Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe (CA. 1470-CA. 1540) 1443858943, 9781443858946

Citation preview

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe (ca. 1470-ca. 1540)

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe (ca. 1470-ca. 1540)

By

Alejandro Coroleu

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe (ca. 1470-ca. 1540), by Alejandro Coroleu This book first published 2014 Cambridge Scholars Publishing 12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2014 by Alejandro Coroleu All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-5894-3, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5894-6

CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ..................................................................................... vi Preface ....................................................................................................... vii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................ viii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Chapter One ............................................................................................... 10 Social Networks Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 24 Commentaries Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 58 The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 90 Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular Conclusion ............................................................................................... 123 Appendix A: Editions of Poliziano’s Latin works (1480-1559) .............. 125 Appendix B: Paratexts ............................................................................. 127 Appendix C: Editions Printed in Spain (1473-1554) ............................... 138 Notes........................................................................................................ 142 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 190 Index ........................................................................................................ 213

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 1.1

Francesco Filelfo, Epistolae breviores et elegantiores atque adulescentibus magis conducentes, Strasbourg, Matthias Schürer, 1514, sig. A iiiir (Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, F I 167/3)

Fig. 1.2

Marco Girolamo Vida, De arte poetica, Nuremberg, Artemisius, 1531, title-page (Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, 166.2 Poet. [3])

Fig. 2.1 and 2.2 Parthenice Mariana Fratris Baptistae Mantuani ab Ascensio familiariter exposita, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1499, fols. LXVIIv – LXVIIIr (Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, W I 44/1) Fig. 3.1

Baptiste Mantuani vatis praestantissimi divinum secundae Parthenices opus, Strasbourg, Johann Knobloch, 1515, sig. aa iiiir (Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg, F I 503/5)

Fig. 3.2

Angeli Politiani Silva cui titulus Rusticus in poeta Hesiodi Vergiliique Georgicon enarratione pronuntiata [but also Manto], Deventer, Richard Paffraet, 1506, sig. C iiiir (The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 227 E 16:50)

Fig. 4.1

Pier Paolo Vergerio, De ingenuis moribus ac liberalibus studiis, Naples, Arnaldus de Bruxella, 1472, fol. 16r (Biblioteca de Catalunya, Inc. 63-8°)

Fig. 4.2

Glossemata in Politiani Silvas (Biblioteca Nacional de España, Ms. 3663, fol. 173v)

PREFACE

This book has gathered many debts of gratitude to friends, colleagues, and family. Acknowledging everyone is simply not possible. A general thanks must suffice, even though it is simply insufficient to express the depth of my gratitude to all those who have helped me in the preparation of this book. The University of Nottingham always provided a stimulating atmosphere in which to conduct research for my work. In recent years the Department of Catalan at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona has offered a welcome base and I have benefited from assistance to attend conferences through research project FFI2011-27844-C03-03. Research trips were made possible by grants from the British Academy and the Universitat de Barcelona (through research project FFI2008-01759). I must also thank the Herzog August Bibliothek at Wolfenbüttel for the term I spent receiving their hospitality. A few scholars have been involved with this project from its conception, while others offered their expertise along the way without full knowledge of the extent to which I would abuse their goodwill. My greatest intellectual debt is to Francisco Rico, who first encouraged me to study the spread of Italian humanism in Renaissance Europe, and whose own writings on the subject are the indispensable foundation for this book. I am grateful to Juan Francisco Alcina and to Barry Taylor, who read draft chapters of the book at an earlier stage. Additional encouragement and assistance came from the late Brian Tate, Lluís Cabré, Geoffrey Eatough, Perrine Galand, Jacqueline Glomski, Felipe González Vega, Beatrix Koll, Jill Kraye, Andrew Laird, Mariano Madrid Castro, and Andrea Severi. My wife Veronika has helped me to negotiate many treacherous passages of Latin, and has spotted typos and precious classical allusions lurking beneath the surface. Most crucially, she encouraged me to continue with my project at a time when my energy and confidence were beginning to ebb. David Barnett revised the entire manuscript with characteristic professionalism. His close readings and detailed comments were surpassed only by the ease of his affable manner. Any errors and infelicities that remain are, naturally, my own. This book is dedicated to my family, here and there, for all their support over the years.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACA

Arxiu de la Corona d’Aragó, Barcelona

AC

Arxiu Capitular

BC

Biblioteca de Catalunya, Barcelona

BL

British Library, London

BNE

Biblioteca Nacional de España, Madrid

BNF

Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris

BSB

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich

BUB

Biblioteca Universitària de Barcelona, Barcelona

HAB

Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel

ISTC

Incunabula Short-Title Catalogue, available on-line at http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/istc/index.html

KB

Koninklijke Bibliotheek van België / Bibliothèque royale de Belgique, Brussels

ÖNB

Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna

UBS

Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg

INTRODUCTION

On 1 September 1553 Nicolaus Episcopius Iunior (Nicholas Bischoff the Younger, 1531-65) finished printing his first book in Basle, a sizeable folio volume which included the complete Latin works of Angelo Poliziano (1454-94), an accomplished poet both in Latin and the vernacular, a philosopher, a scholar of high prestige, and the author of an extensive correspondence with other Italian humanists. In his prefatory letter to the jurist Karl Harst (1492-1563), councillor of Prince William of Julies-Cleves, Episcopius explained why he had decided to embark on such a venture: Poliziano merited the highest regard as he had been one of the first “in this fortunate age of ours” (“hoc nostro felice seculo”), alongside Ermolao Barbaro (1454-93) and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-94), to restore the literature of ancient Greece and Rome. His works –Episcopius went on to say– would hopefully survive “as long as the written word lives” (“quoad vivent ipsae litterae”).1 There is nothing exceptional within the context of sixteenth-century printing about either Episcopius’s praise of Poliziano or his interest in bringing the complete Latin works of the Italian humanist to the press.2 Indeed, with this volume Episcopius showed himself to be very much in line with other important printers of the time, such as Aldo Manuzio (Aldus Manutius, ca. 1449-1515), whose workshop had issued the first edition of Poliziano’s complete works in Venice in 1498, the Flemish printer and educator Josse Bade (Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 1462-1535), responsible for two Parisian editions of Poliziano’s Opera omnia between 1512 and 1519, and the Lyonese Sébastien Gryphe (Sebastianus Gryphus, fl. 1525-56), who also published the corpus of Poliziano’s Latin texts in the 1520s and 1530s.3 Portraits of Poliziano as a member of a group of illustrious fifteenth-century Italian scholars abound in other contemporary texts in which he is often either compared to classical writers or described as an author who not only bears comparison with Greek and Roman poets but actually surpasses most of them. To give but one example, Erasmus – for whom Harst had worked in Basle in the 1520s– famously extolled Poliziano and Barbaro as “in all ways inimitable”.4 From the 1490s onwards, Poliziano’s vast Latin literary output was read, copied, imitated and translated throughout Europe. During the following century the centrality of the texts is also obvious from their

2

Introduction

frequent occurrence in catalogues of Royal5, University6, monastic and ecclesiastical libraries of Renaissance Europe.7 The most decisive promotion of Poliziano’s Latin works was however provided by the printing press. The sheer number of editions (and, to a lesser extent, of manuscripts) of his Latin poetry and prose is a potent testimony to Poliziano’s popularity which had started during his lifetime and then grown steadily in the decades after his death in 1494. Published in Lyon, Paris, Basle and Antwerp, dozens of editions of individual or collected works are a valuable measure of Poliziano’s literary stature and of his ascendancy over generations of humanists. An idea of the extent of interest in Poliziano’s Latin works in the first half of the sixteenth century can be gleaned from the statistics reproduced in Appendix A, which includes over one hundred and twenty editions (in many cases furnished with commentaries) of his complete Latin works, of collections of his works, and of individual writings printed between 1480 and 1559. Further evidence of the considerable influence exerted by Poliziano on the Renaissance intellectual scene is the widespread use of his works in the classroom. In the first decades of the sixteenth century Poliziano’s Latin verse and correspondence came to assume a canonical status within the school and university curriculum of many European academic institutions. Indeed, shortly after his death Poliziano had already become the literary hero of most university professors and schoolteachers, as is made patently clear in the epigraph to a ca. 1510 Lyon edition of his letters.8 Although attention to his original Latin writings was to continue in the second half of the sixteenth and well into the seventeenth century, after the 1550s perceptions of Poliziano seem to change. Interest in his works becomes confined to editions of his Latin translations of classical philosophers such as Epictetus, and of ancient commentators on Aristotle (for example, Alexander of Aphrodisias). More importantly, Poliziano ceases to be considered a suitable author for Latin teaching and imitation, becoming valued instead primarily for his scholarship or his writings in Italian. Since the mid-sixteenth century, this image of Poliziano and evaluation of his work have remained unchanged, right up to the twentieth century and beyond. Despite the impressive corpus of editions which demonstrates the significance of the Latin Poliziano within Renaissance literary culture, modern scholarship on him has concerned itself chiefly with his vernacular poetry and with his philology, best represented by his commentaries on classical poets, and by the Miscellaneorum liber, a collection of printed notes on grammatical, chronological and antiquarian topics.9 When modern critics have paid attention to the reception of Poliziano’s Latin writings in Renaissance Europe, emphasis has traditionally

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

3

been placed on the influence of his methods of literary and philosophical analysis. Such an approach would certainly be valid if our survey were limited to the group of eminent sixteenth-century scholars and antiquarians who modelled their methodology on Poliziano’s. Yet this more recent interest in his textual criticism and exegesis only accounts for a relatively small sample of Renaissance views on Poliziano. Indeed, back in the sixteenth century, at a time when humanism was spreading throughout Europe, lecturers, schoolmasters and printers paid more attention to Poliziano’s adaptations of classical poets and his ideas on imitation, than to his philological acumen. As this book will show, for many of his contemporaries and for humanists of the succeeding generations, Poliziano’s encyclopaedic learning, relevant as it was, became in the end only secondary to his other more educational values.10 This discrepancy between the author’s printing and academic posterity in the first half of the sixteenth century and the lack of canonical esteem most of his Latin texts currently command is not exclusive to Poliziano. We find several other Italian Latin humanists of the Quattrocento whose reputations have suffered a similar fate. A good case in point is the Tolentino-born humanist and translator Francesco Filelfo (1398-1481), whose Latin epistles and speeches received hundreds of printed editions in Renaissance Europe, but are now all but consigned to oblivion. The example of the poet and Carmelite reformer Baptista Mantuanus or Battista Spagnoli (1447-1516) –commonly known in the English-speaking world as “Mantuan”– is also illustrative. Lilio Giraldi was no doubt right when, in his De poetis nostrorum temporum dialogi duo (“Two dialogues on the poets of our time”, 1551), he compared Mantuan’s poetry to a raging stream bursting its banks: among the Carmelite’s 55,000 lines of Latin verse are works which can safely be passed over in silence. Yet the scant attention given to Mantuan’s poems in modern times contrasts strikingly with the enthusiasm with which his writings were applauded in the early sixteenth century, when his work enjoyed a successful career in print, and his bucolic and hagiographic poetry was a staple of many a school and university curriculum. This disparity between perceptions based on nineteenth- and twentieth-century views and the Renaissance reception of Italian humanism even extends to Petrarch (Francesco Petrarca, 1304-74), traditionally regarded as the movement’s founding father. As William Kennedy notes, the canonization of Petrarch’s vernacular poetry “unfolds as a fascinating narrative inscribed in fifteenthand sixteenth-century commentaries appended to the text”.11 In his study Kennedy examines these commentaries “in the light of subsequent poetic practice in Europe” (p. 4). In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries,

4

Introduction

however, glosses –both in manuscript and in print– were also added to Petrarch’s Latin texts (and not only to his poetry) in equal (if not greater) measure, and his Latin style in verse and prose was copied by a large number of Neo-Latin writers across the continent. Furthermore, Petrarch’s Latin output (mostly, his eclogues, letters and philosophical writings) was used in secondary school and university curricula throughout Renaissance Europe, as we shall see. The first aim of this monograph is to highlight such misrepresentations, and draw attention to the perils of imposing our scholarly prejudices and preoccupations on the literature of Italian Latin humanism, and on the reception of this corpus in Renaissance Europe. In an important book, Christopher Celenza provides an account of why Renaissance Latin texts (what he calls “lost literature”) were overlooked primarily because of nineteenth-century interests foreign to the Renaissance itself. The bias evident in Jakob Burckhardt’s classic discussion of humanism in his Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien (1860) has been partly responsible for this trend.12 It would, of course, be inaccurate to claim that these Latin works in prose and poetry are still being ignored by historians and philologists today: a considerable portion of this literature (including the four writers discussed above) has relatively recently been edited and translated, studied on university courses, and been the subject of scholarly publications and conferences. Yet, when attention is paid to the European reception of the Latin literature of Italian humanism from the last quarter of the fifteenth century, research on the matter tends either to be subsumed into larger narratives on the penetration of new Italian cultural products into a particular geographical area, or to be confined to specific case studies.13 In both these approaches, little consideration is given to printing trends in the Renaissance, or the formation of the university and school canon in the sixteenth century.14 This book seeks to remedy some of these deficiencies. There is certainly no shortage of secondary bibliography devoted to the contribution of Italian humanist grammars and expositions of good Latin style manuals (such as Lorenzo Valla’s Elegantiae linguae latinae) to the reform of Latin teaching in the schools and universities of Renaissance Europe. My task has been greatly facilitated by previous studies on this subject, above all by Ann Moss’s impressive and wide-ranging Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn and I duly acknowledge my debt to her views throughout this monograph.15 Some of the sources discussed by Moss also feature here. But unlike Moss, whose book is primarily concerned with tracing the shift from the Latin of late medieval intellectuals to the Latin of

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

5

the humanists, the principal objective of the present study is to appraise the historical significance of the seminal texts of Italian Latin humanism within print culture and the academic setting of Renaissance Europe. The chief objects of investigation in this volume are editions of the Latin writings of Petrarch, Filelfo, Poliziano and Mantuan produced outside Italy, although attention is also given to works by other Italian humanists. I have chosen to focus on these authors partly because of their intrinsic literary and intellectual qualities, but mainly because of the extensive appeal they achieved towards the end of the fifteenth and the first decades of the sixteenth century, in sharp contrast with the relatively narrow scholarly attention they currently command. In the present work I examine editions published in France, the Low Countries, the German-speaking world and Spain, with reference to earlier Italian editions when appropriate. (Except for a few instances, I have excluded England from my enquiry as the study of English humanism falls outside my area of competence.) The timespan of my investigation is the period between ca. 1470 and ca. 1540, coinciding, not by chance, with the life of Erasmus of Rotterdam (ca. 1469-1536), and a crucial time when humanism was taking root in many European territories. The study begins in the early 1470s, when the first editions of some of the texts under review were printed, and concludes in the 1540s, when there was a significant decline in the number of editions of Italian Latin humanist works produced by European printers. This terminal point should not, however, be taken as absolute, particularly in those examples concerning the impact of Italian Latin humanism in Spain, where I describe editions and analyse historical and literary material from as late as the last quarter of the sixteenth century (and in a few cases even beyond 1600). I do not, of course, claim to be the first to have stressed the central educational role played by the literature of Italian Latin humanism within the spread of humanism in Renaissance Europe.16 Nor can I pretend to have provided an exhaustive account of the way in which this corpus of writings was made available by printers and subsequently appropriated by educators, scholars and writers at the time. That said, this survey breaks new ground in several ways. Firstly, my analysis is not limited to grammar and rhetoric handbooks, but includes humanist verse, letters and oratorical works, philosophical writings and pedagogical treatises. And the way in which each of these texts and genres was favoured by Renaissance printers or used in the Renaissance classroom is not reviewed in isolation but rather contextualised with reference to the other disciplines of the studia humanitatis. Secondly, my study confirms Peter Burke’s dictum that “it would be a mistake to assume that the package of concepts, methods and

6

Introduction

values that we now call humanism was accepted or rejected as a whole”.17 This was, of course, far from a straightforward process: humanist methods and practices were in many instances met with indifference and even antagonism, and curricular reform did not always necessarily ensue. My approach is also distinct from many other surveys on the diffusion of Italian humanism in Western Europe from the last quarter of the fifteenth century in that it is not determined exclusively by national boundaries.18 In addition, this study does not restrict itself only to the major intellectual figures of the time. Rather, I have sought to show how minor individuals also engaged with the tenets and literary genres of Italian Latin humanism, most commonly schoolmasters confronted with the harsh reality of teaching the rudiments of the Latin language, who are rarely afforded the role they deserve in accounts of the spread of Latin humanism beyond Italy. On this point I concur with Juliette Groenland, who has argued persuasively for the need to bring the contributions of more lowly-ranked humanists to the fore in order to assess how humanist ideals were put into practice in the Renaissance classroom.19 For this reason, and because so many of my characters and editions are less well-known, I have erred on the side of chronological precision (one may say punctiliousness), providing Latin and vernacular names for historical figures (except when the character is sufficiently famous) and dates both for them and for when texts were written or published, and full bibliographical details of copies inspected by me. For the benefit of a wider academic audience, I have also provided English translations or paraphrases of all lengthy passages in Latin, Catalan and Spanish. One final goal of this book has been to assess the influence of the key texts of Italian Latin humanism on some of the national literary traditions, in Latin and in the vernacular, emerging in this period. My own education and research interests have led me to give priority here to the spread of humanism in Renaissance Spain and to the literary culture of Castile and the Crown of Aragon, a less well-known sphere for scholars of European humanism and Neo-Latin literature working outside the area of Hispanic Studies. For the last five hundred years Spain’s contribution to Renaissance intellectual life and letters has been a source of continual controversy among European scholars. The term “ultimus angulus Hesperiae” (“remote corner of the Western shore”), was first used as an insult against Spain in 1435, in a riposte by Leonardo Bruni (ca. 1369-1444) to an attack on his new translation of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics by the Bishop of Burgos, Alfonso de Cartagena (1384-1456). Criticism of the status of Spanish literature and culture persisted throughout the following centuries,

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

7

culminating in the early decades of the twentieth century in a series of attacks against what was perceived as Spain’s cultural backwardness and her failed attempts to embrace modernity. Of these, Viktor Klemperer’s negative answer to the question “Gibt es eine spanische Renaissance?” (“Is there a Spanish Renaissance?”) is perhaps the most famous and extreme example of a tendency to denigrate, or deny altogether, the literary and intellectual achievements of Renaissance Spain.20 Fortunately perceptions have changed greatly since Klemperer’s denial of 1927 and there is now a broad consensus regarding the importance of Renaissance Spanish culture and the active role played by Spaniards in the dissemination of the studia humanitatis from the last quarter of the fifteenth century. The study of the diffusion of humanist ideas in Renaissance Spain has undergone a remarkable transformation in the last fifty years. Yet, it has inevitably been defined by preceding scholarly traditions, subject to methodological conventions, and coloured by the prevailing political and cultural context in which historiographical exposition has emerged. The most obvious example of the latter is the trend, still prevalent despite some noble attempts to highlight the manifestations of Spanish humanism in areas other than Castile, to ignore the impact of Italian humanism on the cultural life of the Crown of Aragon.21 Traditionally, research on the spread of humanism in Castile (and, by extension, Spain) has assigned a central role in the genesis of this intellectual movement to Antonio de Nebrija (1444-1522), whose textbook on Latin grammar, the Introductiones latinae (“Introduction to Latin”) of 1481, was designed to replace the medieval manuals employed at the time at the University of Salamanca. This emphasis on Nebrija’s significant linguistic contribution has overshadowed the importance of the considerable corpus of Latin writings produced in Castile during the second half of the fifteenth century, in which humanist traces can also be easily recognised. 22 Research into the spread of humanism in the territories of the Crown of Aragon has not, however, been immune to critical preconceptions. Rather, it has been marked by a tendency to overemphasize the humanist credentials of early followers of the intellectual trends pioneered by Italian humanists. This is best exemplified by the figure of Bernat Metge (ca. 1350-1413), a prominent member of the royal chancery in the Crown of Aragon, the creator of a rich and cultivated prose in Catalan, and the first writer in the Iberian Peninsula to adapt Petrarch. In the first four decades of the twentieth century –when a series of distinguished scholars coined the term “Humanisme català” (“Catalan humanism”) to denote an alleged early vernacular humanism at the heart of late-medieval Catalan literature–

8

Introduction

Metge was heralded as a fully-fledged humanist.23 Brilliant and groundbreaking as it was, this scholarship nevertheless overstated the classical bent of Metge and other early fifteenth-century Catalan writers, who, though sensitive to Italian cultural innovations, failed to endorse fully the spirit of the studia humanitatis. Later more nuanced accounts of the advent of humanism to the Crown of Aragon have uncovered the shortcomings – both cultural and in their mastery of Latin prose– of chancery officials of the period, whilst pointing out the highly problematic nature of the “Humanisme català” cultural construct.24 In recent years the term has been employed thoughtlessly and indiscriminately to describe any Catalan cultural product from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: however, it must be emphasized that the term “humanism”, when applied to the Catalan-speaking lands, should be reserved for the activity of a group of Latin authors writing in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, some of whom will feature in chapter 4 below.25 This brief survey of research on the dissemination of Italian humanism in the Crowns of Castile and Aragon from the last decades of the fifteenth century shows how studies on the subject have tended to focus on the dates and extent of the penetration of humanist interests into both territories. By contrast, little attention has been paid to the manuscript and printed circulation and to the academic recognition of the seminal texts of Italian Latin humanism in Renaissance Spain. In the chapter devoted to Spanish humanism I have therefore provided an evaluation of the way in which a significant number of Latin texts of Italian humanism were transmitted, in the original or in translation, in Spain at the time. Though a small amount of the manuscript and printed material discussed has long been known to scholars, most editions (particularly those published in the territories of the Crown of Aragon) are presented here for the first time. The study that follows explores the privileged position within the late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century curriculum of those works which encapsulate the spirit of the studia humanitatis. The main thesis of this book is that, even though these texts were not conceived as works to be used in schoolrooms or lecture halls as part of the humanist movement, they were nevertheless put to a variety of pedagogical uses far removed from their authors’ original aspirations.26 The two focuses of this monograph are the (early) printed page and the Renaissance classroom. First and foremost, I examine books, and emphasis is placed throughout on the material form of the editions studied. But I also take into consideration other cultural and social documents, such as the personal correspondence of printers, registers of European booksellers, library catalogues from the

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

9

period, as well as school and university regulations. The four chapters are organized around issues of book production, distribution and consumption. Chapter 1 provides a contextual framework for understanding the dissemination of non-Italian editions of Italian Latin humanist works after 1470. My line of enquiry begins with some preliminary questions: Where and by whom were these texts printed? Who was the target readership? Who commissioned these volumes? In chapter 2, I focus on the role of the commentary as an educational tool at schools and universities by analysing the annotations to Mantuan’s hagiographic poems, Petrarch’s bucolic poetry and Poliziano’s Silvae, which were published in three very different milieux between 1499 and 1538. Chapter 3 examines some of the ways in which the literature of Italian Latin humanism in a range of forms and genres (verse, letters and speeches, philosophical texts and pedagogical tracts) was celebrated by Renaissance schoolmasters and university lecturers in academic institutions throughout Europe. This chapter explores the unexpected ways in which the key texts of Italian Latin humanism were incorporated into the daily routine of Renaissance teaching. Chapter 4 looks at the circulation of Italian humanistic texts in Renaissance Spain, where these works attracted the interest of printers and teachers well into the second half of the sixteenth century. The chapter concludes by showing how this corpus also sparked the creativity of indigenous writers, in Latin and in the vernacular, thus contributing to the rise of new literary forms and genres, such as the picaresque novel.27

CHAPTER ONE SOCIAL NETWORKS

A movement based on the restoration, interpretation and imitation of ancient Greek and Roman texts, humanism has long been recognized as originating in Italy towards the middle of the fourteenth century. Within a century and a half (roughly, the period from the late fourteenth to the beginning of the seventeenth century), it spread from there to the furthest recesses of Europe, influencing almost every facet of Renaissance intellectual life, from language learning to the development of science, from biblical studies to art.28 Critics have linked humanism –a modern coinage– with “humanista”, a Latin word invented in the fifteenth century. This term was used to designate a teacher of a defined group of subjects, the studia humanitatis, which normally consisted of grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history and moral philosophy, and was recognized as an academic discipline distinct from the philosophical, medical and theological studies now known as scholasticism. In a highly self-conscious fashion (which in fact concealed many of the continuities between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages), from the late fourteenth century Italian humanists claimed to have ushered in a new era of cultural rebirth. The foremost scholar and advocate of this new learning, Petrarch, established a dividing line between ancient Roman times and the period immediately afterwards. This chronological break primarily affected the cultural and linguistic spheres: humanists promoted a style of Latin composition which aimed to emulate the elegant Latin of classical authors of the Golden Age, and in turn shunned the coarse Latin employed by scholastic philosophers. They thus strove to reform the teaching of Latin in schools, first in Italy and subsequently (albeit at very different speeds) in other parts of Europe, by replacing the old textbook-based schooling with direct access to the ancient poets and prose writers who provided “the instruments as well as the objects of thought, eloquent speech, and writing, in all kinds of spheres”.29 The humanist movement received an additional impetus with the invention in the West of printing with movable type around the middle of the fifteenth century, which enabled editions of classical texts to be disseminated, often accompanied with extensive paraphrases. With the

Social Networks

11

advent of the printing press, the key Latin texts of Italian humanism also began to be published across Europe, mostly by a small group of printers often working in close collaboration with those responsible for teaching in schools and universities. This chapter examines the circumstances which led to Latin works of Italian origin receiving attention in a range of locations across the European religious divide, by looking at the ways in which editions of these texts were produced and circulated in Europe from the last quarter of the fifteenth century.

Printing trends During the first half of the fifteenth century, one of the channels through which the knowledge associated with the new intellectual trends elaborated by Italian humanists spread throughout Europe was via personal contacts. This form of diffusion was partly facilitated by a shared academic language, Latin, and partly –in Agostino Sottili’s words– by the “ecumenical character of the medieval and Renaissance university”, which enabled Italian professors to work abroad, and other Europeans to study in Italy.30 But it was not just people who were travelling; books did too. Initially the Latin literature of Italian humanism (most notably Petrarch’s works) circulated in manuscript form; it first reached the European market in that format, and manuscript copies of Italian humanist works continued to be in demand even after the advent of the printing press.31 It was, however, in the course of the decades following the invention of printing when this body of texts became a markedly cosmopolitan product which could be adapted to different contexts and markets. Humanist books crisscrossed Europe in a variety of ways. International by nature, any edition of a Latin humanist text could, in theory, be imported and used anywhere in Western Europe. Kristian Jensen has shown how even modest editions could become “potentially commercial, mass-produced objects with a pan-European distribution.32 Volumes were eagerly sought and traded by European printers and booksellers. The correspondence of Johannes Amerbach (ca. 1440-1513) shows how he regularly supplied humanists throughout Europe with Aldine editions of Italian texts. Sometime after 1501, for example, Johann Goetzonis wrote from Strasbourg to request copies of Poliziano’s complete works and of Filippo Beroaldo’s commentaries on the classics and asked Amerbach, who was visiting the Frankfurt fair at the time, to acquire for him any new Italian publications that he deemed worthy of interest.33 But purchasing copies (most commonly, folio editions) printed in other countries was both complex and expensive, particularly for students, who were after all the

12

Chapter One

average target readership for most of the literature of Latin humanism. For printers, it was less onerous and financially more viable to produce local reprints of these texts, an example being Richard Paffraet (fl. 1477-1511), who not only imported books from Cologne, but also published works by Mantuan, Petrarch and Poliziano in his home town of Deventer in the first two decades of the sixteenth century, and was in turn engaged in supplying the English market.34 It must be emphasized that an absence of local editions of an Italian humanist in a particular area should not necessarily be interpreted as a lack of interest in his work: a clear example of this are the numerous foreign editions of Mantuan’s bucolic verse extant in libraries of Renaissance Spain, where the text –possibly for religious reasons– went otherwise unprinted in the sixteenth century.35 Indeed most editions of Mantuan’s pastoral poems and of other Italian humanist writings held in Spanish libraries or included in the inventories of Spanish booksellers of the period were supplied from abroad, first by the Venetian presses and subsequently by printers from Lyon.36 It is important to point out that initially print did not always quicken the pace of circulation of the Latin literature of Italian humanism in Renaissance Europe, as we can see from the manuscript success of Bruni’s Laudatio Florentinae urbis (“Praise of Florence”, ca. 1423), a text which was not to be printed until the twentieth century.37 With regard to the printing of works by Italian humanists across Europe a certain pattern can be established. Interest in this corpus emerges, as we might expect, in major printing and commercial centres such as Paris, Basle, Lyon and Antwerp; in cities with famous universities (Vienna, Leipzig, Alcalá de Henares and Salamanca), but also in towns which boasted an important local Latin school (Deventer, Münster and Strasbourg). As a rule, in all but the most important printing houses, editions of Latin Italian humanist works were produced locally and were intended primarily for use in local schools and lecture halls. As was the case with Thomas Anshelm (ca. 1470-1523) in Tübingen, printers generally worked very closely with local lecturers and schoolmasters, who persuaded them to produce editions of individual works in user-friendly octavo format, a detail which might explain why several editions of the same work came to be published in the same location by different printers in a very short span of time.38 Several of the volumes discussed in this monograph include dedicatory letters. Many humanists viewed such dedicatory epistles as opportunities for career building. They were used by these writers as vehicles for selfpromotion, as a means of gaining financial rewards and to advance their own humanist cause. Examination of this material (as well as other “paratexts” such as prefaces, liminary verse, colophons and so forth) is

Social Networks

13

crucial if we are to understand fully the way authors, publishers, patrons, editors and translators prepared a given text for its readership. As Terence Cave notes in relation to the textual accompaniments in early editions of Thomas More’s Utopia, such promotional material is extremely mobile, and the layout and presentation of incunabular and sixteenth-century European editions of Italian Latin humanism also vary according to the circumstances in which they were produced and received.39 Let us consider the case of Johannes Murmellius (1480-1517), a character who will appear at different stages throughout this book.40 After studying at the famous Latin school in Deventer (the same school which Erasmus had attended in the 1480s), he matriculated at the University of Cologne in 1496 where he became a Master of Arts eight years later. During the early decades of the sixteenth century Murmellius was appointed “conrector” (deputy headmaster) and “rector” (headmaster) of Latin schools in Westphalia and the Low Countries (among others, in Zwolle and Deventer). He also wrote a variety of textbooks intended for humanistic instruction, in which he defended the introduction of several recent poets into the curriculum.41 Accordingly, he decided to produce annotated editions of Mantuan’s Latin eclogues (1508), and two of Poliziano’s Silvae –the Manto and the Rusticus– which were published in quick succession in August and September 1510 in Münster and possibly in Deventer too.42 He dedicated his edition of the Manto to Henricus Johannes Bathavus (fl. 1510s), “studiorum humanitatis professor”, who, like Murmellius himself, produced editions of works by Latin poets for the Münster-based printer Lorenz Bornemann.43 In an epigram included in the prefatory material to his edition of the Manto Murmellius praises Bathavus for his erudition and describes him as “a learned student of Filippo Beroaldo” (sig. C 3v). Given that Murmellius (as editor) and Bathavus (as corrector) had worked together on an edition of passages by Pliny the Younger, published in Deventer two years earlier, it is not difficult to see why Murmellius chose to dedicate his edition of the Manto to his countryman and collaborator.44 Interestingly, however, Bathavus’s name does not appear on the title page of Murmellius’s edition of the Rusticus which was published a few months later, further proof of the mobility and adaptability of the paratextual material included in humanistic editions. Modest they may be, Murmellius’s reprints of Poliziano show that more often than not scholarly editions of Italian Latin humanist texts were not dedicated to powerful patrons, but rather to fellow humanists, as a means of securing their status and consolidating networks, which were essential to intellectual and economic success.45 Murmellius’s volumes also demonstrate how European editions of texts by the group of Italian

Chapter One

14

humanists under review –particularly editions of their Opera omnia– were typically joint enterprises involving fellow printers, commentators, correctors, translators and editors. On occasion, more illustrious characters were involved in this process: for example, Claude La Charité has recently uncovered evidence of the crucial role played by François Rabelais in Sébastien Gryphe’s edition of Poliziano’s complete works published in Lyon in 1533.46 In some cases, the stimulus to print a particular work came from other printers. Johannes Froben (ca. 1460-1527) is a case in point: on Nicolas Bérauld’s advice, he issued an edition of Poliziano’s Rusticus in Basle in 1518.47 Moreover, it is not uncommon to find printers continuing a well-established local tradition of printing works by Italian humanists. A good example of this is provided by the Basle-based printer Andreas Cratander (d. 1540), responsible for an edition of Poliziano’s letters in 1522 and his translations of Alexander of Aphrodisias’s Naturalia problemata in 1520, and of Epictetus’s Enchiridion in 1531, and whose heirs issued a reprint of Poliziano’s correspondence in 1542.48 Sometimes, as with Filippo Beroaldo’s speeches or Pico della Mirandola’s tracts, texts were included in editions of larger collections of works on a similar theme. In a few cases attention to Italian authors went hand in hand with interest in other European humanists, as is the case with Nicolaus Episcopius, who not only published Poliziano’s Latin texts, but also an edition of Juan Luis Vives’s complete works in 1555 and Guillaume Budé’s De asse a year later. He was, however, not the only Basle printer who showed interest at the time in Italian Latin humanism: in 1554, for example, Henricus Petrus published Petrarch’s complete works, in Latin and in the vernacular. 49 *

*

*

One of those Italian professors referred to at the beginning of this chapter who relocated to other parts of Europe was Publio Fausto Andrelini (ca. 1462-1518). A native of Forli, after his studies in Bologna and Rome, Andrelini moved to France in 1488, and the following year he was admitted to lecture publicly at the University of Paris. Shortly after his arrival in the French capital, Andrelini began writing a collection of Latin pastoral poems (twelve eclogues in total), which revolve around contemporary political events and Andrelini’s own life. The first eleven eclogues were said to have been printed in Paris in 1496, a conjectural date based on the year the tenth eclogue (the latest one in this group) was completed.50 The correct date of the editio princeps of Andrelini’s

Social Networks

15

Bucolica is, however, around 1500 when the poems were published in Paris by Jean Richard, the first in a long run of printings of the work by early sixteenth-century Parisian printers, with editions by, among others, Raoul Laliseau in 1501, Guide Marchand in 1506, Josse Bade in 1515, Richard again in 1518, and Jean Petit in 1521.51 At the peak of his reputation in Paris during the 1490s Andrelini gained access to the court, and was appointed poet royal in 1496, a post which he held for about twenty years. He also became a member of the literary circle around Robert Gaguin (1433-1501). Clear proof of the close link between Andrelini and Gaguin is Andrelini’s dedicatory letter to his friend, which prefaces all the Parisian editions of his Bucolica. Gaguin’s circle included humanists like Bade and Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples (ca. 1460-1536), who fostered classical learning and spiritual renewal.52 These were, of course, ideals also shared by Erasmus, who enjoyed Gaguin’s patronage from the time of his arrival in Paris in the autumn of 1495. It was in fact through Gaguin that Andrelini made his acquaintance with Erasmus that same year.53 Andrelini even wrote a prefatory letter for the first edition of Eramus’s Adagia published in Paris in 1500. It is no surprise that Andrelini and Erasmus remained on good terms for a number of years. Both men sought inspiration from pagan and Christian antiquity alike. Andrelini devoted part of his university career to editing the works of classical poets, Ovid in particular, whose Fasti he published in 1499 before turning his hand to the Tristia two years later. But he also showed interest in early Christian poetry, as did Erasmus. In 1500 Andrelini lectured on Juvencus’s Evangeliorum libri, encouraging his students to combine imitation of the poets and orators of the pagan world with their early Christian heirs.54 Andrelini’s enthusiasm for the Christian poets of late Antiquity as repositories of good morals and stylistic excellence was not uncommon in early sixteenth-century Europe.55 In 1501 Aldus Manutius published a collection of poetry by early Greek and Latin Christian writers entitled Poetae Christiani Veteres.56 In addition to works by Juvencus, the Latin texts in Aldus’s two-volume set featured the hymns of Prudentius and Sedulius (whose Carmen Paschale was also included), Proba’s Carmina sive Centones Vergilii, the work of Prosper of Aquitaine (who versified some sententiae of Augustine in the earlier fifth century) and the poem De resurrectione, then attributed to Lactantius (240-320). In the preface to his collection Aldus explained why he had decided to print these texts. He hoped that the Christian poets and prose writers selected, who “had lay hidden for almost one thousand years, would be treasured and taught in schools”.57 Inspired by Aldus, Josse Bade cited similar reasons for

16

Chapter One

publishing editions of religious verse in the early years of the sixteenth century. He did not, however, limit his choice of religious poetry to early Christian Latin writers but also included the poets of Italian Latin humanism. One of these editions was prepared by Jacques Toussain (ca. 1490-1547), who went on to become professor of Greek at the Collège Royal.58 The volume includes works by Cyprian (200-258), Ausonius (ca. 310-394) and Claudian (ca. 370 – d. after 404), as well as poems by Toussain himself, Jacopo Sannazaro, Giovanni Pontano and Andrelini. In his dedicatory letter, in which he praises Lefèvre d’Etaples and calls Andrelini “praeceptorem nostrum” (“my teacher”), Toussain exhorts his young addressee Pierre d’Aumont to read the texts eagerly as “you will require nothing else in order to approach the high mountain of sacred doctrine”.59 The content of this edition –with its mixture of classical and contemporary work, the obligatory references to fellow humanists in the prefatory epistle, and the clear educational aim of the volume– make it an exemplary illustration of the often complex way in which humanist ideals were encapsulated in early printed editions.

Consumption As will become apparent from the analysis of some of the volumes in the following chapters, a substantial number of European editions of Italian humanist texts include hand-written annotations (marginalia) and provenance notes. These paratextual documents have until recently not commanded the attention of scholars, yet they are extremely important as they provide invaluable evidence of the way in which these volumes were used, as well as information about the annotator’s social conditions.60 A significant percentage of these works are included in made-up volumes, or Sammelbände, which contain several items produced around the same time from two or three different locations. The bindings can date back to the time when the separate constituent parts were published, but it is not uncommon to find compilations assembled as late as the nineteenth century.61 Leaving aside geographical and chronological criteria, the collections are usually organized thematically or according to literary genre, very often with an educational end in mind. Most of the authors are classical (almost always Latin or in Latin translation) even though humanistic texts are duly accommodated, as are collections of hymns and other religious works. One such collection is preserved in the library of Salzburg University, although at least two of its four constituent parts were previously held in the city’s episcopal library. Unlike other Sammelbände made up only of

Social Networks

17

printed texts, it contains works both in print and in manuscript form, proof that for many decades both formats lived side by side. The three printed texts are an incunabular edition of Francesco Negro’s treatise on letter writing, and two volumes published by Matthias Schürer (ca. 1470-1519) in Strasbourg in 1514: an edition of Ovid’s Heroides, supplemented with the texts of the Medicamina faciei feminae and the spurious Nux; and an edition of a large selection of Filelfo’s correspondence with an appendix of fifteen short epistles by Angelo Poliziano.

Fig. 1.1

The last item includes manuscript copies of Horace’s Carmen saeculare (with interlinear lexical paraphrases and marginal annotation), and two Pseudo-Ovidian texts; and the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria and the Credo in French.62 The copy of the edition of Filelfo’s correspondence displays all the marks of a schoolbook. Annotation by the same hand that has densely filled the margins and interlinear spaces of Ovid’s text is rather sparsely distributed in Filelfo’s epistles (Fig. 1.1), an indication perhaps that they were set for individual study in contrast to Ovid’s poems which were clearly taught in the classroom. A total of 430 letters are numbered in red ink, and the title of each is followed by a printed argumentum. In many cases the annotator provides manuscript synopses of the contents of the text. Thus, Filelfo’s letter to his son Xenophon on 7

18

Chapter One

June 1459 is summarised first in print (sig. K iiv: “Docet quibus artibus institui debeat futurus medicus”, “he shows with which techniques the future physician should be instructed”), to which the annotator adds a succinct “Laus Medicine”. A further collection, held in the Herzog August Bibliothek at Wolfenbüttel, is worthy of note because of the selection of texts contained therein, the inclusion of manuscript annotations and the type of readership it attracted. This made-up volume includes five texts published in Nuremberg, Hagenau and Strasbourg in 1530 and 1531: Eliseo Calenzio’s Croacus, de bello ranarum et murium (“The War of Frogs and Mice”); the tragedy Imber aureus (“Golden Rain”) by Antonio Telesio (1482-1534); an edition of Marco Girolamo Vida’s didactic poem De arte poetica (“The Art of Poetry”); Ulrich von Hutten’s De arte versificandi (“The Art of Versifying”); and a selection of “colloquiorum formulae” extracted from Terence’s comedies.63 The volume has a Latin manuscript note on the inside front cover dated 19 March 1631, in which the owner of the book, a certain Doctor Sebastian Hormoldt (1570-1637), values the volume at two guilders and records that he has read all five texts included in the compilation (“Perlegi hos libros omnes ego Sebastianus Hormoldt D.”).64 However, this Wolfenbüttel Sammelband must have been bound some years earlier, as attested by an anonymous manuscript note, also on the inside front cover, dated “anno 1579 mense Iulio”. It is worth noting that these are not the only manuscript annotations found in the collection preserved at Wolfenbüttel: the pages of Vida’s De arte poetica in particular are filled with brief annotations in Latin, consisting mainly of marginal notes with only a few interlinear glosses.65 Furthermore, on the title page of the Nuremberg edition of Vida, the ex libris “Sum Henrici Stephanaei” (or “Stephanoei”) has been scribbled in black (Fig. 1.2). Similar ownership marks (“Sum Henrici Stepha”, “Sum Henrici Stephan”, and “Sum Henrici Steph” twice) feature in the other constituent texts of this made-up volume held in the Herzog August Bibliothek.

Social Networks

19

Fig. 1.2

It would be very tempting to relate these ex libris to the famous French printer Henri Estienne (1531-1598), son of Robert Estienne (ca. 14991559), and ascribe the authorship of the annotations to him. However, samples of Estienne’s handwriting (including his ex libris), as reproduced, for example, by Louis Clément, have thus far proved unhelpful, and a preliminary examination would not seem to support a possible link

Chapter One

20

between Estienne’s hand and that of the ex libris in the copy of Vida and other items included in the Sammelband”.66 Notwithstanding this palaeographical analysis, the five ex libris (and in particular the ownership mark in the De arte poetica) could still be connected to Estienne, if of course we accept that Henricus Steph(anaeus) and Henri Estienne are one and the same person. Whatever the true identity of the owner, the texts in the Wolfenbüttel collection would seem to reflect Estienne’s philological and literary interests. Unsurprisingly, throughout his long career, Estienne printed, edited or annotated works of similar subject matter. For example, in 1569 and 1589, he issued editions of an anthology of “sententiae” extracted from Greek comedy, and Homer’s Batrachomyomachia (“Battle of Frogs and Mice”) respectively.67 Procuring copies of the editions held at Wolfenbüttel would not have been difficult for Estienne since all the works bound together in the made-up volume enjoyed a certain degree of exposure throughout the sixteenth century. We know that several editions of Eliseo Calenzio’s Croacus (including a French translation of the poem attributed to Rabelais) were published across Europe.68 Alongside the Batrachomyomachia and other satirical writings, Calenzio’s poem was, for example, included in a 1547 volume entitled Familiarium colloquiorum formulae.69 But what of Vida’s De arte poetica? Could it have been owned (and indeed annotated) by Estienne? This is unlikely for some of the reasons adduced above. Yet, even though an edition of the De arte poetica does not feature among the books prepared by him,70 Estienne must have been acquainted with Vida’s treatise, if only through his father’s edition of the poem (Paris, 1520). Estienne’s interest in poetics is in any case well documented, and it is not unreasonable to imagine him reading the De arte poetica privately and occasionally annotating some of its lines.71 Whatever the case, irrespective of whether the “Henricus” of the ex libris (and of the annotations?) is the illustrious French printer or a lesser-known individual, the notes scribbled in the 1531 edition of Vida’s De arte poetica constitute yet further proof of how the Latin literature of Italian humanism attracted the attention of Renaissance readers in Europe. *

*

*

Social Networks

21

The most compelling evidence of the centrality of Italian Latin humanism within European Renaissance literary culture is, however, their use in educational institutions across sixteenth-century Europe. Without the impetus provided by schools and universities and without their financial resources, very few of the editions discussed in this book would have been printed in the first place. Many teachers, alert to the didactic potential of these works, came to regard the Latin corpus of Italian humanist texts as highly appropriate educational material. From the first decade of the sixteenth century onwards, as more and more local presses and schools were founded and established collaborative relationships, this trend increased rather than diminished. In the Renaissance the most numerous schools were independent or private. They were typically run by a single teacher and sponsored by the fees paid by the parents. Next came municipal schools, for which the local government was financially responsible, and least numerous were church schools, founded and supported by bishops, cathedral chapters or monasteries.72 The incorporation of Italian humanist literature into the school curriculum was often encouraged by individuals committed to curricular reform. In some cases teachers themselves recommended that a modern author be included in the plan of studies because he already featured in the curriculum of other Latin schools. For example, Josef Horlen (1460-1521), who taught at the chapter school in Münster, announced his decision in 1516 to include in his course for the following winter a selection of letters by Giovanni Antonio Campano (1429-77). In a letter to the priest Tilmann Müller in nearby Attendorn, he describes the texts as “short, easy and elegant and most suited to the minds of his young pupils”, and goes on to urge his addressee “to expound as soon as possible this illustrious work of selected letters to your young boys there, as I have done with mine here”.73 A further example of the uses of Italian Latin humanism in ecclesiastical schools is provided by the Strasbourg physician and humanist Johann Adelphus Muling (ca. 1485 – d. after 1523), who translated Erasmus’s Enchiridion militis christiani (“Handbook of a Christian Knight”). In 1508 Muling published an edition of the Orationes contra poetas gentiles by Ermolao Barbaro the Elder (1410-71). In this volume Muling gathers together a range of paratextual material which supports Barbaro’s attacks against the harmful effects of pagan literature: the text of Barbaro’s speeches is preceded by an epigram penned by Bade encouraging “youngsters of good character to devote themselves more fervently to the study of literature”, and by a dedicatory letter to the Mainz canon Dietrich Gresemund (1477-1512) singing the praises of Campano, Mantuan and Andrelini, “poeticae artis professores excellentissimos”.74 Four years later

22

Chapter One

(in 1512), in Strasbourg, the printer Matthias Schürer published an edition of Fausto Andrelini’s twelfth eclogue which, though completed in 1498, had been excluded from all previous editions of his Bucolica. The piece was reprinted the following year (ÖNB, 40 S 56), as well as in Basle in 1518, this time in a collective edition of Italian Neo-Latin religious verse prepared by the scholar printer Johannes Froben on the advice of the Alsatian humanist, religious reformer and classical scholar Beatus Rhenanus (1485-1547), with whom Froben worked very closely. The preliminary letter is dedicated in turn to Maternus Hatten (d. 1546), a priest at the cathedral in Speyer, near Strasbourg, where the volume may have been used in the chapter school.75 This close relationship between printers and the teaching community can also clearly be seen both in the way in which Latin Italian humanist literature became part of the university curriculum, and in the means by which university students –a social group proverbially short of money– acquired these texts as they were prescribed for the classroom. In the Faculty of Arts at most German universities professors posted flyers (like the ones discussed below in chapter 3) announcing forthcoming courses and their corresponding fees.76 This was usually done shortly before teaching began, so the students, who were often not yet fourteen years old at the time of their enrolment, had neither the time nor the means to acquire copies of the set texts. Rather than expecting students to purchase volumes from sources outside their own institution, it was therefore more realistic and practical to rely on local printers, who must have known in advance which texts were needed.77 Interaction between printers, faculty members and students operated at other levels too. At times professors such as Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas (1523-1601), whose commentaries on Poliziano’s Silvae at Salamanca will be discussed in chapter 4, selected a specific text deemed to be appropriate for a particular group of students, and accordingly ordered copies from printers who could supply the material at short notice. In other cases, the decision to publish a volume was prompted by the running of extraordinary courses, which traditionally took place in the afternoon. In order to supplement their income professors offered non-statuary courses for which they commissioned volumes from local printers for use in class. Some of Dirk Martens’s editions at Antwerp were, for example, devised for this kind of private study, as was an edition of a selection of Filelfo’s letters published around 1525.78 This combination of commercial considerations and intellectual concerns is most obvious in the layout of a large number of humanistic editions: they are often small, thin and inexpensive volumes with the text set with double spacing in order to accommodate interlinear notes, and

Social Networks

23

wide margins in which annotations could also be inserted. For the most part, such editions present only the text to be lectured on in class, not the one which students were expected to read for themselves. For this they had at their disposal editions either with brief running notes on points of detail in the margins, or with more extensive digressions. This coexistence on a single page of text and annotation is first found in the commentaries on classical authors written by grammarians in late Antiquity, whose focus was the “reading out” of a text (enarratio).79 Commentary on Greek and Roman classics in the Renaissance followed this tradition, and from the second half of the fifteenth century editions of ancient literary texts often included printed commentaries.80 The functions of this exegetical material were manifold. At their most basic level, commentaries guided readers through the main body of the text. But they also provided crucial external information, both on the credentials of those responsible for editing the volumes as well as on the commentators’ attempts to impose prescribed readings on a specific text. Among Renaissance commentators, the influence and prolific output of the scholar and printer Josse Bade is unmatched: his publishing programme accommodated most of the major texts of Latin (and, less frequently, Greek) Antiquity, which were elucidated in his well-known “familiar” commentaries.81 Bade’s primary concern was “to grant his readers access to the vast world of classical textual culture”.82 But he also produced glosses on humanistic texts, most notably on Mantuan’s devotional poetry and on Petrarch’s bucolic verse. It is to these annotations –and to further commentaries on Italian Latin humanism– that I will now turn my attention.

CHAPTER TWO COMMENTARIES

As Mark Crane notes, many people in the Renaissance “found it impossible to read classical authors without notes on grammar, word order, and historical references”.83 The literature of Italian Latin humanism, in particular the poetry, was also considered suitable for commentary and very few readers came to this bibliographical corpus in a format unmediated by the annotation that is found in so many editions. This chapter illustrates the manner in which the Latin verse of Italian humanism was regarded as material worthy of commentary by European humanists. Rather than selecting commentaries on the same text, here I consider annotations to three different poems which very quickly generated their own commentary tradition in very different milieux across sixteenthcentury Europe. Throughout my discussion I examine both commentaries that have already been the subject of some critical attention, and annotations that have not been so thoroughly explored. Following a chronological sequence, I first analyse two commentaries on Mantuan’s Parthenicai, one by Josse Bade (Paris, 1499) and one by the Alsatian scholar Sebastianus Murrho (Sebastian Mor, Murr, or Mörer, 1452-94) first printed in Strasbourg in 1501. The next section is devoted to two sets of annotations to Petrarch’s Bucolicum Carmen written by Bade (Paris, 1502) and by the German scholar Servatius Huylsberch (Deventer, 1508). The final part of the chapter focuses on two annotated editions of Angelo Poliziano’s Silvae by the French scholar Nicolas Bérauld (published around 1514) and by the Viennese professor Joannes Ludovicus Brassicanus (Nuremberg, 1538). Each section begins with a brief chronological exploration of how the poems under review were published in Renaissance Europe. I then turn my attention to the selected commentaries.

Mantuan’s devotional and bucolic poetry In a letter dated 31 July 1515 the poet and Carmelite reformer Baptista Mantuanus (known in English simply as “Mantuan”) addressed King Francis I of France. After saluting the monarch, Mantuan proudly recorded

Commentaries

25

the broad circulation of his works, which were read “by learned men all across your kingdom”.84 Mantuan’s boastful statement should not detract from the enormous success his writings achieved throughout the sixteenth century. Of Mantuan’s vast literary output, two works merited particular attention from Renaissance printers: a collection of ten Latin eclogues entitled Adolescentia, and the hagiographic epic Parthenice Mariana and its sequel the Parthenice Catharinaria. A narration of the life of the Virgin Mary, the Parthenice Mariana was first published in Bologna in October 1488 by Francesco (Platone) de’ Benedetti. In February of the following year the same printer issued an edition of the Parthenice Catharinaria, centred on the life and martyrdom of St Catherine of Alexandria. Mantuan wrote five further Parthenicai, dedicated to five female saints, which were first published in the edition of his complete works (1502) and were also printed separately several times in the first quarter of the sixteenth century. Following these first editions Mantuan’s devotional poems traversed Europe at a formidable speed in the ensuing decades. Over seventy editions of the Parthenice Mariana appeared between 1488 and 1528 in places as distant as Seville, Zwolle or Leipzig.85 The text also inspired the life of the Virgin written by the Austrian monk Benedictus Chelidonius (1480-1521), which accompanied Albrecht Dürer’s series of woodcuts for his Marienleben of 1511.86 Mantuan’s high esteem, however, did not last and, as Andrea Severi has noted, a satirical allusion to his poetry in the Epistolae obscurorum virorum seems to indicate that by 1517 Mantuan’s reputation was already in decline.87 After publication of Sannazaro’s De partu Virginis (“The Virgin Birth”) in 1526, printings of the first two Parthenicai dramatically diminished, the text no longer regarded as the most suitable example of epic poems with a religious subject matter. Mantuan’s Parthenice Mariana and Parthenice Catharinaria were also disseminated in the vernacular. In 1523 the Parthenice Mariana was translated into French by Jacques de Mortières and, as late as 1565, a Spanish version of both poems was published in Barcelona.88 The Adolescentia was first published in Mantua in September 1498 by the printer Vincenzo Bertocchi. In the prefatory letter to the editio princeps of his collection, Mantuan states that there had been earlier manuscript versions of the text, to which he added two pieces composed after entering the Carmelite order.89 Accorded a prominent position by Mantuan in his Opera omnia of 1502, the Adolescentia earned considerable exposure in Renaissance Europe. Over one hundred and sixty editions of the text were printed between 1498 and 1600, almost half of them before 1516, the year of Mantuan’s death.90 Except for a handful of editions printed in Italy, all these volumes were published north of the

26

Chapter Two

Alps, where Mantuan’s attack on corruption within the Papal Curia in his ninth eclogue proved rather appealing.91 Though the Adolescentia seems to have been slipping out of the school syllabus by the end of the 1520s, Protestant anthologists gave the poems a new lease of life during the polemical years of the Reformation.92 In 1567 the London-based printer Henry Bynneman published George Turberville’s English translation of Mantuan’s eclogues entitled The Eglogs of the Poet B. Mantuan Carmelitan, turned into English Verse, & set forth with the Argument to every Egloge. From the corpus of Adolescentia editions published in the first decade of the sixteenth century, three volumes are especially worthy of note. In the early months of 1502 the Parisian printer André Bocard issued an edition of the poems with Josse Bade’s paraphrasing commentary on the text.93 The next year saw the publication, in Johann Prüß’s Strasbourg imprint, of an edition prepared by the humanists Jakob Wimpfeling (Jacobus Wimpheling, 1450-1528) and Johannes Gallinarius (Johann Henlin, 1475-?), which reproduced Bade’s annotations and was reprinted in Strasbourg at least four times by 1515.94 And in 1508 Mantuan’s pastoral poetry came off the press of the Deventer-based printer Jacobus (Jakob) de Breda this time in a volume edited by Johannes Murmellius.95 In his edition, which was reprinted five times by 1519 at Deventer alone, Murmellius replaced Bade’s dedicatory epistle with his own introductory remarks on Mantuan in the form of a letter addressed to a Paul of Roermond, Murmellius’s hometown, in which he nevertheless included Bade’s comments on Mantuan’s style. Queried by his fellow Roermondian on the value of Bade’s annotations to Mantuan’s bucolics, Murmellius confessed the following: “In your previous letter you ask me what I think of Josse Bade’s commentaries on Mantuan’s eclogues. At the same time you draw my attention to several things in these commentaries which you regard as not sufficiently explained. My most delightful Paul, I will answer as briefly as possible: I declare Bade to be nothing less than a critic or a censor of writers; yet, in order not to neglect your wishes, this is my opinion about Bade: he is an extraordinarily learned man and well read, an industrious and painstaking writer, but in his explanations of the poets he does not meet with sufficient approval from learned men. For, in the first place, while he hastily pours out his commentaries everywhere, not only does he make a few embarrassing mistakes but, after closing his eyes, he fails to mention certain passages which a diligent grammarian would certainly not leave unnoticed. Secondly, since he totally adapts himself to somewhat slow minds and, as it were, introduces food which has been chewed

Commentaries

27

beforehand into the mouths of tender children, he is regarded as a hindrance (rather than a benefit) to studies”.96

Despite his disappointment in Bade’s interpretative skills, Murmellius surprisingly decided not to write his own commentary, preferring instead to compose a handful of short notes on the poems, and to preface each eclogue with a brief argumentum. Murmellius, Wimpfeling and Bade’s editions of Mantuan’s Adolescentia form an interesting trio. For one, they show how the stimulus to publish new editions of Mantuan’s pastoral poetry usually came from other printers. Bade’s commentary on the Adolescentia, for example, seems in turn to have triggered Andreas Vaurentinus’s own notes to the poem which “began simply as argumenta and additions to Bade’s commentary in a volume first published in Toulouse in 1515”, and were supplemented with Vaurentinus’s own commentary, datable to 1519 or 1520.97 All the commentaries on Mantuan’s religious and bucolic poetry described in the preceding paragraphs emerged from a school context and owed their origins to the classroom. The place of Mantuan’s Latin verse in the Renaissance curriculum will be examined further in the following chapter. Now I would like to turn my attention to Bade and Murrho’s commentaries on the two Parthenicai. Josse Bade’s annotations to Mantuan’s devotional poetry were published in Paris in 1499 (the Parthenice Catharinaria in August and the Parthenice Mariana in November). Bade’s tendency to publish his own commentaries along with those of at least one other commentator is well known, and his edition of Mantuan’s Latin poetry is no exception.98 In an edition of Mantuan’s complete works printed in Paris in 1507, Bade’s annotations were supplemented with Murrho’s commentary. In a spirit of open rivalry, Bade is keen to stress, in the colophon to this edition, that his commentary includes annotations to all the other Parthenicai, “on which Murrho did not write anything” (“in quas Murrho nihil scripsit”). There were several reprints of Bade’s work in France in the first three decades of the sixteenth century, and the commentary in turn inspired Vaurentinus’s annotations, first published in Lyon in 1513.99 In addition, Bade’s short summaries of the remaining Parthenicai were often reproduced in the many individual editions of the poems published in the German-speaking lands in the first half of the sixteenth century.100 Bade’s edition of the Parthenice Catharinaria opens with a prefatory letter to Henri Vallupin, who had persuaded Bade, then a teacher at his school in Lyon, to write a commentary on the poem. In his dedicatory epistle Bade concedes that his interpretation of Mantuan is aimed at “the weakest pupils, since we do not regard it a dishonourable thing to come to

28

Chapter Two

the aid of their ignorance” (“imbecillulos, quorum ignorantiae succurrere nullam invidiam duximus”, sig. Aiv). Likewise, in the preface to the Parthenice Mariana addressed to the Carmelite Laurent Bureau (d. 1504), after a warning about what one will not find in Mantuan, Bade defends his work by arguing that, in choosing to provide basic annotations to the Parthenice Mariana, he is simply responding to popular demand from very young students: “[...] Over the last eighteen years I have kept hearing immature youths and still ignorant greybeards crying out: ‘Will some commentary on our Mantuan finally appear? [...] Shall we not be able to comprehend at least somewhat of the flower of the Virgin who bore the Christ and interpret it to the young?’ When, I say, I kept hearing the likes of this, I confess that I took pity and applied my hands, which were overwhelmed by their piety, and with greater speed than I dare describe (as it now truly seems) I completed the work, doing no harm to learned people [...] Indeed, it did not appear to us to be terribly fair to snatch the findings of other scholars or to prescribe the divine Muses to the lazy. But is there in the end anything dishonourable in providing order to the ignorant with our little explanation?” 101

Bade’s commentaries on Mantuan stand out as elementary and seem to be intended for pupils in the first stages of their instruction in Latin grammar. The exordium to Mantuan’s third book of the Parthenice Mariana –in which the poet describes the historical circumstances surrounding Christ’s birth (III, 1-21)– provides a good example of Bade’s practice. Commenting on the opening lines of Book three (Fig. 2.1 and 2.2) Iam mare, iam tellus, Italo perterrita Marte, Caesaris imperium Romanaque iura ferebat. Pax erat et domitum late placaverat orbem tuta quies: nusquam litui, non arma sonabant et sua bifrontem claudebant limina Ianum. Nudus in herbisecam redigebat Martia falcem arma faber: segnes fodiebant ensibus agros

5

[At this time the sea, at this time the earth, frightened by the Italian Mars, endured Caesar’s might and Roman laws. There was peace and safe tranquillity had calmed the world widely conquered. Nowhere did cornets or weapons sound, and his gates closed two-face Janus. The naked craftsman Vulcan rendered Mars’s weapons into the sickle which cuts the grass: men ploughed the fallow fields with swords].

Commentaries

29

Fig. 2.1

Bade begins with an overall interpretation of the passage (“In order to proceed, according to the promises made in his preface, with the miracles of the sacred birth, that is, the Nativity of Our Lord, Mantuan introduces

30

Chapter Two

the second chapter of Luke’s Gospel, which begins with these words: ‘It came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed’, and so forth. The poet takes this as an opportunity to show that almost the whole world was then obedient to the Roman Empire, and he lists the rulers and leaders under whom many nations were subjected to Roman power”).102 This summary is then followed by a paraphrase, in which Bade unravels each line by reordering the words of the text according to the pattern of the vernacular –prefaced by the phrase “ordo est” (“the order of these lines is”)–, and by appending lists of synonyms: “1-2 Ordo igitur est: Iam, id est, in diebus illis quibus ea quae prius dixit acta sunt; mare, supple ‘perterritum’, id est, gens in mari versari solita; et tellus iam perterrita Marte Italo, id est, peritia et felicitate bellica Italorum; ferebat, id est, patiebatur et sustinebat; imperium Caesaris, scilicet Octavi Augusti; et iura Romana; 3-5 Pax erat, supple ‘iam in illis diebus’; et quies tuta placaverat seu pacaverat (sicut in Buco. [Verg., Bucol., 4, 17: “Pacatumque reget patriis virtutibus orbem”], id est, in concordiam et tranquillitatem post bellorum intestinorum tumultus reduxerat); orbem domitum, scilicet ab Augusto; litui, id est, tubae; nusquam, id est, non usquam; non sonabant; et Ianum bifrontem, id est, duas frontes habentem; sua limina, id est, propria ipsius templi; claudebant” (fol. LXVIIv). [“1-2 The order of these lines is, therefore, as follows: Iam, that is, in those days in which the events which he has previously described took place; mare, supply ‘frightened’, that is, the people used to living in the sea; et tellus iam perterrita Marte Italo, that is, by the military experience and good-fortune of the Italians; ferebat, that is, suffered and endured; imperium Caesaris, certainly of Octavian Augustus; et iura Romana; 3-5 Pax erat, supply ‘in those days’; et quies tuta placaverat or made peaceful (as in Virgil’s Bucolics [4, 17: “He will guide a world to which his father’s virtues have brought peace”], that is, had restored harmony and quietness after the turmoil of the civil wars); orbem domitum, certainly by Augustus; litui, that is, trumpets; nusquam, that is, not anywhere; non sonabant; et Ianum bifrontem, that is, (Janus) having two foreheads; sua limina, that is, those belonging to the temple itself; claudebant”].

Bade’s attention to the words is reinforced by his explanations of grammatical points. After sorting out the order of line 5 (to “et Ianum bifrontem sua limina claudebant”), the commentator launches into a note on the nature of possessive pronouns with which he also explains his criteria for the rearrangement of the line (fol. LXVIIIr). Not all annotation is, however, philological, and Bade also shows his preoccupation with

Commentaries

31

history, particularly with classical institutions. As an example, here is his gloss on the temple of Janus at Rome: “Sane Piso in annalibus scribit aedificatum templum a Numa Pompilio inter Romanum Boariumque forum Iano gemino fuisse, et ab eo institutum ut eius porta clausa pacem, aperta bellum significaret. Clausa autem est primo tempore ipsius Numae. Secundo in primo bello punico a Luctatio finito. Tertio sub Augusto finitis bellis civilibus, cuius hic mentio fit, et primo Aeneid., cum dicitur Claudentur belli portae” (fol. LXVIIv) [“In his Annals Calpurnius Piso reports that Numa Pompilius built a temple between the Forum and the Forum Boarium, which was dedicated to Janus. Numa established that, if its gate was shut, this would signify peace, and, if it was open, war. It was shut for the first time during Numa’s own time. The second time, after the first Punic war, ended by Luctatius. The third time, once the civil wars, under the rule of Augustus, had come to an end, something which is mentioned here and in the first book of Virgil’s Aeneid [1, 294], where one reads: ‘The gates of war will be closed’”].

A similar methodology is employed by Bade in his annotations to lines 6-7. The words of the text are rearranged (in this case to “Faber nudus redigebat arma Martia in falcem herbisecam, fodiebant agros segnes ensibus”). There follows an elucidation of every single term, the interest being in vocabulary building. Yet, the notes to this passage also enable Bade to identify some of Mantuan’s sources. The state of universal peace achieved during Augustus’s rule –illustrated by the transformation of weapons into farming tools– is an echo of Virgil’s description in Georgics, I, 507-8 of the portents associated with Caesar’s assassination and civil war, for which only Octavian offers any hope of salvation.103 Even though the bulk of Bade’s annotations concentrate on the words, the commentator also pays occasional attention to the content of certain passages as well as matters of style. I would like to illustrate this briefly with two examples. In the first book of the Parthenice Mariana, Mantuan describes the education received by the Virgin Mary in the temple (591653). He points out that her schooling included the study of classical mythology, which Mantuan anachronistically suggests she read primarily in Ovid (636-50).104 Bade also casts doubt on the truth of the Virgin’s interest in the mythology of the ancients. He is, however, careful to remind the reader that his role is only “to interpret this author, not to judge him” (“verum nos auctorem hunc interpretandum, non iudicandum suscepimus”, fol. XXXVIIIv).

32

Chapter Two

Fig. 2.2

It is not clear –Bade points out– whether the Virgin ever perused the fables invented by pagan poets. But, as Mantuan states at the end of his passage (651-3), she was wise to “reject whatever was reproachable in all these texts”. Bade concludes that “it is more likely that the Virgin Mary did not read them”.105 Bade is also alert to the manner in which poetic reformulation of historical truth operates throughout Mantuan’s hagiographic epic. The

Commentaries

33

account of the Flight into Egypt (III, 340-72) provides a good example of this.106 In this passage Mantuan amplifies the original narrative of his biblical source (Matthew 2, 13-21) and, after alluding to the journey undertaken by the Holy Family, depicts Joseph as an artisan who has taken refuge in Egypt. He compares Jesus’s earthly father to some of the most famous classical sculptors, and goes on to describe at great length Joseph’s artistic accomplishments which include portraits of the Persian rulers, of kings Cecrops and Silvius, as well as a picture of the Nile. In this case Bade does not question at all the verisimilitude of Mantuan’s narrative (fols. LXXVIIIr). Rather, he focuses on Mantuan’s embellishment of the original account in Matthew’s Gospel. He notes how the author of the Parthenice Mariana “describes Joseph’s flight into Egypt with his wife and their child, examining many things picturesquely and learnedly”, and identifies some of the classical sources on which Mantuan’s text is based. As an example, he shows how lines 352-3 (“…et quoniam rebus solertia maior / semper adest miseris animumque exercet egestas” - “…and since greater skill is always found in the poor and necessity sharpens the mind”) are a direct borrowing from Virgil (Georg., I, 145-6: “…labor omnia vicit / improbus et duris urgens in rebus egestas” - “...unremitting labour / and harsh necessity’s hand will master anything”) and Ovid (Met., VI, 575: “…miserisque venit sollertia rebus” – “misery breeds cunning”). I would now like to turn to Murrho’s annotations to the Parthenice Mariana and the Parthenice Catharinaria. The bias of Murrho’s commentary, unlike Bade’s, is –as Ann Moss has noted– “less towards lectio, more towards enarratio”.107 A closer examination of Murrho’s exegetical material will show the differences in approach between his explanations and Bade’s annotations to the text, even if both scholars often focus on similar aspects. Though printed in 1501, two years after the publication of Bade’s edition of Mantuan, Murrho’s annotations had been completed shortly before his death in Colmar in October 1494. In the dedicatory epistle to his teacher in Sélestat, Ludwig Dringenberg, which precedes his commentary on the second Parthenice, Murrho declares that the copies of Mantuan’s manuscripts from which he worked were procured for him by Jakob Wimpfeling. It was, in fact, Wimpfeling who prompted Murrho to write commentaries on Mantuan’s poems, as he boasted in his Isidoneus germanicus.108A few weeks after his friend’s death, Wimpfeling began the task of correcting the annotations, which we know was completed by February 1496, when he sent a copy of the text to Johannes Amerbach at Basle urging him to print Mantuan’s poems with Murrho’s commentaries as soon as possible so that the volume could be used at the Latin school in Sélestat.109 Despite Amerbach’s promises, Wimpfeling waited in vain and

34

Chapter Two

Murrho’s annotated edition of Mantuan’s devotional poetry was finally published by the Strasbourg-based printer Johann Schott as late as 1501.110 Wimpfeling’s continuing enthusiasm for Mantuan can be seen in his commission of Murrho’s edition (completed by Sebastian Brant) of the De calamitatibus temporum (Strasbourg, 1502) and of an edition of Mantuan’s Fasti (Strasbourg, 1518).111 As with Bade’s 1499 edition of the Parthenice Mariana, Schott’s Strasbourg 1501 edition comprises a sample of Mantuan’s poetic work. In addition to the Apologeticon, the volume features Murrho’s annotations (also polished by Wimpfeling) to the Contra poetas impudice loquentes, an attack against the obscenity of erotic poets, both classical and contemporary. As with many editions from Wimpfeling’s circle to which Murrho also belonged, Schott’s edition is a joint enterprise. Murrho’s interpretation of Mantuan’s poems is prefaced by distichs penned by Sebastian Brant (1457-1521) in praise of the commentator, whose epitaph is also reproduced. Further liminary material includes an epigram –see Appendix B– by Gallinarius, who warns his readers against the perils of pagan literature and encourages them to apply themselves instead to the Christian lessons conveyed in Mantuan’s hagiographic epics. Unsurprisingly, this argument is repeated by Murrho in his dedicatory epistle to the provost at Speyer cathedral, Georg von Gemingen (1458-1511), in which he explains his reasons for having embarked on a commentary on the first Parthenice (also reproduced in Appendix B). In the preface to his annotations, Murrho states that his work is aimed, first and foremost, “at teachers of the disciplines of the trivium as well as the younger generation, whom we would like to entice with these poems”. Reading Mantuan’s poem –he goes on to say– will ensure that they will “not only familiarise themselves with Latin fables and stories but will also learn to speak fluently and in non pedestrian language on Christian matters in Latin”. Even though the two Parthenicai are valued by him for their stylistic correctness and moral effect, in his annotations Murrho is concerned primarily with the overall interpretation of the poems. Aware of the greater difficulties posed by the second Parthenice, Murrho opts to ease his readers’ task by appending a lengthy argumentum of St Catherine’s lesserknown life, which is conveniently placed before Mantuan’s opening lines. In the case of the Parthenice Mariana, Murrho is also careful to provide an outline of the contents of the text which he presents at the end of his prefatory letter (“You should know, dear reader, that here our poet includes Mary’s lineage, her birth, nativity and education, her life and death, and her assumption into Heaven”). Murrho’s attention to the structure of the narrative is also clear from the summaries provided

Commentaries

35

throughout his two sets of annotations. The account of the Flight into Egypt discussed above offers a good example of Murrho’s brief introductions to individual passages. An opening note summarizes the contents of the episode: “Here Mantuan explains that Joseph came to Egypt, first to Alexandria, subsequently to Hermopolis, then to Thebes and finally to Memphis, where, having taken refuge, he devoted himself to sculpture, in which he excelled. From his art he provided for himself, his son and his wife”.112

This general summary is followed by annotation to specific lines which digests further the different parts of the passage, as with the note to line 348 (“Here Mantuan depicts Joseph as remaining in Memphis. He describes him as an excellent artist”, sig. CIIr). The Flight into Egypt episode also enables us to appreciate the methodological differences between Murrho and Bade. At the beginning of the passage Mantuan makes a brief reference to the pyramids, which are portrayed as reaching the stars (III, 347). While Bade draws his readers’ attention to the figurative language employed by Mantuan and remarks on the hyperbolic tone of the line, Murrho opts to write a learned note in which he gives the exact location of the pyramids, by invoking the testimony of Strabo, before introducing a long list of Greek and Roman authors famous for their depictions of the monuments (sig. CIv). Murrho’s encyclopaedic approach to Mantuan is also clear in his treatment of the passage describing the Slaughter of the Innocents (III, 320-39), which immediately precedes the account of the Flight into Egypt. Once again, the focus of Murrho’s commentary is on the historical background to the biblical source embellished by Mantuan in his narrative. Drawing on the information supplied by Flavius Josephus on the historical figures involved in the episode, Murrho appends a lengthy annotation to the passage in which he provides biographical details on Herod the Great, the king of Judea who ordered the massacre, on his son Herod Antipater, and on his grandson Herod Agrippa (sig. CIr-v). Murrho clearly values Mantuan as a mine of geographical, historical and mythological information. This is obvious in Murrho’s treatment of the scene depicting the Virgin’s education in the temple discussed above. Unconcerned with the cultural and historical incongruity of the passage, he concludes that “the Virgin did not really read such fables” (fol. XXVIIIr). Despite Murrho’s professed scepticism concerning the veracity of the episode, he still goes on to discuss the mythological material with which Mantuan constructs his narrative. For example, he provides a lengthy note describing and documenting the Labours of Hercules (ibidem).

36

Chapter Two

Throughout his commentary, Murrho shows an awareness that the main obstacle to a correct interpretation of Mantuan’s hagiographic epics does not lie in the large number of short episodes recounted in rapid succession, but in Mantuan’s overwhelming display of classical references. In the preface to his edition of the Parthenice Mariana, Murrho acknowledges that the classical erudition in which Mantuan’s narrative is embedded very often renders the poems incomprehensible. In the light of this, he seeks in his annotations “to verify these fables and stories with the testimony of the most eminent [authors]” (see Appendix B). These include not only classical writers but also fifteenth-century Italian scholars such as Domizio Calderini (1446-1478), Antonio Volsco (ca. 1450-1515), Pietro Marsi (1440-1484) or Lorenzo Valla, cited by Murrho in a rare discussion on lexicographical matters concerning a passage in the Parthenice Mariana (II, 1005). Murrho’s references operate on two levels: on the one hand, there is a cluster of annotations dealing with Mantuan’s literary sources, and, on the other, we find glosses in which the commentator supplements the information provided by Mantuan with echoes from Greek and Roman texts. In both cases, Murrho is never entirely precise in the way he presents his quotations. He prefers to state his source, simply by giving the name of the author on the margin. On occasions, he is even deliberately vague, as in his annotation to Parthenice Mariana, III, 6-7: “Nudus… faber: Vergiliana allusio [Aen., VIII, 425]” (fol. LXXXVIr). Throughout his annotations, Murrho constantly invokes the testimony of ancient poets, supplementing this with references from classical historians, geographers and mythographers. This formula serves even for those passages in Mantuan’s text where the echoes of liturgical language are at their loudest, as, for example, with the lines from the Parthenice Mariana in which the Italian poet describes Mary’s Visitation to her cousin Elizabeth (II, 723-864). As related in Luke, 1, 39-57, the account of the Visitation portrays the scene of the encounter of the two cousins followed by Elizabeth’s salutation, and culminates in the Magnificat. In his commentary, Murrho is alert to those instances in Mantuan’s narrative in which the author departs from his source. Mantuan’s colourful description of the landscape at the beginning of spring, a detail absent from Luke’s text, is, for example, highlighted as such by Murrho in his annotations to the opening lines of the passage (723-51, fol. LXIXr). For Murrho, differentiating between true history and its poetic reformulation remains, however, a rare interest. His primary concern is with the classical elements which permeate Mantuan’s devotional poetry. An extreme example of this is shown by the manner in which the commentator treats Mantuan’s poetic paraphrase of the Magnificat which closes the account of

Commentaries

37

the Visitation (lines 835-60, fol. LXXIIIIr). Murrho’s commentary on the content of the passage is restricted to a brief “Magnificat, Carmen Parthenices”, and, somewhat uncharacteristically for Murrho, a large section of the text remains uninterpreted. Moreover, apart from the occasional lists of synonyms, the only annotation of substance supplied by the commentator concerns the identity of the sea nymph Doris. Murrho’s silence may not be conclusive evidence but it does provide proof of where his interest really lies when elucidating Mantuan’s devotional poetry. For all his claims, Murrho regards Mantuan, first and foremost, as a classical poet who could only be enlightened with the aid of ancient writers. A similar fate would befall Petrarch’s Latin eclogues.

Petrarch’s Bucolicum Carmen Composed sporadically throughout Petrarch’s lifetime, his Bucolicum Carmen has long been recognized as “articulating a humanist ideal, located in the city of Rome and blending the old principles of constitutional government and civic liberty with the transcendent principles of Christianity”.113 Indeed these twelve eclogues are revealing of the author’s longing for a moral regeneration of Christendom. This is especially true of eclogues six and seven, those in which Petrarch voiced a call for reform of the church and criticized the excesses of the decadent Avignon papacy, by fusing the secular and ecclesiastical meanings of “pastoral”. In 1366 Petrarch could rightly regard the text as “well known by this time and scattered far and wide”, since some of the eclogues had been circulating in Italy as early as 1347, only a year after the author had begun work on his poem.114 Manuscript copies of the Bucolicum Carmen soon reached France and the German-speaking world shortly after Petrarch’s death in 1374. For example, a manuscript of the text is recorded in the library of the Parisian Collège de Navarre in 1380.115 As for the German-speaking lands, we have ample evidence of the dissemination of the Bucolicum Carmen throughout the fifteenth century, as attested by several manuscript copies of the poem penned by local students who had sojourned in Italy.116 With the invention of the printing press, interest in Petrarch’s Latin eclogues across Europe increased. In contrast with Mantuan whose Adolescentia was only printed north of the Alps after it had been published in Italy, attention to the Bucolicum Carmen long predated Italian interest in the text. The poem was not only included in editions of Petrarch’s complete Latin works (Basle, 1496; Venice, 1501 and 1503), but was also printed in individual editions. The first of these is a volume which

38

Chapter Two

appeared in Cologne in 1473, followed by an edition prepared by the Deventer-based printer Richard Paffraet sixteen years later (1489), whereas the first two Italian editions of the Bucolicum Carmen date from as late as 1495 and 1497, and were printed in Cremona and Bologna respectively.117 With the turn of the sixteenth century, interest in Petrarch’s pastoral continued apace. On the first day of April 1502, the Parisian printer André Bocard released an edition of the Bucolicum Carmen. Only a week later he issued a reprint of the poem supplemented with annotations by Josse Bade. Publication of Bade’s commentary may have prompted Simone Papiense to include, in his Venetian edition of Petrarch’s Opera omnia of 1503, an old commentary on the poem by Benvenuto Rambaldi da Imola, to which I shall return shortly. A year later (1504), the Florentine editor Benedetto Filologo prepared an anthology of Latin bucolic verse which featured the Bucolicum Carmen together with the eclogues of Virgil, Calpurnius Siculus and Nemesianus. Petrarch’s pastoral poems merited one final commentary by the German humanist Servatius Aedicollius or Huylsberch (ca. 1483-1516), whose text came out in 1508 in Deventer, where it was reissued four years later.118 This rather long list of early editions of the Bucolicum Carmen testifies to the high esteem in which Petrarch’s Latin pastoral was held by European printers at that time. Attitudes towards the poem would, however, change within a few years. Signs of the declining interest in Petrarch’s Latin works are all too clear in Erasmus’s Ciceronianus (1528), in which Petrarch’s style is overtly condemned. The importance of Petrarch’s Latin literary output –claims one of the interlocutors in the dialogue– is a thing of the past for Petrarch “is now scarcely in anyone’s hands”.119 The printing fortuna of Petrarch’s Bucolicum Carmen in the rest of the sixteenth century seems to confirm Erasmus’s harsh criticism. As the century progressed, the popularity of Petrarch’s eclogues underwent a significant shift. Following a third reprint of Huylsberch’s volume (albeit, significantly, without the commentary) published in the German town of Soest in 1524, the Bucolicum Carmen was only brought out in editions of Petrarch’s collected Latin verse or in Johannes Oporinus’s sizeable compilation of Latin bucolic poetry printed in Basle in 1546 (in which Mantuan’s Adolescentia was also included).120 Midway through the sixteenth century, the influence of Petrarch’s eclogues had largely run its course. Following Oporinus’s anthology, the Bucolicum Carmen was excluded from selections of Renaissance Italian literature, in which NeoLatin pastoral was, conversely, best represented by Jacopo Sannazaro (1458-1530), Marco Girolamo Vida (1485-1566) and Girolamo Fracastoro (1476-1553). The Bucolicum Carmen did not feature, for instance, in

Commentaries

39

collections of Italian Neo-Latin poetry such as Giovanni Matteo Toscano’s Carmina illustrium poetarum Italorum (Paris, 1576 and 1577). Valued neither for their pedagogical usefulness nor for their literary quality, Petrarch’s Latin eclogues were perceived as too alien to contemporary concerns and tastes. Altogether a far cry from the enormous success they had enjoyed earlier in the century.121 One of the reasons for the changing fortunes of the Bucolicum Carmen may lie in the fact that the poem cultivates obscuritas, as Petrarch stated in a letter to his brother Gherardo in which he described the nature of pastoral poetry as entirely incomprehensible unless the author expounds it himself.122 Accordingly, Petrarch felt compelled to provide a key to the interpretation of three of his eclogues (I, II and V).123 Deliberately opaque and densely packed with allegorical allusions, the Bucolicum Carmen was written to inspire exegesis and quickly generated its own commentary tradition. We know that one of Petrarch’s friends, Pietro da Moglio, included the poem in his courses on rhetoric at Bologna between 1368 and 1383, and that two of his pupils were Benvenuto Rambaldi da Imola, who wrote a series of annotations to Petrarch’s eclogues sometime before 1380, and Francesco Piendibeni da Montepulciano, whose commentary on the Bucolicum Carmen was completed at Perugia in July 1394.124 In the ensuing decades, Petrarch’s poem continued to be regarded as material worthy of commentary and suitable for the classroom, an appropriate replacement for the venerable Theodolus, an unknown author of a tenthcentury eclogue contrasting paganism and Christianity.125 To illustrate this, in the discussion that follows I shall examine Huylsberch’s commentary on the Bucolicum Carmen, paying particular attention to the context in which it emerged. My analysis will focus on the notes to Bucolicum Carmen, X (Laurea occidens – “The Dying Laurel”), Petrarch’s longest and most complex eclogue.126 Given that Huylsberch’s commentary on the Bucolicum Carmen arose as a response to Bade’s previous annotations to the text, and in particular to their shortcomings, some preliminary remarks on Bade’s approach to Petrarch’s Latin eclogues are also pertinent here. A few days after publishing his annotations to Mantuan’s Adolescentia, Bade issued an edition of his own commentary on the Bucolicum Carmen, dedicated to the Ghent Carmelite and theologian Jacques Raeymolen who had procured a manuscript copy of the text for him.127 Petrarch’s sixth and seventh eclogues must have been particularly appealing to Bade (and to those circles in Paris keen on ecclesiastical reform, such as the one formed around Bade’s friend Robert Gaguin) in that they deal critically, albeit in a somewhat cryptic fashion, with the Roman curia at Avignon, and

40

Chapter Two

introduce the theme of anti-clerical satire. But Bade’s edition of the Bucolicum Carmen can also be related to the printer’s interest in other Latin pastoralists. From a letter to Henri Vallupin dated December 1498 (Renouard, Bibliographie, III, p. 536) we know that Bade was teaching Virgil’s Eclogues in Lyon at the time. Three years later he published a commentary on Virgil’s works –which included, of course, the Eclogues. In the first decade of the sixteenth century Bade’s attention to the corpus of Latin pastoral poetry led him to prepare annotations to Mantuan (March 1502), to Petrarch (April 1502), to Theocritus’s Bucolicum Carmen in the Latin translation of Filetico (October 1503), and to Calpurnius Siculus (November 1503).128 Bade’s annotations to Laurea occidens begin with an overall interpretation of the text, in which he stresses the cryptic nature of the poem: 1, Quid, Silvane, doles? (“Why are you grieving, Sylvanus?”) “The title of this rather long and quite difficult eclogue because of its obscure circumlocutions about poets is The Dying Laurel”.129 His commentary on Petrarch’s piece typically concentrates on grammar and word order. At times Bade invokes the authority of ancient texts, as in his note to 83-4, Iuxta alter senio infractus, iuveniliter alta /voce canens (“Bent by the years, another stood near him, albeit with youthful / voice high upraised”): “This seems to be a reference to Sophocles, who was a very famous Athenian author of tragedies. He was such an industrious man that he seems to have fought against nature, for, almost at the age of one hundred, he wrote the tragedy Oedipus. Of him Cicero states in his On old age (VII, 22): ‘Sophocles composed tragedies to extreme old age; and, as he was believed to be neglectful of the care of his property owing to his devotion to his art, he was taken to court by his sons’”.130

Throughout Bade’s annotations, parallels between Petrarch and ancient writers are pointed out particularly with regard to history, mythology and geography.131 Aware of the difficulties his reader may encounter but unable to unravel fully the meaning of Petrarch’s text, Bade often prefers to restrict his comments to a brief note on the arcane nature of the poem: 92, Hanc choris late cantata Bittide notus (“[Many admirers she has; one from Kos, widely known for his verses praising his Bittis”) “In this passage Petrarch shows in an obscure manner that she was admired by the other lyric poets” (“Obscure docet eam caeteris lyricis admirationi fuisse”, fol. LXXv). Significantly, rhetorical points are almost completely absent from the annotation, an indication perhaps that the commentary was intended for pupils in the first stages of their instruction in Latin grammar.

Commentaries

41

Bade did not, however, limit his commentary on Petrarch’s Bucolicum Carmen to the academic expositio of the poem. As with the bucolic verse of Mantuan and Fausto Andrelini, Petrarch’s eclogues touched upon moral concerns. To Bade, the ideal of “solitude and contemplation, alien to worldly involvement” celebrated by Petrarch in his allegorical poems must therefore have made the text eminently suitable to students.132 In the letter and argumenta prefacing his commentary, Bade praised Petrarch’s pastorals for their high moral tone and recommended them “ad honesta studia” (sig. Iv). Yet Petrarch was also valued by Bade as a Christian Latin poet. Significantly, one of Petrarch’s religious compositions, the Canzone alla Vergine, inspired a commentary by Bade, who published Petrarch’s Italian text at least twice after 1492 at Lyon and Paris with the Latin translation of the original poem by the Bolognese scholar and poet Filippo Beroaldo the Elder (1453-1505).133 The Parisian readership was in fact well prepared for works of that kind: editions of Latin poetry on overtly Christian topics, from Mantuan and Petrarch’s religious verse to the practitioners of Christian Latin epic such as Sedulius and Juvencus were all available.134 That Petrarch was seen as part of that literary tradition is clear, for example, from an edition of Juvencus’s Evangeliorum libri, issued by Bade himself in 1506.135 For Petrarch, the ancient tradition of poetry included Christian Latin authors, as shown by his own eulogy of Juvencus in Bucolicum Carmen, X (323-6). For Bade, Petrarch’s collection of Latin eclogues clearly belonged to that literary corpus. Petrarch’s bucolic verse could appeal to readers in religious circles. It is therefore not surprising that a further set of annotations to the Bucolicum Carmen should have emerged in the Low Countries, within the circle of the devotio moderna tradition, in which Bade had, incidentally, been educated as a boy.136 One commentary on the Bucolicum Carmen in particular arises from such a milieu. It is the work of the German humanist Servatius Aedicollius or Huylsberch, a pupil of the Deventer schoolmaster Alexander Hegius (ca. 1439-1498), at whose school he probably read Petrarch’s text.137 A professor first in his hometown of Cologne and then active in Deventer from around 1507, Huylsberch worked closely with the printer Albert Paffraet, responsible for the second edition of Huylsberch’s commentary. As observed before, Albert’s father Richard had issued an edition of Petrarch’s Latin eclogues at Deventer in 1489, possibly persuaded by Hegius. Given the Paffraet family’s interest in humanistic texts and their links with St Lebwin’s School in Deventer, it seems safe to infer that Huylsberch’s commentary on Petrarch was used in the teaching of the humanities in the Dutch town.138 Huylsberch’s correspondence with fellow teachers at Deventer shows their profound concerns about the

42

Chapter Two

quality of the teaching, and the careful thought given to the choice of authors.139 It may have been his commitment to humanistic instruction that prompted Huylsberch to prepare an edition of Petrarch’s Latin bucolic verse. Though expanded for publication, his annotations certainly reproduce the instruction that was given and the manner in which the commentary was transmitted orally. That the volume was targeted at local students can be concluded from the epigram addressed to “the learned youth studying the good arts” (“ad iuventutem bonarum artium studiosam”) featuring in both Deventer editions, and written by Johannes Murmellius, whom we have already encountered. In his short poem, Murmellius, who befriended Huylsberch while they were both studying at Cologne, exhorts youngsters to show their gratitude to Petrarch for having “summoned the Muses, dispersed in the wildness of the Goths, back to ancient fields”. But students, claims Murmellius, are also most indebted to Huylsberch, the man “who has brought out the buried meanings [of Petrarch’s ideas]”.140 According to Murmellius, the commentator deserves further praise for his boldness in rising to the challenge posed by the Italian poet, who in his correspondence advised his brother Gherardo not to weary himself in vain attempts to understand what he had intended to express in his Latin eclogues (see n. 122 above). By obliquely invoking the testimony of Petrarch, Murmellius clearly presents Huylsberch as completing the task initiated by his Italian master. Echoes of the epistolary exchange between Petrarch and his brother Gherardo on the cryptic nature of pastoral poetry are to be found elsewhere in Huylsberch’s edition. They reoccur, for example, in Huylsberch’s letter to his brother Joannes introducing his commentary on the Bucolicum Carmen. In discussing the obscure contents of Petrarch’s poetry with his brother, Huylsberch was, of course, seeking to imitate several illustrious predecessors: Dante (1265-1321) and Boccaccio (1313-75) had also considered per epistulam the literary conventions of the bucolic genre and provided hermeneutic tools for their own poems.141 In his prefatory letter Huylsberch also acknowledges the difficulties that lie ahead in attempting to explain Petrarch’s semantically dense verses, “in which one finds things that are very similar to Oedipus’s conjecture or to the ambiguity of the Sphinx”.142 Yet, he proclaims that he will endeavour to overcome such obstacles and try to uncover “both the literal and the allegorical context of Petrarch’s lines” (“nec minus literalem quam allegoriarum contextum denudemus”, sig. A iv). For such a task Huylsberch was able to draw on da Imola’s commentary on the Bucolicum Carmen, a secondary source which nonetheless often passes unacknowledged by our commentator, as will be shown later. Moreover, Huylsberch –unlike Bade, who usually fails to

Commentaries

43

understand Petrarch’s references to his own life and to contemporary events in the poems– was well acquainted with Petrarch’s glosses to his own bucolic poetry. For example, Huylsberch’s opening annotations to Eclogue two (Argus) show how he understood the symbolism and strategy of the poem, dedicated to King Robert of Naples, which Petrarch had explained in a letter to Barbato de Sulmona dated to January 1347 (fol. viv). Of all the eclogues included in Petrarch’s collection, Huylsberch regarded Laurea occidens the most challenging.143 An imagined journey through the poetic past which forces the reader to resolve erudite problems and in particular to deduce the identities of the poets described in the text, the eclogue –as Huylsberch remarks in his dedicatory epistle– is almost the work of “a speaker in riddles” (“aenigmatistes”, sig. A iv). Well aware of the challenge posed by the poem, Huylsberch devotes his first note precisely to highlight Petrarch’s obscurity. The commentator begins by unmasking the identity of the two interlocutors in the poem, Silvanus (its author’s persona) and Socrates (“Under the name of Silvanus we understand a poet who is the god of the woods; Socrates is a young man, perhaps a relative of his, to whom he gives this name because of the honesty of his behaviour”), and by providing a biographical sketch of Socrates (“Socrates was the wisest of all men […] he did not leave any writings but Plato, Aristotle and many others transmitted what they heard from him. In the end he was poisoned by his treacherous accusers and died”).144 Huylsberch’s annotation points towards the preoccupation of a teacher in elucidating the meaning of the text. Thus, most notes provide synonyms (5, Auguror: “augurio proiicio”; 6, luctus: “doloris et tristitiae”; 7, ioci: “iocunditatis”, ibidem), or help rearrange the order of Petrarch’s verse (2, Heu Socrates, quem…nescis quid querar ego quem vix supersum ruina infelicitatis: “Ordo est: Heu Socrates, heu me, quem dura fortuna nostrae ruinae et adversitatis vix sinit reliquum superstitem” (fol. xlivv). Clearly as a result of the school context from which it emerged, the annotation in Huylsberch’s paraphrase commentary concentrates on lectio. Not all annotation, however, conveys basic grammatical, syntactical or lexicographical information, since some notes also show the commentator’s interest in helping his reader to understand Petrarch’s allusions: 165, Vidi Sicula regione creatum (“I recall the singer born of Sicilian stock”) “Here Petrarch understands Theocritus of Syracuse, whom Virgil imitated in his Bucolics” (fol. lir); or, at a more sophisticated level, in providing crossreferences: 169, quique gregem calida gelidus male pavit in Ethna (“One of them coolly pastured his hapless herd on hot Etna”) “Icy (gelidus): Foolish. Empedocles stated that the tempers around the heart were

44

Chapter Two

impaired by cold blood, so Virgil [Georg., II, 484]: the chill blood around my heart prevents me” (ibidem).145 Huylsberch’s familiarity with Petrarch’s sources is clear from the manner in which he usually unravels the many arcane allusions scattered throughout the eclogue. For example, at Laurea occidens 188-98, Petrarch draws on Ovid’s Ex Ponto (IV, 16) and refers indirectly to poets such as Fontanus and Montanus whose works have not survived (194-5). Huylsberch rises to the challenge and successfully unmasks the identity of both poets, supporting his claims with quotations from Ovid’s letters from exile (fol. liiir). A significant cluster of Huylsberch’s annotations is made up of critical references to Bade’s own commentary on the Bucolicum Carmen. They first occur in the dedicatory letter to Huylsberch’s brother Joannes, in which Huylsberch describes the genesis of his annotations. In his opening remarks Hulysberch announces how Joannes, who may have been employed as a corrector in Albert Paffraet’s imprint during the 1510s,146 requested an exposition of the Bucolicum Carmen, a popular text in Deventer since the late fifteenth century. Huylsberch initially opted to send him a copy of Bade’s recently-published commentary but, alarmed by his brother’s remarks on the quality of Bade’s work, he decided to issue a new exegesis of Petrarch’s eclogues: “You begged me, Joannes, personally when we had the opportunity to talk and more vehemently in your letters, to make available to you or to the public Petrarch’s Bucolicum Carmen, enlightened by a familiar exposition. Because I promised that I would do it, I sent you the commentary by Bade, a commentator on almost all poets, on the most common, I would say. […] And, when you returned it, you immediately said that you did not hold such straws and elocubrations of names covered with a bark in any esteem. With them, you argued, it is impossible to understand what has been omitted or incorrectly explained by others”.147

As I mentioned earlier in this chapter (p. 26), Murmellius’s own criticism of Bade’s methodology doubtless underlies Huylsberch’s poor opinion of Bade’s annotations. Indeed, years earlier, in the prefatory letter to his own commentary on Mantuan’s Latin eclogues, Murmellius had already deplored Bade’s interpretative skills. His friend’s opinion and his own reservations did not, however, prevent Huylsberch from drawing on Bade’s own criteria, at least when preparing his own text. So, he appends a life of Petrarch to his edition, as Bade had done, both following a venerable tradition which prefaced textual study of literary works with biographical and general background. Yet, unlike the Flemish printer who reproduced a biographical sketch of Petrarch extracted from the Liber de

Commentaries

45

scriptoribus ecclesiasticis by the Carmelite Johannes Trithemius (Johann Tritheim, 1462-1516), Huylsberch included his own life of the poet, which owes an unacknowledged debt to Girolamo Squarzafico’s 1501 biography of Petrarch.148 Moreover, following Bade’s arrangement of Petrarch’s text, Huylsberch decided to alter the order of the eclogues, leaving Petrarch’s tenth eclogue, the longest of all, to the end (becoming in fact Bucolicum Carmen, XII). These are, nonetheless, two of the very few instances in which Huylsberch concurs with Bade. For the most part, Bade’s methodology is met with rebuke throughout Huylsberch’s annotations, usually in an overt manner, as at 270 (“Here Bade writes some tedious trifles drawn from the commentaries of Servius”, fol. lvr). Similarly, at 252-3 (hunc videas dextra rigidam gestare securim, / ornantem officii generoso gutture pompam – “the other with brandishing lector / honoured the pomp of the triumph; his generous mouth was wide open”), Huylsberch does not miss the opportunity to expose his predecessor’s shortcomings. In this passage Petrarch alludes to the tragic poet and soldier Pomponius Secundus, whose identity is mistaken by Bade (fol. lxxixv), as Huylsberch demonstrates: “Bade thinks that these words are a reference to the emperor Germanicus. I would rather believe that here one ought to understand that Petrarch refers to the tragic poet Pomponius, who in his poems celebrated the praises of the consular nobility” (fol. liiiir).

Yet, when criticising the interpretations supplied by Bade, Huylsberch does not always show his hand. For example, at Laurea occidens 250 Petrarch refers to a poet “who criticized the vices of an honoured people” (qui laudatae caneret convitia gentis). Huylsberch first notes Bade’s faulty reading (“here one ought to read convitia and not convivia, as Bade understands”, fol. liiiir) and goes on to divine the name of the poet (“De Sepsio intelligitur. Is enim Romanorum acta ab aliis laudata carmine vituperavit” – “This ought to be understood as a reference to Sepsius, who, in a poem, censured the deeds of the Romans, which had been praised by others”, fol. liiiir). Rather tellingly, however, he prefers not to acknowledge da Imola’s aid and draws instead on Ovid, whom he quotes at length (Ex Ponto, IV, 14, 37-40).149 Similarly, at 165-6 (Vidi…ac socios), when seeking to shed light on the sequence of bucolic poets listed by Petrarch, Huylsberch succeeds in unmasking the identity of Moschus (“Ut Moscus”) from da Imola’s annotations (“sicut Moscus”), a source which once again remains unacknowledged. A conclusive example will help us understand Huylsberch’s approach and the differences in methodology between him and Bade. Huylsberch’s

46

Chapter Two

open rivalry with his predecessor is at its most obvious in their respective comments on a passage in Petrarch not fully elucidated by Bade. At Laurea occidens 273-4, Petrarch refers to Lucretius in a rather allusive way (…miserum solabar amantem, / amentemque magis – “Here, I recall, it befell me to solace a hapless – nay, witless – lover”). Bade is manifestly unable to reveal the identity of Lucretius and mistakes him for Ovid, supporting his claims with a quotation from the Tristia (“Petrarch does not explain who this poet may be. Perhaps one could understand that he is alluding to Ovid, who says: That you may know who I was, I that playful poet of tender love [Tristia, IV, 10, 1]”).150 Huylsberch corrects Bade’s error and, seemingly unphased by the obscurity of Petrarch’s arcane allusion to Lucretius, goes on to provide a brief note on the author of the De rerum natura drawing on ancient sources. Not content with quoting both Jerome’s well-known biographical sketch of Lucretius and Ovid’s praise of the Roman poet, he strikes his final blow by invoking the testimony of Poliziano: “Petrarch is speaking about Lucretius, who, after a love-philtre had turned him mad, killed himself by his own hand in the forty-third year of his age. About his works Ovid writes the following: The verses of sublime Lucretius are destined to perish only when a single day will consign the world to destruction [Amores, I, 15, 23-24]. Loving: he means Lucretius, enchained by love; Senseless, that is, insane, as Poliziano states: And Lucretius, the poet who drank the philtre and crazed by an excessive love, threw himself upon his sword, had not lost his mind to such an extent that he could not sing in sublime language of the secret origins of the universe and the first elements of things (Nutricia, 487-490)”.151

Acquaintance with the Nutricia –one of Poliziano’s four Silvae– should not be dismissed as simple posturing on Huylsberch’s part or as an overconfident attempt to undermine Bade’s work. Rather, Huylsberch was far too aware of the implications of quoting Poliziano’s Latin verse when seeking to elucidate Petrarch’s lines. Exhibiting one’s scholarly credentials with references to the Nutricia was, in the end, not uncommon among commentators of the time. For one, Huylsberch’s friend Murmellius does so in his abovementioned poem in praise of Petrarch and Huylsberch which prefaces the Deventer editions of the Bucolicum Carmen discussed in this chapter.152 With relation to Petrarch’s Laurea occidens both men – Huylsberch and Murmellius– seem to have grasped “the superior scholarship” afforded by the Nutricia, a poem in which Poliziano felt compelled to correct many of his predecessor’s misunderstandings.153 Among Huylsberch’s contemporaries, a high opinion of Poliziano’s Latin

Commentaries

47

poetry was not, however, restricted to the Nutricia. Indeed, in early sixteenth-century Europe all four Silvae enjoyed a high degree of esteem, as an exploration of the dissemination of printed editions of Poliziano’s poems and the nature of some of their commentaries will demonstrate.

Poliziano’s Silvae The Nutricia is the last poem in a series of four Silvae, a title modelled on Statius’s occasional poetry.154 The collection, which represented the culmination of Angelo Poliziano’s poetic achievement, was begun in 1482 and completed four years later. The subject of the first, the Ambra, is the exaltation of Homer, font of all poetry and eloquence; the second, the Manto, is a general introduction to the poetry of Virgil, and the third, the Rusticus, constitutes a treatise based on Virgil’s Georgics and Hesiod’s Works and Days. The last and longest of the Silvae, the Nutricia celebrates poets and poetry itself from earliest mythical times to Poliziano’s own day.155 These four pieces, presented as praelusiones to courses offered in the Florentine Studio, to whose Chair of Greek and Latin Eloquence Poliziano had been appointed in 1480, became a central part of his reading programme.156 The success of the texts (and of the Nutricia in particular) was unashamedly advertised by Poliziano himself who, in a passage from his Miscellaneorum Centuria prima, recalled how the poem was expounded at well-attended gatherings in Florence.157 The Silvae were attracting interest from Italian printers even during Poliziano’s lifetime. Following publication of the Manto by Antonio Miscomini in Florence in 1482, an edition of the Rusticus was issued by the same printer a year later, and in November 1485 the Florentine Niccolò di Lorenzo prepared an edition of the Ambra. The editio princeps of the Nutricia appeared in Florence on 26 May 1491 and this was followed by a reprint by the Bolognese Francesco (Platone) de’ Benedetti less than a month later, on 21 June. In early 1492 Miscomini reprinted the Rusticus and the Manto in quick succession (7 and 23 February), and in June of that year individual editions of the Manto, the Rusticus and the Ambra came off de’ Benedetti’s printing press in the space of just three weeks. The de’ Benedetti volumes in turn were the basis of the Aldine Opera omnia of 1498, published four years after Poliziano’s death, which featured the four poems in this order: Nutricia, Rusticus, Manto and Ambra.158 No Italian edition of the Silvae was printed in the sixteenth century even though the poems continued to circulate in Italy in manuscript form.159 In contrast, in the first half of the century the fame of Poliziano’s

48

Chapter Two

Silvae travelled widely elsewhere across Europe. Between 1506 and 1554 no fewer than twenty-three editions of the poems were published in the Low Countries (at Deventer and Zwolle), in the German-speaking world (at Nuremberg, Basle, Leipzig, and Münster in Westphalia), in France (at Paris and Rouen) as well as in Spain (at Alcalá de Henares and Salamanca).160 Dissemination of each Silva differs sharply, probably due to their subject matter and difficulty. Only a couple of individual editions of the Nutricia (Leipzig, 1517 and Nuremberg, 1538) and none of the Ambra were published after 1500.161 Of the four pieces the Rusticus and the Manto proved by far the most popular ones. Initially printed together (Deventer, 1506 and 1509), subsequently these two poems always appeared separately. Whereas only two or possibly three editions of the Manto are recorded after the first decade of the century (Deventer?, Münster and Paris), the Rusticus was published at least fifteen times first in 1510, and as late as 1553. The poem was particularly popular in France where, apart from Nicolas Bérauld’s edition of ca. 1514 to which I willl shortly return, an edition of the text came off the printing press of Raoul Laliseau (d. 1521) around 1510.162 The Rusticus also appeared in a volume published in or about 1550 with a French translation of the poem.163 As well as marking an interruption to the publication of individual editions of the Silvae, the 1550s also witnessed the first collected edition of the four texts, printed in Salamanca in 1554. This edition is of particular importance as it includes the first commentary on the four poems, by Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas, which was published in a revised form in 1596 (see chapter 4). After the first Salamanca edition, the Silvae were only brought to the press collectively, often in anthologies of Italian Neo-Latin verse, with the exceptions of one reprint of the Nutricia (Frankfurt, 1608) and one of the Rusticus published in Utrecht in 1672.164 All four poems featured, for example, in compilations published in Paris (1572 and 1576), London (1684, in a volume edited by Francis Atterbury), Florence (1720), London (1740, in an edition prepared by Alexander Pope), and Bergamo (1753).165 Last but not least, the Spanish hellenist Vicente Mariner (ca. 1575-1642) produced a Greek translation of 17 lines from the Ambra, which is held in BNE, Ms. 9864. As with Petrarch’s Bucolicum Carmen, a highly distinctive feature common to most sixteenth-century editions of the Silvae is the abundant exegetical material. Heavy marginal and interlinear manuscript annotation in many of the copies consulted and the inclusion of printed annotations in several editions of the poems (Münster, 1510, Paris, ca. 1514, Nuremberg, 1538 and Salamanca, 1554 [and 1596]) seem to indicate that Poliziano’s Latin poetry was the subject of commentary until the early nineteenth

Commentaries

49

century.166 The practice of annotating the poems is, however, by no means restricted to the printed page as commentaries on the Silvae in manuscript form can also be found. We know, for example, that Pietro Petreio (fl. 1475-94) –who taught grammar at the Studio Romano– wrote a set of annotations to over 250 lines of the Ambra, which survives in a manuscript held in Munich.167 Petreio’s notes on the Ambra are of particular interest as they may reflect oral teaching of the poem by Poliziano himself at the Florentine Studio. In addition, an anonymous sixteenth-century annotator composed a partial commentary on the Nutricia entitled Glossemata in Politiani Silvas and included in BNE, Ms. 3663 (see chapter 4). The importance of the Silvae as texts suitable for annotation did not go unnoticed by the scholar, printer and lecturer Nicolas Bérauld (ca. 1470 – ca. 1545), one of the first humanists to supply a printed commentary on the poems.168 Bérauld’s connection with Poliziano can be traced back to 1512 when –as editor for Josse Bade– he published Poliziano’s Opera omnia from the Aldine edition of 1498. On 9 November 1513, Bérauld gave a public lecture on the Rusticus. before a crowded audience at the Parisian Collège de Treguier. The text was included and edited in a selection of writings, related to Bérauld’s lecturing activity in Paris, by Thomas Kees in early 1514. In the colophon to his edition, Kees announced the imminent publication of Bérauld’s commentary on the text as well as annotations to other pieces by Poliziano.169 Bérauld’s attention to Poliziano’s silva was not merely restricted to a one-off lecture, and sometime after July 1514 he published his praelectio alongside an extensive commentary on the Rusticus. This edition, now lost, must have been published between 15 July 1514, the date of the dedicatory letter to Germain de Ganay, bishop of Cahors, which prefaces the text of the praelectio and the commentary, and 24 October 1514, the date of the prefatory epistle to Bérauld’s Metaphrasis in libros Oeconomicorum Aristotelis (“Paraphrase of Aristotle’s books on Economics”), a work in which he refers to annotations included in “our recently published commentaries on Poliziano’s Rusticus”.170 Though Bérauld’s choice of the Rusticus as a subject for annotations was initially criticized by some of his contemporaries, his commentary proved extremely popular from the outset, and by 1530 Bérauld’s edition had already been reprinted once in Basle and three times in Paris.171 The high reputation of the text was noted by scholars such as Murmellius and Juan Luis Vives (1492-1540), who applauded Bérauld’s efforts at commenting on the Rusticus. Murmellius did not hesitate to include – alongside his own annotations to Poliziano’s poem– Bérauld’s notes among those commentaries “which are most profitable to students of the

50

Chapter Two

good arts”. For his part, Vives praised Bérauld for his ability to make sense of Poliziano’s display of erudition.172 Bérauld’s annotations also contributed to the flourishing of the silva as a poetic form in France in the first three decades of the sixteenth century, a clear sign of the popularity of his enterprise.173 Bérauld’s interest in Poliziano’s Silvae was not, however, confined to the Rusticus. In his lecture on the text he also referred to a series of annotations to other Silvae, namely the Manto and the Ambra, which he promised to bring forth in the near future.174 Months later, when writing the preface to his commentary on the Rusticus, Bérauld showed rather more caution about his project, acknowledging that his notes remained unfinished, even though he still hoped to make them known as early as possible. “In the future” –he stated– “I expect and wish to disclose publicly my annotations to other poems by the same author [Poliziano], which, begun in the last two years, are almost brought to a close”.175 At the beginning of 1516, Bérauld took charge of the late Jean Barbier’s press, whose widow he married shortly afterwards. Although Bérauld remained in business as a printer only until 1518, he nonetheless published a large number of editions including his own commentary on Pliny the Elder’s Natural History (November 1516). The first volume to come out of Bérauld’s new press had been an undated edition, prepared by Bérauld himself, of Alexander of Aphrodisias’s Naturalia problemata in the Latin translation of Poliziano. The volume was dedicated to Christophe de Longueil (1490-1522) and also included four original works by the Italian humanist (Lamia, Panepistemon, Epigrammata and Manto).176 Yet, despite Bérauld’s claims, the latter was published without annotations. This, together with the fact that there is no trace of Bérauld’s promised commentaries on the Manto and the Ambra and that there is no record of the poems being included in his teaching programme at the Collège de Tréguier, seems to imply that Bérauld never intended to publish a full commentary. Moreover, Bérauld’s significant use of the terms “adnotationes” and “commentariola” to refer to his prospective notes to the Manto and the Ambra –in sharp contrast with the word “enarrationes” applied to his comprehensive commentary on the Rusticus– points towards brief and sketchy annotations, perhaps for personal use only.177 In order to understand Bérauld’s decision not to include commentaries in his 1516 edition of the Manto, it may be worth recalling the controversy generated by the publication of his annotations to the Rusticus two years earlier. In spite of its popularity, the commentary seems to have undergone a polemical genesis, which Bérauld himself refers to in the preface to his work. According to Bérauld, some critical voices dismissed his interest in

Commentaries

51

a modern author and objected to his choice of the Rusticus on the grounds that Poliziano’s poem was a contemporary text. Bérauld described the controversy and defended his decision in the following terms: “Some people make, however, false accusations when they claim that antiquity is the only valid argument for writing a commentary, and when they regard as useless any effort to apply themselves to the commentary of modern writers. [...] This lecture on the Rusticus must therefore not be criticized because this poem is modern and was born in our age”.178

Undeterred by criticism, Bérauld nonetheless went ahead with his commentary for he believed that “Poliziano not only bears comparison with the ancients, but also surpasses many of them”.179 It is thus possible that when Bérauld published the edition of the Manto two years later he had been discouraged from adding the promised commentary by such opposition.180 Whatever his reasons for deciding not to include annotations to the poem, Bérauld reflects the same interests in his 1516 edition of the Manto as he does in his commentary on the Rusticus. Both enterprises are to be seen as parts of a wider programme aimed at disseminating the works of Poliziano. The Manto edition and the annotations to the Rusticus do not, however, constitute an isolated project. Rather, Bérauld’s interest in the Silvae should be viewed in the context of his activity as the editor of several fifteenth-century Italian authors, including Filelfo, Mantuan and Lorenzo Valla.181 In this respect Bérauld’s attention to Poliziano’s poems can best be understood as a reflection of his overall admiration for the most conspicuous quattrocento humanists. I would now like to return very briefly to Bérauld’s annotations to the Rusticus.182 Apart from the dedicatory letter to Germain de Ganay mentioned before (see above p. 49), the commentary is accompanied by Bérauld’s praelectio and by a short letter addressed to a broad readership, placed towards the end of the volume. Bérauld uses the praelectio and the epistle to the reader to describe his approach to Poliziano’s text, yet both documents are very different in scope and contents. The praelectio opens with a eulogy of Poliziano’s erudition and elegant literary style. Bérauld then goes on to discuss the disciplines to be mastered by any commentator attempting to elucidate a poetic text (what Bérauld, according to the ancient ideal of the unity of learning, describes as “tota encyclopedia”, sig. a iiiiv). There follows a series of remarks on those who have preceded him in the interpretation of the classical poets, from Donatus (ca. 320 – ca. 380) and Servius (fl. end of the fourth century) to Domizio Calderini, whose commentaries Bérauld praises. Yet, unlike all these interpreters, Bérauld prides himself on being the first one to have devoted a

52

Chapter Two

commentary to Poliziano, an author whose work had not previously been annotated, and who, Bérauld observes, “can only be properly understood by those who are familiar with the annotations of the ancients”.183 The tone of the letter to the general reader is, in contrast, rather pragmatic. There Bérauld lays out his methodology very clearly and acknowledges that he has not written his text “for children or ignorant teachers of grammar” (“plane negabo me pueris haec aut indoctis grammatistis scripsisse”, fol. lxviiv). Accordingly, in his annotations he rarely provides word-order marks –one characteristic feature of poetry school editions– and only occasionally does he touch on grammatical points or call attention to figures of speech.184 Instead, Bérauld is much more interested in the contents of the Rusticus. At its most basic this is achieved by elucidating the meaning of words (fol. ir: 1, gnavo “impigro”; fol. xliv: 407, nivea “dealbata”) or entire lines (typically prefaced with the words “sensus est”, as at fol. xliv: 466-467, he also knows what tasks the day after the tenth and the following day enjoin “The sense of these lines is as follows: the countryman should know what ought to be done on the eleventh and twelth days”).185 At times, Bérauld also supplies a marginal paraphrase, employed to signal the sections and subsections of the text or to explain the overall meaning of certain passages: fol. ir: 1-3, The riches of the fertile farmlands, the labours that occupy the diligent tiller of the soil, the sacred honour of the earth that produces all things, these my seven-reeded pipe craves to sing “the theme of this work”; fol. lvir: 438452, “In these lines Poliziano explains with elegant style the astrology of the countryman”.186 Throughout his commentary Bérauld pays particular attention to issues of realia. A substantial number of annotations is devoted to the explanation of Poliziano’s technical terms, mostly related to zoology, botany and farming. In his annotations Bérauld expands the short notes provided by Poliziano in his poem with references to classical writers on household management and agriculture. Here Bérauld’s chief sources are (the Pseudo-) Aristotle’s Oeconomicon, Xenophon’s Oeconomicus, Columella and, above all, Pliny’s Natural History. Crossreferences to book 18 in Pliny, which deals with farming and the proper arrangements for a farmhouse, recur frequently, as in Poliziano’s lengthy discussion of the forecasting (lines 481-546). Commenting, for example, on line 484 (“aut quinto directa die aut medio orbe retusa” – “or if on the fifth day it is vertical or blunted in the middle of the disk”), Bérauld identifies the passage in Pliny (18, 348) that Poliziano is drawing on in the Rusticus, but, uncharacteristically, he calls attention to the erroneous “quintus dies” in Poliziano’s line rather than the correct reading “quartus dies” attested by Pliny’s manuscript tradition.187 Bérauld’s numerous

Commentaries

53

references to Pliny in his commentary on the Rusticus seem to indicate that the Natural History helped him elucidate some of the most difficult passages in Poliziano’s poem, particularly those rich in technical vocabulary. Indeed, Bérauld was well acquainted with the Natural History, on which he wrote a commentary published in the autumn of 1516. Bérauld’s interest in Pliny can however be traced back to 1514, when he prepared a series of lectures on the Natural History. It is certainly of note that (the Pseudo-) Aristotle’s Oeconomicon was also taught by Bérauld at Paris that year, and that, significantly, Bérauld’s commentary on the text includes references to the Rusticus. The fact that this silva was among the set texts on his course for the academic year 1513-1514 makes it likely that Bérauld himself saw a strong connection between the works of Poliziano, Pliny and (the Pseudo-) Aristotle.188 The pedagogical uses of the Rusticus will be explored further in the following two chapters. For the moment let us turn our attention to the Nutricia, another poem by Poliziano which attracted considerable interest from European commentators in the first half of the sixteenth century. The text has a complex editorial history, expertly reconstructed by Peter Godman whose conclusions are followed here.189 Completed at Fiesole in October 1486 and originally entitled Nutrix, the Nutricia was sent to King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary later that year. It included a lengthy dedicatory letter to the monarch in which Poliziano announced his imminent commentary on the poem, a remark also included in a shorter version of the dedication.190 The text of the Nutricia then served as a praelusio to a course on poetics held at Florence, where it enjoyed an enthusiastic reception. Some of Poliziano’s oral explanations of his poem were transferred to print and were included in the Miscellaneorum Centuria prima of 1489. Between the winter of 1490 and the spring of the following year, Poliziano pluralized the title of his work from Silva to Silvae. He subsequently dedicated the Nutricia to Cardinal Antoniotto Pallavicino Gentile, recast and abbreviated the drafts of his dedicatory epistles to Matthias Corvinus, omitting any reference to a commentary, and had the text printed in Florence by Antonio Miscomini in May 1491. Less than a month later, the poem was also published in Bologna by de’ Benedetti. Unlike the three preceding Silvae, the Nutricia does not introduce a lecture on a particular author. Rather it presents a history of the transmission of poetry and a catalogue of poets both obscure and famous. The poem’s calculated complexity may have led Poliziano to insert marginal annotations in the first two editions of the Nutricia providing the names of the authors whom he describes in his text.191 One of the two

54

Chapter Two

Silvae for which the author had promised a commentary as an aid to its decipherment (the other being the Ambra), the Nutricia was considered by Poliziano to be his masterpiece and he always regarded it “as a prime subject, and vehicle, of exegesis”.192 In the German-speaking world the importance of the Nutricia as a text suitable for commentary was rapidly acknowledged by local scholars and humanists. The most renowned of these was Joannes Ludovicus Brassicanus (Johann Ludwig Köl, 1509-49), who published a series of annotations to Poliziano’s poem in Nuremberg in 1538.193 Brassicanus must have felt capable of embarking on a detailed and learned commentary on the Nutricia given his distinction as a philologist, which had led to his appointment as Professor of Greek at Vienna in 1534 before becoming chancellor of the University towards the end of his life.194 Typically, Brassicanus’s edition features miscellaneous liminary material. Commendatory poems in Latin by the Viennese Cathedral provost Johannes Rosinus (d. 1545), the historian Caspar Ursinus Velius (14931538) and the Hellenist Thomas Venatorius (1490-1551) testify to his high social position within local circles. More importantly, the volume includes paratexts which shed light on the commentary’s gestation as well as on the edition employed by Brassicanus for his annotations. The text used by Brassicanus for his commentary was the Bolognese edition of the Nutricia, as can be deduced from his printing of the subscription absent from the Florentine edition: “Absoluta est in Fesulano, VIII Idus Octobris MCCCCLXXXVI” (“Completed on the hill of Fiesole, 6 October 1486”). Challenged by the obscurity of the Nutricia, Brassicanus decided to write annotations to the text, which, as he states in the dedicatory letter to the Imperial councillor Johann Panngarter, “were produced by me some seven years previously” (“ante septennium ferme a me editos”, sig. A 2v). He acknowledges that Poliziano’s promise of long commentaries on the poem encouraged him to carry out this endeavour.195 To stengthen his case, in the preface addressed to the general reader Brassicanus reproduces the passage from Poliziano’s letter to Matthias Corvinus which describes his commentary as incomplete. Unlike other contemporary annotators to the Silvae, Brassicanus’s notes to the Nutricia do not concentrate on an explanation of vocabulary. Nor does the commentator feel obliged to sort out the order in which his readers need to read the Latin for it to make sense. Except in very specific cases, he is equally unconcerned with rhetorical figures in the text.196 For Brassicanus, the Nutricia provides, first and foremost, an erudite compendium of the lives of Greek and Roman poets which forces him to trace references and recognize allusions. Though by no means exhaustive, Brassicanus’s commentary is comprehensive even if a few passages

Commentaries

55

remained unannotated. As an example, annotation significantly comes to an abrupt end at line 724, and Brassicanus –claiming that “these are practically all the things which are worthy of interpretation” (sig. Q 6r)– spares his readers a commentary on the last 66 lines of the poem. It is hardly a coincidence that this concluding section is a homage to the poetic skills of Poliziano’s patron and pupil Lorenzo de’ Medici (1449-92) and to the glory of his dynasty. Set against the backdrop of Habsburg Vienna, the location of Brassicanus’s edition, Poliziano’s eulogy of Republican Florence could only be consigned to silence. Brassicanus’s working method is rather straightforward. He follows Poliziano’s division of the poem according to genres, and his further subdivision by individuals. After providing a synopsis of the passage in question (“Loquitur de Hebraeorum prophetis”; “Opera Ovidii recenset”; “Nunc de poetis bucolicis tractare incipit”), Brassicanus goes on to supply the names of the poets described in the text. He then identifies the sources for the biographical details sketched by Poliziano pointing out the latter’s debt to past literary traditions. For this painstaking task Brassicanus relies on his impressive knowledge of classical literature, evident in the range of Latin and Greek sources quoted throughout the commentary. He frequently reproduces Greek sources at length in the original: seeking to interpret line 400 (qui bissenos iterum memorare labores / audet – “who dares in his turn to narrate the twelve labours”), he shows, for example, how Panyassis of Halicarnassus (fifth century BC), author of an epic poem recounting the Labours of Hercules, was known to Poliziano through Quintilian, whose testimony can also be read in the Suda, the historical encyclopaedia compiled at the end of the tenth century and one of Poliziano’s chief sources.197 Alongside ancient authors with whom Brassicanus aims to elucidate the meaning of Poliziano’s verse, he also includes references to modern scholars in his commentary. In collecting information from Renaissance sources, he draws on humanist works such as Guillaume Budé’s De asse, Andrea Alciato’s De verborum significatione and Pietro Crinito’s De poetis latinis. Keen to highlight the achievements of local scholars, in his note on Poliziano’s discussion of Ovid’s works (lines 44050) Brassicanus craftily mentions the work of his friend Georg von Logau (Georgius Logus, 1485-1553), who produced an edition of the Halieutica in 1534.198 Nevertheless, of all contemporary authorities, it is Poliziano’s testimony and methodological approach which Brassicanus draws on most heavily in his annotations. We cannot rule out the possibility that Brassicanus may have employed Poliziano’s marginal annotations printed in the early editions of the Nutricia in those cases where allusions were particularly

56

Chapter Two

obscure. For example, at 711 (Pammetron hic cecinit; sillos dedit ille licentes – “One composed a Pammetron; another, the libertine silloi”), Poliziano’s annotation (“Timon”) may have helped Brassicanus unravel the mysterious identity of the “ille” mentioned in the second hemistich, and helped him write a note on the Greek sceptic Timon of Phlius (sig. Q 5r). There are other more explicit examples of how Brassicanus relies on Poliziano’s own words in order to clarify difficult passages in the Nutricia. At 193, Poliziano describes the properties of the magnet, drawing chiefly on Plato, who, in the Ion (533D-E), compares the stone at Magnesia with the divine frenzy which drives good poets (sig. D 3r). Brassicanus’s annotation to the passage includes, among others, Plato’s testimony but is also confirmed with a quotation from Poliziano’s Ambra (line 14). More frequent than allusions to Poliziano’s poetical work are cross-references to his Miscellaneorum Centuria prima. Brassicanus’s motive for this is twofold: he wishes to flaunt his own scholarly credentials, but, more importantly, he is aiming to model his work on that of his Italian hero. This is most apparent in the manner in which Brassicanus reviews the preceding exegetical tradition throughout his commentary. In this respect, a favourite target of his is Domizio Calderini, the author of a series of annotations on Ovid’s Ibis first published in 1474. Brassicanus’s note on Nutricia 495 illustrates his attitude towards Calderini. After demonstrating, with reference to Diogenes Laertius, that the poet “who jumped into the red-hot crater of the Sicilian volcano” is Empedocles, Brassicanus forcefully dismisses Calderini’s interpretation of a passage in the Ibis, in which Ovid refers to Empedocles and on which –the commentator is at pains to emphasise– Calderini had constructed an improbable explanation: “Hence the passage in Ovid’s Ibis is explained, although Domizio understood it wrongly: Or may a noose close the passage of your breath as the Syracusan poet’s throat was stopped (547-8). This was certainly Empedocles, from Agrigentum, in Sicily, and it cannot refer to Theocritus, as Domizio claimed” (sig. M 1r).199

Brassicanus’s attack on Calderini is, however, not entirely original. Rather, it was inspired by Poliziano’s own rebuke of Calderini’s methodology. Although Poliziano did not write a proper commentary on the Ibis, he was well acquainted with the manuscript tradition of the text. This certainly equipped him to refute with contempt previous examples of incompetent work on Ovid’s poem. Calderini figures among his victims: regarding his commentary on the Ibis, Poliziano states that “he invents many vain and ridiculous things, and makes them up extemporaneously and at his own convenience”.200 The point made by Poliziano in his

Commentaries

57

Miscellaneorum Centuria prima, 75 did not go unnoticed by Brassicanus. As a careful reader of Poliziano’s philological research, our commentator must have been aware of Poliziano’s criticism of Calderini and decided to reflect it in his own annotations to the Nutricia. Brassicanus was thus following the practice of Poliziano, who –as Anthony Grafton has pointed out– had repeatedly drawn attention to “the intimate connection between his scholarship and his style”.201 All these intertextual echoes help highlight Brassicanus’s strategy. They are also indicative of the level (and Latin proficiency) of the target reader of his commentary. Unlike Bérauld’s annotations to the Rusticus, an enterprise which seems to have evolved from classroom practice, it is unlikely that the 1538 edition of the Nutricia would have been placed in an educational context despite Brassicanus’s close connection to the University of Vienna. Irrespective of whether Brassicanus actually used Poliziano’s poem in his teaching, he considered the Nutricia to be a challenging text worthy of comprehensive notes to almost every line. In doing so, Brassicanus was fulfilling his master’s wish to see his favourite work accompanied by a commentary. Over fifty years after the Nutricia was written, Poliziano’s long-promised annotations to the text were finally completed, albeit in a context alien to the one in which the poem had emerged. Generally disseminated through the filter of commentaries, Poliziano’s Silvae (as well as the poetry and prose writings of other Italian Latin humanists) enjoyed considerable academic exposure in Renaissance Europe. Yet, as the following chapter will show, the uses to which these texts were put in the Renaissance classroom could not have been more different from the ones originally envisaged by their authors.

CHAPTER THREE THE USE OF ITALIAN LATIN HUMANISM IN THE CLASSROOM

Teaching Latin and providing students with an introduction to the literature of ancient Rome were the principal preoccupations of humanists across Europe. Yet, alongside the study of classical authors, educational institutions also included the key Latin works of Italian humanism in their curricula. This chapter provides an exploration into the ways in which this vast literary corpus was employed in secondary schools and university courses from the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Here I examine the role of Italian humanist poetry, epistolary and oratorical writings as well as philosophical and pedagogical texts in the Renaissance classroom. In my discussion I look not only at the stated aims of schoolmasters and university lecturers but also at the evidence offered by readers’ markings in extant copies of editions of these works. The volumes under consideration give us valuable evidence of how young readers would have been taught to study this rich body of writings.

Poetry The reading and interpretation of classical Latin poets –with the help of commentaries– was a fundamental element in the curriculum of humanist schools and arts faculties from the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Chosen mainly for their linguistic features, Roman poets provided valid literary patterns for imitation. Latin classical texts in verse were, however, not the only poetic corpus used in the humanist classroom and very soon Italian Neo-Latin poetry became an important part of the curriculum too. As noted in the preceding chapter, pastoral poetry was among the most widely disseminated Latin verse by Italian humanists. Unsurprisingly, this phenomenon coincides with attempts –most notably by Juan Luis Vives in his 1539 commentary on the Eclogues– to provide an allegorical, usually Christian, interpretation of Virgil’s poems. Pastoral poetry on overtly Christian topics could be favoured over Virgil’s collection (and Graeco-

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

59

Roman pastoral in general) because it provided both linguistic and moral instruction. It therefore received attention from printers, university lecturers and school teachers eager to avoid Virgil’s “dangerous” eclogues by replacing them with works with a more explicitly Christian moral message. It must be emphasized that interest in humanist pastoral poetry in the first decades of the sixteenth century reflects, in fact, a broader enthusiasm for Italian Neo-Latin religious verse. Attention to this corpus in the first half of the sixteenth century seems, in turn, to go hand in hand with an interest in early Christian poetry. In the previous chapter I have documented the use of Petrarch’s Latin eclogues in the secondary school curriculum of Renaissance Europe. In the following paragraphs I consider other collections of Italian Neo-Latin pastoral poetry which also served a didactic purpose. One of these collections was the Carmen bucolicum by Antonio Geraldini (ca. 1448-88), a group of twelve eclogues on the life of Christ and his Ascension to Heaven, first published in Rome in 1485. After the editio princeps, Geraldini’s eclogues circulated widely, initially in Spain, where an edition of the poems was issued at Salamanca in the imprint of Juan de Porras in 1505. Porras’s edition, which opens with a prefatory letter by the local professor Arias Barbosa (ca. 1456-1530), can be better explained given the close links between Geraldini and the Castilian court: the poet is said to have been entrusted around 1488 with the education of Princess Isabella, the eldest daughter of Queen Isabella of Castile.202 Geraldini’s verse was also highly acclaimed in the German-speaking world: eight editions of the poems were published between 1507 and 1520 in Pforzheim, Leipzig (four times), Erfurt, Cologne and Vienna.203 The popularity of the Carmen bucolicum in the first two decades of the sixteenth century is inextricably linked to its educational value. In fact, the text was conceived with pedagogy in mind from the start, as acknowledged by Geraldini himself in his preface to Ferdinand of Aragon’s illegitimate son Alfonso, who became bishop of Zaragoza in 1485 at the age of thirteen.204 This is corroborated by the wording of the paratexts included in early editions of the Carmen bucolicum. These introductory texts help us understand why printers and teachers recommended Geraldini’s poems as a safe model which reconciled classical and Christian views of life. For example, the Viennese editors responsible for the 1513 edition of the text praise the Carmen bucolicum as an “opus sanctissimum atque eruditissimum” (“a most holy and erudite work”), whilst the teacher Heinrich Stackmann, who prepared Leipzig 1511, encourages young boys to read the poem and reject other “poisonous poets” (“vates venenosos”, sig. A iv). After all, claims Stackmann,

60

Chapter Three

“nothing, by Hercules!, can certainly move pious entities more than religious poetry” (“Nihil enim me hercule pia numina magis ... unquam movere poterit quam casta poesis”, sig. A iir). Geraldini’s eclogues were also highly regarded for the elegant manner in which they were written. On the titlepage of every volume published after 1510 in the Germanspeaking territories, the author of the Carmen bucolicum is commended for the “richness of his language, the importance of his ideas and his most distinguished style” (“verborum copia, sententiarum gravitate et stilo luculentissimo”). Broad as it was, the circulation of Geraldini’s pastoral poetry cannot compare with the enormous success enjoyed by the Latin eclogues composed by Publio Fausto Andrelini. Andrelini’s pastoral poems proved extremely popular in Paris in the first decade of the sixteenth century, with two or three editions each year in the first decade of the sixteenth century. We know, for example, that in 1501 Raoul Laliseau issued a first printing of two thousand copies of his edition of the eclogues, a very substantial print run for the time.205 That same year Johannes Antonius, an Italian originally from Friuli, issued his first edition of the Bucolica, in which he ranked Andrelini’s eclogues with ancient pastoral.206 Signed “ex gymnasio Parisiensi”, Antonius’s edition places Andrelini’s eclogues in a university context. The large number of editions of the poems shows that Andrelini’s bucolic poetry had, by 1520, already acquired textbook status in Paris and elsewhere in Europe. The didactic potential of Andrelini’s pastoral poetry was also obvious to Jozentius Josa, the dean of the local Collège at Clermont, who wrote a dedicatory letter prefacing his “enarratiunculas familiares” (“brief paraphrase expositions”) on Andrelini’s eclogues, published in Lyon in 1531.207 Throughout his commentary Josa’s general procedure is to summarize first the contents of the poem in an argumentum. This is followed by short paraphrases of each passage (usually ranging from three to six lines), in which Josa shows little interest in discussing the literary features of the eclogue. Rather, he simply paraphrases Andrelini’s words by unravelling the line and providing synonyms. This narrow approach is typical of a teacher merely concerned with helping his reader build vocabulary and grasp the overall sense of the poems. Dubbed the “modern Virgil”, Mantuan is a further (and, undoubtedly, the most notable) example of Italian Neo-Latin bucolic verse that could be used both to teach Latin and as a literary model, without any fear that it might poison the minds or contaminate the morals of young students.208 So, in the dedicatory epistle to his commentary on Mantuan’s pastoral poetry, Bade highlights the moral message underlying the text, assuring

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

61

his addressees that “you will read this Adolescentia without harm to your chastity” (“Legetis ergo sine periculo castitatis hanc Adolescentiam”, sig. A ir). In the letter introducing his 1503 edition, Wimpfeling echoes Bade’s words, emphasizing the didactic and educational values of the eclogues, and praising Mantuan “in his polished and pure poems” (“in poematibus suis tersis et puris”, sig. a 1r). Wimpfelling’s admiration for Mantuan’s fusion of classical literary standards and Christian piety recurs throughout his pedagogical writings. In his Isidoneus germanicus, a treatise on education, he commends Mantuan, “in whose poems a child can now certainly be instructed, [learning] whatever had up to now been acquired from Virgil’s works”.209 In many academic institutions across the religious divide Mantuan was regarded as the Christian poet par excellence. This is true not only of Mantuan’s pastoral poetry but also of his hagiographic epics. For example, records indicate that his Parthenice Catharinaria was used at monastic schools in England, including the Benedictine abbey at Evesham, where the poem was one of the texts prescribed by the schoolmaster Robert Joseph between 1529 and 1532.210 However, it is in the curriculum of humanist-based institutions throughout continental Europe that Mantuan’s hagiographic epics featured most prominently, and where they seem to have been intended for pupils in the first stages of their instruction in Latin grammar. This is clear from the preface to an edition of the seven Parthenicai printed at Alcalá de Henares in 1536 in which Atanasio de Salzedo, bookseller to the university, unequivocally states his decision to issue copies of the poems at his own expense, “so that the purity of Mantuan’s Latin, the importance of his ideas as well as his subject matter would be of great benefit to our novices”.211 Similar reasons were cited by the Cologne professor Hardwin von Grätz, known as Ortvinus or Ortwin Gratius (1475–1542), who still deemed the Doctrinale –the versified grammar written by Alexander of Villedieu (ca. 1175 – ca. 1245) at the end of the twelfth century– essential teaching material for students proceeding to a higher level.212 The same young readers who were asked to familiarize themselves with the Doctrinale were discouraged by von Grätz from “pursuing vain things” whilst attempting to imitate classical poetry and were advised instead to read Mantuan’s verses (Fig. 3.1).213 It is no coincidence that von Grätz –mocked by his adversaries in the Epistolae obscurorum virorum for his enthusiasm for Mantuan’s poetry– had been educated at Deventer by Alexander Hegius, whose admiration for the Italian Carmelite led him to write commentaries on the Parthenice Mariana, which are now reported as lost.214

62

Chapter Three

Fig. 3.1

Though by no means unique, von Grätz’s radical rejection of classical poetry and call to replace it for Italian poets of Christian subject matter was not, however, shared by most early sixteenth-century humanists. The Latin poetry of Italian humanism was more frequently read in combination with a wide range of ancient Roman poets. An example of this practice is provided by the Latin school at Sélestat, a preparatory school with a programme based on the study of grammar, rhetoric and logic. Happily posterity has preserved for us a first-hand testimony of the daily teaching routine at the local school. Bonifacius Amerbach (1495-1562), then a boy of only twelve years of age, was asked by his famous father Johannes to give an account of his educational progress. He describes his eclectic course of studies at Sélestat in a letter of 1508: “In your letters you wrote asking me to write and explain what our teacher does. You should know that, in the morning, he does Alexander [Alexander of Villedieu’s Doctrinale]; at nine he does some poems by several authors such as Horace, Ovid and others; after midday we read Mantuan; on Mondays he assigns a certain number of poems which we have to scan. At four we revise everything we have done throughout the day”.215

The teacher referred to by Amerbach in his report is none other than Hieronymus Gebwiler (ca. 1473-1545). A student of Wimpfeling at Strasbourg, Gebwiler was director of the Latin school at Sélestat between

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

63

1501 and 1509, when he was replaced by Hans Sapidus (ca. 14901561).216 Another prominent humanist who was also closely associated with the school before relocating to Basle in 1511 was Beatus Rhenanus. As observed in chapter 1, Rhenanus was instrumental in the publication of editions of Italian (mostly Christian) humanist poets in nearby Strasbourg and in advising local teachers on suitable classroom texts. So, for example, Rhenanus had Marullus’s Hymni naturales and Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola’s Hymni tres printed at Strasbourg by Schürer, in 1509 and 1511 respectively. Both volumes were recommended to students, and the prefatory letter to the Marullus edition, addressed to Sapidus, shows Rhenanus’s concern that Marullus’s pagan vocabulary and imagery should be given a Christian interpretation.217 One of the Christian humanist poets of Italian origin used in the classroom at Sélestat was Fausto Andrelini, whose pastoral poetry –as documented in this chapter and in chapter 1– attracted the interest of professors and teachers at several locations across northern Europe. Rhenanus himself had attended Andrelini’s courses at the Collège du Cardinal Lemoine in Paris between 1503 and 1507 and was aware of the didactic and moral potential of his former master’s religious poetry. He was well acquainted, for example, with the De virtutibus cum moralibus tum intellectualibus carmen (Paris, 1497), which he read with care and annotated profusely, as attested by a copy of the poem held at Sélestat library (shelf-mark: 815a).218 In 1509 Rhenanus persuaded Schürer to issue an edition of Andrelini’s carmen for use at the Latin school at Sélestat, a volume which also included a collection of Andrelini’s safest elegies, carefully selected by Rhenanus as appropriate material for boys “of a very tender age” (“tenerae aetatulae”). As Rhenanus states in his prefatory letter, his intention in preparing an edition of Andrelini’s texts was to “incite boys to the love of virtue right from childhood”, adding that this would be achieved, particularly “if they were taught such principles, which are similar to philosophical precepts and Christian piety”.219 In his epistle Rhenanus goes on to point out that Andrelini’s De virtutibus was modelled on Lefèvre d’Etaples’s introduction to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which he recommends to the teachers at Sélestat and Strasbourg, who seem to have followed Beatus Rhenanus’s advice, as we will see in the last section of this chapter. Italian Latin poetry with Christian subject matter was not the only humanist verse employed in the Renaissance classroom. The prominent place assigned to Poliziano’s Silvae in the curriculum of the time is the clearest indication of this. In the previous chapter I have provided evidence of the ways in which Poliziano’s Latin poetry gained wide

64

Chapter Three

acceptance among sixteenth-century commentators. Some sense of how Poliziano’s sophisticated poems were actually read and taught in practice can be gained from an examination of readers’ markings in extant copies of the texts. As noted in the previous chapter, the Silvae were published several times in Deventer in the first three decades of the sixteenth century, often by printers whose production of books fitted into a humanist curriculum.220 Most surviving copies of these editions are filled with annotations: a copy of a 1506 edition of the Rusticus and the Manto held at The Hague (Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 227 E 16:50) being a case in point. Even though their exact provenance is not known, these notes may be the work of either pupils or teachers probably connected with the Latin school at Deventer, as distribution of these volumes was typically restricted to a small area.221 In contrast to the clean pages of the Rusticus, the Manto is filled with annotations penned by a reader who launched into vigorous underlining and summarising whenever he found a passage that appealed to him. A brief look at the annotations to lines 110-157 (sig. C iiiir; Fig. 3.2), in which Poliziano summarizes the contents of Virgil’s Eclogues, will enable us to understand how the annotator operates. Underlining is employed to connect adjectives that agree with nouns in the same line (118 faciles–amores; 138 molli–antro; 157 victricem–palmam). As a rule, interlinear notes are used to provide synonyms, the intention being to build up vocabulary (115 formosum “pulchrum”; 119 malo “pomo”), or to explain the relationship between relative pronouns and their antecedents (154 cuius “Galli”). Marginal annotations are reserved for the explanation of the meaning of a word (118 impubis “Impubis est adolescens sine barba”), for intertextual echoes (119 malo “Vergilius: ‘Malo me Galatea petit, lasciva puella, / et fugit ad salices, et se cupit ante videri’ [Ecl., 3, 64-65]”) or for brief summaries of the different passages in Poliziano’s Manto with reference to their Virgilian source (132-136 “5ª ecloga”). The pedagogical possibilities of the Silvae were also acknowledged by Johannes Murmellius, who as early as 1507 described the poems as reaching “the stars with eternal praise”.222 In the ensuing years Murmellius decided to produce annotated editions of the Manto and the Rusticus which were published in early 1510 in Münster and possibly in Deventer too.223 At the end of his commentary, Murmellius apologises for his work

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

65

Fig. 3.2

on the Rusticus, “put together rather hastily in my spare time” (“commentarium nostrum in Politiani Rusticum subcisivis a me temporibus tumultuarie compositum”, sig. F 6v). It is doubtful whether any Renaissance commentator ever neglected to repeat this mantra. Nevertheless, the reason for Murmellius’s urgency seems genuine and may be linked to his decision to devote a series of lectures to the poem in the summer semester. It seems

66

Chapter Three

safe to assume that Murmellius’s annotations were written as part of his preparation for an academic exposition and were possibly intended for circulation among the students. It is worth noting that the Rusticus was included by Murmellius among those texts to be used in the highest class of the local Latin school.224 The poem, however, was to be taught outside the ordinary programme of teaching (“extra ordinem”), as Murmellius announced: “Next summer, at the most eminent school of this most famous town [St Ludgerus School in Münster], we shall explain –outside the normal curriculum– the six books of Ovid’s Fasti and that most erudite silva by Poliziano entitled Rusticus”.225

Rather than reflecting actual oral teaching as taken down by his students, Murmellius’s commentary on the Rusticus seems, therefore, to function as a starting point for the teacher. Even though the boys taught by Murmellius were “the most advanced pupils heading for university”, throughout his commentary Murmellius provides word-order marks and touches on elementary grammatical points, paying, for instance, attention to the relationship between relative pronouns and their antecedents (sig. A 2r: [in the prefatory letter to Jacopo Salviati], cuius “honoris mei”).226 At times, he is interested in elucidating the meaning of words (sig. E 4v: 433, pellaci “fallaci”). In some cases he also expands the short notices provided by Poliziano in his poem with references to classical and scholastic literature. On discussing the qualities of a horse (à propos line 266), he remits the reader to Virgil, Varro, Columella and Albertus Magnus.227 Occasionally Murmellius supplies marginal paraphrase, employed by the annotator to explain the overall meaning of certain passages. At its most basic this is achieved by signalling the sections and subsections of the text: “In this most elegant silva entitled Rusticus Poliziano embraces, in melodious verses, the praise, endeavours and practices of rustic life. Following the practice of Latin poets he first lays out the subject to be dealt with. Subsequently he invokes Pan, the god of nature (there Pan, be with me [Rusticus, 7]). At last he begins the narration of the proposed theme when he states: Happy in spirit… [Rusticus, 17]”.228

In his annotations, Murmellius is much more interested in the language than in the contents of the Rusticus. All in all, his notes and clarifications show Murmellius’s interest in guiding his reader through the mass of text, and he seems particularly concerned with easing the task of his students.

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

67

We find echoes of Murmellius’s interest in the Rusticus in other educational institutions of Renaissance Europe, most notably at university level. Unlike Murmellius, however, many sixteenth-century lecturers chose Poliziano’s poem because of their interest in Greek and Roman agricultural writings, rather than as a text for teaching Latin grammar and vocabulary. It is therefore not surprising that the Rusticus should have been published alongside Hesiod’s Works and Days in Basle in 1539. Prepared by a certain Johannes Ulpius (fl. 1539-1579), the author of an annotated translation of Hesiod’s works, this edition may reflect Ulpius’s classroom practices in the Low Countries and Germany in the second quarter of the sixteenth century.229 Given his interests, Ulpius may have appreciated the reading of the Rusticus either as a preliminary exercise before moving on to the Works and Days or as a summary of Hesiod’s poem. Other lecturers also appreciated the link between the Rusticus and ancient treatises on farming. Pliny the Elder was another classical author with whom the Rusticus was frequently associated. In the preceding chapter I discussed Nicolas Bérauld’s use of Poliziano’s poem as a complement to lectures on the Natural History in Paris in the second decade of the sixteenth century. Further evidence of how the Rusticus caught the attention of university lecturers interested in Pliny can be found in an edition of Poliziano’s poem published in Leipzig in 1512 by Jakob Thanner (fl. 1498-1529) and reprinted nine years later in the same city by Valentin Schuman (fl. 1514-40).230 Heavy annotation in copies of both editions indicates the particular interests of students or their teachers. Significantly, an important percentage of this handwritten material is made up of annotations which provide cross-references to Pliny (as on sig. A 5r: 150 Solvuntur putres glebae, ac peritura Lupini “Lupinus, pli. li. 18 c. 14 [36]”). In this respect, it is certainly relevant that the two Leipzig editions of the Rusticus open with a dedicatory poem to the general reader by Johannes Lange (1485-1565), a physician who lectured on Pliny in Leipzig during the 1510s.231 We may even speculate that publishers like Thanner and Schuman –men otherwise connected with the university imprint at Leipzig– may well have been persuaded by Lange to print an edition of the Rusticus, a piece suited to the needs of his young audience. Marco Girolamo Vida’s verse De arte poetica is a further example of how the Latin literature of Italian humanism assumed canonical status in Renaissance Europe, where the text was widely read as shown in chapter 1. In his didactic poem, which is divided into three books according to the rhetorical distinctions of invention, disposition and elocution, Vida offers advice on how to write a perfect epic, using Virgil’s Aeneid as a model. First published at Rome in May 1527, the De arte poetica gained –to

68

Chapter Three

quote Ann Moss– “a colossal reputation”, chiefly because of its pedagogical intent, something which was already explicitly acknowledged by Vida himself in a letter of 1520 to the Senate of Cremona.232 Vida’s poem was published in editions of his complete works, within collections of some of his writings, or individually.233 Only two months after the Rome edition, an unauthorized version of the De arte poetica came off the press of Robert Estienne in Paris. Prepared by Nicolas Bérauld and Salmon Macrin, this edition presents a text which antedates the editio princeps but is later than the original manuscript of 1517.234 The didactic values of the De arte poetica assured the text a place on sixteenth-century university and school courses both in Catholic and Protestant areas. We know, for example, that Petrus Vincentius (Peter Vietz, 1519-81) included Vida’s work on his courses on rhetoric at the University of Wittenberg. Indeed an undated annotation found in a copy of Vida’s Opera (Antwerp, 1567) at Salzburg University Library shows that the De arte poetica was used by Vietz in his lectures on Horace’s Ars poetica.235 The potential of Vida’s treatise as material aimed at school students was also obvious to the teacher and Neo-Latin poet Eobanus Hessus (Eoban Koch, 1488-1540), who, in a letter of 1532, records having taught the poem the previous year at the local Gymnasium in Nuremberg, where the De arte poetica had been published in June of 1531 in an edition issued by Hessus himself (see chapter 1).236 Moreover, in Jesuit schools Vida’s poem gained currency as a textbook, becoming a favourite of the order.237 The poems reviewed in this section, though praised for the erudition and purity of their subject matter, were most commonly intended as grammatical, and to a lesser extent rhetorical, ends in themselves. Teaching of this poetic corpus was overwhelmingly philological. From the paratexts accompanying most editions of Italian Latin poets discussed above, it is apparent that the actual readership targeted by those responsible for these volumes were students of grammar, irrespective of the type of academic institution which they attended. This seems to be confirmed by the heavy marginal and interlinear manuscript annotation extant in most copies consulted, as well as by the inclusion of printed annotations in several editions of the poems. Though the terminology employed by editors and printers is, at best, elusive, and the words “puer”, “adolescens” and “iuvenis” are very often used without distinction on titlepages, in prefaces and in dedicatory poems, we can nonetheless establish a basic typology.238 The use of Poliziano’s Silvae in the secondary school curriculum is well documented, yet all printers responsible for editions of the poems were men connected with university

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

69

imprints. The same could be said of Geraldini’s eclogues, which were the subject of university courses at Erfurt.239 By contrast, judging from the credentials of those in charge of early sixteenth-century editions, Mantuan’s eclogues and hagiographic epics seem to have been mostly directed at schoolchildren. As Lee Piepho notes, Bade’s commentary on the Adolescentia is dedicated to two schoolboys, Ladislas and Clément Alexandre, the sons of an Anjou bookseller, and “was meant to strengthen the student’s grammar…while at the same time giving him his first introduction to Graeco-Roman history and culture”.240 Similarly, the 1503 Strasbourg edition of the poem was co-prepared by Johannes Gallinarius (Henlin), a teacher of grammar and rhetoric at the chapter school in Strasbourg. His fellow editor was Jakob Wimpfeling, a man who, in his attempts to promote reform in German schools, prescribed the Adolescentia for children of a rather young age. For his part, Bade states in the preface to his annotations to Mantuan’s Parthenice Catharinaria that he had been teaching the poem in Henri Vallupin’s school the previous year (see Appendix B). These views seem to be confirmed by Juan Luis Vives’s recommendation to teach Mantuan’s verse before proceeding to more advanced Latin poems, such as Poliziano’s Rusticus, to be used – significantly– in conjunction with Virgil’s Georgics.241 Not all texts, however, were afforded the same treatment, or given the same exposure, in the classroom. As the examples of Murmellius at Deventer, of Beatus Rhenanus and Andrelini at Sélestat, and of Lange at Leipzig demonstrate, the corpus of Italian humanist poetry written in Latin was continually adapted to the interests and tastes of new readers. Confirmation of this can be seen in the manner in which humanist letters and speeches were handled in the Renaissance classroom and lecture-hall.

Epistolary and oratorical writings Teaching students to write in Latin eloquently was the ultimate objective of the programme of study recommended by humanists across Renaissance Europe. Once they had acquired some grounding in Latin grammar, in most academic institutions they then began to write passages of continuous prose. The first form of written Latin composition practised in schools and universities was the letter. The initial stage in letter-writing involved little more than rewriting or adapting phrases extracted from some of the easier letters by Roman authors. Students then proceeded to themes (what we might now call an essay), usually on a moral topic. Central to both rhetorical exercises were Cicero’s epistles and speeches. Rediscovered by Petrarch and Coluccio Salutati in the fourteenth century,

70

Chapter Three

Cicero’s correspondence was analysed and translated, and was treated as a stylistic model. Attention was also paid to Cicero’s oratorical works, which were recommended as examples of rhetorical techniques of persuasion and as a mine of useful events and personalities from the late Roman Republic. Classical epistolography and oratory were, however, not the only models of Latin composition favoured in the sixteenth century, and collections of letters and speeches by fifteenth-century Italian humanists also soon acquired textbook status. In this section I consider the teaching of these works as part of the rhetoric curriculum of the time. From the last quarter of the fifteenth century and well into the following century, editions of the correspondence of Petrarch, Fausto Andrelini, Francesco Filelfo, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and Angelo Poliziano flooded the European market. The typology of editions of Filelfo’s epistles, a textual body of over two thousands documents, some of them in Greek and Italian but chiefly in Latin, totalling thirty-seven books, is a testimony of the huge success enjoyed by these writings. Even though an edition of Filelfo’s complete Latin correspondence was not published until 1502, partial editions of the first sixteen books had already appeared as early as 1473.242 Given the extent of Filelfo’s epistolary corpus, printers opted to publish samples of the collection, and, as a rule, every year between 1490 and 1520 several editions of a selection of the letters –frequently gathered under the title epistolae breviores et elegantiores– were issued by presses in Italy or the rest of Europe. Many of these editions also included selections from the Latin correspondence of other Italian humanists, most frequently Poliziano or Pico della Mirandolla.243 In addition, it is not uncommon to find an individual letter edited separately. For example, the epistle De Hieronymo et Augustino – originally the last letter in book six of Filelfo’s correspondence– was included in a three-piece collection of letters related to Jerome published in Wittenberg in 1515. Last but not least, Filelfo’s Latin letters also circulated in the vernacular: a selection of 214 epistles, with the original text followed by an Italian translation, was included in a volume entitled Exercitatiunculae, printed several times after 1480.244 Filelfo’s lively style and not overtly difficult prose, together with the varied content of the letters (ranging from anecdotal matters and discussions of literary issues to general reflections on the course of human affairs), made the texts an ideal choice for printers and teachers in the first decades of the sixteenth century. Eager to learn the secret of writing elegant Latin, pupils throughout Renaissance Europe spent large amounts of time reading, translating and imitating the Latin correspondence of their Italian models. They were also

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

71

advised to study textbooks and manuals on Latin composition. Even after Erasmus’s De conscribendis epistolis became widely accepted in sixteenthcentury schools, Italian humanists continued to provide influential textbooks for instruction on letter-writing. Of all these treatises the most popular was the Elegantiae of Agostino Dati (1420-78), a work which came generally to be called Elegantiolae. First published in Cologne in 1470, the volume offered rules for the composition of elegant Latin sentences and ran to hundreds of editions over the next sixty years.245 As early as 1472, Dati’s treatise was used as a textbook in Leipzig, as proclaimed by an anonymous humanist in the announcement of a course on rhetoric at the university there. According to the notice posted to advertise the lectures, the course was aimed at those students wishing to “brush up on their Latin language, learn the basics of elocution and emerge with more learning in elocution”.246 European humanists’ preoccupation with the development of a sound Latin style is also shown in the dissemination in print of other standard textbooks, such as the Epistolae ad exercitationem accommodatae by Gasparino Barzizza (1360-1431), or the De modo epistolandi by the Venetian teacher Francesco Negro (Franciscus Niger, 1452-1523).247 Indeed, Negro’s manual was prescribed by Antonius Tunnicius (Anton Tünnken, 1470-1544), a teacher at the chapter school in Münster, where an edition of the text, prepared alongside samples of correspondence by Cicero, Poliziano, Sabellico and Filelfo, was dedicated to the local schoolboys in 1513.248 Enthusiastic support for humanist textbooks and letter-writing manuals did not of course always guarantee that pupils succeeded in adopting a correct Latin style. For example, we know of a Samuel Karoch, who, despite having lectured on Dati at Erfurt around 1470, was labelled as incompetent and accused of “teaching nothing except how to make rude rhythms and calamities of the rest of the Latin language”.249 The incorporation of Italian humanist epistolography in the Renaissance curriculum was often encouraged by school and university authorities committed to educational reform. Examples of this trend abound in the German-speaking world. In the early 1470s the University of Vienna agreed to purchase copies of humanist books, including Barzizza’s introduction to letter-writing, as well as Petrarch’s, Bruni’s and Filelfo’s letters.250 We know from the prefatory epistle to his edition of Bruni’s letters that the local professor of rhetoric, Johannes Honorius Cubitensis (Johann Erhardi, ca. 1464-1504), was asked by the Faculty of Arts at Leipzig to offer a course on Bruni’s Latin correspondence.251 This of course does not imply that concessions to humanistic innovations were universal and full-hearted. The development of humanist educational

72

Chapter Three

practice was often rather faltering. At the University of Cologne, for example, the new statutes of 1525 permitted (but not required) the adoption of Filelfo’s letters as textbook for the study of Latin style.252 In some other cases the decision to include Italian letter-writers in the plan of studies came from individual humanists. Once again, the German-speaking territories offer a fertile field of study, both at university and secondaryschool level. As early as 1470 a lecturer at Leipzig promised to make his students “more learned, distinguished and elegant” with the aid of “one of Petrarch’s most beautiful letters” (Fam., VII, 17).253 Petrarch’s correspondence seems to have been a popular choice at the university, where first Giacomo Publicio in the late 1460s, and then Thomas Pentzelt and Simon Frauensteiner in the first decade of the following century, prescribed Fam., I, 9 (also known as “De studio eloquentiae”), Frauensteiner specifying it for use for private lessons (“in particulari studio”).254 The 1504 Leipzig edition of Fam., I, 9 prepared by Pentzelt had a clearly programmatic purpose as it also included Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini’s letter to King Ladislaus of Bohemia which prefaces Piccolomini’s De liberorum educatione (“On the Education of Boys”). Provincial schools, like the one at Überlingen near Stuttgart, were not immune to this practice, and Dionysius Avunculus included Fam., VII, 17 in the school syllabus around 1522.255 Interest in the Latin correspondence of Italian humanists was for the most part, however, fuelled by printers, who frequently saw an edition of the letters of Pico, Filelfo, Andrelini or Poliziano as a joint enterprise involving fellow printers, editors, teachers and lecturers. In the following paragraphs I offer three case studies of editions of humanist letters published in Strasbourg and Sélestat, in Antwerp and Leuven, and in Paris, to outline the close links between the printing and teaching of humanist epistolary texts in the Renaissance. These studies also illustrate how these writings became part of the curriculum at different stages. Let us begin with Strasbourg and Sélestat. A few weeks after his return to Alsace in early 1508, Beatus Rhenanus commissioned the printer Mathias Schürer, who had taken charge of the printing of works used in the schools, to prepare an edition of Andrelini’s letters. Reprinted at least six times in Strasbourg before 1520, the volume was presented to Gebwiler in a letter, in which Rhenanus acknowledged the literary and – above all– moral values of Andrelini’s epistles: “My dear Hieronymus, I thought that the moral letters of Publius Faustus had to be brought to the press for the use of the German youth, precisely because I saw that they contain erudition which is not at all trite or trivial. For they have, above all, an extraordinary elegance of expression and not a

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

73

lesser pleasantness of ideas (in which they abound). Here the ingenuous adolescent will find not few encouragements to a good and happy life. Here he will learn that the love of women must be avoided and that eschewing pleasure is most suitable for a morally pure life, as taught by that Greek verse which Ermolao Barbaro paraphrased thus: ‘the belly, featherbed, and Venus are to be avoided by those who pursue praise’”.256

Rhenanus’s recommendation did not fall on deaf ears and Gebwiler soon prescribed Andrelini’s correspondence for his pupils at Sélestat. One of these students was Bonifacius Amerbach, who remained at Sélestat until November 1508 when the plague forced the local authorities to close the school for a short period. Significantly, a copy of Rhenanus’s edition of Andrelini’s letters held at Basle University Library (shelf-mark: CEVII 28 Nr.1) is filled with annotations in Amerbach’s hand, thus proving that the collection was used by Gebwiler, possibly as a prose equivalent to the verse of Mantuan, whose presence at Sélestat has already been documented. Gebwiler’s interest in the moral value of Andrelini’s correspondence led him to teach the text in tandem with St Basil the Great’s De invidia, another book recorded in possession of the young Amerbach while under Gebwiler’s instruction at Sélestat.257 Andrelini’s letters were not the only epistolary collection by an Italian humanist printed in Alsace at the time. Johann Knobloch, Johann Prüß and Schürer’s editions of Pico’s, Poliziano’s and Filelfo’s Latin correspondence are a further testament to the wide dissemination of this literary corpus at Strasbourg in the first two decades of the sixteenth century.258 Once again the example of Gebwiler proves enlightening. Gebwiler, who left Sélestat in 1509 to undertake the reform of Strasbourg’s chapter school where he remained until 1514, discusses his teaching programme extensively in the preface to his 1514 edition of Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples’s introduction to Aristotle’s Physics.259 If one wishes to succeed in following a humanist teaching programme, Gebwiler claims, subjects ought to be taught in a certain order. After the study of the basics of Latin grammar, etymology, syntax and prosody, Latin composition based on the imitation of the greatest poets, orators and historians must follow. With regard to letterwriting the best texts are, according to Gebwiler, provided by Cicero, Pliny the Younger and Poliziano, “by all accounts writers of the highest rank in this genre” (“immo classicis eius rei scriptoribus”). Only when guaranteed a thorough knowledge of Latin composition and literature, Gebwiler notes, may students progress on to more advanced studies and higher education. Bearing this in mind it should not appear strange then that Schürer’s edition of Poliziano’s letters was prefaced by his corrector Sebastian

74

Chapter Three

Murrho the Younger (fl. 1510s), a man who worked very closely with Schürer between 1512 and 1514. As one might expect of a former pupil of Gebwiler at Sélestat, Murrho the Younger commended Poliziano’s epistles as being “full of erudition, full of beneficial material”, and encouraged students to pay close attention to the texts if they wished to write (and subsequently teach how to write) elegant and learned letters in Latin. He went on to say that Poliziano’s wit, handsome style and interesting contents made his epistles an ideal choice for teachers.260 The opportunity to read the correspondence between some of the most conspicuous quattrocento humanists and Poliziano was a further motive for Murrho’s focus on the texts: “In the correspondence of Angelo [Poliziano] one can find equally elegant letters by other illustrious men, such as Ermolao Barbaro, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola or Filippo Beroaldo, which are equally deserving of praise”.261 The pedagogical potential of collections of letters by Italian humanists was also obvious to members of the humanist and Erasmian circles in the Low Countries. In May 1510 a volume of Poliziano’s correspondence came off the press of Dirk Martens (1446-1534) in Antwerp, edited by the corrector Peter Giles (Petrus Aegidius, ca. 1486-1533) and dedicated to the Erasmian Joannes Despauterius (John de Coster, ca. 1480-1520), the director of the School of Our Lady in the city. Martens, whose services Erasmus had been using for many years, was entrusted in 1509 and 1510 with the printing of textbooks to be used in the Faculty of Arts in Leuven.262 He was also responsible for editions in Antwerp and Leuven of Pico’s Aureae epistolae (1502 and 1509), of Filelfo’s letters (1507), and of Andrelini’s correspondence as well as a sample of Eramus’s epistles (1516). In a colophon addressed to (Latin) trainers (“ad paedotribas”), Giles urges teachers to rid themselves of “those barely literate letters which have to date polluted schools” (“Tolle carteas epistolas, scholas / quae polluerunt hactenus”), and replace them with Poliziano’s epistles, which he casts as “most agreeable, full of meaning, juicy, bright and elegant” (“bellissimae, sententiosae, suculentae, floridae et elegantes”). Moreover, in Giles’s prefatory letter to Despauterius, after rejoicing in the appointment of the latter as the local “gymnasiarcha”, he recommends Poliziano’s little book “as literary nourishment for the youth”.263 Despauterius was nonetheless advised by the editor to use the texts only with older boys who had already mastered Latin syntax, a detail inferred from an interesting distinction Giles makes in his own preface between “iuvenes”, who are already acquainted with Poliziano’s epistles, and “pueri”, who are still reading Despauterius’s Latin syntax, which incidentally he describes as “succinct and exceedingly profitable for

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

75

younger children” (“succintam quidem puerulis nimisque conducibilem”). Contemporary evidence of how Poliziano’s correspondence was read as a model of Latin prose style is provided by a copy of Martens’s edition held at the Library of the University of Pennsylvania (Ms. Codex 1591). It is filled with Latin annotations highlighting references to classical authors or proverbs and adages in Poliziano’s epistolary texts. Significantly, the volume also provides valuable proof of how the letters circulated in manuscript form. Following the printed text are manuscript copies, dated to ca. 1511, of seventeen letters to Poliziano or between Poliziano’s friends, and of two speeches by Poliziano.264 In order to understand the full implications of Martens’s decision to publish an edition of Poliziano’s epistles aimed at local students in 1510, however, we must take into account Erasmus’s views on Poliziano and on models for Latin prose in general. Poliziano’s letters had been the public forum for well-known controversies on literary imitation between Paolo Cortesi, Bartolomeo Scala and Poliziano himself.265 In his collection of epistles, first published in the posthumous Opera omnia of 1498, Poliziano had included, in addition to his correspondence, the famous epistolary exchange between Giovanni Pico and Ermolao Barbaro on the subject of Latin prose.266 Erasmus became acquainted with all these materials around 1500. He found Poliziano’s criticism of exclusive imitation of Cicero to be particularly appealing, but for him the value of Poliziano’s letters went well beyond the mere record of specific literary controversies: he held the texts in the highest regard as models of style. He notes in a passage from his De conscribendis epistolis: “It is not the concern of this essay to discuss further who deserves the ultimate prize in this art. If, leaving aside the Greek writers, I may be permitted to state my preferences in the genre under discussion, I should be inclined to assign the first place to Cicero, Pliny, and Poliziano: but on this matter everyone is entitled to his own opinion”.267

The merits of Poliziano and of other humanist epistolographers were time and again praised by Erasmus. His Adagia are known to have been influenced by Andrelini’s letters. In addition, Erasmus admired Pico’s correspondence for its elegant style and spiritual values, an opinion echoed in the title of a 1535 edition of Pico’s letters published in Antwerp (Iohannis Pici Mirandulani Epistolae non piae minus quam elegantes). Moreover, Erasmus’s views on letter-writing and the most famous Italian practitioners of the art were clearly shared by some of his contemporaries. In his survey of humanist epistolographers, Juan Luis Vives praises Pico and Poliziano, whose epistles he recommends as suitable conversation

76

Chapter Three

material for boys, since “their themes attract the young like fights and contests”.268 Other scholars acknowledged the variety of themes contained in Poliziano’s correspondence: for example, Leonard Cox, master of Reading Grammar School, commended the account of Lorenzo de’ Medici’s death in Poliziano’s letter to Jacopo Antiquario of 18 May 1492 as an excellent model for prospective authors of how to deal with a death in biographical narrative.269 Erasmus’s views on Italian epistolary writers exerted a strong influence on Hadrianus Barlandus (Adriaan van Baarland, 1486-1538), the first professor of Latin at the Collegium Trilingue and one of his most ardent supporters in Leuven.270 In the notes to his edition of Pliny’s letters (Leuven, 1516) Barlandus singles out the most conspicuous humanist authors of letters, a list which includes Filelfo, Campano, Sabellico, Piccolomini, Ermolao Barbaro, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola and his nephew Giovanni Francesco, but above all Poliziano, who –according to Barlandus– surpasses them all “with his careful, pure and splendorous style”.271 Barlandus’s judgements would help shape the pedagogical methods employed by some of his students at Leuven, who would later follow his recommendations and apply them to their own teaching. One such student was Guilielmus Zagarus (Willem Zaghere or Zagere, d. 1538). After completing his studies in 1510, Zagarus became a teacher and subsequently rector of the Latin school in Zierikzee (Zealand). In 1517 he asked Barlandus for advice on how to structure his teaching programme. Barlandus’s swift reply came in the form of a letter “on those authors to be read at schools” (“de praelegendis auctoribus in scholis”), which was included at the beginning of Zagarus’s edition of Filelfo’s correspondence.272 The first part of the text is concerned with the choice of poets and prose writers required to acquire “a sufficient knowledge of the Latin tongue” (“hos authores ad latinae linguae cognitionem [satis esse puto]”, fol. a iii r), that is, those prescribed for basic language classes and as preparation for more advanced study. Among writers of letters, the favoured models of Latin composition are Cicero, Pliny and Filelfo, who – Zagarus declares– “does not seem to me to have approached this kind of writing unhappily” (“qui hoc scribendi genus non videtur mihi aggressus infeliciter”, ibidem). The spate of editions of humanist epistolary collections published in Paris in the first two decades of the sixteenth century is a further reflection of the privileged position of this body of texts in the Renaissance curriculum.273 Two editions from this large bibliographical corpus are especially noteworthy: Filelfo 1503 and Poliziano 1517. In September 1503 Josse Bade prepared an edition of the last twenty-one books of

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

77

Filelfo’s correspondence (books 17-37), which he dedicated to David Lauxius (David Loys or Lowis). A native of Edinburgh, Lauxius graduated from the University of Paris in 1495, and worked as a press-corrector in the French capital before becoming a schoolmaster in Arras.274 Aware that other epistolographers were more elegant and eloquent, Bade nonetheless advised Lauxius to use Filelfo’s correspondence with his young students as “nothing is more polished and clearer than Filelfo’s letters”.275 At Arras Filelfo’s volume was no doubt selected as a companion volume to the grammar by Giovanni Sulpizio (ca. 1440 - ca. 1506), an edition of which Bade also dedicated to Lauxius later that year. The choice of Sulpizio’s grammar was not coincidental on the part of Bade and Lauxius: the manual includes an appendix “on composing and embellishing letters” (“de componendis ornandisque epistolis”), a series of precepts on letterwriting which the schoolmaster could intersperse with readings from Filelfo’s Latin correspondence. An idea of the role of Italian humanist epistolography in the teaching of Latin composition at university level can also be gleaned from the practices of lecturers who taught the humanities at several Parisian colleges in the first two decades of the sixteenth century. They too collaborated closely with printers and editors. This is evident in the several editions of Poliziano’s letters published by Bade, whose interest in his correspondence dates back to 1499 when he edited the collection for a collective volume printed at Lyon by Nicolas Wolf. In 1517 Bade published a new edition of the letters, which now included an extensive commentary by François Du Bois (Franciscus Sylvius, ca. 1483-1536).276 A commentator on Cicero and Salllust, Du Bois was at that time professor of rhetoric at the Collège de Lisieux and his Poliziano annotations should therefore be considered as a natural development arising from his lecturehall practice. Bade’s 1517 edition was the first in a run of printings of Du Bois’s commentaries which were soon expanded in successive editions, the first only three years later. Rather than simple reprints of the original text, each new edition incorporated additional material specifically prepared for the environment where the books were to be used. Thus, Paris 1520 opens with a preface by Du Bois signed from the Collège de Boncourt. The contents of each letter are first summarized by Du Bois in an “argumentum” followed by a short note on a specific passage written by Bade, while the margins of the page are filled with Du Bois’s commentaries. In addition, the numerous Greek passages in the letters (as well as two Greek letters by Ermolao Barbaro also included in the volume) are translated by Jacques Toussain, who had already rendered all the Greek texts included in Bade’s 1512 edition of Poliziano’s Opera

78

Chapter Three

omnia.277 A further edition, Paris 1523, reproduces the same scheme as its predecessor but includes a preface by the editor, a certain Nicolas Pertat (Pertatius), who notes that Poliziano’s letters were used by Thierry Morel in his teaching at the Collège de Saint-Michel.278 Morel’s interest in Poliziano is, unsurprisingly, linked to the name of Erasmus, whose correspondence the French lecturer edited in 1523. Except for a new prologue by Du Bois written from the Collège de Boncourt, the last in the run of printings of Poliziano’s letters (1526) features the same introductory texts as the edition published six years previously. Though not as popular as epistolary collections, speeches by Italian humanists also enjoyed widespread circulation from the last two decades of the fifteenth century. One such speech was the one addressed to Emperor Frederick III (1415-93) and his son Maximilian I (1459-1519) by Ermolao Barbaro in Bruges in August 1486. Published in Venice and Rome shortly after it was first delivered, the text was also printed by Dirk Martens in Alost in 1487, and continued to be read with particular enthusiasm and interest well into the sixteenth century.279 It was acclaimed particularly in Basle, where several local printers praised the speech as a fine example of humanist oratory. This explains why Barbaro’s piece was included as an appendix to a selection of Beroaldo’s speeches (to which I will return) which was printed in Basle four times between 1509 and 1517. The value of the text as a suitable stylistic model for a speech in praise of the accomplishments and virtues of a particular ruler did not go unnoticed by the scholar-printer Johannes Froben, who included it in his collection of Latin panegyrics published in December 1520. The volume served a scholarly purpose as it transmitted classical eulogies of Roman emperors by Ausonius and Claudius Mamertinus, as Froben prominently declares on the titlepage (“damus nunc uobis Panegyricos quotquot ex uetustate conseruatos nancisci potuimus”–“we now offer you however many panegyrics preserved from old age we were able to obtain”).280 However, Froben’s decision to reprint Barbaro’s praise of Frederick and Maximilian was also political and had a clearly propagandistic intention. Published only few weeks after Charles V’s coronation in Aachen, the collection included panegyrics by Georg Sauermann, Pandolfo Collenuccio and Erasmus in honour of Maximilian and Philip the Handsome, grandfather and father of the newly crowned Holy Roman Emperor. A further miscellany of humanist speeches which appeared at around the same time in Basle was Filelfo’s Orationes. Printed by Johannes Amerbach in 1498, the volume also included Filelfo’s prefaces to his translation of Plutarch’s Apophthegms (collection of sayings), and of the

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

79

Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, a text at the time still attributed to Aristotle. As with many books originally published in Basle, Amerbach’s volume crossed the Alps and was reprinted in Paris by Bade six years later (1504) and again in 1515.281 The two Paris editions follow Amerbach’s closely but add a letter by Filelfo to the Venetian lawyer Federicus Cornelius (1415-1504) on legal matters. More importantly, they include a prefatory epistle by Bade to Baudouin de Grutere, son of Philippe de Grutere, Mayor of Ghent. In his letter Bade recommends the collection to Baudouin for his legal studies which his young addressee has recently started. Interestingly, Bade casts Filelfo’s orations both as ancillary material for Baudouin’s law courses and as an example of good Latin prose: “With utmost care we encourage you to apply yourself to the study of the most sacrosanct laws (to which you have now turned your mind) in such a way that you do not forget the elegance of literature. You will achieve this most easily if you read and re-read Filelfo’s speeches and the seeds he collected for writing a speech. For you will find that nothing is cleverer than Aristotle’s precepts on civil processes and nothing more fruitful for an oratorical medley than Plutarch’s Apophthegms”.282

Nevertheless, it was without a doubt Beroaldo’s collection of humanist speeches which enjoyed most exposure in Renaissance Europe. They were eagerly received in France, where Beroaldo’s works are credited with the introduction of Neoplatonic ideas.283 The conduit for the wide circulation of Beroaldo’s speeches was once again Bade, who edited them for Johann Trechsel’s press in Lyon in 1492. The texts were reprinted by Bade at least sixteen times in Paris in the first quarter of the sixteenth century. James B. Wadsworth has shown how contemporary readers found in Beroaldo “a model of elegant style and a profitable source of moral lessons”.284 Indeed, Beroaldo’s Christian content and literary style are praised by Bade in the prefatory epistle to his original 1492 edition and his 1499 reprint addressed to the same Laurent Bureau, to whom the printer dedicated his edition of Mantuan’s Parthenice Mariana (Paris, 1499) discussed in the previous chapter. In his letter Bade pays tribute to Bureau first and foremost for his contribution to the moral education of French youth, as well as for obtaining copies of both texts for him. As Wadsworth observes, Bade sees in Beroaldo “an authority”, a classic perhaps not on a par with Cicero or Livy but “capable, with his knowledge and virtues, of instructing students at schools, monasteries and gatherings of learned men”.285 As is the case with their poetic counterparts, the manner in which collections of Italian humanist letters and speeches were handled in the

80

Chapter Three

Renaissance classroom has much to do with the local perspectives and needs of those who prescribed the texts. The same letter or speech by Petrarch, Angelo Poliziano, Francesco Filelfo, Filippo Beroaldo or Fausto Andrelini could be used for a variety of pedagogical ends. Broadly speaking, however, Filelfo’s letters were viewed as suitable material for the elementary stages of the curriculum. Most editions of his correspondence include a thorough table of contents at the beginning and tend to present each letter with a heading summing up the contents of the text. For example, in Matthias Schürer’s edition of a small sample from Filelfo’s collection discussed in chapter 2 (Strasbourg, 1514; Fig. 1.1), the letters are grouped thematically (letters of encouragement, persuasion, consolation, request and so forth), following Erasmus’s typology as laid out in the De conscribendis epistolis. As was often stated on the titlepages, Filelfo’s volumes were aimed at pupils who wished to learn to write “pure et venuste” (“clearly and elegantly”) or “Latine” (“in good Latin”). This is confirmed by the teaching practices at the universities of Leipzig and Ingolstadt. An edition of three letters by Filelfo (Leipzig, 1504) was prepared by Magister Pentzelt for boys who had just begun their studies.286 At the University of Ingolstadt near Munich Urbanus Rhegius (Urban Rieger, 1489-1541) announced a public course on the texts, for the period between 1513 and 1515, which according to the university statutes were reserved “for grammar exercises of half an hour given by qualified teachers for the ignorant and those who have not yet absorbed the basics of grammar”.287 At the other end of the academic spectrum, Poliziano’s Latin correspondence seems to have been employed at a more advanced level within the teaching of rhetoric. Andreas Cratander’s edition of the letters (Basle, 1522) is significant in this respect. In his preface, dedicated to an ideal “eloquentiae candidatus”, Cratander praises Poliziano’s elegant themes, and distinguishes him from his predecessors and contemporaries for his erudition and balanced style.288 Humanist speeches (and Beroaldo’s oratory corpus in particular) were also read at a higher level, partly because they were considered excellent linguistic and stylistic models, but also for their moral content and the political and historical information they provided.

Philosophical and pedagogical texts Instruction in logic and moral philosophy was a normal part of the school and university curriculum in Renaissance Europe. Teaching of both disciplines tended to be preparatory to more advanced study. At school, pupils were familiarized with some of the most elementary aspects of the

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

81

subject before they proceeded to higher education. At university, philosophy instruction generally served to prepare students for study in the other three faculties (theology, jurisprudence and medicine). Although the teaching of logic and moral philosophy was based on a direct reading of ancient authors, mainly of Aristotle’s works in Latin, textbooks were also employed. For example, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics appealed to many readers who wanted a brief introduction to the study of moral philosophy. But, as Charles Schmitt has shown, the Nicomachean Ethics also found its way into “compendia” and collections of “sententiae” which provided simplified treatments of the text.289 One such explanatory tool was Leonardo Bruni’s Isagogicon moralis disciplinae (“An Introduction to Ethics”), which, alongside other humanist contributions to philosophy and to the interpretation of ancient thought, featured in the programme of study of several Renaissance educational institutions across Europe. This section reviews the dissemination of this body of texts. Attention is also paid to the contemporary circulation of humanist pedagogical treatises. Poliziano's Lamia, first published in 1492, is a preliminary essay or prolusion on the Prior Analytics, one of the most difficult texts of Aristotelian logic. Its main focus is syllogism. The title refers to Poliziano’s opponents, who criticised him for choosing Aristotle’s text as the subject of his lectures at the University of Florence, and whom he dismissed as blood-sucking vampires (“lamiae”). Ten years later the Lamia featured in Marcantonio Sabellico’s Venetian edition of Poliziano’s scholarly works (1502), reissued in 1508.290 It was also printed several times on its own in octavo volumes in Germany in the 1510s and 1520s by men such as Thomas Anshelm and Nicolaus Caesarius (fl. 1510s), whose connection with the university presses in Tübingen and Cologne respectively might indicate that the Lamia featured in the philosophy curriculum in several German universities.291 A lecturer who might have made some use of the Lamia in his teaching was the German humanist Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), who worked for a while as a corrector for Anshelm during his stay in Tübingen between 1514 and 1518. Melanchthon’s high regard for Poliziano as a Latinist of the highest order probably led him to prescribe the Lamia, a text praised by the German humanist not least for the elegant translations of the Greek philosophical passages it contained, as he pointed out in a letter to Georg Spalatin (14841545): “I have sent you the passage containing Plato’s description of the cave […] in book seven of his Republic. I have enclosed Poliziano’s most elegant translation, which is included in his Lamia. He will save me from having to translate it”.292

82

Chapter Three

In the German-speaking world the canonisation of the Lamia as a university curriculum set text in the first half of the sixteenth century seems to derive from the posthumous publication in 1552 of a commentary on the text by Joannes Alexander Brassicanus (Johann Alexander Köl, 1500-1539), brother of Joannes Ludovicus, and well known for his editions of the classics (Calpurnius Siculus and Nemesianus), the Church Fathers (Salvian) and Italian humanists (Giannozzo Manetti’s De dignitate et excellentia hominis).293 An edition of Brassicanus’s commentary was prepared by Sebastianus Sigmarius (Sebastian Sigmar, fl. 1550s), who was counsellor and secretary to Emperor Ferdinand I, and responsible for an edition of Poliziano’s Latin version of Epictetus’s Enchiridion published in Basle in 1554. Brassicanus graduated from the University of Tübingen as a Master of Arts in 1517. While at Tübingen he must have become acquainted with the Lamia, a popular text in the university context throughout the sixteenth century. Brassicanus’s familiarity with Poliziano’s prolusion led him to write a lengthy and elaborate commentary on the text in which Poliziano’s recondite classical erudition is elucidated in the same way as the work of any Greek or Roman author would be.294 Work on the commentary must have begun in the 1520s, perhaps around 1524, when Brassicanus was elected to the Chair of Rhetoric at the University of Vienna. Whatever the case, by 1528 he had already drafted his annotations to the Lamia, now preserved in a manuscript held in Vienna (ÖNB, 9667, fols. 109v-159). The text employed by Brassicanus for his commentary was that of Poliziano’s Aldine Opera omnia (Venice, 1498), a copy of which was owned and annotated by him (ÖNB, Ink. 14 D 14).295 Most glosses to the Lamia (for example, on fol. Y 6r) show Brassicanus’s interest in the identification of Poliziano’s sources, an interest which is echoed in the printed annotations to the text. In these, Brassicanus is particularly concerned with Poliziano’s indebtedness to the Neoplatonic philosopher Iamblichus (245-ca. 325), and above all to his Protrepticus, believed to contain material from Aristotle’s lost Protrepticus and which Poliziano drew on for over a third of his oration.296 Important as it was, Brassicanus’s lofty commentary is not truly representative of the way in which the Lamia circulated in the Renaissance. In the classroom the text was often used for much humbler purposes, as Sigmar openly acknowledges in his preface to Brassicanus’s annotations, addressed to the town councillors of Bratislava. In this epistle Sigmar presents Poliziano’s prolusion as an excellent introduction to philosophy. The short book, claims the editor, has many qualities, not least in that “it teaches who ought to strive for the name of philosopher, and shows the difference between the philosopher and the philologist, between the

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

83

philosopher and the poet”.297 The propedeutic values –linguistic and otherwise– ascribed to the Lamia were also acknowledged by the preceptor Ulrich Faber, who prepared an edition of the text for the private use of his twelve-year-old pupil Felix Cuspinian, son of the great Viennese humanist and diplomat Johann Cuspinian (Johann Spießheimer, 14731529).298 Like so many humanist teachers, Faber emphasised the importance of the Lamia as a text in which Poliziano convincingly argues that, being a philologist (“grammaticus”), he was entitled to interpret any ancient text, including Aristotle’s writings on logic.299 After 1509, some twenty lines from the concluding part of Poliziano’s oration –known as Aves et noctua (pp. 18-19 in Wesseling’s edition)– were incorporated into large collections of Latin fables which included texts by Aesop, Erasmus, Hadrianus Barlandus and Guilielmus Goudanus (ca. 1466-1510). These pocket-sized volumes, which have an extremely complex textual tradition, enjoyed great popularity throughout the sixteenth century and a staggering number of editions of the text can be found across Europe.300 We can deduce the school-related character of these collections not only by the identity of their printers –men we have already encountered such as Dirk Martens in Leuven, Matthias Schürer in Strasbourg and Thomas Anshelm in Tübingen–, but also by the pedagogical uses lent to the texts, as discussed by their editors. In this respect the prefatory letter to the Leuven edition of 1513 by the theologian, humanist and professor Maarten van Dorp (Martinus Dorpius, 1485-1525) highlights the introductory nature of the volume. Dorp dedicated his edition to local preceptors who were advised to use the collection of fables with young boys as a preliminary text in the teaching of Latin composition before their transfer to university. As co-editor of Rudolph Agricola’s De inventione dialectica (Leuven, 1515), Dorp must doubtless have been well aware of the importance of the Lamia for the study of Aristotelian logic.301 He preferred, however, to present the text – or at least the passage included in the collection– completely divorced from its original context, and, alongside other Latin fables, he recommended Aves et noctua for boys in their teens who had not yet begun their higher education at the Lily, one of the four pedagogies of the Arts Faculty in Leuven: “[…] I dedicate this little work to you by name, teachers of gifted Flemish youth, in the hope that, with this little smoothing out, your schoolboys, who intend to go to this ancient Lily of ours (truly, the foremost abode of elegant literature in Leuven), will rub away all the solecisms from their tender tongues before they are initiated into philosophy”.302

84

Chapter Three

A year after Dorp’s collection of fables was printed at Leuven, Dirk Martens published an edition of the Oratio in laudem Aristotelis (“An Oration in Praise of Aristotle”), in which Dorp launches an attack against Lorenzo Valla. It was not for his Elegantiae linguae latinae that Dorp criticised Valla in his speech, but rather for his Dialecticae disputationes. In this work Valla had favoured rhetorical argumentation over formal syllogistic reasoning, thus challenging the foundations of scholastic logic, which was firmly grounded in Aristotle. Dorp’s interest in Lorenzo Valla’s Dialecticae disputations was nothing new. Valla’s logic had been available since the end of the fifteenth century, when it was published in Milan and Venice (ISTC No.: iv00049000). In 1509 Bade brought a thousand copies of the work into the Parisian market. His motivation, as he acknowledges in the preface to his edition, is that he is convinced that Valla’s text will assist readers in the study of dialectics and of modes of argumentation characteristic of rhetoric.303 European humanists made use of the key philosophical texts of Italian humanism but, as Robert Black has shown was the case with fourteenthand fifteenth-century Italian teachers and Boethius, they did so in a selective way, more often than not with “philological concerns at the forefront”.304 Teaching the Latin language certainly seems to have been the fundamental preoccupation of Joannes Peringius (Johann Pering, ca. 1480-1541), who published his own abridged version of Lorenzo Valla’s De vero falsoque bono (“Of the True and the False Good”) in 1517. In his prefatory letter, Peringius recalls his days as a schoolteacher in Münster eight years previously, when he selected a sample of sentences from Valla’s dialogue “suitable for daily conversation among young beginners” (“tirunculorum quotidiano sermoni accommodatae”).305 When revising his notes prior to publication, Peringius decided to append brief annotations to the text, which indicate his interest in vocabulary building. As an example, the sentence “Ego huic scientiae inde a puero impensam operam dedi” (“Since my childhood I have given considerable attention to this discipline”, De vero falsoque bono, XXII, 3) is used by the commentator to provide synonyms and further examples of variety of expression in a manner which is reminiscent of Erasmus’s technique of copia: “A puero etc. Eundem sensum habent subsequentes oratiunculae. A puero: a pueritia, ab initio aetatis, a teneris annis, a parvulo, a primis aetatis temporibus, a teneris (ut Graeci dicunt) unguiculis, ab incunabulis, et id genus similia” (sig. B1v). Language acquisition was also important to Hieronymus Gebwiler, who –as head of the cathedral school in Strasbourg– saw in Leonardo Bruni’s Isagogicon moralis disciplinae an alternative to the “inextricable

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

85

labyrinths” of Alexander of Villedieu’s Doctrinale (“viriumque Alexandrinarum inextricabiles labyrinthi”).306 Gebwiler edited the Isagogicon together with Xenophon’s Oeconomicus and Lefèvre d’Étaples’s introductions to Aristotle’s Politics and his Nicomachean Ethics, which Bruni’s dialogue purported to elucidate. The collection as a whole, and Lefèvre’s introductions in particular, proved tremendously successful in the first three decades of the sixteenth century, with several reprints, revisions and additions published in Paris and Lyon. As the printer notes in the colophon to Gebwiler’s 1511 edition, the reason for such a broad circulation lay in the quick route the texts provide to ancient ethical and political theory. Of the four component texts, Bruni’s Isagogicon offered the easiest shortcut to moral philosophy in Gebwiler’s view and, in his prefatory letter to Sebastian Brant, the dialogue is accordingly described as a “de moribus introductorium”. But Gebwiler also commended Bruni’s “excellent, neat and useful Latin style”, which made the Isagogicon a most convenient textbook to be employed by the youth after having learnt the foundations of Latin grammar.307 The uses attributed by Gebwiler to Bruni’s Isagogicon are comparable to those assigned to Petrarch’s De remediis utriusque fortunae (“Remedies for Fortune Fair and Foul”) in Renaissance Europe. As with most of Petrarch’s Latin corpus, the De remediis was first published separately outside Italy (Strasbourg, around 1474, and Heidelberg, not before 1490), and only subsequently on Italian soil (Cremona, 1492).308 In the first decades of the following century the text also circulated in the vernacular, with translations into French, Spanish and German.309 Northern and southern humanists alike valued Petrarch’s reflections on the troubles of the human mind in his collection of 254 dialogues. Especially in religious circles of the devotio moderna the author of the De remediis was regarded almost exclusively as a moral philosopher, whose work could instruct pious readers in their struggle against the hardship of an earthly existence.310 This explains why interest in the De remediis often seems to be twinned with an interest in Stoic philosophy: an illustration of this is the substantial number of editions of Petrarch’s work, of Boethius’s De consolatione philosophiae (“Consolation of Philosophy”) and of Seneca and the Pseudo-Seneca published in the same geographical area in a very short span of time. For example, between 1503 and 1515, just in Rouen, Caen and Rennes, Jean and Richard Macé printed four editions of Boethius and one of Seneca’s De quattuor virtutibus (in fact by Martin of Braga), and published the De remediis in French and in Latin.311 The De remediis was also read as a convenient anthology of Latin prose, filled – according to most editors– with valuable grammatical material as much as

86

Chapter Three

with proverbial wisdom. For this purpose, Petrarch’s lengthy text was presented in abridged form, as attested by several editions of extracts from the collection printed at Leipzig between 1504 and 1512.312 Other writings from which moral lessons could be selected were the educational treatises penned by humanist pedagogues and scholars of the early Quattrocento. Since the publication of Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine’s stimulating From Humanism to the Humaities we have learned to be alert to the gap between the humanist ideals and the harsh reality of the Renaissance classroom.313 If we are to believe, however, the elevated claims made by contemporary editors, moral benefits (at least, theoretically) could be drawn from Maffeo Vegio’s six books De educatione liberorum clarisque eorum moribus (“On Education and Excellence of Character in Children”). First published at Milan in 1491 and for a long time attributed to Filelfo, Vegio’s treatise was recommended by Christian educators (for example, by Vives in his De officio mariti) as it approved the study of pagan literature only in conjunction with sacred learning. The text enjoyed a broad circulation in France, with one edition at Poitiers and five at Paris in the early years of the sixteenth century.314 One of the volumes published at Paris was annotated by Nicolas Dupuy (also known in Latin as Nicolaus Bonaspes) who taught humanities at the Collège de Navarre and at the Collège de Bayeux.315 In his dedicatory poem, Dupuy praises the ennobling effects of Vegio’s treatise, which –he advises prospective teachers– “youngsters should read with care, if you wish them to be of excellent morals”.316 Nonetheless, despite this advice, the moral lessons to be drawn from the text are not the focus of Dupuy’s commentary on Vegio. Closer scrutiny shows that the annotations are limited to very basic expository paraphrases and to glosses on unfamiliar names, in other words, what we would expect to find in any other Renaissance commentary with an overriding preoccupation with grammatical and rhetorical points. In early sixteenth-century Paris, interest in the Italian pedagogues of the previous century is not confined to Vegio, and it is possible that Vives himself lectured on Battista Guarino’s De ordine docendi et studendi (“A Programme of Teaching and Learning”, 1459), which Vives edited in 1514.317 Another humanist pedagogical text which was copied and printed again and again from the last quarter of the fifteenth century onwards was Leonardo Bruni’s De studiis et litteris (“The Study of Literature”, ca. 1424). The popularity of Bruni’s educational treatise was mostly due to its subject matter as it included advice on which classical authors to read and how to read them. In 1510 Alexius Crosner (1490-1535), “Magister artium” at Leipzig, prepared an edition of the text dedicated to the eleven-

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

87

year-old Julius Pflug or Pflugk (d. 1564), who had already enrolled at the university.318 Not mature enough for more demanding works and disciplines, Pflug was advised by his preceptor to combine the reading of Virgil’s poetry with close attention to Bruni’s De studiis et litteris: “Receive with (as they say) joyful and cheerful brow Leonardo Aretino’s most remarkable little book on the study of literature. Not without reason did I think it ought to be offered to you and inscribed to your most illustrious name. For, in it, you will find brief but most useful information on the strength and power of letters, as well as on sacred theology, philosophy, history, oratory, poetics and (finally I should restrain myself) all sorts of disciplines. They can no less admirably instruct you in your youth, which, because of your still undeveloped mind, cannot yet apprehend more serious matters, than nourish it. Read the book and commit it to memory, whenever you take some free time from your Virgil, over whom you pore day and night. For the rest, do not spurn this epigram of mine printed at the end of this little work, which will exhort you to virtue and to letters”.319

For Crosner, Bruni’s short book had the potential to turn Pflug into an eloquent, learned, virtuous and wise young man. Similar educational objectives are emphasized by the Leipzig editors of St Basil the Great’s Oratio ad adolescentes (“Address to Young Men on Reading pagan Literature”), one of the most important works of ancient pedagogy. Translated by Bruni, the Ad adolescentes was printed twenty times between 1490 and 1520 in Leipzig alone, and it featured in the Arts Faculty teaching programme along with Cicero’s letters and classical and humanist poets (Hesiod, Virgil, Ovid, Poliziano and Mantuan), as shown by several contemporary “Sammelbände” held in Munich.320 In the German-speaking territories, this joint interest in both classical and humanist theoretical statements on education is best represented by an edition of St. Basil’s speech alongside Agricola’s Latin translation of Isocrates’s Exhortation to Demonicus (ca. 1480) and Paolo Vergerio’s De ingenuis moribus et liberalibus adulescentiae studiis (“The Character and Studies Befitting a Free-Born Youth”, ca. 1402), published in Vienna in 1511.321 Vergerio’s treatise was used for school exercises as early as 1493 when Giovanni Bonardi, then a teacher at Legnago near Verona, dedicated his commentary on the text to the Venetian patrician Giovanni Malipiero (the annotations were first published four years later).322 Bonardi himself comes in for strong criticism in the prefatory letter to the Viennese collection, the work of the Swiss humanist, reformer and professor of poetry Joachim Vadianus (Vadian or von Watt, 1484-1551) and addressed to three young local aristocrats. After discussing the content and moral

88

Chapter Three

value of the texts included in the volume, Vadianus expresses his frustration at Bonardi’s interpretation of Vergerio. He hopes, however, that the erudition of the boys’ preceptor Johannes Pratimontanus will enlighten his dedicatees. After having been taught the “bonarum litterarum rudimenta” by Pratimontanus a short time ago, the youngsters –observes Vadianus– are now ready to embark on their higher studies, of which the reading of these three texts is an important part.323 There remains the question of whether the editions discussed in this section were used to teach logic or moral philosophy in the classroom, and if so, how.324 It is often difficult to say exactly how texts of this kind were approached in daily classroom activities. For example, we can infer that Cristoforo Landino’s Neoplatonic Disputationes Camaldulenses was used at the cathedral school in Speyer from Johannes Kierher’s Strasbourg edition of the text published through Schürer in 1508. Landino’s allegorical interpretation of Virgil’s Aeneid as well as his discussion of the respective values of the vita activa and vita contemplative and of the supreme good were perhaps reasons for the inclusion of Landino’s book in the syllabus of the cathedral chapter at Speyer (where Kierher taught), though I cannot provide any certain proof of this.325 In a few cases, however, records of how texts were employed are available. As Jürgen Geiß has convincingly demonstrated (Zentren, pp. 91-5), Leipzig editions of Petrarch’s De remediis seem to have been specifically prepared for private study at school or university. Prescribed outside the ordinary programme of teaching, the books were reserved for boys who already had a sound grounding in Latin grammar and were about to embark on more advanced study of the language. It is clear their teachers are not yet overtly preoccupied with the teaching of moral philosophy as a separate subject in the classroom. Regardless of how, by whom and at what age they were read, all the texts discussed in this chapter became part of the educational programmes of many teachers and lecturers across Europe in the Renaissance. The reading and teaching of Italian humanist authors provided, in turn, valid literary patterns for imitation in Latin or in the vernacular. As an example, Mantuan’s eclogues inspired Eobanus Hessus’s own Bucolicon, a collection of Neo-Latin pastoral poetry published in 1509 in Erfurt, where the first edition of Mantuan’s Adolescentia printed north of the Alps had come out eight years earlier.326 The combination of academic practice and familiarity with Italian humanist models (above all, of poets and letter writers) was central to the development of European literatures. This fertile form of interaction between Italian Latin humanism and local

The Use of Italian Latin Humanism in the Classroom

89

literary traditions will be illustrated in the next chapter through the example of Spain.

CHAPTER FOUR ITALIAN LATIN HUMANISM AND THE SPANISH VERNACULAR

Even though Spanish printers produced a comparatively small number of editions of Italian Latin humanist works, these texts circulated widely in Renaissance Spain, and Spanish scholars and lecturers followed their European counterparts in exploiting the pedagogical possibilities offered by this literary corpus. As noted in the introductory remarks to this book, research into the impact of Italian humanism in the Crowns of Castile and Aragon from the late fifteenth century onwards has tended to focus on the dates and true extent of the penetration of humanist interests into both territories. By contrast, little attention has been paid to the manuscript and printed dissemination and to the academic recognition of the seminal texts of Italian Latin humanism in Renaissance Spain. This chapter therefore provides an evaluation of the way in which a significant number of Latin texts of Italian humanism were transmitted, in the original or in translation, in Spain during this period. It also highlights the privileged position in the Renaissance curriculum held by those works which encapsulate the spirit of the studia humanitatis, and demonstrates how the combination of school practice and familiarity with Italian humanistic models was central to the literature of the Spanish Renaissance.

I. Transmission Barcelona (and elsewhere in the Crown of Aragon) As with other parts of Europe, humanism reached the territories of the Crown of Aragon in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Before long manuscript copies of the latest literary works from Italy were disseminated in Latin and in the vernacular, and the new presses of Valencia, Zaragoza and Barcelona were printing a sample of the texts which have been discussed in the preceding chapters.327 The number and range of humanist

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

91

editions prepared by local printers are certainly modest, particularly if compared to the activities of some of their European counterparts in cities such as Paris or Basle. But they are nevertheless significant. They provide a concrete example of the cultural interaction between Italy and the kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon in the Renaissance, and can shed light on how these Italian humanist texts were used in local schoolrooms and lecture halls in this same period. In the ensuing paragraphs I examine the circulation of this corpus in the territories of the Crown of Aragon at the turn of the sixteenth century, transitional years in which humanism and Erasmianism were finding their feet in Barcelona and other urban centres. After a brief survey of the editions published in Barcelona, in other Catalan towns, and in Valencia and Zaragoza, I turn my attention to the historian, antiquary and bibliophile Pere Miquel Carbonell (1434-1517), who provides a good case study for assessing the dissemination of Italian humanism in the Crown of Aragon in the last decades of the fifteenth century and the early years of the following century. First printed in 1473, Niccolò Perotti’s Rudimenta grammatices (“Elementary grammar”) was welcomed by humanist teachers throughout Europe as an appropriate replacement for medieval grammars, among other reasons because it included a long section on epistolography.328 This emphasis on Latin composition may have prompted the royal secretary Joan Peiró (fl. 1480) to commission an edition of the text, which was published in Barcelona in 1475 and reprinted in Tortosa two years later. The colourful circumstances surrounding the arrival of Perotti’s edition in Barcelona, allegedly found among the spoils of a shipwreck off the Catalan coast, have led scholars to belittle the importance of the Barcelona edition. It is nevertheless of interest that the volume should close with an epilogue in which Peiró declares his hope that, with the publication of Perotti’s textbook, “our land, having been uncouth, will become elegant and don the mantle of Latinity instead of barbarity” (“ut [patria] ex horrida culta fieret et pro barbarie Latinitatem indueret”, fol. 142r; BC, 11-VII-14). However modest, the Barcelona Rudimenta seems to reflect local interest in the reform of Latin teaching. The volume was co-sponsored by the humanist Joan Ramon Ferrer (ca. 1420 – ca. 1490), the author of a work on Latin pronouns dated to around 1477. Inspired by Valla’s De reciprocatione “sui” et “suus” (a chapter from his Elegantiae), Ferrer’s text was aimed at “those who teach grammar in Barcelona” (“docentibus grammaticam Barcinone”).329 In the Catalan capital interest in humanist texts of Italian provenance is also borne out by a late fifteenth-century copy of Barzizza’s De orthographia (Barcelona, AC, C. 68), which

92

Chapter Four

includes a handful of grammatical annotations in Catalan: for example, fol. 71, “vulgo magazem” [glossing the term “gazophisium”, “chamber”]).330 Another local grammarian who was informed by humanist values was the Valencian notary Joan Esteve (fl. ca. 1442-87). Conceived partly as a bilingual Catalan-Latin dictionary, his Liber elegantiarum of 1472 (though it was first published in Venice as late as 1489) also includes a manual on letter writing.331 For his book Esteve drew on Perotti’s Rudimenta as well as the Synonyma variationum sententiarum by Stefano Fieschi of Soncino (fl. 1440-60), whose work, written explicitly for schoolboys, is “a guide towards elaborating thematic translations from the vernacular”.332 The Synonyma gained ground in the Valencian printed book market at the beginning of the sixteenth century when Jeroni Amiguet, “lector” at the local university, published a Catalan adaptation of the text in 1502, with appendices “on writing letters” (“ad epistolas componendas”).333 Dedicated to the university authorities, this Catalan version of the Synonyma is described by Amiguet as “the most efficient manner in which youngsters who aspire to write good Latin will be able to make progress most quickly and easily” (“aptissima via qua celerrime et facillime proficere adolescentes poterunt qui ad Latinitatem aspirant”, sig. aiv; BC, 2-II-11). In the territories of the Crown of Aragon the editions discussed thus far were published at about the same time as humanist manuals of Latin style were also coming off the same presses, in a situation similar to the one in Paris, described by Ann Moss, in which printing houses and academic institutions were clearly working in conjunction with one another.334 Indeed, Perotti’s and Fieschi’s volumes were issued alongside texts whose main aim was to ensure that students could write letters in a pure and elegant Latin style. These include six editions of Dati’s Elegantiolae and four of Negro’s De modo epistolandi published in Valencia, Lleida, Zaragoza and Barcelona between 1473 and 1500, as well as manuscript copies of Barzizza’s collection of model letters, Epistolae ad exercitationem accommodatae. The latter is preserved in two manuscript copies of Catalan origin: one held at Dresden and dated to 1472, to which I will return later, and another from the beginning of the sixteenth century (BUB, Ms. 100).335 It would, however, be foolish to think that the acceptance in Barcelona or Valencia in the last two decades of the fifteenth century of new texts on Latin grammar and elegance was unanimous and represented an unequivocal and wholesale acceptance of a humanist ethos. Rather, this influx of humanist works from Italy did not signal the end of the line for Donatus’s grammar or such staunchly medieval works as Alexander of

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

93

Villedieu’s Doctrinale. For example, in his 1491 edition of the De arte grammatica of Giovanni Sulpizio (ca. 1440 – ca. 1506), the printer Pere Miquel was careful not to include Sulpizio’s attack against the Doctrinale, a grammar book which was destined to have a long life at Barcelona until it could be officially dropped from university regulations.336 Published at least five times between 1481 and 1502, the Doctrinale was used in the classroom alongside Nebrija’s popular Introductiones latinae (five editions printed in Barcelona between 1497 and 1505).337 This air of compromise is obvious from the syllabus prescribed by the Barcelona academic authorities in 1508. According to the new university statutes, after students had acquired the foundations of Latin (still by means of some of the medieval auctores octo), the professor of grammar was required to use either Nebrija’s Latin grammar or the Doctrinale. Either text was to be taught in conjunction with Virgil or one other poet before students would proceed to Latin composition: “We hereby declare and prescribe that the professor of grammar should have as set texts this year Antoni de Lebrixa’s [=Antonio de Nebrija’s] grammar and Virgil’s Aeneid, and teach advanced sentence composition or letter writing. And in subsequent years, he should have as set texts Alexander [=Alexander of Villedieu’s Doctrinale] and the aforementioned Antoni de Lebrixa or another poet or Virgil again, according to the will of the majority of grammar students, and teach advanced sentence composition or letter writing. And the lecturer should teach two declensions, one in the morning and the other in the evening, and have as set texts a reading from Cato [the Disticha Catonis] and Contemptus [the De contemptu mundi]”.338

From the last two decades of the fifteenth century Catalan printers also started to produce editions of Italian humanist poetry. As we find elsewhere in Europe, local interest in this body of texts tends to go hand in hand with interest in another cultural tradition, namely Christian Latin poets of late Antiquity. This is attested, for example, by a Tarragona edition of 1499 which includes the poetess Proba’s Carmina sive Centones Vergilii, on the creation of the world and the life of Christ, alongside fifteenth-century writers of Christian Latin verse such as Michael Verinus (Michele Verino, 1469-86) and Giovanni Sulpizio’s didactic poem on table manners.339 However, the best instance of contemporary circulation of Christian Latin poetry in the territories of the Crown of Aragon is provided by the fifth-century poet Sedulius, the Christian Virgil. His Carmen Paschale (five books of hexameters on Christ’s life and miracles)

94

Chapter Four

was published in Tarragona, Zaragoza and Barcelona five times between 1500 and 1515.340 The pedagogical potential of Sedulius’s adaptation of the Gospels –a text heavily dependent, for its compositional technique, on the paraphrase– was quickly recognized by local printers. Carles Amorós’s 1508 volume reproduced Diego de Muros’s preface to his own edition of Sedulius (Valladolid, 1497) in which de Muros praised the Christian poet as “elegant, sublime, pious, truthful and holy” (“elegans, sublimis, pius, verus et sanctus”) and recommended that young boys should familiarise themselves with his verse.341 One edition of the Carmen Paschale published in Barcelona in 1515 included a series of annotations by the lecturer and Erasmian Martín Ivarra (d. 1557), which were printed together with Nebrija’s own commentary on the text. Ivarra’s decision to annotate Sedulius seems to go hand in hand with his interest in Verinus: he produced a commentary on his Distichorum liber, a collection of 308 hexameter couplets on a range of moral subjects, in 1512, which was reprinted fourteen years later.342 Ivarra incorporated Verinus’s poems into the grammar and rhetoric curriculum at Barcelona in 1532, the same year when the doors of the university were at last formally opened to Valla’s Elegantiae.343 Only a few years later (in 1535) the Zaragoza-based printer Jorge Coci issued an edition of Ivarra’s annotations to Verinus’s poems, supplemented by the commentaries of the Alcañiz teacher Juan Sobrarias (ca. 1460-1528) as well as the text of Fausto Andrelini’s Disticha (BNE, R/3102). Humanist Latin poetry on Christian topics seems to have been very much in vogue in the last quarter of the fifteenth century and the first two decades of the following century in Barcelona and elsewhere in the Crown of Aragon. This is illustrated by an extremely rare edition of Giovanni Pontano’s De laudibus divinis which came off Johann Luschner’s press in 1498.344 This is the only non-Italian incunable edition of Pontano, whose hymns on Christ, the Virgin and the Creation must have undoubtedly appealed to readers in religious circles, the same readers in fact who would have shown interest in collections of hymns like the one published by Rosembach in Tarragona that same year (Expositio hymnorum, BC, 9-V54). So, for example, the catalogue of the library of the Benedictine monastery of Montserrat near Barcelona, which was compiled in 1500, records a copy of Pontano’s edition.345 Leaving aside the religious content of some of the poems included in Pontano’s collection, the decision to publish pieces portraying the courts of King John II (1397-1479) and of his brother Alphonse the Magnanimous (1396-1458) may have also served a political function at a time when Catalonia was already weakened.

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

95

Explicit references in the poems to Catalan and Aragonese poets and members of the nobility (the poet Pere Torroella, King Alphonse or the Duke of Calabria), and the fact that Pontano’s volume was dedicated to (Prince) John of Aragon (1439-75), John II’s stepson and later Archbishop of Zaragoza, must also have appealed to a Catalan readership. A further collection which enjoyed popularity at the time was the verse of the Milanese humanist Peter Martyr (Petrus Martyr de Angleria, 14571525). In Valencia Alfonso Ordóñez (d. 1521) used his annotated edition of Martyr’s Poemata to attract youngsters “to reading in rhetoric or in poetics” (“ad lectionem vel rhetoricam vel poeticam” sig. Aiv; BUB, B49/5/20). Of all Italian humanist poets it was once again Mantuan who merited the highest regard. Mantuan’s reputation in Barcelona dramatically increased in the 1520s when three editions of the first and second Parthenicai appeared in a very short space of time.346 Significantly, these three volumes are all reprints of Andreas Vaurentinus’s own version of the texts (see chapter 2, p. 27). As with Vaurentinus’s original edition in Toulouse, these Barcelona editions of Mantuan’s poetry must have been widely employed in the classroom. They were certainly produced by printers –like Carles Amorós– whose links with the Erasmian and academic circles of early sixteenth-century Barcelona are well known.347 Evidence of how Mantuan’s poems circulated in the Barcelona of that time can be gleaned from the inventory of the local bookseller Miquel Cabrit, drafted in late 1538, in which seven copies of Mantuan’s bucolics are recorded, alongside a manuscript of the Parthenice Mariana as well as four printed copies of the text “with commentaries”, volumes which could well have been those published by Amorós in the 1520s.348 A final example of the circulation of Italian humanist literature in the territories of the Crown of Aragon during this period is provided by pedagogical and philosophical treatises. Local printers showed interest, for example, in Vergerio’s De ingenuis moribus ac liberalibus studiis (Barcelona, 1481), a work printed three years after the publication in the same city of Battista Guarino’s Latin translation of Plutarch’s De liberis educandis, as well as Bruni’s Isagogicon moralis disciplinae, which was published in the original Latin in Barcelona in 1478 and was also later to become available in an anonymous Spanish translation as an appendix to Seneca’s letters (Zaragoza, 1496; BNE, Inc. 1704).349 Another philosophical text which circulated in the vernacular was Petrarch’s De remediis utriusque fortunae, translated into Spanish in 1510 by Francisco Fernández de Madrid.350 In the preface to his version, Fernández de Madrid described Petrarch as a “muy gran orador, excellente filósofo, y

96

Chapter Four

muy contemplativo y cathólico theólogo” (“great orator, excellent philosopher and most contemplative and Catholic theologian”), a praise which –as Francisco Rico has shown– could also be applied to Erasmus whose philosophy is reminiscent of Petrarch’s docta pietas.351 First printed in Valladolid (1510) and Seville (1513 and 1516), Fernández de Madrid’s version was also published twice in Zaragoza (1518 and 1523), under the imprint of Jorge Coci, a man who –as already noted– around that time issued several editions of Sedulius’s Carmen Paschale and of Verinus’s Distichorum liber, both examples of texts that combine good writing with even better morals. A fair few of the works mentioned so far in this chapter would have been familiar to Pere Miquel Carbonell, whose engagement with Italian humanism sheds light on the way in which these imported texts were used, and the extent to which they were adopted by the local education system. Born in Barcelona in 1434, Carbonell was appointed public notary by King Alphonse the Magnanimous in 1458. Eighteen years later, in December 1476, he was promoted to royal archivist and royal scribe, positions he held until his death in 1517. His public duties enabled him to undertake extensive research in local archives and the products of his labour are his two most accomplished works: the Cròniques d’Espanya (“Chronicles of Spain”), a narrative account in Catalan of Spanish history written in the rhetorical style so characteristic of the humanist movement; and the De viris illustribus Catalanis (“On the illustrious Men of Catalunya”, 1476), a collection of fifteen biographies which aim to map out the state of Latin literature in the Catalan-speaking lands at the time.352 Of equal importance to these works by Carbonell are the books which he purchased and annotated. Books were his passion, or at least one of his passions, if we are to believe him when he confesses that he collected them “to stop himself from turning into a serial womaniser” (“ne mulierosus persisterem”).353 Information on Carbonell’s bibliographical interests can be gleaned from several private documents. Apart from the volumes listed in his will, edited by Maria Toldrà, over twenty incunables owned by Carbonell are now held at the University Library and at the Biblioteca de Catalunya in Barcelona.354 Three miscellaneous manuscripts have also survived which include a number of texts from the Italian cultural world copied by Carbonell.355 Indeed, one of these manuscripts (Girona, AC, Ms. 69) contains his own pre-1484 library catalogue.356 Last but not least, Carbonell’s instructions to his booksellers attending the Venice and Lyon Book fairs in 1488 and 1501 respectively are also extant.357

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

97

All this documentation gives us an invaluable insight into Carbonell’s familiarity with the new intellectual trends elaborated by Italian humanists. We learn, for example, of his interest in grammatical, orthographical and lexicographical works (treatises by Giovanni Tortelli and Bartolomeo Facio), as well as in texts that are good for teaching Latin composition, which Carbonell must have deemed necessary for his own professional endeavours as a public notary.358 In March 1472 he copied Barzizza’s Epistolae ad exercitationem accommodatae and Giacomo Publicio’s Ars epistolandi (Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, B 156, fols. 136-178r, and fols. 178v-181v respectively), and seven years later he obtained a copy of Dati’s Elegantiolae (Naples, 1475; BC, Inc. 61-8°).359 He also owned a copy of a Rome edition of Giovanni Antonio Campano’s Opera (Eucharius Silber, 1495; BC, Mar. I 26 Exp. Mares), which contains notes to some of Campano’s letters. Significantly, Carbonell’s attention to Italian humanist epistolography and to textbooks and manuals on Latin composition by Italian humanists coincides with his interest in the correspondence of Cicero, which also features in his pre-1484 library catalogue. He was not only interested in humanist prose writings: it is no surprise that he also had a taste for poetical works. He collected several Latin epigrams written by Alessandro Geraldini and his brother Antonio, who was secretary to King John II from 1469 until the monarch’s death, in praise of Carbonell himself, of members of the royal court and of several prominent scholars from the Catalan-speaking lands.360 In addition, we know that he read and annotated Mantuan’s Contra poetas impudice loquentes and Giovanni Sulpizio’s De moribus puerorum carmen iuvenile, a versified set of instructions on good table manners, as his copy of Josse Bade’s Silvae morales of 1492 (which includes both poems) held in Barcelona University Library (Inc. 685) shows. This volume bears a manuscript note in Latin next to the colophon in which Carbonell proudly acknowledges having acquired the book in 1494 at his own expense.361 He was also well acquainted with Petrarch’s Carmen in laudem divae Mariae Magdalenae, copied in the abovementioned Girona manuscript (Girona, AC, Ms. 69. fol. 210v), a composition which in turn must have acted as a stimulus for Carbonell’s own compositions in Latin and Catalan on Mary Magdalene included in the same manuscript (fols. 261v-262 r). Carbonell’s interest in Petrarch’s and Mantuan’s religious verse must be related to the circulation of early Christian poets in late fifteenth-century Barcelona. Of these, Prudentius (348-405) was one of the first to receive Carbonell’s attention, as attested by a letter sent to him in January 1486 by his cousin and fellow humanist Jeroni Pau (ca. 1458-1497). Pau acknowledges

98

Chapter Four

having consulted a text of Prudentius’s Peristephanon (“Crowns of Martyrdom”), which Carbonell had copied for him from a very old codex months earlier.362 Another work by Petrarch which piqued Carbonell’s interest was the De remediis utriusque fortunae. The text had been circulating in the entourage of the Aragonese royal chancery since the mid fifteenth century, when a Catalan translation of 165 excerpta entitled Flors de Petrarca de remey de cascuna fortuna was produced.363 It is now clear that these Catalan extracts, however garbled, originated from a Latin florilegium of De remediis, the oldest witness to which are two manuscripts of Catalan provenance copied in the first quarter of the fifteenth century (BNE, Ms. 19358, and Montserrat, Ms. 981).364 Sometime after 1473, Carbonell also collected a list of moral maxims from the De remediis, albeit this time in Latin, which survives in the same Girona manuscript (AC, Ms. 69, fols. 246r-252v). Here passages culled from Petrarch’s text are arranged thematically and reproduced alongside maxims from Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome and Aristotle among others. As a rule, the source of a given proverb is copied in the margin, as, for example, with the first and last sentences (fol. 246r and fol. 252v), where the name “Petrarcha” is scribbled next to “Melior est certa pax quam sperata victoria” (De remediis I, 102) and “Primus gradus stultitiae est se credere sapientem” (De remediis I, 12) respectively. Carbonell’s personal approach to the De remediis could be described as profoundly non-humanistic. After all what he has done with Petrarch’s Christian manual for meditation is simply abbreviate it and amalgamate material from it into a corpus of maxims, compiled, one supposes, for his own use. Had he been fully immersed in the humanist ethos, he would have published the whole text. Nevertheless, the manner in which Carbonell used and read the De remediis is reminiscent of the practices of humanists elsewhere in Europe. As we have seen in the previous chapter, Petrarch’s rather strange mixture of Christian and Stoic reflections on the troubles of the human mind was highly regarded by humanists, and they read, copied and, above all, simplified the De remediis over and over again. As is the case with many other European readers, Carbonell’s interest in Petrarch’s moral writings is contemporaneous with his attention to the corpus of Stoic philosophy. Among his books was a copy of Seneca’s Opera philosophica (Naples, 1475; BUB, Inc. 4), one of his most cherished volumes; he also transcribed the Roman humanist Paolo Pompilio’s De vita Senecae, preserved in BUB, Ms. 123 (fols. 47r-68r),

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

99

and in 1473 he purchased a copy of the De formula vitae of PseudoSeneca (in BUB, Ms. 591, fols. 75r-80v). Carbonell also owned manuscripts and printed editions of some of the pedagogical treatises written by early quattrocento humanists. The pre1484 catalogue of his library includes Leonardo Bruni’s De studiis et litteris (it is not clear whether in manuscript or in a print), and we know that he copied Bruni’s Latin version of St. Basil’s sermon to young men on the reading of pagan literature (Girona, AC, Ms. 69, fols. 102r-108r). Of all humanist educators it was, however, Vergerio who attracted his attention most. Carbonell owned a copy of his De ingenuis moribus ac liberalibus studiis (Naples, 1472; BC, Inc. 63-8°), which, together with the abovementioned copy of Dati and two further texts, was bequeathed by Carbonell in 1509 to his grandson Pere Miquel, then a schoolboy, as attested by a manuscript note penned at the end of the factitious volume.365 Carbonell’s copy of the De ingenuis moribus features copious annotations. Particularly worthy of attention is Vergerio’s twelve-line description of a life devoted to the study of literature, in which –through the testimony of Cicero, Ep. Fam., 9,1)– he extols books as “a happy, absolutely honest and well-behaved family”.366 In the margin (fol. 16r) Carbonell has scribbled the words “laudes vite iucundioris” (“praise for a happier life”; fig. 4.1). This was neither the first nor the last time that Carbonell would be particularly taken by this passage in Vergerio: he quoted it in an epistle of 1475 to Joan Vilar in praise of letters, and copied it again two years later in a manuscript miscellany preserved in Barcelona.367 Carbonell’s somewhat ambivalent attitude towards Italian cultural innovations is typical of the manner in which the spirit of the studia humanitatis was endorsed by local humanists in Barcelona in the period from ca. 1480 to ca. 1530. The corpus of humanist texts printed in the city and elsewhere in the Crown of Aragon at the time includes poetry, handbooks of grammar and rhetoric as well as philosophical and educational treatises. These volumes were published alongside editions of Medieval grammars and of classical texts used in the school and university curriculum (Ovid, Sallust, Virgil, Terence and Cicero), of early Christian poets, of devotional texts and of a handful of Catalan and Spanish versions of Greek and Roman classics. By contrast, local printers did not show much interest in producing editions of works by Italian Latin epistolographers, even though there is ample evidence of the circulation of collections of letters by Filelfo, Bruni or Poliziano in Renaissance Barcelona, Tortosa and Valencia.368

100

Chapter Four

Fig. 4.1

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

101

Castile Turning to Castile we find a similar tale to the one I have traced for the east of the Iberian Peninsula. The diffusion of Italian Latin humanism in the three main Castilian printing and academic centres (Salamanca, Seville and Alcalá de Henares) follows a pattern which is not so different from the one established for the territories of the Crown of Aragon, although the number and range of texts published in Castile are somewhat larger and some authors are printed earlier than in Barcelona, Zaragoza or Valencia.369 Let us first attend to the circulation of works employed in the teaching of grammar and rhetoric. As with the versions of the text published in the Crown of Aragon, editions of Fieschi’s Synonyma were also tailored to the local market in Salamanca (ca. 1490) and Burgos (ca. 1495): both volumes present a Spanish translation accompanying the Latin sentences.370 In addition, local professors produced extracts and adaptations of Valla’s Elegantiae, such as Nebrija’s Differentiae excerptae ex Valla, Nonio et Servio Honorato (Salamanca, 1487) or Fernando Alonso de Herrera’s Expositio Laurentii Vallensis De elegantia linguae latinae (Salamanca, ca. 1515, reprinted in Alcalá some twelve years later), which reduced the text to its most basic useful form. Students wishing to master the art of writing elegant Latin also had at their disposal editions of Dati’s Elegantiolae (Burgos, 1498) and of Negro’s De modo epistolandi (Salamanca, 1502).371 Once again it is to poetry that we must look for the best evidence of the diffusion of Italian humanism in Renaissance Castile. From the last quarter of the fifteenth century, editions of religious poets were the norm in the major printing and academic centres in Castile, and in many minor ones too. For example, only two years after the editio princeps of Verinus’s Distichorum liber was published in Florence in 1487, the printer Juan de Burgos produced an edition in Burgos, and the collection was reprinted twice in Salamanca in the following decade. As already noted, attention to this corpus is coupled with an interest in the Christian Latin poets of late Antiquity.372 This is most apparent from the programme of study adopted by the University of Alcalá, inaugurated in 1499 by Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (1436-1517), whose desire for reform lay at the root of the university’s foundation. The institution became a centre for ecclesiastical education and the first enthusiastic supporters of Erasmus in Spain could be found among its professors and students.373 One of them was the bachiller Pedro de Rúa, who produced a Spanish translation of some of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s spiritual texts (BNE, Ms. 7806, fols. 115v-125r).374 The endorsement of the tenets of Christian humanism

102

Chapter Four

at Alcalá is also reflected in the publication there of modern religious verse, such as Beroaldo’s Carmen de die dominice Passionis (in an edition of 1516 prepared by Nebrija), the poetry of Mantuan (four editions of the Parthenicai and the Liber fastorum printed between 1520 and 1536), and Sannazaro, whose three-book poem on the birth of Christ (the De partu Virginis) was edited by the local professor Ramiro de Daroca in 1534 alongside Arator’s verse history of the Apostles (sixth century). Humanistically-inclined pedagogues were keen to ensure that their students became familiar with these texts. As the preface to an edition of the seven Parthenicai boldly states, Atanasio de Salzedo, bookseller to the university, decided to publish copies of the poems at his own expense, “so that the purity of Mantuan’s Latin, the gravity of his ideas as well as his subject matter would be of great benefit to our novices”.375 This fusion of Christian spirituality and the intellectual training promoted by the Italian humanists also permeates the activities of the Erasmian Pedro Núñez Delgado, a disciple of Nebrija at the Estudio de San Miguel in Seville and professor of grammar there from 1514 until his death in 1535.376 One of the first volumes commissioned by Núñez Delgado was an edition of Latin liturgical hymns, presented “as a counterweight to the primarily secular disciplines in which the young were trained”.377 The same concerns inform Núñez Delgado’s edition of Mantuan’s Parthenicai septem, published by Juan Varela in November 1515. In the preface to his edition Núñez Delgado records that he ordered the printing of this previously unavailable poem specifically for his pupils.378 In such a context, it is hardly surprising that a Spanish translation of Pico della Mirandola’s Duodecim regulae partim exercitantes, partim dirigentes homines in spirituali pugna (“Twelve rules, partly urging, partly directing men in their spiritual battle”) by the converso Juan Rodríguez de Pisa should have been published in Seville between 1511 and 1515 (BNE, R/28658-4).379 Nevertheless, not all the Italian humanist poetry printed at the time was religious. As was still the case elsewhere in Europe, Poliziano’s Silvae were in demand in Castile, and the poems were employed in the daily routine of university teaching, as exposed by the habits of a reader who has annotated a copy of an edition of the text published around 1515 in Alcalá by Arnao Guillén de Brocar, which is now held in the British Library (shelf-mark: 1213. l. 46).380 Written mostly in Latin but occasionally in Spanish, the annotations occur consistently from fol. 17v onwards in the Rusticus and throughout the Nutricia (fols. 24a-33b). The latter appears to have been the focus of attention of those responsible for the volume produced at Alcalá: this is confirmed not only by the large

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

103

number of annotations devoted to Poliziano’s longest silva, but also by the inclusion of an Argumentum Nutriciae, placed immediately before Poliziano’s dedicatory letter to Cardinal Pallavicino Gentile reproduced from Miscomini’s Florentine editio princeps of the poem.381 The British Library annotations consist of both interlinear glosses – usually prefaced by i. (“id est”)– and marginal notes. As for the choice of language, the annotator seems to perceive a distinction between the Latin notes, which extend the reader’s range of lexical knowledge and experience, and the Spanish ones, which elucidate the meaning of difficult words (and even entire lines). Some of the Spanish annotations often provide further information on points of morphology, marking a verbal tense (fol. 24b, 49 prompserat “abia imbentado”), or clarifying the use of a participle or passive form (fol. 24a, 3 feruntur “dizese”). The majority of annotations are lexical. Latin synonyms are frequently written above individual words (fol. 25b, 103 ferre “assignare”; fol. 26a, 150 rapidum “i. velocissimum”). Marginal notes tend, by contrast, to clarify ambiguous terms (fol. 25b, 94 tonantis “i. Iovis”; fol. 25b, 108 togae “pacis”). This is clearly seen, for instance, in the annotator’s practice to give vernacular equivalents for certain adjectives (fol. 25b, 129 hiscens “abierto”) and difficult or technical terms (fol. 27a, 288 fagos “las hayas”). The margins of the text are also used by the annotator to identify the names of a few rhetorical figures used by the Italian poet. Anadiplosis (the repetition of the last or penultimate word of a preceding clause) is, for example, drawn to the attention of the reader: fol. 29b, 474-475…carmina Naevi, / carmina quae quondam fauni vatesque canebant “anadiplosis”. When analysing Poliziano’s style, the annotator goes beyond the text of the Nutricia and is keen to deal with questions of imitation and originality. He comes across as knowledgeable enough to point out parallels between Poliziano and Roman poets, either on a lexicographical level (fol. 25a, 80 arrecti animis – “their minds alert”, “i. intenti. Verg: Intenti ora tenebant [Virg., Aen., II, 1]”) or with respect to the contents of a passage (fol. 25b, 127-129 Ille quoque umbrarum custos …. tria sustulit hiscens “Hoc sumptum est ex decimo Ovidii in meth. [Met., X, 1-85]”). Nevertheless, he restricts his associations to authors which would have been well known to his students. Thus, he usually refers to lines from Virgil’s Aeneid and Georgics, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, or Horace’s Ars poetica as the passages from which Poliziano took inspiration (fol. 25b, 106-107 mox et dictus Hymen et desultoria certis / legibus est adstricta Venus – “Next marriage was instituted, and love, which formerly was promiscuous, was now subjected to strict laws”, “Haec omnia dicit

104

Chapter Four

Politianus ad imitationem Horatii in arte poetica [398]”). Cross-references to biblical texts are also provided (fol. 26b, 253 Moses “de cuius vita et moribus lege Exodum et Leviticum”), and the annotator seems well acquainted with humanist literature. He cites, for instance, Bade’s commentary on Virgil’s Aeneid (fol. 26b, with regard to Aen., II, 122). A brief look at the annotations to lines 318-319 (At tu, qui merito dulcem cratera magistro / obtuleras – “But you, Musaeus, who offered to your deserving master a sweet mixing bowl”, fol. 28a) will enable us to understand how the annotator operates. It is during the first reading of the poem that he stops at almost every word in order to clarify any ambiguity in the line: tu “Musaee”; magistro “Orpheo”; cratera “i. opus crateris”. At a later stage he explains the identity of Musaeus by developing, in the marginal notes, information already contained in the glosses (“Musaeus fuit poeta insignis Orphei tempore… qui scripsit opus quod Crater appellabatur” – “Musaeus was a famous poet in the time of Orpheus... who wrote a work entitled The Bowl”) and by borrowing a gloss from Servius (Serv., Aen., VI, 667: “Musaeus. Theologus fuit iste post Orpheum… ad ipsum carmen scripsit, quod appellatur Crater” – “Musaeus was a theologian after Orpheus… for him he wrote a poem entitled The Bowl”). Since he has already provided information on Orpheus earlier on in the annotations, and even recommended further reading to his students,382 he does not feel compelled to elaborate the point and can focus instead on Musaeus, stressing his relation to his master Orpheus (“… praeceptoris Orphei … praeceptorem suum Orpheum”). The line also allows him to illustrate, by means of an exercise of copia, the variety of ways in which the same idea can be expressed in Latin: “dedicavit illud sub honore ipsius praceptoris […] et qui fuit gratissimus erga praeceptorem”. We are dealing with a Spanish annotator whose chief interest is glossing nearly every word that might present any difficulty. Although the annotations supply valuable evidence of his interests and working method, they contain no remarks which give us a clue to the identity of the annotator, and attempts to unmask him are likely to fail. A cryptic reference on fol. 29a to Lope de Baena (d. 1506), organist to the Spanish Court and described by our annotator as “el mejor musico de organo hispano” (“the best Spanish organist”), confirms that the volume under consideration was in Spanish ownership sometime in the first half of the sixteenth century but does not provide any concluding proof as to who may have read and studied Poliziano’s Latin poems.383 At the beginning of the Nutricia (fol. 23a), however, next to the heading Argumentum Nutriciae, the annotator has scribbled the words Antoni. NeBrissensis, the

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

105

name of Antonio de Nebrija, who held the chair of poetry and rhetoric at Alcalá from 1514 until his death eight years later. Why does Nebrija’s name appear here? Could the notes belong to him? This is rather unlikely, as a paleographical analysis seems to rule out any possible link between his hand and that of our annotator. Yet, if not by Nebrija himself, the notes could at least demonstrate his familiarity with the text of the Nutricia. Indeed, Nebrija –who regarded Poliziano as “the most erudite man of our age”–384 is known to have shared with the Italian humanist a similar conception of the grammaticus, and to have been well acquainted with his scholarly methods.385 The annotations could therefore be easily connected to Nebrija’s teaching at the University of Alcalá in the last years of his life. Nevertheless, apart from second-hand anecdotal accounts and grandiloquent inaugural lectures, little is known about Nebrija’s teaching at Alcalá. We know that he had absolute freedom to lecture on a broad range of authors; and that part of his time was spent on preparing and editing school texts. For this task he relied on the printer Arnao Guillén de Brocar (fl. 1490-1524), who –on Nebrija’s recommendation– had been chosen in 1513 by Cardinal Cisneros to be printer for the university. It was Brocar who published the majority of Nebrija’s works and a series of school texts including Seneca, Cicero, Mantuan and the Byzantine scholar Manuel Chrysoloras (1353-1415); so it is perfectly feasible that he may have been persuaded by Nebrija to print an edition of the Nutricia, a piece highly suited to the needs of his young audience. 386 The lack of documentation concerning Nebrija’s teaching at Alcalá should not discourage us in our attempt to connect the hand-written notes found in the 1515 Alcalá edition of the Silvae with Nebrija’s activity in the classroom, for we have at our disposal another kind of record of his lecturing technique both at Salamanca and Alcalá, namely his printed commentaries on Persius, Virgil, Prudentius, Sedulius, and, significantly, Peter Martyr. It is possible to perceive a relationship between the Nutricia annotations in the Alcalá edition and Nebrija’s ideas on ancient and humanistic authors. A small sample of Nebrija’s expositiones of Persius, Sedulius and Peter Martyr helps illustrate the similarities between his exegetical methods and the technique employed by the Alcalá annotator of the Nutricia.387 First of all, both Nebrija’s annotations and the notes in the Nutricia immediately stand out as deliberately brief and mostly focused on grammatical and lexical issues. The following example illustrates one of the most striking features of Nebrija’s commentaries, namely his attention

Chapter Four

106

to the basics of grammar and syntax, an interest shared by the Alcalá annotator: Pers., Sat. I, 19 cum carmina. id est quia carmina, nam cum coniunctio est causalis hoc in loco; Pers., Sat. VI, 37 venit urbi. id est ad urbem; Petr. Mart., In Ianum 44 dixti. pro dixisti – Nutr., 75 Nam simul. luego que.

Secondly, like the Alcalá annotator, Nebrija also directs his notes towards lexical points, by listing synonyms: Pers., Sat. I, 32 vatum. id est poetarum – Nutr., 128 vatis. poeta; Sedul., Carm., V, 289 longum. id est longo tempore – Nutr., 188 longum. id est longo tempore.

He also pays considerable attention to finding Spanish equivalents, especially for technical terms: Pers., Sat. VI, 22 rhombos. Pisces ex genere planorum. Hispani vocant “rodavallos”; Petr. Mart., In Ianum 41 clipeus. Clipeus pictus est quem nos vocamus “adarga” – Nutr., 194 magnesia cautes. la piedra yman;

discusses polysemic words: Petr. Mart., In Ianum 16 tempora. tempora sunt capitis latera – Nutr., 253 tempora. las sienes;

shows an interest in exercises of copia: Pers., Sat. III, 84 et nil. id est quia nullam rem – Nutr., 179 terrificum. orride et terrifice;

and –less frequently– summarises the overall meaning of certain lines: Pers., Sat. I, 53 calidum scis. Sensus est: non posset fieri ut hic sciat qua opinione sit apud alios, cum muneribus praecorruperit clientes et amicos, qui verum illi dicturi erant – Nutr., 82 qui fons aut limes honesti. i. quod esset prima vita.

Finally, both the Alcalá annotator and Nebrija seem particularly concerned with the identification of a few elementary rhetorical figures:

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

107

Sedul., Carm. II, 208-209 O quam caeca gerit nigro sub pectore corda. / Caeca corda sub pectore nigro…. Duplex metonymia enim pectus pro corde et cor pro mente – Nutr., 313 nemusque. i. arbores. continens pro contento.

For all these reasons, it is very tempting to relate the annotations found in this British Library copy of the 1515 Alcalá edition of the Nutricia to Antonio de Nebrija. Yet how and why Nebrija’s name came to be written in this copy remains a mystery and this –together with the paleographical evidence– should at the very least make us question the link. However, what these annotations do illustrate, regardless of their authorship, is the way in which Poliziano’s poems were used in the lecture room at the University of Alcalá in the first decades of the sixteenth century. The University of Salamanca provides further examples of lecturers who recognised the didactic possibilities of Poliziano’s Latin poetry. One such individual is Hernán Núñez de Guzmán (ca. 1473 - 1553), known as “El Pinciano” from “Pintia”, the Latin name of his hometown Valladolid. Professor of rhetoric and Greek from 1523, Núñez de Guzmán is recorded as having explained in class “the two most difficult authors in the Latin language, Pliny’s Natural History and the Silvae of Poliziano”, the latter “to a large crowd” (“con gran frequencia de auditors”).388 Significantly, in his rhetoric courses, Núñez de Guzmán combined these two texts with the reading of Valla’s Elegantiae, since this work “belongs to rhetoric rather than to grammar because it deals with Latin elegance”.389 As noted in preceding chapters, examples abound of Renaissance lecturers who used Poliziano’s Rusticus to complement their oral expositions on Pliny’s text. Núñez de Guzmán knew both texts well. As early as 1529 he made reference to his notes on Pliny which –published in three volumes in the 1540s– were informed by his teaching at the university.390 Núñez de Guzmán’s interest in the Silvae can be dated to 1522, when in an epistle to Juan Vergara he mentioned having written commentaries on the Manto, the Ambra and the Nutricia, which are reported as lost.391 The impression we get from Núñez de Guzmán’s correspondence is, that of the three poems, it is the Nutricia with which he is most familiar: in one letter he cites lines 424-425 from the poem and on two occasions he even refers to annotations to the text written by an unknown jurist, which reached him in Salamanca in the 1540s.392 A partial commentary on the Nutricia by a sixteenth-century Spanish annotator has survived in BNE, Ms. 3663 (fols. 164r-185r), and may even be the text to which Núñez de Guzmán was referring in his letters.393 Although written by an anonymous hand, the annotations are clearly the

108

Chapter Four

work of a Spaniard since the commentator occasionally provides his reader with vernacular equivalents to Latin words: (fol. 175v) – 280 nec vulnera tantum /saeva, sed et caecos vincebant carmine morbos – “[priests] overcame not only cruel wounds but obscure maladies by incantation”, “i. carminibus etiam curabant morbos qualia sunt multa in Plinio et quos Hispani vocant psalmistas et ensalmadores” (“They even cured illnesses with incantations such as are common in Pliny; the Spanish call them psalmistas [psalmists] et ensalmadores [enchanters]”). Erasures and several incomplete annotations found throughout the commentary would seem to indicate that we are dealing here with a first draft. The annotation is consistent up to line 399 (fol. 180r), at which point the commentator’s interest shifts and the annotations are restricted to providing glosses on the names of the poets to whom Poliziano alludes. From fol. 181v the notes become even less frequent; on these last pages of the text the annotator simply scribbles lemmata with sketchy information on a particular author, which in most cases remain blank, presumably to be filled in at a later stage. Annotation concludes with the lemmata “Sappho” and “Corinna”, which correspond to lines 619 and 634 in the poem (fol. 185r). The salient feature of the notes in the Madrid manuscript is paraphrase, to explain the meaning of seemingly difficult words and names, especially those related to mythology and legendary history: (fol. 164v) 9-10 Hinc Italos Phrygio signavit nomine portus, / Caietae memor, Aeneas – “For this reason Aeneas, in memory of Caieta, gave a Phrygian name to an Italian port”, “quia Caieta Italiae portus est in Campania, cognominata ab Aeneae nutrice, de qua Vergilius in principio libri septimi Aeneidis [1-2]: Tu quoque litoribus nostris, Aeneia nutrix, / aeternam moriens famam, Caieta, dedisti” – “for Caieta is a port in Italy, in Campania, so named in memory of Aeneas’s nurse, of whom Virgil states at the beginning of book seven of the Aeneid: Thou, too, Caieta, nurse of Aeneas, hast by thy death given deathless fame to our shores”.

In contrast, very little attention is paid to grammatical issues, although the annotator is at times careful to rearrange the order of the elements within the line: (fol. 179v) 380-381 quo carmine dignas / addiderim, tandem, quove ore aut pectore laudes? – “But with what verses, with what tongue and with what sentiments could I add praise worthy of your name?”, “Ordo est: a quo carmine addiderim dignas laudes?”

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

109

In one case Hebrew words are supplied in a direct borrowing from a passage in Poliziano’s Miscellanea..394 The annotator also shows his familiarity with the work of Poliziano’s friend and fellow humanist Antonius Codrus (Antonio Cortesi Urceo, 1446-1500), whom he quotes three times (see, for example, fol. 173v; fig. 4.2).

Fig. 4.2

The acceptance of Poliziano as one of the authorities in the curriculum in Salamanca is reflected first and foremost in Francisco Sánchez’s commentary on the four Silvae, first printed in 1554 and published in a revised version in 1596. 395 Born in 1523 in the small town of Las Brozas in Extremadura, hence his epithet El Brocense, Sánchez is better known for his studies on Latin grammar, for his works on rhetoric and for his Erasmianism, which aroused the suspicion of the Inquisition. While professor of rhetoric and Greek in Salamanca between 1554 and some time before his death in 1601, he published an extensive series of commentaries on classical, Neo-Latin and Spanish poets including, among others, Virgil, Persius, Poliziano, Garcilaso de la Vega and Juan de Mena. It is important to point out that, throughout his life, Sánchez privileged

110

Chapter Four

scholarly interpretation over poetic creation. As he stated in the preface to his commentary on Horace’s Ars poetica, “I have always held in higher esteem the unravelling of other people’s writings than the composition of new works through my own exertion”.396 Moreover, as with other commentators on Poliziano like Núñez de Guzmán and Nebrija –for whom distinctions between ancient and modern, or Latin and vernacular, poets do not seem to be relevant–, Sánchez regarded literary imitation as a process that transcends the boundaries of time and language. 397 In his annotations to Poliziano’s Latin poems Sánchez focuses on passages of particular intrinsic interest, or on lines and lemmata which present some difficulty. As Sánchez states in his commentary on Ovid’s Ibis, when writing annotations, his focus is always on those passages “which had not been wholly understood by other commentators”.398 Consequently, Sánchez prepared a commentary on the Silvae –which he often refers to as a “poema obscurum”– in response to the challenge posed by Poliziano, who “had included in his poem every example of obscure interpretation which he knew”.399 A brief typology of the annotations reveals that Sánchez’s initial interest lies in establishing the best version of the text, usually through the recension of manuscripts. In addition, he pays attention to questions of realia, he is interested in highlighting rhetorical figures in the text, and is keen to point out Spanish equivalents for some Latin words, thus reflecting what would seem to be a uniquely Spanish interest in giving consideration to vernacular aspects.400 Sánchez’s decision to prepare annotations to the Silvae is clearly prompted by his teaching of rhetoric at the University of Salamanca. The imprimatur for the second edition of 1596 (“attento que éste es libro que se lee en las Universidades, y ha sido ya impresso en esta ciudad”, fol. 1v) confirms that the Silvae were used by El Brocense as a textbook in Salamanca. Significantly Sánchez’s teaching records show how he lectured on the poems, together or separately, in combination with a range of classical texts.401 Here the visitas de cátedras (written reports on teaching activity carried out by the university authorities) give us precious information about Sánchez’s use of Poliziano’s poetry in the lecture room as early as 1569.402 By the end of that academic year Sánchez had already completed a first reading of the four Silvae. A further account of July 1572 shows that Sánchez combined the reading of Virgil’s Eclogues in the morning with lecturing on the “Sylvas de Angelo Poliçiano” in the afternoon:

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

111

“Fourth assessment, written on 9 July 1572: Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas now reads Virgil’s Eclogues from nine to ten, and Angelo Poliziano’s Silvae from three to four, and he started eight days ago. He reads to good effect and he starts and finishes at the appointed time”.403

This visita de cátedra is indeed important, since it tells us something about the context in which Sánchez’s lectures took place. As we know from a further report –this time issued by the chancellor of the university in 1596, precisely the year in which a second edition of the Silvae was published– Sánchez included Poliziano’s poems in his course on rhetoric in combination with lectures on his own De arte dicendi. According to the assessors, the professor lectured appropriately and was scrupulous in his time-keeping.404 Significantly, two years later, in August 1598, the text was taught in combination with Ovid’s Ibis, a poem which had merited annotations by Sánchez, reprinted earlier that year. 405 Poliziano was accepted by Sánchez as one of the new authorities in the curriculum of the Faculty of Arts at Salamanca. By acknowledging the didactic possibilities of the Silvae and subsequently deciding to write a commentary on them, Sánchez was however not only contributing to the academic recognition of Poliziano’s poems but also providing students and other readers with the appropriate tool to interpret such a difficult work. For example, Juan de Guzmán, the author of an annotated Spanish translation of the Georgics published in the city in 1586, must have become acquainted with the Silvae when he attended Sánchez’s course on rhetoric at the university. As a former student of Sánchez, Guzmán must have read, among other Silvae, the Ambra, a text he later refers to in the preface to his translation of Virgil when discussing the nature of the poet.406 Likewise, Luis Alfonso de Carvallo in his treatise on poetry, Cisne de Apolo (1602), in the chapter entitled “Si la vena de los poetas es locura” (“Whether the vein of poets is madness”), drew on a passage from the Nutricia (139-141), via Sánchez’s notes (in his second edition), where Poliziano discusses the nature of the furor poeticus.407 Carvallo’s testimony seems to confirm both the popularity of Sánchez de las Brozas’s canonical commentary and the varied fortuna in sixteenth-century Spain of the Latin poetry written in Italy in the previous century.

II. Adaptation In Spain the influence of Italian Latin humanism on the contemporary literary tradition can be detected not only in the visible evidence of

112

Chapter Four

philological editions and university commentaries, but also in the development of whole new forms and genres in Latin and in the vernacular through Renaissance techniques of imitatio. As in other European countries, the rich output of Latin literature in Spain during the sixteenth century did not emerge in a setting in which Latin was the only written language. Rather, the development of Neo-Latin poetry, prose, and drama was inextricably linked to (and usually in competition with) the inevitable spread of the vernacular in all spheres of life.408 Throughout the period the relationship between the two literary traditions was, however, never one way. Though several authors shunned Spanish altogether or decided to use it reluctantly and rarely, even their literary output was heavily influenced by the tastes and styles of the dominant vernacular culture. Conversely, those authors writing almost exclusively in Spanish inevitably looked to their Latin counterparts for models and inspiration. Well into the sixteenth century, the school and university curriculum guaranteed that even prose writers and poets who could not write as confidently in Latin as they did in the vernacular could at least trot out the odd Latin elegiac for their friends or compose the occasional letter in Latin; alongside rudimentary exercises in Latin verse and prose composition, they were also schooled in the reading, interpretation, translation and imitation of the classical and humanist authors considered suitable literary models for their own writings. In this section I illustrate –through a series of representative examples– the way in which the Latin poetry and prose of Italian humanists were incorporated into the literary culture of Renaissance Spain. Let us begin with poetry. In Spain the reading and teaching of Poliziano’s Silvae in classrooms and the circulation of commentaries on them soon encouraged native imitations, just as the publication of Bérauld’s annotations had in sixteenth-century France. One lecturer who may have prescribed Poliziano’s Latin poems for his courses was Joan Àngel Gonsales (or Juan Ángel González, ca. 1480-1548), professor of poetry in Valencia from 1516 and the author of a Silva de laudibus poeseos (“Silva in praise of poetry”, ca. 1525) modelled on the Nutricia.409 One of his students, Antonio Serón (1512-67), must have also become acquainted with Poliziano’s poems during his time in Valencia. They are a likely source for his Silvarum liber of 1566 (a text which, interestingly, survives in the same manuscript [BNE, fols. 105-163v] containing the anonymous Latin commentary on the Nutricia examined above). It was, however, through Sánchez’s canonical commentary that the Silvae provided fresh inspiration for a number of contemporary Spanish poets writing in Latin and in the vernacular. Proof of the influence of Poliziano

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

113

on the Spanish poetry of the time can be found in a heavily-annotated copy of Nicolaus Episcopius’s 1553 Basle edition of Poliziano’s Opera omnia held at Salamanca University Library (shelfmark: 46094): a certain Diego Girón (1530-90) signed the title page in 1570, identifying himself as a member of the literary circle of the Sevilian poet, Juan de Mal Lara (152471).410 After attending Núñez de Guzmán’s courses on rhetoric in Salamanca –which, as we have seen, included the Rusticus– Mal Lara returned to Seville in 1548 to open his own academy which soon became a meeting point for many Andalusian men of culture, no doubt contributing to the dissemination of Poliziano’s Latin verse among local poets.411 Remote echoes of Poliziano’s poems can also be found in the poetry of Luis de Góngora (1561-1627), who must have become familiar with Sánchez’s commentary during his stay in Salamanca between 1576 and 1580.412 The height of this fashion for Poliziano’s work coincides with the period in which Spanish Renaissance poetry achieves full maturity: the small but exquisite corpus of poems by Fray Luis de León (1527-91) –and, in particular, his odes “De la Magdalena” and “Al licenciado Juan de Grial”– shows just how deeply the author –himself an accomplished poet in Latin, a translator of classical and biblical texts and a colleague of Sánchez at the University of Salamanca– had been inspired by Poliziano’s epigrams In anum and Iam cornu gravidus.413 A further example of the likely influence of Poliziano’s Latin poetry on Fray Luis’s verse is the eulogy of rustic life and the portrait of an austere and righteous countryman in the opening lines of the Rusticus, material which – alongside Horace’s Beatus ille and Virgil’s fourth Georgic– provided inspiration for the first six stanzas of his “Oda a la vida retirada” (“The Life removed”, ca. 1577). 414 Familiarity with Italian humanistic poets who wrote on religious subjects also played a key role in the evolution of Latin and vernacular poetry in Renaissance Spain. For example, Juan Sobrarias, who, as we have seen, edited Verinus, also imitated his work in his Disticha (1510); the Valencian Joan Baptista Anyés (1480-1553) likewise imitated the bucolic poetry of Antonio Geraldini in his Egloga in Nativitate Christi, first staged at the court of the Duke of Calabria in Valencia in 1527.415 The popularity of printed editions of Mantuan’s hagiographic epics is also reflected in the Latin and Spanish poetry of the time. For example, the appearance in Alcalá of Alvar Gómez de Ciudad Real’s (1488-1538) epic poem Thalichristia in 1522 predates by one year the publication of Mantuan’s seven Parthenicai in the same city.416 Clearly structured and elegantly composed, the twenty-five books of the Thalichristia are an

114

Chapter Four

adaptation in Virgilian hexameters of the Gospels, peppered with a series of excursus, with an entire book (XIX) devoted to the life of Mary Magdalen. The work opens with a prologue written by Nebrija towards the end of his life in which he makes explicit the link between Gómez de Ciudad Real’s poem and the ancient tradition of Christian Latin poetry. In his preface Nebrija compares Gómez de Ciudad Real with earlier practitioners of the genre such as Prudentius and Sedulius (whom Nebrija had edited in 1512 and 1514 respectively), Juvencus and Mantuan, and describes the text as a prime example of Pico della Mirandola’s theologia poetica, a doctrine based on the idea of there being a continuous tradition of ancient spiritual wisdom which could be reconciled with the true essence of Christianity: “Habes, candidissime lector, celebrandam venturo saeculo Thalicristiam, habes Vergilium Christianum, habes –inquam– poeticam theologiam a summis viris diu desideratam et a Ioanne Pico illustri Mirandulae comite summo voto petitam, quam magnificus eques Alvarus Gomez ad hoc scripsit, ut pulcherrimam scientiarum poesim, iam diu obscenis inventionibus et vanis poetarum fabulis deformatam, pristino illius decori restitueret, et sacerrimam theologiam grandiloquio dicendi genere et poeticis divitiis honestaret, et Musarum pulchritudini simul et evangelicae veritati satisfaciens. Antiquitus enim nihil de Deo scribebatur nisi carmine, sic Linus, sic Orpheus et multi ante Homerum honorificentissimi habiti vates mysteria tantum theologica cecinerunt” [Here you have, my dearest reader, the Thalicristia, which shall be celebrated in the centuries to come; here you have a Christian Virgil; here you have –I would say– the poetical theology long desired by the greatest men and which the illustrious Count Giovanni Pico della Mirandola has sought with the greatest longing. The noble knight Alvar Gómez de Ciudad Real wrote it so that he might restore poetry, the most beautiful of disciplines, disfigured for so long by obscene inventions and poets’ vain fables, to its former splendour; so that he might embellish the most sacred theology with grandiloquent style and poetic richness, satisfying both the beauty of the Muses and the truth of the Gospel. Certainly in Antiquity nothing was ever written regarding God but in verse: thus Linus [the son of Apollo and instructor of Orpheus], Orpheus and many poets before Homer who were held as the most honourable sang so greatly the theological mysteries].

The influence of humanist religious verse, and above all of Mantuan, can also be seen in the work of sixteenth-century Spanish poets who adapted into the vernacular what they had been taught at school to admire

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

115

and imitate in Latin. One such writer was the Carmelite, mystic and poet San Juan de la Cruz (1542-91). From 1559 to 1563, he studied at the Jesuit college in Medina del Campo, where he was introduced to grammar, rhetoric and the classics by his famous teacher Juan Bonifacio (15381606).417 One of the Latin poets read by the young Juan de Yepes (as San Juan was known in his early life) in Medina del Campo was Mantuan, whose Parthenice Mariana was printed in 1561 at the request of the college authorities.418 In San Juan’s finest literary achievement, his Cántico espiritual (“Spiritual Canticle”) –an eclogue in which the bride (representing the soul) searches for the bridegroom (representing Christ)–, we find an allusion to a passage from the opening lines of book two of the Parthenice Mariana (II, 18-21), where Mantuan compares Saint Ann to a turtle dove who has lost her mate: Sicut, ubi, amisso thalami consorte per agros, sola volat turtur, nitidis neque potat in undis, ne comitis prisci tristetur imagine visa, nec viridi posthac fertur considere trunco [Thus, as the turtle dove, when separated from her mate, flies alone through the fields, does not drink from clean waters, and saddened by the image of her former mate, does not henceforth perch on green boughs].

The same image occurs in San Juan de la Cruz’s poem: “la blanca palomica / al arca con el ramo se ha tornado / y ya la tortolica / al socio deseado / en las riberas verdes ha hallado. En soledad vivía, /y en soledad ha puesto ya su nido, / y en soledad la guía / a solas su querido, / también en soledad de amor herido” (33-4) [“The white dove / to the ark with the branch has returned; / and already the turtle dove / her desired mate / by the green riversides has found. In solitude she lived, / and in solitude already she has built her nest, / and in solitude her beloved / guides her all alone, / likewise by love in solitude wounded”].419

In his own commentary on the passage San Juan de la Cruz elucidates the meaning of these lines by alluding, albeit without naming names, to Mantuan’s verse: “in order to understand this passage, one ought to know what is said of the turtle dove, namely that, when she does not find her

116

Chapter Four

mate, she does not sit on green branches, nor does she drink clear and cold water, nor does she rest in the shade”.420 In addition to direct quotations and allusions such as these, Italian humanist poetry was also disseminated through vernacular translations. The popularity of humanist Latin Christian epic, of which Sannazaro’s De partu Virginis (1526) and Marco Girolamo Vida’s Christias (“Christiad”, 1527) are supreme examples, clearly testifies to this. First published by Spanish printers in the original in 1534, the De partu Virginis was translated into Spanish twenty years later by Gregorio Hernández de Velasco, who chose to render Sannazaro’s Latin verse in epic octavas reales, thus paving the way for the use of this metre among vernacular poets. Despite Erasmus’s criticism of Sannazaro’s use of pagan mythology, the De partu Virginis soon made its way onto university curricula.421 For example, at Barcelona the text was prescribed for the teaching of poetry to more advanced students (maiores) alongside Virgil’s Aeneid in the 1559 reform of the curriculum.422 As with Sannazaro’s poem, Vida’s Christias – a life of Christ in six cantos– was also well received in Spain, and it was translated into the vernacular by Juan Martín Cordero in 1554. Predictably, in the preface to his version, Martín Cordero’s initial concern is to reassure his readers that the Italian poet has faithfully followed the account of the life of Christ found in the Gospels. He is, however, more interested in commending Vida’s poetic paraphrase and in highlighting those instances in which the biblical source is amplified or embellished.423 The full extent of the influence of the Christias on the Renaissance literary scene of the Hispanic world can be appreciated by the fact that the poem became an important source for the first Christian epic written in the New World, La Christiada (Seville, 1611) by the Dominican Diego de Hojeda (ca 15711615), who lived in Lima.424 With approval from such quarters it is not surprising that in Spain, Italian Christian epic poetry (and its most conspicuous practitioners) soon merited the attention of the critics of the age. One of the first to regard modern epic poets as valid literary models was Alfonso López Pinciano (born ca. 1547), whose reputation was founded on his influential poetic treatise Philosophía antigua poética (1596), which purports to be a series of dialogues recorded in epistles from Madrid by “el Pinciano”, the author’s alter ego. While showing familiarity with the Renaissance humanist commentaries on Aristotle’s Poetics, he offers an original rethinking of all the major problems raised by Aristotle. López Pinciano’s treatise includes a discussion of the nature of epic poetry (epistle 11), a genre which had undergone a process of Christianization throughout the sixteenth century.425

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

117

He is particularly concerned with the insoluble contradiction that the formal requirements of the ancient genre would compromise or detract from stories with a biblical or Christian theme. As examples of epic poems which have managed to overcome this seemingly unsurmountable problem, López Pinciano recommends both Sannazaro’s De partu Virginis and Vida’s Christias, which he praises for the purity of their content and their elegant Latin: “Otra mayor dificultad ha avido entre algunos philopoetas, y es si puede la historia religiosa y sagrada ser materia buena de épica. Ugo dixo: ‘El Obispo Vida y Sannazaro de ella se aprovecharon para El Cristiados y Parto de la Virgen’” [“A further greater difficulty has arisen among certain lovers of poetry: namely, whether religious and sacred history may be an appropriate subject matter for epic poetry. Ugo stated: ‘Bishop Vida and Sannazaro used such material for their Christias and De partu Virginis’”].426

Alfonso López Pinciano was not, however, the only one to commend Sannazaro’s and Vida’s epic poetry. Other contemporary critics, like the abovementioned Luis Alfonso de Carvallo or the anonymous author of the Discurso en loor de la poesía (“Oration in praise of poetry”, Seville, 1608), included them –together with Mantuan– among religious poets worthy of imitation, thus contributing towards their endorsement as literary auctoritates.427 Indeed, in Spain this particularly fruitful form of interaction between Italian humanist poetry and the vernacular literary tradition reached its peak in the Baroque, a time when, paradoxically, the output of Latin poetry in Spain had started to decline. As had been the case with their classical antecedents, the Latin poetry of Italian humanism had come by the turn of the seventeenth century to be regarded as canonical and was held in high esteem by the literary theoreticians of the age. Poets like Mantuan, Sannazaro, Poliziano or Vida played a significant role in the controversies aroused by the poetry of Góngora, and they were commended by Baltasar Gracián (1601-1658) in his influential encyclopaedia on the Baroque theory of wit, Agudeza y arte de ingenio (“The Art of Worldly Wisdom”) of 1648.428 By then, however, Latin poetry had been, for some decades, bowing to the strength of its vernacular counterpart. The acceptance of Italian humanist models also influenced the development of the Spanish prose of the time. Equally significant in this respect is the translation into the vernacular of humanist prose fiction, such as Piccolomini’s Historia de duobus amantibus (“The Tale of two lovers”,

118

Chapter Four

1444), first translated into Spanish in 1496, and which contributed to the rise of the courtly love novel in Spain.429 The best example of a vernacular adaptation of humanist Latin prose is, however, Leon Battista Alberti’s Momus sive de principe (“Momus or On the ruler”). In 1553 Agustín de Almazán (fl. 1550s) published in Alcalá La moral y muy graciosa historia del Momo (“The moral and witty story of Momus”), a translation of the work completed by Alberti (1404-1472) around 1450. In this allegorical satire, modelled on Lucian and centred on the son of Night, Alberti charts the lively fortunes of his antihero Momus, the unscrupulous god of criticism.430 Unlike the Latin source text, the Spanish version includes a full table of contents at the beginning of the volume. The text is further divided into short chapters, each prefaced by Almazán’s interpretative glosses. In his prologue, the translator highlights Alberti’s indebtedness to Lucian, whose subject matter, according to Almazán, the Italian drew on (“tomó algo de la materia”).431 This opinion is shared by the work’s censor, Alejo de Venegas (1497-1562), a humanist professor at Toledo, who, in his introduction to Almazán’s version, lists the passages in Alberti that are from Lucian and links the Momus to mythological fables in order to justify some of the “impieties” included in Alberti’s satirical portrait of the pagan gods.432 There is no doubt that Alberti’s text has much in common with Lucian, and it is no coincidence that its publication in Spain corresponded with a surge of interest in his texts as well as in other classical prose narratives. So, for example, the translation of Apuleius’s Golden Ass by Diego López de Cortegana (ca. 1455-1524) was published in 1525 and reprinted four times before 1551. Likewise, six different versions of some of Lucian’s dialogues were issued between 1538 and 1551.433 In such a climate it comes as no surprise that in 1553 Alberti’s Momus attracted considerable attention and was subsequently translated into Spanish. We should not forget the influence of Alberti’s novel on Renaissance Spanish political theory or neglect the importance of Almazán’s translation within Erasmian circles; nevertheless, the exceptional reception given to Momus in Spain in the second half of the sixteenth century can be best understood in the context of the increased interest at the time in the ancient and Renaissance novel.434 The influence of Alberti, Apuleius and Lucian was, however, not limited to a merely philological or linguistic interest in making their works accessible to a Spanish readership. Rather, they should be seen as part of the literature of the age, and above all as belonging to a series of prose tales, which combine the imitation of classical authors with the depiction of daily life. Just one year after the publication of Almazán’s translation,

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

119

the anonymous La Vida del Lazarillo y de sus fortunas y adversidades (“The life of Lazarillo de Tormes and of his fortunes and adversities”) appeared in print, published simultaneously in Alcalá, Burgos, Medina del Campo and Antwerp. Undoubtedly the most popular Spanish picaresque novel, Lazarillo tells the story of a boy of poor and disreputable parentage who is placed in the service of several masters.435 Like Momus, who –after trying various walks of life– concludes that “only in the discipline (as I may call it) and art of beggary did I not encounter anything which displeased me in the least” (Momus [Knight], II, 51, p. 135), the author of Lazarillo has the young Lázaro launch into a eulogy of the vagabond’s life: “I tell the truth that, if, by way of subtlety and cunning, I had not found a remedy, I should many times have succumbed to starvation. With all this knowledge and experience, I managed so well that, oftener than not, I got the best of it. On account of these matters, there were infernal rows between us, of which I will relate some but not all”. 436

As Francisco Rico has observed, Lázaro’s plea could well be seen as a reply to the rebuke of “some beggars who walk naked” (“algunos mendicantes que andan desnudos”) with which Almazán had summarised the passage in Alberti’s novel.437 The anonymous author of Lazarillo presumably reacted against those views. Almazán’s reprimands were, however, borne in mind by the authors of picaresque novels of the final decade of the sixteenth century and the first of the seventeenth. In 1599, only a year after Várez de Castro had reprinted the Spanish translation of Momus, the same Madrid-based printer published an edition of the first part of the picaresque novel Guzmán de Alfarache by Mateo Alemán (1547-1615). The work consists of Guzmán’s account of his adventures, together with his moral commentary on them, so we are given a twofold perspective on events. (The moral commentary was conceived as an integral part of the work from the start, for Guzmán de Alfarache is not primarily a work of entertainment.) As with Momus, Guzmán resolves to become a vagabond. In Alemán’s novel, however, the rogue’s eulogy is moralising. This differentiates it from the protagonist’s self-praise in Lazarillo, but by the same token makes it closer to Alberti’s Momus, and especially –and significantly– to the version of Momus filtered through the lens of the Spanish translation. As in Almazán’s version of Alberti’s novel, Alemán also praises the vagabond life of the beggar, although he condemns the abuses committed by some tramps, and finally seems to opt for a much more settled life:

120

Chapter Four

“Then might I affirm that, leaving aside my roguish kinde of life, this Picardia of mine (as a Queene, whose name I am not worthy to take in my mouth, and whereunto any other politicke course of life is not to be compared) all the braverie and gallantrie of the curious method of living happily, and passing well away the time, which the world solemnizeth so much, must yield, and give place thereunto. But this [life in the service of a cook], though accompanied with much care, was exceeding good, good in the highest degree”. 438

Unlike Alemán –whose borrowings from Momus are never explicit–, the author of the Libro de la pícara Justina (“The book of the rogue Justina”, Madrid, 1605), the physician Francisco López de Úbeda (fl. 1600s), fully acknowledged his debt to Alberti. In the prologue to his novel, he lists various works that have provided inspiration and material for his work, among which is Momus: “Thus, there is no entanglement in Celestina, no joke in Momus, no act of stupidity in Lazarillo, no elegance in Guevara [Antonio de Guevara’s collection of commonplace counsels to princes], no joke in Eufrosina, no plot twist in Patrañuelo, no tale in The Golden Ass, and, in general, no good material in ballads, plays or in any poetical work in Spanish, whose cream and very essence has not herein been extracted and put to good use”.439

Throughout Justina, López de Úbeda treats Alberti’s book as a parody. This can be seen, for example, in Blandina’s metamorphosis into a parrot or in the description of Jupiter as a drunkard –motifs likely to have been drawn from the second and fourth books of Momus– as well as in the passage in which the young “pícara” recounts that the leader of the band of students vehemently rejected her plan to entertain him by narrating the story of the god Momus. By the beginning of the seventeenth century Leon Battista Alberti’s Momus had already acquired in Spain not only the auctoritas afforded by two subsequent editions in less than five decades, but considerable exposure –at first covert, but later explicit– in contemporary picaresque novels. Over 150 years after its composition, in a language and social context far removed from those of the original, Alberti’s Momus was still alive and serving as a model for one of the most fertile traditions in Spanish literature. But Alberti’s Latin masterpiece was also destined to be a source for a less humorous literary genre. In 1666 Father Benito Remigio Noydens (1630-85) published in Madrid his Historia moral del dios

Italian Latin Humanism and the Spanish Vernacular

121

Momo: enseñanzas de príncipes y súbditos y livros de cavallerías (“The moral story of the god Momus: education for princes and subjects, and advice against the novels of chivalry”). A text belonging to the tradition of the mirror for princes and courtiers, the Historia moral del dios Momo is a summary of the first two books of Momus, which, as Noydens states in his preface, he read in Agustín de Almazán’s translation. The summaries which precede each chapter are also based on Almazán’s. As a rule, Noydens follows Alberti’s narrative thread, but he often diverges from his source with descriptions of events culled from ancient and Spanish history, dissertations on political and topical issues, or literary digressions. For instance, he condemns certain attitudes towards poverty, discusses the nature of marriage, or describes the perfect counsellor. Throughout Noydens’s book we find a strong defence of the Catholic religion and of Catholic politics, and the Spanish author also uses Momus’s words to exhort his readers to lead a moral and virtuous life. In many chapters Alberti’s work (always filtered through Almazán’s glosses) is, however, only a pretext for further discussion. It is in this light that we must understand, for example, Noydens’s warning to young women to avoid novels and chivalric literature, no doubt derived from Almazán’s moral interpretation of Momus’s transformation into ivy in order to rape Praise as recounted by Alberti (Momus [Knight], I, 70-2, pp. 67-9).440 Written during the Counter-Reformation, the Historia moral del dios Momo is a diatribe against heretics and a defence of the good prince and of good government according to the principles of Catholic orthodoxy. This can be seen particularly clearly in chapter 5. In the original, Alberti describes how the celestial troublemaker, as a punishment for disturbing the peace of heaven, is cast down to earth, where he disguised himself first as a poet and subsequently as a philosopher, and “recited to the crowd every scandalous tale of the gods” (Momus [Knight], I, 26, p. 33). Almazán adds a moral point to his translation by using the passage to attack the evil practices of courtly advisors. Noydens in turn goes one step further and relates the original episode to the political and religious situation of the time by attacking Germany and England for their hostile policies against the Catholic Church and her subjects. This is Noydens’s summary of Alberti’s passage: “How Momus, having been expelled, attempts to take advantage of the gods, becomes a poet and philosopher, and causes havoc among the people in order to wage war against heaven. The same was done by heretics and by the princes in Germany and England who rose against the Church and Catholics”.441

122

Chapter Four

The latest testimony to the influence of Momus on early modern Spanish literature is Gabriel Álvarez de Castro’s Palacio del Momo (“Momus’s Palace”). Published in 1714, Álvarez de Castro’s work constitutes a defence of the Historia de la Iglesia y del mundo (“A History of the Church and the World”), a treatise on ecclesiastical history written by the author the previous year, which had been strongly attacked by an anonymous critic. In his tale Álvarez de Castro describes a dream in which he meets Momus, and refutes his historical, linguistic or literary criticisms of the Historia de la Iglesia y del mundo at great length using motifs and characters taken directly from the first book of Alberti’s novel.442 Passages such as those describing the fall of Momus into the Eridanus, the god’s encounters with Proflua and Verina, or the cunning wiles of the goddess of Deceit are expanded and further embellished by Álvarez de Castro in order to highlight Momus’s subversive nature and to prove the inaccuracy of most of his accusations and criticisms. With Álvarez de Castro’s Momus moralisé, Leon Battista Alberti’s mockery of mid-quattrocento court life, religion and politics had, three centuries after its composition, clearly lost its original meaning.

CONCLUSION

Of all the humanist works examined in the preceding pages, Leon Battista Alberti’s Momus was doubtless the text which underwent the most overt process of allegorization. From the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, editors, translators and imitators were keen to indicate how Alberti’s dark comedy exemplified virtues to be emulated and vices to be shunned. In this respect, Álvarez de Castro’s late response to Momus constitutes an extreme example of how the literature of Italian Latin humanism was, as Daniel Javitch would put it, “domesticated”: that is, the problematic or objectionable aspects of the texts were “suppressed or ignored so that [they could] be shown to conform not only to conventional ethical and religious values, but to artistic ones as well” (Proclaiming a classic, p. 6). By allegorizing Alberti’s satire Álvarez de Castro and other exegetes before him rendered the content of the text safe. In Renaissance Europe most Latin texts of Italian humanism were, however, accommodated in more formal ways. From the 1470s on, editions of Latin letters and speeches, of verse, and of pedagogical and philosophical writings composed by humanists in Italy were produced in imprints across Europe. These editions usually involved a crowd of printers, patrons, editors, translators and commentators. The volumes acquired paratextual features similar to those adopted for the ancient classics. In most cases they were accompanied by printed annotations which helped the reader labour over the works of fourteenth- and fifteenthcentury Italian masters. Many of these books bear a series of pointing hands and note markers revealing that their owners had clearly purchased the volumes to be used and annotated. Such liminary material facilitated the entry of Italian Latin humanism into European classrooms alongside the literature of ancient Greece and Rome, and the Latin classics of Italian humanism became, in turn, literary models, contributing to the development of whole new forms and genres in Latin and in the vernacular. Never devoid of tensions, this process of canonization was unconstrained by geographical boundaries. Indeed, the Latin literature of Italian humanism attained canonical status both in central areas and in the periphery, where it was very often adopted in educational curricula in a less resistant manner than sometimes acknowledged. Moreover, the academic recognition of Italian Latin humanism knew no institutional or

124

Conclusion

social hierarchy. It took place at university and school level, and it was fostered by high-ranking individuals and by less celebrated printers, humble grammar masters and even humbler elementary teachers alike. One of the guiding premises of this study has been that the spread of the studia humanitatis in Renaissance Europe and the adoption of humanist methods and models in European schools and universities did not translate into a fully-fledged curricular reform. Though the accommodation of Italian Latin humanism in the classroom of Renaissance Europe would have been applauded by humanist luminaries such as Petrarch, Poliziano and Vergerio (it was, in fact, promoted and witnessed by some of them already in their own lifetime), the educational uses to which their texts were put in the daily routine of teaching would have been much less welcomed. In many cases works like Poliziano’s Silvae, Petrarch’s Latin eclogues, Filelfo’s correspondence or Mantuan’s devotional poetry did not enter the canon because they belonged in the company of the best classical poetic and prose models which they imitated, nor because of their inherent superiority, but because they were deemed suitable for the teaching of the Latin language and the introduction to the classical world, or simply because they confirmed the specific social and religious values that Renaissance readers brought with them to these works. Paradoxically, by favouring the linguistic and moral values of these texts, European humanists continued in the practice of their medieval forerunners whom they had accused of reducing the Latin classics to mere educational tools.

APPENDIX A

Poliziano’s Latin works printed between 1480 and 1559 Work

OO

E

S

M

O

P

L

D

Pr

En

Total

1480-1489

0

0

3

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

1490-1499

3

2

7

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

14

1500-1509

0

5

2

3

4

4

3

0

0

0

21

1510-1519

2

11

10

2

7

4

12

1

1

1

51

1520-1529

1

5

3

1

1

0

3

0

1

1

16

1530-1539

4

1

2

0

0

2

5

0

0

1

15

1540-1549

1

2

1

0

0

0

3

1

0

2

10

1550-1559

2

0

3

0

0

0

2

4

2

1

14

13

26

31

7

12

11

29

6

4

6

145

Totals

*

*An edition of the Lamia, published in Cologne and held at Paris, BNF (8y309), is undated Key: OO (Opera omnia), E (Epistolae), S (Silvae), M (Miscellanea), O (Orationes), P (Panepistemon), L (Lamia), D (Dialectica), Pr (Problemata), En (Enchiridion)

Appendix A

126

Locations Paris

Lyon

Basle

Deventer

Antwerp

0

Strasbourg 0

1480-1489

0

0

0

1490-1499

0

1

0

0

0

0

1500-1509

3

3

1

4

2

2

1510-1519

16

0

4

3

9

1

1520-1529

7

1

4

1

1

0

1530-1539

1

6

4

0

0

0

1540-1549

6

3

2

0

0

0

1550-1559

0

10

4

0

0

0

33

24

19

8

12

3

Totals

0

Other publishing centres: Münster 1; Leipzig 3; Tübingen 4; Alcalá de Henares 1; Vienna 1; Cologne 3; Augsburg 1; Rome 2; Salamanca 1; Leiden 1; Florence 10; Venice 5; Brescia 1; Bologna 6; Hagenau 1; Geneva 2; London 1; Nuremberg 5; s.l. 2

APPENDIX B

Texts and paratexts related to Mantuan’s Parthenice Mariana and Parthenice Catharinaria, Petrarch’s Carmen Bucolicum and Angelo Poliziano’s Silvae Texts and paratexts related to Mantuan’s Parthenice Mariana and Parthenice Catharinaria –Baptista Mantuanus, Parthenice Mariana, III, 340-372 Territus hoc monitu senior vicina petivit regna Phari et Libycis contermina Syrtibus arva. Hermopolimque domum totam perduxit in urbem, mox Theben, quondam portis celeberrima centum moenia. Pensilibus tectis templisque deorum claruit, imperium cum rex Busiris habebat. Dehinc Memphitis agros, feriunt ubi sidera celsae pyramides, opus aeterna memorabile fama. Hic tandem hospitio patrii susceptus amici artifices versare manus victumque labore rimari et durae studuit succurrere sorti. Utque erat ingenio praestans, usuque peritus assiduo et quoniam rebus solertia maior semper adest miseris animumque exercet egestas, virtutis non pauca suae monumenta reliquit. Ipse Myron laudasset opus, laudasset et ipse Praxiteles nec Phidiaco cessisset honori, seu ferrum, seu mallet ebur, seu sculpere cedrum: promptus erat. Tabulis omnes inscripsit ahenis Arsacidas Parthosque duces et gentis Achivae Cecropidas et qui regni tenuere Latini littora Murranos, post quos Troinana propago: Silvius Albana stabat cum prole, sedensque Augustus cum patre alto sublimis in auro. Et Ptolemaeorum seriem Nilumque per agros

128

Appendix B

Aethiopum curvis volventem flumina ripis finxit, et excelsam nocturna lampade turrim aequore lucentem Phario sparsasque regenetem tempestate rates et fessos turbine nautas. Hoc fabri senioris opus, nec vile recepit hoc opere ex tanto pretium, parvamque peculi congeriem, his studiis vitam, exiliumque trahebat laetius, et magno victum quaerebat alumno. [Frightened by this warning, the aged Joseph travelled to the neighbouring kingdom of Pharos, and the lands on the Libyan Syrtis. He brought his entire house to the city of Hermopolis, then to Thebes, once enclosed by most illustrious walls with one hundred gates. The city shone with its colonnaded buildings and temples of the gods from when King Busiris ruled. From here he proceeded to the region of Memphis, where the lofty pyramids –remarkable work of long-lasting fame– reach to the stars. Here finally Joseph was offered shelter by a local friend; he strove to keep his skilful hands busy, to search for a living through work and to improve his fortune. Since he was both naturally gifted and very experienced, and since greater skill is always found in the poor and necessity sharpens the mind, he left no few testimonies of his talent. Myron himself would have praised his work, and also Praxiteles, and it would not have been inferior to the beauty of Phidias. Whether he chose to work with iron, ivory or cedar-wood, he was prepared. On tables of bronze he inscribed the names of all the successors of Arsaces, and the Parthian rulers, of Cecrops, ruler of the Greek people, and of Murranus, who ruled the shores of the kingdom of the Latins, after whom came the Trojan race. Silvius stood with his Alban offspring, and, lofty on his golden throne, sat Augustus with his father. Joseph depicted the Ptolemy dynasty and the Ethiopian Nile, whose waters meander through the fields, and the high tower with its night-time light shining over the Pharian Sea and guiding ships scattered by storms and seamen exhausted by strong winds. Such was the work of the aged craftsman, and for such magnificent work he received no little reward and no small amount of savings. In these endeavours, Joseph happily wiled away his life and his exile, and sought to provide for his highly-esteemed foster-son]

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

129

–Parthenice Catharinaria Fratris Baptistae Mantuani ab Ascensio familiariter exposita, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1499, sig. A ir Iodocus Badius Ascensius Henrico Valluphino Parthenicen Catharinariam Baptistae Mantuani, saeculi nostri nimirum speciminis, pro instituto nostro quam facillime interpretaturo primus mortalium occurristi mihi, Valluphine dissertissime, cui opellae tantillum nuncupemus. Vel quia in tuo ludo studiosae Lugdunensium pubi eam superiori anno professi sumus, vel quia divae Virginis ac martyris litteratorumque praesidis incomparabilis semper, ut decuit, observantissimus vixisti, atque (uti Deum precor) in nestorios annos victurus es. Eam etenim rem et tuae iuventuti, quam imbuendam suscepisti, gratam et tuae observationi non iniucundam fore conector; gratam quidem quia simul et praesidis suae vitam et litteraturae praestantiam, et morum sanctitatem et fidei integritatem addiscant, iucundam vero quia indulgentissimae et identidem abs te delectae Virginia, laudes per eam utcumque auctum iri perspicias. Nam, nisi me spes fallit, longe pluses excellentissimi vatis opera posthac lecturi sunt, praesertim cum fere cultioris vital studiosiores, litteraturae negligentiores habeantur. Nunc vero, nemo tam parum litteratus est dummodo Latini sermonis penitus expers non sit, qui per nostram explanatiunculam sensa poetae non utcumque pro captu scilicet quisque suo accipiat. Neque tamen iniuriam peritioribus factam a nobis arbitror quia quae ipsi etiam cultiora forsan excogitarint, vulgo exposuerimus et quasi eleusina sacra prostituerimus. Nihil enim hic est magno et perspicaci, quale tibi, Valluphine, tuique similibus est, ingenio dignum exposita, protrita atque vulgata sunt quae ponimus omnia, sed tamen quae adhuc imbecillulos latebant, quórum ignorantiae succurrere nullam invidiam duximus. At iustis commentariis arcana poetae sensa, admirabile cum summo decore artificium sententiarum, ubertatem verborum, non morosam elegantiam et subinde diligentem negligentiam figurarum colorumque, tam varios tamque splendidos ornatus consequi non cuivis homini, sicut nec olim Corinthum adire, datum est. Neque vero, si nobis interpretandum esset opus, aptiora forsan et argutiora defuerint. Sed finem facio. Tu vero, Henrice suavissime, pro humanitate tua amicitiaque nostra boni consules scio nostrasque lucubratiunculas tam tenues tamque (ut nonnullis forsan videbuntur) nihili amico sinu confovebis quod quia futurum certo scio invidorum rumusculos minoris quam flocci facimus. Vale, amicorum intime. Ex gymnasio Parrhisiano, ad Nonas Augusti anno Domini 1499

130

Appendix B

–Parthenice Mariana Fratris Baptistae Mantuani ab Ascensio familiariter exposita, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1499, sig. A ir-v Iodocus Badius Ascensius Laurentio Burello Baptistae Mantuani, saeculi nostri gloriae Carmelique, secundum te, Laurenti pater, decoris, egregia quae ad nos perlata sunt opera, audaci quadam iuventa explananda, recepimus. Quippe quia eum solum habuerim quem persancte perque diserte atque uti Christianissimum decet scripsisse censuero, ex quo uno iuventus nostra cum bonis litteris mores addiscat optimos. Neque vero me deterruit eorum existimatio qui viventis opera explananda non esse contenderint, quia eius videlicet sensa si non adamussim perceperis, temeritatis poenam dederis, defuncti autem qualicumque commento impune disquisiveris. Nam contra malim a vivente dirigi quam a defuncto in erroribus deseri, quocirca cum hic ille sit quem saeculo Octaviano tot vatibus superbo obiicere possumus, et quo mille abhinc annos neminem aut pulchrius aut dulcius poema scripsisse merito censueris, dabitur venia quia candidis sed nondum satis argutis animis ad eius lectionem viam aperuerim. Nam quod obiicient esse complures longe quam ego sum doctiores, nihil cum verissimum sit, inficiabimur, verum cum iam octodecim annos imbellicem pubem atque minus litteratos adhuc canos clamitare audirem: ‘Ecquis prodibit tandem Mantuani nostri commentarius? Nemo tam tersum, tam candidum, tam copiosum, tam dissertum, tam denique gratiis omnibus ornatum poetam nobis explanabit. Ergo semper ethnicos nec semel Christianum legemus? Num poterimus Christiparae Virginis parthenicen vel mediocriter intelligere atque iuventuti exponere?’ Cum eiusmodi, inquam, audirem, misertum esse fateor, victasque pietate manu apposui et supra quam dicere ausim celeritate opus (uti nunc quidem videretur) excurri, nullam faciens doctioribus iniuriam. Non etenim profundissima theologorum sensa, non occultissima astrologorum iudicia, non divina poetarum figmenta, non lepidos sales, non falsos lepores, non auream ingenii venam, non melifluum carminis fluorem, non ingentem sententiarum gravitatem, non honestum rerum verborumque decorum, non aptissimarum similitudinum copiam, non mille quas hic praecipuus habet veneres explicare conatus sum, siquidem quod nec si velim forsitan satis potuero, nec si possum, voluero. Non etenim studiosis inventa sua praeripere, aut oscitantibus divinas musas praestituere satis aequum visum est, at rudibus ordinem cum explanatiuncula contexere, quae tandem invidia est? In qua re si quid bene de studiosis merui, excellentiae tuae, Burelle, decus nostrum amplissimum, acceptum ferent; omnia siquidem nostra iampridem

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

131

paternitati tuae debemus. Vale, saeculi nostri columen. Ex gymnasio Parrhisiensi, ad Idus Octobris anno 1499 –Baptistae Mantuani…duarum Parthenicum libri, Strasbourg, Johann Schott, 1501, sig. A ir-v Clarissimo patri domino Georgio de Gemmingen spirennsis ecclesiae praeposito Sebastianus Murrho Colmariensis s.d. Quamquam summus Peripateticorum antistes Aristoteles, duobus vitae generibus propositis, quorum alterum in negotio et labore, reliquum vero in otio atque umbra conteri soleat, praecipuum id quod in agendo reique perbene consulendo versatur, foelici homini bonoque viro adiudicaverit, prudentius tamen Plato humano generi consultasse videatur, qui et ocium quo nobis consulimus et negotium quo et patriae et amicis tum domesticis in rebus tum externis opem ferimus, amplectendum expetendumque existimat. Verumtamen cum ego nequaquam idoneum me iudicem neque vadem inter hos praestantissimos philosophos ponere possim, meam tamen abineunte aetate totis animi viribus corporisque sensibus opinionem iudiciumque fuisse profiteor neque honestati quemquam laboribus et curis obesse neque utilitati in honesto negotio (etiam, ut vulgi utamur dicterio, aurei si promittantur montes) consulere debere. Nam qui honestatem utilitati comodisque praeferunt, etsi labores et erumnas subeant immortalem tamen gloriam consequntur. Qui vero decore neglecto suae rei consulunt, summa turpitudine cum infinitis erumnis et labores suos damnant et inglorii maximo cum dedecore vitam miseram inopemque agentes senescunt, occidunt pereuntque. Cum itaque nec maiorum imagines nec stemmata quae nulla sunt, neque divitias (quarum liberalem usum probatissimum, custodiam vero sceleratissimam iudicio) in medium afferre possim, spero tamen a te viro optimo in umbra et otio me observantia ac fide consecuturum; quae alii vix hisce rebus quas enarravimus consequi potuerunt. Praecipue cum inter reliquas tuas virtutes audierim (quod maximi facio) te non solum bonarum artium studiosis plurimum favere, sed etiam desiderare et amore et benevolentia perquam familiariter eis vinciri, id munere quo me dignatus es iam dudum declarasti. Rursus iucundissimis litteris tuis quibus me ad Baptistam Mantuanum interpretandum hortatus es, eo lubentius (quamvis temere) assensi quo tuo iudicio acutissimo, quicquid dicerem facile vel probatum vel reiectum iri posse plane sciebam. Abunde mihi satisfactum erit dum vel tibi placuero vel aliis melius scribendi ansam praestitero. Foeci igitur quantum valui nervosque ingenii (qui tam etsi nihili sint) nostra tamen

132

Appendix B

quantulacumque portio est) ad eum interpretandum poetam extendi quo tibi morem amicisque gererem nostris, a quibus saepe rogati fuimus ut aliquid moliremur, quo ad latinarum litterarum studia Germanica iuventus inicitaretur ne Getica et Vandalica nostra verba, Latinis Latio in imperio (quo natio Germanorum caeteris gentibus Christianis praesidet) inculte immixta reperirentur. Priscum enim terrae nostrae decus ob litterarum poetarumque ignorantiam sepultum obrutumque permansit. Suscepi autem hunc laborem maximo desiderio ob intemeratae Parthenices divae Mariae singularem observantiam cuius nomine poema inscriptum est, qua nihil sanctius, nihil castius in cuius laudem et Angeli supernique Spiritus et omne hominum genus inops aegenumque deprehenditur. Pro cuius etiam immortali gloria nullius odium reprehensionem obprobriaque formidamus. Duae autem, clarissime pater, cum mihi propronerentur viae, quibus ad id operis aggrediendum me accingerem: una ut fabulis non recitatis ad eos remitterem qui abunde de his scriberent, quam licet doctrina praestantibus iucundiorem (nam nostras nemo ineptias volupe leget) utilitati tamen minus idoneam iudicavi, cum maxime trivialium ludorum magistris consulere statuerim iuvenilique aetati, quam hisce poematis inescari volumus quibus et hic labor addictus est; quorum latinas vel fabulas vel historias cognoscant tum de Christiana religione soluta et aequestri oratione loqui latine discant. Elegimus itaque alteram, qua fabulas et historias praestantissimorum testimonio comprobamus. Qua de re, optime pater, si quid piis auribus dignum attulimus, tua vel auctoritate prodeat in vulgus vel (quod magis veremur) delitescat, intereat, fatoque suo, ut Aiax Augusti, “in spongiam cadat”.443 Spero tamen veniam mihi praestari debere, quod nullum ducem secuti unoque exemplari contenti has lucubrationes edidimus, et quod Poetam adhuc superstitem in humanisque agentem, nostra omnia castigaturum reprobaturumve desideramus, eius me delectatum ingenio (quo concivem suum Andinum Vergilium facile consequitur et aequat) continere non potui, quin aliquid in medium afferrem vel inepte Baptistae vitam cum eius laudibus impares simus quam in religione Carmelitarum multos iam annos observantissime agit:, scribere consulto pratermisimus. Unum tamen non praetereundum censeo (quod magnus amat Iupiter). Audivimus ex Conrado Leontorio, quo a secretis familiariter utimur, magistratu se, quem eo in ordine summum gessit, abdicasse, ut liberius humanis divinisque litteris vacare posset. Rara avis in terris nigroque similima cygno. Accipe igitur commentariola nostra ab homine tibi semper deditissimo eaque cum legeris vel probato tua enim sunt, cuius et auspicio suscepta perfectaque fuerunt. Multa in his videbis non solum ex vetustissimis deprompta auctoribus sed etiam novis ac nostrae aetatis ho minibus: Domitio, Petro Marso, Antonio Volsco

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

133

Parthenioque viris clarissimis, quorum praeceptis ac doctrina non nihil didicisse speramus. Et ne huius primae Parthenices argumentum concupiscas, scito poetam Virginis Mariae genus, ortum, nativitatem, aeducationem, vitam mortemque ac eiusdem in coelos assumptionem continere; quae singula ex elegantissimo carmine clarius quam oratione cognosces. Poetam igitur audiamus canentem: “Sancta Palestinae repetens exordia Nymphae / difficiles ortus et reliqua”. Epitaphium Sebastiani Murrhonis, sig. A iv Clauditur hoc saxo vir nulli laude secundus, maxima Germani spesque decusque soli. Contulit huic laurum duplicis facundia linguae exculto tantum praestitit ingenio, quicquid enim laudis Latium, quid Graecia docta quicquid et Haebraeus possidet, hic meruit. Clara viri phamam celebres Colmaria tanti et vivat Murrho semper in ore tuo.

Paratexts related to Petrarch’s Carmen Bucolicum –Francisci Petrarche poetae insignis Bucolica carmina in duodecim aeglogas distincta et diligenter ab Iodoco Badio Ascenscio (sic) explanata, Paris, André Bocard for Jean Petit, 1502, sig. A iv Iodocus Badius Ascensius fratri Iacobo Keymolano Serius quidem ac speravimus redeunt ad te, pater optime, argutissima nec minus iocunda disertissimi viri Francisci Petrarchae carmina bucolica quae ea fide ab te suscepisse agnosco, ut in lucem ampliorem calcographis emittenda curarem. Caeterum quo longioris morae iustas dem poenas, redeunt non sine foenore, quod si in manibus fuisset, ante expectatum profecto affuissent. Sed novi, Cicerone in primo Officiorum docente, imitandos mihi “agros fertiles, qui multo plus efferunt quam acceperunt”.444 Itaque distuli sortem reponere donec foenus nostrorum commentariolorum accederet, quos certe vel prius reposuissem, si sortem numeratam atque integram accepissem. Verum, nescio quorum (certe non tua) culpa, tam laceram tamque imminutam offendimus ut sexcenties et nobis et coeptis nostris irasceremur priusquam ad umbilicum445 usque perduxeramus. Quocirca aegrum, depositum et fere desperatum opus numquam resumpsissem, nisi fides tuae paternitati data aurem vellisset

134

Appendix B

admonuissetque se aut non datam oportuisse, aut redditam decere. Ego vero tametsi in utroque culpam agnosco, et quod facilius (inconsultius videlicet viribus) fidem dederim, et quod datam negligentius exolvam, tamen eandem humanitatem tuam quae me ad promittendum induxit, nunc excusandam habeo si minus ac tardius repono. Novi enim te, tuique pater optime similes, veniam daturos si tot negociis distractus huc lentius intenderim, praesertim inter tanta ipsius codicis (quem unicum habuimus abs te, nec alium indipisci potuimus) menda, ut ne sibilla quidem ipsa in suum redegisset numerum. Verum erit fortasse quispiam duriore fronte criticus, qui me Catonis illo sale confricabit quo ille Albinum, quaeretque quis me cogerit hanc provinciam obire et cur culpam potius deprecari quam vitare maluerim? Cui nescio an satisfaciam si charitatem meam in studiosos omnes dicam, ea enim me subegit et in hanc et in alias longe periculosiores harenas descendere. Et re vera si nemini, nisi adamussim, et libellam perito aedificare liceret, verear ut rudibus defuerint domicilia. Sed finem facio. Utcumque haec alii accepturi sunt tute, vir humanissime, in partem accipies bonam. Vale. Ex officina nostra litteraria ad Idus Aprilis anni huius 1502. –Francisci Petrarche Aretini laureate poete Bucolicum Carmen opera eruditissimi viri Servati Aedicolli Agrippini diligenter recognitum et accuratius explanatum, Deventer, Albert Paffraet, 1512., sig. A iv Servatius Aedicollius Agrippinus Ioanni Aedicollio Agrippino salutem dicit Postulasti a me, Ioannes, coram quando loqui concedebatur occasio (tum litteris etiam vehementius), Francisci Petrarchae Carmen bucolicum, expositione familiari elucidatum, ad te vel in commune ut darem. Ego vero, quia me obtemperantem fore hac in re sum pollicitus, misi omnium fere poetarum (vulgatorum inquam) expositoris Ascensii Badii commentarium (sicut et pleraque alia passim ab eodem publicata) super illo quod voluisti arte impresso ria excusum. Atqui protinus cum remitteres, aiebas te nihili pendere huiusmodi paleas corticatasque vocabulorum elucubrationes, quibus id percipi nequit quod vel ab aliis fuerit praetermissum aut perperam enucleatum, quin immo te pluris facere allegoriarum (si quae sublatitarent) apertiones quam grammaticalem illam atque nudam eliminationem, quae nisi dictiones triviali more digereret. Qua in re, ut libere loquar, sententiam tuam facile probo. Igitur precibus et admonitione assidua (quamvis varias quibus distineor excusaverim occupationes) me induxisti ut id operis, quod iam dudum expetis, subire non

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

135

reformidaverim. Tametsi te non ignorare certum sit quam illud quod a me expectas arduum sit atque difficile, quippe ubi saepenumero loca comperimus in quibus Oedipodis coniecturae aut Sphingis ambiguitati simillima offenduntur. Quid enim de Laurea occidenti dicam: qua velut aenigmatistes usqueo adeo obscure describit poetas, quatenus citius (ut aiunt) cervi corniculos quam quos velit significare deprehendas? Sed quia id tibi persuasum est nullam me tui gratia operam nedum hanc subterfugere, quando ego tu es tuusque alter ego, tuae de me opinioni respondere non detrectabo. Sim omnium ignavus, ne dicam ingratissimus, nisi accuratissime dem operam semper me gratificari tibi, hoc est, fratri germano mihi carissimo. Quamobrem prosequar aeglogas illas ordine, quo ab aliis vidi positas, quaeque nobis diligentius examinanda occurrunt, diligentius itidem explanabuntur. Nihil enim libentius agimus quam studiosorum animos ad veriorem erigere intelligentiam. At vereor ne, dum tibi obsequi gestio et de studiosis quam optime potero pro virili mereri, obtrectatorum non defuturam calumniam. Quo circa te huic nostro instituto patronum adhibeo, qui doctrina ingeniique dexteritate facile malevolorum et insevientium morsus potis es depellere atque enervare. Sed epistolae finem facio tuo nutu haec auspicaturus primum poetae ipsius vitam quoad brevius fieri poterit perstringendo; deinde stilo apertiori commentariolum, quemadmodum proposuimus, ordiemur nec minus litteralem quam allegoriarum contextum denudemus ut et tibi et aliis, qui id expetunt, prodesse possimus. Vale, ex Daventria.

Paratexts related to Angelo Poliziano’s Silvae –Angeli Politiani Silvae. Manto. Ambra. Rusticus. Nutricia, Alcalá de Henares, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, ca. 1515, f.ol. 23a denotes an interlinear annotation; () denotes a marginal annotation Argumentum Nutricie (Antonii Nebrissensis) In hac silva quae inscribitur Nutricia poeta gratias agit arti poeticae quae illum ad tantae gloriae fastigium evexit atque deinde autores (i. poetas) tam graecos quam latinos enumerat qui in eadem professione (i. poesi) floruerunt. Incipit autem a lege naturali et a iure gentium quo cautum (i. santitum est. Tu ne utaris cautio sed cautus-a-um quoniam elegantior est) est ne simus ingrati in eos qui de nobis bene meriti sunt. Tum demum circa finem operis poemation suum

136

Appendix B

Laurentio medici dedicat in cuius erat clientela (Cliens est ille in cuius tutela aliquis est, unde clentela por aquella defensa). –Angeli Politiani Silva, cui titulus Rusticus, Paris, Raoul Laliseau, ca. 1510 Systematically unnoticed by bibliographers, the only two copies of this edition known to exist are held at University of Pennsylvania Library, Van Pelt Library (shelf-mark: PA 8563.S54) and at the Bibliothèque municipale de Bordeaux (shelf-mark: B 4919.3, Rés. Coffre).446 Raoul Laliseau (d. 1521) worked as a printer and bookseller in Paris after 1501. Among works printed by him are Publio Fausto Andrelini’s Eclogues (1501), Filelfo’s letters (1511) and Columella’s De cultu hortorum (1512).447 Ludovicus Boucher patri suo Rei Publicae Senonensis moderatori clarissimo s. d.448 Novissimis diebus, pater colendissime, libera custodia inclusus ludis litterariis noctu incumbebam. Circa primulam noctis vigiliam nostri promptuarium ingenii vires extendebat; in mentem venit pervenustum Politiani carmen quod nusquam inveniri poterat. Illud quoque amplissimis viribus extollens, pecuniarum spe confisus in manus nostras aducturum existimavi. Quam ob causam ut sedentariam noxam desultorio stilo discuterem, ultro citroque vicissim discurrens diversas bibliopolarum officinas excolui, sed nullum inventionis argumentum exanclavi. Verum me quotidie ad urbem profectu huius carminis spes frustrabatur. Quadam autem tempestate diliculascente, qua iam luculentissimus mundi oculus inalbebat, in urbem me secum clare indolis interpres conduxit. Hic protinus defioculos duos offendimus laciniosa veste indutos et scissili palliastro semiamictos hoc Politiani volumen bachatim discerpentes. Altissimo tremore horrendi facinoris succussi adcucurrimus, libellum prestinaturi. Effectum est ut exigua stipe paccati impugne discederent et in manus nostras volumen accederet. Quare ne quadam mihi ociosa rubigie noxam contrahere viderer et tali criminis labecula ingenium sordesceret, plerisque locis perlectum curavi. Tam scitula hic aures eloquentia, tam sciti saporis fluxus permulscebat ut diutina congeronum pigitria hebetatum in meliorem frugem reductum, me supplice, interpres curaverit quod publicatis quibusdam obeliis annotaretur ac pario marmore celatus aquilinis aspectibus celsisque oculis intueretur. Importune factum existimavi tam praeclari operis sententiam silentio consentire, quam, ne nostro immunis

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

137

officio videatur, dicam praeclari carminis conditorem, palatinne aule magistrum, mustulentum autumnum diversasque mensium figuras milesio quasi eloquio pregnantique stilo condidisse et fructifere nobiles opis agriculturas nilotico calamo scriptioni mandasse quae profecto non minus illustribus quam infimis hominibus apta mihi visa est. Scio te compertum habere Pompeium Caesaris socerum praestantissimi agro empto, domum vendendam Mago censuisse.449 Memini naturalis historie peritissimum professorem libro XVIII protulisse in re rustica operi ne parcas. Dicerem Columelle immitatorem dixisse in agro emendo operi ne parcas visere quotiens ibis totiens magis placebit. Hec veluti etiam ludium aliquod excellentis agriculturae annotavimus en ecce prefamur veniam si quid peregrini sermonis rudes advenas offenderimus, postulantes quod si nonnulli crustata crassitie deformati sub palliastro ovili lupinam peierantes frontem quodque de nobis male loquuti sint tamquam temperarios exules penitus respuas. Quod si feceris cetera praesentis authoris opera luculentiori lima breviter curabimus impressa. Vale.

APPENDIX C

Here I present a survey of editions of Italian Latin humanist works printed in Spain between 1473 and 1554. Texts are listed following the divisions by genre employed in this book; authors are arranged in alphabetical order. I have kept bibliographical information to a minimum, and I merely give details of printer, and year and place of publication. In order not to overload my catalogue I have not included full details of reprints. For copies available to me, see chapter 4.

Grammar and rhetoric Agostino Dati, Elegantiolae, Valencia, Lambert Palmar, 1473 and Nicholas Spindeler, 1498; Lleida, Henricus Botel, 1485 and 1488; Zaragoza, Johannes Hurus, 1481 and 1488; Burgos, Fadrique de Basilea (Friedrich Biel), 1498 Stefano Fieschi, Synonyma variationum sententiarum, Salamanca, Printer of Nebrija’s “Introductiones Latinae”, ca. 1490; Burgos, Fadrique de Basilea (Friedrich Biel), ca. 1495; Valencia, Cristòfol Cofman, 1502; Alcalá de Henares, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, ca. 1517, and Miguel de Eguía, 1526 (under the title Elegancias romançadas por el maestro Antonio de Nebrija) Francesco Negro, De modo epistolandi, Barcelona, Johann Rosembach, 1493, 1494 and 1495; Valencia, Nicholas Spindeler, 1500; Salamanca, per Iohannem Gysser, 1502 Niccolò Perotti, Rudimenta grammatices, Barcelona, Johannes de Salzburga, 1475; Tortosa, Nicholas Spindeler, 1477 Giovanni Sulpizio, De arte grammatica, Barcelona, Pere Miquel, 1491 Lorenzo Valla, Laurentii Vallae Elegantiarum latinae linguae libri sex, Alcalá de Henares, Bartolomé Robles, 1553 and Juan de Mey, 1554; Medina del Campo, Adrián Ghemart, 1554

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

139

Poetry Publio Fausto Andrelini, Disticha, Zaragoza, Jorge Coci, 1535 (an appendix to an edition of Verinus; see below) Filippo Beroaldo, Opuscula que in hoc uolumine continentur sunt haec: Passio Domini hexametris uersibus composita. Eiusdem Passionis threnos per Philippum Beroaldum. Vitae et martyrum coronae per anni circulum. Vitae quorundam per diuum Hieronymum scriptae; punxit dispunxit et scholia adiecit Antonius Nebrissensis, Alcalá de Henares, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, 1516 Antonio Geraldini, Carmen bucolicum, Salamanca, Juan de Porras, 1505 Mantuan, Parthenice Mariana…cum Andreae Vaurentini singulorum librorum descriptionibus, Barcelona, Duran Salvanyac, 1525 and Carles Amorós, 1526 –Parthenice secunda quae et Catharinaria inscribitur additis Vaurentini argumentis et annotationibus ab Ascensio familiariter exposita, Barcelona, Carles Amorós, ca. 1529 –Fratris Baptiste Mantuani…Parthenice septem, Seville, Juan Varela, 1515; Alcalá de Henares, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, 1523 and Miguel de Eguía, 1536 –Fratris Baptistae Mantuani Carmelitae Theologiac [sic] poetae ex actissimi de Fastis, hoc est de Sacris diebus, libri duodecim, Alcalá de Henares, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, 1524 and Miguel de Eguía, 1527 Peter Martyr, Poemata, Burgos, Fadrique de Basilea (Friedrich Biel), 1498; Seville, Jacobo Cromberger, 1511; Valencia, Ioannes Vignaus, 1520 Angelo Poliziano, Silvae. Manto. Ambra. Rusticus. Nutricia, Alcalá de Henares, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, ca. 1515; Salamanca, Andreas a Portonariis, 1554 Giovanni Pontano, De divinis laudibus, Barcelona, Johann Luschner, 1498 Jacopo Sannazaro, Actii Syncerii Sannazarii viri patricii opuscula elegantissima ac legentibus utilissima. Quibus additi sunt libri duo de gestis Apostolorum neutra in parte inferiores Aratoris, Alcalá de Henares, Miguel de Eguía, 1534

140

Appendix C

–El parto de la virgen que compvso el celebre Iacobo Sannazaro ... traduzido en octaua rima castellana por el licenciado Gregorio Hernández de Velasco, Toledo, Juan de Ayala, 1554 Michele Verino, Disticha moralia, Burgos, Juan de Burgos, 1489 and Fadrique de Basilea (Friedrich Biel), 1497; Salamanca, Printer of Nebrija’s “Introductiones Latinae”, 1494 and 1496 –Michaelis Verini disticha sive sententiae morales…; with Giovanni Sulpizio, De moribus puerorum carmen iuvenile…; and Proba, Carmina sive Centones Vergilii, Tarragona, Johann Rosembach, 1499 –Michaelis Verini disticha nunc familiari commento de nouo per Antonium Carrion edita, Seville, Pedro Brun, 1506 –Michaelis Verini distichorum liber; Zaragoza, Jorge Coci, 1508 and 1510; Michaelis Verini de puerorum moribus, Zaragoza, Jorge Coci, 1518 (with Ivarra’s commentary), 1522, 1525, 1531 and 1535 –Michaelis Verini poetae christianissimi de puerorum moribus disticha cum luculento ac nouo Martini Iuarrae Cantabrici commentario, Barcelona, Carles Amorós, 1512, and Johann Rosembach, 1526 –Michaelis Verini distichorum liber, Alcalá de Henares, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, 1522 and 1523, and Miguel de Eguía, 1526 Girolamo Vida, Los Christiados de Hyeronimo Vida, Obispo de Alba, tradvzidos en verso castellano por Jvan Martín Cordero valenciano, Antwerp, Martín Nucio, 1554

Moral philosophy and pedagogical treatises Leonardo Bruni, Isagogicon moralis disciplinae, Barcelona, Nicholas Spindeler, 1478 –Dialogus de moribus, vel Isagogicon moralis disciplinae (in a Spanish translation by Fernán Pérez de Guzmán), Zaragoza, Pablo Hurus, 1496; Alcalá de Henares, Miguel de Eguía, 1529 Petrarch, De los remedios contra próspera y adversa fortuna, Valladolid, Diego de Gumiel; Seville, Jacobo Cromberger, 1513, and Juan Varela, 1516, 1524 and 1534; Zaragoza, Jorge Coci, 1518 and 1523 Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Estas doze reglas hizo el conde Pico de la Mirandula, dellas para despertar e dellas para endereçar los hombres a la pelea espiritual, Seville, Jacobo Cromberger, between 1511 and 1515

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

141

Pier Paolo Vergerio, De ingenuis moribus ac liberalibus studiis, Barcelona, Pere Posa, 1481

Drama and fiction Leon Battista Alberti, Comoedia philodoxeos Leonis Baptiste, Salamanca, per Iohannem Gysser, 1501 –La moral y muy graciosa historia del Momo, Alcalá de Henares, Juan de Mey, 1553 Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Hystoria muy verdadera de dos amantes Eurialo franco y Lucrecia senesa, Salamanca, Printer of Nebrija’s “Introductiones Latinae”, 1496; Seville, Jacobo Cromberger, 1512 and 1524; and Juan Cromberger, 1530 Carlo Verardo, Historia Baetica, Salamanca, Printer of Nebrija’s “Introductiones Latinae”, 1494; Valladolid, Pedro Giraldi, ca. 1497

NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. Nicolaus Episcopius’s dedicatory letter can be read in Angeli Politiani Opera, quae quidem extitere hactenus, omnia, longe emendatius quam usquam antehac expressa, Basle, Episcopius, 1553, sig. a 2r-v (copy used: BL 631 l. 15). On Episcopius’s edition, see Peter Bietenholz, Der Italienische Humanismus und die Blütezeit des Buchdrucks in Basel (Basle: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1959), pp. 65-7. 2. See Vittore Branca, Poliziano e l’umanesimo della parola (Turin: Einaudi, 1983), p. 323. 3. On these three editions of Poliziano’s complete works, see, respectively, Martin Lowry, The World of Aldus Manutius (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979), p. 118, and Paolo Veneziani, “Platone Benedetti e la prima edizione degli Opera del Poliziano”, Gutenberg Jahrbuch, 63 (1988), 95-107; Philippe Renouard, Bibliographie des impressions et des oeuvres de Josse Badius Ascenius, imprimeur et humaniste (Paris: E. Paul et fils et Guillemin, 1908), III, pp. 187-92; and Riccardo Scrivano, “Libri ed autori italiani a Lione nel XVI secolo”, in Il Rinascimento a Lione, ed. by Antonia Possenti and Giulia Mastrangelo, 2 vols. (Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo, 1988), II, pp. 925-36 (p. 928). 4. See Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, denuo recognitum et auctum, ed. by Percy S. Allen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906-58), vol. II, p. 140 (ep. 1904). 5. See, for example, Henri Omont, Anciens inventaires et catalogues de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris: Leroux, 1908), I, p. 462, no. 4192 (23): “[Library of Catherine of Medici] Angeli Politiani, manu ipsius scriptae, commentationes”. 6. See, for example, Sachiko Kusukawa, A Wittenberg University Library Catalogue of 1536. Libri pertinentes (Cambridge: Cambridge LP Publications, 1995), p. 165, nos. 976-7: “Angeli Politiani opera ab A. Sartio edita (Venice, Aldus Manutius, 1498)”. 7. For libraries in England see The Cathedral Libraries Catalogue: Books printed on the Continent of Europe before 1701 in the libraries of the Cathedrals of England and Wales, 2 vols., ed. by David J. Shaw (London: The British Library, 1998), II, p. 1166, and Catalogue of the Library of Syon Monastery Isleworth, ed. by Mary Bateson (Cambridge: The University Press, 1898), p. 20. See also English Anglican Benedictine Libraries. The Shorter Catalogues, ed. by Richard Sharpe et al. (London: The British Library, 1996), pp. 266-8: Monk Bretton, of Yorkshire, Cluniac priory of St. Mary Magdalene, inventory of books in the possession of

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

143

8. See Doctissime illustrium virorum epistole quas severe ille eruditionis heros Angelus Politianus rudi iuventuti…in parvum volumen et ita dixerim enchyridion concinnavit…, Lyon, François Regnault, ca. 1510 (copy used: BSB, Res 4/Epist. 160). 9. See Attilio Bettinzoli, “Rassegna di studi sul Poliziano (1972-1986)”, Lettere Italiane, XXXIX (1987), 53-125. 10. Examples of the concerns of twentieth-century scholarship with Poliziano’s philology are the following outstanding contributions: Angelo Poliziano: Commento inedito alle “Selve” di Stazio, ed. by Lucia Cesarini Martinelli (Florence: Sansoni, 1978); Angelo Poliziano: Commento inedito alle “Satire” di Persio, ed. by Lucia Cesarini Martinelli and Riccardo Ricciardi (Florence: Olschki, 1985); Pierre Laurens, “La poétique du Philologue: Les Miscellanea de Politien dans la lumière du premier centenaire”, Euphrosyne, XXIII (1995), 349-67; JeanMarc Mandosio, “Les sources antiques de la classification des sciences et des arts à la Renaissance”, in Les voies de la science grecque. Etudes sur la transmission des textes de l’Antiquité aux dix-neuvième siècle, ed. by Danielle Jacquart (Geneva: Droz, 1997), pp. 331-90 (pp. 368-77). A more balanced assessment of the reception of the Latin Poliziano in early sixteenth-century Europe can be read in Francisco Rico, “Luci e ombre del Poliziano intorno al 1525”, in Agnolo Poliziano poeta scrittore filologo (Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi, Montepulciano, 3-6 novembre 1994), ed. by Vincenzo Fera and Mario Martelli (Florence: Le lettere, 1998), pp. 389-402. 11. See William J. Kennedy, Authorizing Petrarch (Ithaca, NY-London: Cornell University Press, 1994), p. 2. 12. See Christopher S. Celenza, The Lost Italian Renaissance: Humanists, Historians, and Latin’s Legacy (Baltimore, MD-London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004). 13. See, for example, Jozef IJsewijn, “La fortuna del Filelfo nei Passi Bassi”, in Francesco Filelfo nel quinto centenario della morte (Atti del XVII Convegno di studi maceratesi, Tolentino, 27-30 settembre 1981) (Padua: Antenore, 1986), pp. 529-50, and Giovanni e Gianfrancesco Pico. L’opera e la fortuna di due studenti ferraresi, ed. by Patrizia Castelli (Florence: Olschki, 1988), a volume which includes two very interesting articles by Adriano Prosperi and Bernd Roeck on the fortuna of Pico in the context of the Reformation. 14. Another prime example of this is the Florentine humanist Leonardo Bruni, who was much better known in the Renaissance for his treatise on education than for his panegyric on the city of Florence, which attracts so much scholarly attention today. See James Hankins, Repertorium Brunianum: a critical guide to the writings of Leonardo Bruni (Rome: Istituto storico italiano, 1997), ad indices. Ann Moss, Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn (Oxford: 15. Oxford University Press, 2003). 16. See, for example, Lee Piepho’s excellent studies on the responses to Mantuan in Renaissance England, mentioned elsewhere in this book. 17. See Peter Burke, “The Spread of Italian Humanism”, in The Impact of Humanism on Western Europe, ed. by Anthony Goodman and Angus MacKay (London: Longman, 1990), pp. 1-22 (p. 20).

144

Notes

18. Geographical criteria determine the otherwise extremely valuable Humanism in Fifteenth-century Europe, ed. by David Rundle (Oxford: The Society for the Study of Medieval Languages and Literature, 2012). 19. See Juliette A. Groenland, “Humanism in the classroom, a Reassessment”, in The Making of the Humanities. Volume 1: Early modern Europe, ed. by Rens Bod, Jaap Maat and Thijs Weststeijn (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010), pp. 199-229. 20. Viktor Klemperer, “Gibt es eine spanische Renaissance?”, Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur, XVI, 2 (1927), 129-61. 21. Such shortcomings are evident in my “Humanismo en España”, in Introducción al humanismo renacentista, ed. by Jill Kraye (Madrid: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 295-330. 22. For a thorough review of the research on Spanish (chiefly Castilian) humanism undertaken in the last four decades, see Ottavio di Camillo, “FifteenthCentury Spanish Humanism: Thirty-Five Years Later”, La corónica: A Journal of Medieval Hispanic Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, Volume 39, Issue 1 (Fall 2010), 19-66. 23. Martí de Riquer, L’Humanisme català: 1388-1494 (Barcelona: Barcino, 1934); Marçal Olivar, “Notes entorn de la influència de l’Ars dictandi sobre la prosa catalana de cancelleria de finals del segle XIV”, in Homenatge a Antoni Rubió i Lluch. Miscel·lània d’estudis literaris, històrics i lingüístics, 3 vols. (Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 1936), III, pp. 631-53; and Joan Ruiz Calonja, “Valor literario de los preámbulos de la cancillería real catalanoaragonesa en el siglo XV”, Boletín de la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona, XXVI (1954-1956), 205-34. 24. See Lola Badia, “L’humanisme català: formació i crisi d’un concepte historiogràfic”, in De Bernat Metge a Joan Roís de Corella. Estudis sobre la cultura literària de la tardor medieval catalana (Barcelona: Quaderns Crema, 1988), pp. 13-38. 25. See Jordi Rubió i Balaguer, “Humanisme i Renaixement”, in VIII Congrés d’Història de la Corona d’Aragó (Valencia: Universitat de València, 1973), II-3, pp. 9-36; and Badia, “Sobre l’Edat Mitjana, el Renaixement, l’humanisme i la fascinació ideològica de les etiquetes historiogràfiques”, in De Bernat Metge a Joan Roís de Corella..., pp. 39-49. Conspicuous examples of the interest in reviving the term “Humanisme català” and in applying it once again to the work of Bernat Metge are the volume L’humanisme a la Corona d’Aragó (en el context hispànic i europeu), ed. by Júlia Butinyà and Antonio Cortijo Ocaña (Potomac, MD: Scripta Humanistica Publishing International, 2011), and, most recently, a new English translation of Metge’s masterpiece Lo Somni [Bernat Metge, “The Dream” of Bernat Metge / Del Somni d’en Bernat Metge, translated into English by Antonio Cortijo Ocaña and Elisabeth Lagresa, with an introduction and notes by Antonio Cortijo Ocaña (Amsterdam-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 2013)]. 26. Francisco Rico examines the process of simplification and dilution by which the disciplines of the humanities were made accessible to a large number of students in secondary education in the early sixteenth century in his El sueño del humanismo: de Petrarca a Erasmo (Barcelona: Destino, 2003), pp. 101-11.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

145

27. Material included in this introduction and elsewhere in this book appeared in “Poliziano in Alcalá, or a witness to Antonio de Nebrija’s lectures on the Silvae”, Euphrosyne, XXVI (1998), 253-60; “Poliziano in Print: Editions and Commentaries from a Pedagogical Perspective (1500-1560)”, Cahiers de l’Humanisme, 2 (2001), 191-222; “Printing and reading Italian Neo-latin bucolic poetry in early modern Europe”, Grazer Beiträge, 27 (2010), 53-69; “Notes in a 1531 edition of Vida’s De arte poetica”, in Syntagmatia: Essays on Neo-Latin literature in honour of Monique Mund-Dopchie and Gilbert Tournoy, ed. by Dirk Sacré and Jan Papy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009), pp. 307-15; and “Christian Classics and Humanism in Renaissance Barcelona: the case of Pere Miquel Carbonell (1434-1517)”, in Humanism and Christian Letters in Early Modern Iberia (1480-1630), ed. by Barry Taylor and Alejandro Coroleu (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), pp. 37-46. I am grateful to the editors and publishers for granting me permission to reproduce paragraphs from these five publications. CHAPTER ONE 28. Although there has been a tendency, in the last three decades, to replace “Renaissance” with “early modern (period)”, I still find “Renaissance” a very useful term. See Craig Kallendorf’s persuasive case for continuing to use it in his “Afterword” in Virgil and the Myth of Venice: Books and Readers in the Italian Renaissance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), pp. 208-9. 29. See Andrew Laird, “Juan Luis de La Cerda, Virgil, and the Predicament of Commentary”, in The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, Theory, ed. by Roy K. Gibson and Christina Shuttleworth Kraus (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 171203 (p. 172). 30. See Agostino Sottili, Humanismus und Universitätsbesuch: die Wirkung italienischer Universitäten auf die Studia Humanitatis nördlich der Alpen = Renaissance Humanism and University Studies: Italian Universities and their Influence on the Studia Humanitatis in Northern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2006), p. 6. 31. As happened, for example, in sixteenth-century Spain; see Fernando Bouza, Corre manuscrito: una historia cultural del Siglo de Oro (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2002). 32. See Kristian Jensen, “Exporting and importing Italian Humanism: the reception of Italian printed editions of classical authors and their commentators at the University of Leipzig”, Italia medioevale e umanistica, XLV (2004), 437-97 (p. 443). 33. See Die Amerbachkorrespondenz, ed. by Alfred Hartmann and Beat Rudolf Jenny (Basle: Verlag der Universitätsbibliothek, 1942), I, ep. 143, p. 132: [letter from sometime after 1501] “Angeli Policiani opuscula, Beroaldi super Suetonio, Appuleyo, Cicerone et quibuslibet suis commentariolis aliis codicellos michi presentari velim abs te vehementer obsecro” (“I would like to be presented –and I urgently implore you– with the works of Angelo Poliziano, and in addition with the writings of Beroaldo on Suetonius, Apuleius, Cicero, and any of his other commentaries”).

146

Notes

34. For Paffraet and Cologne see Ursula Rautenberg, “Die Entstehung und Entwicklung des Buchtitelblatts in der Inkunabelzeit in Deutschland, den Niederlanden und Venedig. Quantitative und qualitative Studien”, Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens, 62 (2008), 1-105 (pp. 81-84); for his contacts with England, see Anthony Stockwell Garfield Edwards, “Continental Influences on London Printing and Reading in the Fifteenth- and Early Sixteenth Centuries”, in London and Europe in the Later Middle Ages, ed. by Julia Boffey and Pamela King (London: Queen Mary and Westfield College, 1996), pp. 229-56 (p. 239). 35. See the statistics discussed by Mariano Madrid Castro in his “Lecturas en los estudios de latinidad: el alcance de la obra de Baptista Mantuanus como libro de texto en la España del siglo XVI” (paper delivered at the Fifteenth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, Münster, August 2012, publication forthcoming in 2015). 36. See, for example, Jean-Michel Laspéras, “La biblioteca de Cristóbal de Salazar, humanista y bibliófilo ejemplar”, Criticón, 22 (1983), 5-32 (p. 18: “Opera Policiani. Omnia et alia quaedam lectu digna, Venice, 1498”), and William Pettas, A Sixteenth-Century Spanish Bookstore: The Inventory of Juan de Junta (Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1995), p. 165: f. 54 “1 op[eru]m Politiani thomus secundus in 8, Lyon, 1528, 1533, 1550”. 37. See David Rundle, “Humanism across Europe: The Structures of Contacts”, in Humanism in Fifteenth-Century Europe, p. 332. 38. On Anshelm and the role of the press in sixteenth-century Tübingen, see Hans Widman, Tübingen als Verlagsstadt (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1971), pp. 18-41. 39. Thomas More’s “Utopia” in Early Modern Europe: Paratexts and Contexts, ed. by Terence Cave (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2008), p. 20. 40. On Murmellius see Groenland, “Humanism in the Classroom, a Reassessment”. 41. See James V. Mehl, “Johannes Murmellius’s Approach to the artes liberales and Advice to Students in his Didascali libri duo (1510)”, in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Hafnensis. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, General Editor Rhoda Schnur, ed. by Ann Moss, Philip Dust, Paul G. Schmidt, Jacques Chomarat and Francesco Tateo (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1994), pp. 64150. 42. Angeli Politiani Silva cui titulus Manto cum adnotamentis Ioannis Murmelli [as well as the Rusticus], Münster, Lorenz Bornemann, 1510. The copy I have inspected (Trinity College Cambridge, Grylls. 7.4) consists of two parts subsequently bound together. Part one includes the Manto and an elegy by Fausto Andrelini, followed by Murmellius’s commentary on Poliziano’s poem. Part two, entitled Carmina Politiani, features the Rusticus with Murmellius’s notes. I have also consulted a copy of Murmellius’s edition of the Rusticus (Münster, Bornemann, 1510), which does not include the Manto, held at the Herzog August Bibliothek at Wolfenbüttel (39.5 Poet.). A copy of Angeli Politiani Manto cum adnotamentis Ioannis Murmelli (Deventer, Richard Paffraet, ca. 1510) is held at

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

147

The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 226 E 92. On Murmellius’s edition of Mantuan, see chapter 2. 43. In 1510 he issued a commentary on Persius (Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek, D 8406 oct. INC: [3]). 44. In hoc libello contenta C. Plinii Secundi praefationes duae, Deventer, Theodoricus de Borne, ca. 1508 (Deventer, Athenaeumbibliotheek: 11 E 34 KL). The volume was reprinted in Cologne in 1514, albeit without any reference to Murmellius. 45. See Eugene F. Rice, jr., “The Patrons of French Humanism”, in Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, ed. by Anthony Molho and John Tedeschi (Florence: Sansoni, 1971), pp. 689-702. 46. See Claude La Charité, “Rabelais lecteur de Politien dans le Gargantua”, Le Verger, bouquet 1 (Janvier 2012), 1-22 (pp. 2-3). 47. See Peter Bietenholz, Basle and France in the Sixteenth Century: The Basle Humanists and Printers in their Contacts with Francophone Culture (Geneva: Droz, 1971), pp. 191-96. On Bérauld, see chapter 2, pp. 49-53. 48. On Cratander see Luciano Canfora, “Andreas Cratander editore di Cicerone”, Ciceroniana, 9 (1996), 177-89. 49. See Bietenholz, Der Italienische Humanismus, pp. 60-4. 50. See Marie Léontine Catherine Pellechet, Catalogue general des incunables des bibliothèques de France (Paris: A. Picard et fils, 1897), where two editions (nos. 719 and 720) are tentatively recorded as Paris, 1496. The Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke (Leipzig: K.W. Hiersemann, 1926), vol. II, col. 247, dates them to the sixteenth century “wegen der Verlegermarke”. Andrelini’s tenth eclogue (entitled “De fuga Balbi ex urbe Parisia”) was published separately at least once (Paris, s.d., BNF, Res. M-YC-609-4). 51. I have examined the volumes published by Jean Richard in 1500 (BNF, Res. M-YC-20), and by Raoul Laliseau in 1501 (BNF, Res. M-YC-21). 52. See Sylvie Charrier, Recherches sur l’oeuvre latine en prose de Robert Gaguin (1433-1502) (Paris: Champion, 1996), pp. 33-73. 53. See Godelieve Tournoy-Thoen, “Fausto Andrelini”, in Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and the Reformation, ed. by Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas Deutscher. (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 1985-1987), I, pp. 53-6. 54. See Lee Piepho, Holofernes’ Mantuan: Italian Humanism in Early Modern England (New York-Oxford: Peter Lang, 2001), p. 21. See Moss, Renaissance Truth, p. 222, and Piepho, Holofernes’ Mantuan, p. 55. 20. 56. For the genesis of this edition see Lowry, The World of Aldus Manutius, pp. 148-9. 57. Aldo Manuzio editore: dediche, prefazioni, note ai testi, edited and translated by Giovanni Orlandi, with an introduction by Carlo Dionisotti (Milan: Il Polifilo, 1975), p. 34: “Nam sanctissimos libros, qui circiter mille annos latuere, publicavimus, ut amentur leganturque in scholis”. 58. See Louis Delaruelle, “L’étude du grec à Paris (de 1514 à 1530)”, Revue du Seizième siècle, 9 (1922), 132-49.

148

Notes

59. Pia et emuncta opuscula. Iacobi Synceri Sannazari neapolitani carmen de passione dominica. Cecilii Cypriani carthaginensis episcopi de ligno crucis carmen. Ausonii Peonii Burdegalensis versus in resurrectionem dominicam. Eiusdem precatio matutina ad omnipotentem Deum. Claudii Claudiani de Salvatore preconia. Ioannis Ioviani Neapolitani de gestis et festis dominicis hymnus elegiacus. P. Fausti poetae laureati carmen de beata Virgine filium crucifixum amplectente, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1513: “nihil erit praeterea quod ad altum sacrae doctrinae montem adeundum maximopere desideres”. Toussain’s preface is reproduced in Eugene F. Rice, jr., The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples and Related Texts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972), pp. 306-7. 60. The relevance of this exegetical corpus has, however, been acknowledged by David Hook, “Method in the Margins: An Archaeology of Annotation”, in Proceedings of the Eighth Colloquium, ed. by Andrew M. Beresford and Alan Deyermond (London: Department of Hispanic Studies, Queen Mary and Westfield College, 1997), pp. 135-44; and Craig Kallendorf, “Marginalia and the Rise of Early Modern Subjectivity”, in On Renaissance Commentaries, ed. by Marianne Pade (Hildesheim: Olms, 2005), pp. 111-28. 61. See Jürgen Leonhardt, “Drucke antiker Texte in Deutschland vor der Reformation und Luthers frühe Vorlesungen”, in Die Musen im Reformationszeitalter, ed. by Walther Ludwig (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001), pp. 97-129 (p. 112). 62. The printed texts are Ovid, Heroidum epistolae. Auli Sabini epistolae tres. Item eiusdem ... de nuce elegeia. De medicamine faciei elegeia, Strasbourg, Matthias Schürer, 1514 (F I 167/1); Francesco Negro, Ars epistolandi [=De modo epistolandi], Augsburg, Johann Schönsperger, 1499 (F I 167/2); Francesco Filelfo, Epistolae breviores et elegantiores atque adulescentibus magis conducentes, Strasbourg, Matthias Schürer, 1514 (F I 167/3). The manuscript section (F I 167/4) includes the Carmen saeculare (fols. 1r-3r); the De Philomena elegia and the De Pulice elegia (fols. 4r-5v and fols. 5v-6v respectively); and the three prayers (fol. 7v). 63. Elysii Calentii Amphratensis Croacus sive de bello ranarum et murium. Homeri Batrachomyomachia, Hagenau, per Johannem Secerium, 1531, 166.2 Poet. [1]; Antonii Thylesii Imber aureus, Nuremberg, Friedrich Peypus, 1530, 166.2 Poet. [2]; Marci Hieronymi Vidae Cremonensis poetae clarissimi de arte poetica libri tres, nuper in usum studiosorum in lucem aediti, Nuremberg, Artemisius (=Friedrich Peypus), 1531, 166.2 Poet. [3]); Hulderichi Hutteni de arte versificandi, Nuremberg, Johann Petreius, 1531, 166.2 Poet. [4]; and Ex Publii Terentii comoediis latinissimae colloquiorum formulae, ordine selectae, una cum eiusdem poetae insignioribus sententiis, Strasbourg, Christian Egenolph, 1530, 166.2 Poet. [5]. 64. Born in Bietigheim, Hormoldt studied at Tübingen and held administrative posts in several towns in the Württemberg area. On Hormoldt see Neues Württembergisches Dienerbuch, bearbeitet von Walther Pfeilsticker (Stuttgart: Gotta, 1957), I, § 2029.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

149

65. For a discussion of the notes, see Alejandro Coroleu, “Notes in a 1531 edition of Vida’s De arte poetica”, in Syntagmatia: Essays on Neo-Latin Literature in Honour of Monique Mund-Dopchie and Gilbert Tournoy, ed. by Dirk Sacré and Jan Papy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009), pp. 307-15. 66. See the appendices in Louis Clément, Henri Estienne et son oeuvre française (Geneva: Slatkine reprints, 1967). It is worth noting that Estienne’s ex libris usually reads “Ex bibliotheca H. Stephani” or “ex libr. Henr. Stephani”. 67. See La France des Humanistes. Henri II Estienne, éditeur et écrivain, ed. by Jean Céard (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003), p. 721 and p. 730. 68. On Eliseo Calenzio (1430-1503), see the entry “Luigi Galucci” by Simona Foà in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, ed. by Giuseppe Pignatelli et al. (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1998), vol. 51, pp. 743-745 (p. 745). 69. Familiarium colloquiorum formulae, graece et latine. Cebetis ... Dialogus qui ȆȓȞĮȟ inscribitur, cum latina interpretatione. īĮȜİȦȝȣȠȝĮȤȚĮ, hoc est felium et murium pugna, tragoedia graeca, nunc primum latinitate donata. Batrachomyomachia, hoc est ranarum et murium pugna Homeri, una cum scholiis Philippi Melanchtonis, antehac nunquam aeditis; Elysii Galentii ... de bello ranarum et murium, libri tres. Andreae Guarnae de bello inter grammaticae reges de principatu orationis, liber primus, Antwerp, I. Steelsius, 1547, copy used: BL, G.7899. 70. See La France des Humanistes, pp. 721-4. 71. See Bénédicte Boudou, “La Poétique d’Henri Estienne”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LII, 3 (1990), 571-92, and Denise Carabin, “Horace et Henri Estienne”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXVIII, 1 (2006), 5-19. 72. Here I have followed Paul Grendler, “Renaissance humanism, schools, and universities”, in L’étude de la Renaissance: nunc et cras, ed. by Max Engammare, Marie-Madeleine Fragonard, Augustin Redondo and Saverio Ricci (Geneva: Droz, 2003), pp. 69-91 (pp. 73-4). 73. Epistolae familiares Ioannis Antonii Campani clarissimi oratoris per Iosephum Horlennium ex opere eius epistolarum diligenter selectae, Cologne, Quentel, 1516 (copy used at HAB, 63 Quod 11): “Campani epistolas selectas ego meis auditoribus proxima hyeme sum expositurus, ob eam vel maxime causam quod sunt breves, faciles, elegantes et ad ingenia adulescentium accommodatissime … Quam ob rem te et hortor et moneo ut preclarum hoc opus selectarum epistolarum tuis istic adulescentibus sicuti ego hic nostris quam primum interpreteris”. 74. Margarita facetiarum Alfonsi Aragonum Regis Vafredicta, Strasbourg, Iohannis Grüninger, 1508, sig. G iiiir-v: “Iodici Badii Ascensii ut boni iuvenes ad litterarum studia ferventius incumbant cohortatio” (copy used at HAB 100. Quodl. 3). 75. Sacra et satyrica epigrammata, Basle, Johannes Froben, 1518, sig. A 1r (copy used at UBS, F I 472/4): “quorundam Italorum lusus sed castos, quos nobis Beatus Rhenanus exhibuit, adiecimus” (“we have added the morally pure entertainments by certain Italians, which Beatus Rhenanus showed us”). On

150

Notes

Maternus Hatten, see Ilse Günther and Peter G. Bietenholz, “Hatten”, in Contemporaries of Erasmus, II, pp. 167-68. 76. See Sottili, Humanismus und Universitätsbesuch, p. 9. 77. See Jensen, “Exporting and importing Italian Humanism”, p. 459. 78. See Henry de Vocht, History of the Foundation and Rise of the “Collegium Trilingue Lovaniense” (1517-1550), 4 vols. (Leuven: Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1951-1955), II, p. 111. 79. This complex history has been recently chartered by Andrew Wallace in his Virgil’s Schoolboys: The Poetics of Pedagogy in Renaissance England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 61-8. 80. For a discussion of the different commentary types developed in the Renaissance, see Anthony Grafton, “Renaissance Readers and Ancient Texts”, in Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 14501800 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), pp. 23-46. 81. For an examination of Bade’s commentaries (mostly on the classics) and of his contribution to scholarship and pedagogy, see now Paul White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius: Commentary, Commerce and Print in the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 61-106 and 207-33. CHAPTER TWO 82. See White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, p. 233 83. See Mark Crane, “‘Virtual Classroom’: Josse Bade’s Commentaries for the Pious Reader”, in The Unfolding of Words: Commentary in the Age of Erasmus, ed. by Judith Rice Henderson (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 2012), pp. 101-17 (p. 103). 84. “ego ille Baptista Mantuanus prior generalis Carmelitarum, qui toti Galliae iampridem sum cognitus et cuius scripta per omnem regnum tuum leguntur a doctis” (BL, Ms. Harley 3462, fol. 157r). I owe this information to Andrea Severi, who discussed the contents of Mantuan’s letter in a paper delivered at the Fifteenth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Münster, August 2012, publication forthcoming in 2015). 85. See the statistics discussed in Walther Ludwig, “Die humanistische Bildung der Jungfrau Maria in der Parthenice Mariana des Baptista Mantuanus”, in Miscella Neolatina. Ausgewählte Aufsätze 1989-2003, ed. by Astrid Steiner-Weber (Hildesheim-Zurich-New York: Olms, 2004), vol. 1, pp. 463-85 (p. 463). 86. Epitome in divae Parthenices Mariae historiam ab Alberto Durero norico per figuras digestam cum versibus annexis Chelidonii, Nuremberg, Höltzel, 1511. On Mantuan, Chelidonius and Dürer see Anna Scherbaum, Albrecht Dürers Marienleben: Form, Gehalt, Funktion und sozialhistorischer Ort (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004). 87. See Battista Spagnoli Mantovano, Adoloescentia, ed. by Andrea Severi (Bologna: Bononia University Press, 2010), pp. 157-78. 88. Libro llamado exemplar de sufrimiento y castidad en el qual se veran por estilo devoto y apazible...nuevamente traduzido de las parthenices de Baptista Mantuano, Barcelona, Pau Cortei, 1565 (copy used: Biblioteca del Palau de

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

151

Peralada, 87-II. I owe this reference to Montserrat Lamarca, BUB). On French editions and translations of the Parthenice see Anne Boucharain, “Les traductions françaises des Carmina de Battista Spagnoli au XVIe siècle”, in L’Italie et la France dans l’Europe latine du XIVe au XVIIe: Influence, emulation, traduction, ed. by Marc Deramaix and Ginette Vagenheim (Rouen: Publications des universités de Rouen et du Havre, 2003), pp. 397-415. 89. For the manuscript circulation of Mantuan’s Latin eclogues and the history of the text, see Severi, Adolescentia, pp. 426-7. 90. I owe much of this information to Baptista Mantuanus, Adulescentia, edited, with an English translation, by Lee Piepho (New York-London: Garland, 1989, pp. xxiv-xxvi. The Adolescentia was, of course, included in the many editions of Mantuan’s Opera omnia published in sixteenth-century Europe. 91. See Morimichi Watanabe, “Martin Luther’s relations with Italian humanists: with special reference to Ioannes Baptista Mantuanus”, Lutherjahrbuch, 54 (1987), 23-47. 92. See Piepho, Holofernes’ Mantuan, pp. 93-130. 93. Bucolica seu adolescentia in decem aeglogas divisa a Iodoco Badio Ascenscio familiariter exposita, Paris, André Bocard for Jean Petit and the de Marnef brothers, 1502 (I have examined the copy at BL, 11405 bb. 35. 2). For Bade’s commentary, see Severi, Adolescentia, pp. 428-75. 94. Bucolica seu adolescentia in decem aeglogas divisa a Iodoco Badio Ascenscio familiariter exposita, Strasbourg, Johann Prüß, 1503 (I have examined the copy held at BL, IA. 5190 (5)). On this edition see Lee Piepho, “Mantuan revised: his Adulescentia in early sixteenth-century Germany”, in Canadian Review of Comparative Literature/Revue Canadienne de Littérature Comparée, 33 (2006), 61-74. On Gallinarius see the entry in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 8 (1878), pp. 336-8. 95. Fratris Baptistae Mantuani Carmelitae Carmen Bucolicum cum argumentis in singulas aeglogas et adnotamentis Ioannis Murmellii, Deventer, Jacobus de Breda, 1508 (I have consulted the copy at The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 226 E 41). 96. “Quaeris ex me proximo epistolio, quid sentiam de commentariis Jodici Badii in bucolica Mantuani, nonnulla simul in his proponis, quae tibi inter cetera nondum satis explicata videntur. Ego, mi Paule suavissime, ut quam possim, paucissimis tibi respondeam: nihil minus quam criticum censoremve scriptorum profiteor; verum, ne studiis tuis desim, de Badio ita statuo, virum quidem eum esse insigniter litteratum varieque lectionis et scriptorem industriosum ac operosum; at sane in enarrandis poetis doctorum hominum iudicio non satis comprobari. Primum enim, dum passim commentarios tumultuario effundit, et in pudenda aliquot errata incidit et conniventibus oculis nonnulla loca praeterit, quae diligenti grammatico minime dissimulanda forent. Deinde autem, cum tardiusculis ingeniis totum se accommodat et quasi tenellis infantulorum rostris praemansum cibum inserit, magis obesse studiis quam prodesse iudicatur” (sig. F viir). 97. See Piepho, Holofernes’ Mantuan, pp. 62-7 and 86-7.

152

Notes

98. For Bade’s practice of printing his commentaries in parallel with other commentaries, see Crane, “‘Virtual Classroom’”, p. 106, and White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, p. 88. 99. See Piepho, Holofernes’ Mantuan, p. 62, and the lists of reprints of Bade’s commentaries provided by Daniela Marrone in her edition of Mantuan’s Apologeticon (Mantua: Accademia Nazionale Virgiliana, 2000), pp. 47-48. 100. As, for example, in Fratris Baptiste Mantuani…Parthenice tertia divarum Margaritae, Agathes, Luciae et Apolloniae agones contens, Strasbourg, Johann Schott, 1515 (copy used: BSB, 4 P. lat 850). This edition was prepared by the Cologne professor Hardwin von Grätz, whose views on Mantuan’s poetry will be discussed in the following chapter. 101. Parthenice Mariana Fratris Baptistae Mantuani ab Ascensio familiariter exposita, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1499, sig. Air, from the copy at UBS, W I 44/1 (Bade’s letter can be read in Appendix B; here I quote from Crane’s English translation of the Latin, as in n. 83). The title of Bade’s edition of the second Parthenice referred to above is: Parthenice Catharinaria Fratris Baptistae Mantuani ab Ascensio familiariter exposita, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1499 (I have used the copy at UBS, W I 44/2). 102. “Prosecuturus iuxta promissa in proemio sacri miracula partus, id est, nativitatem dominicam, ingreditur secundum capitulum Evangelii divi Lucae, in cuius principio dicitur: ‘Factum est ut in diebus illiis exiit edictum a Caesare Augusto ut describeretur universus orbis’ etc. Occasione cuius ostendit poeta totum fere orbem tunc paruisse Romano imperio recitans quibus ducibus et auspicibus plurimae regiones imperio subiectae sint” (fol. LXVIIv). 103. “Contrarium aut factum conqueritur Vergilius sub ipsa bella civilia dicens in fine primi geor.: Squalent abdurti arva colonis, / et curvae rigidum falces conflantur in ensem” (fol. LXVIIv) (“Virgil laments that the opposite happened during the same civil wars, as he says at the end of the first book of the Georgics: ‘the lands neglected, robbed of farmers, and the curved pruning-hooks beaten into solid blades’”). 104. See Moss, Renaissance Truth, p. 217 for an analysis of Mantuan’s episode, and p. 220 for an examination of Bade and Murrho’s commentaries on the passage. 105. “In his autem omnibus, quicquid vitiosum erat, damnosum a Virgine dicit. Verum veri similius est non legisse” (ibidem). 106. The passage is reproduced with an English translation in Appendix B. 107. See Moss, Renaissance Truth, p. 218. 108. Jakob Wimpfeling, Isidoneus germanicus, Speyer, s.t., 1497, fol. XXXIr: “Finally persuaded by my assiduous and most constant requests, Sebastianus Murrho began to sketch commentaries on Mantuan” (“Assiduis et constantissimis precibus meis tandem persuasus, Sebastianus Murrho in Baptistam Mantuanum commentaria ludere coepit”). 109. Biographical information on Murrho can be gleaned from Mariano Madrid Castro, “Badius’ and Murrho’s Commentaries on Baptista Mantuanus’ Contra Poetas Impudice Loquentes”, in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Abulensis. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies. General Editor Rhoda Schnur, ed. by Jenaro Costas, Roger Green, Antonio Iurilli, Elizabeth

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

153

McCutcheon, Antonio Moreno, Monique Mund-Dopchie and Hermann Wieg (Tempe, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 2000), pp. 397-402. For the exchange of letters between Wimpfeling and Amerbach regarding Mantuan, see The correspondence of Johann Amerbach: early printing in its social context, selected, translated, edited, with commentary by Barbara C. Halporn (Ann Arbor; MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000), pp. 38-45. 110. Baptistae Mantuani…duarum Parthenicum libri, Strasbourg, Johann Schott, 1501 (copy used: BSB, 4 P. lat 855). 111. On the 1502 edition, see Mariano Madrid Castro, “Sebastian Brant, Kommentator des Baptista Mantuanus”, in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Bonnensis. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies. General Editor Rhoda Schnur, ed. by Perrine Galand-Hallyn, Craig Kallendorf, George Hugo Tucker, Antonio Iurilli, Joaquín Pascual Barea and Hermann Wieg (Tempe, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 2006), pp. 505-14. 112. “Dicit Iosephum in Aegyptum venisse, primo Alexandriam, deinde Hermopolin, tum Thebas, et tandem Memphin, ubi hospicio susceptus arti fabribili (cuius erat apprime eruditus) operam dedit, qua sibi et filio et uxori alimoniam quaesivit” (sig. CIr). 113. Annabel Patterson, Pastoral and Ideology: Virgil to Valéry (Berkeley-Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1987), p. 44. 114. Petrarch, Familiares., XXIII, 19, 16: “[Bucolicum Carmen] late iam cognitum ac vulgatum”. On the history of the text see Nicholas Mann, “The making of Petrarch’s Bucolicum Carmen: a contribution to the history of the text”, Italia medioevale e umanistica, XX (1977), 127-82. 115. Gilbert Ouy, “Pétrarque et les premiers humanistes français”, in Petrarca, Verona e l’Europa, ed. by Giuseppe Billanovich and Giuseppe Frasso (Padua: Antenore, 1997), pp. 415-34 (p. 416). 116. For the manuscript circulation of Petrarch’s eclogues in Italy, France and the German-speaking world, see Nicholas Mann, “Il Bucolicum Carmen e la sua eredità”, Quaderni petrarcheschi, 9-10 (1992-1993), 513-35 (pp. 516-26). 117. On the edition published in Cremona, see Arnaldo Foresti, “Il Bucolicum Carmen de Francesco Petrarca stampato a Cremona nel 1495”, La Bibliofilia, 20 (1918-1919), 348-53. 118. Details of the editions mentioned in this paragraph are: Francisci Petrarchae Opera, Basle, Johannes Amerbach, 1496; Francisci Petrarchae Opera, Venice, Andrea Torresani, 1501, and Francisci Petrarchae epistolae, Venice, per Simonem Papiensem et Michaelem Horigonum, 1503; Bucolicum Carmen, Cologne, Arnold Ther Hoernen, 1473; Bucolica, Deventer, Richard Paffraet, 1489; Francisci Petrarcae Bucolicum Carmen, Cremona, Rafaynus Ungaronus and Caesar Parmensis, 1495; Francisci Petrarcae Bucolicum Carmen, Bologna, Johannes Jacobus de Fontanesis and Hieronymus de Benedictis, 1497; Bucolica Francisci Petrarche poetae laureate et viri doctissimi, Paris, André Bocard for Jean Marnef, 1502; Francisci Petrarche poetae insignis Bucolica carmina in duodecima eglogas distincta et diligenter ab Iodoco Badio Ascenscio (sic) explanata, Paris, André Bocard for Jean Petit, 1502; Eclogae. Vergilii. Calphurnii. Nemesiani. Frcici Pe. Ioannis Boc. Ioan. Bap. Man. Pomponii Gaurici, Florence,

154

Notes

Filippo di Giunta, 1504; Francisci Petrarche Aretini laureate poete Bucolicum Carmen opera eruditissimi viri Servati Aedicolli Agrippini diligenter recognitum et accuratius explanatum, Deventer, Jacobus de Breda,1508; Francisci Petrarche Aretini laureate poete Bucolicum Carmen opera eruditissimi viri Servati Aedicolli Agrippini diligenter recognitum et accuratius explanatum, Deventer, Albert Paffraet, 1512. 119. “Franciscus Petrarcha…nunc vix est in manibus”, in Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, I 2 (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1971), p. 661 (Dialogus Ciceronianus, ed. by Pierre Mesnard). 120. See Francisci Petrarche Aretini lauretai poete Carmen bucolicum in duodecim aeglogas divisum, Soest, Nikolaus Schulting, ca. 1524; Francisci Petrarchae…Poemata omnia, Basle, Alban Thorer, 1541; En habes lector Bucolicorum autores XXXVIII quotquot videlicet a Vergilii aetate ad nostra usque tempora, Basle, Oporinus, 1546; and Francisci Petrarchae…Poemata omnia, Basle, s.t., 1558. On the rare volume published in Soest, see Jürgen Geiß, Zentren der Petrarca-Rezeption in Deutschland (um 1470-1525): Rezeptiongeschichtliche Studien und Katalog der lateinischen Drucküberlieferung (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2002), pp. 221-2. 121. On the evolution of Neo-Latin criticism of the pastoral, which may account for the exclusion of Petrarch’s Latin eclogues from late sixteenth-century anthologies of the genre, see Fred J. Nichols, “The development of Neo-Latin theory of the pastoral in the sixteenth century”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XVIII (1969), 95-114. 122. Petrarch, Fam., X, 4, 12: “Sed quoniam id genus est quod nisi ex ipso qui condidit auditum, intelligi non possit, ne te inutiliter fatiges, primo dicam, deinde quid intendam brevibus explicabo” (“this kind of poetry is one that cannot be understood unless a key to it is furnished by the person who constructed it. So, as I would not have you weary yourself to no purpose, I must give you a brief outline, first of what I say, then of what I mean by it”). On Petrarch’s obscuritas, see William L. Grant, Neo-Latin Literature and the Pastoral (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1965), p. 87. 123. See Familiares, X, 4, Variae, XLIX and Variae, XLII respectively. 124. On Pietro da Moglio’s teaching, see Giuseppe Billanovich, “Giovanni del Virgilio, Pietro da Moglio, Francesco da Fiano”, Italia medioevale e umanistica, VI (1963), 203-34 (pp. 207-8). On Benvenuto’s commentary see Valerio Stefano Rossi, “Benvenuto lettore del Bucolicum Carmen del Petrarca”, in Benvenuto da Imola lettore degli antichi e dei moderni. Atti del convegno internazionale (Imola, 26 e 27 maggio 1989), ed by Pantaleo Palmieri and Carlo Paolazzi (Ravenna: Longo, 1991), pp. 285-98. On Piendibeni da Montepulciano’s annotations see Antonio Avena, Il Bucolicum Carmen e i suoi commenti inediti (Padua: Società cooperativa bibliografica, 1906), pp. 247-86. 125. This point was made by Francisco Rico in his unpublished paper “Petrarca ed Erasmo” delivered at the conference Petrarca, l’Umanesimo e la civiltà europea (Florence, December 2004). I am grateful to Francisco Rico for granting me access to his essay.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

155

126. When quoting from Bade and Huylsberch’s editions I shall be referring to the annotations by first giving the line number from the Bucolicum Carmen followed by the passage commented on in italics, and by the annotation and the folio number from the sixteenth-century editions. All English translations of the Bucolicum Carmen are from Petrarch’s Bucolicum Carmen, translated and annotated by Thomas G. Bergin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974). 127. Rather surprisingly given the wide manuscript dissemination of the Bucolicum Carmen in late fifteenth-century France, in his letter to Raeymolen, Bade claimed that “from you I had only one copy of the manuscript, and was not able to obtain another” (Francisci Petrarche poetae…ab Iodoco Badio…, fol. Iv; see Appendix B). On Raeymolen (alias Keymolain, Jacobus Keymolanus), see Philippe Renouard, Imprimeurs et libraires parisiens du XVIe siècle (Paris: Service des travaux historiques de la Ville de Paris, 1964-), p. 11 and p. 308. 128. On Bade and classical bucolic poetry, see Alice Hulubei, L’églogue en France au XVIe siècle (Paris: Droz, 1938), pp. 76-90. 129. “Ecloga sane longa nec minus facilis propter obscuras poetarum circumlocutiones dicitur Laurea occidens”, fol. LXVr. All my quotations from Bade’s commentary are from the copy held at BL, 78 d. 22. 130. “Hoc videtur de Sophocle intelligendum. Qui fuit tragoediarum scriptor clarissimus Atheniensis, cuius tanta fuit industria ut cum ipsa rerum natura certasse videatur, nam, cum esset annorum ferme centum, Oedipodem tragediam composuit; de quo Cicero in Catone maiore ‘Sophocles’ inquit ‘ad summam senectutem tragoedias fecit; quod propter studium et industriam, cum rem negligere familiarem videretur, a filiis in iudicium vocatus est’”, fol. LXXr. 131. See, for example, the note to 280-281, collis, ubi Achadiae celeberrima carmine nimpha / arte patrum curas fugitivaque verba ligarat, [monstratur] (“My eye was caught by a hill where of old the Arcadian dryad, / famous for her incantations, had by use of her magic /bound and made fast the cares and the fleeting words of our fathers”) “Id est, septem collibus. Hoc est per Romam, de qua Maro lib. ii. geor.: Scilicet et rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma, / septemque una sibi muro circumdedit arces, id est, septem colles videlicet Capitolium, Aventinum, Caelium, Exquilinum, Viminalem, Quirinalem et Palatinum” (“That is, on the seven hills. This is a reference to Rome, on which Virgil in the second book of the Georgics (II, 534-535) said: So Rome became the loveliest of all things, / and enclosed her seven hills with a single wall, that is, the seven hills, namely the Capitoline, the Aventine, the Caelian Hill, the Esquiline, the Viminal, the Quirinal and the Palatine”), fol. LXXXr. 132. See Peter Godman, From Poliziano to Machiavelli: Florentine Humanism in the High Renaissance (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), p. 72. 133. Paeanes divae Virginis ex Francisci Petrarcha poemate vernaculo in latinum conversi a Philippo Beroaldo, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1506 (BNF, Res. M-YC-46). On the circulation of this poem in early sixteenth-century France see Franco Simone, “La fortuna del Petrarca in Francia nella prima metà del Cinquecento”, in his Il Rinascimento francese: Studi e ricerche (Turin: Società editrice internazionale, 1961), pp. 141-222 (p. 175). On Bade and Beroaldo, an influential figure in the development of early French hunmanism, see Paul White,

156

Notes

“Foolish pleasures: the Stultiferae naves of Jodocus Badius Ascensius and the poetry of Filippo Beroaldo the Elder”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, LX (2011), 6583. 134. For the circulation of this corpus of poetry in early sixteenth-century France see Moss, Renaissance Truth, pp. 221-3. As evidence of the success enjoyed by the Bucolicum Carmen in France in the first decades of the sixteenth century it is worth recalling that the Royal Library held copies of Petrarch’s eclogues (see Ian Dalrymple McFarlane, “Clément Marot and the world of NeoLatin poetry”, in Literature and the arts in the reign of Francis I: Essays presented to C.A. Mayer, ed. by Pauline Smith and Ian Dalrymple McFarlane (Lexington, KY: French Forum, 1985), pp. 103-30 (p. 125). 135. Iuvencus presbyter immensam evangelice legis maiestatem heroicis versibus concludens ab J. Badio Ascensio paucis elucidatus, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1506 (BL, 11409 g 1). 136. On the devotio moderna, a movement based on a personal relationship with God and an active demonstration of love towards Him, see John van Engen, Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life: The Devotio Moderna and the World of the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008). 137. On Huylsberch, see Gabriella Mezzanotte, “Una nuova testimonianza della fortuna petrarchesca nei Paessi Bassi”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XXIX (1980), 166-75. Paffraet’s edition of 1512 (I have inspected the volume held at The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, 226 E 63) includes Petrarch’s Carmen in laudem divae Mariae Magdalenae, a text published at least three times in the German- and Dutch-speaking world between 1508 and 1512 (see Geiß, Zentren, pp. 223-7). 138. On the links between the Paffraet family and the Latin school at Deventer, see The poems of Desiderius Erasmus, introduced and edited by Cornelis Reedijk (Leiden: Brill, 1956), pp. 24-6. On their activity as printers of schoolbooks, see Polydore Charles van der Meersch, Recherches sur la vie et les travaux des imprimeurs belges et neérlandais établis à l’etranger (Ghent-Paris: L. Hebbelynck, 1856), pp. 140-2. 139. See, for example, the frustration expressed by Joannes Caesarius (ca. 14681550) –another Cologne-educated humanist like Huylsberch and Murmellius– at the state of education in Deventer in a letter addressed to Huylsberch in November of 1504 (reproduced in Rice, The prefatory epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples, pp. 124-5). 140. “11 dispersasque novem Gothica feritate sorores / 12 primus in antiquos hic revocavit agros… / 15 Debes huic etiam multum aspirante Minerva / 16 qui tibi deprompsit condita sensa viro”, sig. A ir. 141. See La corrispondenza bucolica tra Giovanni Boccaccio e Checco di Meletto Rossi. L’egloga di Giovanni del Virgilio ad Albertino Mussato, edizione critica, commento e introduzione a cura di Simona Lorenzini (Florence: Olschki, 2011). 142. “…in quibus Oedipodis coniecturae aut Sphingis ambiguitati simillima offenduntur…” (sig. A iv). 143. A summary of the contents of Laurea occidens can be read in Beate Czapla, “Petrarcas’s Katabasis zu den Dichtern der Antike in der 10. Ekloge seines

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

157

Bucolicum Carmen”, in Petrarca und die römische Literatur, ed. by Ulrike Aufhagen, Stefan Faller and Florian Hurka (Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, 2005), pp. 157-75, which includes further bibliography. 144. The Latin texts translated above read: “Sub Silvani autem nomine qui deus est silvestris poetam intellegimus; per Socratem adolescentem aliquem aut familiarem, quem eo nomine appellat propter morum honestatem”, and “Fuit enim Socrates unus omnium sapientissimus […] nihil scripto reliquit, quae verum ab eo audita, Plato, Aristoteles aliique multi mandaverunt. Delatorum tandem perfidia veneno interemptus” (fol. XLIVv). On the identity of this Socrates, see Jan Papy, “Creating an ‘Italian’ Friendship: from Petrarch’s Ideal Literary Critic ‘Socrates’ to the Historical Reader Ludovicus Sanctus of Beringen”, in Petrarch and his Readers in the Renaissance, ed. by Karl A.E. Enenkel and Jan Papy (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 13-30. 145. The Latin text of both passages is as follows: “Theocritum Siracusanum intelligit, quem Virgilius in Bucolicis imitatus est” and “Empedocles ingenia frigido circa praecordia sanguine impediri, sic Ver: frigidus obstiterit circum praecordia sanguis”. 146. See Mezzanotte, “Una nuova testimonianza…”, p. 167. 147. “Postulasti a me, Ioannes, coram quando loqui concedebatur occasio (tum litteris etiam vehementius), Francisci Petrarchae Carmen bucolicum, expositione familiari elucidatum, ad te vel in commune ut darem. Ego vero, quia me obtemperantem fore hac in re sum pollicitus, misi omnium fere poetarum (vulgatorum inquam) expositoris Ascensii Badii commentarium […] Atqui protinus cum remitteres, aiebas te nihili pendere huiusmodi paleas corticatasque vocabulorum elucubrationes, quibus id percipi nequit quod vel ab aliis fuerit pretermissum aut perperam enucleatum” (sig. A iv). The full text of Huylsberch’s letter to his brother is reproduced in Appendix B. 148. On Squarzafico’s vita, see Carlo Dionissotti, “Fortuna del Petrarca nel’ 400”, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, XVII (1974), 61-113 (pp. 89-90). 149. See da Imola’s annotations to this line: “Petrarch describes another poet or perhaps Sepsius, who censures the deeds of the Romans, which had been praised by all” (in Avena, Il Bucolicum Carmen…, p. 236). It is worth noting that Ovid refers to the poet as “Scepsius” (l. 37), an adjective which conceals the identity of the philosopher Metrodorus of Scepsis, mentioned several times by Cicero. 150. 273 Hic quoque (nam memini) miserum solabar amantem. “[…] Qui sit non exprimit. Forte de Ovidio intelligi potest qui dicit: Ille ego qui fuerim, tenerorum lusor amorum”, fol. lxxxvv. 151. “de Lucretio poeta loquitur qui amatorio poculo exhausto in furores versus propria se manu interfecit annum agens quadragesimum tertium, de cuius operibus illud a Ovidio scribitur: Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucretii, / exitio terras cum dabit una dies. Amantem. Lucretium amore captum; Amentemque. Insanum, Politianus: Nec qui philtra bibit nimioque insanus amore /mox ferro incubuit, sic mentem amiserat omnem, / ut non sublimi caneret Lucretius ore / arcanas mundi causas elementaque rerum”, fol. lvv. 152. The reference to Theocritus in lines 3 and 4 of Murmellius’s poem (“Plus meruit laudis sicule telluris alumnus, / quem pius ausonia provocat arte Maro” –

158

Notes

“More praise deserved the pupil of the Sicilian land, whom Virgil was the first to challenge with Italian art”) is clearly a borrowing from Poliziano’s description of Calpurnius Siculus [Nutricia, 556-7: “…Ut opaca Tityron umbra / provocet Ausonio Calpurni fistula cantu?” (“How the shepherd pipe of Calpurnius challenges Tityrus in the dense shade with Italian song?”)]. 153. See Godman, From Poliziano to Machiavelli, p. 73, for a comparison between Laurea oocidens and the Nutricia. In his analysis Godman shows how many of Petrarch’s misapprehensions arise from the fact that the important tenth book of Quintilian’s Institutiones oratoriae, which features a comparison of Greek and Roman writers, was lacking from Petrarch’s copy of the text. 154. I follow Francesco Bausi in the use of the spelling Silvae –as opposed to Sylvae– in the title of the collection [see Angelo Poliziano, Silvae, a cura di Francesco Bausi (Florence: Olschki, 1996), p. xlix]. 155. Angelo Poliziano, Silvae, edited and translated by Charles Fantazzi (Cambridge, MA-London: Harvard University Press, 2004), p. xvi. All translations of the Silvae are from this edition. 156. For an excellent introduction to Poliziano’s poems, see Ange Politien, Les Silves, texte traduit et commenté par Perrine Galand-Hallyn (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1987), pp. 10-122. 157. Angelo Poliziano, Miscellaneorum Centuria prima, 80: “quarum [the Silvae] videlicet alteram [the Nutricia] magno sumus olim conventu publice multis excipientibus interpretati” (in Angelo Poliziano, Angeli Politiani Miscellaneorum Centuria prima, Basle, Andreas Cratander, 1522, fol. 95v). 158. For full details of these volumes, as well as variants between the different editions, see Bausi’s tables, pp. xxxv-xlviii. 159. As is clear from Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Ms. II IX 39, which contains Epistolae quaedam Oratii, Silva Politiani cui titulus est Nutricia (see Concetta Bianca, “Un nuovo codice Pandolfini”, Rinascimento, 34 (1994), 153-5). 160. Rather than provide a lengthy list of bibliographical references, I give details of the Poliziano volumes discussed wherever appropriate in this and the following chapters. 161. The Lepzig edition –Angeli Politiani Sylva cui titulus Nutritia, Leipzig, Jakob Thanner, 1517, copy at Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliotek 76, 39– includes a Latin poem by a certain Hieronymus Adamus Bauczenus, in which he praises Poliziano as poetic heir to Virgil and Homer. I am grateful to Marianne Pade for drawing my attention to the copy held in Copenhagen. 162. Angeli Politiani Silva, cui titulus Rusticus, Paris, Laliseau, 151? [but ca. 1510]. I use the copy at the University of Pennsylvania Library, Van Pelt Library, PA 8563.S54. For this edition, see Appendix B. 163. For the schoolmaster Guillaume Haudent’s (d. 1558) translation of the Rusticus, see Perrine Galand-Hallyn, “La traduction par Guillaume Haudent de la silve Rusticus de Politien (Rouen, c. 1550)”, in Deramaix and Vagenheim, L’Italie et la France dans l’Europe latine du XIVe au XVIIe…, pp. 325-57. 164. The Frankfurt Nutricia features in Delitiae CC. Italorum poetarum (see Wolfgang Adam, Poetische und Kritische Wälder. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

159

und Formen des Schreibens ‘bei Gelegenheit’ (Heidelberg: Winter, 1988), p. 117). The Utrecht Rusticus was included by the Jesuit René Rapin (1621-87) as an appendix to a reprint of his Hortorum libri IV, first published in Paris nine years previously. 165. On some of these editions, see John Sparrow, “Renaissance Latin Poetry: some sixteenth-century Italian anthologies”, in Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance. Essays in Honour of Paul Oscar Kristeller, ed. by Cecil H. Clough (Manchester-New York: Manchester University Press, 1976), pp. 386-405. On Atterbury and Pope’s attention to Italian Neo-Latin verse, see David Money, The English Horace: Anthony Alsop and the Tradition of British Latin Verse (Oxford: Publications of the British Academy, 1998), pp. 98-105. 166. For examples of eighteenth-century annotation in copies of the Silvae see Isidoro del Lungo, Prose volgari e poesie latine e greche edite e inedite di Angelo Poliziano (Florence: G. Barbèra editore, 1867), pp. xxiii, and Francisco Rico, Primera cuarentena y tratado general de literatura (Barcelona: Quaderns Crema, 1982), pp. 41-2. 167. An edition of the manuscript –held at BSB, Ms. Lat. 755, fols. 126v-152r– is available in Alessandro Perosa, Un commento inedito all’ Ambra del Poliziano (Rome: Bulzoni, 1994). 168. On Bérauld, see Perrine Galand-Hallyn, “Nicolas Bérauld”, in Centuriae latinae II: Cent figures humanistes de la Renaissance aux Lumières. A la mémoire de Marie-Madeleine de la Garanderie, ed. by Colette Nativel, Catherine Magnien, Michel Magnien, Pierre Maréchaux and Isabelle Pantin (Geneva: Droz, 2006), pp. 71-8. For his activity as a printer, see Renouard, Imprimeurs et libraires parisiens du XVIe siècle, Vol. 3, 1979, pp. 260-5. 169. In hoc opusculo continentur infrascripta, Paris, Thomas Kees, Hémon Le Fèvre, 1514: “Edentur mox eiusdem Nicolai Beraldi adnotationes in libros eosdem de legibus cum commentariis in Politiani Rusticum aliaque eiusdem authoris poematia” (“The annotations by the same Nicolas Bérauld to the same books on [Cicero’s] Laws alongside his commentaries on Poliziano’s Rusticus and on other poems by the same author will be published soon”). The end of the praelectio is even more specific and describes the commentary as “already finished” (“[Rustici interpretationem] quae iam absoluta est”). 170. “…in Politianicae Rustici commentariis nuper editis…” (sig. B Iv). A reference in Bérauld’s commentary to Guillaume Budé’s forthcoming De asse, which apperared in March 1515, indicates that the annotations were not published before that date (sig. G 6r). 171. Bérauld’s commentary was reprinted once in Basle (in 1518, by Froben, copy used at BSB, 4 P.o.lat. 548) and three times in Paris (ca. 1518-1519 by Josse Bade, copy used at Cambridge University Library, F 151.b.7; in 1519 by Regnauld Chaudière and Pierre Gaudoul, copy used at Oxford, Bodleian Library, Byw. R 6. 30; and in 1527, by Nicolas de La Barre and Prigent Calvarin, copy used at Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, 10596). 172. See Johannes Murmellius, Scoparius, Deventer, Albert Paffraet, 1517, 62: “Qui commentarii [by Murmellius and Bérauld] maxime conducant bonarum artium studiosis”, and Juan Luis Vives, De tradendis disciplinis, III, 9: “Nicolaus

160

Notes

Beroaldus ad Politiani Rusticum, et Franciscus Sylvius ad Gryphum Ausonii, multum habent ex philologia bonarum rerum accurate depromptarum” (“Nicolas Bérauld’s annotations to Poliziano’s Rusticus and Franciscus Sylvius’s commentaries on Ausonius’s Gryphus present many passages carefully taken from the subject of philology”, quoted from Foster Watson’s translation of the text, Cambridge: University Press, 1913). 173. For the role of the Rusticus and Bérauld’s commentary on the poem within French Neo-Latin literature, see Perrine Galand-Hallyn, “Quelques coïncidences (paradoxales?) entre l´Epître aux Pisons d´Horace et la poétique de la Silve au début du XVIe siècle en France”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LX, 3 (1998), 609-39 (pp. 609-14). 174. Angeli Politiani Silva cui titulus est Rusticus cum docta elegantissimaque Nicolai Beraldi interpretatione, sig. b ivr: “...cum in Manto sibi non satisfaceret, in quam tamen adnotationes iampridem parturimus; edituri eas prope diem cum nostris in Ambram commentariolis” (“since [Poliziano] was not satisfied with the Manto, a poem to which we brought forth annotations long ago. We shall publish them very soon alongside our brief commentaries on the Ambra”). All my quotations of Bérauld’s commentary are from the 1519 Paris edition published by Chaudière and Gaudoul. 175. Angeli Politiani Silva cui titulus est Rusticus cum docta…, sig. a iiv: “Hoc nostris in alia eiusdem authoris poemata adnotationibus proximo bienio inchoatis, iamque fere ad umbilicum perductis, aperte aliquando, ut spero et opto, indicabimus”. 176. Alexandri Aphrodisiaei naturalia problemata interprete Angelo Politiano. Eiusdem Politiani Lamia et Panepistemon [but also Manto and Epigrammata], Paris, Nicolas Bérauld, s.d. [but 1516]. On this edition see Alejandro Coroleu, “A rare French edition of Poliziano in Princeton University Library”, The Library, 20, 3 (1998), 264-9. I use the copy at Firestone Library, Princeton University, (Ex) BD10 xF7). For the date of Bérauld’s edition see Brigitte Moreau, Inventaire chronologique des éditions parisiennes du XVIe siècle (Paris: Service des travaux historiques de la Ville de Paris, 1972), Vol. 2, 1977 (1511-1520), p. 36. 177. On the terminology employed by Renaissance commentators to refer to their annotations, see White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, pp. 69-72. 178. Angeli Politiani Silva cui titulus est Rusticus cum docta…, sig. a iiv: “Quod vero calumniantur quidam solam vetustatem hac commentandi ratione dignam esse, supervacuamque hanc totam operam, quae recentiorum scriptis enarrandis insumatur”; sig. b iiir: “non ideo contemnendam esse Rustici huius lectionem, quod poema sit neotericum atque saeculo hoc nostro natum”. 179. Angeli Politiani Silva cui titulus est Rusticus cum docta..., sig. a iiv: “videor Politianum cum antiquis non contendisse modo sed etiam multos veterum praecesisse”. 180. Interestingly, Bérauld’s later ideas on the imitation of modern authors –as developed in his Praelectio in Suetonium Tranquillum of 1515– were rather different: “Firstly, leaving aside the most recent authors, you should read above all the ancient ones. Their science is more solid, their skill is greater and their care and attention is of better fortune. Posterity can be instructed by so many of their

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

161

findings, of their precepts, of their examples!” [“Illud vero primum est ut, omissis recentioribus auctoribus, veteres potissimum legatis ipsi, quorum doctrina solidior, maior solertia, cura ac diligentia felicior, tot illorum inventis, tot praeceptis, tot exemplis instructa posteritate”, quoted from Perrine Galand-Hallyn’s edition of the text published in Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLIV (1997), 62-93 (p. 82)]. 181. On Bérauld’s editions of several Neo-latin writers see Marie-Madeleine de La Garanderie, Christianisme et lettres profanes: essai sur l'humanisme français (1515-1535) et sur la penseé de Guillaume Budé (Paris: Champion, 1995), p. 51. 182. In the following paragraphs I can only provide a succint discussion of Bérauld’s annotations. Any examination of Bérauld’s commentary should, necessarily, be superseded by the publication of Perrine Galand’s long-awaited edition of the text (Nicolas Bérauld, Praelectio et commentaire à la Silve Rusticus d’Ange Politien [1513], édition, traduction et commentaire (Geneva: Droz, forthcoming). See also Perrine Galand-Hallyn, “Nicolas Bérault lecteur de Politien”, in Poliziano nel suo tempo (Atti del VI Convegno internazionale, Chianciano-Montepulciano, 18-21 luglio 1994), ed. by Luisa Secchi Tarugi (Florence: Franco Cesati, 1996), pp. 411-27. 183. Angeli Politiani Silva cui titulus est Rusticus cum docta..., sig. a iiv: “Intellegi enim haec Angeli poematia nisi ab eo qui priscorum lectionibus assueverit non possunt”. 184. For example, serpens “Serpens et masculino et foemenino genere apud latinos effertur, quod obvia passim exempla testantur” (fol. liv: 417), and Marte “Metonymia tropus” (fol. lviiiv: 392). 185. 466-467, scit quoque post decimam, quid prima quid prima quid altera luces/iniungant operum “Sensus est: Rusticum scire quod undecima, quod duodecima luna fieri debeat”. 186. 1-3, Ruris opes saturi gnavoque agitanda colono / munera et omniferae sacrum telluris honorem / ludere septena gestit mea fistula canna “Propositio operis”; 438-452, Ille autem…/decrescere rursum “Rusticorum astrologia eleganter his versibus explicatur”. 187. “Non est dissimulandum hoc loco apud Plinium legi die quarto” (“One ought not to conceal that in this passage Pliny’s text reads die quarto [on the fourth day]”, fol. lxir). 188. On Bérauld’s commentary on Pliny, see Marie-Madeleine de La Garanderie, “Travaux italiens et français sur Pline l’Ancien: l’édition parisienne de Nicolas Bérault (1516)”, in L’Aube de la Renaissance, ed. by Dario Cecchetti, Lionello Sozzi and Louis Terreaux (Geneva: Droz, 1991), pp. 209-24. On Bérauld’s lecturing in Paris, see La Garanderie, Christianisme et lettres profanes..., pp. 47-68. 189. See Peter Godman, “Poliziano’s poetics and Literary history”, Interpres, 13 (1993), 110-209 (pp. 122-4). 190. The longer version of the dedication to Matthias Corvinus is Ep. IX, 1 in Poliziano’s Liber epistolarum. On this letter and Poliziano’s shorter dedication (included in Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Ms. Capponi 235, fol. 18b), see Mario Martelli, Angelo Poliziano: Storia e metastoria (Lecce: Conte, 1995), pp. 247-50.

162

Notes

191. On the possible authorship of these annotations by Poliziano, see Bausi’s edition of the Silvae, pp. xlix-lii. 192. See Godman, “Poliziano’s poetics”, p. 124. 193. In Angeli Politiani Nutritia Commentarii, authore Ioanne Ludovico Brassicano iuris utriusque consulto, Nuremberg, Johann Petreius, 1538. I use the copy in ÖNB, 74. F. 58 (2). Two excerpts from Brassicanus’s commentary on Nutricia 219 and 226 are extant in Ms. 229 in the library of the Museum Plantin Moretus at Antwerp (fol. 360r). I am unable to ascertain whether these notes are in Brassicanus’s own hand (in which case they would be an early draft of his printed annotations), or whether they were written by someone else at a later date in response to Brassicanus’s commentary. 194. There is a short biography of Joannes Ludovicus Brassicanus by Joseph Sauer in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1907), vol. II, p. 744b. For his lecturing activities in Vienna, see Wenzel Hartl and Karl Schranf, Nachträge zum dritten Bande von Joseph Ritter von Aschbachs Geschichte der Wiener Universität. Die Wiener Universität und ihre Gelehrten, 1520-1565 (Vienna: Holzhausen, 1898), pp. 101-28. 195. In Angeli Politiani Nutritia Commentarii…, sig. A 3v: “Quo fit ut in eam propter obscuritatem quae inde nascitur aliquid lucis adserendum censuerim [...] Acerrimos etiam mihi subiecit stimulos Politiani de hoc poemate iudicium ut quodam in loco commentaria prolixissima in hanc sylvam scripsisse fateatur” (“From this it happened that, because of the obscurity which results from this silva, I thought that I had to add some light to it [...] Poliziano’s opinion with regard to this poem, confessing that at some point he had written very extended commentaries on this silva, gave me ardent incitement”). 196. See, for instance, his note at 107, Venus desultoria (“promiscuous love”) “Ab equibus desultoriis metaphora” (“A metaphor derived from the raiders who leap from one horse to another”, sig. C 4r). 197. See Brassicanus’s note to 400: “Alludit ad hoc Quintiliani: ‘Panyasin ex utroque mixtum, putant in eloquendo neutrius aequare virtutes’, de Hesiodo et Antimacho loquens, et Suidas” (“He refers to that sentence by Quintilian (Inst. Or. 10, 1, 53), who, speaking of Hesiod and Antimachus, said: ‘Panyasis they consider as compounded of both, as far as his style is concerned, but as reaching, on the whole, the excellences of neither’; see also the Suda”, sig. K 1r). 198. In Angeli Politiani Nutritia Commentarii…, sig. L 1v: “fragmenta quaedam eius operis a Georgio Logo poeta cultissimo nuper inventa” (“the most learned poet Georg von Logau has recently found some fragments of this work”). Published in Augsburg, Logus’s edition includes –alongside the Halieutica– Gratius’s De venatione, Nemesianus’s Cynegeticon as well as the eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus and Nemesianus. On this edition, see Carlo Vecce, Iacopo Sannazaro in Francia: scoperte di codici all'inizio del XVI secolo (Padua: Antenore, 1988), pp. 60-1. 199. “Hinc locus Ovidii in Ibin illustratur, a Domitio male intellectus: utve Syracosio praestricta fauce poetae, / sic animae laqueo sit via clausa tuae. Fuit enim Empedocles Siculus, ex Acragante, nec potest referri ad Theocritum, ut Domitius voluit”. In his annotation to Ovid’s lines Calderini had mistakingly

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

163

claimed that the poet alluded by Ovid was Theocritus (see Domizio Calderini, In Ibin, Venice, Ioannes Tacuinus de Tridino, 1505, fol. CXXXVIv). 200. “Multa in eo commentario vana ridiculaque confingit et comminiscitur ex tempore commodoque suo”. For a discussion of the controversy between Poliziano and Calderini, see Anthony Grafton, “The Scholarship of Poliziano and its Context”, in Defenders of the Text, pp. 47-75 (51-5). 201. See Anthony Grafton, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, I. Textual Criticism and Exegesis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), p. 39. CHAPTER THREE 202. See Teresa Jiménez Calvente, “Maestros de latinidad en la corte de los Reyes Católicos: ¿un ideal de vida o una vida frustrada?”, in La literatura en la época de los Reyes Católicos, ed. by Nicasio Salvador and Cristima Moya (Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2008), pp. 103-25 (p. 117). It is a pity not to mention here Arias Barbosa’s edition of Arator, published in Salamanca in 1516 and addressed “ad iuvenes studiosos bonarum artium” (copy at BNE, R/20565). 203. Full bibliographical descriptions of these editions can now be found in Sigrun Leistritz, Das “Carmen Bucolicum” des Antonio Geraldini: Einleitung, Edition, Übersetzung, Analyse ausgewählter Eklogen (Trier: WVT, 2004), pp. 3343, where the Salamanca volume goes, however, unnoticed. I have seen Salamanca 1505 (BNE, R/18096/3), Pforzheim 1507 (UBS, F I 500/7), Leipzig 1511 (HAB, A: 64.16 Quod. 4), and Leipzig 1517 (BSB, Res/4 A.lat.a. 732 Beibd. 3). 204. See Leistritz, Das “Carmen Bucolicum”, p. 52. 205. See Roger Doucet, Les bibliothèques parisiennes aux XVIe siècle (Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1956), p. 70. Descriptions of some of the editions published in Paris at the beginning of the sixteenth century are available in Godelieve Tournoy-Thoen, Publi Fausti Andrelini Amores sive, Livia, met een bio-bibliografie van de auteur (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1982), pp. 130-3. 206. Bucolica Fausti, Paris, Johannes Antonius, 1501, sig. A 1v: “Habes, studiose lector, Fausti poetae regii Bucolica quae adeo exculto venustoque carmine composite sunt ut neque Vergilii neque Calphurnii aeglogis mea quidem sententia cedant”. I have seen the 1510 reprint (UBS, F I 162/9), issued by Antoine Bonnemère for Jean Petit. On Antonius, see David Shaw, “An Unrecorded STC Item: Johannes de Garlandia’s Multorum vocabulorum equivocorum interpretatio, Paris, 1502”, The Library, Seventh Series, 5, 4 (December 2004), 359-69 (p. 364). By the end of the 1520s printings of Andrelini’s eclogues had, however, dramatically diminished. For an overview of sixteenth-century editions of Andrelini see the Index Aureliensis: Catalogus librorum sedecimo saeculo impressorum (Baden-Baden: Körmer, 1965-), I, entries 557-67. 207. Bucolica Fausti poetae laureati perdiligenter emendata, cum perquam familiari commento...Iozentii Iosae nuper addito, Lyon, Guillaume de Guelques, 1531 (BL 1070 d. 11). On Josa, see William Kemp, “L’édition illicite du Jugement d’amour de Juan de Florès (1530) de Laurent Hyllaire et l’univers du livre à Lyons

164

Notes

à la fin des années 1520 (avec des compléments bibliographiques)”, Revue française d’histoire du livre, 118-121 (2003), 277-96 (pp. 283-4). 208. In many editions of his poems published in the German-speaking world the epithet applied to Mantuan is “neotericus” (“modern writer”), as in the volume entitled Egloge Virgilii neoterici, hoc est, Baptistae Mantuani Carmelitae, Leipzig, Schuman, 1515 (UBS, F I 636/3). 209. Jakob Wimpfelling, Isidoneus germanicus, Speyer, Konrad Hist, 1497, fol. XXXv: “Est et Baptista Mantuanus, in quo nunc de cetero revera puer edoceri potest, quidquid ex Virgilio hactenus poterat adipisci” (in the copy held at BL, IA 8806). 210. See Piepho, Holofernes’ Mantuan, pp. 29-32. 211. Fratris Baptiste Mantuani…Parthenice septem, Alcalá de Henares, Miguel de Eguía, 1536, sig. A iiv: “ut nostris tyronibus et puritate sermonis latini et sententiae gravitate ac doctrina magnam frugem aferret” (copy used at BUB, CM2609). 212. See Groenland, “Humanism in the Classroom, a Reassessment”, p. 213. 213. As stated in the epigram which prefaces his edition of Baptiste Mantuani vatis praestantissimi divinum secundae Parthenices opus, Strasbourg, Johann Knobloch, 1515 (UBS, F I 503/5; see fig. 3.1 for a sample of annotations included in von Grätz’s edition). On von Grätz, see Hans Rupprich, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart: Die deutsche Literatur vom späten Mittelalter bis zum Barock; Das ausgehende Mittelalter, Humanismus und Renaissance (1370-1520) (Munich: Beck, 1994), IV, 1, pp. 710-9. 214. See Severi, Adolescentia, p. 412. On Mantuan and von Grätz, whose editions of the Parthenice go unnoticed by Severi, see Severi, Adolescentia, pp. 426-7. 215. “Scripsisti in tuis litteris ut tibi scriberem quid noster magister faceret. Scias quod de mane Alexandrum facit; hora nona aliqua carmina ex aliquibus auctoribus, scilicet ex Horatio, Ovidio, etc; post duodecimas in Mantuano; die lune ascribit aliqua carmina quae probare debemus per quantitates sillabarum. Hora quarta recapitulamus quae per totam diem habuimus”, quoted in Charles Schmidt, Histoire littéraire de l’Alsace à la fin du XVe et au commencement du XVIe siècle (Paris: Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1879), II, p. 160, n. 4. 216. Paul Adam, L’Humanisme à Sélestat (L’école, les humanistes, la bibliothèque) (Sélestat: Alsatia, 1962), p. 97. 217. On Rhenanus’s activity as a champion of Italian humanist texts, see James Hirstein, “Beatus Rhenanus et la publication d’auteurs néo-latins italiens: le témoignage de sa correspondance et d’une Druckvorlage de sa bibliothèque, le Croacus de Giovanni Elisio Calenzio”, Studi Umanistici Piceni, 29 (2009), 221-49. 218. See Miriam Usher Chrisman, “Matthias Schürer, humaniste-imprimeur”, in Grandes figures de l’humanisme alsacien: courants, milieux, destines (Strasbourg: Istra, 1978), pp. 159-72 (p. 162). 219. Publii Fausti Andrelini...de virtutibus cum moralibus tum intellectualibus carmen. Eiusdem elegiae quaedam castiores sanctioresque, Strasbourg, Matthias Schürer, 1509, sig. a iv: “Necessum igitur erit statim ab ipsis crepundiis pueros ad virtutis amorem incitare; quod tum maxime fiet cum eiusmodi doctrina

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

165

instituentur, quae philosophicis praeceptis Christianaeque pietati conformis erit” (copy used at UBS, F I 162/7). 220. Angeli Politiani Silva cui titulus Rusticus in poeta Hesiodi Vergiliique Georgicon enarratione pronuntiata [but also Manto], Deventer, Richard Paffraet, 1506, and Angeli Politiani Sylvae duae quarum alteri titulus Rusticus, alteri Manto cum quadam eleganti Fausti Andrelini elegia, Ioannis Francisci Pici comitis Mirandulani testimonium de Politiano imprimis honorificum, Deventer, Richard Paffraet, 1509 (I use this copy at Paderborn, Erzbischöfliche Akademische Bibliothek, Inc 89). Further proof of the wide popularity of the Rusticus are the editions of the poem that were printed in the Low Countries after 1510: Angeli Politiani Sylva cui titulus Rusticus in poetarum Hesiodi Vergiliique Georgicon enarratione pronunciata, Zwolle, Albert Paffraet, 1519 (copy at Deventer, Athenaeumbibliotheeek, 11e 61 kl) and Angeli Politiani sylva eruditissima in Georgica Vergilii cui titulus est Rusticus, Deventer, Albert Paffraet, 1523 (copy at Deventer, Athenaeumbibliotheek, 11e 25 kl). 221. The volume bears a possession note dated 1511 in which a certain Henricus Agrippinensis records having brought the book “to our monastery”. 222. See Joannis Murmelli elegiarum moralium libri IV, Münster, Henricus Quentell, 1508, III, 1, 55-56: “Quas dedit effuso silvas subitoque furore / Angelus, aeternis laudibus astra petunt”. 223. See chapter 1, p. 13. 224. See Marcel A. Nauwelaerts, “Joannes Murmellius, Roermond 1480 Deventer 1517”, in Historische Opstellen over Roermond en Omgeving, ed. by Antoon van Rijswijck et al. (Roermond: Bisschoppelijk College, 1951), pp. 201-34 (p. 219), and Groenland, “Humanism in the Classroom, a Reassessment”, p. 212. 225. See Epigrammatum liber de magistri et discipulorum officiis, Cologne, Quentell, 1510, p. 18: “…aestate proxima in celeberrima huius clarissimae urbis schola profitebimur…extra ordinem sex libros Fastorum Ovidii et eruditissimam Politiani sylvam cui titulus est Rusticus”. 226. See Groenland, “Humanism in the Classroom, a Reassessment”, p. 212. 227. “Lege Vergilium in tertio Georgicorum, Varronem libro secundo, capite septimo, Columellam libro septimo, capite 27, et Albertum Magnum libro vicesimo secundo de animalibus” (sig. A 3r). 228. “In hac autem sylva elegantissima, cui titulus Rusticus est, canoris versibus rusticae vitae laudes, studia et exercitationes complectitur. Latinorum vero poetarum more primum proponit materiam quam tractaturus est. Deinde Pan, deum naturae, invocat (ibi Pan, ades [Rusticus, 7]). Postremo rei propositae narrationem aggreditur, ubi dicit: Felix ille animi… [Rusticus, 17]” (sig. A 3r). 229. Hesiodi Ascraei opuscula inscripta Opera et dies … Item accessit Angeli Politiani Rusticus, Basle, Michael Ising, 1539 and 1540, and Jacobus Parcus, 1553. I use a copy of the latter held in the Herzog August Bibliothek at Wolfenbüttel (P 2009. 8. Helmst). In the prefatory letter to this edition, dated 31 March 1539, Ulpius informs us of his lecturing activities on Greek literature: “I studied in Harlem and in Leuven, and taught in Cologne and Erfurt, where I did not content myself with interpreting the Greek authors I explained in the common way but in Latin translation” (“Didaci Harlemi et Lovanii, docui Coloniae et Erfurdiae, ubi

166

Notes

Graecos autem autores quos enarravi, non sat habui vulgari more interpretari, sed totos in Romanam linguam transfusos”, sig. A 2r). 230. Angeli Politiani Silva cui titulus Rusticus in poeta Hesiodi Vergiliique Georgicon enarratione pronuntiata, Lepizig, 1512 and 1521. I have inspected two copies of the 1512 edition (BSB, 4 A lat. B. 187, and BL, 11405) as well as a copy of the 1521 edition held in Copenhagen (Kongelige Bibliotek, 75, 1-101). I am grateful to Marianne Pade for drawing my attention to this copy. 231. On Lange, see the entry in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 17 (1883), pp. 637-38. 232. See Ann Moss, “Theories of poetry: Latin writers”, in The Cambridge history of literary criticism. Volume 3: The Renaissance, ed. by Glyn P. Norton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 98-105 (p. 100). On the reception of Vida’s treatise in sixteenth-century Europe, see Gregor Vogt-Spira, “Die Poetik des M.H. Vida und ihre Rezeption in konfessioneller Perspektive”, in Die europäische Gelehrtenrepublik im Zeitalter des Konfessionalismus (The European Republic of Letters in the Age of Confessionalism), ed. by Herbert Jaumann (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2001), pp. 203-17. 233. Editions of Vida’s complete works were published in Basle (1537), Lyon (1536, 1541, 1544 and 1554), Cremona and Venice (1550), and Antwerp (1566, 1567, 1568 and 1578). Collections of some of Vida’s writings appeared in Rome (1527, including the first edition of the De arte poetica) and Basle (1534). Individual editions of the De arte poetica were published in Paris by Robert Estienne (1527) and Christian Wechel (1534). 234. The text of 1517 is reproduced in an appendix in The “De arte poetica” of Marco Girolamo Vida, translated with commentary, and with the text of c.1517, ed. by Ralph G. Williams (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976). On Robert Estienne’s edition see Mario A. di Cesare, “The Ars Poetica of Marco Girolamo Vida and the manuscript evidence”, in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Lovaniensis, ed. by Jozef IJsewijn and Eckhard Keßler (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1973), pp. 207-18 (pp. 210-7). 235. The text reads: “Magister Petrus Vincentius Vratislaviensis, oratoriae facultatis professor Wittembergensis Academiae, in praelectione artis poeticae Horatii haec prolegomenorum vice in Vidae libros dictavit”, in Opera Hieronymi Vidae Cremonensis, Antwerp, Christopher Plantin, 1567, copy used at UBS, 70011. On Vietz, see Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 39 (1895), p. 736. 236. “Vidam…tanti facio, ut anno superiori eius tres de poetica libros formis excudi curaverim et publice praelegerim”, quoted in Susanne Rolfes, Die lateinische Poetik des Marco Girolamo Vida und ihre Rezeption bei Julius Caesar Scaliger (Munich-Leipzig: Saur, 2001), p. 31, n. 108. The title of the Nuremberg edition reads Marci Hieronymi Vidae Cremonensis poetae clarissimi de arte poetica libri tres, nuper in usum studiosorum in lucem aediti, Nuremberg, Artemisius (=Friedrich Peypus), 1531 (copy used: HAB 166.2 Poet. [3]). 237. See Yasmin Annabel Haskell, Loyola’s Bees: Ideology and Industry in Jesuit Latin Didactic Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 258-68.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

167

238. On the difficulties understanding the exact meaning of these words in the sixteenth century, see Creighton Gilbert, “When Did a Man in the Renaissance Grow Old?”, Studies in the Renaissance, 14 (1967), 7-32. In his essay, Gilbert concludes that maturity came early for Renaissance men and that a man was considered to be old at forty. 239. See Jürgen Leonhardt, “Exegetische Vorlesungen in Erfurt, 1500-1520”, in Humanismus in Erfurt, ed. by Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich and Walther Ludwig (Rudolfstadt and Jena: Hain Verlag, 2002), pp. 91-109 (p. 95). 240. See Piepho, Holofernes’ Mantuan, p. 49. 241. Juan Luis Vives, De tradendis disciplinis, III, 6: “Hinc Odas Horatii explicabit; adiunget poetas Christianos, antiquum Prudentium, et qui aetate hac scripsit, Baptistam Mantuanum…; post haec sequentur Georgica Vergilii et Politiani Rusticus” (“Next the teacher should explain some of the odes of Horace. He should add some Christian poets, the ancient Prudentius, and our modern writer Baptista of Mantua…; after these should follow Virgil’s Georgics and the Rusticus of Poliziano”, quoted from Watson’s translation). It should be noted that this is not Vives’s only tribute to the poetry of Poliziano, about whose Rusticus the Spaniard speaks as “most elegant poem” (“carmine elegantissimo”) in his Praelectio in Georgica Vergilii. 242. See Mariangela Regoliosi, “Francesco Filelfo e l’Europa”, Studi Umanistici Piceni, 29 (2009), 15-24 (p. 20). 243. See, for example, Francisci Philelphi breviores elegantioresque epistolae omnibus qui pure et latine scribere cupiunt multum utiles ex eiusdem tota epistolarum volumine collectae…Angeli Politiani ad numerum usque quintum et decimum perbreves sunt adiunctae, Deventer, Jacobus Breda, 1500, and Francisci Philelphi epistolarum summa diligentia liber…Epistolae item duae ex Ioanne Pico Mirandulano, Vienna, Johannes Singremus, 1520. 244. See Leonardo Quaquarelli, “Felice Feliciano, letterato nel suo epistolario”, Lettere italiane, 46 (1994), 109-22 (p. 118). 245. On the circulation of Dati’s text in Renaissance Europe, see J. Christopher Warner, “Quick Eloquence in the Late Renaissance: Agostino Dati’s Elegantiolae”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, LXI (2012), 65-240 (pp. 67-71). 246. See Ludwig Bertalot, “Humanistische Vorlesungsankündigungen in Deutschland im 15. Jahrhundert”, in Studien zum italienischen und deutschen Humanismus, ed. by Paul Oskar Kristeller (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1975), I, pp. 219-49 (p. 235). 247. On the dissemination of Barzizza’s text in northern Europe, see Ann Moss, Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. 53-5. 248. Franciscus Niger, Triginta elegantiarum regulae omnibus epistolas eleganter componere volentibus perquam utiles cum commentariis Judoci Clichthovei. Brevia quaedam praecepta in epistolis servanda. Item Ciceronis, Angeli Politiani, M. An. Sabellici et Francisci Philelphi epistolae nonnullae breviores, Deventer, Albert Paffraet, 1513. Details of this edition, which I have not seen, are available in Wouter Nijhoff and M.E. Kronenberg, Nederlandsche

168

Notes

bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540 (‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923-), no. 3608. On Tunnicius, see Rupprich, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur, p. 296. 249. See Judith Rice Henderson, “Valla’s Elegantiae and the Humanist Attack on the Ars dictaminis”, Rhetorica, Volume XIX, n. 2 (Spring 2001), 249-68 (pp. 264-5). 250. See James H. Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 128. For the use of Petrarch’s letters in the teaching of rhetoric in Vienna at the end of the fifteenth century, see Teodoro Lorini, “Petrarca a Vienna: riscontri da un censimento in corso”, in Margarita amicorum: studi di cultura europea per Agostino Sottili, ed. by Fabio Forner, Carla Maria Monti and Paul Gerhard Schmidt, 2 vols. (Milan: V & P, 2005), II, pp. 603-36 (pp. 630-1). 251. Leonardi Bruni Aretini epistolae familiares, Leipzig, Thanner, 1499 (copy used at HAB, A 62.6 Quod 1): “Itaque Leonardi Aretini epistolarum familarium opus, quod ex ordinatione venerabilium magistrorum de consilio facultatis artium studii Lipsensis hoc hyeme explicandum assumpsi, dignum visum est quod tibi apprime erudito mitterem” (sig. A iv). On Honorius Cubitensis (Cubitum being the Latinised name of his town of origin in Bohemia, now Loket), see Deutscher Humanismus 1480-1520: Verfasserlexikon, ed. by Franz Josef Worstbrock (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005), col. 1137-43. 252. See Charles G. Nauert, “The Struggle to Reform the University, 15231525”, in Humanismus in Köln – Humanism in Cologne, ed. by James V. Mehl (Cologne: Böhlau, 1991), pp. 29-76 (p. 54). 253. See Bertalot, “Humanistische Vorlesungsankündigungen”, p. 234. 254. See Agostino Sottili, Giacomo Publicio, “Hispanus”, e la diffusione dell’Umanesimo in Germania (Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 1985), p. 24, and Geiß, Zentren, pp. 95-6. 255. See Agostino Sottili, “Il Petrarca e l'umanesimo tedesco”, Quaderni petrarcheschi, IX-X (1992-1993), 239-91 (p. 283). 256. “Morales P. Fausti epistolas, mi Hieronyme, idcirco ad Germanicae iuventutis usum impressioni mandandas duxi, quod viderem eas minime protritam trivialemque in se continere eruditionem. Nam habent eximiam in primis verborum elegantiam nec minorem sententiarum (quibus affatim scatent) venustatem. Inveniet hic ingenuus adolescens non pauca ad bene beateque vivendum hortamenta. Discet hic amorem mulierum esse fugiendum et voluptatum fugam ad sanctiorem vitam quam maxime conducere ut graecanico quodam versiculo praecipitur, quem hunc in modum Hermolaus Barbarus paraphrasi expressit: ‘Venter, pluma, Venus, laudem fugiendam sequenti’”, in Publii Fausti Andrelini Froliviensis poetae laureati atque oratoris clarissimis (sic) epistolae proverbiales et morales longe lepidissimae nec minus sententiosae, Strasbourg, Matthias Schürer, 1514, sig. a 1v (I have used the 1520 reprint held at UBS, F I 720). 257. The De invidia is included in Athanasius’s In psalmos opusculum (Strasbourg, Matthias Schürer, 1508), a book which also belonged to Bonifacius Amerbach and is now held at Basle University Library (shelf-mark: CEVII 28 Nr.3). On Amerbach’s volumes, see James Hirstein, “La correspondence de Beatus Rhenanus (1485-1547), une nouvelle letter (et un nouveau livre) et les débuts de

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

169

l’imprimeur Matthias Schürer à Strasbourg à 1508”, in Antiquité tardive et humanisme: de Tertullien à Beatus Rhenanus. Mélanges offerts à François Heim, ed. by Yves Lehmann (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), pp. 457-94 (p. 489). 258. See the tables discussed in Chrisman, “Matthias Schuerer, humanisteimprimeur”, pp. 170-1. Pico’s letters were included in Prüß’s edition of the Opera omnia (1504), a volume prepared by Wimpfeling, who in the preface compared Pico’s epistolary pieces “to gold and silver” [I owe this information to Marc Laureys, “The reception of Giovanni Pico in the Low Countries”, in Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. Convegno internazionale di studi nel cinquecentesimo anniversario della morte (1494-1994), ed. by Gian Carlo Garfagnini (Florence: Olschki, 1997), pp. 625-40 (p. 632, n. 25)]. 259. Gebwiler’s letter is reproduced in Rice, The Prefatory Epistles, pp. 348-9. On Gebwiler’s stay in Strasbourg, see Miriam Usher Chrisman, Lay Culture, Learned Culture: Books and Social Change in Strasbourg, 1480-1599 (New Haven, CT-London: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 92. 260. Angeli Politiani et aliorum virorum illustrium epistolarum libri duodecim, Strasbourg, Matthias Schürer, 1513, sig. A 1v: “For Poliziano’s style is proper, rich, elegant and, what is most worthy of praise in letters, easy and simple. In his letters there is no lack of jokes, of gravity of ideas, of adages, which are like the jewels of letters, if they are introduced appropriately and in the right place. So make yourselves familiar with him” (“Est enim proprius, est copiosus, est elegans et quod in epistolis vel maxime commendatur, facilis ac planus. Non illi desunt ioci, non sententiarum gravitas, non adagia, quae sunt epistolarum veluti gemma quaedam, si loco et apte inferantur. Itaque hunc [Poliziano] vobis familiarem facite”, copy used at BL, 10902 e. 10). 261. Angeli Politiani et aliorum illustrium…, sig. A 1v: “Immixtae sunt inter Angeli ipsius, aliorum quoque virorum illustrium, epistolae, ut Hermolai Barbari, ut Iohannis Pici Mirandulani…Philippi Beroaldi, non minus tersae quam facundae, quae eandem merentur laudem”. On Murrho, see Schmidt, Histoire litteraire de l'Alsace, II, pp. 39-40. 262. See de Vocht, History of the Foundation and Rise; II, pp. 203-5. On Giles, see Marcel A. Nauwelaerts, “Gillis”, in Contemporaries of Erasmus, II, pp. 99101. 263. See Angeli Politiani epistolarum liber, Antwerp, Martens, 1510, sig. A 2v: “Sit igitur hic epistolarum libellus quasi illectatorium quoddam iuventutis” (copy used at BL, 1084 m. 2). 264. This information is supplied by Shane Butler in his edition of Poliziano’s letters (Cambridge, MA-London, Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 295. 265. On these controversies, see Martin L. McLaughlin, Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance: the Theory and Practice of Literary Imitation in Italy from Dante to Bembo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 187-227. On Erasmus and Poliziano, see Judith Rice Henderson, “Erasmian Ciceronians: Reformation Teachers of Letter-Writing”, Rhetorica, Volume X, n. 3 (Summer 1992), 273-302 (pp. 276-78). 266. For the printing history of Poliziano’s letters, see Martelli, Angelo Polizianoa, pp. 205-65.

170

Notes

267. Erasmus, De conscribendis epistolis, in Desiderii…opera omnia, I, 364 B: “Caeterum cui palma debeatur in hoc genere, non est huius instituti pluribus verbis persequi. Si quis omissis Graecis, patiatur quenquam ullo in genere anteponi, M. Tullio, et Plinio, et Politiano primas detulerim. Sed hac sane in re fruatur suo quisque iudicio”. 268. Juan Luis Vives, De conscribendis epistolis, ed. by Charles Fantazzi (Leiden: Brill, 1989), 109: “Allubescunt haec quidem adolescentibus velut pugnae et certamina”. 269. Leonard Cox, The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke, London, ca. 1529: “A very goodly ensample for the handelynge of this place [the death of a person] is in an epistle that Angele Policiane writeth in his fourth boke of epistles to James Antiquarie of Laurence Medices”, quoted from the reprint of Frederic Ives Carpenter’s edition of the text (Norwood, PA: Norwood Editions, 1975), p. 57. 270. On Barlandus, see Etienne Daxhelet, Adrien Barlandus, humaniste belge (1486-1538): Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa personalité (Leuven: Librairie universitaire, 1938). 271. C. Plinii Secundi epistolae familiares cum Barlandi scholiis, Leuven, Martens, 1516, sig. m iv: “Inter neotericos epistolas scripserunt Franciscus Philelphus, Antonius Campanus, Antonius Sabellicus, Eneas Sylvius, Hermolaus Barbarus, duo Pici; quos omnes meo iudicio Angelus Politianus diligentia, pluritate ac nitore superavit” (copy used at Brussels, KB/BR Inc. A 1.927-31). 272. Francisci Philelphi elegantes et familiares epistolae, Leuven, Martens, ca. 1520 (copy used at BL 10905 ccc. 27). On Zagarus, see de Vocht, History of the Foundation, pp. 234-35, and Jozef IJsewijn with Dirk Sacré and Gilbert Tournoy, “Litterae ad Craneveldium Balduinae. A Preliminary Edition, IV”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLIV (1995), 1-78 (pp. 25-6). I am grateful to Dirk Sacré for this reference. 273. One can form an idea of the printed dissemination of the letters of these four writers in early sixteenth-century Paris through reference to the first two volumes of Moreau’s Inventaire chronologique. 274. On Lauxius, see Rice, The Prefatory Epistles, pp. 19-20. 275. Epistolarum Francisci Philelphi…unus et viginti libri reliqui qui post sedecim sunt reperti, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1503, sig. A 1v: “Quamquam enim et elegantiores et argutiores iam prodierunt, quorumdam epistolae, nihil tamen est Philelphicis concinnius atque lucidius” (copy used at BL, 1084 m. 4). 276. Illustrium virorum epistolae ab Angelo Politiano collectae, et a Francisco Sylvio Ambianate diligenter expositae, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1517. On Du Bois, see La Garanderie, Christianisme et lettres profanes, pp. 109-12. 277. See Delaruelle, “L’étude du grec à Paris (de 1514 à 1530)”, 136-40. 278. Illustrium virorum epistolae ab Angelo Politiano partim scriptae, partim collectae, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1523, sig. aa 2r: “En studiosa iuventus multis nominibus se tibi debere intellegit, quippe qui huic adornandae indefesse excubans hasce non minus politas quam doctas Politiani epistolas palam interpretandas (Herculeus siquidem labor est) suscepisti” (copy used at BNF, Res. Z. 798). On Morel, who prepared editions of Mantuan’s eclogues (1520) and Negro’s manual

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

171

on letter-writing and taught at the Collège de la Marche from 1520 to 1526, see La Garanderie, Christianisme et lettres profanes, pp. 106-7. 279. Details of these editions are ISTC No.: ib00104000 (Venice), ISTC No.: ib00105000 (Rome) and ISTC No.: ib00103000 (Alost). Martens’s edition includes Barbaro’s speech and the formal response pronounced by the Venetian Antonius Gratia Dei, who had held a university chair at Leuven until 1480. Both texts were published again in Nuremberg in 1490 [see Gilbert Tournoy, “Gli umanisti italiani nell’Università di Lovanio nel Quattrocento”, in Rapporti e scambi tra Umanesimo italiano ed Umanesimo europeo: “L’Europa é uno stato d’animo”, ed. by Luisa Rotondi Secchi Tarugi (Milan: Nuovi Orizzonti, 2001), pp 39-50 (p. 48)]. 280. Panegyrici quotquot, Basle, Froben, 1520 (copy used at HAB, A: 48 Quod.). 281. On the relations between Basle printers and humanist circles in Paris, see Bietenholz, Basle and France in the Sixteenth Century. 282. Orationes Francisci Philelphi cum quibusdam aliis eiusdem operibus ad oratoriam summopere conducentibus, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1504: “…ingenti te hortamur cura ut in sanctissimarum legum studia, ad quae nunc animum appulisti, sic incumbas ut cultioris literaturae oblivionem devites. Quod quam facillime facies si Francisci Philelphi orationes et quae ad orationes conficiendas collegit seminaria subinde lectitabis. Invenies enim nihil praeceptis Aristotelicis de causis civilibus argutius, nihil ad hoc Apophthegmatis Plutarchi ad farraginem orationum fecundius” (the text of Bade’s prefatory letter is reproduced from Renouard, Bibliographie, III, p. 160). 283. See White, “Foolish pleasures”, p. 69. 284. See “Filippo Beroaldo the Elder and the early Renaissance in Lyons”, Medievalia et Humanistica, XI (1957), 78-89 (p. 86). 285. Orationes Philippi Beroaldi viri clarissimi Bononiae litteras bonas docentis, Lyon, Trechsel, 1492: “Sunt tamen ubique gentium scholasticorum gymnasia, sunt canonicorum conventicula, sunt doctissimorum virorum coetus, ad quos quae de qualibet scientia et virtute dicas ex Beroaldo nostro excerpere licet” (the preface is reprinted in Renouard, Bibliographie, II, pp. 159-60). On this letter, see Silvia Fabrizio-Costa “La prefazione alla prima edizione francese delle Orationes di F. Beroaldo il Vecchio (Lione, settembre 1492)”, in Filippo Beroaldo l'ancien: un passeur d'humanités / Filippo Beroaldo il vecchio: un umanista ad limina, ed. by Silvia Fabrizio-Costa and Frank La Brasca (Bern: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 167-87. 286. See Geiß, Zentren, p. 95. 287. See Carl Prantl, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Ingolstadt, Landhut, München (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1872), II, p. 161: “pro rudibus autem et qui prima grammatices fundamenta nondum satis imbiberunt, ex comico aliquo ut Terentio, Ciceronis vel Philelphi epistolis exercitamenta grammaticae ad mediam horam per magistros ad hoc idoneos habeantur exerceanturque”. On Rhegius, see Pedro Martín Baños, “Preceptos epistolares e imitatio a comienzos del siglo XVI: edición y estudio de la Epithome artis epistolaris ad formulam Tullianam introducens (1512) atribuida a Urbanus

172

Notes

Rhegius”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, LIV (2005), 101-55 (p. 103). On Eck, see Overfield, Humanism and Scholasticism, p. 312. 288. Angeli Politiani et aliorum virorum illustrium epistolarum libri duodecim, Basle, Cratander, 1522, sig. a 2r: “Quis vero est sinistre indoctus qui nesciat Politianum tantum valuisse cordata elocutione, praeter omnium aliarum doctrinarum divinam quandam ac consummatissimam cognitionem, ut non eruditissimos solum suae aetatis homines longo intervallo a tergo reliquerit, sed et qui mille ante se annos et amplius scripserunt, suae quasi quodam fulgore eloquentiae obscuraverit?” (“Who is so perversely ignorant not to know that Poliziano, apart from a certain divine and most perfect knowledge of all the other disciplines, had such a strength with his wise elocution, that not only did he surpass the most learned men of his own age but, as if with the splendour of his eloquence, he also outshone those who had written one thousand years or more before him?”, copy used at BL, 10905 bbb. 11). 289. See Charles Schmitt, “Aristotle’s Ethics in the sixteenth century: some preliminary considerations”, in Ethik im Humanismus, ed. by Walter Rüegg and Dieter Wuttke (Boppard: Boldt, 1979), pp. 87-112 (p. 108). 290. Angeli Politiani Miscellaneorum Centuria una. Eiusdem Politiani Panepistemon. Eiusdem prelectio in Aristotelem cui titulus est Lamia, Venice, Iacobus Pentius de Leuco, 1502 and 1508. The Lamia and the Panepistemon were, however, first published together as early as 1495 in Venice (copy at Trinity College, Dublin, Me43). The Lamia was not published in a systematic manner, as reflected in a 1496 Florentine edition, in which the text is surprisingly printed alongside Vitruvius’s De architectura and Frontinus’s De aquaeductibus (copy at UBS, WII 129/1). 291. On the Lamia, see the introduction to Angelo Poliziano, Lamia. Praelectio in Priora Aristotelis analytica, critical edition, introduction, and commentary by Ari Wesseling (Leiden: Brill, 1986), which also reviews most Renaissance editions of the text (pp. xxxii-xxxvi) except for Nicolas Caesarius’s little known Angeli Politiani hominis multo doctissimi Lamia, Cologne, 1518 (I have inspected the copy of this edition held at the Library of the University of Pennsylvania, Lea N.3.16). By contrast, Christopher Celenza’s otherwise valuable new edition (Leiden: Brill, 2010) does not provide any information on the sixteenth-century reception of Poliziano’s text. 292. “Misi ex Platone de specu partem descriptionis … in septimo De re publica. Adieci Policiani interpretationem, quae perelegans est. Est autem in illius Lamia. Ille me vertendi labore levabit”, in Melanchthons Briefwechsel, Band T2, Texte 255-520 (1523-26), besarbeitet von Richard Wetzel unter Mitwirkung von Helga Scheible (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1995), pp. 217-8. 293. On Joannes Alexander Brassicanus, see Joseph Sauer’s entry in The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, p. 744a, and Reinhold Rau, “Die Tübinger Jahre des Humanisten Johannes Alexander Brassicanus”, Zeitschrift für Württembergische Landesgeschichte, 19 (1960), 89-127. 294. In Angeli Politiani eruditissimi declamationem quae inscribitur Lamia commentarii D. Iohanne Alexandro Brassicano authore, Nuremberg, Joannes Petreius, 1552 (copy used at ÖNB, 40 Q 76). For an example of Brassicanus’s

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

173

annotations see his note to a passage in the Lamia (Wesseling’s edition, p. 6) in which he refers to the Platonist view of the universe: “Sidera, qui sit…devinciret: Et haec Macrobius de suo adiecit amplificandi gratia, Macrobius In Somnium Ciceronis diligenter explicat; In vestigio: Mundo sunt sua officina, Plinius li. 2, ca. 8. Cicero in libro de divinatione; Numerorum: De Pythagora, qui omnia retulerit accepta numeris elegantissima, scribit Plutarchus in vita Homeri” (fol. 25v). 295. An indication of the circulation of Polziano’s works in sixteenth-century Vienna, the volume was subsequently purchased by Brassicanus’s friend Bishop Johannes Fabri, after whose death in 1541 it was incorporated into the library of the College of Sankt Nikolaus in the city [see Friedrich Simader, “Materialen zur Bibliothek des Wiener Bischofs Johannes Fabri”, in Iohannes Cuspinianus, 14731529: Ein Wiener Humanist und sein Werk im Kontext, ed. by Christian Gastgeber and Elisabeth Klecker (Vienna: Praesens Verlag, 2012), pp. 267-85 (p. 273)]. 296. Brassicanus’s attention to Iamblichus’s Protrepticus can be better understood if we bear in mind that Brassicanus himself was the author of Symbola Pythagorae ex Iamblicho, published in Vienna in 1529 (copy used at BSB, A.gr.a. 484). 297. In Angeli Politiani eruditissimi declamationem…, fol. 3r: “Praesens autem libellus, cum plurimas in se complectitur utilitates, tum eam potissimum quod ipsam philosophiae adipiscendae viam demonstrat ac patefacit, docet quis philosophi nomen aucupari debeat, differentiam quoque indicat inter philosophum et grammaticum, inter philosophum et poetam”. 298. Angeli Politiani, viri undecumque doctissimi, libellus non minus iucundus quam elegans, cui nomen Lamia, Vienna, Hieronymus Vietor, 1517. Faber’s prefatory letter is reproduced in Johann Cuspinians Briefwechsel, gesammelt, herausgegeben und erläutert von Hans Ankwicz von Kleehoven (Munich: Beck, 1933), pp. 181-4). Faber’s commitment to humanist studies is clear from his 1527 edition of a single letter by Petrarch (Fam. I, 8), which –as with the editions of individual epistles discussed in the previous section– may have also been devised for private study (see Geiß, Zentren, p. 359). 299. See Aldo Scaglione, “The Humanist as Scholar and Politian’s Conception of the Grammaticus”, Studies in the Renaissance, 8 (1961), 49-70. 300. See Enrique González González, “Martinus Dorpius and Hadrianus Barlandus editors of Aesop (1509-1513)”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLVII (1998), 28-41. 301. On Dorp and Agricola, see Lisa Jardine, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 115-8. 302. Fabularum quae hoc libro continentur interpretes atque authores sunt hi. Guilielmus Goudanus, Hadrianus Barlandus…, Leuven, Martens, 1513, sig. a 4v – a 5r: “eam opellam vobis, ingeniosae Flandrorum iuventutis praeceptoribus, nuncupatim dedico, eo utique spectans ut scholasticuli vestri hoc levigatorio omnem tenellarum linguarum stribiliginem prius abradant quam, ad Lillium nostrum vetus atque adeo primum apud Lovanienses politioris literaturae domicilium profecti, philosophiae initientur” (copy used at Brussels, KB/BR, Inc.A 1911).

174

Notes

303. Dialecticae Laurentii Vallae libri tres seu eiusdem reconcinnatio totius dialecticae et fundamentorum universalis philosophiae, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1509: “Praesertim cum multa insint et argute dicta et quae, si recipiantur, non parum ad dialectices compendium faciant neque pauciora quae ad rhetoricam disputationem conducant” (the text of Bade’s prefatory letter features in Renouard, Bibliographie, III, p. 346). For an insightful discussion of the position held by Valla’s work in early sixteenth-century Paris, see Moss, Renaissance Truth, pp. 117-9. 304. Robert Black, “Italian education: languages, syllabuses, methods”, in Language and Cultural Change: Aspects of the Study and Use of Language in the Later Middle Ages and the Renaissance, ed. by Lodi Nauta (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), pp. 91-112 (p. 106). 305. Ex tribus Laurentii Vallae de vero bono libris ad puerorum utilitatem ab Ioanne Peringio quaedam familiares orationes, Cologne, apud Eucharium Cervicorum, 1517 (copy used at HAB, Qu N 254.2 ). 306. Artificialis introductio in decem Ethicorum libros Aristotelis…, Strasbourg, Ioannes Groninger, 1511 (copy used at HAB, A: 171. 19 Quod.). 307. Artificialis introductio …, sig. A1r: “Huius igitur libelluli veluti enchiridii cuiusdam lectione succisivis horulis a rei publicae negotiis feriatus nimirum recreaberis; non quod aliquid novi aut prius tibi, cui nullum disciplinarum genus non cognitum, invisi afferatur, verum quod saeculis nostris, quibus tam proba, tersa et utilis Latinitas post prima grammatices rudimenta iuventuti haud absque magno commodo proponitur, congratulaberis”. 308. ISTC Nos.: ip00407000, ip00408000 and ip00409000. The text also featured, of course, in Amerbach’s edition of Petrarch’s Opera Omnia (Basle, 1496). 309. For France, see Romana Brovia, Itinerari del petrarchismo latino: tradizione e ricezione del “De remediis utriusque fortune” in Francia e in Borgogna, secc. XIV-XVI (Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 2013); for Spain, see the following chapter; on the German translation of the De remediis, see Karl Enenkel, “Der Petrarca des Petrarca-Meisters: Zum Text-Bild-Verhältnis in illustrierten De-Remediis-Ausgaben”, in Enenkel and Papy, Petrarch and his Readers in the Renaissance, pp. 91-169. 310. See Karl A.E. Enenkel, “Der andere Petrarca: Francesco Petrarcas De vita solitaria und die devotio moderna”, Quaerendo, 17 (1987), 137–47, and Sottili, “Il Petrarca e l'umanesimo tedesco”, pp. 246-8. 311. See Simone, “La fortuna del Petrarca in Francia”, pp. 148-56. 312. See Geiß, Zentren, pp. 91-5. 313. Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine, From Humanism to the Humaities: Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-century Europe (London: Duckworth, 1986). 314. See Andrew Pettegree and Malcolm Walsby, Books Published in France before 1601 in Latin and Languages other than French (Leiden: Brill, 2012), nos. 90164-90169. 315. On Dupuy, see Dictionnaire de Biographie française, ed. by Roland D’Amat (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1970), Vol. XII, p. 594.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

175

316. De liberorum educatione aurei libri sex noviter recogniti Francisci Philelphi poetae, oratoris philosophique praestantissimi. Succinto cum indice et brevibus marginariis annotationibus obscurarum sensa dictionum aprerientibus Nicolai Bonaspei Trecensis Campani cura superadditis, Paris, Jean de Gourmont, 1508, sig. A1v: “Hunc memori trutinate brevem sub mente libellum / si iuvenum mores vultis habere probos” (copy ued at BL, C69 c 14). The volume was reissued in Tübingen in 1513 and 1515 and possibly in Leuven in 1515. 317. See Marcus de Schepper, “April in Paris (1514). Juan Luis Vives editing Baptista Guarinus: a new Vives ‘Princeps’, a new early Vives letter and the first poem in praise of Vives”, in Myricae: Essays on Neo-Latin Literature in Memory of Jozef Ijsewijn, ed. by Dirk Sacré and Gilbert Tournoy (Leuven: University Press, 2000), pp. 195-205. Vives’s interest in Battista Guarino’s treatise is contemporaneous with his attention to Filelfo’s Convivia (“The Banquets”). Filelfo’s text, allegedly not an overtly pedagogical treatise but an encyclopedic treasure-house of learning “in which problems connected with nature and philosophy are explained”, was the subject of a course held by Vives at Paris in the winter semester of 1513-1514 [see Juan Luis Vives, Early Writings, 2, ed. by Jozef IJsewijn and Angela Fritsen with Charles Fantazzi (Leiden: Brill, 1991), p. 139, and p. 149 for Vives’s quotation from his Praelectio in Convivia Philelphi]. 318. On Pflug, see the entry in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 25 (1887), pp. 688–91. 319. Leonardo Bruni, De studiis et litteris, Leipzig, Thanner, 1510 (copy used at HAB, A: 202.71 Quod), sig A iv: “Accipe laeta et hilari (ut aiunt) fronte rarissimum Leonardi Aretini de studiis et litteris opusculum. Quod nec frustra tibi nuncupandum nominique tuo clarissimo inscribendum duxi. In eo enim de litteris earumque vi ac potestate, item de sacra theologia, de philosophia, de historia, de oratoria, de poetica et (ut demum receptui canam) de omni doctrinarum genere brevissima quaedam sed utilissima invenies. Quae adulescentiam tuam, quae ob animi infirmitatem graviora adhuc capere nequivit, non minus praeclare instituere quam alere possunt. Hoc, cum a Vergilio tuo, cui dies noctesque adheres, paululum otii nactus fueris, lege memoriaeque commenda. Ceterum epigramma hoc meum non aspernaberis una in calce opusculi impressum, quod te ad virtutem litterasque hortabitur”. 320. See Regina Toepfer, “Humanistische Lektüre an der Universität Leipzig. Zur Funktionalisierung von Basilius Magnus Ad Adolescentes in der Auseinandersetzung um die studia humanitatis”, in Der Humanismus an der Universität Leipzig, ed. by Enno Bünz and Franz Fuchs (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009), pp. 105-24. 321. Hic habentur haec: Petri Pauli Vergerii Ivstinopolitani de moribus liber unus, Basilii Magni Caesariensis episcopi De gentilium poetarum legendis libris liber unus, Isocratis Atheniensis rhetoris et philosophi Paraenensis ad Demonicum Hipporici filium libellus unus, Leonardo Aretino et Rudolpho Agricola interpretibus, Vienna, Hieronymus Vietor et Johannes Singrenius, 1511 (copy used at BSB, 4 Hisp 44).

176

Notes

322. On Bonardi, see the article by Gianni Ballistreri in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1960-), vol. 11 (1969), p. 570. 323. Hic habentur haec:…, sig. A2r: “Clarior autem vobis erit [Vergerius] Ioannis Pratimontani industria, quo praeceptore erudito bonarum litterarum rudimenta dudum calluistis, penitioribus disciplinis accipiendis tyrones instituti”. 324. This is a valid point about the teaching of Boethius made by Lodi Nauta in his “A Humanist Reading of Boethius’s Consolatio Philosophiae: The Commentary by Murmellius and Agricola (1514)”, in Between Demonstration and Imagination: Essays in the History of Science and Philosophy presented to John D. Noth, ed. by Lodi Nauta and Arjo Vanderjagt (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 313-38 (pp. 332-3). 325. Christophori Landini florentini Disputationum Camaldulensium libri quattuor: primus de vita activa et contemplativa; secundus de summo bono; tertius et quartus in Publii Vergilii Maronis allegorias, Strasbourg, Matthias Schürer, 1508 (copy used at BSB, 2 Var. 29 a). The paratexts of this edition include only two short poems in which Landino’s union of eloquence and wisdom is conventionally praised. For Kierher (d. 1519), see the article by Miriam Usher Chrisman in Contemporaries of Erasmus, II, p. 261. 326. In his introductory elegiacs, Hessus claims to be the first German poet to imitate the “two Virgils” (Virgil and Mantuan). On Hessus’s indebteness to Mantuan’s bucolic poetry see Gernot Michael Müller, “Poetische Standortsuche und Überbietungsanspruch: Strategien der Gattungskonstitution im Bucolicon des Helius Eobanus Hessus zwischen intertextueller Anspielung und autobiographischer Inszenierung”, in “Parodia” und Parodie: Aspekte intertextuellen Schreibens in der lateinischen Literatur der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Reinhold F. Glei and Robert Seidel (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2006), pp. 111-70 (pp. 113-20). CHAPTER FOUR 327. In the footnotes throughout this chapter I give details only of those humanist editions discussed in the main text. For bibliographical information on all other Spanish editions related to Italian humanism, see Appendix C. 328. See Jean-Louis Charlet, “Lorenzo Valla, Giovanni Tortelli, Niccolò Perotti: la restauration du Latin”, in Syntagmatia: Essays on Neo-Latin literature, pp. 4760. 329. The text, entitled De pronominibus suique natura, is preserved in Barcelona, AC, ms. 70. On Ferrer’s links with Italian humanism, see Antoni Cobos Fajardo, “Joan Ramon Ferrer i els humanistes italians del segle XV”, in Llengua i cultura a la Corona d’Aragó, segles XIII–XV, ed. by Lola Badia, Miriam Cabré and Sadurní Martí (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2002), pp. 259–69. 330. For a full description of the manuscript, see Eulàlia Duran (dir.), Repertori de manuscrits catalans, 1474-1620 (Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 2003), III, p. 25.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

177

331. The text is now available in a superb critical edition by Lluís Polanco Roig: The “Liber elegantiarum” by Joan Esteve. A Catalan-Latin dictionary at the crossroads of fifteenth-century European culture (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012). 332. See Robert Black, Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Tradition and Innovation in Latin Schools from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 351. 333. On Amiguet’s teaching at Valencia, see Enrique González González, “Lectores públicos y privados en la Universidad de Valencia”, in Aulas y saberes: VI Congreso internacional de Historia de las Universidades hispánicas, 2 vols. (Valencia: Universitat de València, 2003), I, pp. 463-78 (468-69). 334. See Moss, Renaissance Truth, p. 45. 335. Another work which also circulated in manuscript was Dati’s Elegantiolae, as attested by a copy of the text produced after 1481 and preserved at Tortosa, Arxiu Històric Diocesà, Ms. s. n. (described in Duran, Repertori de manuscrits catalans, IV, pp. 342-3). 336. See Francisco Rico, Nebrija frente a los bárbaros: el canon de gramáticos nefastos en las polémicas del humanismo (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1978), p. 46, n. 44. 337. See Amadeu J. Soberanas, “Las Introductiones latinae de Nebrija en Cataluña”, in Nebrija en Cataluña. Exposición conmemorativa en el quinto centenario de las Introductiones latinae (Barcelona: Biblioteca de Catalunya, 1991), pp. 21-41 (pp. 24-32). 338. “Item, statuïrem y ordenarem que lo mestre cathedrant de gramàtica sie tengut legir en general per aquest any l'obra de gramàtica de mestre Antoni de Lebrixa e lo poeta Vergili en lo Eneidos, e haja fer lo proverbi major o epístola en general. E per los altres anys següents haja legir lo Alejandro e lo dit Antoni de Lebrixa o un altre poeta o lo mateix Vergili segons serà lo vot de la major part dels estudiants de gramàtica, e fer lo proverbi major o epístola. E lo batxeller haja e sie tengut fer dues declinacions, una de matí, altra de vespre, e legir una liçó de Cató y Contemptus”. The text is reproduced in Antonio Fernández Luzón, La Universidad de Barcelona en el siglo XVI (Barcelona: Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona, 2005), p. 46 339. I have used the copy of the Tarragona edition held at Palma de Mallorca, Biblioteca Pública, Inc. 567. 340. These editions are described in Julián Martín Abad, Post-incunables Ibéricos (Madrid: Ollero y Ramos editores, 2001), pp. 475-7. 341. Sedulii Paschale, Barcelona, Amorós, 1508, fol. 1v (copy at BC, Mar. 108-8). 342. For the circulation of Verinus in Renaissance Spain, which includes several editions published by Coci in Zaragoza in the first three decades of the sixteenth century, see Barry Taylor, “Michael Verinus and the Distichs of Cato in Spain: a comparative study in reception”, in Latin and Vernacular in Renaissance Spain, ed. by Barry Taylor and Alejandro Coroleu (Manchester: Manchester Spanish and Portuguese Studies, 1999), pp. 73-82. 343. The 1532 programme of studies is discussed in Fernández Luzón, La Universidad de Barcelona, p. 50.

178

Notes

344. I have used the copy at Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, Inc. Parm. 238/II. On the filiation of this edition, which is particularly hard to trace, see Mauro de Nichilo, “Tradizione e fortuna delle opera del Pontano II. La stampa sonciniana del De laudibus divinis”, in Syntagmatia: Essays on Neo-Latin literature, pp. 147-62 (pp. 157-9). 345. See Anselmo Albareda, “Intorno alla scuola di orazione metodica stabilita a Monserrato dall'abate Garsías Jiménez de Cisneros (1493-1510)”, Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu, 25 (1956), 254-316 (313). 346. In Barcelona the Parthenice Mariana was printed in 1525 and 1526 (copies at, respectively, BUB, CM-1605 and BC, 6-VI-69, and the Parthenice Catharinaria appeared ca. 1529 (copy at BC, 10-I-15). 347. See Sebastián García Martínez, “El erasmismo en la Corona de Aragón en el siglo XVI”, in Erasmus in Hispania. Vives in Belgio. Acta Colloqui Brugensis, 23/26, IX, 1985, ed. by Jozef IJsewijn and Ángel Losada (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), pp. 215-90 (p. 245). 348. See Josep Maria Madurell Marimón, Documentos para la historia de la imprenta y librería en Barcelona, 1474-1553 (Barcelona: Gremios de Editores, Libreros y Maestros Impresores, 1955), pp. 791-2 (entries 100 and 135). The poetry of Mantuan circulated widely in sixteenth-century Barcelona, as attested by a Sammelband (BUB, CM 1436-2) which includes an edition of Bade’s commentary on the Adolescentia (Paris, 1503) and of the Opuscula quaedam moralia e sylvis Baptistae Mantuani excerpta (Paris, 1503). The volume bears an ownership note “de la llibreria del Carme de Barcelona” (“from the library of the Convent of Carme in Barcelona”). 349. The only copy known to me of the Barcelona Vergerio is held at Toulouse, Bibliothèque Municipale (Inc. 101); the Barcelona De liberis educandis (ISTC No.: ip00823200) is held at Narbonne, Bibliothèque Municipale (Inc. 3); a copy of the Barcelona edition of Bruni’s Isagogicon moralis disciplinae is preserved at BNE (Inc. 506). For the Spanish translation of the text, see Montserrat JiménezSan Cristóbal, El “Isagogicon moralis disciplinae” de Leonardo Bruni y sus versiones castellanas: estudio y edición (unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2010). 350. On this translation see Francisco Rico, “Cuatro palabras sobre Petrarca en España (siglos 15 y 16)”, in Convegno internazionale Francesco Petrarca (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1976), pp. 49-58 (pp. 57-8). 351. See Francisco Petrarca, De los remedios contra próspera y adversa fortuna (Zaragoza: Coci, 1523), sig. Aiv (from the copy at Barcelona, Biblioteca Pública Episcopal, 860-03-8 Pet.). 352. For Carbonell, see Mariàngela Vilallonga, La literatura llatina a Catalunya al segle XV: Repertori bio-bibliogràfic (Barcelona: Curial, 1993), pp. 63-72. 353. Quoted in Vilallonga, La literatura llatina a Catalunya, p. 63. 354. Maria Toldrà, “El testament de Pere Miquel Carbonell”, in El (re)descobriment de l’edat moderna: Estudis en homenatge a Eulàlia Duran, ed. by Eulàlia Miralles and Josep Solervicens (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2007), pp. 9-31.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

179

355. These are BUB, Ms. 123; Girona, AC, Ms. 69; and Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, B 156 (fols. 136r -190v). The first two manuscripts are discussed by Mariàngela Vilallonga in her “Humanistas italianos en los manuscritos de Pere Miquel Carbonell”, in Humanismo y pervivencia del mundo clásico: Actas del II Simposio sobre humanismo y pervivencia del mundo clásico, ed. by José María Maestre Maestre, Joaquín Pascual Barea and Luis Charlo Brea, 3 vols. (Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz, 1997), III, pp. 1217-24. 356. The inventory of Carbonell’s library prior to 1484 was transcribed by Jordi Rubió i Balaguer in his “Els autors clàssics a la biblioteca de Pere Miquel Carbonell, fins a l’any 1484”, in Sobre biblioteques i biblioteconomia (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 1995), pp. 37-57. 357. These can be found in Girona, AC, Ms. 69 (Venice, 1488) and Barcelona, ACA, Memorial 55 (Lyon, 1501). 358. Carbonell owned copies of Giovanni Tortelli and Battista Guarino’s De orthographia (see Rubió i Balaguer, “Els autors clàssics”, p. 43), and of Bartolomeo Facio’s De differentiis verborum (Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek, B 156, fols. 182r-187v). 359. “Anno Salutis MCCCClxxix ii Maii… hoc opusculum una cum aliis hic ligatis Petrus Michael Carbonell pretio soluto comparavit” (fol. 23r). 360. These poems are scattered throughout Girona, AC, Ms. 69. For Geraldini’s links with the Aragonese court, see Martin Früh, Antonio Geraldini (†1488): Leben, Dichtung und sociales Beziehungsnetz eines italienischen Humanisten am aragonesischen Königshof. Mit einer Edition seiner Carmina ad Iohannam Aragonum (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005), pp. 183-96. 361. Felipe González Vega, “Marginalia de Pere Miquel Carbonell en el Incunable 685 de la Biblioteca Universitaria de Barcelona”, in La memoria de los libros: estudios sobre la historia del escrito y de la lectura en Europa y América, ed. by Pedro Manuel Cátedra, 2 vols. (Salamanca: Instituto de Historia del Libro y de la Lectura, 2004), I, pp. 273-92. 362. See Felipe González Vega, “Poesía de la nueva espiritualidad en el primer Renacimiento español (con un excurso sobre la recepción de Prudencio y su primera traducción castellana)”, in Latin and Vernacular in Renaissance Iberia, II: Translations and Adaptations, ed. by Barry Taylor and Alejandro Coroleu (Manchester: Manchester Spanish and Portuguese Studies, 2006), pp. 23-47 (pp. 32-3). 363. Ramon d’Alòs-Moner, “Flors de Petrarca de remey de cascuna fortuna”, in Homenatge a Antoni Rubió i Lluch, I, pp. 651-66. 364. For a thorough description of both manuscripts see Milagros Villar, Códices petrarquescos en España (Padua: Antenore, 1995), pp. 197-8 and 222-4. 365. “Huius modi opuscula quattuor P. Mich. Carbonellus Regius Archivarius dono dedit P. Michaeli Carbonello scholari adolescenti nepoti suo ex filio, die Sabbatt XXVIII Julii anno MD nono” (fol. 39v, BC, Inc. 64-8°). I am indebted to Maria Toldrà for drawing my attention to the factitious volume in which Vergerio’s treatise is included. 366. “O iucundam familiam! ut recte Cicero appellat, utique et frugi et bene morigeram”. I quote Vergerio’s text from Humanist Educational Treatises, edited

180

Notes

and translated by Craig W. Kallendorf (Cambridge, MA-London: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 45. 367. It is ACA, Cancelleria, Memorial 60. The letter to Vilar is included in Mariàngela Vilallonga, Dos opuscles de Pere Miquel Carbonell (Barcelona: Asociación de Bibliófilos de Barcelona, 1988), pp. 166-9. 368. For Barcelona, see Manuel Peña Díaz, El laberinto de los libros: historia cultural de la Barcelona del Quinientos (Madrid: Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez, 1997), pp. 184-95, and Josep Hernando i Delgado, “El llibre escolar i la presència dels autors clàssics i dels humanistes en l’ensenyament del segle XV”, Estudis històrics i documents dels arxius de protocols, XXIX (2011), 7-42; for Tortosa, see Enric Querol Coll, Estudis sobre cultura literària a Tortosa a l’edat moderna (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2006), pp. 100-8; for Valencia, see Polanco Roig, The “Liber elegantiarum” by Joan Esteve.., p. xxxv. 369. This is clear, for example, from editions of humanist drama issued by the Salamanca presses, such as Carlo Verardo’s Historia Baetica (1494), and Leon Battista Alberti’s comedy Philodoxeos fabula (written after 1424), published in 1501. On this edition see Cecil Grayson, “La prima edizione del Philodoxeos”, Rinascimento, 5 (1954), 291-3. 370. Fieschi’s work further circulated under the title Elegancias romançadas por el maestro Antonio de Nebrija, Alcalá de Henares, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, ca. 1517. On this edition, see Rico, Nebrija contra los bárbaros, p. 36, n. 21. 371. For Herrera’s text and further information on the circulation of Valla’s Elegantiae in Salamanca and Alcalá, see Luis Alfonso Hernández Miguel, “La gramática latina en Alcalá de Henares en el siglo XVI”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLV (1996), 319-47. For the manuscript circulation of Valla’s text in Castile, see Ángel Gómez Moreno, España y la Italia de los humanistas: Primeros ecos (Madrid: Gredos, 1993), pp. 84-5. 372. For the circulation of Christian poets of late Antiquity (particularly in Salamanca), see Víctor García de la Concha, “La impostación religiosa de la reforma humanística en España: Nebrija y los poetas cristianos”, in Academia Literaria Renacentista, III: Nebrija y la introducción del Renacimiento en España, ed. by Víctor García de la Concha (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1983), pp. 123-44. 373. Information on the programme of study at Alcalá can be gleaned from Marcel Bataillon, Erasmo y España: estudios sobre la historia espiritual del siglo XVI (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1966), pp. 10-43. 374. The circulation of Pico in Alcalá has been studied by Felipe González Vega in his “Apuntamientos para un estudio de la difusión de Pico en la España renacentista”, delivered at the Fifteenth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies (Münster, August 2012, publication forthcoming in 2015). 375. See above chapter 3, n. 211. 376. On Núñez Delgado, see Juan Gil, “Profesores de latín en la Sevilla del siglo XVI”, Silva. Estudios de Humanismo y Tradición Clásica, 1 (2002), 75-91 (pp. 7686).

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

181

377. See Ann Moss, “Latin liturgical hymns and their early printing history, 1470-1520”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XXXVI (1987), 112-37 (p. 131). As Moss observes (p. 123), Núñez Delgado’s interest in hymns is shared by northern humanists such as Murmellius, who also prepared editions of Mantuan (see above chapter 2, pp. 26-7). 378. I owe this information to Joaquín Pascual Barea, “Entre rénovation humaniste et tradition liturgique: auteurs et autres acteurs de poésies latines éditées à Séville de 1504 à 1537”, in Qui écrit? Figures de l’auteur et des co-élaborateurs du texte, ed. by Martine Furno (Lyon: ENS Éditions / Institut d’Histoire du Livre, 2009), pp. 137-50 (p. 113). 379. On this translation see Martin Biersack, “Juan Rodríguez de Pisa, letrado y humanista granadino, traductor de Pico de la Mirandola”, Bulletin Hispanique, 111.1 (2009), 7-50 (pp. 43-7). I owe this reference to Felipe González Vega. 380. See Dennis E. Rhodes, “An unrecognized Spanish edition of Poliziano’s Silvae”, British Library Journal, 15 (1989), 208-11. In his note Rhodes has convincingly argued that the Alcalá edition was in fact printed in two separate parts (Manto and Ambra, and Rusticus and Nutricia), which were subsequently bound together. 381. This argumentum and the accompanying marginal and interlinear annotations are reproduced in Appendix B. 382. At line 285, Orpheos “de Orpheo lege in fine quarti libri Geor. Maronis” – “On Orpheus, read the end of the fourth of Virgil’s Georgics” and “Hic prosequitur Politianus in descriptionem fabulae Orphei de quo Silius Italicus in XI libro et Seneca in tragedia quae Hercules furens appellatur et Boethius in tertio libro scripserunt” – “Here Poliziano proceeds with the description of the story of Orpheus, about whom Silius Italicus wrote in book eleven [of the Punica, XI, 460] and Seneca in the tragedy entitled Hercules furens [569-591] and Boethius in book three [of the Consolation of Philosophy, Part IX-XII]”. 383. On Lope de Baena see Kenneth Kreitner, The Church Music of FifteenthCentury Spain (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2004), p. 135. 384. Antonio de Nebrija, Tertia Quincuagena, Logroño, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, 1507, cap. 37: “nostro saeculo vir omnium eruditissimus”. 385. For Nebrija and Poliziano see Rico, Nebrija frente a los bárbaros, 53-67, to which I also owe the reference in the previous footnote. 386. On the relationship between Nebrija and Brocar, see Pedro Manuel Cátedra, “Arnao Guillén de Brocar, impresor de las obras de Nebrija”, in El libro antiguo español, III: El libro en Palacio y otros estudios bibliográficos, ed. by María Luisa López-Vidriero and Pedro Manuel Cátedra (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1996), pp. 43-80. 387. I have used the following editions: Auli Flacci Persii Satyrici ingeniosissimi et doctissimi Satyrae cum quinque commentariis... Aelii Antonii Nebrissensis, Paris, Badius Ascensius, 1527, BL 11388.bb.14; Sedulii Paschale cum commento Aelii Antoni Nebrissensis, Logroño, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, 1510, BL C.63.b.38; and Elio Antonio de Nebrija, Comentario al Poema “In Ianum” de Pedro Mártir de Anglería, ed. by Carmen Codoñer (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1992).

182

Notes

388. “la historia natural de Plinio y el poema de las quatro silvas de Policiano son los dos autores más dificiles…que ay en la lengua latina”, quoted in Narciso Alonso Cortés, “Datos acerca de varios maestros salmantinos”, in Homenaje ofrecido a Ramón Menéndez Pidal, 3 vols. (Madrid: Librería Hernando, 1925), I, pp. 770-93 (pp. 785-6). 389. “que pertenece más a la retórica que a la gramática por tratar de la elegancia”, quoted in Alonso Cortés, “Datos acerca de varios maestros salmantinos”, p. 785. 390. Fredenandi [sic] Pintiani observationes in C. Plinii Historiae Naturalis libros, Salamanca, Juan de Junta, 1544 and 1545. On these annotations, see Charles G. Nauert, “Pliny”, in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, ed. by Edward Cranz, Virginia Brown and Paul Oskar Kristeller (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press and the Pontifical Institute at the University of Toronto, 1980), IV, pp. 392-95. 391. See Juan Signes Codoñer, Carmen Codoñer and Arantxa Domingo, Biblioteca y epistolario de Hernán Núñez de Guzmán (El Pinciano): Una aproximación al humanismo español del siglo XVI (Madrid: CSIC, 2001), p. 268. 392. See Biblioteca y epistolario de Hernán Núñez de Guzmán, letters of 23 January 1539, 13 September 1541 and 21 April 1546 (pp. 281, 293 and 284 respectively). 393. For a full description of the manuscript, see Paul Oskar Kristeller, Iter Italicum, IV: From Great Britain to Spain (London-Leiden: Brill, 1989), p. 547. Though it would be gratifying to relate the Madrid commentary to Núñez de Guzmán, given that there is clearly a degree of correspondence between samples of his handwriting (as reproduced, for example, by Signes Codoñer et al.) with the hand of the annotator, I am nevertheless unable to ascertain whether the notes are by him. For his part, Pedro Urbano González de la Calle, –in his Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas: su vida profesional y académica (Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez, 1923), p. 367, n. 1– ascribed the authorship of the annotations to Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas. Examination of a sample of annotations to other Latin texts by Sánchez (in copies kindly supplied by Avelina Carrera de la Red and Ángel Escobar) does not, however, support any possible link between Sánchez’s hand and that of the Madrid manuscript. 394. See fol. 174v: 257 dulcia terribili mutans psalteria bello – “alternating the sweet psaltery with horrid warfare”, “Ovidius in tertio de arte [Ars am., 3, 327328] disce etiam duplici genialia nablia palma / uerrere: coneniunt dulcibus illa modis, nam hebraice nebel quod Graeci verterunt in nablion, hoc est psalterium, latine organum” “Ovid says in the third book of his Ars amatoria, ‘and learn to play the joyous psaltery with both hands: it is suitable for our sweet activities’ for in Hebrew nebel, which the Greeks changed to nablion, is a psaltery, in Latin organum” (cfr. Poliziano, Miscellaneorum Centuria prima, 14). 395. For a valuable study with ample bibliographical information on Sánchez de las Brozas, see El Brocense y las Humanidades en el siglo XVI, ed. by Carmen Codoñer, Santiago López Moreda and Jesús Ureña Bracero (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 2003).

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

183

396. “Maioris esse semper credidi diligentiae aliena scripta retexere quam nova proprio Marte componere”, in Francisco Sánchez, In Artem Poeticam Horatii annotationes, Salamanca, apud Ioannem et Andream Renaut fratres, 1591, sig. G2r, from the copy held at BL 11312.aa.4. 397. This point is made clearly by Sánchez in the preface to his Obras del excelente poeta Garcilaso de la Vega con anotaciones y enmiendas, Salamanca, Pedro Lasso, 1577, sig. C3v: “Ningún poeta latino hay, que en su género no haya imitado a otros, como Terencio a Menandro, Séneca a Eurípides… Lo mismo se puede decir de nuestro poeta, que aplica y traslada los versos de otros poetas tan a su propósito y con tanta destreza, que ya no se llaman ajenos, sino suyos” (“There is no Latin poet, who, in his genre, has not imitated other poets, as Terence does Menander and Seneca Euripides… The same can be said of our poet, who applies and translates lines by other poets so well and with such skill that they are no longer regarded as being by others but rather by himself”, from the copy held at BL 11450.a.4). 398. “Nam aliquando in id poemation quaedam adnotavimus, quae minus ab interpretibus intelligerentur”, in Francisci Sanctii Brocensis in Ibin Ovidii et in Ternarium Ausonii Galli annotations, Salamanca, Diego de Cusio, 1598, sig. N4r, from the copy held at BNE, R. 18538. The commentary had first been printed in 1596 (Salamanca, Juan Fernando). 399. “Namque Politianus, ni fallor, omnia, quaecumque novit reconditae lectionis, huc intulit et ego pro temporis angustia, illa tantum quae obscuriora videbantur, annotavi”, in Angeli Politiani Silvae. Poema quidam obscurum, sed novis nunc scholiis illustratum, Salamanca, Andreas a Portonariis, 1554, sig. A2r, from the copy held at BNE, R. 25911. The title of the second edition reads Angeli Politiani Silvae. Nutricia, Rusticus, Manto, Ambra, Salamanca, Pedro Lasso, 1596. The latter was reprinted in Geneva in 1766 by Gregorio Mayans Siscar in his edition of Sánchez’s complete works. 400. Sánchez’s annotations to Poliziano are analysed in Luis Merino Jerez, “Las Silvas de Poliziano comentadas por el Brocense”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLV (1996), 406-29, where, however, use of the commentary in the Salamanca lecture halls goes unexplored. 401. A partial chronology of Sánchez’s activity in Salamanca –as reconstructed from the scattered notices in González de la Calle, Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas– clearly reveals how he interspersed ancient and modern authors in his lectures on rhetoric: 1569 the Silvae (unspecified); 1572 Virgil’s Eclogues and the Silvae (unspecified); 1578 Hesiod, Pliny and Homer; 1595 Homer’s Odyssey; 1596 the Ambra and the Odyssey; 1597 the Nutricia; 1598 Homer, Alciato, Ovid’s Ibis, the Manto and Virgil’s Georgics. 402. [December 1569] “Visita de la catedra de Rectorica del licenciado Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas. Leyo las sylvas de angelo poliçiano e las acabo ayer” (“Assessment of Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas’s Chair of Rhetoric. He read Angelo Poliziano’s Silvae and finished them yesterday”), quoted in González de la Calle, Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas, p. 82, n. 2.. 403. “Quarta visita fecha el 9 de julio del año de 1572 ... [9 of July] Sánchez de las Brozas agora lehee las Eclogas de Virgilio de 9 a 10 e las sylvas de angelo

184

Notes

poliçiano de 3 a 4 e que abra ocho dias que las començo, leyendo bien e con provecho, entrando e saliendo a leher a las horas que es obligado”, quoted in González de la Calle, Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas, pp. 113-4. 404. “Quarta visita de Cathedras hecha por el señor Don Henrrique Pimentel, Rector desta Universidad, y en su compañía los doctors y maestros visitadores de las facultades. Començó myercoles 17 de Julio de 1596 ... dixeron que va en la segunda silva de angelo poliçiano. Lee vien y con mucho cuidado, declara lo neçesario. Entra y sale con las horas” (“Fourth assessment undertaken by Henrrique Pimentel, Rector of this University, together with other doctors and assessors. It began on Wednesday 17 July 1596... they stated that Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas is currently reading Angelo Poliziano’s second Silva. He reads to good effect and with great care, lectures on the appropriate matters, and starts and finishes at the appointed time”), quoted in González de la Calle, Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas, p. 367, n. 2. 405. Quoted in González de la Calle, Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas, pp. 390-1. 406. Juan de Guzmán, Geórgicas de Virgilio juntamente con la décima égloga con muchas notaciones que sirven en lugar de comento, Salamanca, Juan Fernández, 1586, sig. A 8v: “for in the end poets, if they are good, should be welcomed, and if they are thought suspect also, so that, warned against evil things, we may protect ourselves. For this reason, Poliziano, in his Ambra, does not cease to celebrate the greatness and admirable doctrine of this poet” (“porque los poetas al fin, si son buenos, deven ser recibidos y, si son tenidos por sospechosos, también, para que, avisados de lo malo, nos guardemos; por lo qual Angelo Policiano en su Ambra nunca acaba de celebrar las grandezas deste poeta y su admirable doctrina”). In the preface to his translation Guzmán pays tribute to his eminent lecturer: (sig. A 10v) “I am fully aware that wise and learned men will willingly receive this work, since for my talent, however small, it was enough to have been trained in the office of the great Sánchez de las Brozas” (“Bien sé que los sabios y doctos recibirán esta obra con buena voluntad, pues sólo le bastava a mi ingenio, aunque pequeño, aver sido formado en la officina del gran Sánchez de las Brozas”, from the copy held at BNE, R. 13577). 407. Luis Alfonso de Carvallo, Cisne de Apolo, Medina del Campo, I. Godínez de Millis, 1602, 4, 10: “Los griegos llaman a este furor entusiasmo, que quiere decir afflatio numinis, y en nuestra lengua inspiración divina, y de allí entheus, -a, -um, por cosa endiosada, y así llama Policiano al juicio del poeta inflamado con este furor en su Nutricia con estos versos: Nunc age, qui tanto sacer hic furor incitet oestro / corda virum, quam multiplices ferat enthea partus / mens (“The Greeks call this frenzy enthusiasmos, which means afflation of the divine spirit, and in our language divine inspiration, and hence entheus, -a, -um for divinely inspired. And so describes Poliziano the mind of the poet inflated by this frenzy in his Nutricia: ‘Come, listen now and I shall expound how this sacred frenzy stirs the hearts of men with sublime inspiration and sing of the countless offspring of the mind possessed by god’”). Compare Sánchez’s note: “Nunc age: de enthusiasmo poetarum et de eius ratione perite disserit. Est autem enthusiasmos, furor, vel afflatio numinis, divinus, seu animos rapiens. Et entheos, numine

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

185

afflatus, vel divinus. Hispane endiosado”, in Angeli Politiani Sylvae. Poema quidem obscurum, Salamanca, Pedro Lasso, 1596, sig. D1r. 408. Juan Francisco Alcina, “El latín humanístico y la cultura vernacular de los Siglos de Oro”, in La Filología Latina hoy: Actualización y perspectivas, ed. by Ana María Aldama et al. (Madrid: Sociedad de Estudios Latinos, 1999), pp. 72946. 409. See Juan Francisco Alcina, Juan Ángel González y la "Sylva de laudibus poeseos", 1525 (Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 1978). In his poem Gonsales pays tribute to Poliziano’s poetry: “Hoc decus, has partes, tam rarae haec munera palmae / debemus Musis, Polliciane, tuis” (“This honour, these parts, these gifts of such a rare palm we owe, Poliziano, to your Muses”, lines 345346). 410. “Hispali, anno 1570, sub Mal Larae disciplina”. On Girón, see Juan Francisco Alcina, Repertorio de la poesía del Renacimiento en España (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1995), p. 86. 411. Girón’s annotations confirm the wide circulation of Sánchez’s commentary in the second half of the sixteenth century. We know that Girón had the commentary at his side as he occasionally marks those passages where the text of Poliziano employed by Sánchez departs from the text printed by Episcopius (for example, p. 563: “Sanctius legit quamvis” [Manto, 31]). On Mal Lara’s library, which held a copy of the Basle edition of Poliziano’s works, see Manuel Bernal Rodríguez, “La biblioteca de Juan de Mal Lara”, Philologia Hispalensis, IV, 1 (1989), 391-405. 412. See Aurora Egido, “La silva andaluza del Barroco”, Criticón, 46 (1989), 539 (p. 11). As Ines Ravasini shows in her «Nauticas Venatorias Maravillas». Percorsi piscatori nella letteratura spagnola del Siglo de Oro (Pavia: Ibis, 2011), Sannazaro’s Eclogae piscatoriae were a further Italian Neo-Latin model which provided inspiration for Góngora. 413. See Fernando Lázaro Carreter, “Imitación compuesta y diseño retórico en la oda a Juan Grial”, Anuario de estudios filológicos, 2 (1979), 89-119. 414. See Antonio Ramajo Caño, “El carácter proemial de la Oda primera de fray Luis (y un excurso sobre la Priamel en la poesía de los Siglos de Oro)”, Romanische Forschungen, 106 (1994), 84-117. 415. See Julio Alonso Asenjo, “Optimates laetificare: la Egloga de nativitate Christi de Joan Baptista Anyés o Agnesio”, Criticón, 66-67 (1996), 307-68. 416. Alvari Gomez Thalicristia, Alcalá de Henares, Arnao Guillén de Brocar, 1522, sig. Aiv, from the copy at BNE, R. 15854. For the Thalichristia, which was reprinted three years later, see Felipe González Vega, “De poetica theologia: presencias de alegorismo platónico en la exégesis humanista y una mediación de las Siluae Morales de Badio Ascensio (1492),” in Humanismo y Pervivencia del Mundo Clásico III. Homenaje al profesor Antonio Fontán, ed. by José María Maestre, Joaquín Pascual and Luis Charlo (Alcañiz and Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Humanísticos, Laberinto and CSIC, 2002), III:2, pp. 799-810. 417. On San Juan de la Cruz’s sojourn in Medina del Campo, see Luis Fernández Martín, “El Colegio de los Jesuitas de Medina del Campo en tiempo de Juan de Yepes”, in Juan de la Cruz, espíritu de llama: estudios con ocasión del

186

Notes

cuarto centenario de su muerte 1591-1991, ed. by Otger Steggink (Rome: Institutum Carmelitanum, 1991), pp. 41-61. 418. Baptistae Mantuani carmelitae...Parthenice Mariana, recenter excusa, in Methymnensium scholasticorum gratiam Collegio Societatis Iesu bonas literas addiscentium, Medina del Campo, Francisco del Campo, 1561. For the analysis of the passage in the Cántico espiritual which follows, I draw on Marcel Bataillon, Varia lección de clásicos españoles (Madrid: Gredos, 1964), pp. 162-4. 419. Here I reproduce the English translation included in Colin Thompson, The poet and the mystic: a study of the “Cántico Espiritual” of San Juan de la Cruz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 176. 420. San Juan de la Cruz, Poesía completa y comentarios en prosa, ed. by Raquel Asún (Barcelona: Planeta, 1997), p. 309: “para cuya inteligencia es de saber lo que de la tortolica se dice, que cuando no halla a su consorte, ni se asienta en ramo verde, ni bebe el agua clara y fría, ni se pone debajo de la sombre”. The passage merits the following remark in Bade’s commentary on the Parthenice Mariana: “nitidis in undis. id est, aquis limpidis et imaginem referentibus… ne comitis prisci tristetur imagine visa. id est, specie sua quae est imago prisci v r comitis” (fols. LV -LVI ). 421. In his Ciceronianus Erasmus had famouslay claimed that “Sannazaro would have won more acclaim if he had treated his religious subject in a rather more religious manner”. 422. See Fernández Luzón, La Universidad de Barcelona, p. 124. 423. Los Christiados de Hyeronimo Vida, Obispo de Alba, tradvzidos en verso castellano por Jvan Martín Cordero valenciano, Antwerp: Martín Nucio, 1554 (from the copy at BNE, U. 1146): “Así que verás como no salimos de la Historia Evangélica y, aunque halles algunas cosas que no son della, bástate a entender que no le repugnan ni contradicen en algo. Tomó el poeta los cuatro Evangelistas por dechado de lo que quería pintar y retratar, añadiendo por lustre y por matiz lo que querían entender en muchos lugares callados por ellos” (“Thus you will see how we do not depart from the Gospels, and, although you may find things which do not belong to them, it is enough for you to understand that they are neither incompatible with the Gospels nor do they contradict them. The poet took the four Gospels as his model for what he wanted to paint and portray, and he added as polish and nuance what they meant in many passages in which nothing is said”, fols. 4 v -5 r). 424. On Hojeda, see Elizabeth B. Davis, Myth and Identity in the Epic of Imperial Spain (Columbus, OH, and London: University of Missouri Press, 2000), pp. 128-71. 425. See Charles Fantazzi, “Poetry and Religion in Sannazaro’s De partu Virginis’”, in Ut granum sinapis: Essays on Neo-Latin literature in honour of Jozef Ijsewijn, ed. by Gilbert Tournoy and Dirk Sacré (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 23148. 426. Alberto Porqueras Mayo, La teoría poética en el Renacimiento y Manierismo españoles (Barcelona: Puvill, 1986), p. 325. 427. Alfonso López Pinciano, Philosophía antigua poética, ed. by Alfredo Carballo Picazo, 3 vols. (Madrid: CSIC, 1953), III, p. 168.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

187

428. I have examined the role played by Italian Neo-Latin poetry in the controversies regarding Góngora’s poetry and in the work of Gracián in my “NeoLatin Poetry and Golden-Age Poetics”, in Essays on Spanish Poetry of the Golden Age, ed. by Stephen Boyd and Jo Richardson (Manchester: Manchester Spanish and Portuguese Studies, 2002), pp. 11-9 (pp 15-8). 429. See Keith Whinnom, “The Historia de Duobus Amantibus of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II) and the development of Spanish Golden-Age fiction”, in Essays on narrative fiction in the Iberian Peninsula in honour of Frank Pierce, ed. by Robert Brian Tate (Oxford: Dolphin, 1982), pp. 234-55. 430. On Alberti and Lucian, see David Marsh, Lucian and the Latins: Humor and Humanism in the Early Renaissance (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1998), ch. 2. All translations of the Momus are from Leon Battista Alberti, Momus, edited by Virginia Brown and Sarah Knight, and translated by Sarah Knight (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003). 431. Leon Battista Alberti, La moral y muy graciosa historia del Momo, Alcalá de Henares, Juan de Mey, 1553, fol. 4r (from the copy at BNE, R. 12635). 432. On Venegas see Daniel Eisenberg, “An early censor: Alejo de Venegas”, in Medieval, Renaissance and Folklore Studies in honor of John Esten Keller, ed. by Joseph R. Jones (Newark, NJ: Juan de la Cuesta, 1980), pp. 229-41. 433. On López de Cortegana’s translation, see La “metamorfosis” de un Inquisidor: el humanista Diego López de Cortegana (1455-1524), ed. by Francisco Javier Escobar Borrego, Samuel Díez Reboso and Luis Rivero García (Huelva: Universidad de Huelva, 2012). On the dissemination of Lucian’s dialogues in the vernacular in Renaissance Spain, see Michael Oscar Zappala, Lucian of Samosata in the Two Hesperias: an Essay in Literary and Cultural Translations (Potomac, MD: Scripta Humanistica, 1990), pp. 144-65. 434. An example of a (perhaps minor) text equally indebted to the Lucian tradition and to Alberti is Francisco de Sosa’s dialogue Endecálogo contra “Antoniana Margarita”, Medina del Campo, Mateo del Canto, 1556, available in a modern edition by Pedro Manuel Cátedra (Barcelona: Edicions Delstre’s, 1994). On Almazán’s reading of Momus as an allegory to portray the courtier’s paranoia, see Zappala, Lucian of Samosata, pp. 189-90. On Erasmus and Almazán, see Mario Damonte, “Testimonianze della fortuna di Leon Battista Alberti in Spagna: una traduzione cinquecentesca del Momus in ambiente erasmista”, Atti dell'Accademia Ligure di Scienze e lettere, 31 (1974), 257-83. 435. As shown by Ronald W. Truman, “Lazarillo de Tormes, Petrarch’s De remediis adversae fortunae, and Erasmus’s Praise of Folly”, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, LII (1975), 33-53, the novel is indebted to humanist literature, in particular to Petrarch’s De remediis. 436. Lazarillo de Tormes, ed. by Francisco Rico (Madrid: Cátedra, 1992), p. 27: “Digo verdad: si con mi sutileza y buenas mañas no me supiera remediar, muchas veces me finara de hambre. Mas, con todo su saber y aviso, le contaminaba de tal suerte, que siempre, o las más veces, me cabía lo más y mejor. Para esto, le hacía burlas endiabladas, de las cuales contaré algunas, aunque no todas a mi salvo”. The English translation is from Clements Markham’s edition of the text (London: Black, 1908), pp. 16-7.

188

Notes

437. Lazarillo de Tormes, ed. by Rico, p. lvii. 438. Mateo Alemán, Guzmán de Alfarache, ed. by Francisco Rico (Barcelona: Planeta, 1983), I, ii, 5 (p. 284): “Entonces pude afirmar que, dejada la picardía, como reina de quien no se ha de hablar y con quien otra vida política no se puede comparar, pues a ella se rinden todas las lozanías del curioso método de bien pasar que el mundo solemniza, aquella era, aunque de algún cuidado, por extremo buena”. I reproduce James Mabbe’s English translation of 1623, reprinted three hundred years later (London: Constable, 1924), p. 178. 439. Francisco López de Úbeda, Libro de la pícara Justina, ed. by Antonio Rey (Madrid: Editora Nacional, 1977), p. 3: “Y así, no hay enredo en Celestina, chistes en Momo, simplezas en Lázaro, elegancias en Guevara, chistes en Eufrosina, enredos en Patrañuelo, cuentos en Asno de Oro, y, generalmente, no hay cosa buena en romancero, comedia, ni poeta español, cuya nata aquí no tenga y cuya quinta esencia no saque”. 440. Benito Remigio Noydens, Historia moral del dios Momo: enseñanzas de príncipes y súbditos y livros de cavallerías, Madrid, Francisco Nieto, 1666, p. 285, from the copy at BL 1080.k.11. 441. Noydens, Historia moral del dios Momo, p. 5: “Como Momo, estando desterrado, trata de tomar satisfacción de los dioses, se haze poeta y filósofo, causa alboroto entre el Pueblo para hazer guerra al cielo. Lo mismo hizieron los herejes y príncipes amotinados contra la Iglesia y los católicos en Alemania e Inglaterra”. 442. Gabriel Álvarez de Castro, Palacio del Momo, Madrid, s.t., 1714, p. 7: “Much has been written about Momus by Pausanias and Hesiod […] better by Lucian and most extensively by Leon Battista, who turns the life and deeds of Momus into a moral story” (“Mucho han escrito de Momo Pausanias y Hesíodo […] mejor Luciano y más extensamente que todos León Battista, de cuya vida y hechos hace una historia moral”, from the copy at BL 1365.e.2). APPENDIX B 443. Suet., Aug., 85. 444. Cic., Off., I, 15. 445. Correxi ex: umbiculum 446. I thank David Shaw for his help in dating this edition, and Olivier Pédeflous for kindly drawing my attention to the copy held at Bordeaux (which includes manuscript annotations). The volume goes unmentioned in Moreau, Inventoire chronologique, in Renouard, Imprimeurs, and in Matthias Adam Shaaber, Sixteenth-century Imprints in the Libraries of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press, 1976). 447. See Ernest Coyecque, “Cinq libraires parisiennes sous François Ier (15211529)”, Memoires de la Societé de l’Histoire de Paris et de l’Ille de France, XXI (1894), 53-136 (54-79), see 54-55: p. 60, no. 144, Dix huit ‘Rusticus Policiany’; p. 65, no. 313 Vingt ‘Rusticus Policiany’”. 448. On Louis Boucher see Cartulaire Sénonais de Balthasar Taveau publié sous les auspices de la Societé archéologique de Sens par G. Julliot (Sens: Mémoires de la société des antiquaires de l’Ouest, 1884), p. 64.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

189

449. The sarcastic remark made by Cato to Albinus, asking him why he sought to excuse the fault rather than avoiding it completely is reported by Aulus Gellius in his Noctes Atticae, 11.8.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Note: In order not to inflate the bibliography to an unnecessary degree, this list only includes secondary criticism, and modern editions of fifteenth- and sixteenth-cetury texts. For details of Renaissance editions consulted by me, see the footnotes throughout the book. Adam, Paul, L’Humanisme à Sélestat (L’école, les humanistes, la bibliothèque) (Sélestat: Alsatia, 1962). Adam, Wolfgang, Poetische und Kritische Wälder. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Formen des Schreibens ‘bei Gelegenheit’ (Heidelberg: Winter, 1988). Albareda, Anselmo, “Intorno alla scuola di orazione metodica stabilita a Monserrato dall'abate Garsías Jiménez de Cisneros (1493-1510)”, Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu, 25 (1956), 254-316. Alberti, Leon Battista, Momus, ed. by Virginia Brown and Sarah Knight, and translated by Sarah Knight (Cambridge, MA-Lomdon: Harvard University Press, 2003). Alcina, Juan Francisco, Juan Ángel González y la "Sylva de laudibus poeseos", 1525 (Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 1978). —. Repertorio de la poesía del Renacimiento en España (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1995). —. “El latín humanístico y la cultura vernacular de los Siglos de Oro”, in La Filología Latina hoy: Actualización y perspectivas, ed. by Ana María Aldama et al. (Madrid: Sociedad de Estudios Latinos, 1999), pp. 729-46. Aldo Manuzio editore: dediche, prefazioni, note ai testi, edited and translated by Giovanni Orlandi, with an introduction by Carlo Dionisotti (Milan: Il Polifilo, 1975). Alonso Asenjo, Julio, “Optimates laetificare: la Egloga de nativitate Christi de Joan Baptista Anyés o Agnesio”, Criticón, 66-67 (1996), 307-68. Alonso Cortés, Narciso, “Datos acerca de varios maestros salmantinos”, in Homenaje ofrecido a Ramón Menéndez Pidal, 3 vols. (Madrid: Librería Hernando, 1925), I, pp. 770-93.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

191

Amerbach, Johannes, Die Amerbachkorrespondenz, ed. by Alfred Hartmann and Beat Rudolf Jenny (Basle: Verlag der Universitätsbibliothek, 1942). —. The correspondence of Johann Amerbach: early printing in its social context, selected, translated, edited, with commentary by Barbara C. Halporn (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2000). Andrelini, Fausto, s.v. in Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and the Reformation, ed. by Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas Deutscher (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 1985-1987), I, pp. 53-56. Avena, Antonio, Il Bucolicum Carmen e i suoi commenti inediti (Padua: Società cooperativa bibliografica, 1906). Badia, Lola, De Bernat Metge a Joan Roís de Corella. Estudis sobre la cultura literària de la tardor medieval catalana (Barcelona: Quaderns Crema, 1988). Bataillon, Marcel, Varia lección de clásicos españoles (Madrid: Gredos, 1964). —. Erasmo y España: estudios sobre la historia espiritual del siglo XVI (Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1966). Bérauld, Nicolas, “La praelectio sur Suétone de Nicolas Bérauld (1515), texte latin et traduction française annotée” (ed. by Perrine GalandHallyn), Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLIV (1997), 62-93. —. Praelectio et commentaire à la Silve Rusticus d’Ange Politien [1513], édition, traduction et commentaire, ed. by Perrine Galand (Geneva: Droz, forthcoming). Bernal Rodríguez, Manuel, “La biblioteca de Juan de Mal Lara”, Philologia Hispalensis, IV, 1 (1989), 391-405. Bertalot, Ludwig, “Humanistische Vorlesungsankündigungen in Deutschland im 15. Jahrhundert”, in Studien zum italienischen und deutschen Humanismus, ed. by Paul Oskar Kristeller (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1975), I, pp. 219-49. Bettinzoli, Attilio, “Rassegna di studi sul Poliziano (1972-1986)”, Lettere Italiane, XXXIX (1987), 53-125. Bianca, Concetta, “Un nuovo codice Pandolfini”, Rinascimento, 34 (1994), 153-55. Biersack, Martin, “Juan Rodríguez de Pisa, letrado y humanista granadino, traductor de Pico de la Mirandola”, Bulletin Hispanique, 111.1 (2009), 7-50. Bietenholz, Peter, Der Italienische Humanismus und die Blütezeit des Buchdrucks in Basel (Basle: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1959).

192

Bibliography

—. Basle and France in the Sixteenth Century: The Basle Humanists and Printers in their Contacts with Francophone Culture (Geneva: Droz, 1971). —. with Thomas Deutscher, eds., Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and the Reformation (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 1985-1987). Billanovich, Giuseppe, “Giovanni del Virgilio, Pietro da Moglio, Francesco da Fiano”, Italia medioevale e umanistica, VI (1963), 20334. Black, Robert, Humanism and Education in Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Tradition and Innovation in Latin Schools from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). —. “Italian education: languages, syllabuses, methods”, in Language and Cultural Change: Aspects of the Study and Use of Language in the Later Middle Ages and the Renaissance, ed. by Lodi Nauta (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), pp. 91-112. Bonardi, Giovanni, s.v. in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1960-), vol. 11 (1969), p. 570. Boucharain, Anne, “Les traductions françaises des Carmina de Battista Spagnoli au XVIe siècle”, in L’Italie et la France dans l’Europe latine du XIVe au XVIIe: Influence, emulation, traduction, ed. by Marc Deramaix and Ginette Vagenheim (Rouen: Publications des universités de Rouen et du Havre, 2003), pp. 397-415. Boudou, Bénédicte, “La Poétique d’Henri Estienne”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LII, 3 (1990), 571-92. Bouza, Fernando, Corre manuscrito: una historia cultural del Siglo de Oro (Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2002). Branca, Vittore, Poliziano e l’umanesimo della parola (Turin: Einaudi, 1983). Brassicanus, Joannes Alexander, s.v. in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1907), vol. II, p. 744a. Brassicanus, Joannes Ludovicus, s.v. in The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Encyclopedia Press, 1907), vol. II, p. 744b. Brovia, Romana, Itinerari del petrarchismo latino: tradizione e ricezione del “De remediis utriusque fortune” in Francia e in Borgogna, secc. XIV-XVI (Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 2013). Burckhardt, Jakob, Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien: ein Versuch (Basle: Schweighauser, 1860). Burke, Peter, “The Spread of Italian Humanism”, in The Impact of Humanism on Western Europe, ed. by Anthony Goodman and Angus MacKay (London: Longman, 1990), pp. 1-22.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

193

Canfora, Luciano, “Andreas Cratander editore di Cicerone”, Ciceroniana, 9 (1996), 177-89. Carabin, Denise, “Horace et Henri Estienne”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LXVIII, 1 (2006), 5-19. Cartulaire Sénonais de Balthasar Taveau publié sous les auspices de la Societé archéologique de Sens par G. Julliot (Sens: Mémoires de la société des antiquaires de l’Ouest, 1884). Catalogue of the Library of Syon Monastery Isleworth, ed. by Mary Bateson (Cambridge: The University Press, 1898). Cátedra, Pedro Manuel, “Arnao Guillén de Brocar, impresor de las obras de Nebrija”, in El libro antiguo español, III: El libro en Palacio y otros estudios bibliográficos, ed. by María Luisa López-Vidriero and Pedro Manuel Cátedra (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1996), pp. 43-80. Cave, Terence, ed., Thomas More’s “Utopia” in Early Modern Europe: Paratexts and Contexts (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2008). Celenza, Christopher S., The Lost Italian Renaissance: Humanists, Historians, and Latin’s Legacy (Baltimore, MD-London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004). Charlet, Jean-Louis, “Lorenzo Valla, Giovanni Tortelli, Niccolò Perotti: la restauration du Latin”, in Syntagmatia: Essays on Neo-Latin Literature in Honour of Monique Mund-Dopchie and Gilbert Tournoy, ed. by Dirk Sacré and Jan Papy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009), pp. 47-60. Charrier, Sylvie, Recherches sur l’oeuvre latine en prose de Robert Gaguin (1433-1502) (Paris: Champion, 1996). Chrisman, Miriam Usher, “Matthias Schürer, humaniste-imprimeur”, in Grandes figures de l’humanisme alsacien: courants, milieux, destines (Strasbourg: Istra, 1978), pp. 159-72. —. Lay Culture, Learned Culture: Books and Social Change in Strasbourg, 1480-1599 (New Haven, CT-London: Yale University Press, 1982). Clément, Louis, Henri Estienne et son oeuvre française (Geneva: Slatkine reprints, 1967). Cobos Fajardo, Antoni, “Joan Ramon Ferrer i els humanistes italians del segle XV”, in Llengua i cultura a la Corona d’Aragó, segles XIII–XV, ed. by Lola Badia, Miriam Cabré and Sadurní Martí (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2002), pp. 259–69. Coroleu, Alejandro, “A rare French edition of Poliziano in Princeton University Library”, The Library, 20, 3 (1998), 264-69.

194

Bibliography

—. “Humanismo en España”, in Introducción al humanismo renacentista, ed. by Jill Kraye (Madrid: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 295330. —. “Neo-Latin Poetry and Golden-Age Poetics”, in Essays on Spanish Poetry of the Golden Age, ed. by Stephen Boyd and Jo Richardson (Manchester: Manchester Spanish and Portuguese Studies, 2002), pp. 11-19. —. “Notes in a 1531 edition of Vida’s De arte poetica”, in Syntagmatia: Essays on Neo-Latin Literature in Honour of Monique Mund-Dopchie and Gilbert Tournoy, ed. by Dirk Sacré and Jan Papy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009), pp. 307-15. Cox, Leonard, The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke, ed. by Frederic Ives Carpenter (Norwood, PA: Norwood Editions, 1975). Coyecque, Ernest, “Cinq libraires parisiennes sous François Ier (15211529)”, Memoires de la Societé de l’Histoire de Paris et de l’Ille de France, XXI (1894), 53-136. Crane, Mark, “‘Virtual Classroom’: Josse Bade’s Commentaries for the Pious Reader”, in The Unfolding of Words: Commentary in the Age of Erasmus, ed. by Judith Rice Henderson (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 2012), pp. 101-17. Czapla, Beate, “Petrarcas’s Katabasis zu den Dichtern der Antike in der 10. Ekloge seines Bucolicum Carmen”, in Petrarca und die römische Literatur, ed. by Ulrike Aufhagen, Stefan Faller and Florian Hurka (Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, 2005), pp.157-75. D’Alòs-Moner, Ramon, “Flors de Petrarca de remey de cascuna fortuna”, in Homenatge a Antoni Rubió i Lluch. Miscel·lània d’estudis literaris, històrics i lingüístics, 3 vols. (Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 1936), I, pp. 651-66. Damonte, Mario, “Testimonianze della fortuna di Leon Battista Alberti in Spagna: una traduzione cinquecentesca del Momus in ambiente erasmista”, Atti dell'Accademia Ligure di Scienze e lettere, 31 (1974), 257-83. Davis, Elizabeth B., Myth and Identity in the Epic of Imperial Spain (Columbus, OH, and London: University of Missouri Press, 2000). Daxhelet, Etienne, Adrien Barlandus, humaniste belge (1486-1538): Sa vie, son oeuvre, sa personalité (Leuven: Librairie universitaire, 1938). De Nichilo, Mauro, “Tradizione e fortuna delle opera del Pontano II. La stampa sonciniana del De laudibus divinis”, in Syntagmatia: Essays on Neo-Latin Literature in Honour of Monique Mund-Dopchie and Gilbert Tournoy, ed. by Dirk Sacré and Jan Papy (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009), pp. 147-62.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

195

De Schepper, Marcus, “April in Paris (1514). Juan Luis Vives editing Baptista Guarinus: a new Vives ‘Princeps’, a new early Vives letter and the first poem in praise of Vives”, in Myricae: Essays on NeoLatin Literature in Memory of Jozef Ijsewijn, ed. by Dirk Sacré and Gilbert Tournoy (Leuven: University Press, 2000), pp. 195-205. De Vocht, Henry, History of the Foundation and Rise of the “Collegium Trilingue Lovaniense” (1517-1550), 4 vols. (Leuven: Bibliothèque de l’Université, 1951-1955). Del Lungo, Isidoro, Prose volgari e poesie latine e greche edite e inedite di Angelo Poliziano (Florence: G. Barbèra editore, 1867). Delaruelle, Louis, “L’étude du grec à Paris (de 1514 à 1530)”, Revue du Seizième siècle, 9 (1922), 132-49. Di Camillo, Ottavio, “Fifteenth-Century Spanish Humanism: Thirty-Five Years Later”, La corónica: A Journal of Medieval Hispanic Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, Volume 39, Issue 1 (Fall 2010), 19-66. Di Cesare, Mario A., “The Ars Poetica of Marco Girolamo Vida and the manuscript evidence”, in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Lovaniensis, ed. by Jozef IJsewijn and Eckhard Keßler (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1973), pp. 207-18. Dionissotti, Carlo, “Fortuna del Petrarca nel’400”, Italia Medioevale e Umanistica, XVII (1974), 61-113. Doucet, Roger, Les bibliothèques parisiennes aux XVIe siècle (Paris: A. et J. Picard, 1956). Dupuy, Nicolas, s.v. in Dictionnaire de Biographie française, ed. by Roland D’Amat (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1970), Vol. XII, p. 594. Duran, Eulàlia (dir.), Repertori de manuscrits catalans, 1474-1620 (Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 1998-). Edwards, Anthony Stockwell Garfield, “Continental Influences on London Printing and Reading in the Fifteenth- and Early Sixteenth Centuries”, in London and Europe in the later Middle Ages, ed. by Julia Boffey and Pamela King (London: Queen Mary and Westfield College, 1996), pp. 229-56. Egido, Aurora, “La silva andaluza del Barroco”, Criticón, 46 (1989), 5-39. Eisenberg, Daniel, “An early censor: Alejo de Venegas”, in Medieval, Renaissance and Folklore Studies in honor of John Esten Keller, ed. by Joseph R. Jones (Newark, NJ: Juan de la Cuesta, 1980), pp. 229-41. El Brocense y las Humanidades en el siglo XVI, ed. by Carmen Codoñer, Santiago López Moreda and Jesús Ureña Bracero (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 2003).

196

Bibliography

Enenkel, Karl, “Der andere Petrarca: Francesco Petrarcas De vita solitaria und die devotio moderna”, Quaerendo, 17 (1987), 137–47. —. “Der Petrarca des Petrarca-Meisters: Zum Text-Bild-Verhältnis in illustrierten De-Remediis-Ausgaben”, in Petrarch and his Readers in the Renaissance, ed. by Karl A.E. Enenkel and Jan Papy (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 91-169. English Anglican Benedictine Libraries. The Shorter Catalogues, ed. by Richard Sharpe et al. (London: The British Library, 1996). Erasmus, Desiderus, Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, denuo recognitum et auctum, ed. by Percy S. Allen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906-58). —. Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, I 2 (Amsterdam: NorthHolland Publishing Company, 1971) (Dialogus Ciceronianus, ed. by Pierre Mesnard). —. The poems of Desiderius Erasmus, introduced and edited by Cornelis Reedijk (Leiden: Brill, 1956). Fabrizio-Costa, Silvia, “La prefazione alla prima edizione francese delle Orationes di F. Beroaldo il Vecchio (Lione, settembre 1492)”, in Filippo Beroaldo l'ancien: un passeur d'humanités / Filippo Beroaldo il vecchio: un umanista ad limina, ed. by Silvia Fabrizio-Costa and Frank La Brasca (Bern: Peter Lang, 2005), pp. 167-87. Fantazzi, Charles, “Poetry and Religion in Sannazaro’s De partu Virginis’”, in Ut granum sinapis: Essays on Neo-Latin literature in honour of Jozef Ijsewijn, ed. by Gilbert Tournoy and Dirk Sacré (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), pp. 231-48. Fernández Luzón, Antonio, La Universidad de Barcelona en el siglo XVI (Barcelona: Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona, 2005). Fernández Martín, Luis, “El Colegio de los Jesuitas de Medina del Campo en tiempo de Juan de Yepes”, in Juan de la Cruz, espíritu de llama: estudios con ocasión del cuarto centenario de su muerte 1591-1991, ed. by Otger Steggink (Rome: Institutum Carmelitanum, 1991), pp. 4161. Foresti, Arnaldo, “Il Bucolicum Carmen de Francesco Petrarca stampato a Cremona nel 1495”, La Bibliofilia, 20 (1918-1919), 348-53. Früh, Martin, Antonio Geraldini (†1488): Leben, Dichtung und sociales Beziehungsnetz eines italienischen Humanisten am aragonesischen Königshof. Mit einer Edition seiner Carmina ad Iohannam Aragonum (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2005). Galand-Hallyn, Perrine, “Nicolas Bérault lecteur de Politien”, in Poliziano nel suo tempo (Atti del VI Convegno internazionale, Chianciano-

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

197

Montepulciano, 18-21 luglio 1994), ed. by Luisa Secchi Tarugi (Florence: Franco Cesati, 1996), pp. 411-27. —. “Quelques coïncidences (paradoxales?) entre l´Epître aux Pisons d´Horace et la poétique de la Silve au début du XVIe siècle en France”, Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, LX, 3 (1998), 609-39. —. “La traduction par Guillaume Haudent de la silve Rusticus de Politien (Rouen, c. 1550)”, in L’Italie et la France dans l’Europe latine du XIVe au XVIIe: Influence, emulation, traduction, ed. by Marc Deramaix and Ginette Vagenheim (Rouen: Publications des universités de Rouen et du Havre, 2003), pp. 325-57. —. “Nicolas Bérauld”, in Centuriae latinae II: Cent figures humanistes de la Renaissance aux Lumières. A la mémoire de Marie-Madeleine de la Garanderie, ed. by Colette Nativel, Catherine Magnien, Michel Magnien, Pierre Maréchaux and Isabelle Pantin (Geneva: Droz, 2006), pp. 71-8. Gallinarius, Johannes (=Johann Henlin), s.v. in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 8 (1878), pp. 336-38. Galucci, Luigi, s.v. in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, ed. by Giuseppe Pignatelli et al. (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1998), vol. 51, pp. 743-45. García de la Concha, Víctor, “La impostación religiosa de la reforma humanística en España: Nebrija y los poetas cristianos”, in Academia Literaria Renacentista, III: Nebrija y la introducción del Renacimiento en España, ed. by Víctor García de la Concha (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1983), pp. 123-44. García Martínez, Sebastián, “El erasmismo en la Corona de Aragón en el siglo XVI”, in Erasmus in Hispania. Vives in Belgio. Acta Colloqui Brugensis, 23/26, IX, 1985, ed. by Jozef IJsewijn and Ángel Losada (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), pp. 215-90. Geiß, Jürgen, Zentren der Petrarca-Rezeption in Deutschland (um 14701525): Rezeptiongeschichtliche Studien und Katalog der lateinischen Drucküberlieferung (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2002). Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke (Leipzig: K.W. Hiersemann, 1926). Gil, Juan, “Profesores de latín en la Sevilla del siglo XVI”, Silva. Estudios de Humanismo y Tradición Clásica, 1 (2002), 75-91. Gilbert, Creighton, “When Did a Man in the Renaissance Grow Old?”, Studies in the Renaissance, 14 (1967), 7-32. Gillis, Peter, s.v. in Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and the Reformation, ed. by Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas Deutscher (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 1985-1987), II, pp. 99-101.

198

Bibliography

Giovanni e Gianfrancesco Pico. L’opera e la fortuna di due studenti ferraresi, ed. by Patrizia Castelli (Florence: Olschki, 1988). Godman, Peter, “Poliziano’s poetics and Literary history”, Interpres, 13 (1993), 110-209. —. From Poliziano to Machiavelli: Florentine Humanism in the High Renaissance (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998). Gómez Moreno, Ángel, España y la Italia de los humanistas: Primeros ecos (Madrid: Gredos, 1993). González de la Calle, Pedro Urbano, Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas: su vida profesional y académica (Madrid: Librería General de Victoriano Suárez, 1923). González González, Enrique, “Martinus Dorpius and Hadrianus Barlandus editors of Aesop (1509-1513)”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLVII (1998), 28-41. —. “Lectores públicos y privados en la Universidad de Valencia”, in Aulas y saberes: VI Congreso internacional de Historia de las Universidades hispánicas, 2 vols. (Valencia: Universitat de València, 2003), I, pp. 463-78. González Vega, Felipe, “De poetica theologia: presencias de alegorismo platónico en la exégesis humanista y una mediación de las Siluae Morales de Badio Ascensio (1492),” in Humanismo y Pervivencia del Mundo Clásico III. Homenaje al profesor Antonio Fontán, ed. by José María Maestre, Joaquín Pascual and Luis Charlo (Alcañiz and Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Humanísticos, Laberinto and CSIC, 2002), III:2, pp. 799-810. —. “Marginalia de Pere Miquel Carbonell en el Incunable 685 de la Biblioteca Universitaria de Barcelona”, in La memoria de los libros: estudios sobre la historia del escrito y de la lectura en Europa y América, ed. by Pedro Manuel Cátedra, 2 vols. (Salamanca: Instituto de Historia del Libro y de la Lectura, 2004), I, pp. 273-92. —. “Poesía de la nueva espiritualidad en el primer Renacimiento español (con un excurso sobre la recepción de Prudencio y su primera traducción castellana)”, in Latin and Vernacular in Renaissance Iberia, II: Translations and Adaptations, ed. by Barry Taylor and Alejandro Coroleu (Manchester: Manchester Spanish and Portuguese Studies, 2006), pp. 23-47. Grafton, Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship, I. Textual Criticism and Exegesis (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). —. Defenders of the Text: The Traditions of Scholarship in an Age of Science, 1450-1800 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

199

—. with Lisa Jardine, From Humanism to the Humaities: Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-century Europe (London: Duckworth, 1986). Grant, William L., Neo-Latin Literature and the Pastoral (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1965). Grayson, Cecil, “La prima edizione del Philodoxeos”, Rinascimento, 5 (1954), 291-3. Grendler, Paul, “Renaissance humanism, schools, and universities”, in L’étude de la Renaissance: nunc et cras, ed. by Max Engammare, Marie-Madeleine Fragonard, Augustin Redondo and Saverio Ricci (Geneva: Droz, 2003), pp. 69-91. Groenland, Juliette A., “Humanism in the classroom, a Reassessment”, in The Making of the Humanities. Volume 1: Early modern Europe, ed. by Rens Bod, Jaap Maat and Thijs Weststeijn (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010), pp. 199-229. Hankins, James, Repertorium Brunianum: a critical guide to the writings of Leonardo Bruni (Rome: Istituto storico italiano, 1997). Hartl, Wenzel and Schranf, Karl, Nachträge zum dritten Bande von Joseph Ritter von Aschbachs Geschichte der Wiener Universität. Die Wiener Universität und ihre Gelehrten, 1520-1565 (Vienna: Holzhausen, 1898). Haskell, Yasmin Annabel, Loyola’s Bees: Ideology and Industry in Jesuit Latin Didactic Poetry (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Hatten, Maternus, s.v. in Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and the Reformation, ed. by Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas Deutscher (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 1985-1987), II, pp. 167-68. Hernández Miguel, Luis Alfonso, “La gramática latina en Alcalá de Henares en el siglo XVI”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLV (1996), 319-47. Hernando i Delgado, Josep, “El llibre escolar i la presència dels autors clàssics i dels humanistes en l’ensenyament del segle XV”, Estudis històrics i documents dels arxius de protocols, XXIX (2011), 7-42. Hirstein, James, “La correspondence de Beatus Rhenanus (1485-1547), une nouvelle letter (et un nouveau livre) et les débuts de l’imprimeur Matthias Schürer à Strasbourg à 1508”, in Antiquité tardive et humanisme: de Tertullien à Beatus Rhenanus. Mélanges offerts à François Heim, ed. by Yves Lehmann (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), pp. 457-94. —. “Beatus Rhenanus et la publication d’auteurs néo-latins italiens: le témoignage de sa correspondance et d’une Druckvorlage de sa

200

Bibliography

bibliothèque, le Croacus de Giovanni Elisio Calenzio”, Studi Umanistici Piceni, 29 (2009), 221-49. Hook, David, “Method in the Margins: An Archaeology of Annotation”, in Proceedings of the Eighth Colloquium, ed. by Andrew M. Beresford and Alan Deyermond (London: Department of Hispanic Studies, Queen Mary and Westfield College, 1997), pp. 135-44. Hulubei, Alice, L’églogue en France au XVIe siècle (Paris: Droz, 1938). Humanist Educational Treatises, edited and translated by Craig W. Kallendorf (Cambridge, MA-London: Harvard University Press, 2002). IJsewijn, Jozef, “La fortuna del Filelfo nei Passi Bassi”, in Francesco Filelfo nel quinto centenario della morte (Atti del XVII Convegno di studi maceratesi, Tolentino, 27-30 settembre 1981) (Padua: Antenore, 1986), pp. 529-50. —. with Dirk Sacré and Gilbert Tournoy, “Litterae ad Craneveldium Balduinae. A Preliminary Edition, IV”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLIV (1995), 1-78. Index Aureliensis: Catalogus librorum sedecimo saeculo impressorum (Baden-Baden: Körmer, 1965-). Jardine, Lisa, Erasmus, Man of Letters: The Construction of Charisma in Print (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Javitch, David, Proclaiming a classic: the canonization of “Orlando furioso” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991). Jensen, Kristian, “Exporting and importing Italian Humanism: the reception of Italian printed editions of classical authors and their commentators at the University of Leipzig”, Italia medioevale e umanistica, XLV (2004), 437-97. Jiménez Calvente, Teresa, “Maestros de latinidad en la corte de los Reyes Católicos: ¿un ideal de vida o una vida frustrada?”, in La literatura en la época de los Reyes Católicos, ed. by Nicasio Salvador and Cristima Moya (Madrid: Iberoamericana, 2008), pp. 103-25. Jiménez-San Cristóbal, Montserrat, El “Isagogicon moralis disciplinae” de Leonardo Bruni y sus versiones castellanas: estudio y edición (unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2010). Juan de la Cruz, San, Poesía completa y comentarios en prosa, ed. by Raquel Asún (Barcelona: Planeta, 1997). Kallendorf, Craig, Virgil and the Myth of Venice: Books and Readers in the Italian Renaissance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999). —. “Marginalia and the Rise of Early Modern Subjectivity”, in On Renaissance Commentaries, ed. by Marianne Pade (Hildesheim: Olms, 2005), pp. 111-28.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

201

Kemp, William, “L’édition illicite du Jugement d’amour de Juan de Florès (1530) de Laurent Hyllaire et l’univers du livre à Lyons à la fin des années 1520 (avec des compléments bibliographiques)”, Revue française d’histoire du livre, 118-121 (2003), 277-96. Kennedy, William J., Authorizing Petrarch (Ithaca, NY-London: Cornell University Press, 1994). Kierher, Johannes, s.v. in Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and the Reformation, ed. by Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas Deutscher (Toronto-Buffalo-London: University of Toronto Press, 1985-1987), II, p. 261. Klemperer, Viktor, “Gibt es eine spanische Renaissance?”, Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur, XVI, 2 (1927), 129-61. Kreitner, Kenneth, The Church Music of Fifteenth-Century Spain (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2004). Kristeller, Paul Oskar, Iter Italicum, IV: From Great Britain to Spain (London-Leiden: Brill, 1989). Kusukawa, Sachiko, A Wittenberg University Library Catalogue of 1536. Libri pertinentes (Cambridge: Cambridge LP Publications, 1995). L’humanisme a la Corona d’Aragó (en el context hispànic i europeu), ed. by Júlia Butinyà and Antonio Cortijo Ocaña (Potomac, MD: Scripta Humanistica Publishing International, 2011). La “metamorfosis” de un Inquisidor: el humanista Diego López de Cortegana (1455-1524), ed. by Francisco Javier Escobar Borrego, Samuel Díez Reboso and Luis Rivero García (Huelva: Universidad de Huelva, 2012). La Charité, Claude, “Rabelais lecteur de Politien dans le Gargantua”, Le Verger, bouquet 1 (Janvier 2012), 1-22. La corrispondenza bucolica tra Giovanni Boccaccio e Checco di Meletto Rossi. L’egloga di Giovanni del Virgilio ad Albertino Mussato, edizione critica, commento e introduzione a cura di Simona Lorenzini (Florence: Olschki, 2011). La France des Humanistes. Henri II Estienne, éditeur et écrivain, ed. by Jean Céard (Turnhout: Brepols, 2003). La Garanderie, Marie-Madeleine de, “Travaux italiens et français sur Pline l’Ancien: l’édition parisienne de Nicolas Bérault (1516)”, in L’Aube de la Renaissance, ed. by Dario Cecchetti, Lionello Sozzi and Louis Terreaux (Geneva: Droz, 1991), pp. 209-24. —. Christianisme et lettres profanes: essai sur l'humanisme français (1515-1535) et sur la penseé de Guillaume Budé (Paris: Champion, 1995).

202

Bibliography

Laird, Andrew, “Juan Luis de La Cerda, Virgil, and the Predicament of Commentary”, in The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, Theory, ed. by Roy K. Gibson and Christina Shuttleworth Kraus (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 171-203. Lange, Johannes, s.v. in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 17 (1883), pp. 637-38. Laspéras, Jean-Michel, “La biblioteca de Cristóbal de Salazar, humanista y bibliófilo ejemplar”, Criticón, 22 (1983), 5-32. Laurens, Pierre, “La poétique du Philologue: Les Miscellanea de Politien dans la lumière du premier centenaire”, Euphrosyne, XXIII (1995), 349-67. Laureys, Marc, “The reception of Giovanni Pico in the Low Countries”, in Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. Convegno internazionale di studi nel cinquecentesimo anniversario della morte (1494-1994), ed. by Gian Carlo Garfagnini (Florence: Olschki, 1997), pp. 625-40. Lázaro Carreter, Fernando, “Imitación compuesta y diseño retórico en la oda a Juan Grial”, Anuario de estudios filológicos, 2 (1979), 89-119. Leistritz, Sigrun, Das “Carmen Bucolicum” des Antonio Geraldini: Einleitung, Edition, Übersetzung, Analyse ausgewählter Eklogen (Trier: WVT, 2004). Leonhardt, Jürgen, “Drucke antiker Texte in Deutschland vor der Reformation und Luthers frühe Vorlesungen”, in Die Musen im Reformationszeitalter, ed. by Walther Ludwig (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2001), pp. 97-129. —. “Exegetische Vorlesungen in Erfurt, 1500-1520”, in Humanismus in Erfurt, ed. by Gerlinde Huber-Rebenich and Walther Ludwig (Rudolfstadt and Jena: Hain Verlag, 2002), pp. 91-109. López Pinciano, Alfonso, Philosophía antigua poética, ed. by Alfredo Carballo Picazo, 3 vols. (Madrid: CSIC, 1953). Lorini, Teodoro, “Petrarca a Vienna: riscontri da un censimento in corso”, in Margarita amicorum: studi di cultura europea per Agostino Sottili, ed. by Fabio Forner, Carla Maria Monti and Paul Gerhard Schmidt, 2 vols. (Milan: V & P, 2005), II, pp. 603-36. Lowry, Martin, The World of Aldus Manutius (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979). Ludwig, Walther, “Die humanistische Bildung der Jungfrau Maria in der Parthenice Mariana des Baptista Mantuanus”, in Miscella Neolatina. Ausgewählte Aufsätze 1989-2003, ed. by Astrid Steiner-Weber (Hildesheim-Zurich-New York: Olms, 2004), vol. 1, pp. 463-85. Madrid Castro, Mariano, “Badius’ and Murrho’s Commentaries on Baptista Mantuanus’ Contra Poetas Impudice Loquentes”, in Acta

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

203

Conventus Neo-Latini Abulensis. Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies. General Editor Rhoda Schnur, ed. by Jenaro Costas, Roger Green, Antonio Iurilli, Elizabeth McCutcheon, Antonio Moreno, Monique Mund-Dopchie and Hermann Wieg (Tempe, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 2000), pp. 397-402. —. “Sebastian Brant, Kommentator des Baptista Mantuanus”, in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Bonnensis. Proceedings of the Twelfth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies. General Editor Rhoda Schnur, ed. by Perrine Galand-Hallyn, Craig Kallendorf, George Hugo Tucker, Antonio Iurilli, Joaquín Pascual Barea and Hermann Wieg (Tempe, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 2006), pp. 505-14. Madurell Marimón, Josep Maria, Documentos para la historia de la imprenta y librería en Barcelona, 1474-1553 (Barcelona: Gremios de Editores, Libreros y Maestros Impresores, 1955). Mandosio, Jean-Marc, “Les sources antiques de la classification des sciences et des arts à la Renaissance”, in Les voies de la science grecque. Etudes sur la transmission des textes de l’Antiquité aux dixneuvième siècle, ed. by Danielle Jacquart (Geneva: Droz, 1997), pp. 331-90. Mann, Nicholas, “The making of Petrarch’s Bucolicum Carmen: a contribution to the history of the text”, Italia medioevale e umanistica, XX (1977), 127-82. —. “Il Bucolicum Carmen e la sua eredità”, Quaderni petrarcheschi, 9-10 (1992-1993), 513-35. Mantuanus, Baptista, Adulescentia, edited, with an English translation, by Lee Piepho (New York-London: Garland, 1989). —. Apologeticon, ed. by Daniela Marrone (Mantua: Accademia Nazionale Virgiliana, 2000), pp. 47-48. —. Adoloescentia, ed. by Andrea Severi (Bologna: Bononia University Press, 2010). Marsh, David, Lucian and the Latins: Humor and Humanism in the Early Renaissance (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press, 1998). Martelli, Mario, Angelo Poliziano: Storia e metastoria (Lecce: Conte, 1995). Martín Abad, Julián, Post-incunables Ibéricos (Madrid: Ollero y Ramos editores, 2001). Martín Baños, Pedro, “Preceptos epistolares e imitatio a comienzos del siglo XVI: edición y estudio de la Epithome artis epistolaris ad

204

Bibliography

formulam Tullianam introducens (1512) atribuida a Urbanus Rhegius”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, LIV (2005), 101-55. McFarlane, Ian Dalrymple, “Clément Marot and the world of Neo-Latin poetry”, in Literature and the arts in the reign of Francis I: Essays presented to C.A. Mayer, ed. by Pauline Smith and Ian Dalrymple McFarlane (Lexington, KY: French Forum, 1985), pp. 103-30. McLaughlin, Martin L., Literary Imitation in the Italian Renaissance: the Theory and Practice of Literary Imitation in Italy from Dante to Bembo (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). Mehl, James V., “Johannes Murmellius’s Approach to the artes liberales and Advice to Students in his Didascali libri duo (1510)”, in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Hafnensis. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, General Editor Rhoda Schnur, ed. by Ann Moss, Philip Dust, Paul G. Schmidt, Jacques Chomarat and Francesco Tateo (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1994), pp. 641-50. Melanchthon, Philipp, Melanchthons Briefwechsel, Band T2, Texte 255520 (1523-26), besarbeitet von Richard Wetzel unter Mitwirkung von Helga Scheible (Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog, 1995). Merino Jerez, Luis, “Las Silvas de Poliziano comentadas por el Brocense”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XLV (1996), 406-29. Metge, Bernat, “The Dream” of Bernat Metge / Del Somni d’en Bernat Metge, translated into English by Antonio Cortijo Ocaña and Elisabeth Lagresa, with an introduction and notes by Antonio Cortijo Ocaña (Amsterdam-Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 2013). Mezzanotte, Gabriella, “Una nuova testimonianza della fortuna petrarchesca nei Paessi Bassi”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XXIX (1980), 166-75. Money, David, The English Horace: Anthony Alsop and the Tradition of British Latin Verse (Oxford: Publications of the British Academy, 1998). Moreau, Brigitte; Inventaire chronologique des éditions parisiennes du XVIe siècle (Paris: Service des travaux historiques de la Ville de Paris, 1972-). Moss, Ann, “Latin liturgical hymns and their early printing history, 14701520”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XXXVI (1987), 112-37. —. Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). —. “Theories of poetry: Latin writers”, in The Cambridge history of literary criticism. Volume 3: The Renaissance, ed. by Glyn P. Norton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 98-105.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

205

—. Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Müller, Gernot Michael, “Poetische Standortsuche und Überbietungsanspruch: Strategien der Gattungskonstitution im Bucolicon des Helius Eobanus Hessus zwischen intertextueller Anspielung und autobiographischer Inszenierung”, in “Parodia” und Parodie: Aspekte intertextuellen Schreibens in der lateinischen Literatur der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Reinhold F. Glei and Robert Seidel (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2006), pp. 111-70. Nauert, Charles G., “Pliny”, in Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, ed. by Edward Cranz, Virginia Brown and Paul Oskar Kristeller (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press and the Pontifical Institute at the University of Toronto, 1980), IV, pp. 392-95. —. “The Struggle to Reform the University, 1523-1525”, in Humanismus in Köln – Humanism in Cologne, ed. by James V. Mehl (Cologne: Böhlau, 1991), pp. 29-76. Nauta, Lodi, “A Humanist Reading of Boethius’s Consolatio Philosophiae: The Commentary by Murmellius and Agricola (1514)”, in Between Demonstration and Imagination: Essays in the History of Science and Philosophy presented to John D. Noth, ed. by Lodi Nauta and Arjo Vanderjagt (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 313-38. Nauwelaerts, Marcel A., “Joannes Murmellius, Roermond 1480 - Deventer 1517”, in Historische Opstellen over Roermond en Omgeving, ed. by Antoon van Rijswijck et al. (Roermond: Bisschoppelijk College, 1951), pp. 201-34. Nebrija, Elio Antonio de, Comentario al Poema “In Ianum” de Pedro Mártir de Anglería, ed. by Carmen Codoñer (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1992). Neues Württembergisches Dienerbuch, bearbeitet von Walther Pfeilsticker (Stuttgart: Gotta, 1957). Nichols, Fred J., “The development of Neo-Latin theory of the pastoral in the sixteenth century”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, XVIII (1969), 95114. Nijhoff, Wouter and Kronenberg, M.E., Nederlandsche bibliographie van 1500 tot 1540 (‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1923-). Olivar, Marçal, “Notes entorn de la influència de l’Ars dictandi sobre la prosa catalana de cancelleria de finals del segle XIV”, in Homenatge a Antoni Rubió i Lluch. Miscel·lània d’estudis literaris, històrics i

206

Bibliography

lingüístics, 3 vols. (Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans, 1936), III, pp. 631-53. Omont, Henri, Anciens inventaires et catalogues de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris: Leroux, 1908). Ouy, Gilbert, “Pétrarque et les premiers humanistes français”, in Petrarca, Verona e l’Europa, ed. by Giuseppe Billanovich and Giuseppe Frasso (Padua: Antenore, 1997), pp. 415-34. Overfield, James H., Humanism and Scholasticism in Late Medieval Germany (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984). Papy, Jan, “Creating an ‘Italian’ Friendship: from Petrarch’s Ideal Literary Critic ‘Socrates’ to the Historical Reader Ludovicus Sanctus of Beringen”, in Petrarch and his Readers in the Renaissance, ed. by Karl A.E. Enenkel and Jan Papy (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 13-30. Pascual Barea, Joaquín, “Entre rénovation humaniste et tradition liturgique: auteurs et autres acteurs de poésies latines éditées à Séville de 1504 à 1537”, in Qui écrit? Figures de l’auteur et des coélaborateurs du texte, ed. by Martine Furno (Lyon: ENS Éditions / Institut d’Histoire du Livre, 2009), pp. 137-50. Patterson, Annabel, Pastoral and Ideology: Virgil to Valéry (Berkeley-Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1987). Pellechet, Marie Léontine Catherine, Catalogue general des incunables des bibliothèques de France (Paris: A. Picard et fils, 1897). Peña Díaz, Manuel, El laberinto de los libros: historia cultural de la Barcelona del Quinientos (Madrid: Fundación Germán Sánchez Ruipérez, 1997). Perosa, Alessandro, Un commento inedito all’ Ambra del Poliziano (Rome: Bulzoni, 1994). Petrarch, Petrarch’s “Bucolicum Carmen”, translated and annotated by Thomas G. Bergin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974). Pettas, William, A Sixteenth-Century Spanish Bookstore: The Inventory of Juan de Junta (Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1995). Pettegree, Andrew and Walsby, Malcolm, Books Published in France before 1601 in Latin and Languages other than French (Leiden: Brill, 2012). Pflug, Julius, s.v. in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 25 (1887), pp. 688–91. Piepho, Lee, Holofernes’ Mantuan: Italian Humanism in Early Modern England (New York-Oxford: Peter Lang, 2001), p. 21.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

207

—. “Mantuan revised: his Adulescentia in early sixteenth-century Germany”, in Canadian Review of Comparative Literature/Revue Canadienne de Littérature Comparée, 33 (2006), 61-74. Polanco Roig, Lluís, The “Liber elegantiarum” by Joan Esteve. A Catalan-Latin dictionary at the crossroads of fifteenth-century European culture (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012). Poliziano, Angelo, Angelo Poliziano: Commento inedito alle “Selve” di Stazio, ed. by Lucia Cesarini Martinelli (Florence: Sansoni, 1978). —. Angelo Poliziano: Commento inedito alle “Satire” di Persio, ed. by Lucia Cesarini Martinelli and Riccardo Ricciardi (Florence: Olschki, 1985). —. Lamia. Praelectio in Priora Aristotelis analytica, critical edition, introduction, and commentary by Ari Wesseling (Leiden: Brill, 1986). —. Les Silves, texte traduit et commenté par Perrine Galand-Hallyn (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1987). —. Silvae, a cura di Francesco Bausi (Florence: Olschki, 1996). —. Silvae, edited and translated by Charles Fantazzi (Cambridge, MALondon: Harvard University Press, 2004). —. Letters, books I-IV, edited and translated by Shane Butler (Cambridge, MA-London, Harvard University Press, 2006). —. Lamia, edited and translated by Christopher Celenza (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Porqueras Mayo, Alberto, La teoría poética en el Renacimiento y Manierismo españoles (Barcelona: Puvill, 1986). Prantl, Carl, Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Ingolstadt, Landhut, München (Munich: Christian Kaiser, 1872). Quaquarelli, Leonardo, “Felice Feliciano, letterato nel suo epistolario”, Lettere italiane, 46 (1994), 109-22. Querol Coll, Enric, Estudis sobre cultura literària a Tortosa a l’edat moderna (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2006). Ramajo Caño, Antonio, “El carácter proemial de la Oda primera de fray Luis (y un excurso sobre la Priamel en la poesía de los Siglos de Oro)”, Romanische Forschungen, 106 (1994), 84-117. Rau, Reinhold, “Die Tübinger Jahre des Humanisten Johannes Alexander Brassicanus”, Zeitschrift für Württembergische Landesgeschichte, 19 (1960), 89-127. Rautenberg, Ursula, “Die Entstehung und Entwicklung des Buchtitelblatts in der Inkunabelzeit in Deutschland, den Niederlanden und Venedig. Quantitative und qualitative Studien”, Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens, 62 (2008), 1-105.

208

Bibliography

Ravasini, Ines, «Nauticas Venatorias Maravillas». Percorsi piscatori nella letteratura spagnola del Siglo de Oro (Pavia: Ibis, 2011). Regoliosi, Mariangela, “Francesco Filelfo e l’Europa”, Studi Umanistici Piceni, 29 (2009), 15-24. Renouard, Philippe, Bibliographie des impressions et des oeuvres de Josse Badius Ascenius, imprimeur et humaniste, 3 vols. (Paris: E. Paul et fils et Guillemin, 1908). —. Imprimeurs et libraires parisiens du XVIe siècle (Paris: Service des travaux historiques de la Ville de Paris, 1964-). Rhodes, Dennis E., “An unrecognized Spanish edition of Poliziano’s Silvae”, British Library Journal, 15 (1989), 208-11. Rice, Eugene F. jr., “The Patrons of French Humanism”, in Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hans Baron, ed. by Anthony Molho and John Tedeschi (Florence: Sansoni, 1971), pp. 689-702. —. The prefatory epistles of Jacques Lefèvre d’Etaples and related texts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972). Rice Henderson, Judith, “Erasmian Ciceronians: Reformation Teachers of Letter-Writing”, Rhetorica, Volume X, n. 3 (Summer 1992), 273-302. —. “Valla’s Elegantiae and the Humanist Attack on the Ars dictaminis”, Rhetorica, Volume XIX, n. 2 (Spring 2001), 249-68. Rico, Francisco, “Cuatro palabras sobre Petrarca en España (siglos 15 y 16)”, in Convegno internazionale Francesco Petrarca (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1976), pp. 49-58. —. Nebrija frente a los bárbaros: el canon de gramáticos nefastos en las polémicas del humanismo (Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca, 1978). —. Primera cuarentena y tratado general de literatura (Barcelona: Quaderns Crema, 1982). —. “Luci e ombre del Poliziano intorno al 1525”, in Agnolo Poliziano poeta scrittore filologo (Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studi, Montepulciano, 3-6 novembre 1994), ed. by Vincenzo Fera and Mario Martelli (Florence: Le lettere, 1998), pp. 389-402. —. El sueño del humanismo: de Petrarca a Erasmo (Barcelona: Destino, 2003). Riquer, Martí de, L’Humanisme català: 1388-1494 (Barcelona: Barcino, 1934). Rolfes, Susanne, Die lateinische Poetik des Marco Girolamo Vida und ihre Rezeption bei Julius Caesar Scaliger (Munich-Leipzig: Saur, 2001). Rossi, Valerio Stefano, “Benvenuto lettore del Bucolicum Carmen del Petrarca”, in Benvenuto da Imola lettore degli antichi e dei moderni.

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

209

Atti del convegno internazionale (Imola, 26 e 27 maggio 1989), ed by Pantaleo Palmieri and Carlo Paolazzi (Ravenna: Longo, 1991), pp. 285-98. Rubió i Balaguer, Jordi, “Humanisme i Renaixement”, in VIII Congrés d’Història de la Corona d’Aragó (Valencia: Universitat de València, 1973), II-3, pp. 9-36. —. “Els autors clàssics a la biblioteca de Pere Miquel Carbonell, fins a l’any 1484”, in Sobre biblioteques i biblioteconomia (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 1995), pp. 37-57. Ruiz Calonja, Joan, “Valor literario de los preámbulos de la cancillería real catalano-aragonesa en el siglo XV”, Boletín de la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona, XXVI (1954-1956), 205-34. Rundle, David, “Humanism across Europe: The Structures of Contacts”, in Humanism in Fifteenth-Century Europe, ed. by David Rundle (Oxford: The Society for the Study of Medieval Languages and Literature, 2012), pp. 307-35. Rupprich, Hans, Geschichte der deutschen Literatur von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart: Die deutsche Literatur vom späten Mittelalter bis zum Barock; Das ausgehende Mittelalter, Humanismus und Renaissance (1370-1520) (Munich: Beck, 1994). Scaglione, Aldo, “The Humanist as Scholar and Politian’s Conception of the Grammaticus”, Studies in the Renaissance, 8 (1961), 49-70. Scherbaum, Anna, Albrecht Dürers Marienleben: Form, Gehalt, Funktion und sozialhistorischer Ort (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004). Schmidt, Charles, Histoire littéraire de l’Alsace à la fin du XVe et au commencement du XVIe siècle (Paris: Sandoz et Fischbacher, 1879). Schmitt, Charles. “Aristotle’s Ethics in the sixteenth century: some preliminary considerations”, in Ethik im Humanismus, ed. by Walter Rüegg and Dieter Wuttke (Boppard: Boldt, 1979), pp. 87-112. Scrivano, Riccardo, “Libri ed autori italiani a Lione nel XVI secolo”, in Il Rinascimento a Lione, ed. by Antonia Possenti and Giulia Mastrangelo, 2 vols. (Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo, 1988), II, pp. 92536. Shaaber, Matthias Adam, Sixteenth-century Imprints in the Libraries of the University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press, 1976). Shaw, David, “An Unrecorded STC Item: Johannes de Garlandia’s Multorum vocabulorum equivocorum interpretatio, Paris, 1502”, The Library, Seventh Series, 5, 4 (December 2004), 359-69. Signes Codoñer, Juan; Codoñer, Carmen; and Domingo, Arantxa, Biblioteca y epistolario de Hernán Núñez de Guzmán (El Pinciano):

210

Bibliography

Una aproximación al humanismo español del siglo XVI (Madrid: CSIC, 2001). Simader, Friedrich, “Materialen zur Bibliothek des Wiener Bischofs Johannes Fabri”, in Iohannes Cuspinianus, 1473-1529: Ein Wiener Humanist und sein Werk im Kontext, ed. by Christian Gastgeber and Elisabeth Klecker (Vienna: Praesens Verlag, 2012), pp. 267-85. Simone, Franco, “La fortuna del Petrarca in Francia nella prima metà del Cinquecento”, in Il Rinascimento francese: Studi e ricerche (Turin: Società editrice internazionale, 1961), pp. 141-222. Soberanas, Amadeu J., “Las Introductiones latinae de Nebrija en Cataluña”, in Nebrija en Cataluña. Exposición conmemorativa en el quinto centenario de las Introductiones latinae (Barcelona: Biblioteca de Catalunya, 1991), pp. 21-41. Sosa, Francisco de, Endecálogo contra “Antoniana Margarita”, ed. by Pedro Manuel Cátedra (Barcelona: Edicions Delstre’s, 1994). Sottili, Agostino, Giacomo Publicio, “Hispanus”, e la diffusione dell’Umanesimo in Germania (Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 1985). —. “Il Petrarca e l'umanesimo tedesco”, Quaderni petrarcheschi, IX-X (1992-1993), 239-91. —. Humanismus und Universitätsbesuch: die Wirkung italienischer Universitäten auf die studia humanitatis nördlich der Alpen = Renaissance Humanism and University Studies: Italian Universities and their Influence on the studia humanitatis in Northern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Sparrow, John, “Renaissance Latin Poetry: some sixteenth-century Italian anthologies”, in Cultural Aspects of the Italian Renaissance. Essays in Honour of Paul Oscar Kristeller, ed. by Cecil H. Clough (ManchesterNew York: Manchester University Press, 1976), pp. 386-405. The Cathedral Libraries Catalogue: Books printed on the Continent of Europe before 1701 in the libraries of the Cathedrals of England and Wales, 2 vols., ed. by David J. Shaw (London: The British Library, 1998). Taylor, Barry, “Michael Verinus and the Distichs of Cato in Spain: a comparative study in reception”, in Latin and Vernacular in Renaissance Spain, ed. by Barry Taylor and Alejandro Coroleu (Manchester: Manchester Spanish and Portuguese Studies, 1999), pp. 73-82. Thompson, Colin, The poet and the mystic: a study of the “Cántico Espiritual” of San Juan de la Cruz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977).

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe

211

Toepfer, Regina, “Humanistische Lektüre an der Universität Leipzig. Zur Funktionalisierung von Basilius Magnus Ad Adolescentes in der Auseinandersetzung um die studia humanitatis”, in Der Humanismus an der Universität Leipzig, ed. by Enno Bünz and Franz Fuchs (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2009), pp. 105-24. Toldrà, Maria, “El testament de Pere Miquel Carbonell”, in El (re)descobriment de l’edat moderna: Estudis en homenatge a Eulàlia Duran, ed. by Eulàlia Miralles and Josep Solervicens (Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 2007), pp. 9-31. Tournoy, Gilbert, “Gli umanisti italiani nell’Università di Lovanio nel Quattrocento”, in Rapporti e scambi tra Umanesimo italiano ed Umanesimo europeo: “L’Europa é uno stato d’animo”, ed. by Luisa Rotondi Secchi Tarugi (Milan: Nuovi Orizzonti, 2001), pp 39-50. Tournoy-Thoen, Godelieve, Publi Fausti Andrelini Amores sive, Livia, met een bio-bibliografie van de auteur (Brussels: Paleis der Academiën, 1982). Truman, Ronald W., “Lazarillo de Tormes, Petrarch’s De remediis adversae fortunae, and Erasmus’s Praise of Folly”, Bulletin of Hispanic Studies, LII (1975), 33-53. Van der Meersch, Polydore Charles, Recherches sur la vie et les travaux des imprimeurs belges et neérlandais établis à l’etranger (Ghent-Paris: L. Hebbelynck, 1856). Van Engen, John, Sisters and Brothers of the Common Life: The Devotio Moderna and the World of the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008). Vecce, Carlo, Iacopo Sannazaro in Francia: scoperte di codici all'inizio del XVI secolo (Padua: Antenore, 1988). Veneziani, Paolo, “Platone Benedetti e la prima edizione degli Opera del Poliziano”, Gutenberg Jahrbuch, 63 (1988), 95-107. Verfasserlexikon, Deutscher Humanismus 1480-1520, ed. by Franz Josef Worstbrock (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005). Vida, Marco Girolamo, The “De arte poetica” of Marco Girolamo Vida, translated with commentary, and with the text of c.1517, ed. by Ralph G. Williams (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976). Vietz, Peter, s.v. in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 39 (1895), p. 736. Vilallonga, Mariàngela, Dos opuscles de Pere Miquel Carbonell (Barcelona: Asociación de Bibliófilos de Barcelona, 1988). —. “Humanistas italianos en los manuscritos de Pere Miquel Carbonell”, in Humanismo y pervivencia del mundo clásico: Actas del II Simposio sobre humanismo y pervivencia del mundo clásico, ed. by José María

212

Bibliography

Maestre Maestre, Joaquín Pascual Barea and Luis Charlo Brea, 3 vols. (Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz, 1997), III, pp. 1217-24. —. La literatura llatina a Catalunya al segle XV: Repertori biobibliogràfic (Barcelona: Curial, 1993). Villar, Milagros, Códices petrarquescos en España (Padua: Antenore, 1995). Vives, Juan Luis, De tradendis disciplinis, translated by Foster Watson (Cambridge: University Press, 1913). —. De conscribendis epistolis, ed. by Charles Fantazzi (Leiden: Brill, 1989). —. Early Writings, 2, ed. by Jozef IJsewijn and Angela Fritsen with Charles Fantazzi (Leiden: Brill, 1991). Vogt-Spira, Gregor, “Die Poetik des M.H. Vida und ihre Rezeption in konfessioneller Perspektive”, in Die europäische Gelehrtenrepublik im Zeitalter des Konfessionalismus (The European Republic of Letters in the Age of Confessionalism), ed. by Herbert Jaumann (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2001), pp. 203-17. Wadsworth, James B., “Filippo Beroaldo the Elder and the early Renaissance in Lyons”, Medievalia et Humanistica, XI (1957), 78-89. Wallace, Andrew, Virgil’s Schoolboys: The Poetics of Pedagogy in Renaissance England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Warner, J. Christopher, “Quick Eloquence in the Late Renaissance: Agostino Dati’s Elegantiolae”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, LXI (2012), 65-240. Watanabe, Morimichi, “Martin Luther’s relations with Italian humanists: with special reference to Ioannes Baptista Mantuanus”, Lutherjahrbuch, 54 (1987), 23-47. Whinnom, Keith, “The Historia de Duobus Amantibus of Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II) and the development of Spanish GoldenAge fiction”, in Essays on narrative fiction in the Iberian Peninsula in honour of Frank Pierce, ed. by Robert Brian Tate (Oxford: Dolphin, 1982), pp. 234-55. White, Paul, “Foolish pleasures: the Stultiferae naves of Jodocus Badius Ascensius and the poetry of Filippo Beroaldo the Elder”, Humanistica Lovaniensia, LX (2011), 65-83. —. Jodocus Badius Ascensius: Commentary, Commerce and Print in the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Widman, Hans, Tübingen als Verlagsstadt (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1971). Zappala, Michael Oscar, Lucian of Samosata in the Two Hesperias: an Essay in Literary and Cultural Translations (Potomac, MD: Scripta Humanistica, 1990).

INDEX Except for Lazarillo de Tormes and Jakob Burckhardt, literary works and characters, and authors of secondary bibliography have not been included. Placenames related to places of publication and to modern libraries have also been excluded. Aachen 78 Aeneas 108 Aesop 83 Agricola, Rudolph 83, 87 Agrigentum 56 Aggripinensis, Henricus 165 n. 221 Alberti, Leon Battista 118-23, 181 n. 369, 189 n. 442 Albertus Magnus 66 Albinus 190 n. 449 Alcalá de Henares 12, 48, 61, 101-7, 113, 126, 138-41 Alcañiz 94 Alciato, Andrea 55, 184 n. 401 Alemán, Mateo 119 Alexander of Aphrodisias 2, 14, 50 Alexandre, Ladislas and Clément 69 Alexandria 25, 35 Alfonso, illegitimate son of Ferdinand of Aragon, later bishop of Zaragoza 59 Almazán, Agustín de 118, 119, 121 Alost 78 Alphonse V of Aragon, the Magnanimous 94, 95, 96 Alps 26, 37, 79, 88 Alsace 72 Álvarez de Castro, Gabriel 122-3 Ambrose, St 98 Amerbach, Bonifacius 62, 73 Amerbach, Johannes 11, 33, 78-9 Amiguet, Jeroni 92 Amorós, Carles 93, 95, 139-40 Andrelini, Publio Fausto 14-6, 21-2, 41, 60, 63, 69-75, 80, 94, 136, 164 n. 206

Anjou 69 Anshelm, Thomas 12, 81, 83 Antimachus 163 n. 197 Antiquario, Jacobo 76, 170 n. 269 Antwerp 2, 12, 22, 68, 72, 74, 75, 118, 126, 140 Anyés, Joan Baptista 113 Apollo 114 Apuleius 118, 146 n. 33 Aragon, Crown of 6, 7, 8, 90-100 Arator 102, 163 n. 202 Aristotle 2, 43, 49, 63, 75, 79, 81, 825, 98, 116, 157 n. 144 Aristotle, Ps. 53 Arras 77 Arsaces 128 Athanasius 169, n. 257 Attendorn 21 Atterbury, Francis 48 Augsburg 126, 155 n. 198 Augustine, St 15, 98 Augustus 30, 31, 128 Aulus Gellius 190 n. 449 Ausonius 16, 78 Aventine 155 n. 131 Avignon 37, 39 Avunculus, Dionysius 72 Bade, Josse 1, 15, 21, 23, 24, 26-35, 38-46, 49, 60-1, 69, 76-9, 84, 97, 104 Baena, Lope de 104 Barbaro, Ermolao 1, 73-8 Barbaro, Ermolao (the Elder) 21 Barbier, Jean 50 Barbosa, Arias 59, 163 n. 202

214

Index

Barcelona 25, 90-101, 115, 138-41 Barlandus, Hadrianus 76, 83 Barzizza, Gasparino 71, 91, 92, 96 Basil, St 73, 87, 98 Basle 1, 2, 12, 14, 22, 33, 37-8, 48-9, 63, 67, 73, 78-9, 80-2, 91, 112, 126 Bathavus, Johannes 13 Bauczenus, Hieronymus Adamus 159 n. 161 Benedetti, Francesco (Platone) de’ 25, 47, 53 Bérauld, Nicolas 14, 24, 48, 49-53, 57, 67-8, 112 Bergamo 48 Beroaldo, Filippo 11, 13, 14, 41, 74, 78-82, 102, 146 n. 33 Bertocchi, Vincenzo 25 Bietigheim 149 n. 64 Bittis 40 Blandina 120 Boccaccio, Giovanni 42 Bocard, André 26, 38, 133 Boethius 84, 85 Bohemia 168 n. 251 Bologna 14, 25, 38, 39, 53, 126 Bonardi, Giovanni 87-8 Bonifacio, Juan 114 Bonnemère, Antoine 164 n. 206 Bornemann, Lorenz 13 Botel, Henricus 138 Boucher, Louis 136, 190 n. 448 Brant, Sebastian 34, 85 Brassicanus, Johannes Alexander 82, 162 n. 193, 163 n. 197, 174 n. 296 Brassicanus, Johannes Ludovicus 24, 54-7 Bratislava 82 Breda, Jacobus de 26 Brescia 126 Brocar, Arnao Guillén de 102, 105, 140-2 Bruges 78 Bruni, Leonardo 6, 12, 71, 81, 84-7, 95, 98-9, 143 n. 14 Budé, Guillaume 14, 55

Burckhardt, Jakob 4 Bureau, Laurent 28, 79, 130 Burgos 101, 118, 140-2 Burgos, Juan de 101, 142 Busiris 128 Bynneman, Henry 26 Cabrit, Miquel 95 Caelian Hill 155 n. 131 Caen 85 Caesar, Julius 28, 31 Caesarius, Joannes 156 n. 139 Caesarius, Nicolaus 81 Cahors 49 Caieta 108 Calabria, Duke of 95, 113 Calderini, Domizio 36-51, 56-7 Calenzio, Elio 18, 20 Calpurnius Piso 31 Calpurnius Siculus 38, 40, 83, 163 n. 198 Calvarin, Prigent 160 n. 171 Campano, Giovanni 21, 76, 97 Capitoline 155 n. 131 Carbonell, Pere Miquel 91-9 Carbonell, Pere Miquel (grandson) 99 Cartagena, Alfonso de 6 Carvallo, Luis Alfonso de, 111, 117 Castile, Crown of 7-8, 101-11 Catalonia 94 Catherine, St 25, 34 Cato 190 n. 449 Charles V 78 Chaudière, Regnauld 160 n. 171 Chelidonius, Benedictus 25 Christ 28 Chrysoloras, Manuel 105 Cicero 40, 69-71, 73, 75-7, 79, 87, 97, 99, 105, 146 n. 33, 173 n. 294 Cisneros, Francisco Jiménez de 101, 105 Claudian 16 Claudius Mamertinus 78 Clermont 60 Coci, Jorge 94, 96, 139-40

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe Codrus, Antonius 108 Cofman, Cristòfol 138 Collenuccio, Pandolfo 78 Colmar 33 Cologne 12, 13, 38, 41, 42, 59, 61, 712, 81, 125, 126, 166 n. 229 Columella 52, 66, 136 Corinna 108 Cornelius, Federicus 79 Cortesi, Paolo 75 Cox, Leonard 76 Cratander, Andreas 14, 80 Crecrops 33, 128 Cremona 38, 68, 85 Crinito, Pietro 55 Cromberger, Jacobo 139, 140, 141 Crosner, Alexius 86-7 Cubitensis, Johannes Honorius 71 Cuspinian, Felix 83 Cuspinian, Johann 83 Cyprian, St 16 D’Aumont, Pierre 16 Dante Alighieri 42 Daroca, Ramiro de 102 Dati, Agostino 71, 92, 97, 99, 138 Despauterius, Joannes 74 Deventer 12-3, 24, 26, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46-7, 61, 64-6, 69, 126 Diogenes Laertius 56 Donatus 51, 92 Doris 37 Dorpius, Martinus 83 Dringenberg, Ludwig 33 Du Bois, François 77-8 Dupuy, Nicolas 86 Dürer, Albrecht 25 Edinburgh 77 Eguía, Miguel de 138, 139, 140 Egypt 33, 35 Elizabeth, cousin of Mary 36 Empedocles 43, 56 England 5, 61, 121, 142 n. 7 Epictetus 2, 14, 82

215

Episcopius, Nicolaus 1, 14, 112, 142 n. 1, 186 n. 411 Erasmus 1, 5, 13, 15, 21, 38, 71, 74-8, 80, 83-4, 95, 101, 115 Erfurt 59, 69, 71, 88, 166 n. 229 Eridanus 122 Esquiline 155 n. 131 Esteve, Joan 92 Estienne, Henri 19-20 Estienne, Robert 19, 68, 167 n. 233 Etna 43 Euripides 184 n. 397 Europe passim Evesham 61 Extremadura 109 Fabri, Johannes 173 n. 295 Faber, Ulrich 83, 174 n. 298 Facio, Bartolomeo 96, 180 n. 358 Fadrique de Basilea (Friedrich Biel) 138-40 Ferdinand I 83 Ferdinand of Aragon, Duke of 59 Fernández de Madrid, Francisco 95 Ferrer, Joan Ramon 91 Fieschi, Stefano 92, 101, 138 Fiesole 53, 54 Filelfo, Francesco passim Filelfo, Xenphon 17 Filologo, Benedetto 38 Flavius Josephus 35 Florence 12, 81, 47, 48, 53, 55, 101, 126, 143 n. 14 Fontanus 44 Forli 14 Fracastoro, Girolamo 38 France 5, 14, 24, 48, 50, 63, 79, 86, 112 Francis I 24 Frankfurt 48 Frauensteiner, Simon 72 Frederick III 78 Friuli 60 Froben, Johannes 14, 22, 78 Frontinus 173 n. 290

216 Gaguin, Robert 15, 39 Galatea 64 Gallinarius, Johannes 26, 34, 69 Gaudoul, Pierre 160 n. 171 Ganay, Germain de 49, 51 Gebwiler, Hieronymus 62, 72-3, 84 Gellius, Aulus 190 n. 449 Gemingen, Georg von 34 Geneva 126 Geraldini, Alessandro 97 Geraldini, Antonio 59, 60, 69, 113, 139 Germanicus 45 Germany 67, 81, 121 Ghent 39, 70 Giles, Peter 74-5 Giraldi, Lilio 3 Girón, Diego 112 Goetzonis, Johann 11 Gómez de Ciudad Real, Alvar 113-4 Góngora, Luis de 113, 117 Gonsales, Joan Àngel 112 Goudanus, Guilielmus 83 Gracián, Baltasar 117 Garcilaso de la Vega 109 Gratia Dei, Antonius 171 n. 279 Gratius 163 n. 198 Gratius, Ortwin (i.e. Grätz, Hardwin von) 61-2 Greece 1, 123 Gresemund, Dietrich 21 Grial, Juan de 113 Grutere, Baudouin de 79 Grutere, Philippe de 79 Gryphe, Sébastien 1, 14 Guarino, Battista 86, 95, 180 n. 358 Guevara, Antonio de 120 Guzmán, Juan de 111 Habsburg 55 Hagenau 18, 126 Harlem 166 n. 229 Harst, Karl 1 Hatten, Maternus 22 Haudent, Guillaume 159 n. 163

Index Hegius, Alexander 41 Heidelberg 85 Hercules 35, 55 Hermopolis 35, 128 Hernández de Velasco, Gregorio 115, 140 Herod Agrippa 35 Herod Antipater 35 Herod the Great 35 Herrera, Alonso de 101 Hesiod 47, 67, 189 n. 442, 184 n. 401 Hessus, Eobanus 68, 88, 163 n. 197 Hojeda, Diego de 116 Homer 20, 47, 114, 173 n. 294, 184 n. 401 Horace 17, 62, 68, 103, 109, 113, 167 n. 241 Horlen, Josef 21 Hormoldt, Sebastian 18, 149 n. 64 Hurus, Johannes 138 Hutten, Ulrich von 18 Huylsberch, Joannes Aedicollius 42 Huylsberch, Servatius Aedicollius 24, 38, 39, 41-6 Iamblichus 82 Imola, Benvenuto Rambaldi da 38, 39, 42, 45 Ingolstadt 80 Isabella, Princess of Castile 59 Isabella, Queen of Castile 59 Isocrates 87 Italy 5-6, 10-1, 25, 37, 47, 70, 85, 90-2, 108, 111, 123 Ivarra, Martín de 94, 140 Janus 28, 30 Jerome, St 46, 70, 98 John II of Aragon 94, 95, 97 John, Prince of Aragon 95 Josa, Jozentius 60 Joseph 33, 35, 128 Joseph, Robert 61 Juan de la Cruz, San 114-5 Judea 35

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe Julies-Cleves, Prince William of 1 Jupiter 120 Juvencus 15, 41, 113 Karoch, Samuel 71 Kees, Thomas 49 Kierher, Johannes 88 Knobloch, Johann 73 Kos 40 La Barre, Nicolas de 160 n. 171 Lactantius 15 Ladislaus, King of Bohemia 72 Laliseau, Raoul 15, 48, 60, 136 Landino, Cristoforo 88 Lange, Johannes 67, 69 Las Brozas 109 Lauxius, David 77 Lazarillo de Tormes 119, 189 n. 439 Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques 15-6, 63, 73, 85 Legnago 87 Leiden 126 Leipzig 12, 25, 48, 59, 67, 69, 71-2, 80, 86-90, 126 León, Fray Luis de 113 Leuven 72, 74-6, 83, 84, 166 n. 229 Lily 83 Lima 116 Linus 114 Lleida 92, 138 Logau, Georg von 55, 163 n. 198 Loket 168 n. 251 London 26, 48, 126 Longueil, Christophe de 50 López de Cortegana, Diego 118 López de Úbeda, Francisco 120 López Pinciano, Alfonso 116-7 Lorenzo, Niccolò di 47 Low Countries 5, 13, 41, 48, 67, 74 Lucian 117, 189 n. 442 Lucretius 46 Luctatius 31 Luke, St 30, 36

217

Lupinus 67 Luschner, Johann 94, 139 Lyon 2, 12, 14, 27, 40-1, 60, 77, 85, 96, 126 Macé, Richard 85 Macrobius 173 n. 294 Madrid 116, 119, 120 Mainz 21 Mal Lara, Juan de 112 Malipiero, Giovanni 87 Manetti, Giannozzo 82 Mantua 25 Mantuanus, Baptista passim Manutius, Aldus 1, 15 Marchand, Guide 15 Mariner, Vicente 48 Mars 28 Marsi, Pietro 36 Martens, Dirk 22, 74, 75, 78, 83-4 Martín Cordero, Juan 116, 140 Martín de Braga 85 Martyr, Peter 95, 105 Marullus 63 Mary Magdalene 97 Mary, Blessed Virgin 25, 31, 32, 34, 36, 97 Matthew, St 33 Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary 53, 54 Maximilian 78 Mayans Siscar, Gregorio 184 n. 399 Medici, Catherine of 142 n. 6 Medici, Lorenzo de’ 55, 76, 170 Medina del Campo 114, 118 Melanchthon, Philipp 81 Memphis 35, 128 Mena, Juan de 109 Menander 184 n. 397 Metge, Bernat 7-8 Milan 84, 86, 95 Minerva 157 n. 140 Miquel, Pere 93 Miscomini, Antonio 47, 53, 103 Moglio, Pietro da 39

218

Index

Momus 117, 118, 120, 121, 189 n. 442 Montanus 44 Montserrat 94 More, Thomas 13 Morel, Thierry 78 Mortière, Jacques de 25 Moschus 45 Muling, Johann Adelphus 21 Munich 80 Murmellius, Johannes 13, 26-7, 42, 44, 46, 49, 64-7, 69 Muros, Diego de 93, 94 Murranus 128 Murrho, Sebastian 24, 27, 33-7, 153 n. 108 Murrho, Sebastian the Younger 74 Musaeus 104 Müller, Tilmann 21 Münster 12, 13, 21, 48, 64, 66, 71, 84 Myron 128 Nebrija, Antonio de 7, 93-4, 101, 1046, 109, 113, 138, 140, 141 Negro, Francesco 17, 71, 91, 101 Nemesianus 38, 82, 163 n. 198 Nile 33, 128 Noydens, Benito Remigio 120-1 Numa Pompilius 31 Núñez de Guzmán, Hernán 107, 109, 112 Núñez Delgado, Pedro 102 Nuremberg 18, 24, 48, 54, 68, 126, 171 n. 279 Oporinus, Johannes 38 Ordóñez, Alfonso 95 Orpheus 104, 114 Ovid 15, 17, 31, 33, 44, 45, 46, 55, 56, 62, 66, 87, 99, 103, 111, 184 n. 401 Ovid, Ps. 17, 148 n. 62 Paffraet, Albert 41, 44 Paffraet, Richard 12, 38 Palatine 155 n. 131 Pallavicino Gentile, Antoniotto 53, 103

Palmar, Lambert 138 Pan 66 Panngarter, Johann 54 Panyasis 163 n. 197 Papiense, Simona 38 Paris 2, 12, 14, 15, 20, 24, 26, 27, 379, 41, 48, 49, 53, 60, 63, 67, 68, 72, 76-9, 84, 85, 86, 91-2, 126, 136 Pau, Jeroni 97 Pausanias 189 n. 442 Peiró, Joan 91 Pentzelt, Thomas 72, 80 Pérez de Guzmán, Fernán 140 Peringius, Joannes 84 Perotti, Niccolò 91-2 Persius 105, 109 Perugia 39 Petit, Jean 15, 151 n. 93, 164 n. 206 Petrarca, Gherardo 39, 42 Petrarch, Francesco passim Petreio, Pietro 49 Petrus, Henricus 14 Pflug, Julius 87 Pforzheim 59 Pharian Sea 128 Pharos 128 Phidias 128 Philip the Handsome 78 Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius 72, 76, 117 Pico della Mirandola Giovanni Francesco 63 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni 1, 14, 70, 72-6, 101, 102, 113, 114 Piendibeni da Montepulciano, Francesco 39 Pimentel, Enrique 184 n. 401 Plato 43, 56, 81, 157 n. 144 Pliny, the Elder 50, 52, 53, 67, 107, 184 n. 401 Pliny, the Younger 13, 73, 75, 76 Plutarch 78, 79, 95, 173 n. 294 Poliziano, Angelo passim Pompilio, Paolo 98 Pomponius Secundus 45

Printing and Reading Italian Latin Humanism in Renaissance Europe Pontano, Giovanni 16, 94 Pope, Alexander 48 Porras, Juan de 59 Pratimontanus, Johannes 88 Praxiteles 128 Proba 15, 93 Proflua 122 Prosper of Aquitaine 15 Prudentius 15, 97-8, 105, 113, 167 n. 241 Prüß, Johann 26, 73 Ptolemy 128 Publicio, Giacomo 72, 97 Quintilian 55, 163 n. 197 Quirinal 155, n. 131 Rabelais, François 14, 20 Raeymolen, Jacques 39, 133 Rapin, René 159, n. 164 Reading 76 Rennes 85 Rhegius, Urbanus 80 Rhenanus, Beatus 22, 63, 69, 72, 73, 150 n. 75 Richard, Jean 15 Robert, King of Naples 43 Rodríguez de Pisa, Juan 102 Roermond, Paul of 26 Rome 1, 14, 31, 37, 46, 58, 59, 67, 68, 70, 78, 97, 123 Rosembach, Johann 138, 140 Rosinus, Johannes 54 Rouen 48, 85 Rúa, Pedro de 101 Sabellico, Marcantonio 71, 76, 81 Salamanca 7, 12, 22, 48, 59, 101, 105, 109, 110, 111-3, 126, 138-41, 163 n. 202, 181 n. 369 Sallust 99 Salutati, Coluccio 69 Salvian 82 Salviati, Jacopo 66 Salzburg 16

219

Salzburga, Johannes de 138 Salzedo, Atanasio de 61, 102 Sánchez de las Brozas, Francisco 22, 48, 109-13, 184 n. 402 and n. 403 Sannazaro, Jacopo 16, 25, 33, 115-7 Sapidus, Hans 63 Sappho 108 Sauermann, Georg 78 Scala, Bartolomeo 75 Schott, Johann 34 Schuman, Valentin 67 Schürer, Matthias 17, 22, 63, 72, 73, 74, 80, 83, 88 Sedulius 15, 41, 93, 94, 96, 105, 113 Sélestat 33, 62-3, 69, 72-4 Seneca 85, 95, 98, 105, 182 n. 382, 184 n. 397 Seneca, Ps 85, 98 Sepsius 45 Servius 45, 51, 104 Seville 25, 95, 101, 102, 114, 116, 117 Sicily 56 Sigmar, Sebastianus 82 Silber, Eucharius 97 Silius Italicus 182 n. 382 Silvanus 43 Silvius (Roman King) 33 Sobrarias, Juan 84, 113 Socrates 43, 157 n. 144 Soest 38 Soncino 92 Sophocles 40 Spain 5, 6, 7-8, 9, 12, 48, 59, 89, 90, 96, 101, 111-3, 116, 117, 118, 120 Spalatin, Georg 81 Speyer 22, 34, 88 Sphinx 42 Spindeler, Nicholas 138, 140 Squarzafico, Girolamo 45 Stackman, Heinrich 59 Statius 47 Strabo 35 Strasbourg 11, 12, 17, 18, 21-2, 24, 26, 34, 62, 63, 69, 72-3, 80, 83-5, 88, 126

220 Stuttgart 72 Suetonius 146 n. 33 Sulmona, Barbato de 43 Sulpizio, Giovanni 77, 93, 97 Syrtis 128 Tarragona 93, 94, 140, 178 n. 339 Telesio, Antonio 18 Terence 18, 99, 184 n. 397 Thanner, Jakob 67 Thebes 35, 128 Theocritus 40, 43, 56 Theodolus 39 Timon of Phlius 56 Tityrus 158 n. 152 Toledo 118 Tolentino 3 Torroella, Pere 95 Tortelli, Giovanni 96, 180 n. 358 Tortosa 91, 99 Toscano, Giovanni Matteo 39 Toulouse 27, 95 Toussain, Jacques 16, 77 Trechsel, Johann 79 Trithemius, Johannes 45 Tunnicius, Antonius 71 Turberville, George 26 Tübingen 12, 81, 82, 83 Ulpius, Johannes 67 Utrecht 48, 159 n. 164 Überlingen 72 Vadianus, Joachim 87-8 Valencia 90-2, 95, 99, 101, 112, 113 Valla, Lorenzo 4, 36, 51, 84, 91, 94, 101, 107 Valladolid 94, 95, 107 Vallupin, Henri 27, 40, 69, 129 Várez de Castro, Pedro 119 Varro 66 Vaurentinus, Andreas 27, 95 Velius, Caspar Ursinus 54 Venatorius, Thomas 54 Venegas, Alejo de 118

Index Venice 1, 37, 78, 82, 84, 92, 96 Venus 73, 103, 169 n. 256 Verardo, Carlo 141, 181 n. 369 Vergara, Juan 107 Vergerio, Pier Paolo 87-8, 95, 98, 99 Verina 122 Verinus, Michael 93, 94, 96, 101, 113 Verona 87 Vida, Marco Girolamo 18-20, 38, 678, 115-7 Vienna 12, 54, 55, 57, 59, 71, 82, 87, 174 n. 296 Vilar, Joan 99 Villedieu, Alexander of 61-2, 85, 92-3 Viminal 155 n. 131 Vincentius, Petrus 68 Virgil 30, 31, 33, 38, 40, 43, 44, 47, 58, 59, 60, 61, 64, 66, 67, 69, 87, 88, 93, 99, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 177 n. 326, 184 n. 401 Vitruvius 173 n. 290 Vives, Juan Luis 14, 49, 50, 58, 69, 75, 86 Volsco, Antonio 36 Vulcan 28 Wechel, Christian 166 n. 229 Westphalia 13, 48 Wimpfeling, Jacob 26-7, 33-4, 61-2, 69 Wittenberg 68, 70 Wolf, Nicolas 77 Württemberg 149 n. 64 Xenophon 52, 85 Yepes, Juan de (s. San Juan de la Cruz) Zagarus, Guilielmus 76 Zaragoza 59, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 101, 138, 139, 140 Zealand 76 Zierikzee 76 Zwolle 13, 25, 48