. Hominem

inflabilem [sic: ‘instabilem’) et

inconstantem hyenam designabant haec enim quandoque mas quandoque faemina [sic] est. (11,69) Fortunae et calamitatis contemptorem per pellem hyenae exprimunt. Si quis enim huiusmodi pellem circa se apposuerit et per valde medios inimicos transeat a nullo iniuria afficietur sed intrepide atque impune praeterire potest. (11,72) Hominem optime audientem designantes capram depingunt, haec enim per nares atque aures spirat. (11,68) Pigrum vero camelo denotant solus enim inter caetera animalia copam [sic: for crurem” M flectit ideo et Cameros dicitur.

Hominem

autem

misanthropum

enim nulli alii pisces conveniunt.

omnibusque

invisum

anguilla

(11,100)

exprimunt.

illi

(11,103)

Filippo Fasanini and his ‘Explanation of Sacred Letters”

Filippo Fasanini’s translation into Latin of Horapollo’s Hieroglyphica, which appeared in Bologna in 1517! was, unfortunately perhaps, immediately overshadowed by the rival translation of Bernardo Trebazio and was never reprinted—“‘unfortunately’ because the second translation is based on a manuscript in some ways inferior to the one which was the basis of Fasanini’s translation and is not accompanied by any notes or discussion of contemporary ideas about hieroglyphs.’ Fasanini’s ‘Explanation of Sacred Writing’ on the other hand, although largely derivative, must rank in interest with the passages to be found at this time in works of the elder Beroaldo, Crinito, Erasmus, and Rhodiginus. It was described at some length by Giehlow,’ but has not been much * First published

in the Journal

of Medieval

and Renaissance

Studies,

XII

(1983),

127-155;

reprinted by permission of the publisher, Duke University Press.

' Hori Apollinis Niliaci Hieroglyphica, Graeco

in Latinum sermonem

apud Hieronymum

a Philippo

Platonidem,

hoc est de sacris Aegyptiorum literis Libelli duo de

Phasianino

Bononiensi nunc primum

translati (Bologna:

1517). The copy used here is that of the British Library,

1473 bb 25.

In all texts except one (see note 3 below), the name is spelt in Latin ‘Phasianinus’; in Italian texts the spelling

is ‘Fasanino’

or ‘Fasanin’, except

in the Prophetia dello abbate Joachino

where

we

find

*Phasianino’. The spelling ‘Fasanini’ will be used here.

? Although the text is preceded by a dedication dated 20 April 1515, no edition is known which is earlier than Froben’s (Basel,

1518). Fasanini’s fear of rivals would surely have made

him aware of

any translation appearing as early as 1515. For some of the differences between the two versions see Denis L. Drysdall, ‘A Note on the Relationship of the Latin and vernacular translations of Horapollo from Fasanini to Caussin’, Emblematica, 4.2 (1989), 225-241, especially the summary concordance. The

differences did not prevent Jean

Aldus’s

Greek

(Paris:

C.

Resch,

Angeli

1522).

All

from

publishing

editions

Trebazio’s

between

1518

Latin as a translation and

1542

are

editions

of of

Trebazio’s text, which is also the basis for the French version of 1543, the Italian of 1547, and the German of 1554. Mercier’s editions (1548, (1595),

and

Caussin’s

(1618)

are founded

1551), the French translation of 1553, Hoeschel’s edition on

the Aldine

text. The

bilingual

edition

of 1574

has

Trebazio’s Latin, but this is accompanied by the French text of 1553, which is based on Mercier’s Latin of 1548 and so ultimately on the Greek of 1505. 6 Adagia, 1x 1. 5

7 In the Greek unpo.

® Karl Giehlow, ‘Die Hieroglyphenkunde des Humanismus...’, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des allerh. Kaiserhauses, Bd XXXI,

Heft

| (Vienna and Leipzig,

1913), pp.

1-232, at

76

FILIPPO FASANINI

AND HIS ‘EXPLANATION OF SACRED LETTERS’

used in subsequent studies. Since the work is rare, it would seem useful to reprint it with a translation—which is offered with all due reserve.

1496, a short commentary on the hieroglyph of the eye of justice’ and who was to provide a laudatory poem for Fasanini’s translation. Fasanini came to enjoy a considerable reputation among his contemporaries. Another colleague, Achille Bocchi (whose Symbolicarum quaestionum would not appear until 1555), wrote a flattering encomium for his translation of Palaephatus in 1515,’ and, probably in the same year, Leandro Alberti commended him as a ‘giovene bene literato, Professore non ultimo di Bologna’. In his Libro primo della Deca prima delle Historie di Bologna, not published until 1541, Alberti was to remember him among the ‘huomini illustri et ornati di dottrina, li quelli hanno dato et di contino danno con la lor scientia splendore a tutto il mondo’.® Fasanini’s reputation seems to have reached as far as Basel, where Beatus Rhenanus commended him and Pio, as teachers, in the same sentence as Luther and Melanchthon at Wittemberg, and Calvo

The

date

of

Fasanini’s

birth

is

unknown,

but

Gioanne

Filoteo

Achillini alludes to him in 1504 in a stanza of his Viridario as a young man: ‘Debbio tacer quel gentil Giovinetto, Philippo Fasanin cosi perfetto’ (p. CLXXXVI). Fasanini was evidently already regarded with some esteem, and Achillini invited him in that same year to contribute to

a volume of commemorative verse for Serafino Ciminelli d’Aquila.* He

was appointed to a chair of rhetoric and poetry at Bologna in 1511, and this, according

to Fantuzzi

(see note 3), a year before he obtained

his

doctorate in philosophy. He may thus be regarded as a successor of Filippo Beroaldo the Elder (d. 1505), who had not only glossed at some length the well-known passsage on hieroglyphs in Apuleius, and edited the Symbola Pythagorae and the Tabula Cebetis, but had made one of the several partial or complete translations of Horapollo to be undertaken in the fifteenth century.” A colleague at Bologna of both Beroaldo and Fasanini was Giovanni Battista Pio, who had published, as early as

pp. 129-138. This is the only modern account of Fasanini, but Giehlow ignores the reference to the Prophetia dello abbate Joachino given by his principal source: Giovanni Fantuzzi, Notizie degli scrittori bolognesi, 9 vols (Bologna: Stamperia di San Tommasso d’Aquina, 1781-84), III, 300-302 and IX, 96. See also Umberto Dallari, / Rotuli dei letteri, legisti, e artisti dello studio bolognese dal 1384 al 1799 (Bologna: fratelli Merlani, 1888-1914), 1, 212 et seq.: [1511] ‘Ad Rhetoricam et Poesim. In vesperis. Philippus Fasaninus [sic]. Legat diebus festis tantummodo.’ ‘ Collettanee

Grece,

Latine,

e Vulgari per diuersi Auctori

Moderni,

nella

Morte

de lardente

Seraphino Aquilano, Per Gioanne Philotheo achillino Bolognese in uno corpo Redutte, Et alla Diua Helisabetta Feltria da Gonzaga Duchessa di Urbino dicate (Bologna: per Caligula Bazaliero, 1504). Two copies of this rare book are to be found in the Bodleian Library (Mortara Adds IL.18 and Byw U.282).

See

Elizabeth

See

Watson,

Achille

Bocchi

and

the

Emblem

Book

as

Symbolic

Form

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 15. A sonnet by Fasanini appears on I [vüi]"”: ‘Noi rendon certi I tuoi dolci concetti, / E tante lingue a laude toe diserte / Che poi la Morte toa se son scoperte / Esser tu in Ciel volato in continenti. / Quel Re che dogni cosa I movimenti / Prevede e tratta con soe leggi certe / Le opinioni soe te feci aperte / Perche in ti sol viviam li spirti ardenti / Perho qua giuso dal sublime Throno / Che sacro a nome tuo fia lui chiamato / Mandotte a noi per mitigar col suono? / Ciascun chavesse il cor troppo indurato / Ma poi te chiese I Ciel per maggior dono, / E tu gli sei con gran triompho andato.” ® The Apuleius appeared in 1500, the Tabula Cebetis in an undated edition of Censorinus. The Symbola Pythagorae were published posthumously in 1508. The ‘Epitome’ of Horapollo appeared, also posthumously, in a collective philological work with the tide, /ndex eorum quae in hoc volumine continentur. Servii Honorati vocabula in Vergilium annotata... (Paris: Gilles de Gourmont and Jean Petit, n.d.), fols. [1 iii]**-[I iv]"®. The British Library gives 1510[?] for the Gilles de Gourmont issue, whilst B. Moreau, Inventaire chronologique des editions parisiennes du XVle siècle (Paris: Imprimerie municipale, 1977), IL, no 454, suggests 1512 for the one by Jean Petit. For the text of this ‘Epitome’, see the article quoted in note 2 above. For other translations, including one by Giorgio Valla, see P. O. Kristeller, /ter Italicum, 1. 140, 164; Il, 119, 3z3, 341; and Sandra Sider, ‘Horapollo’, in Catalogus

Translationum

et Commentariorum

Press, 1986), vol. VI, pp. 15-29.

(Washington

DC: Catholic

University of America

77

and Niger at Milan.” In 1525 his eminence among the literati of Bologna

was recognized when he was appointed to replace Gianandrea Garisendi as principal secretary to the Senate, and in 1528 he transferred from the

University to the Palazzo Publico. He died on 4 November 1531.'°

‘ This is in another collective philological work containing notes by Beroaldo, Calderini, and Poliziano; see ‘The Hieroglyphs at Bologna’, note 39. In Fasanini’s Hieroglyphs, fol. AA[vii]", Pio’s poem reads: ‘Clarissimi viri loannis Baptistae Pii Bononiensis Endecasyllabon. / Memphitae magicis profata linguis / Ostentant animantium figuris/ Horus Mercurius lovis minister / Interpresque dei tenebricosi / Hine dictus, geminis palam libellis / Expromit, reserat, reponit, ornat,/ Curtis, luppiter, et laciniosis / Aevi vulnere cuncta lancinantis./ Miratus, miseratus, hospitali / Doctus excipiens sinu Philippus: / Philippus Latii novella Siren / Donat munificus latinitati / Vultus restituens probe integellos / Interpres simul ac parens parentis,/ Et vanus Samius nisi, Horus Hori.’ See also P. O. Kristeller, /ter italicum, Il, 38: Pal. 1019. fasc. 12: letters of (J. B.) Pius Bononiensis,

including one with a postscript of Jac. Crucius and Philippus Phasianinus (Parma, Bibl. Palatina, Fondo Palatino). ? Palaephati scriptoris, graeci opusculum De non credendis fabulosis narrationibus interprete Philippo Phasianino Bononiensi (Bologna: per Benedictum Hectoris, 1515), fol. [D iv]": ‘Achilles Phileros Bochius ad Philippum Phasianinum. / Raro quot tibi luppiter secundus / Tot dotes animi simul Philippe / Uni praebuit. Idem enim es Poeta et / Orator bonus attice et latine./ Interpres bonus utriusque linguae./ Hoc Poemata docta sat fatentur / Quae nunc mirifico facis Lepore./ Hoc Palaephatus ipse nuper abste / Donatus nivea latinitate./ Qui si vixerit, ambigat profecto velit, an

Pelasgus

esse./ O nostrae columen,

decusque

et ingens

/ Romanus

/ Urbis gloriae, sed quid

Urbis?

Orbis.’ The text of Fasanini’s Palaephatus has been reprinted from the Basel, 1535 edition of Hyginus, Fabularum liber, by Garland Publishing of New York in the series The Renaissance and the Gods (1976). i Quoted from Fantuzzi (see note 3 above).

° ‘Quae autem fortuna posset tibi gratior arridere, quam si cum duobus aut tribus adulescentulis vel Mediolanum mitteris, Calvum et Nigrum alieno sumptu auditurus vel Wittenbergem sub Luthero et Melanchthone stipendia facturus vel Bononiam Phasianino et B. Pio operam daturus.’ Quoted from

Giehlow (note 3 above), pp. 131-132, who refers to Adalbert Horawitz ed., Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus (Leipzig, 1886), p.189. 10 Kristeller, I, 275: H I 28. cart. misc. XV-XVI Phil. Phasianinus... (Mantova, Bibl.

Communale).

in.

Jo. Ant. Flaminius ... Silvæ ... verses to ...

FILIPPO FASANINI

AND HIS ‘EXPLANATION OF SACRED LETTERS’

Apart from the sonnets noted below, Fasanini’s published works are three translations. The Palaephatus and the Horapollo appeared in 1515 and 1517, although he had the Greek text of these two works in his possession from the time they were published by Aldus in 1505.'! The contents of this volume, at first glance a rather heterogeneous collection (fables of Aesop and Gabria, proverbs from Tarrhaeus, Didymus, and Suidas, the Hieroglyphs of Horapollo, mythographical works by

allegorical representation of the life of man! and, in the ‘Declaratio’ of

78

Cornutus—also

called

Phornutus—Heraclitus

the allegorist

of Homer,

and Palaephatus, and fragments dealing with fables from Aphthonius, Hermogenes,

Philostratus, and Aulus Gellius) can be seen as concemed

with the single subject of allegorical meaning. Whilst generally accepting the Aristotelian notion of the conventional nature of all language, the humanists were keenly interested in the opposite notion, derived from Plato’s Cratylus, of a divine language, or signs which in some way contain their own meaning inherently, are universally valid and are apprehended intuitively. The classical Neoplatonists had quoted the Egyptian hieroglyphs as examples of such signs: Plotinus in the well-known verses commented by Ficino, Iamblichus in the passage quoted below (note 31). The idea of a natural language, in some way exempt from the arbitrary and the conventional into which language fell

79

the Horapollo, he gives as his reason for attempting the translation the fact that these symbols are ‘adaptable for many purposes’. After the rather undiscriminating accumulation of classical references quoted for the most part through Crinito, Erasmus, and Rhodiginus, what stands out as exceptional in the ‘Declaratio’ is the idea that a visual reproduction of the sign with the text would be more effective than the words alone in enabling the reader to perceive the ‘thing’, the res as opposed to the verbum. Unfortunately Fasanini was unable to fulfil his ambition, and editions of Horapollo remained without illustrations until the French translation of 1543. Fasanini’s nervousness concerning possible rivals in the publication of the Horapollo is explained by his experience with the Palaephatus, for he was anticipated in this case by Angelo Cospo, formerly of Bologna, who brought out his version in 1514.'° Fasanini’s Palaephatus knew considerable success; a second edition appeared at Strasburg in 1517, and it is found in many editions of mythographers: with Cornutus

(1528,

1543), Hyginus

(1535,

1549,

1570,

1578,

1608,

ex

instituto

1670), and

symbols (mythology, fables, proverbs), and with language which seems to escape the conventional (enigmas, puns, ambiguities). But, as suggested elsewhere," a distinction must be made among those interested

Fulgentius (1536, 1543). Not so his Horapollo, which appeared first despite Trebazio’s head start and despite the potential challenge from the illustrated version being prepared by Pirckheimer and Diirer for Maximilian,'° but failed to capture the market.’ A note at the end of the text (reproduced here before the ‘Declaratio’) tells us that the work was ready for publication at the beginning of September 1516, so that the author’s anxiety must have been considerably aggravated by the delay between this date and the publication, which probably took place between 26 June and 29 November 1517.'* The reasons for the delay are

on a rational apprehension of real or supposed properties of the object or figure. Fasanini’s expectation that an illustration would enable a more effective perception of the res (meaning), as opposed to the verbum (text), does not make him a neo-platonist. Moreover his choice of Palaephatus, who rationalised the myths, suggests on the contary that his view may have been primarily Aristotelian. The Palaephatus and the Horapollo would therefore be closely linked in Fasanini’s mind as sources for such signs. He tells us that he had occasion to mention Palaephatus when lecturing in 1514 on the

praemittere consuevimus, vitam mortalium ab infantiae exortu ad hominis usque occasum fabularum esset...” sensibus allegoricis describeremus mentioque Palaephati aliquibus in locis a me facta Fasanini’s interest in the allegorical representation of human life suggests that he may have been reading Beroaldo’s Censorinus, De die natali, and the Tabula Cebetis. Ioannis 15 Libellus Palaephati ... Angelo Cospo interprete (Vienna: Hieronymi Victoris et 1V.312) Singrenii impensis Leonardi et Lucae Alantsee, 1514). Brunet (Manuel du Libraire, mentions an edition of Cremona, Jerome Soncino, 1511, but this is unconfirmed. 16 Giehlow (note 3 above), Appendix III, reproduces Book | of this version. Pirckheimer’s Werner, translation is mentioned in a letter to him from the mathematician and astronomer Johannes resp. published as a dedication in his Libellus de quatuor terrarum orbis in plano figurationiibus

after the tower of Babel, looms large in linguistic thinking in the early Renaissance and explains in part at least the fascination with Egyptian symbols as possibly equal in some way to the Hebrew names imposed

on creation by Adam, with other traditions which seem to transmit such

in the hieroglyphs. These could also be understood as metaphors based

14 Jbid.:

‘cum

in

auspiciis

descriptionibus (Nürnberg,

nostris,

quae

lectionibus

1514) (the letter is probably

publicis

nostro

quotannis

from the first half of 1514). See Willibald

Pirckheimers Briefwechsel , ed. Emil Reicke (Munich: Beck, 1940-46), II, 478-480. Trebazio, but is 17 See note 2 above. It was apparently unknown to Mercier, who refers only to !1 Bol. Djüi]": ‘quorum paucula haec: quae ad manus nostras iam decem anni sunt: opera Aldi Manutii pervenerunt: fragmenta quaedam verius esse: quam legitimum opus eius constat”.

1? In ‘The Hieroglyphs at Bologna’. 13 See below, p. 92.

used by Hoeschel.

the work is dedicated, was 18 See Giehlow (note 3 above), p. 129. Cardinal Campeggio, to whom be ready for his visit to to timed probably was work the and date, elected cardinal on the earlier Bologna on the latter.

Tr

ET 80

FILIPPO FASANINI

AND HIS ‘EXPLANATION

unknown, and it can be only partly explained by the need to revise the translation on the basis of better readings found in the manuscript provided by his dilatory acquaintances. It is impossible to assess the extent of these revisions, since Fasanini’s translation is rather free and he makes no explicit reference to emendations from the manuscript in his text or notes. They are certainly less numerous than his words might

suggest.

The third work translated by Fasanini is of an entirely different character. The Latin original was one of the many apocalyptic works attributed to the twelfth-century Cistercian Joachim of Fiore. In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, the tradition of Joachimite writing consisted of several interrelated strands:'? one had grown around the figure of Charles VIII of France, and two others around the emperors Maximilian and Charles V. The Vaticinia circa apostolicos viros of 1515, an edition by Leandro Alberti of the fourteenth-century Vaticinia de summis pontificibus,” and the subsequent Latin and Italian editions of 1527 seem to be an Italian, pro-papal response to the flurries of proinnperial prophecies occurring before the election of Charles V and at the sack of Rome. The only surviving edition of 1515 is a Latin one, but the colophon of the Italian translation printed in Venice in 1527 states that it is ‘cavada da una altra stampada ne lalma et inclita Citta di Bologna per magistro Hieronymo di Benedicti Cittadino Bolognese, Nelli anni del Sinore [sic] MDXV. A di XV de Iuio [sic], Regnando Leone X. Pontifice : 21

Maximo’.”

This

could

refer

to

the

Latin

edition

of

1515,

which

OF SACRED

LETTERS’

81

indeed by Hieronymus Benedictus. But the work is there dedicated to ‘Jul. de Medicis, S.R.E. Cardinale dignissimo ac Bononiae etc. Legato Apostolico’, and this is unchanged in the Latin edition of 1527, when Julio had become Pope Clement VII. The Italian edition is addressed to ‘Juliano [sic] de Medici della Santa R. Chiesia [sic] Cardinale

dignissimo et de Bologna etc. Legato’ (A[2]").

‘Iuliano’ must be a

simple error for ‘Julio’; but the fact that the translation is addressed to him as Cardinal and Apostolic Legate to Bologna and not as Pope strongly suggests that, like the Latin, the 1527 Italian is an uncorrected reprint of a 1515 edition. | Fasanini’s involvement with this tract reinforces the impression one might form from the dedications of his other works: that his sympathies lay with the more conservative reforming elements of catholicism. The Palaephatus Was addressed to Richard Nix, bishop of Norwich from 1501 to 1536,

a student at Bologna in the 1460s,

and visiting the city at

this time probably as a member of the mission that received Wolsey’s beret. Nix was of the Old Catholic party and was later to become one of the firmest opponents of secession from Rome.” The Horapollo is dedicated to Lorenzo Campeggio, who, though loyal to the Pope, was an advocate of reform.

is

19 See Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), pp. 453-462 and ‘Joachimist Influence on the Idea of a Last World Emperor’, Traditio, 17 (1961), 323-370; Barry Collett, A long and troubled Pilgrimage. The Correspondence of Marguerite

d'Angoulême and Vittoria Colonna,

1540-1545, Studies in Reformed Theology and History, n.s. 6

(Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 2000), esp. p. 32. ?0 See Giovanni

Fantuzzi,

Notizie degli Scrittori Bolognesi (Bologna: Stamperia di S. Tommaso A. Chastel, The Sack of Rome, 1527, Bollingen Series XXXV, 26 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982), p. 66, records another edition (Nurnberg: Hans Sachs, 1527) by Andreas Osiander, Lutheran minister, who interprets the symbols as marking the end of the d'Aquino,

1781-84),

I, 146-153.

papacy.

*! Vaticinia circa Apostolicos viros (Bologna: H. Benedictus, 1515, and Venice: N. and D. dal Jesus, 1527). BL 3836 b 37 and 3835 aaa 2). Prophetia dello Abbate Joachino cerca li Pontifici & R.E. (Venice: N. and D. dal Jesus, 1527; BL 8610 b 46, renumbered 1609/730). See also Brunet, Manuel, WI, 533. In the 1515 edition, fol. A4”, there is a sonnet by Fasanini: “Perche haver gratia dal

Ciel non e dato / A ogn’ huom

che legge dintender latino, / Mi son per alcun spirto peregrino, / Che

disia pur saper, affaticato / E di latin ho in vulgar translatato / Il prophetar de lingegno divino / Dil

calabrese Abbate Ioachino / Di spirito Prophetico dotato. / A le parole sue, cherano oscure / Non gia

senza misterio, ha nostra etate / Gentil lector, agionte le figure. / E se detto ha de le cose passate / Il vero, seran vere le future, / Como qui scritte sono e designate.’ This is probably the one preserved in Bibl. Riccardiana, ms. 2199 (R 1 43). misc. XVI: Leandro Alberti, vita di Joachino Abate de S. Flore,

Abbate Giovacchino to card, Giuliano de’ Medici. Fil Fassianino [sic], sonetto sopra le profezie dell’ Lami, 12: 185. Cf. Jnventario, 46 (Kristeller, /ter italicum, 1, 181). *? See the Dictionary of National Biography (1949-50), XIV, 519.

82

FILIPPO FASANINI

AND HIS ‘EXPLANATION OF SACRED LETTERS’

[XLIV™] Hori Apollinis Niliaci Hieroglyphicarum literarum finis. Opusculum autem hoc latinitate donabat Calendis Septembris anni MDXVI Philippus Phasianinus, ad communem studiosorum utilitatem, qui illud etiam in gymnasio Bononiensi, dum lectiones suas auspicaretur publice recitauit. ?

End of the Hieroglyphic Letters of Horus Apollo the Nilote. This work was to have been published in Latin on Ist September 1516, for the general benefit of students, by Philip Fasanini, who also read it in public in the University of Bologna before beginning his lectures.

[XLIV“] EX DIVERSIS AUCTORIBUS DECLARATIO SACRARUM LITERARUM Eïusdem Philippi Phasianini ad Studiosos.

An Explanation of Sacred Writing extracted from various authors for students by the same Philip Fasanini.

Quae autem ratio ad haec symbola, aenigmataque literarum aegyptiarum Hori Apollinis interpretanda me potissimum hoc tempore impulerit, nunc tandem reddetur, ne quis forte nos difficiliora mutilataque semper sectari credat: quod et anno superiore in Palaephato vertendo: et in hoc opusculo in praesenti fecisse videmur. In quorum utrisque exponendis, cum imperfectis, tum magna ex parte corruptis, tantus utique per immortales deos labor fuit, tantaque molestia, ut per tenebras Lycophronis Poetae, quod dicitur, satius fuerit incedere, et tutissima per Cyaneas insulas, umbrasque Cymerias ambulatio, huius confragosi itineris comparatione,

The reason which perhaps most strongly induced me at this time to set about translating these symbols and enigmas of Horus Apollo’s Egyptian letters must be given at length here, in case anyone should perhaps think that I always hunt out the more difficult texts and imperfect ones—something which I may appear to have done both last year in translating Palaephatus and now in this work. In elucidating these two, which were incomplete and in large part

haberi

possit.

Quod

tamen

onus

haud

gravato animo suscaepi, ut pluribus uno et eodem tempore in commune morem gerens satisfacerem, meque a popularibus molestiis (quibus non omni tempore vacandi facultas mihi conceditur) aliqua ex parte subducerem. Quod

fieri facillime

posse ratus sum, ut multos honesta quadam ratione a me removerem, qui quottidie, ut in amplissima civitate magnoque populo accidat necesse est, commentitia quaedam, novasque res ad

A

corrupt

too,

there

was

indeed,

heaven

knows, such labour and such trouble, that it would have been better, as they say, to plunge into the obscurities of the poet Lycophron; a journey between the Clashing Rocks and through the Cimmerian Shades might be considered perfectly safe in comparison with this rough road. But I have undertaken this task not at all unwillingly, because I can give satisfaction to several people and pleasure generally at the same time, and to some extent elude the importunities of the public (which I cannot always be free of). I thought this could most easily

be done if I translated these hieroglyphs and sacred signs, which are adaptable

A ‘prolusio’ or introductory lecture was normally devoted to explaining the subject’s place in scheme of the arts and sciences. (All printer’s abbreviations in the original have been

the whole

written out; j and u have been corrected

to i and

v where

appropriate.

The

punctuation

has been

modernised to a minimal extent. The text has been divided into paragraphs, in order to make it easier

to read.)

83

usum illorum praesentem dumtaxat idoneas, pro captu ingenii cuiusque et [XLV™] ut est curiosa semper rerum novarum natura mortalium, efflagitare non desinunt, si Hieroglyphica haec notasque sacras, ad plura accommodari aptas, de graeco in latinum sermonem transposuissem.

for many purposes, from Greek into Latin, thus giving myself a good argument for warding off the many people who—as is bound to happen in a big city with a large population and because human nature is always curious about things new—never cease demanding inventions and novelties exactly suited to their current need and taking account of each person’s character.

Habebunt itaque beneficio atque industria nostra imprimis Epithalamistae, qui novam nuptam solemni ritu sponsalia celebrantem, qui mos in patria nostra frequens est, honestare cupiunt, patentissimos campos, per quos in connubii, novae nuptae, neonymphique laudes, sine me, decurrant, qua in re nostrates, bonas horas impensius me insumere, absque

First of all then, the writers of bridal songs, who want to honour the new bride as she celebrates her wedding with solemn rite according to the usual custom in our country, will have, through my public spirit and hard work, boundless fields in which they can find, without my help, praises of marriage, of the bride, and of her groom—something

atque

which my importunate and inept compatriots do not hesitate to ask me to spend long hours on, at great cost, and without any pleasure.

Non deerit itidem curiosis hominibus hoc ex opusculo atque annotamentis nostris

Likewise, from this work and my notes, enquiring men will learn the nature of birds, beasts, fish, trees, grasses, and other things, and what may be represented by each image of them, a real knowledge and a light for understanding correctly the allusions of many writers. From this same work many will be able to borrow short sayings or signs which they can inscribe

delectu

ullo,

importune

satis

intempestuiter [sic: intempestiviter] dubitant.

avium,

ferarum,

piscium,

reticulis, tricliniis,

baltheis, cythara, laquearibus, stragulis,

non

arborum,

herbarum aliarumque rerum quarundam natura, et quid per quamque earum figuram repraesentetur, vera cognitio lumenque ad loca plurium scriptorum recte percipienda. Ex eodem, dicta brevia, aut notas quas in gladiis, annullis, lectulis, foribus,

musaeo, mensa, speculis, cubiculo, conopeis, fictilibus, argenteisque vasculis affigant, plerique mutuari poterunt. Nec non quibus figuris cum pictis tum sculptis, secreta animi sui involucris quibusdam occludere, parietesque domesticos oblinere possint, Et ut cuique commo- [XLV‘°] dum erit argumenta sibi et titulos rebus suis accommodatos hinc abunde arripiet, ut sunt qui symbola sibi,

Amasiaeque suae dumtaxat communia, sortiri volunt, quique notis litterarum novis, quae amicis tantum pateant,

on

swords,

rings,

hairnets,

belts,

a

cithara, on beds, couches, ceiling panels, carpets, doors, in the study, on a table, on bedroom, in the mirrors, on earthenware and silver vases. Indeed they could, with these signs both painted and carved, wrap their secret thoughts in veils and put them all over the walls of their houses. Let everyone gather here in abundance, as it suits him, materials and titles adapted to his needs—like those who want to choose signs to be shared and their themselves just between lovers, and those who enjoy using novel

84

AND HIS ‘EXPLANATION OF SACRED LETTERS’

FILIPPO FASANINI

caeteris vero incognitae sint, uti gaudent. Nam et illorum usus cum parentum nostrorum memoria frequens fuerit hac quoque tempestate secretioribus in rebus a plerisque adhibetur. li commode aenigmata huiusmodi figurasque adhibere in epistolis poterunt quicumque ab eruditis dumtaxat scriptionem suam intelligi cupient. Mihique aliquid et Horo hac in parte accaeptum referent,

characters, which can be known only to their friends, but unknown to others. For they can also be useful to many people at this time, as they often were in our ancestors time, for more secret things. Those who want what they write to be understood only by the learned will be able to put enigmas and figures of this sort in their letters. They will acknowledge that they have gained something in this subject from me and from Horus.

qui Horus aegyptius quidem fuit, atque huiusmodi symbola Hieroglyphasque [sic] literas Idiomate suo aegyptiaco exaravit. Philippus vero quispiam Graecus.”* aegyptiacam linguam callens, ne aegyptiis modo, sed et aliis quoque nationibus haec nota essent, graece scripsit, nosque latine, ne non per Philippum studiosa iuvenurn cohors quovis tempore adiumentum in studiis suis caperet.

This Horus was a certain Egyptian who wrote symbols like these, that is, hieroglyphic characters in his Egyptian language. Philip however, a Greek with a knowledge of Egyptian, wrote in Greek, and | have written in Latin, so that these signs should be available not only to Egyptians but to other nations too, and so that studious cohorts of young people might find help in their studies, thanks to a Philip, in either period.

Hieroglyphicae autem literae quae a graecis ispoyugika seu hieroglypha grammata vocitantur Sacrae aegyptiorum literae erant, sic dictae, quia iis in rebus sacris mysteria significarentur, aenigmaticaeque ac symbolicae scalpturae, quarum priscis temporibus, anteactisque saeculis plurimus fuit usus, praecipueque apud aegyptios vates, ac theologos, qui cum nephas esse ducerent sapientiae mysteria literis communibus vulgo prophano pro- [XLVI] dere, quemadmodum nos facimus. Si quid cognitu dignum iudicassent, id animantium, rerumque variarum expressis figuris ita repraesentabant ut non cuivis statim promptum esset coniicere, verum si cuipiam singularium rerum proprietates, si peculiaris cuiusque animantis vis ac

Hieroglyphic characters, called ‘Hiero— glyphics’ or ‘hieroglyphic letters’ by the Greeks, were the sacred writing of the Egyptians, so called because they expressed the mysteries in religion. They were enigmatic and symbolic engravings, which were much used in ancient times and preceding centuries, especially among Egyptian prophets and teachers of religion, who considered it unlawful to expose the mysteries of wisdom in ordinary writing to lay people, as we do. And if they judged something to be a worthy piece of knowledge, they represented it in plain drawings of animals and other things in such a way that it was not easy for anyone to guess. But if anyone had learned and studied thoroughly from

** The sole source for this information is the title of the first book of the work itself, which reads: ‘The Hieroglyphics of Horus Apollo the Nilote, which he wrote in the Egyptian language and Philip translated into Greek...’ Caussin pointed out in 1618 that Philip’s Greek is of a late period.

natura ex penitusque collatis

Aristotele et aliis cognita, perspecta fuisset, is demum

eorum

symbolorum

coniecturis,

aenigma sententiae deprehenderet seorsumque ab ignara plebe ob hanc scientiam honoratus esset.

Eosdem aegyptios constat ex hac eorum scientia Annum hoc pacto figurari solitum sub serpentis sic effigie ita circumvoluti, ut caudam ore teneret insertam, significantes sic annum semper iisdem vicibus temporum reciprocantibus atque reverticulis in se se recurrere, licet Horus noster saeculum potius significari quam annum per huiusmodi picturam ut visum est, dixerit, quam rem quoque Virgilius tetigit dum annum sua per vestigia

volvi

caudam sibi autumant.

tradit,”>

rodere

ob

et

serpentem

id

eruditi

De eisdem Hieroglyphicis Suidas quoque mentionem faciens, quendam citat qui de his etiam scripserit, qui chaeremon vocabatur eiusdem rei scriptor, cuius et Horapollo noster. Illius verba haec sunt ispoyavpwé Eypayew 6 Xapñuov et ut tradit idem Suidas. Erant apud aegyptios quoque qui ispoypauuateis hoc est Hierogrammantes [sic] dicebantur: qui etiam de futuris vaticinia concipiebant, unumque ex iis Regi mirabiliter multa de Moy- [XLVT®] -sis, qui nasciturus erat, excellentla praedixisse memorat.”

25 Cf.

Diodorus

Siculus,

Bibliotheca,

3.44.

85

Aristotle and others the properties of each thing, the particular nature and essence of each animal, he would at length, by putting together his conjectures about these symbols, grasp the enigma of the meaning and, because of this knowledge, be honoured above the uninitiated crowd. Among these Egyptians it is well known that, on the basis of this science of theirs, the year was normally represented in such a way as to look like a snake coiled round so that it held its tail in its mouth, And they signified by this that the year always rolled round through the same alternating changes and recurrences of time—although our Horus said, as has been seen, that a picture like this meant ‘Time’ rather than ‘Year’, something which Virgil also alluded to when he said that the year is turned back over its own tracks; and scholars assert that the snake bites its tail because of this. Suidas too, making an allusion to these same hieroglyphs, says there was someone who wrote about them who was called Chaeremon, a writer treating of the same subject as our Horapollo. These are his words: ‘Chaeremon wrote hieroglyphs.’ And this same Suidas reports: ‘There were among the Egyptians also men called Hierogrammates, who indeed made prophecies about the future, and he recalls that one of them foretold marvellously to the king many great things about Moses who was yet to be born.

The

immediate

source

for

everything

from

the ‘aenigmaticaeque ac symbolicae scalpturae’ to this point is Adagia, W i 1, which also gives inconsistency the about comment similar a makes and Macrobius and Virgil to following references with Horus (‘non annum, sed aevum...”)

Antiquae lectiones, lib. 26 Suda, IL, nos 175 and 176. Here Fasanini is probably using Rhodiginus, XVL cap. XXV (Venice: Aldus, 1516), pp. 830-831.

86

FILIPPO FASANINI

De eisdem figuris et literis aegyptionum [sic] ferme auctores omnes. et primo apud Herodotum in Euterpe mentio fit, ubi dicitur aegyptios primum saxis animalia insculpsisse, literisque bifariis usos esse quarum unas sacras vocitabant, Populares vero alteras.”’ Illud quoque memoratur in antiquorum monumentis aegyptios literas quidem proprias habuisse quas discerent omnes. Sed quas sacras appellant: solos novisse sacerdotes a parentibus seorsum acceptas. Apud aethiopas vero, quorum Coloni fuisse videntur aegyptii, iisdem omnes utebantur figuris.”*

On these signs and characters of the Egyptians you can consult almost all the historical sources. And firstly there is a mention in Herodotus, in the ‘Euterpe’, where it is said the Egyptians first carved animals in stone and used two sorts of letters, of which some were called sacred, the others popular. It is also recalled in the records of the ancients that the Egyptians had their own letters which everyone learned, but the ones they called sacred only the priests learned from their fathers. However among the Ethiopians, from whom the Egyptians seem to have come as colonists, everyone used these signs.

Habetur quoque apud Ammianum Marcellinum libro xvii testimonium harum literarum sub his verbis. Est autem obeliscus asperrimus lapis, in figuram metae cuiusdam sensim ad proceritatem consurgens excelsam, ut quae radium imitetur. Graciliscens paulisper specie quadrata, in verticem productus angustum, manu levigatus artificis. Formatum [sic: Formarum] autem innumeras notas Hieroglyphicas appellatas, quas ei undique videmus incisas, initialis sapientiae vetus insignivit auctoritas: Volucrum enim ferarumque etiam, alieni mundi genera multa sculpentes, Ad aevi quoque sequentis aetates imperatorum vulgatius pervenire memoria promissa, et soluta regum vota monstrabant.

There is evidence about these signs in Ammianus Marcellinus too, in Book 17, in these words: ‘Now an obelisk is a very hard stone with something of the shape of a turning post [in the circus], rising to a lofty height, gradually becoming slenderer as if to imitate a sunbeam. It is foursided in shape, tapered to a narrow point and polished by the workman’s hand. Some ancient authority of pristine wisdom carved the innumerable characters of shapes, called hieroglyphs, which we see everywhere carved on it. For by sculpting many kinds of birds and beasts, even of another world, they showed that the promises of emperors and the vows accomplished by kings are broadcast more widely through memory down to generations of a later age.

AND HIS ‘EXPLANATION OF SACRED LETTERS’

87

mens concipere potest ita Prisci quoque scriptitarunt Aegyptii. Sed singulae literae singulis nominibus serviebant, et verbis nonnunquam significabant integros sensus. Cuius rei scientia in his interim duobus exemplum per vulturem naturae vocabulum pandunt, quia mares nullos posse inter has alites inveniri, rationes memorant physicae, perque speciem apis mella conficientis indicant regem moderari cum iucunditate. Aculeos quoque innasci debere his significant, ostendentes et similia plurima.?°

For the early Egyptians did not write like us, when a fixed and easy series of letters now expresses anything the human mind can conceive. But single letters stood for whole nouns, and they often expressed whole meanings with single words. For the moment, the principle of the subject can be exemplified by these two things: by a vulture they represent the word ‘nature’, because natural history tells us that no males are to be found among these birds. And by the figure of a bee making honey they indicate that a king should govern with benevolence, and signify that kings should also have a sting. And they display many other similar things.

Inter alia symbola sive notas aegyptiae theologiae Lothon quoque Persicum et eiusmodi alias arbores celebrabant, quibus doctrina occultior, atque intellectus signaretur, ut multi ex veteribus testantur. Nam et limum cum nominabant, symbolicos® mundi molem,

Among other symbols or signs of Egyptian theology, they held in honour the Persian lotus and other trees of that sort by which rather occult doctrine and understanding was meant, as many of the ancients assert. When they mentioned mud, they usually meant

Non enim praestititus

exprimit

ut nunc literarum numerus [sic: praestitutus] et facilis

quidquid

[XLVII"°]

humana

2° Ammianus Marcellinus, 17.4.7-11. Fasanini’s text seems to be that of the Codex Fuldensis; see the edition and translation by J. C. Rolfe in the Loeb Classical Library (London, 1956), I, 321-Z3.1 have made the minimum

of emendations,

following this edition, and translated as well as I can the

text Fasanini had in front of him. In Horapollo’s text (1.11, fols V®-VI" in Fasanini’s edition) the vulture is said to signify a number of things including ‘mother’ and ‘heaven’, but not precisely ‘nature’. This meaning however follows easily from the former two as described by Horapollo, and

Ammianus is clearly reporting a closely related tradition—a tradition which is picked up in the Renaissance by L.-B. Alberti (De re aedificatoria, VILA). The relevant part of Fasanini’s text reads as follows: ‘Palladem et lunonem. Quia aegyptiis ita uidetur Palladem utique caeli superiorisque

hemisperii [sic] partem accepisse, inferiorem vero lunonem, quo fit ut indecens absonumque prorsus

aegypti esse existiment caelum masculino sexu graecos exprimere, quod foeminino genere verius dici debuerit, quando solis lunaeque generatio ac reliquarum insuper stellarum in ipso caelo ceu in matre perficiuntur, quae

* Herodotus, Historiae, 2.36. The phrase ‘first carved animals in stone’ probably represents a confusion with Tacitus. According to the Oxford Classical Dictionary the ‘clumsy division of the work into nine “Muses” is some librarian’s fantasy’.

2 Diodorus, 3.3.1-5.

res muliebris dumtaxat operis existit: ad hocque vulturum genus (a

iam

praedictum est) foeminini solum generis reperitur. Quam ob causam omni foeminino animali etiam vulturem aegyptii tanquam insigne regium superimponunt, atque etiam exinde in omni dea id observant vulturem subscribendo ne de una quaque dea si sigillatim scribere in praesenti volucro: sermo hic in longum pertrahatur. Matrem significare volentes vulturem pingunt quoniam foemininum dumtaxat, ut iam saepius praedictum est, animal existit. Caelestem, quia aegyptiis nullo pacto Placet, ut superius enarratum est: caelum marem potius quam foeminam esse quia eorum inde generatio est.

A rather better translation is given by Jean Mercier (1551, p. 23), who discusses in a note (p. 230) the use of the Greek ‘ouranon’ and ‘ouranian’. Al

transcription of the Greek ovpPodiKds.

ait

actio

denotatur,

deus

sunt,

causa

existat,

autem

super hane actionem in se ipso totus consistens, ac reliquos principatus exuperans, sanctus et ubique venerandus penitus conquiescit, quod [XLVII**] ex ipso etiam sedentis habitu pernoscitur. Nam hic idem cum generationis ac totius naturae virium omnium, quae insitae elementis

im-

materialis quidem ipse indivisus, immobilis ingenitus, totusque ex se ipso et in se ipse totus, omnia complexus, qua ratione super aquatilem lothum eiusmodi numen Aegyptii praenotarunt.*!

Proclus autem, ea in parte ubi de magia disserit, animantia quaedam, lapidesque et arbores

recenset,

quae

suis dicata nu-

minibus maxime praestant. Lothon etiam inquit Apollinis numini ascriptam, atque dedicatam, quod ante solis emersum, sua folia implicat, prosurgente autem sensim ac paulatim explicat, et quatenus ad mediam coeli plagam ascendit, folia expandit, quo venerationem suo numini peculiarem ostendat.*

Proclus however, in the section where he treats of magic, lists certain animals, and stones, and trees which are most notably dedicated to their gods. He says that the lotus is in fact assigned and dedicated to the majesty of Apollo, because, before the rising of the sun, it keeps its leaves folded, but as [the sun] rises, it unfolds them gradually, scarcely observably, and continues to open out its leaves for as long as [the sun] is rising to the central zone of the sky, whereby it shows especial veneration to its deity.

31 Jamblichus, De mysteriis aegyptiis, 7, 2. Fasanini

probably read this and the next mentioned

work of Proclus in the translation of Ficino first published by Aldus in 1497: Index eorum, quae hoc in libro habentur. lamblichus de mysteriis Aegyptiorum.,. (Venice, 1503), fol. efi]; (Frankfurt am

Main, 1972), pp. 64-65.

*2 Proclus, De sacrificio et magia (Venice,

1503), fol. h{vii]"”; (Frankfurt am Main), p. 124.

Diodorus etiam Siculus quarto Bibliotheces libro huiusmodi ad hane rem pertinentia sic tradit. Sed de aethiopum literis quas Aegyptii sacras vocant, ne quid de Priscis rebus omittatur, dicendum. Sunt aegyptiorum literae variis animantibus extremitatibusque hominum atque instrumentis, sed praecipue artificum persimiles. Non enim syllabarum compositione, aut literis, verba eorum exprimuntur: Sed imaginum forma, earum significatione usu memoriae hominum tradita, scribunt quidem accipitrem, Crocodilum,

33 Strabo,

16.4.4, and

salvation.

This

is related

in Rufinus,

in

his Ecclesiastical History, where he reports that the cross, which symbolically designated the life to come, was recorded among the priestly letters. Diodorus Siculus too, in the fourth book of his Bibliothecae, reports things pertinent to this subject thus: ‘But we must now talk about the Ethiopian writing which the Egyptians called sacred, so that nothing concerning the subject of antiquity will be left out. The characters of the Egyptians are very like various animals, and members of the human body, and implements, especially workmen’s [tools]. For their words are not expressed by putting together syllables or letters, but in the form of pictures, whose meaning was impressed by practice upon men’s memory. They draw indeed a hawk, a crocodile, a

17.1.27, Pliny, 36.14; Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 354B-355D.

The

immediate source here however is Crinito, De honesta disciplina, lib. VII, cap. I. # Rufinus, Historia ecclesiastica, lib. I, cap. XXIX. This passage had been noted by Ficino, De vita coelitus comparanda, ch. XVIII, Opera (1576), p. 556, as well as by Crinito, loc.cit,

« MN!

NT

mentis

AT

ut

TT

accipiunt,

Strabo, Pliny, and Plutarch likewise provide evidence about these sacred characters, telling us what can indeed be seen from the obelisks, where carved figures and pictures of animals, grasses, rivers, and trees set forth Egyptian philosophy. Indeed on the obelisks of the kings Sennosorneus and Sesotis, which were brought from Egypt to Rome, the meaning of natural objects is set out with symbols of this sort and hieroglyphic signs, and this was the way the philosophy of the Egyptians was first brought to light. Among other pictures they used to draw scarabs, bees, rivers, oxen, vultures, and things of that sort. And what is more—something which | think indeed remarkable—by the picture and sign of the cross Egyptian priests and philosophers intended to signify the hope of future

SAME R

perfectione

Testantur itidem de his sacris literis Strabo, Plinius et Plutarchus, quod etiam ex obeliscis conspici potest, in quibus figurae et effigies diversorum animalium, herbarumque, fluviorum et arborum sculptae, aegyptiacam philosophiam ostendunt. Nanque in obeliscis regum Sennosornei atque Sesotidis, qui ex Aegypto in Urbem comportati sunt, per eiusmodi symbola et Hieroglyphicas notas rerum naturae interpretatio denotata est, atque ita Aegyptiorum philosophia primo illustrata est. Inter alias vero [XLVI] effigies, scarabeos, apes, fluvios, boves, vultures et id genus notare consueverunt, atque adeo ex ipsa effigie signoque crucis (quod etiam atque etiam animadvertendum putamus) Aegyptii sacerdotes ac philosophi spem venturae salutis intelligi volebant, quod apud Ruffinum in sacra historia relatum est, ubi inter sacedotales [sic] literas relatam crucem quae venturam vitam symbolice designabat, tradit.**

fy iy

intellectus

Calcydensis lamblicus ad Porphirium scribens testatur, inquiens omnia in Lotho et orbiculata et rotunda sunt, et poma et folia, quae figura omnium procul dubio absolutissima est, sed enim ex ea effigie

symbolically the mass or body of the world, expressing thereby the very substance of things. But when they spoke of a god seated on the lotus, they took that as the god himself and divine perfection of understanding, as lamblichus of Chalcis declares in his letter to Porphyry, where he says everything in the lotus is round, as a disk or as a sphere, both fruit and leaf, the shape which is without doubt the most perfect of all. But then by this figure, as he says, is denoted the activity of the mind; God however, being in Himself placed entirely above this activity and surpassing all other principles, holy and everywhere to be praised, is wholly at rest - something which can even be understood from the sitting position itself. For He exists as the cause of generation and of all the powers innate in the elements of the whole of nature, Himself immaterial and undivided, unmoving and unbegotten, entirely sufficient to Himself and the universe in Himself, and for this reason the Egyptians drew the divinity like this above the water-borne lotus.

89

ues

seu corpus intelligere soliti sunt, quo ipsa rerum materia exprimitur, Cum vero deum Lotho insidentem dicerent, id quidem pro deo ipso, atque divina

AND HIS ‘EXPLANATION OF SACRED LETTERS’

jh REA

FILIPPO FASANINI

iG

88

90

FILIPPO FASANINI

serpentem,

hominis

oculum,

manus,

faciem et caetera eiusmodi.

Accipiter rem denotat ciro [sic: citro] factam, quoniam haec aliarum ferme omnium

avis

sit velocissima,

transfertur

haec notatio ad domesticas res, quae velociter fiant. Crocodilus malum significat. Oculus iustitiae servator et totius corporis interpretatur custos. Reliquarum corporis partium [XLVIIIv°] dextera manus digitis passis liberalitatem designat. Sinistra vero compressis, tenacitatem atque avaritiam. Eodem modo et caeterarum corporis partium figura atque instrumenta aliquid certurn notabant. Quae, memoria hominum longo usu ac meditatione

observata,

e

vestigio

exprimerent internoscebant.*°

quid

AND HIS ‘EXPLANATION OF SACRED LETTERS’

snake, a man’s eye, hands, other things of this sort.

face,

and

A hawk denotes something done with speed, for this bird is the swiftest of all the others; and the notation is then transferred to domestic things which are done swiftly. The crocodile signifies evil. The eye is interpreted as the keeper of justice and the guardian of the whole body. Of the other parts of the body, the right hand with fingers extended means liberality; but the left with [fingers] closed [means] obstinacy and avarice. In the same way the pictures of other parts of the body, and implements, denoted something particular, and they could distinguish immediately what [each] of these things meant from the markings, for they were studied with long practice and meditation in the memory of men.

Macrobius quoque in primo saturnalium libro inquit osyrim aegyptii ut solem esse aiunt quoties Hieroglyphicis literis suis exprimere volunt insculpunt scaeptrum, inque eo speciem oculi exprimunt, et hoc signo osyrim monstrant significantes hunc deum solem esse, regalique po-

Macrobius too, in the first book of the Saturnalia, says: ‘The Egyptians say that Osiris is as the sun. Every time they want to express this in their hieroglyphs, they carve a sceptre and on top of it they represent an eye; and by this sign they signify Osiris, meaning that this god is

testate

the

sublimem

cuncta

despicere,

quia

solem lovis oculum appellat antiquitas, apud eosdem Apollo qui est sol, Horus vocatur, et quae sequuntur abunde.°

Apud L. Apuleium libro Asini aurei seu Methamorphoseos xi, haec verba itidem ad hoc facientia leguntur. De opertis Adyti profert quosdam libros literis ignorabilibus praenotatos, partim figuris huiuscemodi animalium concaepti sermonis compendiosa verba sugge-

sun,

that he

is sublime,

and

in his

royal power looks down on everything, because antiquity called the sun the eye of Jupiter, and among them Apollo, who is the sun, is called Horus.’ And many things [like this] follow.

In L. Apuleius too—Book 11 of the Golden Ass or Metamorphoses—we read these words in support of this: ‘From the sanctum of the temple he brought forth certain books written in unknown characters, some of which [were] figures of animals standing for

% Diodorus, 3.4.1-4. Again the immediate source may be Rhodiginus (see note 26 above), though Fasanini would certainly also know of the article by his colleague Giovanni Battista Pio on the

‘eye

of justice’

(see

note

Macrobius. 36 Macrobius, 21.1.12-13.

6 above).

Pio’s

references

are

to Apuleius,

Diodorus,

Pliny,

and

91

rentes, partim nodosis et in modum rotae tortuosis, Capreolatimque condensis apicibus a curiositate prophanorum lectione munita.*”

brief sentences of continuous speech, and some [had] tops and tails intertwined and curved round like a wheel or

Ubi advertendum est tales literas Aegyptiorum ab ipso Apuleio literarum genus ignorabile nuncupari. Ad haec Cornelius quoque Tacitus libro xi

Here it is to be noted that these the Egyptians are called by himself an unknown type of Cornelius Tacitus too—The

historiarum

[LXVIIII—sic:

XLIX"]

ab

excessu Augusti de his testimonium tale reddit. Primi per figuras animalium Aegyptii sensus mentis effingebant et antiquissima monumenta memoriae humanae impressa saxis cernuntur et litterarum semet inventores perhibent. Inde phoenicas: quia mari praepollebant: intulisse Graeciae, gloriamque adeptos tanquam

repererint,

quae

acceperant.**

Illustratur quoque ex iis Lucani locus ex libris Pharsaliae ubi dicitur Nondum flumineas Memphis contexere biblos noverat, in saxis tantum volucresque feraeque sculptaque servabant magicas animalia linguas.*”

Vidimus

et

nos

picturam

quandam

(praeter figuras illas animalium vasorum,

instrumentorumque formas, quibus pro literis utebantur, in obeliscis Romae existentibus) in qua circulus primo, mox anchora

obtorto

inerat,

corpore

symbolum,

quam

mediam

delphinus

circumplectitur,

Augusti

Caesaris

quod

dictum

se

haud dubie significare, ostendit festina tarde. Per Delphinum enim pernicissimum natantium animal, anchora

twisted like the tendrils of a vine, and in

this way they were protected against curiosity [and] reading by lay people.’

letters of Apuleius writing. Annals.

From the Death of Augustus, Book

11—

gives this testimony about them: ‘The Egyptians were the first to represent thoughts by pictures of animals, and these most ancient memorials of human history can be seen carved on stone; and they consider themselves to be the inventors of writing. Thence the Phoenicians, because they were dominant at sea, imported it into Greece and gained

credit for inventing what they had borrowed.’ From these passages too, light is thrown on that place in the Pharsalia of Lucan where it is said: ‘Before Egypt had learned to weave the river reeds,

only

birds

and

beasts

and

animals carved on stones preserved the utterances of the priests.’ I too have seen one picture (other than those figures of animals, vases, and shapes of implements that they used for letters, appearing on obelisks in Rome) which consisted firstly of a circle, then an anchor, the shaft of which had a dolphin curled around it, and this symbol of Augustus Caesar, [by which], it is said,

he

no

doubt

meant

himself,

stands for ‘Hasten slowly’. For by the dolphin, the fastest animal of those that

37 Apuleius, 11.22. The immediate source is certainly Rhodiginus, who is the originator of the comment, but Fasanini would also know Beroaldo’s gloss on this passage appearing in his edition of Apuleius (see note 5 above). Beroaldo refers to Lucan, Pliny, Macrobius, and Ammianus and quotes extensively from the last-named.

35 Tacitus, 11.14.

3° Lucan, De bello civili, 3.220-24.

92

AND HIS ‘EXPLANATION OF SACRED LETTERS’

FILIPPO FASANINI

innexum, maturitatem illam designabant,*” quod cum ab hac Aegyptiorum simili scalptura provenire animadvertissem, animus mihi fuerat, quando exempla magis movent: figuras, notasque simili forma unicuique capiti et symbolo opusculi huius sculptas adfigere, ut et [sic: et] sensu visuque: non minus quam ex auditu et lectione res ista perciperetur,

[XLIX*°]

maiorque

cum

voluptas

tum

utilitas lectoribus compararetur. Sed quia res paulo operosior et longioris temporis apparebat, nullo pacto coeptum opus differre, et in rebus: quas sibi quisque per se parare semper poterit: non multum immorari volui: tum quia alia nobis abunde prae manibus sunt: quae nos utilius apud se detineant: Cum etiam ne, si forte alius in penitissima etiam orbis parte relegatus, ut quandoque usu venit, in interpretando hoc eodem opusculo inscium me praeoccupasset, malevolorurn vitilitigationibus paterem, qui me actum agere arguerent, iure an iniuria susque deque facientes, quorum quidem improborum magnus est numerus, qui ceu Momus ille laudanda etiam plerumque vituperant.

Adde quod et satis molestum duplicatumque laborem in praesenti interpretatione, nonnullorum decepti vaniloquentia dixerim an fraude, impendimus qui cum Hori fideliorem, quam apud nos esset, codicem, se nobis daturos perbenigne recepissent, in hanc usque diem procrastinatores male salsi [sic: falsi] nos protraxerunt, quando iam extremam huic ipsi novissimae recognittioni [sic] interpretationis nostrae manum imposueramus, ut antiqui mox 40

.

This

:

seemingly

personal

lente’ (see note 25 above).

passage

-

is also

swim, entwined with an anchor, they meant ‘maturity’. When I realized that it derived from a similar engraved figure of the Egyptians, I resolved, since models are more effective, to attach engraved figures and signs of similar type to each chapter and symbol of this work, so that by observation and sight. no less than by hearing and reading, the meaning should be perceived and greater pleasure and greater usefulness too should result for the readers. But because this was apparently rather more work and [would take] more time, | did not want to delay the job in any way when

it was

begun,

and

spend a

lot of

time on things which everyone can supply for himself. Another reason [for not delaying publication] was that 1 have many other tasks on hand which I can more usefully attend to. And another was that, if by chance someone far away in some obscure corner of the globe, as sometimes happens, had, without my knowledge, anticipated me in translating this work, 1 did not want to be exposed to quarrels with malevolent people who would accuse me, whether with oaths or with insults, of doing what was already done. There are a great many such dishonest people who, like that character Momos, commonly slander even praiseworthy things. In addition 1 have had my work on this translation disturbed and doubled, deceived as 1 was by the idle talk, or perhaps I should say by the fraudulence, of certain people who promised they would kindly give me a more faithful manuscript of Horus than I had, and then kept me waiting with excessive and false dilatoriness, until the very day when | had put the final touches to the last proof of my translation, so that, immediately upon the long-awaited 4

+

reminiscent

of

e

Erasmus’

>

commentary

on

rey

‘Festina

codicis diu expectato adventu, ubi longe plura et saniora inerant, ad singula revidenda, pariterque retractanda, iterato labore necessario compulsi fuerimus, cum si in his fides fuisset, in quibus summa esse debuerat, non tantopere laborandum nobis fuerit. Ast oppido quam recte cessit, et bene, numinis

93

arrival of the ancient manuscript, which contained many additional and more correct readings to be picked out and revised one by one, I was obliged to do the necessary work all over again. Whereas, if there had been any honesty in these people who should have had it most,

| would not have had to labour so

praesidio, res se se habuit.

much. But certainly the affair ended as favourably as it could, and, with God’s help, fared well.

Unum illud tamen nobis pergraviter do[L®] -lendum est, quod in tantis vigiliis ac lucubrationibus eorum qui ad communem studiosorum utilitatem iugiter insudant: quantis id totum laboribus: incommodis, atque animi corporisque dispendiis assequuti olim fuerint, non satis estimatur atque expenditur, longeque minora sudoribus atque vigiliis praemia in patria, ubi virtus invidiam civibus suis parit, reportantur, estque si diis placet, in cuiusvis, non modo literarum omnino expertis, manu, sed famelicorum quorundam literatorum qui in hanc urbem pedibus, quod dicitur,

One thing however I seriously regret. Whatever those who labour for the common good of students have achieved in times past by their vigils and meditations with so many labours and so much costly expenditure of mind and body, it is not accorded enough esteem and weight, and achievements costing much less labour and vigil are prized in this country, where virtue breeds envy among its citizens. And anybody has the right, God forgive us, to pass judgement on men of letters and hold their hours of work up to the barbs of envy, not only the type who is completely ignorant of letters, but certain famished literati, who flock daily like an army into this city, driving our good name away to be sold, as they say, like a slave. These people in the world of letters, like inglorious drones among honey-making bees, take over the whole hive, more sterile than the ‘Gardens of Adonis’, more unfruitful than Venus’s victory, mere beggars and venal opportunists who are concerned with nothing but scattering before the crowd, by means of their potted summaries, the liberal and noble arts (which they have not hesitated to prostitute to immoral gain), putting a base and miserly price on a priceless profession. They are worthy, so help me God, to be thrust out with their deceits and illusions, not only from Plato’s republic, but from any assembly of men, lest they lead inexperienced poor people and uncultivated minds away from the

albis ad famem

propulsandam quotidie

agminatim confugiunt, iudicium de literatis viris facere eorumque vigilias invidiae stimulis elevare, cum ipsi in re literaria, veluti inter mellificantes apes fuci inglorii, latam alvum trahant, Adonidis hortis steriliores, palmaeque Cypriae infructuosiores, qui nulla in re magis occupantur, meri prorsus aeruscatores ac versipelles, quam crebris discursionibus liberales et ingenuas artes

(quas scorteo quoque nummo prostituere

non dubitarunt) venales vulgo circumferre artique inextimabili praetium sordide et avare imponere: digni mediusfidius qui non modo e Platonis republica sed a quocumque mortalium coetu cum suis offuciis atque praestigiis extrudantur, ne imperitam plebem et rudes animos, ambitiosa literrarum

94

FILIPPO FASANINI tramite

true path of reason with the vanity and poverty of their scholarship.

Sed haec et alia perplura hactenus. Decet enim ut in auspiciis sic in fine quoque foeliciter semper ominari ac bono animo numen propitium quod nos aliquando [L'°] respiciat praestolari: quando quaerelae, cum vel maxime necessariae sunt: ne tum quidem (ut ait Livius) gratae habeantur. FINIS.

But enough of these, and of many other matters. For it is fitting, at the end as well as in the beginning, always to speak words of happy omen and to expect that a propitious divinity will look down on us kindly from time to time. Even when disputes are unavoidable, they are not even then, as Livy says, welcome. THE END.

paupertate seducant.

a

recto

rationis

Impressum Bononiae apud Hieronymum Platonidem Bibliopolam Solertissimum: Anno Incarnationis Dominicae. MDXVII.

Printed at Bologna in the printery of Jerome Platonides, fully qualified bookdealer, in the year 1517 after the incarnation of the Lord.

Devices as ‘Emblems’ before 1531°

In the twelve books of his Parergon

iuris, Alciato gathered notes on

literary and historical questions which arose in the course of his legal studies. Three books were published in 1537, seven more in 1543, and the last two posthumously in 1554, but his letters show that he was collecting such notes from early in his career and that already in 1530 he had assembled over 100, the equivalent almost of the first three books. At first sight they seem a promising field for background material to the emblems, but turn out to be in this respect rather disappointing. There are thirteen references to emblems or to material which also appears 1546," there—two to emblems of the 1531 collection,’ nine to those of

and two to those first added in the Spanish edition of 15493 In only one

there of these cases does Alciato use the word ‘emblem’;’ in the others the in appear ly subsequent would which is discussion of material (1621, cuckoos of or 118) no (1621, colours of emblems, for example

ool no 60), but without explicit naming of the Emblematum liber. raises 1t because interest general some of is references these One of

been suffithe question of a type of emblem which, I think, has not had an have to ciently distinguished in the past, but which seems 5 book In nt. developme important role in their original creation or Copyright © [2008] AMS Press, Inc. All * First published in Emblematica, 16 (2008), 253-269. rights reserved. ! Alciato,

Emblematum

liber,

1531:

‘Desidiam

abiiciendam’

(A7‘°),

Parergon

iuris

1.17;

‘Concordiae symbolum’ (A4°), Parergon iuris 7.17. Quid admisi? Quid omisi?’ (1546 29"), 2 Alciato, Emblematum libellus, 1546: ‘Quid excessi?

1.40; ‘In fraudulentos’ (1546 7°), Parergon Parergon iuris 1.20; *Gratiae’ (1546 5°) Parergon juris

(1546 15"°), Parergon iuris 433 iuris 1.46; ‘In colores’ (1546 30"°), Parergon iuris 2.1; ‘In nothos’

esto...”), ‘Sobrie vivendum...’, 1621 heu Nijge, ka i pépvns’ amoteiv... (1546 28") (1550 Parergon iuris 5.13; *Cuculi’ (1546 12"), Parergon 46"), (1546 num’ ‘Mediola 4.8; iuris Parergon

iuris 7.5; ‘Dolus in suos’ (1546 43°), Parergon iuris 9.11. paupertas subiectorum’ (1549 P. 252), 3 Alciato, Los emblemas, 1549: ‘Opulentia tyranni, juris 9.16; “Vespertilio. Aliud’ (1549 Parergon 247), p. (1549 lio’ ‘Vesperti Parergon iuris 8.6; ? p. 248), Parergon iuris 9.16. + Alciato, Emblematum Parergon iuris 43.

libellus,

1546:

the

emblem

of

Hercules,

‘In

nothos’

(1546

15”),

96

BEFORE

DEVICES AS ‘EMBLEMS’

chapter 13 Alciato gives a brief account of Roman insignia:” they began, he claims, with military symbols, such as the eagle carried on a pole in front of various legions,’ and then moved to use by cities and by private individuals. After Athens and the owl seen on its coins, he mentions Milan and quotes a phrase from Claudian’s Epithalamium: to the city founded by the Gauls, the city that displays the fleece-covered pelt of a sow, [Venus] came.’

A wether is the symbol of the Bituriges, a piglet that of the Aedui. To these peoples is owed the origin of my homeland, This region, Milan, they said was consecrated to a maiden. Certainly the old French language attests this ancient tradition. Minerva was worshipped where now, since the godhead is changed, Thecla stands before the cathedral of the Virgin Mother.* A fleecy pig is Milan’s symbol, and the animal is a hybrid; One part has sharp bristles, another soft wool.’

97

roots to the Celts here (though he claims the Lombards elsewhere).'”

The epigram has another problem with its reference to old French—

something on which the commentators expend much ink, quoting the Latin writers Sidonius Apollinaris and Isidore of Seville, but no old that French ones.'! However the factor that I wish to point out here is Parergon the in described had he Alciato created an emblem out of what in iuris as an insigne. He did this in several other cases in 1546; particular

The chapter goes on to discuss the personal insignia of emperors and legal questions surrounding the use of individual devices, but says nothing about emblems. In 1546 however the emblem entitled ‘Mediolanum’ was included in the new collection and, as we know, made use of the legend of the ‘fleecy pig’:

1531

the

collection

concluded

with

an emblem

into which

he

in this incorporated what he calls the ‘Alciatae gentis insignia’, which ! |? te”. procrastina case is the motto ‘Never Selecta Some personal devices had already appeared in the in more several and these included Alciato 1529. of epigrammata may we though 1531,'* some probably intended for particular persons,

of have lost the keys. The first emblem of 1531, perhaps the dedication as title its in described is the collection written for Ambrogio Visconti, ‘arms the insignia of the duchy of Milan and in the verse as the (stemma) of the Visconti:

The commentators give no authorities for the symbols attributed to the two tribes in the first line, but Alciato is relying on Livy for tracing his

An infant springing from the jaws of a sinuous snake | Constitutes the noble arms of your clan. this, like coins had Pella of king the We have seen that And with them had celebrated his own birth. For it shows that he was spawned by Jupiter, That his mother was seduced by the form of a snake, And that he was the progeny of divine seed.

® With reference to Lorenzo Valla’s criticism of Bartolus, De insigniis [sic] et armis (Paris, 1475)

in his letter to Candido Decembrio, Valla, Opera Officina Erasmiana, 1962), I, 633-643.

omnia (Basel:

H. Petri,

1540; reprint Turin:

‘ Alciato seems to share the opinion expressed by Jacopo Sannazaro and later by Giovio. See Dorigen Caldwell, The Sixteenth-Century Italian ‘Impresa’ in Theory and in Practice (New York: AMS

Press, 2004), pp. xiv-xv.

’ Claudius Heineman,

Claudianus,

1922),

Epithalamium,

trans.

M.

Platnauer,

Loeb

(London

and

New

York:

180-184. The complete sentence is: ‘lam Ligurum terris spumantia pectora Triton /

adpulerat, lassosque fretis / extenderat orbes. / continuo sublime volans ad moenia Gallis / condita, lanigeri suis ostentantia pellem, / pervenit’ (‘And now Triton’s foam-flecked breast had touched the Ligurians’

shore and

his wearied

coils were

extended

over the surface

of the water.

Straightway

Venus flew high in the air to the city founded by the Gauls, the city that shows as its device the fleece-covered pelt of a sow’). * Thecla, virgin disciple of St Paul in Iconium (Lycaonia), martyr under Nero, according to Mignault’s commentary (Alciato, Emblemata, 1621, 21b). The only surviving account of her is found in the Acta Pauli et Theclae , an apocryphal story of the 2nd century and part of the Acta Pauli. It is attested as early as Tertullian, De baptismo, 17.5. The 4th century baptistry, built by St Ambrose, and the church of Milan was dedicated to her as patron saint of the city. There is an altar to her in the present cathedral.

° Alciato, Emblematum libellus, 1546, 46": ‘Bituricis vervex, Heduis dat Sucula signum. / His populis patriae debita origo meae est,/ Quam hoc Gallica lingua sonat./ Culta Minerva

Mediolanum

fuit, nunc

sacram dixere puellae / Terram: nam vetus

est, ubi numine

Tecla / Mutato matris virginis

ante domum./ Laniger huic signum sus est, animalque biforme:/ Acribus hinc setis, lanitio inde levi.”

10 Livy (5.34) represents the Bituriges and the Haedui as moving in 391 BC from central Gaul to ag Insubres and founded us Cisalpine Italy where they occupied the country of the ‘laine ’ or ‘lane’ and ‘mi’ French '| They mention the obvious derivation of Milan from Old of his lament for St Abraham of 20 ies Epistulae is, Appolinar Sidonius support citing in se (*[the regio n] that takes its name from a fleecy ssopotamia: ‘Et quae lanigero de sue nomen habet’ ab eo quod ibi sus in medio a um fer pra is 1: ‘vocatum Mediolan tt that there for all to see a hie y es À inventa’ (‘called Mediolanum because a tradition holds is the consecration to, Minerva ” ic it that say to seems verse found’). However, Alciato’s to be found in the commentary of seine attested in old French. All these references are line is taken to refer simply to the derivatio the if however, problem, no is there p. 19. Perhaps

i 12 Alciato

Emblematum

libellus,

1546,

47°:

‘Numquam

procrastinandum.

Alciatae

em

gentis

Alexandrum sic respondisse insignia sustinet Alce, / Unguibus et pnòèv fe rt avapadAopevoc./ Constat

roganti,/ Qui tot obivisset tempore gesta brev i? / Numquam Alce. / Fortior haec, dubites, ocyor anne siet.”

l3 Epigr

ta: “Firmi

‘

(inquit) differre volens. Quod et indicat

convelli non posse’, p. 10, ‘Signa feasts estate

-

1529), latine versa... (Basel: Jo. Bebelius, Galeacii’, p. 254. In the Selecta Epigrammata graeca course, the epigrams do not have these titles. saat Ter ferocissimos domari’, ny 14 Alciato, Emblematum liber, 1531: ‘Foeder a Italorum ’, A2", ‘Etiam adversus urgentia’, B3 , ‘Princeps subditorum incolumitatem procurans’, B2”, “Obdurandum ‘Optimus civis’, F3",

98

BEFORE

DEVICES AS ‘EMBLEMS’ He was born through the mouth—they say this is how some snakes give birth. Or is it because this is how Athena sprang from the head of Jupiter?!

There also appeared in 1531 the emblem entitled ‘Fortune is the com-

panion of Virtue’,'° which is identified by Giovio as Alciato’s personal impresa and, in an earlier work as Giasone Maino’s insigne.” A certain

looseness in the use of terms is apparent and it seems appropriate, from

these examples, to use the term ‘device’ in a broad sense for this period, and to translate insignia so that it may include what would later be

distinguished as imprese. There are many emblems seemingly created for individuals or particular occasions which show that Alciato’s collection included from the

start compositions that can legitimately be called devices,'* but I am concerned here only with those that provide evidence for the use of terms. The letter to Francesco Calvo of 9 January 1523 says—quite clearly, I think—that Alciato thought of his offering to Visconti as

versified

artistic

programmes

for

badges

(scuta)

and

devices

(insignia),'” but it does not in itself quite justify regarding the term emblema as a near synonym for him with insigne. There is other evidence however in the case of the emblem of the Duchy of Milan. This lies in the use of the word emblema in a document which antedates 1531 and which clearly suggests that it means there a personal device. The document is, of course, the De singulari certamine, the justification 15 A2": ‘Exiliens infans sinuosi e faucibus anguis, / Est gentilitiis nobile stemma tuis./ Talia Pellaeum gessisse nomismata regem [Alexander] / Vidimus, hisque suum concelebrasse genus:/ Dum se Ammone satum, matrem anguis imagine lusam / Divini et sobolem seminis esse docet:/ Ore exit. tradunt sic quosdam enitier angues./ An quia sic Pallas de capite orta lovis?’ 16 BI: ‘Virtuti fortuna comes. Anguibus implicitis geminis caduceus alis:/ Inter Amalthaeae cornua rectus adest./ Pollentes sic mente viros, fandique peritos / Indicat, ut rerum copia multa beet.’ 17 Paolo Giovio, Dialogo dell'imprese militari et amorosi di Monsignor Nocera

(Rome:

Antonio

Barre,

1555),

96-97:

‘Porta

ancora

novellamente passato à miglior vita, il Caduceo di Mercurio Amalthea, volendo significare, che con la copia delle dottrine delle quali si figura padron Mercurio, haveva acquistato degno questa bella impresa haveva bisogno d’un anima, e frizzante.’ the Elogia, doctorum

ab avorum

memoria

publicatis

il dottissimo

col corno della e con la faculta premio alle sue The account of

ingenii monumentis

Giovio M.

99

of duelling that Alciato wrote for Frangois I when the latter was, for publicity purposes at any rate, contemplating settling his dispute with Charles V by means of single combat. We know from the correspondence that the treatise dates from 1528, though the first edition is of 1541, and the oldest surviving manuscript is no earlier.”” There seems to be no reason however to doubt that the three occurrences of the word emblema to be found in it were in the original text. The first equates emblema with items of apparel or ornament which were used to display the aspiration or the loyalty of the knight in the joust:

It is accepted by a number of scholars that the practice of duelling was invented by the Mantineans, mainly on the argument that the military cloak and ancient armour are called mantineae.”' For this reason [the mantineae] can be said in present terms to be the ephestris, which we commonly call the ‘surcoat’, the crest of helmets (coni), pennons (pennae) and emblems (emblemata) and combatants’ ornaments (ornamenta) of that sort.”

The second mentions an emblema called the image (sigillum) of Mars worn apparently as a talisman on helmets:

There are those who think anyone who had on his helmet the emblem which is called the image of Mars would be invincible.”

The third is the passage quoted by Alciato’s commentators to explain the emblem assigned to the duchy of Milan:

with a In the Annals there is the well known encounter of Otho Visconti took he down, him struck and him defeated Having certain Saracen in Asia. it to his own the ornament (ornamentum) from his helmet and added

family

of its mouth a insignia (‘gentilitiis insignibus’), that is, a viper vomiting out

newly

born

infant

still covered

in blood—in

fact the emblem

(emblema)

(sigil/um) taken by Alexander the Great. Indeed you can see the same image ally that he on ancient coins of his, to show how that ruler claimed enigmatic in Greece in was born of Jupiter. For Jupiter was worshipped in many places

Vescovo di

Andrea

Alciato,

dovitia della Capra delle buone lettere, fattiche: ma in vero Giasone Maino is in

illustrium

1531

(Basel:

s. n.,

1571) p. 73; the words are referred to in the Dialogo (p. 10) as his motto.

18 E.g. ‘Foedera’ (1531 A2"); no 134, ‘Tumulus Ioannis Galeacii Vicecomitis’ (Epigrammata,

p. 254, 1531 F3"); ‘Fatuitas’ (1546 42"); ‘In avaros’ (1531 C6”); ‘In studiosum captum Amore’ (1531 D6”). Perhaps as many as four emblems allude to Charles V: ‘Firmissima convelli non posse’ (1531 C8"); ‘Spes proxima’ (1531 B6"°); ‘In dies meliora’ (1546 33°); ‘Laurus. Aliud’ (1546 19°— for his victory at Tunis in 1534). 19 Le Lettere di Andrea Alciato, giureconsulto. Ed. Gian Luigi Barni (Florence: Felice le Monnier, 1953; hereafter Lettere), no 24, p. 46: ‘unde pictores, aurifices, fusores, id genus conficere possint, quae scuta appellamus et petasis figimus, vel pro insignibus gestamus ...’ For the correct date see Abbondanza, ‘Epistolario’ p. 481.

the first authorised edition was by 20 The first edition, unauthorised, was by Kerver (Paris, 1541); De singulari certamine liber in ‘The -Drôge, Grünberg Monika See 1543). (Lyon, the brothers Frellon no 315-341, The dedication to François | (Lettere, the Context of its Time’, Emblematica, 9.2 (1995):

by lacopo Giunta, Lyon, 1544. 160, p. 235) is dated 1 March 1529. | quote from the edition 4.1544, istae, Deipnosoph 2! Alciato’s source is Ath 1544), chap. 2, pp. 7-8: “Duelli usum a 2 Alciato, De singulari certamine (Lyon: lacopo Giunta, fere receptum est, co potissimum consensu m quorunda m eruditoru Mantineis in Graecia repertum, mantineas appellant; quo nomine et argumento, quod bellicum sagum, veteresque armaturas et pennas, et emblemata, huiusmodique ephestridem, quam vulgo supravestem vocamus, et CONOS, possunt.’ tia ta dici in pr pugnantium or emblema habuerit quod Arietis casside in quisquis putent, qui ‘Sunt 69: p. 37, 23 Ibid., ch. sigillum appellant, invictum fore.’

100

BEFORE

DEVICES AS ‘EMBLEMS’ the form of a serpent, and there are in Asia types of serpents which men say give birth through the mouth.”

In all three of these passages it is clear that Alciato is using the word emblema, as he appears to do in the letter to Calvo, in the sense of a device—not, in the first two cases at least, as a heraldic device which would

have some

permanence

as an element

of a family

coat of arms,

but as a device for an individual or an occasion, more like an impresa. In the third case, that of Otho Visconti, it seems to be implied that it became an element of a coat of arms. The lack of differentiation in the use of terms, characteristic of the period before the theoretical treatises on the impresa, is again visible. Alciato was not the only one using the term emblema in this way at this time. Professor Janusz Pele drew attention some time ago to the first occurrence of the word emblema in Polish literature. ” It is found in the title of an epitaph composed by Jan Dantyszek (Johannes Dantiscus), Polish ambassador at the imperial court, in a commemorative collection for Cardinal Mercurino Gattinara, the chancellor of Charles V, who died on 5 June 1530.*° Dantyszek contributed four pieces to this collection, which was published in 1531.77 The fourth piece is a distych entitled ‘Another [epitaph] on the emblem (emblema) from the back of the portrait executed during his lifetime’. I translate the verse as follows:

4

Ibid. ch. 43, p. 81: ‘Celebre est in Annalibus Othonis

Asia certamen,

quem

ille manu

captum

confossumque

Vicecomitis cum quodam

galeae ornamento

Sarraceno in

privavit, idque gentilitiis

insignibus suis addidit, hoc est, vipera vix natum et adhuc manantem sanguine infantem ore evomens:

nimirum ab Alexandro Magno acceptum emblema. Si quidem in eius antiquis nomismatis idem sigillum reperire est, quo love se natum rex ille per ambages ostendebat. Etenim serpentis forma pluribus

Graeciae

hominum

locis

lupiter

opinione receptum

colebatur,

est. Hactenus

Suntque

in

Asia

ille.” This emblem

genera

serpentum,

quos

ore

parere

1531

101

Faith alone sustained one Phoenix on the earth; 2 And faith alone has raised this one among the gods.”

There is no image with this to show what was on the reverse of the chancellor’s portrait. The colophon of the British Library copy shows a figure of Charity with a phoenix on her head and the motto ‘Charity beareth all things’,” but this, from the description given by Le Glay (note 26), is apparently not Gattinara’s emblem. We can say, however, that some time before his death in 1530 Gattinara used the image of the phoenix as a personal device and probably referred to it as his | ‘emblem’; Dantyszek certainly did. à in way same the in word the used Celio Calcagnini seems to have embellish(‘On expoliendo’ annulo ‘De entitled, poem of unknown date ing a ring’), ° though it is not clear whether he was thinking of personal devices, or of emblems in a broader sense. Haec signa, et haec emblemata tornabis annulo mihi (These tokens and these emblems you will fashion for me on a ring.)

Another contemporary example of a personal device, seemingly very similar in its conception and function to Gattinara’s, may be Willibald Pirckheimer’s ‘emblem’, so-called and illustrated in the 1610 edition of of his works?! Pirckheimer also died in 1530. The emblem is spoken be must it but term, the here, four times in all, as if Pirckheimer used to admitted that the word occurs in each case in text by the contributers that proof necessary the and edition, this seventeenth-century to imply, Pirckheimer himself used the term emblema, as the texts seem says: Opera the in passage One is yet to be found. In order

to accustom

himself more

to such

wholesome

(sc.

thoughts

his

artistic emblem philosophical musings), he devised a very beautiful and in bronze a year or cast and engrave to craftsmen to it gave and (emblema)

is entitled in the first edition simply

‘Insignia ducatus Mediolanensis’, though in later editions this is expanded to ‘Emblema dedicationis. Ad illustrem ducem Mediolanensem. Super insigni Ducatus Mediolanensis’.

?5 Janus Pelc, Obraz-slowo-znak. Studium o emblematach Staropolskie, XXX VII (Wroclaw: Warsawa, 1973), p. 50. # On

Gattinara, see the article by John

University epitaph

of Toronto

to A. Le Glay,

(1847),

183-260,

M.

Headley

in Contemporaries

(Toronto:

Headley

refers

‘Etudes biographiques’, Société Royale des Sciences

... Lille:

Mémoires

‘On

hereafter Contemporaries),

of Erasmus

2, 76-80;

says:

1985-87;

Studia

a aussi

médaille le phénix

médaille

en son

honneur.

La légende porte: “Istam sola fides terris, sola fides conjunxit superis”.’ See also Die

wôchentliche historische Miinzbelustigung, 27 Epitaphia epigrammata (Antwerp:

une

31

Cette

Marchionis

frappé

for his

représente un autel avec le mot “Fides,” et au-dessus de l’autel un bûcher d’où s’élance

enflammé.

who

Press,

w literaturze staropolskiej.

Gattinariæ, I. Grapheius,

University, New

York;

bishop of Chelmno

V2 January

et elegiæ aliquot illustrium virorum

Cæsaris

Caroli

Quinti

1530). Copies in BL, microfilm

(i.e., Kulm

1735, p. 9.

Augusti

in funere

Mercurini Cardinalis,

Cancellarii,

ed.

Hilarius

Bartel

11422.c.5, at the University of Ghent and at Columbia

at the University

or in Latin Culmen);

(Ep. 2643). See Contemporaries, |, 377.

Supremi

of Illinois, Urbana.

Dantyszek

he sent Erasmus a medal

was at this time

with his own

effigy

vivum sculptae./ Sola fides terris 2 ), vol.IX, nos

ric

rg

sty

ge

Ne

39ff,

a-f6, g3.

SRE

A

ves 2 ate in Venice Je 1513 and 1598, including one published in Paris (1548) and one . sie = i ree deux de debat Le translation, French A amor. de Carcel the Antwerp with recorded, 2 | st à H sur le faict damour (Paris: for Jean Longis by D. Janot, 1541) is also , Ul, (note | a For an account of the work see M. Menéndez Pelayo, Origenes de la Novela 54.

114

AN EARLY USE OF DEVICES

LA PENITENCE DAMOUR

importance in France. However there is one later reference to the Spanish work which is of interest for the history of the device and colours. Girolamo Ruscelli, speaking of what he calls /ivree or insegne (that is, colours with figures and/or mottos), quotes, without naming the

jousts and souci for Beauvau in the masques; presumably the passion of Morteffons in the masques and the doorkeeper’s beard in the prison episode can be read in the same sense. Black is plainly douleur and tristesse in the door-hangings of the house, and presumably in the

to those used by Bertaut.!?

jousts, and this is the second colour in the prison doorkeeper s beard. Other colours, however, are used less consistently. Grey in the prison episode was associated with the memory of the past (regret or remorse), and this is probably the significance of Palvesin’s grey in the masques, where the motto refers to a past error, though the lady in grey is later called dame Esperance. Pardille’s grief or desplaisir in the jousts may be taken in this sense, as could the travail represented by the grey on the bed (if yellow is vie désespérée), but this is less certain. These last three colours also recall the prison in the Carcel de amor, but the meanings of

work, eight devices from the Cuestion de amor, six of which correspond

In prison (ml°-miii”) Lucresse is guarded by a doorkeeper whose

beard is black and tawny (tannee)—colours symbolising grief and anxiety as we shall see later—and a warder who carries a mirror showing the benefits she had formerly enjoyed. She is also attended by ‘passion avec ses complices de regretz innumerables’. It is clear from what follows that these are personifications. Lancelot too is visited by regretz who represent to him the sufferings of Lucresse, but he is also visited in the evenings by a lady dressed in grey—which seems to signify remorse, or possibly travail—and carrying a sphere which shows all his past life and causes him great grief, though even more for what he believes Lucresse is suffering. This same lady, however, comforts him, speaks to him of his approaching happiness, exhorts him not to despair, and to wear clothes of a violet colour as a sign of constancy (‘se vestant de violet en

fermetté’—m iii”). At sunrise she is replaced by Regret dressed in a

garment of mirrors, at which Lancelot would have despaired if he had not been able to send the lady with the sphere, now named as dame esperance, to relieve Lucresse of the presence of Regret. After seven years the penance is completed and the lovers are released and allowed to marry. The prison, with its mirrors for self-examination and its figure of consolation, is clearly designed to teach remorse and hope, and the episode, whose basic image is taken perhaps from the Cdrcel de amor, is an allegory of the nature of penitence. The house to which Lancelot finally retires is decorated with colours which are not symbols in themselves but combine with parts of the house and with mottos to form more devices. (See the appendix, part IL.) Urrea does not mention colours; the gold of his gifts is the precious metal. Bertaut’s colours, however, are taken from the Cuestién de Amor. As for their meaning in his text, some are quite clearly defined. Scarlet (incarnat) in the jousts (Bellefort, Mollivaro, and Lancelot) and in the masques (Bellefort) is the feu, désir, or plaie of love. It is certainly the same for Lancelot in the masques too. But the very close colour, rouge d’escarlate, of the carpets of the house seems to be love in a different sense: joies. A tawny colour (tanné) is mes maux for Morteffons in the !2 Discorso ... intorno all'inventione dell ‘Imprese, dell'Insegne, de’Motti, & delle Livree (Venice: G. Ziletti, 1556), pp.138-142. One of those not used by Bertaut is quoted, from Ruscelli, by Ercole Tasso, p. 10.

115

draperies of the rooms; Beaulieu represents his passion with black in the

black and tawny have been reversed. 13 In the Spanish tradition described

by Barbara Matulka,' violet is said to represent usually love, though in the Grimalte y Gradissa it is used for desamor. The colour of hope is

green, and blue is love, more particularly loyalty in love. In Bertaut, however,

violet

is commended

to Lancelot

for Sermette

(constancy

founded on hope) by the lady Esperance, and this connects: with the meaning of esperance explicitly given for violet in Beauvau's ss and accoutrements, and Beaulieu’s and Pardille’s dress for the masques;

but the significance of the quartered grey and brown (morée) jé se blue and violet worn by Pardille in the jousting and the violet 0 Palvesin’s dress at the masques is not apparent, nor can we ow ane very certain conclusions about the use of blue in other cases.

Spanish tradition, yellow is despair, which agrees with vie —

nt le

for the yellow on the bed and would fit reasonably well in the other solefis three occurrences of yellow.

:

Finally the possibility that Bertaut may have written a roman a .

Ê ii perhaps reinforced by this link with the Cuestion de amor. th of imitation an as Damour companion article on the Penitence

in Celestina,'® it was noted that Bertaut takes great care to set his scene

ne and 13 In the Cércel de amor (1492), the three figures atop the tower are é . Shae os be ” tra :17nl = ‘congoja À ‘pardillo’; these colours are said to represent respectively “tristeza ? = 19 Castalia, (Madrid: Whinnom Keith ed. II, de San Pedro, Obras completas, vol. issa, W icWhic r represents ia Gradissa, y i Grimalte in i tomb i symbolic the f i C] ‘ E ù

tradition of contemporary commonE

Flores, Juan de PRES Spanish poetry, is th e work of a collaborator ofRé

by Bertaut an one Alonso de Cérdova. It may have inspired the house described element connecting him to Flores’ works.

|

by Rabelais (Gargantua, ch. VII), gives 15 The Blason des couleurs, quoted, with contempt, | | | “fermeté” for blue, but Rabelais insists on ‘choses celestes’. Penitencia de amor’ (note 1 above), at p. 30. 16 Denis L. Drysdall, ‘The French version of the

AN EARLY USE OF DEVICES

LA PENITENCE DAMOUR

Italy, not Spain, and makes several, seemingly very deliberate references to real people. The Cuestidn de amor seems to be, as it claims in the title, a piece of true histoire intime, and, in the ‘Argumento y declaracion de toda la obra’, explains how to solve the puzzle:

ceiling of the hall of Plessis-Bourré shows scenes of fables accompanied by verse. These and other examples of the contemporary infatuation

116

Mas para quien querra ser curioso y saber la verdad las primeras letras delos nombres fengidos son las primeras delas verdaderas de todos aquellos cavalleros y damas que representan. y por las colores de los atavios que alli se nombran y por la primeras letras delas invenciones se puede [saber] tambien quien son los servidores y las damas a quien sirven...'’

More certainly however, although this third source belongs, like the Grisel y Mirabella, to a tradition of purely profane love polemic, Bertaut has seen in the invariably pessimistic or despairing mottos of these devices, and more particularly in those which he takes as décor for Lancelot’s final penance, material with which he could continue in the direction originally suggested to him by Urrea’s Penitencia de amor, and reinforce his pious admonitions on the dangers and penalties of worldly love. As an example of the sentimental romance the Penitence Damour has little or no literary value; the writing is unpolished and not infrequently ungrammatical; the episodes are loosely appended to each other. It is interesting for us mainly as an example of an early attempt to use devices for didactic purposes. As such, although the devices are not illustrated, it has a place with a wide variety of other forms of moralizing picta poesis which had steadily increased in popularity during the early part of the century and which achieved their ultimate form with the emblem, These forms include not only such well known genres as the illustrated bibles, fables, and Ovidiana, but illustrated and versified proverbs such as Henri Baude’s Dictz moraulx pour faire tapisseries" and programmes and suggestions for decor and furnishings supported by verse or mottos. Filippo Fasanini makes some brief remarks on this last subject in his commentary on the Hieroglyphs of Horapollo (1517); Geoffroy Tory describes the symbolism of the house in his Aediloquium (1530) and Gilles Corrozet provides a set of Blasons domestiques (1539). A few examples of the execution of such programmes survive; the illustrations of Henri Baude’s poems were used as murals with the verse as legends in a gallery of the castle of Busset, and the coffered

18 Ed.

A.

Scoumanne

(Geneva

and

Lille:

Droz,

1959).

Henri

Baude

lived

from

1430

to

somewhere between 1496 and 1519. The BN ms. (Ms.fr.24461) dates from the period 1509-1514. The murals of the castle of Busset, mentioned below, were probably painted in the 1530’s, See Annie

Bohat-Regond, ‘Les Peintures murales de la Renaissance au chateau de Busset (Allier)’, Bibliothèque et Renaissance, XLI.2 (1979), 245-253, and Daniel Russell, ‘Alciato’s Emblems in

d'Humanisme

Renaissance France’, Renaissance Quarterly, 34.4 (1981), 534-554.

with moralizing combinations of the visual and the verbal constitute a group of genres as yet only partly defined and described, although it is now recognized that the origins of the emblem are to be sought here as well as in the humanists’ mythology and their cult of the epigram. APPENDIX Part I The seven presents exchanged by the lovers are: 1 2 3

4 5

6 7

[Lancelot] Tu luy porteras davantaige ceste chaine & cest tableau dor, auquel sont les quatre evangelistes ... Et estoit a lentour de ce tableau escript ce quil sensuyt. Ie doiz en voz louanges ce que ces quatre ont dit de verité de la FN [Lancelot] Tu luy presenteras ceste bague dor ... Cestoit une sepulture dor , a mort estoit aupres, Et disoit la lettre. La malheureuse vye faict que le corps / ne ' a merite sepulture pour estre / mort desesperé. [From Lucresse to Lancelot] une vyelle sans cordes e Et disoit la lettre. Ne ae point plus desperance / dataindre ce que tu pensez [sic], que de faire / raisonne : | è cest instrument sans cordes.

[From Lancelot to Lucresse] une medaille dor de la representation dun otage

quest enferré par le col ... celuy quest prisonnier par force tient liberté que lautre qui reste de volunté. de Lancelot] deux petis fresiers ... Ces arbres [From Te toy. Car ilz / donneront le fruict & fleurs ce que / ne feras en tes

beaucoup plus

de

I tiennent plus que mats 2 i

[From Lancelot to Lucresse] de rossignols & dict la lettre de la devise. Ceulx cy chantent damours. Et encores que me taise, je pleure mes diffameurs qui du tout tee me rabaissent. [From Lucresse to Lancelot] ung paon ... Sa beauté est en vostre pens pieds sont vostre esperance, & sa / voix vostre confiance.

bas a long history. In ur, “pe ° The epigram as an inscription for an existing work, of course, s sé the Pa é a ee it may be seen as another manifestation of the preoccupation with combination a ie! oe p ù verbal. A curious example is the Epigramme des enseignes des Veniclens, envoyés

” ;' z:rr;lr:sel i le roy nostre sire composé par Frère Jean olivier croniqueur dudit seigneur hes on francoys par ung familier serviteur de ladicte abbaye (slna, 40, off. Musée Condé, Il. : pe a not moralizing verse but a eulogy of Louis XII, written as an inscription for the eee ig rons ;: e ae unicorn brought back to St Denis after the battle of Agnadello (1 509). The 14 jae? o printed in the margins alongside

17 al’. For the suggested key see Menéndez Pelayo (note 1 above).

117

the 64 octosyllables,

in huitains and dizains, of

the

French.

of St Denis : Olivier, author of several works of learning, was Grand Aumônier an d Vicaire Général ss he probably is He 563-564). I, above], 2 [note Maine du Croix (La and later bishop of Angers

de feu tres-hault, a. author of another short work bound with the above: L'Epitaphe Brunet, See also redouté prince Phelipe d'Autriche, roy des Castilles... which must date from 1506,

Manuel, IV, cols 181-182 and Supplément, Ul, col.73. °° Sic; sonner? The Spanish has ‘tafier’ (p. 22).

118

At the wedding, eight knights joust ‘accoustrez et vestuz de la maniere et a la devise selon les passions don [sic: de?] leurs peines et ennuytz que chescun portoit pour sa Dame’ (m vi”). Le Conte de Bellefort ... vestu dungs paremens bardes et vestemens de velours incarnat a broderie de fil dargent semez dung brasiers dargent... Il est impossible saillir Des braises qui brusler ne cessent Puis que ne peult le feu faillir Et nya moyens qui lappaisent.

Le Seigneur de Morteffons ... ungs paremens de velours tanné, semez tous de ponts dargent rompuz les harnoys bordes [sic: bardes] et accoustremens de mesmes... (m vi’°) Ne peuvent passer mes maulx Puis que au milieu Le remedde ya failly.

Le Seigneur de Beaulieu ... ungs paremens de accoustremens de veloux noir les bardes et accoustremens de mesmes, semez dunes bulles de pardon fermees et

serrees en argent...

Encores quil y ayt en tous les maulx redemption Ne sespere en ma passion.

Le Seigneur de Beauvau ... ungs paremens de satin violet semez tous de girouelz dargent, les bardez et accoustremens de mesmes ... Mon esperance tient son pensement De la ou tire le vent.

Le Seigneur Palvesin ... ungs paremens de satin broché cramoysy doublez de satin jaulne semez dor boucquetz de maulves, les bardes et accoustremens de mesmes... Si voulez veoir de ma poursuitte Et lesperance que ay enelle Regardez le mesme nom delle.

(m vii) Le Seigneur Pardille ... ungs paremens escartellez de gris et moree entre

bleu et violet semez dung serpen dargent a sept testes nommé hydra, les bardes et accoustremens de mesmes...

Si je oste ung grief a mon desplaisir Il men naist sept a lautre part. Le Seigneur Mollivaro ... ungs paremens de satin bleu et incarnat couver dunes lanternes dor, les bardes et vestemens de mesmes...

Le feu quest ambrasé dedans mon cueur Encores quil soit bien couvert Avecg travail est descouvert.

119

LA PENITENCE DAMOUR

AN EARLY USE OF DEVICES

Le Seigneur Lancelot ... ungs paremens de velours incarnat semez de rameaux de laurier et de couronnes de laurier, les bardes et vestemens de mesmes...

Soit couronné mon desir Puis quil a bien sceu ordonner Et en bon lieu semployer.

Before supper, each knight puts on new garb for the masques (m vi") ep Le Conte de Bellefort ... une robbe de satin broché blanc doublé de satin dor le boucles petites de semees bandes lesdictes incarnat, satin bandee dudict hardillon contrebas. Les yeulx mont rencontré Et ont faict la playe si grande Que ja la sents dehors et dedans.

blanc de (m viii’) Le Seigneur de Morteffons ... une robbe de satin broché bandes de plumes satin tanné, bandee dudict satin mesmes semees lesdictes

Æ dor

escripre...

Ne se peult ma passion escripre Puis que ne la puys souffrir.

violet RES Le Seigneur de Beaulieu ... une robbe de satin broché

lassetz blanc bandee de mesme satin blanc remplies lesdictes bandes de

dor...

satin

Jay deslié mon esperance apres mon plaisir Sans jamais y revenir.

de satin tanné bandee Le Seigneur de Beauvau ... une robbe de satin bleu doublee de satin tanné, les bandes semees de cloux dor... (m viii"°) Le peu de fermetté donne tant de soucy yes A ce quest dedans mon cueur cloué. violet satin gris doublee de Le Seigneur Palvesin ... une robbe de satin broché ... dor bandee de mesme violet semees les bandes de lunettes Si jeusse bien regardé Je neusse esté arresté.

à e tt ; violet doublee de Satin incarn Le Seigneur Pardille ... une robbe de satin broché les bandes de mesmes, semees de pennes blanches ...

:

En peine mon esperance.

broché cramoysy, doublé de satin (nI"°) Le Seigneur Mollivaro ... une robbe de satin jaulne les bandes de mesmes, semees de marteaulx dor... Quant plus le pensement

Sapproche a remedier ma complaincte, P Tant plus ung aultre leslongne. incarnat satin de doublee bleu qui dung regard tue Le Seigneur Lancelot .. _ une robbe de satin broché Cocatris tous petiz de semees les bandes de mesme satin, ceulx quil veoyt...

120

AN EARLY USE OF DEVICES

LA PENITENCE DAMOUR

Ce que faict cestuy cy par sa veue Aultant en faictes a qui vous donnez loeil.

One item is a pure motto (n v"’): En tous les lieux et endroictz de la maison estoit escript ceste devise. Sans bonne aventure mon remede.

Part II The decor of the house of mourning:

One is a motto with a colour (a divisa in the strict sense): Tous ses serviteurs estoient portoient ceste devise.

(n iv’’) En lentree de la porte estoit paincte une mort... Cest le bien que jamais jespere Las commant peult vivre celuy Qui vit desesperé Ne trouvant commencement Moyen, ne fin, de consolation en son mal.

=

Avecques mes traitz jay separé la vie De ceulx pour estre mortelles [sic] mais pas les armes dicelle.

Toutes les aultres parties de la maison estoient tendues dehors et dedans de noir... La Mort a laissé la douleur et tristesse de maniere,

Quelle se monstre devant et derriere.

En la chambre y avoit ung lict en courtine, couvert de sarges grises entournees de bandes jaulnes... La vie desesperee travailleuse Avecques le travail repose. Le Pavement sur lequel on marchoit estoit couvert de tappix rouges descarlate ... vo

Toutes mes joyes sen vont soubz (n v'°) les piedz, Puis que je ne puis trouver en mes douleurs consolation. Il y avoit ung beau Jardin, la porte duquel estoit fermee... La porte de mon esperance ne se peult ouvrir jusques je tourne a mourir.

(n vi”) Et en un coing de garde robe estoit le myrouer ou la dame Lucresse avoit accoustumé de se coiffer ... Je te regarde si je verray Le bien de ce monde que tu as veu.

+

...y avoit une fontaine fort riche de fin Albastre bien doré qui ne rendoit pas deaue, et disoit la lettre que lon pourroit lire dune petit [sic] fenestre qui regardoit audict jardin, Mes ennuyz lont seichee Pour la passer parmy mes yeux.

tous

vestuz

de jaulne,

Celluy nattend aultre remede que de la mort.

..la salle questoit toute tendue de sarges noyres et au milieu de chescune piece estoient les armes escartelees du Seigneur Lancelot et de Lucresse a lentour semees de dars quil sembloit queust tiré la Mort de celle part... (nv)

121

et en

la manche

dextre

Budé and Bocchi on Symbols’

The sources for early sixteenth-century symbolism and the theoretical

context of early emblematics taken into account recently have been few

in number and tend to be scattered among documents devoted to related

subjects. There has been discussion of hieroglyphics, of language theory

and of figures of speech, but few works have been identified and analysed which are explicitly concerned with the theory of symbols before the 1540s and 1550s, when theoretical prefaces to emblem collections and treatises on imprese begin to appear. Among the numerous accounts of the word emblema which appeared

before Alciato took it over,' Guillaume Budé’s note in his Annotations

on the Pandects (1508) is the best known and provides some idea of the context in which it existed. Budé’s uses of the word in his own writings

are also among the most illuminating.” However, an item which has been neglected, and which suggests a further article on the words symbole, symbolos Commentarii linguae graecae, first published in since 15212 This article is of interest for

line of inquiry, is his and symbolon in his 1529 but in preparation the general history of

symbolism at the time, but has the additional particular interest that it is

an apparent source for Achille Bocchi’s prefatory poem, ‘Symbolum symbolorum’, in his Symbolicarum quaestionum libri quinque of 1555. to be The role of Budé in the formation of Bocchi’s thought has yet a perhaps and studied, but it is apparent that there is a close relationship, (text and translation)’, * Part of this article appeared first as ‘Budé on symbole, symbolon rights reserved. It also Emblematica, 8.2 (1994), 339-349. Copyright © [1994] AMS Press, Inc. All Bocchi. on material d includes some previously unpublishe Alciato’, Emblematica, 14 | See ‘Occurrences of the Word emblema in Printed Works before (2005), 299-325.

? In the same article. ? For the publication details see his letters to Erasmus,

dated

[September]

1521

and 22 April

leine de la Garanderie. 1527 in La Correspondance d'Erasme et de Guillaume Bude, ed. Marie-Made

253-254. Under ‘Emblema’ in the Pétrarque a Descartes 13 (Paris: Vrin, 1967), pp. 233 and merely refers back to his Annotationes, Commentarii and in his Lexicon graecolatinum (1530), Budé De

lectiones (1516). in the latter case adding some information taken from Rhodiginus’ Antiquae

BUDÉ AND BOCCHI

ON SYMBOLS

direct influence of works such as the De Philologia and the De studio

Cicero, Gregory, the Symbola Pythagorae, Aristotle (On perception only) and Pseudo-Dionysius. He adds brief citations of Pliny the Elder, Pollux and Quintillian and, most importantly for our purposes, a

literarum recte et commodo

i

;

instituendo, or the De transitu hellenismi ad

christianismum. Bocchi was of course very influential among the emblem writers, and it is likely that through him, Budé provided something of a theoretical framework, or at least pointers to authorities,

for Johannes

Sambucus,

Hadrianus

Junius

and others.

It is to this

highest level of symbolism also that Mignault attaches the emblem in his ‘Syntagma’ though his definition of this level is less insistently esoteric. Although he echoes several of Budé’s references, Mignault obviously has other sources: ‘In seventh place, [it is used to mean] a mark (argumentum), or root (efymo), or finally prophecy or some sign by which something is hidden, but which is proposed for the understanding of informed ears. In this last sense we adapt “symbol” to the nature of the emblem, and undertake to explain it for the purpose of our treatise.’ Budé’s account is not altogether orderly, partly perhaps because he added

two

references

to Aristotle

in

editions

after

the

first,

but

his

method appears to be to move from concrete usages, supported by quotations from Xenophon, Herodian, and Latin comic writers, to figurative, metaphysical and finally theological senses. After Terence and Plautus, he mentions Cicero’s translation of the word as nota (sign), goes on to talk of military insignia and omens (referring to patristic sources), then comes back to physical tokens before quoting Plato’s famous idea of the human being as the broken half of a hermaphroditic whole. He then quotes Aristotle’s usage, meaning ‘similitude’, ‘quality held in common’, and moves on to the idea of ‘enigma’ (traditionally based on a hidden similitude). At this point he is close to the idea of the occult, but goes back to Cicero’s translation of Aristotle’s remark that a

: 4

word is a rational symbol. He concludes with an account of pseudoDionysius’ use of the near synonym synthéma and of symbolon and enigmas with respect to mystical theology, paraphrasing his passage on the notions of purity and the exclusion of the popular or uninitiated from knowledge of mystical symbols. Finally he remarks that the knowledge enshrined nowadays in the sacraments of the church is ‘symbolic’ theology as distinct from the ‘philosophical’ theology of theory (i.e. speculation) and commentary. Bocchi’s account is much simpler and omits most of the texts quoted in support by Budé; he also confines his account to the neuter word symbolum, leaving aside any reference to the masculine and feminine forms

names

noted

by

Budé.

However,

or quotes the same

in the same

order

text or definition from

* “Syntagma de symbolis...’ in Alciato, Emblemata, (1577), p. 30, and

as his

source,

he

Herodian, Terence, 1621, pp. XLV-LXIV.

reference to Alciato’s Emblems.

125

This is inserted, significantly, after the

reference to the Symbola Pythagorae as allegories and enigmas: Sunt Pythagorica symbola

AdAnyoplat, aiviyvudto,

Ut Alciati Emblemata Dicuntur et ovvOj pate...

and

it is amplified

by

what

follows

on synthémata

as symbols

of

mystical theology. The passage in Bocchi’s poem thus becomes by implication

an

explanation

of emblems

and

of his

own

Symbolic

Questions. Rather than the secular metaphors and devices with common,

mostly moral meanings that they appear to be in Alciato himself, they are now seen as operating on the level of the philosophical and theological with occult and sacred meanings. If further evidence of Bocchi’s adaptation of Budé were required, one could point to some obvious similarities of expression. Where Budé quotes Lysias on symbolon as a word for tokens given to citizens as

credentials ‘ut hospitaliter et amice acciperentur in oppidis foederatis’, Bocchi has ‘Ut quenque par sit accipi,/ In foederatis oppidis,/ Amice et hospitaliter’. And where Budé paraphrases Dionysius’ conclusion: “Non enim existimare nos oportet quae figurate divinitus tradita sunt, de nihilo

sic esse prodita, in eumque sensum exaudienda quem prae se ferunt, sed esse integumenta arcanae intelligentiae, scientiaeque non perista, figurate Lector, / carissime putes ‘Nolim has: vulgatae...’, Bocchi

quae / Divinitus sunt tradita,/ Sic prodita esse de nihilo,/ Et sensum in illum, quem indicant,/ Exaudienda protinus,/ Sed involucra esse abdita / Scientiae haud erraticae,/ Nec pervagatae...’ ! It would also seem from this that the tradition in which the esoteric,

spiritual or mystical emblem, preached and sometimes practised by such

as Bocchi, Sambucus, and Junius, should be placed, is the Christian neoplatonism of pseudo-Dionysius, rather than the pagan neo-platonism of

Plotinus. The Greek text of pseudo-Dionysius was printed in Florence in 1516. Apart from the medieval translations into Latin, two Renaissance

ones

were

available,

including

one

of

the

Divine

Names

and

the

Mystical Theology by Ficino. The latter defended the Areopagite against the doubts cast on his authorship by Lorenzo Valla and made him, along with Plato and St Paul, one of the foundations of his platonic theology.”

and the > For Pseudo-Dionysius in the Renaissance, see Karlfried Froehlich, ‘Pseudo-Dionysius Reformation of the Sixteenth Century’, in Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, trans. Colm

Luibheid. The Classics of Western Spirituality (New York: Paulist Press, 1987), pp. 33-46.

‘HATTER

124

126

ON SYMBOLS

BUDÉ AND BOCCHI

Budé’s epithet magnus is an indication that he accorded him a similar

high esteem.° A glance at Dionysius’ Divine Names, especially chapter 1, his Celestial Hierarchies, chapters 2 and 15, his Ecclesiastical

et inutili ponitur, attulit.

open the mind to higher intuitions and the exclusion of rational or materialistic thinking, for the justification of seemingly incongruous images, and for the religious meanings of many of the symbols used in the scriptures and the liturgy. Future accounts of the theory of symbolism in the Renaissance will have to pay greater attention to the reception of the patristic writers as well as the classical platonist and

Plutarchus in Coriolano fabulam Menenii recensens de membris ventrem accusantibus, fon yap Tà LÉAN mp dc TAV yaotépa otact doal,Ka ì Katnyopeiv autijc, Go povng apyod Kai dovpPdrov Ka8eCouévyc. Significat etiam coniecturam apud Plutarchum. Unde LouPorov, quam notam Cicero vertit. LvppadAw enim coniicio significat, ut ovppadr@ tO évirviov.

Hierarchies, chapters 2 and 3, as well as the letter quoted by Budé, shows that they are important sources for neo-platonist ideas on symbolism: for the insistence on the need for mystical purification to

aristotelian traditions.

Budé, Commentarii linguae graecae,

Budé, Commentarii linguae graecae.’

LvuBodyn, conflictus et conflictio praeliaris. Xenophon AAAG muyodons LÈv éavtoig évavtiag~ GAAayoc, dvdéva anékteway oi Omhita, Sute PoT DOv EK xopiov Évôa mn ovpPodl éyéveto. Significat etiam commissionem, id est parium comparationem ad pugnam. Herodianus A ì ôprüyov uéyac ka i GAektpvdoveov ovpBordc. Evufolai etiam in conviviis dicebantur quas Terentius et Plautus symbolas vocaverunt. Athenaeus lib. VIL. T tv ovpBor Art qe ict Ò OUUTÉGLOV ond TOV TV vTv slopepouévnv, apyeiot yOv Kahodot. TV

Symbole :

èè

pepida,a loav.

Convivium

autem

ipsum è symbolis coagmentatum, Zvvayyiov dicebatur, etde invov ovvay@yov, ut ipse inquit. Qui autem symbolas non conferunt, ä&ovufokot dicuntur. Et AobuBodog etiam pro inerti

collision

and

conflict

in

battle. Xenophon: ‘But although the opposing phalanx had fled before them, their hoplites did not kill a single man or advance beyond the spot where the collision had taken place * It also means the encounter, that is the meeting, of two fighters for battle. Herodian: ‘[they quarelled] over quail fights or meetings in the cock-pit.” Then at banquets, symbolai was the word for what Terence and Plautus called ‘contributions. Athenaeus, in Book VIT ie. VIN]: ‘The contribution (symbole ) brought into the symposia by the drinkers is called by the Argives a chés (‘heap’) while the single share is called

an

aisa

(‘lot’),

The

banquet

made up from the contributions however, was called synagogion and

° It is also misleading, since it is Dionysius, a third-century bishop of Alexandria, who is usually called the Great. 7 Paris:

J. Badius,

1529,

pp.

522-524;

Opera

omnia

(Basle:

N.

Episcopus,

1557;

reprint

Farnborough: Gregg, 1969), col. 866, line 3-col. 868, line 29. ® Hellenica, 6.5.25 (Loeb, IL, 336-337, trans. Carleton L. Brownson). LA History, 3.10.3 (Loeb 1, 326-327, trans. C.R. Whittaker).

10 Terence, Andria, lines 88-89; Eunuchus, line 540. Plautus, Curculio, line 474; Stichus, lines 432-439,

qui

nihil

in medium

127

deipnon synagogimon, as he himself says. But those who do not bring contributions are said to be asymboloi. And asymbolos is also used to mean one who is untalented and useless, who has done nothing for the common good. Plutarch in his Coriolanus recounts the fable told by Menenius about the members of the body who accuse the said, Agrippa] ‘[Menenius belly: namely, that all the other members of man’s body once revolted against the belly, and accused it of being the only member to sit idly down in its place and make no contribution to the common welfare..."'? In Plutarch it also means [the form] Whence ‘interpretation’. as translates Cicero which symbolon nota (‘sign’). For symballé means ‘I interpret’, as in ‘1 interpret the dream’.

Et obpPoAov signum, ut signa militaria. Herodianus T à tvotpaton dmv obuBoka Émukn Svta,xpvoo ig

àvalmuaor ro

os KeKoopNpEva, EmEic

toic Spor. Et insignia, id est rapdonpa. Idem de Lucilla Commodi sorore, AU èneì ouvéfin t dv Ao bKiov TehevT Tout, wevovtavt Î] AovkiAAf) tovt fs Baoweiac ouuf ddwv, Ilourmav @ 6

Tatip adriv ÉÉÉSOTO. ovdèv ATTOV HÉVTOL

Kai 6 Képpodocg épouiatte ti UST À ddehoj. Kai yap Kai éxi tod Paotretov

Apdvov KaPodato &v toîg Bedtpois, Kai TO

nùp mpoex Gunevev cuts. = dpPodrov etiam omen significat. ka i d1viopc. Gregorius in primo Kat à lovMavoò de sene

quodam

loquens

sancto,

viro

qui

pendens torquebatur, M1) èè yap èv toic dewoigtO Mardpov dnohineiv, GAG Kai

évipupäv ta

Bas

uvnuovevouevov

éneineiv, LL

@¢

vols, Ka

éravoint

Athenaeus, Deipnosor th.

i

10

éKeivo Ka ì GÔOHEVOV

i

hict,

à

obpBodov,

like sign, [means] symbolon And he s ‘Sometime Herodian: military signs; even took on his shoulders the legionary standards, great long things, heavily gold... #_and with ornamented insignia, that is ensigns. The same [author, speaking] of Lucilla, the sister of Commodus: ‘When Lucius died, Marcus married Lucilla to Pompeianus, she kept all the insignia though (symbolon) of her imperial position. his Commodus, like his father, allowed to sister to hold these privileges, that is the at seat imperial the take her place on fire theatre and to have the ceremonial also Symbolon carried before her”! the means an omen, and divination by first his in Gregory, flight of birds. of a [oration] Against Julian, talking was who man old certain saintly the uses tortured, being and hanging ‘for him’: pleased expression ‘the omen

Charles Burton Gulick). 8.365b-d (Loeb, IV, 152-155, trans.

130-131, trans. Bernadotte Perrin). 12 Caius Marcius Coriolanus, VI, 3 (Loeb, IV, See below, note 24. 13 Topica, 8.35, which Budé comes back to later.

History, 4.7.1. 15 Ibid., 1.8.3-4.

128

BUDÉ AND BOCCHI

éavtov pév dyNAdV dpév, Ékeivouc è è TUTELVODG Kai KatH Keyévovc, omen sibi placere dixit.

Dicitur et genere masculino. Synesius to

a5e290,0

0

yopo

iparvon

itera

voupeutpios Bad iCew éx’ éxopiv, iva HA TH vouupio obufolos ànaioiog yévntat. Sic dicitur ut mapéAoyoc, ut petépehoc, ut dxéAoyoc. E vuBoha etiam dicebantur tesserae quaedam quae dabantur publicè à civitatibus quibusdam hominibus sibi amicis, ut hospitaliter et amicé acciperentur in oppidis foederatis.

Lysias vdnépt @v Apioropévouc Xpnnétov, A fuos ka i 6 TMupuapzode TpinpapyOv eis K vapov, édenon pod TMpocedeiv ur, À éyov 6m Fae cüuBoaov rap à Paotéwe to d ueyékov, MIGANS Ev Ypo fc, Oo Apioropévnv AaBeiv ékkaiôeka pic én’ adr}, dc Éxor avahioxew sic tac tpmpapyiac. émetdi 5é cig Kompov agixorto, Avcacbm, anododc elkoot uvàc. TOMA Ov y ap àyal@v Ka i GMOv 4pUu GTV Évrophoetv è1 è td couBoñov év réon TH freipo. Sic hodie vocari possunt tesserae collybisticae, quas literas collybicas vocant, quasi ad

permutandam

pecuniam

externam

he did not cease to be cheerful under torture, but took pleasure from his very sufferings, and is said to have made that

famous and memorable remark: that the omen pleased him to see himself raised up and they, on the other hand, cast down and on the ground.’ It is also used in the masculine gender. Synesius, [in a letter] To his Brother: ‘For it is not customary, I think, for brides to take part in funerals, lest an inauspicious omen occur for the bridegroom.’'” In this form it is used to mean paralogos (‘the incalculable’), metamelos (‘repentance’), and hypologos (‘reckoning’). Also called symbola were certain tokens which were given publicly by states to particular friendly people, so that they could be received hospitably as friends in allied

towns.

Lysias, On the Property of Aristophanes: ‘Demus, son of Pyrilampes, who was equipping a warship for Cyprus, requested me to go to Aristophanes. He said he had received a gold cup as a credential [symbolon] from the Great King, and would give it to Aristophanes in pledge for sixteen minae, so as to have means for equipping his warship. When he got to Cyprus, he would redeem it with a payment of twenty minae, since on the strength of that credential he would then obtain plenty of goods and also money all over the continent.’!* Nowadays this

as Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes, IV, ‘Contra Julianum I’ in Patrologia graeca, XXXV, 619620. I have translated from the Latin given by Migne: ‘Hic enimvero, ut hoc quoque litteris mandem, senex ille, idemque ad certamina iuvenis (nam ne in tormentis quidem animi hilaritatem reliquerat, verum ex ipsis etiam cruciatibus delicias capiebat) celebratum illud et memorabile dixisse fertur: nimirum signum illud sibi placere, quod sublimem se perspiceret, illos contra abjectos atque humi sitos.”

17 Synesius of Cyrene, bishop of Ptolemais, Epistolae, in Patrologia graeca, LXVI, 1323-24. Epistola Ill, ‘Evoptio fratri’. Budé has omitted part of the sentence. Again I have translated from the Latin given by Migne: ‘Neque enim mos est, opinor, sponsis ad funus progredi. Sed et in purpura tune erat, et pellucidum ferebat reticulum, et aurum ac lapillos suspenderat atque induerat, ne sponso malum omen afferrat.” 18 Orations, 19. ‘On the Property of Aristophanes’, 25 (Loeb, pp. 430-431, trans. W. R. M. Lamb).

129

ON SYMBOLS institutas. £ duBolov avti tod Tp, quasi tessera et frustum abscissum. Plato

in Symposio “Exastog o bv Lav

Eéotiv

avOp@xov cbpPorov, ate tetuN} ÉVOS, donep ai yirro, è évèc è do. Cytet oh dei 10 gavtod Exaotoc o buPoAov. Alibi teuuéyov [sic: te éxov] dixit. Evbufokov, commisuram dicere videtur. Homines enim eo in loco ait olim geminos fuisse, id est dupveic.

term (symbolon) can be used for those exchange tokens which people commonly call ‘collybic’ letters, being created for changing foreign currency. Symbolon may stand for what is divided, like a token and a broken-off fragment. Plato,

in his Symposium: ‘Each of us then is but a tally [i.e.: half of a broken die] of a man, since every one shows like a flatfish the traces of having been sliced in two; and each is ever searching for the tally that will fit him’. Elsewhere he said temachion (‘slice’).”° Symbolon seems to mean a joining together. For he says at that point that formerly men were twins, that is, of double nature. and a LouPorov etiam significat similitudinem Symbolon also means ‘similitude’ in Aristotle, quality. natural common et quandam naturae communitatem. Passing and Aristoteles in 2 mepi yevécemcKa ì Book II of On Generation ‘all [the popäc, docensa avtac is GAAMAG Away, where he declares that such a nature as to uetaféAketv repux évat, ita inquit, T ov elements] are of ‘In adtov $è tpdnov, Kai & ddatog yi}, Kai Ek change into one another’, he says: the same way too, Earth will result from vis rdp Fora. Ker yap Gpoo pds po for both obpBoka. td uèv y ùp Hôp, Dypov Ka ì Water, and Fire from Earth; pair have qualities each of members Hote Enpév. Kai vuxpôv yi}, $è 1) woypov. (symbola) which correspond to one KpatnBévtoc tod dypod yi ÉOTOL. another, since Water is moist and cold, and Earth is cold and dry, and so, when the moist is overpowered, Earth will further on: ‘It Idem inferius, Gots pavep dv Stt KÜKAP result.’ The same [author] is clear, therefore, that the coming-to-be te Eotat y éveow toîc GMAOIG GMA, KE cyclical; and Püotoc o tog à TPdMOC TG petaportc, of simple bodies will be be very easy, da td cduPoAa éEvondpyerv TO ÎS épeëñ. this manner of change will qualities are ing correspond the Et rursus alibi, 6t1 0 dy Opoime TAX EMS because the elements which in present already Exovta yap pév ta Gdho &E GAAOv yivetan. And again elseobpLPoov, Oärrov yivetat && GAN. TÀ are next to one another.’ previously stated been has it ‘and where: à ‘oùk Exovta,, Bpaddtepov. that they do not come-to-be equally elequickly from one another, because quaing correspond a have which ments lity (symbola) come-to-be more quickly which out of one another, while those have not this do so more slowly’. (moneyfrom the Greek kollybistes 1° Collybisticus and collybicus or collubicus are foi rmed

changer’) and kollybos (a small coin).

Lamb). 2 Symposium, 191D-E (Loeb, Ill, 140-141; trans. W. R. M.

ae

(Loeb, pp.278-281 *! On Coming-to-be and Passing- away, 331.a.33-36, IL, 4 and 5 trans. E. S. Forster).

an d 286-287;

«sir

130

BUDÉ AND BOCCHI

ON SYMBOLS

ZduBoka rv0ayopixà dicta sunt quaedam quasi aenigmata significantia rei alcuius ocultae et reconditae, ut illa apud

Symbols

of

Plutarchum

hidden,

such

in

octavo

Symposfiacon

problematon], Evvrap attew avactévtac g& évvijg ta otpouata. Unde ZvuBolidv pro allegorico et aenigmatico dicitur. Symbolum enim est nota et signum rei, ut dictio et nomen nota est rei animo conceptae. Aristoteles mepi aicOjcewe, 6

yap À 6yos a i ndo

goti

tic

Labnoeas

GKOVOTÒG dv EE dvopdtov odvKEtTAL. TOV 5 Ovouétov Ekaotov a duBolov goti. Cicero in Topicis, Etymologiam (inquit) notationem appellamus, quia sunt verba rerum notae. Itaque hoc idem Aristoteles symbolum appellat, quod Latine est nota. Inde igitur symbola Pythagorica et similia dicta. Eadem etiam ovvé hota dicuntur, hoc est &XAnyopuata, de quibus magnus Dionysius ita scribit,

given to expressive

Pythagoras

is

certain sorts of something as

those

the

name

of enigmas occult and

in

book

8

of

Plutarch’s Table Talk; [for example]: ‘On rising from the bed to shake up the bedclothes’.** Whence ‘symbolic’ is said of what is allegorical and enigmatic. For symbolum means a mark and sign of a thing, as a word or a name

is a

sign of something conceived in the mind. Aristotle On Perception: ‘because speech is composed of words, and each word is a rational symbol”. Cicero, in his Topica, says we call etymologia notatio, because words are tokens of things.” And so Aristotle himslf calls ‘symbol’ what in Latin is nota (‘mark, sign’). So from this [we speak of] the Symbols of Pythagoras and similar sayings. The same things are also called synthémata

(‘anything

agreed

upon,

preconcerted signal, token, sign, watchword’),

spoken

Mi) yapo idpe8at à @awousvat @v ovvOntatov onép Eavtdv dvanerdacOan. Non enim existimare nos oportet quae figurate divinitus tradita sunt, de nihilo sic esse prodita, in eumque sensum exaudienda quem prae se ferunt, sed esse integumenta arcanae _intelligentiae, scientiaeque non pervulgatae, ne profanis scilicet hominibus liceat comprehendere

that

is

allegorémata

(‘things

allegorically’), about which

the

great Dionysius writes as follows:

“But let us not suppose that the outward face of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake.””° For we should not think that these things which are transmitted

inspiration

figuratively

are thus

by

propagated

divine

for no

good reason, and are to be understood

that

rather

sense

they

which

they

bear

are

veils

of an

the

in

openly;

arcane

Table-talk, 8.7.1 (Loeb, Moralia, IX, 166-167: trans. Edwin L. Minar Jr.). ’ On Sense and sensible objects, 437a 14-15, ch. 1 (Loeb, Parva naturalia, pp. 218-219, trans. W.S. Hett). The passages from Aristotle do not appear in the 1529 edition. 4 Topica, 2.10 and è 20 è ‘ [notatione] quam Graeci à 8.35 (Loeb, II, 408-409): érupoAoyiap appellant, id est verbum e verbo veriloquium; nos autem novitatem verbi non satis apti fugientes genus hoc notationem appellamus, quia sunt verba rerum notae.’ Trans. H. M. Hubbell: ‘The Greeks call this “etymologia,” and this translated word for word would be in Latin veriloquium (truth-telling). But to avoid using a new word that is not very suitable, we call this kind notatio, because words are tokens (notae) of things.” ©

Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, ‘Epistola IX’ (Patrologia graeca, WI, 1105-06): translation by Luibheid (see note 4). The three quotations are one continuous passage in the original, with the exception of one sentence coming between the second and third: ‘ They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive, contemplative power to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendant truth of the symbols.’ Budé’s Latin here is a paraphrase of Dionysius Colm

res sacrosanctas: sed solis retegantur et aperiantur sanctitatis et puritatis

Germanis amatoribus, utpote qui sensus pueriles in mente vulgi informatos, procul à figuris illis consecratis summovere amolirique didicerunt, poBefAño@or è è Tic Gmoppritov Ka i àOedrov to ic MOAAO Is ÉTOTUNS, OS LA ic BEB Mao évysipotat à mavispa. uôvois è è GvaraAdTtTEo OL TO ÎgT Ac OG16TNTOS yvno lois Epaotaic, O¢ 7 Aoav TV nadaprHdn pavta iav Ti TV iepOv ovpEporAm@V dnooxevaCopévoic. Inde LvpBoAun Osoroyia dicta, quae etiam tekeotiKi) vocatur et pvotikh, differtque TG PAOGOIK Fg Ka ì KUTUVONTKAS Ka i

anodeiktikijc. Symbolica est quae in sacramentis implicita est hodie in Ecclesia, ut olim in cerimoniis legalibus fuit. Philosophica est quae versatur in theoria et rerum divinarum commentatione. Idem, ‘AAAwoteKa i tovTO évvofjoat xp TO Sitti € iva T HV T Ov Beordyov mapadoow. THY LÈV anrdppntov KOÏ HUOTIKAV,T Îv Ò ’ éngavi, Kai yvopuotépav

ovuBouxtv Ka PA6GOPOV

ì

[sic].kKa

i

TV

TEAEOTIKV, T fwd

Kai GOdSEIKTIKTV.

HÈV

è

131

understanding and of a science which is not bandied about, so that lay persons may

not get hold of sacred matters; but

so that they are disclosed and exposed only to those who are genuine lovers of sanctity and purity, being people who learned to separate and keep the childish meanings conceived in popular minds far from these consecrated images. “This

is so in order that the most sacred things are not easily handled by the profane, but are revealed instead to the real lovers of holiness. Only these latter know how to pack away the workings of the regarding imagination childish sacred

symbols.’

From

this

[we

the

open

and

have]

what is called ‘symbolic theology’, which is also called ‘initiatory’ and the from differs and ‘mystical’, and ‘perceptual’ ‘philosophical’, ‘demonstrative’. The symbolic is that in the church is which nowadays as fomerly sacraments, the in enshrined The ceremonies. in legal it was in found is which that is philosophical speculative thinking and in meditation on things divine. The same author [says], ‘But there is a further point to understand. Theological tradition has a dual aspect, the ineffable and mysterious on

the

one

hand,

more

evident on the other. The one resorts to symbolism and involves initiation. The other is philosophic and employs the method of demonstration.’

g

yy iNN

ON SYMBOLS

quaestionum

de

universo

genere

quas

serio

ludebat libri quinque (Bologna: in aedibus Novae Academiae Bocchianae, 1555), *vii‘°-viii’®. Bocchi was appointed in 1508 to a chair of Greek language and in 1514 to a chair of rhetoric and poetry at

the University of Bologna, where he was a colleague of Giovanni Baptista Pio and Filippo Fasanini. In the 1540s he was the leading figure in Erasmian and pacifist circles there. He was a friend and an admirer of Alciato, to whom he dedicates his symbol no XL, and who was teaching at the law faculty in Bologna from 1538-42, In 1555, Bocchi must have been hoping for a continuation of the conciliatory policies of Paul II] and Julius III under Paul IV, to whom

he dedicates his book, but see

*‘Gavino Sambigucio and his Interpretation of Achille Bocchi’s “Hermathena™. Ruscelli had heard of Bocchi’s work as early as 1556 (Discorso, p.176), and he receives honourable emblematists emblem

including

to him

Sambucus

‘tanquam

(who

was

for a while

a student

mention

of his and

parentem’), Mignault and Reusner, A notice on Bocchi

who

from many dedicates

an

in Lilio Gregorio

Giraldi’s Dialogi duo de Poetis nostrorum temporum (1551, pp. 86-87) shows that his symbols, with their illustrations, were well known before their publication. Riccius (Pietro Crinito), one of the participants in the second dialogue, speaks of him as follows (1 quote the translation by John N. Grant in the I Tatti Renaissance Library—Cambridge,

Mass. and London:

kind

of praiseworthy

activity

and

all the other noble

arts.

In almost

every

area

he has

provided

marvellous proof of this in the past few years, both by the distinguished teaching post that he now holds in his native city and by the history of the city he is writing. At the same time he is building a magnificent temple for himself and the Muses, and is putting together a collection of precepts, drawn from different tenets of philosophers as well as from history and myths. He explains them in verse in different

meters

and

has

them

illustrated

in

a

most

elegant

fashion

with

finely

made

copper

engravings. The result is that in the case of these precepts he accomplishes the three things that a good poet and orator should do: he should instruct, he should give pleasure, he should be able to stir up opposite emotions.’ See also M. Maylender, Storia delle Accademie d'Italia (Bologna: Licinio Cappelli, 1926-30), I, 452-454; A. Rotondo, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1969), IX, 67-70; id., ‘Per la storia dell’eresia a Bologna nel secolo XVI’, Rinascimento, s. 2, I (1962), 107-155; Anna Maria Orazi, Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola, 1528-1550 (Rome: Bulzoni,

1982), pp. 252-262; Elisabeth See Watson, Achille Bocchi and the Emblem Book as

Symbolic

(Cambridge

Form

d'Achille Bocchi (1555)...

?7 See note 10 above.

# See note 24 above.

University

Press,

2004);

(to be published by Brepols).

Anne

Rolet,

Les

Symbolicae

Quaestiones

created

mM

Pollux [uses the term for] a small coin;”

of the

Mysteriis, ut gratia

Illa omnium, et pulcherrima

are of Pythagoras Symbols The allegories of this sort, the enigmas, such as Alciato’s Emblems* are said to be, and the traditional symbols, full of secrets, containing those very apt and beautiful teachings about life and the whole of ethics which are accessible to

Verbi, papaver fertilem Signabat annum. Huiusmodi Sunt Pythagorica symbola AAAHTOPIAI, AINITMATA, Ut Alciati Emblemata Dicuntur et LY NOHMATA, Mysteriorum plena, quae Documenta commodissima

Bea

for

the great Stagyrite [for] the origins calls Fabius which words, etymology.° À There were symbols of the ancients their longtime secret mysteries, such the poppy, sign of an abundant year.

Harvard University Press, 2011,

pp. 169-171): ‘Achille Bocchi, a knight from Bologna, has won considerable honor for himselfin this

(collybisticas),

changing foreign currency everywhere, which people commonly carry as letters of exchange!

ieee

E

ty

Symbolicarum

We can use the term for those exchange tokens

in as

BigaU

Bononiensis

Collatio is also used, because a number of people agree on one sign. This is how the noble poet Terence came to use ‘symbol’? The orator of Arpinum [Cicero] uses the term for a sign, but the Greeks often use it for a signet

and hospitality in allied cities.”

if

Bocchii

a symbol? So that you do not ask further, I shall try to set it as briefly as possible. Symbolon sign, like military insignia.

ring.” In addition they designate by this same term (symbolon) an augury, and insignia, and the sort of token which is given by certain states so that someone can be received publicly with friendship

D

° Achillis

What is need to out here then is a

Plerunque signatorium. Porro omen, atque insignia Isto quoque ipso nomine Quaedam notantur tesserae, Quae a civitatibus dari Solent quibusdam, publice Ut quenque par sit accipi, In foederatis oppidis, Amice et hospitaliter. (*viii°) Sic possumus iam tesseras Vocare collybisticas, Quasi institutas omnibus Mutandam ad externam locis Pecuniam, quae litterae Vulgo feruntur cambii. Pollux nomisma parvulum, Stagyraeus ille maximus Vocabulorum originem: Quam originationem ait Fabius. Fuere symbola Priscorum in arcanis diu

ton À

Quid Symbolum sit, ne amplius Roges, brevissime, ut potest, Conabimur nunc edere. Est namque signum LYMBOAON Ut signa militaria. Collatio etiam dicitur, Quod multi in unum conferunt. Hinc symbolum Terentius Poeta dixit nobilis. Orator ARPINAS notam, Sed Anulum Graii vocant

AND A

Pollux, and Quintilian (below), are Pliny, Historia naturalis, 33.4.10. The references to Pliny,

a

i Hh HAE

FOR THE SCHOLARLY DISTINGUISHED READER. SYMBOL OF SYMBOLS.”°

not found in Bude. 30 Budé names Herodian, Gregorius Nazianzenu s and Lysias as authors of these three meanings. 3! See note 16 above. à

l

LECTORI STUDIOSO, ET ELEGANTI. SYMB. SYMBOLORUM.

133

A

BUDÉ AND BOCCHI

Onomasticon, 9.70.

See note 23 above.

Topica, 8.35. 4 Quintilian, /nstitutiones oratoriae, 1.6.28. Cf, Cicero,

may be called ‘emblems’. Bocchi 35 There seems to be no reason to doubt that Bocchi’s symbola title, and once, seemingly as a Alciato’s quoting is he where here only emblema uses himself (1555, LXXVII). This is a XXIX L no in sign, visual the or common noun meaning either the genre eagle and Ganymede are said treatment of the same figure as Alciato’s ‘In deo laetandum’, where the corporis, atque animi est’); to be the ‘emblem’ of the body and soul at peace (‘Pacati hoc em blema , to Paolo Giovio. LXXXVI no in figure, the f 0 again or and once more of a particular ‘symbolum’, that, His commentator, Sambigucio, never uses the t erm. However, it should be remembered (Palazzi, pp. 6r, 58, Caburacci, theorists | impresa Italian some simboli, of use generic the alongside from Ruscelli and Sambucus on p. 23) use this as an alternative to emblemi, and that contemporaries regularly mention Bocchi as an author of emblems.

|

EE HAR

132

134

BUDÉ AND BOCCHI

Vitae, atque morum continent, Sanis retecta, caeterum Incognita imprudentibus. Nolim putes carissime

(*vüi”?) Lector, figurate ista, quae

Divinitus sunt tradita, Sic prodita esse de nihilo, Et sensum in illum, quem indicant, Exaudienda protinus, Sed involucra esse abdita Scientiae haud erraticae, Nec pervagatae, scilicet Ne sacra polluant mali, Et sancta quique perditi. Patere quae debent bonis, Ac puritatem candidam Tantummodo colentibus, Qui summovere prorsus, et Arcere procul a mentibus Vulgi sciunt, queunt, volunt

Sensus prophanos quoslibet.

sensible foolish.

people

but

unknown

to

the

1 would not want you to think, dearest reader, that these things which are transmitted figuratively by divine inspiration are propagated for no good reason, and are to be understood in the sense they indicate directly; rather they are the secret veils of a science which is well-founded and not bandied about of course, so that the wicked and depraved do not pollute the holy and the sacred. These are things which should be apparent to good people who seek only innocent purity, who know how, are able, and want to remove and keep far from their minds any profane ideas of the common crowd.

The Emblem According to the Italian Jmpresa Theorists’

It would be impossible in a short essay to consider everything Italian

theorists have to say about the emblem. If some, like Giovio, Farra, and

Taegio mention it only incidentally, or like Ammirato and Scipione Bargagli exclude it entirely, others who devote whole chapters or of significant passages to it also say more about the emblem by way the comparison and implication when they talk about imprese. Despite an possible, as nearly as be, to intended is risk of distorting what

account of the emblem as seen by some contemporaries, it has been necessary to select those aspects of the subject which seem to concern them most often. These are: the origins of the emblem, the nature of its material, and the relationship of image and words.

Europe: Tradition and Variety. * First published in The Emblem in Renaissance and Baroque pu blisher Brill for Symbola et Emblemata. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992), pp. 22-32. I am grateful to the permission to re-publish this material. nor Giovio Vescovo di ' Paolo Giovio, Dialogo dell'imprese militari et amorosi di Monsig Nocera (Rome: Antonio Barre, 1555)

Girolamo Ruscelli, Discorso... (Venice: G. Ziletti, 1556), pp. 174-177. ee id., Le Imprese illustri... (Venice: Fr. Rampazetto, 1566), ch. V, pp. 16-21. SG: Bartoli, Ee ), 2 : . (Pavia: imprese delle proprieta la sopra ... o Ragionament Contile, Luca Christo a in 1571 to both Alessandro Farra, Settenario... (Venice:

This work was already known Zanetti), 278°°-279", and Bartolomeo

Taegio,

Pontio) 26°. Il Materiale

Bargagli],

Intronato

[Girolamo

// Liceo ... Libro secondo

D ialogo

de'giuochi

(Milan:

(Siena:

Paolo Gottardo

L. Bonnetti,

1572),

pp. 145-156.

, 1575), pp. 58-71. Giovanni Andrea Palazzi, / Discorsi .. . sopra l'Imprese (Bologna: A. Benacci 3-25. 2 pp. 1580), Rossi, G. (Bologna: Francesco Caburacci, Trattato... Discorso IX. Reference is Garzoni, Piazza Universale (Venice: G.B. Somasco, 1585), Tommasso

to the second edition of 1586. is to the Venice Stefano Guazzo, Dialoghi piacevoli (Venice: G. A. Bertano, 1586). Reference edition, 1590, pp. 170-198. Carlino and A. Pace, 1592), Guilio Cesare Capaccio, Delle Imprese trattato... (Naples: G. G. lib. I, cap. IL, 2”°-4", lib. TI. mo: Comino Ventura, 1612), Ercole Tasso, Della realta, & perfettione delle imprese.. . (Berga passim.

136

THE EMBLEM

ACCORDING

ORIGINS OF THE

TO

THE ITALIAN /MPRESA THEORISTS

EMBLEM

Among the earlier of these writers particularly, there is a noticeable insistence on the idea that the emblem was and is primarily a picture in the form of mosaic or wood inlay or painting, and that in this tradition, visible in classical and medieval buildings, it is simply representational. Ruscelli asserts that when Alciato chose the term as the title for his book, he was thinking of this meaning, and not of a detachable ornament. Alciato’s particular achievement, he says, was to enable the designers of mosaics or inlays to replace the merely representational and often vain images used in architectural décor with meaningful, moral, and christian images (pp. 175-176). According to Ruscelli, Alciato turned the emblem from a picture into a symbol—a symbol different from the impresa principally in that its purpose is moral instruction and its material is public and common knowledge. Contile’s definition of emblems is based like Ruscelli’s on this first meaning of the word. Like the latter, he knows but disregards the meaning of a detachable ornament and the rhetorical meanings recorded by Budé, and devotes most of his chapter to descriptions of inlay work, mosaics, miniatures, facings, and engravings, which for him explain quite sufficiently why Alciato chose the word for the title of his ‘moral and religious poetry’ (24°°). In a list summarizing his account of other symbols before his chapters on imprese, Contile defines emblems

simply as ‘figure con significati morali’ (27°).

Girolamo Bargagli’s subject is games and pastimes; * he is talking of emblems used in ephemeral circumstances, in which they are described orally, not realised in permanent materials. He also exemplifies a tendency, already apparent in Taegio and Farra, which classes the emblem, not as a different type of symbol with different origins, but as an imperfect form of impresa. For both these reasons Ruscelli’s belief that Alciato had invented something new in the emblem with figurative meaning is absent, and the emblem as mosaic or inlay is forgotten. In these three authors it tends to appear as a composition distinguishable from the impresa only in its didactic purpose and the looser rules concerning the material it uses.

137

Palazzi, however, describes mosaics and other works in his home town of Fano and in Bologna particularly in order to show that they ante-date Alciato (pp. 61-62), and he attributes to Budé and Catelliano Cotta the description of emblems as ‘meaningful compositions’ (‘lavori significanti’).* He mentions some verses of Castelvetro describing a proposed décor, a painting of the city of Fano with four lines of verse, and a project for his own house in Urbino with verses by Ubaldo (pp. 65-66). When he comes to Alciato’s invention, he reproduces Ruscelli’s account without granting Alciato any originality. Although these writers, with the exception of Bargagli, give Alciato honourable mention, and several name other emblematists such as Bocchi and Sambucus, Italian writers in general continue to invoke mosaics and architectural décor, treating the emblem book as a byproduct, unlike the French who seem to have the book in the centre of their view. NATURE

OF THE MATERIAL

In his chapters on the particular characteristics of the impresa, Contile states that its specific property is that it contains a similitude of the

intended thought (27°). Despite this, he does not use similitudes to

make distinctions between types of symbol, and there has been no mention of similitudes as an element of the emblem or of the other

symbols previously described.

However he is the first, it seems, to

introduce into the discussion of imprese a classification of similitudes, which are said to be taken from nature, technology (/ arte), exempla (i/

caso), history, and myth (/a favola) (31").° In his case the use of myth,

* Palazzi provides more information about existing ancient and contemporary mosaics and about early

writing

on emblems

than anyone

else.

In addition

to Accursius,

Rhodiginus,

Budé

and

the

invaluable reference to Catelliano Cotta (see ‘Selected Occurrences...’), he mentions (p. 58) notes on parts of the Digest by Lazare de Baif (cf. Contile). On emblems his main source is Ruscelli, with

Alciato, Bocchi (like many of these writers he uses ‘symboli’ as an alternative to ‘emblemi’) and Sambucus as examples. His chief authority for imprese is Ammirato, but he knows most of those who have written before him. Among those he names is one Fabio Albergati, whose work is not known. > Contile is important as probably the first to bring into these discussions the material on insignia and coats of arms available in the works of lawyers.

? An unusual meaning which Contile mentions is that of a garment made of variegated pieces of material sewn together, and called in Italian ‘giornea’—perhaps because he has seen ‘emblema’

in this sense somewhere Lazare

de Baïf, whose

tractatus...

in the context of Roman Opus

de re vestimentaria

used

law concerning dress. Palazzi (p. 58) refers to ... Eiusdem

de

vasculorum

materiis ac varietate

was first published in 1526. See ‘Selected Occurrences...’

* Emblems do not appear separately as a game in their own right, but they are discussed at some length to clarify the definition of imprese.

6 Derived perhaps ultimately from Aristotle's division of examples into those consisting of comparisons (rapafoñ, taken from real life), those taken from history, and those taken from fables

(Rhetoric, 2.20). Quintilian (5.11 and 8.3.72-82) has an extended discussion of comparisons, examples, and similes, but the only classical source I have found to mention the distinction between natural and artificial objects is the Rhetorica ad Herennium, (4.49.61);

‘res ... artificio, casu, natura

comparatas’. Everyone after Contile enumerates the types of similitudes in essentially the same way.

The commonplace classification of allegory as physical, moral, and historical (euhemeristic) may confused with this. Sambucus classifies symbols and emblems in this way: ‘Nam et de

become

138

THE EMBLEM

THE ITALIAN JMPRESA THEORISTS

ACCORDING TO

that is allegory or what Bargagli calls the significatione gieroglifica, is not excluded from the impresa. The distinction between similitudes

based on ‘natural’ properties and those based on properties attributed to an object by traditional allegory, which will be an important distinction

between impresa and emblem for some theorists, is not part of Contile’s

thinking Girolamo Bargagli, in his account of imprese, does make a distinction based on this classification. ‘Pure and legitimate’ imprese are said to be

composed of natural or artificial objects and to exclude ‘hieroglyphic’

meanings. He seems to be the first to say in print that the impresa should be restricted to similitudes based on nature and the products of art, on what are thought of as objectively real properties, excluding the allegorical sense which is arbitrary and conventional.’ Bargagli, who would exclude human figures from the impresa, would exclude mythical ones entirely as well; imprese containing such figures are for him emblems

(p. 151).

Palazzi’s ‘meaningful compositions’ are subject to the same classification of figures: objects used in imprese are said to be ‘significanti’ naturally, artificially, as hieroglyphs, or as exempla (historical or mythical) (pp. 158-170). Palazzi follows Contile however in not restricting imprese to similitudes of natural or artificial properties, and therefore makes no distinction with emblems on these grounds. Of all these theorists, Caburacci uses the most consistent logical, or rather rhetorical structure to describe the impresa. He calls for a systematic, rhetorical inventio of imprese conceived as analogous to ornaments of eloquence, and a dispositio which recognizes the structure of the impresa as an enthymeme (pp. 5-14), the enthymeme and examples being the only rhetorical forms of proof (p. 51).° Caburacci amplifies the notion of corpi significanti, and explains the separation of

natural and symbolic meanings and the complementarity of word and

moribus, et natura, et historica, fabulosaque ... commodé finguntur’ (1564, p.3). Cf. Mignault: ‘historica ... physica ... ethica, et certe allegorica’ (1577, p. 39). 7 Parra (1571, 272"°-273") prescribes that the figures of the impresa should have the literal meaning (‘proprio significato’) arising from the nature of the object; this will be different from the meaning it acquires in conjunction with the motto. However, he too allows that imprese may have three sorts of figures, including mythical ones. Bargagli implies that there has been before his publication an even more restrictive view which would exclude the category of natural objects. $ Caburacci rhetorical

is basing his definition closely on Aristotle’s discussion of the enthymeme as a

syllogism

(Rhetoric,

2.20).

It should

be

said

these

ideas

are all introduced

by

earlier

writers, but none seems to have produced a reasoned definition like Caburacci’s. Ammirato (p. 14) suggests the motto may be seen as the major premiss of a syllogism, and the figure as the minor; Farra (275") and Palazzi (p. 146) the reverse. Farra says the impresa may at times be an enthymeme. For Caburacci, the impresa is not a logical syllogism,

rhetorical one which persuades.

which provides a demonstrative proof, but a

139

image by distinguishing three modes of expression which he designates as rappresentare, significare, and mostrare. Rappresentare is simply to represent, as in icons; significare is to have a conventional meaning, as in words or in allegory; mostrare is rhetorical ‘showing’, ‘persuading’, ‘proving’, which requires complete propositions and is performed mainly by means of figures, especially metaphors. This enables him to distinguish hieroglyphs (allegory) as a fixed code which ‘signifies’ conventionally (p. 19), and imprese which ‘show’, making possible the expression of original ‘concepts’ by combining the conventional metaphor of the picture and the words of the motto into a discursive proposition (p. 25).’ An impresa without motto can be no more than a hieroglyph, a conventional symbol; it would not be a complete proposition.

The important point for us is not so much Caburacci’s recognition

that the hieroglyph represents a fixed, conventional code, but the corollary: that the impresa offers the possibility of a free invention of meanings through the association of the natural or conventional meaning of the picture with the individual’s choice of words, a freely chosen context. In Caburacci’s case, and his alone, this is also true for the emblem; imprese, emblems, and arms all ‘show’ (p. 17). The emblem

therefore

for Caburacci

could also enjoy the freedom

of invention

available through the association of picture and word. He distinguishes it from the impresa, not by its use of conventional allegory, but by its didactic purpose and by its explicitness. I refer to Tommasso Garzoni only because of a note at the end of his text, which conveniently shows that the question of whether imprese should use mythical objects was indeed a topic of debate at this time: In addition to the afore-mentioned books of imprese [Farra and Caburacci], one may consult also the book by Scipione Bargagli, who offers a fresh discussion of this subject. Some of his remarks have given the honourable Academy of Treviso occasion to savour with special pleasure a splendid question, that is, whether a mythical object can properly be used for an impresa. And I shall willingly quote the reasons put forward, if I thought this would please all the parties. of ° Again, to be fair, one must say that Taegio (15"°-16") sees clearly that it is the combination of the motto with the allegorical or natural property of the object, giving rise to the possibility individual meanings, which distinguishes the impresa. 10