The Lyon Terence: Its Tradition and Legacy 9789004432406, 900443240X

Citation preview

The Lyon Terence

Drama and Theatre in Early Modern Europe Editor-​in-​Chief Jan Bloemendal (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and Ruhr-​Universität Bochum) Editorial Board Peter G.F. Eversmann (University of Amsterdam) Jelle Koopmans (University of Amsterdam) Joachim Küpper (Freie Universität Berlin) Russell J. Leo (Princeton University)

volume 11

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

The Lyon Terence Its Tradition and Legacy By

Giulia Torello-​Hill and Andrew J. Turner

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: a depiction of a theatre and performance of Roman comedy from the Lyon Terence (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a4v). Courtesy of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Torello-Hill, Giulia, author. | Turner, Andrew J., author. Title: The Lyon Terence : its tradition and legacy / by Giulia Torello-Hill and Andrew J. Turner. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2020] | Series: Drama and theatre in early modern Europe, 2211-341X ; volume 11 | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: “The authors take an unprecedented interdisciplinary approach to map out the influence of Late-Antique and Medieval commentary and iconographic traditions over this seminal edition of the plays of Terence, published in Lyon in 1493. This book establishes the pivotal role that the Lyon Terence played in humanist understanding of Classical theatre practices that foreshadowed the establishment of early modern theatre in Italy and France.”– Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2020019151 (print) | LCCN 2020019152 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004362451 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004432406 (ebook ; acid-free paper) Subjects: LCSH: Terence. Works. | Terence–Criticism and interpretation–History– To 1500. | Badius, Josse, 1462-1535. | Terence–Appreciation–History. | Incunabula– France–Lyon. Classification: LCC PA6767 .T67 2020 (print) | LCC PA6767 (ebook) | DDC 872/.01–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020019151 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020019152

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill.” See and download: brill.com/​brill-​typeface. issn 2211-​3 41X isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​3 6245-​1 (hardback) isbn 978-​9 0-​0 4-​4 3240-​6 (e-​book) Copyright 2020 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-​free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

A Valentina e Sofia, il mio squarcio di luce anche nei giorni più bui. GTH and in memoriam Peter Brown, a true Terentian scholar and gracious host. AT

∵

Contents

Preface ix List of Figures xi Abbreviations xiii Note on Illustrations and the Use of Electronic Resources xiv

Introduction 1 1

The Lyon Terence and Its Initial Impact 10 1.1 Contents and mise-​en-​page 10 1.2 Publishing in Lyon 14 1.3 Composition, Printing, and Distribution 16

2 Terence’s Plays: Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print 24 2.1 Terence as an Educational Classic: Text and Commentary from Antiquity to Medieval and Renaissance Europe 24 2.2 The Development of Manuscript Illustrations of Terence 39 2.3 The Impact of New Learning and Technologies: Donatus and the Advent of Printing 51 3

The Editor of the Lyon Terence: Jodocus Badius Ascensius 67 3 .1 Badius 67 3 .2 Early Life and Literary Career to 1493 68 3 .2.1 Flanders and Brabant 68 3 .2.2 Italy 73 3 .2.3 Lyon 83 3 .3 Later Career to 1502 93

4 Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence 102 4 .1 The 1491 Edition and Donatus 102 4 .2 The Lyon Terence: The Commentary of Guy Jouenneaux and Badius’ Revisions 120 4 .2.1 The Commentary Edition of Guy Jouenneaux 120 4 .2.2 Badius’ Re-​edition of Guy 125 4 .3 The 1502 Terence and Its Sources 135 5 The Illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition 141 5.1 Badius’ Appropriation of the Carolingian Tradition 141

viii Contents

5.2 Gestures in Medieval and Early Modern Culture 144 5.3 Carolingian Gestures 146 5.4 Non-​Carolingian Gestures 149 5.4 .1 Manly Gestures 149 5.4 .2 Female Gestures 150 5.4 .3 Affective Gestures 152 5.5 Characterisation through Costuming 154 5.6 Gestures, Illustrations and Commentary Derivative of Donatus in the Lyon Terence 158 5.7 The Illustrator of the Lyon Terence 160 Appendix: A Catalogue of Gestures 164 6 The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence 172 6 .1 The Lyon Terence and Performance 172 6 .2 Stage Design: The Lyon Terence and the Representation of Theatre Buildings 173 6 .3 The Stage 177 6 .4 Stage Conventions 183 6 .4 .1 Entrances and Exits 183 6 .4 .2 Asides, Eavesdropping, and Off-​Stage Scenes 186 6 .5 Terence on Stage in Renaissance Italy and France 189 7 The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the Sixteenth Century 196 7 .1 Terence in Print in the Late Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century 196 7 .2 The Venetian Illustrated Editions of Terence of Lazzaro de’ Soardi 196 7 .3 The Italian Illustrated Editions of the Sixteenth Century 206 7 .4 The Influence of the Lyon Terence in Germany: The Illustrated Terence of Johann Grüninger and Its Tradition 211 7 .5 The French Tradition of Terence after 1493 216 7 .6 Conclusion 220 Conclusion 222

Bibliography 229 Index Locorum 254 Index of Manuscripts 256 Index of Subjects 258 Concordance of Images in the Lyon Terence 266 Illustrations 271

Preface We first conceived of this study in March 2016 when Giu­lia, then Hanna Kiel Fellow at Villa I Tatti The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, proposed a jointly written, comprehensive monograph on it; as is argued in the introduction, despite the significance of this incunabulum for European intellectual history, hardly anything substantial has so far appeared on it in modern scholarship. Nevertheless, our engagement with this seminal book goes back several years before this. In 2010 Andrew assisted in identifying a single leaf of the Lyon Terence possessed by the Christchurch Art Gallery Te Puna o Waiwhetu in New Zealand, and drafted an online catalogue description for it, and subsequently the Gallery kindly gave us permission to use an image of this leaf on the cover of our jointly edited collection of studies Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing (Brill, 2015), in which we and our contributors referred to this work at several junctures. Research for this present book was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme for a project (ARC DP150100974) entitled ‘Scripts without a stage:  Reception of Roman comedy in the early Italian Renaissance.’ Funding was awarded for the years 2015–​2016 to the authors and to our colleague James H.K.O. Chong-​Gossard of the University of Melbourne, and we gratefully acknowledge his participation in this project, in particular his research into Guy Jouenneaux, which set the ground for part of our investigation in our own book. The funding from the ARC was especially useful in that in 2016 it allowed Andrew to examine manuscripts of Donatus in the British Library, the Bodleian Library, and in various libraries in Italy, that formed the basis of parts of Chapters 2 and 4, and Giulia to perform a textual and iconographical analysis of key manuscripts and Early Modern printed editions at the Biblioteca Universitaria in Genoa, the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence, the British Library, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, and the Library of the École des Beaux-​Arts in Paris in 2017, and make an initial presentation on her findings to the Renaissance Society of America Conference in New Orleans in 2018. It also allowed us to employ two outstanding post-​ doctoral researchers at Melbourne, Sonya Wurster and Leanne McNamara, and our own work builds in many key places on their meticulous and painstaking collation of minutiae in this volume and its little-​known predecessor, a 1491 edition of Terence and Donatus edited by Badius. The support of Renaissance Society of America and Kress Foundation short-​ term fellowship (October-​November 2018) allowed Giulia to research the impressive collection of incunables and sixteenth-​century editions of Terence at

x Preface the Newberry Library in Chicago and to draft Chapter 7 of this book. Giulia wishes to thank Paul Gehl for his generosity and willingness to share his knowledge of the Newberry collection and provide invaluable advice, Lia Markey and Suzanne Karr-​Schmidt for their support and encouragement, as well as all Newberry Library staff and resident fellows. We would like to express our thanks to Brill and the series editors of Drama and Theatre in Early Modern Europe for agreeing in the first place to publish our work, and then for granting us a timely extension when we felt overwhelmed by new material; in this context, we also have to thank our dedicated editor, Ivo Romein. Particular mention must be made of the three anonymous readers appointed by Brill to assess our work, who were both highly encouraging and also contributed substantially to the final form and content of the book, bringing our attention to several key works we had missed. Our study has benefitted greatly from their critical insight. Any further mistakes are of course entirely our own. We have many people and institutions to thank for their assistance along the way. The libraries and administrative departments of our respective universities have very often helped enormously with the mechanics of this project. We also wish to thank the Biblioteca Universitaria in Genoa and its dedicated librarian Claudio Risso, and the Carmelite Library in Middle Park, Victoria, for giving Andrew access to its extensive collections. Other libraries which were extremely helpful besides the Newberry Library in Chicago, especially in providing us with suitable images at low or no cost, were the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in Munich, the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris, the Library of Congress in Washington DC, and the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library in Toronto. Scholars were generous with their time and freely gave us copies of their own work, and we have in particular to thank Carmela Cioffi and Louise Katz. Finally, we would like to thank Peter Bruun Hansen, Marc Carnier, Scot McKendrick, Bernard Muir, Monica Azzolini, Danila Parodi and David Pritchard, amongst many others, for generously assisting us over this long process with both practical help and erudition. Lastly, we thank our friends and families for providing both practical and emotional support. Giulia would like to thank in particular her husband Michael and her sisters-​in-​law Vikki and Trina for minding her children on numerous occasions during the writing of this book and her parents Franco and Cleta Torello for providing constant support even though from afar. She also thanks wholeheartedly her children Valentina and Sofia who for years have had to share their mum’s attention and time with her obscure interests. GTH AT

Figures 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 4.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

5.8

6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), a1r 271 Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), a4v 272 Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), a5r 273 Leiden University Libraries, ms. vlq 38, f. 1v 274 Paris, BnF, lat. 7907a, f. 2v 275 Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), a8r 276 Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, f. 6r 277 Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, f. 9r 278 Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, f. 23r 279 Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, f. 47r 280 Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), k3v 281 Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), s2v 282 Martial d’Auvergne, Les vigilles de la mort du feu roy Charles septiesme, Claude Dayne, Lyon c. 1500 (Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, inc. 454), f. 20r. 283 Martial d’Auvergne, Les vigilles de la mort du feu roy Charles septiesme, Claude Dayne, Lyon c. 1500 (Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, inc. 454), f. 33r. 284 Scoto, Venice 1545 (Chicago, Newberry Library, ZP 535.S42), f. 1r 285 Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), b5r 286 Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), N3r 287 de’ Soardi, Venice 1497 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 2 Inc. c.a. 3548), f. 166r 288 Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), e1v 289 de’ Soardi, Venice 1497 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 2 Inc. c.a. 3548), f. 42r 290 Tacuino, Venice 1522 (Toronto, Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, E-​10 02506), f. 34v 291

xii FIGURES 7.5 Paganino, Benaco 1526 (Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 535.P12), f. 1r 292 7.6 da Legnano, Milan 1521 (Chicago, Newberry Library, VAULT Wing Folio ZP 535. l515), f. 98r 293 7.7 de Roigny, Paris 1552 (Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.P925), f. 53r 294 7.8 Regnault, Paris 1550 (Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.R265), f. 18r 295 7.9 Regnault, Paris 1550 (Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.R265), f. 25v 296

Abbreviations asv ba bav bl bm bml bn

Archivio di Stato, Venezia Biblioteca Ambrosiana Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana British Library Bibliothèque municipale Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Bibliographie nationale, Académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-​arts de Belgique, Brussels, 1866–​1944 BnF Bibliothèque nationale de France bnp Brill’s New Pauly, ed. H. Cancik, H. Schneider, and M. Landfester; English translation ed. C.F. Salazar and F.G. Gentry, Leiden: Brill, 1998-​ Bod Bodleian Library bsb Bayerische Staatsbibliothek cb Commentum Brunsianum cm Commentum Monacense cnrs Centre national de la recherche scientifique dbe Deutsche biographische Enzyklopädie, München: K.G. Saur, 1995–​2000 dbf Dictionnaire de biographie française, Paris 1933-​ dbi Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, Rome 1960-​ dhge Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, Paris and Turnhout 1912-​ fb French Books iii & iv: Books published in France before 1601 in Latin and Languages other than French, ed. A.  Pettegree and M.  Walsby, 2 vols, Leiden: Brill 2012 gw Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke istc Incunabula Short Title Catalogue (British Library) old Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. P.G.W. Glare, Oxford 1982; 2nd edition 2012 önb Österreichische Nationalbibliothek plre The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, by A.H.M. Jones, J.R. ­Martindale, and J. Morris, Cambridge 1971–​1992 tll Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Leipzig, Stuttgart, München, 1894-​ ub Universiteitsbibliotheek ustc Universal Short Title Catalogue (‹https://​www.ustc.ac.uk/​›)

n

Note on Illustrations and the Use of Electronic Resources Our study of the Lyon Terence, its influence, and the literary environment in which it was created has benefitted massively from the revolution in digitisation which has occurred over the past fifteen or so years, and which has meant that researchers and readers alike can have almost immediate access anywhere in the world, using web browsers, to images of pages from relevant manuscripts, incunabula, and other early editions. This democratisation of resources, previously only available to a very select number of scholars from well-​funded institutions, has the potential to create a change in the nature of readership as profound as that brought about by the introduction of printing in the mid-​fifteenth century. However, as with the introduction of printing, these changes are brought about piecemeal, and the best features of these older resources are sometimes difficult to integrate into the new media.1 Several key organizations (and here we name in particular the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, and the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana) have recently made substantial parts of their collections freely accessible online, and access to many highly relevant digitised books from other collections can easily be gained through two key databases, the Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke (hosted by the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin), and the International Short Title Catalogue (hosted by the British Library). Unfortunately, at the time of writing, a few other key works to which we refer (for example, Badius’ 1491 edition of Terence), only held by smaller libraries without the massive resources required for complete digitisation, cannot be found on-​line, although we hope that it will simply be a matter of time before this happens. Notwithstanding this unevenness, these developments have enabled us as authors to be much more judicious with regard to the selection of illustrations for this study. The way in which larger libraries have made their collections available has meant that it is no longer necessary to include images of some key manuscripts, such as the magnificent early fifteenth-​century illustrated Terence which belonged to the Duc de Berry (Paris, BnF, lat. 7907A), unless we have judged that a particular benefit is to be gained from having these images

1 Cf. our discussion in Chapter 1.3 below of the technical problems posed by integrating marginal commentary and illustrations into the first incunabula.

newgenprepdf

Note on Illustrations and the Use of Electronic Resources

xv

side-​by-​side with those of the Lyon Terence. Even the Lyon Terence itself can now be studied in full through a number of separate copies,2 and so we have been sparing in our selection of images from that work. Details of appropriate links at the time of writing can be found in the Index of Manuscripts and the Bibliography (under Incunabula and other early editions cited) at the conclusion of this volume, although many readers will naturally be much more adept at finding the appropriate links for themselves. The change in accessibility to images also has ramifications for the referencing system we use. The proper means of referencing the Lyon Terence is by its quire signatures, which are usually only printed at the bottom right-​hand corner of the first four recto pages in a gathering of sixteen pages. Because, however, most readers now accessing this book will do so by means of digital copies, we have given a concordance at the end of this volume of the signatures of pages containing images with the pages in the copy of the bsb. The online copy in the Biblioteca de Catalunya uses another useful system, where the page numbers are expressed in terms of foliation; as this copy is defective, however, we have given preference to the Munich copy. Instead of reproducing what is generally available in another medium, in our illustrations we have tried to focus on reproducing images from poorly known editions demonstrating the reception of the Lyon Terence. The Newberry Library in Chicago has been a particularly useful resource in this regard, since it holds one of the most important collections of printed editions of Terence from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, including some important editions which have never been published. 2 At the time of writing we are aware of at least five copies of the Lyon Terence from different collections available on-​line: Barcelona, Biblioteca de Catalunya (Inc. 99–​8o), Lyon, BM (Rés Inc 889), München, bsb (4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), Paris, BnF (Rés Impr. Yc384), and Tarragona, Biblioteca Pública del Estado (I/​4). Images of individual pages are also available on-​line for the copy held by Washington DC, Folger Shakespeare Library (inc T76). While these copies do not provide any new information on the text and images, they are of great value for scholars studying the reception of the work.

Introduction effecimus ut etiam illiteratus ex imaginibus quas cuilibet scaenae praeposuimus legere atque accipere comica argumenta ualeat.1 I brought it about that even an illiterate man would be able to read and understand the plots of the comedies from the images which I set before each scene. A reader who, for the first time, approaches the edition of Terence printed in 1493 in Lyon by Johannes Trechsel (henceforth the Lyon Terence),2 inevitably appreciates the significance of this statement by its editor, Jodocus Badius Ascensius. The 161 woodcuts that illustrate select scenes of the six plays depict characters in Renaissance attire standing on a stage against a backdrop of curtained houses and gesticulating to each other. In them the theatre space is craftily used, the gestures are poised and precise and convey a compelling sense of theatricality. The underlying line of enquiry in our study of this seminal book is the significance of these interrelated texts and illustrations to a fifteenth-​century readership and the role they play in the reception of Terence in the subsequent one hundred or so years. The Lyon Terence provides a unique perspective insofar that it is the first illustrated edition of all six plays of Terence to be printed. What sets the plays of Terence apart from other illustrated Classical texts and makes them a privileged focus of investigation is their enduring iconographic tradition. Two of the oldest complete surviving manuscripts of the plays of Terence, Vatican City, bav, Vat. lat. 3868 and Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, known by the sigla C and P, were copied in the mid ninth century, and are members of a cycle of illuminated manuscripts which were being reproduced in de luxe copies as late as the early fifteenth century. The illustrations in C and P depict masked characters wearing costumes of Roman comedies and engaged in gestures, and

1 Terence 1493 Q4v. Page references to the Lyon Terence are given in the form a1r, Q7v etc, in line with the original signatures, which are usually only given at the foot of the page on the recto of the first four folios of each gathering. 2 Terence 1493. We derive the name ‘Lyon Terence’ from Max Herrmann’s seminal discussion of the work from 1914, where he describes it as ‘Der Lyoner Terenz’ (Max Herrmann, Forschungen zur deutschen Theatergeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance [Berlin: Weidmann, 1914], 300); for the usage, see also Nancy E. Carrick, “The Lyons Terence Woodcuts” (PhD diss., University of Arizona, 1980), viii.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/978

2 Introduction the similarities that can be traced within this corpus of illustrations in terms of bodily postures and, especially, hand gestures, suggest the existence of a codified set of gestures; moreover, these gestures unmistakably reflect Late-​ Antique and Medieval performance practices.3 This study closely examines gesture representation in the Lyon Terence to establish to what extent the artist who designed its iconographic plan adopted the gestural language of Carolingian manuscripts and what level of innovation he can be credited for. This comparative analysis builds on scholarship on Carolingian gestures, while concurrently contextualising the woodcut illustrations within the cultural milieu that produced them. Printed books had appeared forty years before the Lyon Terence, but initially the technology available restricted their format. The earliest incunabulum, the Bible printed by Johannes Gutenberg in Mainz, already incorporated different types of characters, such as upper-​and lower-​case letters, ligatures, punctuation marks, and standard Latin abbreviations and suspensions, employed in forty-​two lines of print in two columns,4 but during this early phase of the book industry the initials and illustrations had to be hand-​painted in a second stage of their production.5 The same process occurred with commentary, a ubiquitous feature in many fifteenth-​century manuscripts of the Bible or Classical texts, and in imitation of the manuscript format many of the earliest printers simply left broad margins where highly-​trained scholiasts might add minute comments in their regular hands. In the two decades before 1493, however, significant technical innovations occurred; the introduction of running headers, of smaller sizes of font which could be printed in margins in imitation of scholia, of fonts which reproduced the clarity and beauty of the Italian humanist script (rather than the Gothic style of print which came out of Mainz and which was favoured in an industry dominated at first by Germans), and above all of woodblock illustrations, which enabled the same illustration to be printed in black and white in multiple copies.6 All of these developments were facilitated by the establishment of a massive industry, driven by commercial interests, and printers now required an array of experts: editors, artists, compositors, and distributers. In many ways the Lyon Terence represents a highlight of this early stage of development, 3 See Chapter 5.2. 4 Stephan Füssel, Gutenberg und seine Wirkung (Frankfurt: Insel Verlag, 1999), 12. 5 Füssel, Gutenberg, 11–​12, and see further the discussion in Martha W. Driver, “Woodcuts and Decorative Techniques,” in A Companion to the Early Printed Book in Britain 1476–​1558, ed. Vincent Gillespie and Susan Powell (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2014), 95–​124. 6 See Chapter 2.3.

Introduction

3

utilising all available innovations to their full extent in order to reproduce text, commentary, and illustration in a complex tradition. The movable-​type printing press was introduced in Lyon in 1473 by German and Swiss printers and the first illustrated book appeared as early as 1478 at the press of Martin Husz.7 Right from its inception, the iconography of these illustrations was characterised by Flemish, German and Italian influences.8 Woodcut illustration found a particularly fertile terrain in Lyon and accelerated the development of the Lyonnais printing press. By the end of the fifteenth century there was a common pool of woodcut illustrations, some original, that could be outsourced in turn by local printers.9 The absence of a university and the increase of a consumer base that was made of merchants and nouveaux riches determined a growing demand for illustrated books in vernacular French (libri vulgare hystoriati) in which illustrations helped visualise and memorise the storyline.10 It is in the context of this thriving printing industry that privileged the illustrated book that the appearance of the Lyon Terence in 1493 can best be understood. Its novelty and appeal come from being the very first illustrated Classical work in original Latin. As such it represents ‘an extraordinary departure from the decorum governing the printing of classics’ while also setting a trend for subsequent editions of Classical texts.11 In the second half of the fifteenth century a renewed interest in Classical antiquities ignited Italian intellectuals. With the financial backing of powerful patrons from various cultural centres, Italian humanists launched a quest to retrieve Classical texts as well as ancient artefacts. Interest in ancient drama in particular was sparked by the rediscovery of texts that were unknown during the Middle Ages. A manuscript containing twelve plays of Plautus was retrieved by the papal delegate Nicholas of Cusa in 1429 and rapidly circulated among Italian intellectuals. In 1433 Giovanni Aurispa unearthed a manuscript 7

Ilaria Andreoli, “Échanges d’images, images d’échanges:  le livre illustré lyonnais à la Renaissance,” in Lyon Renaissance:  Arts et Humanisme, ed. Ludmila Virassamynaïken (Lyon:  Somogy Éditions d’art, 2015), 62. On the introduction of woodcuts in European printmaking see Natalis Rondot, Les graveurs sur bois et les imprimeurs à Lyon au XVe siècle (Lyon:  Mougin-​Rusand, 1896), 7–​9; on the establishment of the first printing workshops in Lyon see Jeanne-​Marie Dureau, “Les premiers ateliers français” in Histoire de l’édition française: Tome I, Le livre conquérant, Du Moyen Âge au milieu du XVIIe siècle, ed. Henri-​Jean Martin and Roger Chartier (Paris: Promodis, 1982), 163–​75. 8 Rondot, Les graveurs sur bois et les imprimeurs, 3. 9 Andreoli, “Échanges d’images, images d’échanges,” 62. 10 Ilaria Andreoli, “Fabulae artificialiter pictae: illustrazione del libro e decorazione ceramica nel Rinascimento,” in Fabulae pictae:  miti e storie nelle maioliche del Rinascimento, ed. Marino Marini (Florence: Giunti Editore, 2012), 111. 11 Carrick, “The Lyons Terence,” 2.

4 Introduction of the commentary on the plays of Terence written by the fourth-​century grammarian Donatus.12 Donatus’ commentary contains, among many other materials, notes about actors’ delivery of specific lines, and in doing so offers an insightful guide to theatrical gestures and diction. The commentary was lacunose, repetitive, and incomplete, with one entire play missing, but it was initially held to be of such great authority that for a long period it came to be the only commentary ever found printed alongside the text of Terence. The plays of Terence had been a cornerstone of Classical education throughout the Middle Ages as a model of elegant Latin and a text that was particularly suited for rhetorical exercises. Seemingly, school rhetorical exercises entailed some sort of recitation of the plays. It is only in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, however, that the first performances of Classical plays outside the classroom environment are recorded in Italy. In 1476 Terence’s Andria was performed by the pupils of Giorgio Antonio Vespucci first at the Medici Palace and then in a more public event at Palazzo della Signoria.13 Two plays of Terence were staged again in Florence by the pupils of Pietro Domizi in 1478 in the Church of Ognissanti and also in the subsequent year perhaps at the Medici Palace. Then in 1488 Plautus’ Menaechmi was staged by Paolo Comparini. For the occasion Angelo Poliziano wrote a prologue in the form of polemic invective against the detractors of secular theatre.14 Concurrently, in Rome Classical plays were staged on temporary theatre structures that aimed at replicating ancient theatre buildings and acted out in Latin in front of an audience including Cardinal Raffaele Riario.15 But it was above all at the court of Duke Ercole I d’Este in Ferrara that Terence left school and academic settings to be staged in front of a wider audience. The revival of Classical Roman comedy was inaugurated in 1486 with the premiere of Plautus’ Menaechmi in the Italian vernacular and continued almost uninterruptedly until 1503. Terence’s Andria was staged in 1491, while Eunuchus was first performed in 1499 on the occasion of the wedding of Alfonso I d’Este, the son of the Duke, to Lucrezia Borgia, then again in 1501 and 1502. Terence had been an integral part of the curriculum at the University of Ferrara since it had developed under the direction of Guarino Veronese 12 13 14 15

Carmela Cioffi, Prolegomena a Donato: commentum ad Andriam. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, 129 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018), 52–​4. Antonio Staüble, La commedia umanistica del Quattrocento (Florence: Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 1968), 200–​1. Giulia Torello-​Hill, “Angelo Poliziano’s De poesi et poetis (bncf Naz. ii.i.99) and the Development of Ancient Dramatic Criticism,” I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 20 (2017): 121. Fabrizio Cruciani, Teatro nel Rinascimento: Roma 1450–​1550 (Rome: Bulzoni, 1983), 219–27.

Introduction

5

(1374–​1460) in the time of Ercole’s predecessor, his half brother Leonello d’Este.16 Guarino’s son Battista Guarino (1435–​1513) continued his legacy, and was also instrumental in producing some translations of the plays of Plautus into Italian prose that served as a blueprint for theatrical scripts.17 Ercole’s interest in reviving the theatre as a powerful propagandistic tool extended to the many facets of the mise-​en-​scene. The Duke was very interested in theatre architecture and commissioned from his librarian Pellegrino Prisciani a vernacular treatise that presented a discussion of Vitruvian principles, as well as references to Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, a text that had appeared in print in Florence in 1485 with a preface written by Poliziano.18 Ercole also took an interest in the notes on diction and gestures that featured abundantly in Donatus’ Commentary on Terence and ordered its acquisition for the ducal library in 1485. Finally, his rule saw intense experimentation in music. Leading musicians from France and from Flanders spent prolonged periods of time in Ferrara and worked alongside other members of the court to contribute also to the success of the revival of Classical theatre.19 The editor of the Lyon Terence, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, completed his humanistic education at Ferrara under Guarino some time in the 1480s or early 1490s and there is the possibility that he would have been in the audience for at least some of these performances.20 In any case his sojourn in Italy made a life-​long impression on him; once established in Lyon he edited and published several works of Italian intellectuals and contributed to the spreading of Italian humanist ideas across the Alps.21 A painstaking enquiry into the features of Classical theatre, from theatre buildings, to dramatic genres, to staging and stagecraft occupied Italian 16

Marco Villoresi, Da Guarino a Boiardo:  la cultura teatrale a Ferrara nel Quattrocento (Rome: Bulzoni, 1994). 17 Giulia Torello-​ Hill, “The Revival of Classical Roman Comedy in Renaissance Ferrara: From the Scriptorium to the Stage,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing: Illustration, Commentary and Performance, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 219–​35. 18 On Spectacula, see Danilo Aguzzi Barbagli, Pellegrino Prisciani: Spectacula (Modena: Panini, 1991); Giulia Torello-​Hill, “Gli Spectacula di Pellegrino Prisciani e il revival del teatro classico a Ferrara,” La Rivista di Engramma 85 (2010):  4–​10; Giulia Torello-​Hill, “The Exegesis of Vitruvius and the Creation of Theatrical Spaces in Renaissance Ferrara,” Renaissance Studies 29, no. 2 (2015): 227–​46. 19 On music in Renaissance Ferrara see Lewis Lockwood, Music in Renaissance Ferrara 1400–​ 1505: The Creation of a Musical Center in the Fifteenth Century, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). 20 See Chapter 3.2.2 below. 21 See Chapter 3 passim.

6 Introduction humanists in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Badius’ own considerations on the origin of Classical theatre would be included in his prefatory notes, the Praenotamenta that accompany his unillustrated 1502 edition. Although the Praenotamenta postdate the Lyon Terence, they are crucial to this study, both for their relevance and for their legacy. In this text, which was to be included in many sixteenth-​century editions of Terence published in France, Badius makes only sporadic references to contemporary theatre. These references, however, prove beyond doubt that he made connections between the staging of Terentian plays and contemporary theatre practices. The extent of the influence of contemporary theatre over the iconographic plan of the Lyon Terence is harder to ascertain. But what can be inferred with a high degree of confidence is the deep understanding of theatrical conventions that emerge from the study of the woodcuts of the Lyon Terence. The study of gestures and theatre conventions is one of the core aspects of this book and is contextualised as far as possible within the cultural milieu in which Badius operated. The concluding chapter of this monograph investigates the legacy of the Lyon Terence by looking analytically at the iconography of illustrated editions of Terence on the Italian, French and German market. Drawing on the work of established and emerging historians of the book, this chapter shows how the thriving book market in Early Modern Europe resulted in printing-​ staff mobility and collaborative enterprises and exchange of woodcut matrices. This mutual exchange occurred particularly between France and Italy. Crucially, throughout the sixteenth century the Lyon Terence is still the driving force behind the development of the illustrative tradition of Terence. This book presents a comprehensive and interdisciplinary study of the Lyon Terence. It draws upon the long-​standing interests of the authors in the revival of Classical theatre in the Italian Renaissance and on the commentary tradition of Terence respectively. It also builds on the advances made by contributors to our co-​edited volume Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, which offer an interdisciplinary approach to the study of Terence’s tradition. More specifically, this study rests on the concept expressed in the edited collection that the Lyon Terence is a key part of an illustrative tradition that kept developing over time, preserving some distinctive features while at the same time introducing elements of originality. Despite its enormous impact over sixteenth-​century printed editions, the Lyon Terence has been neglected by the critics. The only study devoted exclusively to it is the unpublished doctoral thesis by Nancy Carrick, which was the first to recognise the great debt that the Lyon Terence owed to the existing illustrated tradition found in manuscripts. And while the recent study of Catarina Zimmermann-​Homeyer on the illustrated Latin classics produced in

Introduction

7

Strassburg by Johannes Grüninger in 1496 has produced some important new insights and gone some way towards acknowledging the importance of the Lyon Terence in influencing the iconography of editions of Terence printed in the German-​speaking South-​West, its specific focus on this later period inevitably detracts from the importance of Badius’ masterpiece. The book also considers the Lyon Terence as a commercial enterprise. Groundbreaking studies in the history of the book trade have provided a more nuanced picture of the climate of collaboration and competition among printers of the thriving fifteenth-  and sixteenth-century market.22 Louise Katz’s doctoral thesis has provided new insights into Badius’ social network and his association with powerful members of the Lyonnais clergy.23 This in turn has allowed us to shed light on the readership for which the Lyon Terence was intended. The number of woodcut illustrations and their size would have made the Lyon Terence a very costly product. Ownership notes that appear in some of the extant copies confirm that the Lyon Terence was acquired by members of the European nobility and clergy.24 Guy Jouenneaux’s commentary, which in the original conception of the Lyon Terence was to have formed its only paratext, had a clear pedagogical purpose. The concentration of exegetical and moralising glosses indicate that it was written for the classroom.25 The textus inclusus format in which the Latin text is surrounded by the commentary is typical of Medieval manuscripts and quite commonly used in printed editions of Classical texts at the dawn of the printing press. If it is fair to say that the sophistication of its illustrative plan could make the book an appealing purchase to the wealthy, the attention to the commentary tradition and to gestures and the detailed and sharp depiction of character interaction seem to suggest that the work could

22

See for instance Angela Nuovo, The Book Trade in the Italian Renaissance, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Leiden:  Brill, 2013); Angela Nuovo, “Transferring Humanism:  The edition of Vitruvius by Lucimborgo da Gabiano (Lyon 1513),” in Lux Librorum: Essays on Books and History for Chris Coppens, ed. Goran Proot, David McKitterick, Angela Nuovo, and Paul F. Gehl (Mechelen: Vlaamse Werkgroep Boekgeschiedenis, 2018), 17–​38; Eleonora Gamba, In inclita Venetiarum civitate: Editori e tipografi bergamaschi a Venezia dal XV al XVI secolo (Bergamo: Archivio Bergamasco, Centro Studi e Ricerche, 2019). 23 Louise Katz, “La presse et les lettres:  les épîtres paratextuelles et le projet éditorial de l’imprimeur Josse Bade (c.  1462–​1535)” (PhD diss. École Pratique des Hautes Études, University of Paris, 2013). 24 Paul White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius: Commentary, Commerce and Print in the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 36. 25 Paul White, “The Classical Commentary in Renaissance France:  Bilingual, Mixed-​ Language, and Translated Editions,” Renaissance and Reformation 41, no. 2 (2018), 16.

8 Introduction have been directed to a more learned audience. These readers who possessed a high level of Latin and knowledge of Classical theatre could have well been the clerical and lay educators that were entrusted with the tutelage of the privileged youth. Having wealthy patrons and their intellectual entourage as a target readership would have restricted the marketability of the book. This would perhaps explain why the Lyon Terence was not reprinted after first appearing in 1493.26 Badius returned to Terence in 1502, inserting further comments that due to time constrictions had not made the 1493 edition and adding a prolusion on the history and nature of ancient comedy, the Praenotamenta. But, like his first 1491 edition, this improved recension was unillustrated. A novel illustrated edition of Terence appeared some time between 1497 and 1501 at the press of Antoine Vérard.27 This is the very first bilingual edition, with translation in French vernacular prose and verse and illustrations that drew upon the iconography of the Grüninger edition. The author of the verse translation, Octavien de Saint Gelais relied heavily on the commentary of the Lyon Terence, translating excerpts of it, but also incorporating glosses in his translation of the text. As Paul White remarks, the mise-​en-​page of this edition is far more in keeping with humanist culture. The full text in Latin, the French vernacular translation in prose and in verse are placed in parallel columns, while the commentary is separate from the text.28 This arrangement facilitated a different level of engagement with the text. The woodcut illustrations of the Lyon Terence were not reproduced in any printed edition of Terence until after the death of Badius. In 1539 the Parisian printer Jean Petit included them in Le grant Therence en francoys. The book reprinted the French vernacular translations of the Vérard edition; however, the Latin text was restored to its colometry. The title page invites a wider readership ‘of all of whatever social standing they might be’ (tous de quelque estat quilz soient).29 Certainly, the more condensed commentary and the two vernacular translations made Terence accessible to a readership that had no formal Classical education, but due to its cost the book remained a de luxe product for the wealthy. The vernacularisation of Terence extended also to its commentary and the introductory notes on the origin of Classical theatre. Charles Estienne’s 26 27 28 29

By contrast, Lazzaro de’ Soardi’s illustrated edition of Terence was published twice in 1497 and the 1499 edition was reprinted in 1504, 1508, 1512 and 1515. See Chapter 7.2. On Vérard, see Mary B.  Winn, Anthoine Vérard:  Parisian Publisher, 1485–​1512:  Prologues, Poems and Presentations (Geneva: Droz, 1997). White, “The Classical Commentary,” 16. White, “The Classical Commentary,” 16.

Introduction

9

influential Des Scènes et Thèâtres drew upon the Praenotamenta of the 1502 edition. The essential nexus between Des Scènes et Thèâtres and Classical theatre and contemporary theatre practice can be surmised by its inclusion, albeit in an abridged version, in Estienne’s Les abusez (1548), an adaptation of the Italian play Gl’Ingannati, which was staged in Lyon in 1540 by the Accademia degli Intronati of Siena.30 Our book documents the ongoing dialogue between France and Italy that was facilitated by patronage that guaranteed intellectual mobility and was accelerated by the rapidly developing printing press that saw French printers establishing headquarters in Venice and Italian printers in Lyon. In exploring the reception of Terence in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century, we have adopted a ‘transhistorical’ approach,31 which is particularly suited to the long-​standing commentary and illustrative tradition of Terence. Our study looks at the context and at the ‘cultural processes’ that shape the appropriation of ancient notions of theatre practices as well as the purposes of this process.32 To shed light on these cultural processes, this study relies on existing Classical scholarship on ancient drama, particularly in its central discussion of theatrical conventions and in reconstructing a taxonomy of gestures. This book intersects many disciplines, including Renaissance studies, history of the theatre, history of scholarship, history of the book and art history. Ultimately, its novelty rests in its ­interdisciplinarity.33 30

Marvin A. Carlson, Theories of the Theatre: A Historical and Critical Survey from the Greeks to the Present (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), 68. 31 Charles Martindale, “Reception—​ a New Humanism? Receptivity, Pedagogy, the Transhistorical,” Classical Receptions Journal 5, no. 2 (2013), 169-​83 at 172–​3. 32 See Lorna Hardwick, Reception Studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 5. 33 On the challenges of adopting a global theory in the reception of Classical Antiquity and on the inherent interdisciplinary nature of any meaningful dialogue with the past see James I. Porter, “Reception Studies: Future prospects,” in Companion to Classical Receptions, ed. Lorna Hardwick and Christopher Stray (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), 474–​81.

­c hapter 1

The Lyon Terence and Its Initial Impact 1.1

Contents and mise-​en-​page

This study examines one of the most important incunabula (early printed editions produced before 1501) of the plays of the Roman comic playwright Terence, which was published in Lyon on 29 August 1493 by Johannes Trechsel. The edition marketed itself on its frontispiece simply as: Guidonis Iuuenalis natione Cenomani in Terentium familiarissima interpretatio cum figuris unicuique scaenae praepositis, ‘A most trustworthy interpretation of Terence by Guy Jouenneaux, a native of Le Mans, with pictures placed before every scene.’1 Guy’s commentary had first appeared in Paris the previous year,2 and presented an exhaustive, word-​by-​word exegesis in Latin of Terence’s plays, designed explicitly for a student audience, and making use of the new medium of printing in order to disseminate this learning as widely as possible, and amongst students who had previously not been able to afford a traditional education. Beneath this advertisement, there is a woodcut of a scholar in fifteenth-​century dress, presumably Guy (or perhaps Terence himself), diligently at work in his study, and surrounded by books and writing materials (Figure 1.1). The book is of substantial size, a quarto volume comprising 319 folios or 638 pages.3 A reader opening it for the first time will have turned the page containing the frontispiece to find two dedicatory letters by Guy addressed to patrons, Germain de Ganay and Nicholas de Capella, written in the flowery language typical of dedications in this period, then Guy’s brief account of the nature of Roman comedy (a4r), all reprinted from his edition of the previous year. It is only when turning the next page that the reader encounters something quite original and indeed extraordinary—​a full-​page woodblock image showing a 1 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a1r. 2 Terentius, Comoediae 1492. For discussion, see now James H.K.O. Chong-​Gossard, “The Pope’s Shoes:  The Scope of Glosses in Guido Juvenalis’s Commentary on Terence,” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 27, no. 2 (2020): 193-​214. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12138-​018-​ 0492-​8. 3 For a succinct description of page sizes in early printed volumes, as well as the structure of gatherings, see Brian Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 12–​13.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/978

The Lyon Terence and Its Initial Impact

11

Roman theatre and the beginning of a performance of one of Terence’s comedies (Figure 1.2).4 The positioning of this picture is in fact much more prominent than anyone encountering it in a digital facsimile might suspect; it is located on the left-​ hand side of the central sheet in the initial gathering of the book, at a position where, in a book compiled from regular gatherings of eight folios sewn along the gutters, the pages would fall open naturally. On the page immediately opposite, the reader would see preliminary materials to the first play in the collection, Andria; these comprise the didascalia (a short summary, written sometime after Terence’s death, of where and when the play was first performed, who the producers and musicians were, and what its Greek source was), the opening lines of the verse argumentum (or summary) to Andria by Sulpicius Apollinaris, and the commentary on these lines by Guy, printed in the margins in a smaller type (Figure 1.3). In the foreground of the picture three couples are depicted in amorous poses, the women taking noticeably dominant positions. Behind them is what appears to be the ground storey of an hexagonal building pierced by three arches; the central arch is occupied by two more couples in intimate poses, and above it fornices is written in Latin, which in its primary sense means ‘vaults’ or ‘arches’, although which can also be used for ‘brothels’, since the Romans conceived of brothels as being located in arched cellars.5 The upper level of the hexagonal base is sculpted in relief with three putti or Cupids together with various decorative elements; the two figures on the right and left appear to be playing bagpipes, while the central figure, who is surrounded by harvest fruits reminiscent of a cornucopia, gazes at a spherical object such as an apple or orb in his hand. Immediately above his head in almost the centre of the picture is written theatrum, ‘theatre’. Above this base the theatre itself looms, enclosed within what appear to be four Corinthian columns of irregular height supporting a rectangular, gabled roof. The stage itself is not visible, but theatre buildings are represented on the right by three curtained doorways, above which proscoenium (sic) is written. In front of this building, almost floating in space, is a musician playing a pipe. On the left, rising at impossible angles, are three banks of seating which are filled with spectators, and at the far left a staircase climbs and is occupied by two late-​comers. Finally, in a separate box overlooking the musician and the proscenium, sit two men who are denoted aediles; in Rome the curule aediles 4 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a4v. 5 See old s.v. fornix.

12 Chapter 1 were responsible for running the public games at which Terence’s plays were first premiered, and their names are recorded at the start of each play in its didascalia.6 The theatre building depicted in the Lyon Terence is unlike our modern conceptions of the Roman theatre, informed as these are by meticulous historical, archaeological, and architectural studies,7 and it seems utterly incapable of ever being built. There are in fact such genuine problems of perspective in the draftsmanship that in some respects it appears to be inspired by the works of M.C. Escher. Nevertheless, there are strong indications that the image has been carefully crafted in accordance with a number of criteria—​an existing iconographical tradition associated with manuscripts of Terence, Classical and contemporary theory on performance and theatre buildings, and perhaps personal experience of Renaissance performances. This impression is strengthened when we come to the illustrations which appear at the start of each scene in each of the six plays of Terence, and which depict single or multiple actors on an elevated stage in front of curtained ‘houses,’ representing the houses of prominent characters in each play. The artist responsible for these images has not been identified with any degree of certainty, and this issue will be treated later in this study.8 Nevertheless, we have a great deal of information now about its overall editor, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, who oversaw the inclusion of images in the Lyon Terence.9 Badius, a dynamic Classical scholar and teacher from Flanders, was a close associate of Trechsel, living with his family in Lyon and directly involved in editing many of his numerous publications.10 He had previously studied in Northern Italy and in particular in Ferrara, where in 1486 Duke Ercole I  d’Este sponsored a series of performances of Classical comedy in vernacular Italian, beginning that year with Plautus’ Menaechmi; he was taught Classical Greek there by Battista Guarino, who had been commissioned by Duke Ercole to translate Plautus’ plays, and throughout his early career showed a deep interest in the works of contemporary Italian scholars directly engaged in the exegesis and revival of Classical theatre, particularly 6

7 8 9 10

See Chapter 6.2 for a more comprehensive study of this image, and its relationship to later copies. For another discussion of this opening portrait, focusing on items of contemporary fashion, see Anne H. van Buren, Illuminating Fashion: Dress in the Art of Medieval France and the Netherlands, 1325–​1515 (New York: The Morgan Library and Museum, 2011), 256. See, for instance, the extensive catalogue of all known theatres in Frank B. Sear, Roman Theatres: An Architectural Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). See Chapter 5.7. See Introduction above. For his arrival in Lyon, see Chapter 3.2.3.

The Lyon Terence and Its Initial Impact

13

the most influential of them, Angelo Poliziano.11 Many individual elements in the scene illustrations, such as statuettes of the gods Bacchus and Apollo found in the illustrations to Andria, can in fact be traced back to comments by Late-​Antique authorities, including the greatest commentator on Terence, Aelius Donatus, whom Badius had edited just two years earlier.12 Even the apparent inclusion of prostitutes frequenting the arches of the theatre can be correlated to comments Badius had made the previous year in his comprehensive literary study, the Silvae Morales, with regard to the poetry of his literary idol, Battista Spagnoli.13 In his editorial postface or Letter to the Reader at the conclusion of the last play in the collection, Hecyra,14 Badius also explains that he was advised and encouraged by friends to correct Guy’s voluminous commentary on Terence in a few places where he differed in interpretation, and having written to Guy himself, was delighted to obtain his full permission to append his own comments. His influence on the text of this edition at first seems to be peripheral, but in fact he contributed substantially to the mise-​en-​page of this book, not only with regard to its images but also with regard to its division into acts. He was in any case eminently qualified to edit Terence, since only two years earlier he had edited an innovative edition of the six comedies accompanied by the commentary of Donatus. Then in 1502, immediately prior to establishing his own press in Paris, he published a third edition of Terence, including a detailed discussion of the history of ancient theatre and comedy known as the Praenotamenta, which discusses the nature of poetry and theatre before moving on to Classical comedy and finally Terence, as well as a meticulous discussion of the opening scene of the first play in the collection, Andria. In his prefatory letter to his friend Hervé Bésin he claims that it was this friend himself who urged him to publish his in Terentium elucidamenta quae cum hisce diebus istic (Lugduni dico) agerem dixi, ‘deep insights into Terence on which I lectured in those days when I was spending time over there (in Lyon, that is).’15 All three of Badius’ editions were in fact first published in Lyon, and the history of the Lyon Terence is in many ways entwined with developments in that city.

11

For the theatrical revivals in Ferrara, see the Introduction above; for Poliziano, Chapter 3 passim. 12 Terentius, Comoediae, 1491. 13 For the statuettes of Bacchus and Apollo, see Chapter 6.3, and for Badius’ comments in the Silvae Morales, Chapter 3.2.3. 14 Terentius, Comoediae, 1493, Q4r-​v. 15 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a1v.

14 Chapter 1 1.2

Publishing in Lyon

Lyon at this stage was a commercial hub and dynamic centre of publishing, rivalling Paris.16 Situated at the confluence of trade-​routes from Northern and Western France, Burgundy, Switzerland, Southern Germany, Spain, Provence, and above all Italy, a major factor in its phenomenal growth in the fifteenth century was the grant by Louis xi in 1464 of a fourth annual fair.17 Open to intellectual influences and constant technological innovations from these countries, the city was also not restricted, as Paris was, by the over-​bearing presence of a university and theological faculty which determined and even actively censored the types of book which might be printed.18 One of the most remarkable and commercially successful innovations of Lyon in the age of incunabula was the printing of books written in vernacular French, which can be broadly grouped as having a direct practical usage (e.g. medical books), a moral purpose (e.g. popular sermons), or else as being written for pure entertainment (e.g. romances).19 Printing had begun in Lyon in 1473, only three years after Paris, and the local industry came quickly to be dominated by Germans from the region of the Upper Rhine, including Alsace and Switzerland.20 The training of these printers in Germany and their importation of equipment from there was to have direct consequences for the typeface of French books; the earliest incunabula published in Paris for the Sorbonne, including a magnificent 1472 edition of Terence printed by Ulrich Gering,21 were set in a clear Roman type, but then typesetters both in Paris and Lyon began using Gothic-​style fonts consistently,22 and Roman type was rarely found until the time of the Lyon Terence. 16

For the growth of printing in France (and particularly Lyon), in the context of rapid commercial development, see Jeanne-​Marie Dureau, “Les premiers ateliers français,” in Histoire de l’édition française: Tome I, Le livre conquérant, Du Moyen Âge au milieu du XVIIe siècle, ed. Henri-​Jean Martin and Roger Chartier (Paris: Promodis, 1982), 163. 17 See, e.g., Tania Lévy, “Les séjours et entrées de la Cour à Lyon,” in Lyon Renaissance. Arts et Humanisme, ed. Ludmila Virassamynaïken (Lyon: Somogy Éditions d’Art, 2015), 138. 18 For the earliest printers in Lyon, see Robert Brun, Le livre français (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1969), 14–​15, noting in particular his comment that: ‘[d]‌ans cette ville de négoce, il n’y avait ni université, ni faculté de théologie, et par conséquent, une clientèle toute différente de celle de Paris’ (14). 19 For discussion, see Dominique Coq, “Les incunables: textes anciens, textes nouveaux,” in Histoire de l’édition française, 181–​4, 186–​7 (‘Les spécialités lyonnaises’). 20 Cf. Brun, Le livre français, 15; Coq, “Les incunables,” 181. 21 Terentius, Comoediae 1472a. 22 Cf. Brun, Le livre français, 19.

The Lyon Terence and Its Initial Impact

15

The other great importation from Germany at this early stage was the technology of woodcut printing. The first French book to include woodcuts was Le mirouer de la rédemption de l’umain lignaigne (‘Mirror of the redemption of the human race’), a French translation of the Latin Speculum humanae salvationis published in Lyon by Martin Husz in 1478, and using woodcuts taken from an edition published in Basel in 1476.23 Books using this technology and largely written in French began to proliferate in Lyon, and local artists began to be employed, using blocks cut in Lyon itself.24 Art-​historical critics have remarked in general on the strong Italianate influence upon the art-​work of the Lyon printers in the sixteenth century, and in particular upon that of the Lyon Terence, which in many ways is regarded as a precursor of this movement.25 One of the most interesting products of this early period of experimentation in Lyon is the Livre des Eneydes, a work purporting to be a translation into French of Vergil’s Aeneid, which contains sixty-​one illustrations of various scenes from the epic.26 Classical texts at this stage had been regarded as the exclusive preserve of an educated elite thoroughly fluent in Latin, and texts were extremely conservative in their presentation; prior to the inclusion of Guy’s commentary in his edition of 1492, the only commentary ever found printed together with the text of Terence in incunabula was that of Donatus. But French editions such as the Livre des Eneydes were not bound by this convention, and consequently must have provided a fertile ground for experimentation, as well as a demonstration to ambitious or innovative publishers of the marketability of such texts. Trechsel, one of the many German emigrants, had established his press in Lyon in 1488, specializing at first in ecclesiastical texts.27 In 1492, however, he married the widow of Nicholas Philippi and at the same time took over

23

Discussed in Anatole Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie en France au XVe et au XVIe siècle, vol. 3 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1904), 158–​65; see also Brun, Le livre français, 21. 24 Brun, Le livre français, 22; Ilaria Andreoli, “Échanges d’images, images d’échanges: le livre illustré lyonnais à la Renaissance,” in Virassamynaïken 2015, 62. 25 Cf. Andreoli, “Échanges d’images,” 62, and for the Lyon Terence see also Bodo Brinkmann, “Neues vom Meister der Lübecker Bibel,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 29–​30 (1987–​88): 124; for discussion of his argument that the artist of the Lyon Terence spent time in Italy, see Chapter 5.7. 26 GW M50125; ISTC iv00200000. For discussion of the text, which is a hybrid of various sources, see Jacques Monfrin, “L’histoire de Didon et Énée au xve siècle,” in Études littéraires sur le xve siècle: Actes du ve colloque international sur le Moyen Français, Milan, 6–​8 mai 1985, vol. 3 (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1986), 161–​97. 27 For Trechsel and his press, see Claudin, Histoire, vol. 4, 51–​96.

16 Chapter 1 his business. Philippi, another German, had specialized in printing woodcut illustrations,28 and so Trechsel’s workshop may have acquired great expertise in the processes of carving woodblocks as well as setting texts which incorporated images at precisely the same time that Badius joined his firm. One further important acquisition of Trechsel’s which needs to be mentioned is his purchase before 1492 of a clear Italian humanist font which contained both Roman and Greek characters. This font was in particular employed by Badius in the first three works he produced for Trechsel: his edition of the works of the Italian humanist Filippo Beroaldo, his own major work of literary commentary, the Silvae Morales, and the Lyon Terence itself.29 Its use in the Lyon Terence again anticipates later developments in Lyon, where from the beginning of the sixteenth century academic publishers consistently employed humanist fonts based on Italian models for printing Classical Latin texts.30 1.3

Composition, Printing, and Distribution

The composition of the Lyon Terence must have been a particularly intricate and protracted affair, and in such a large volume would have required a team of specialists. Not only did the woodcuts need to be integrated into a Latin text, which itself needed to be proofed meticulously, but the typesetters had on each page to surround the main body of Terence’s text with Guy’s commentary in its smaller font and insert running headers indicating the acts. Brian Richardson estimates that in the sixteenth century it took compositors roughly one day to set a sheet (or two folios),31 so that the Lyon Terence could conceivably have taken 160 days to typeset, with work perhaps beginning at some stage in March 1493 (Guy’s commentary having first been published on 22 October in the previous year). Because we cannot estimate how many craftsmen Trechsel employed for this book, such a figure must remain purely conjectural, but we 28

For Philippi and Reinhart see Claudin, Histoire, vol. 3, 113–​54, and for Reinhart, who subsequently worked with Johannes Grüninger in Strassburg, Catarina Zimmermann-​ Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke lateinischer Klassiker um 1500 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018), 104–​8, who argues that he was in fact Grüninger’s brother. 29 See Claudin, Histoire, vol. 4, 95 for this font, and for its immediate impact in Lyon, 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, ed. Silvia Fabrizio-​Costa and Frank La Brasca (Bern: Peter Lang, 2005), 179. 30 See Brun, Le livre français, 40. 31 Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers, 22.

The Lyon Terence and Its Initial Impact

17

do know from circumstantial evidence that the sheets for the first two plays had already been printed, and were presumably being stored in a warehouse, when Badius received correspondence which allowed him to change the nature of his commentary. Badius, as already noted, had a number of disagreements with Guy’s interpretation of Terence’s text, including textual readings and his interpretation of Donatus. He mentions these in his Letter to the Reader, although because the rhetoric of this type of literary discourse is opaque, we cannot tell whether these disagreements were heated at all. In the letter, Badius merely presents himself as responding to the requests of friends who desired to hear his interpretations, stating: Affuerunt qui nostrum iudicium … audire gestientes percunctati sunt ut nobis placerent. respondimus optime quidem placere … non deesse tamen locos pauculos quos ipse aliter interpretatus fuissem. at illi continuo instantius urgebant illas sibi excerperem.32 There were some who desiring eagerly to hear my opinion [of Guy’s comments] asked whether they pleased me. I replied that they pleased me very much indeed … however, that there were a very few little passages which I would have interpreted differently. And straightaway these people were urging me that I excerpt these for them. He therefore corresponded with Guy, and obtained his agreement to include his comments and to correct the text where, as he puts it, Guy himself or his printers had introduced mistakes: In nostram tandem fere sententiam concessit, admonuitque ut quos locos uel librariorum negligentia uel sua ipsius in aliis negociis nimia occupatio argutiori limae inuiderat, eos tibi castigatiores emitteremus.33 At length he agreed with my opinion, and he advised that those passages ‹marred› by the carelessness of copyists or of the author himself which he had overlooked for more careful polishing because of his far too great preoccupation with other matters, I  should publish more correctly for you [the reader].

32 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q4r-​v. 33 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q4v.

18 Chapter 1 He may already have had connections to Jouenneaux through his mentor from Ghent, the noted Carmelite scholar Arnold de Bost, since de Bost was a frequent correspondent of Jouenneaux’s friends, the brothers Charles and Jean Fernand from Bruges, who were so affected by Jouenneaux’s decision in 1492 to retire from the world to a strict Benedictine abbey, Saint-​Pierre de Chezal-​ Benoît (Cher), that they eventually became monks themselves.34 Charles, who despite his blindness was a highly accomplished musician as well as Latinist, and who was appointed as chapel-​master to Charles viii, composed a commentary on Robert Gaguin’s poem refuting the arguments of the Dominican Bandello da Castelnuovo, who had questioned the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin,35 while Jean was also a prolific author, who had intended at one stage to write an interpretation of Terence for use as an educational tool. In a letter which seems to have been written before 1489, Jean sent de Bost a copy of an oration he delivered to a distinguished audience in Paris, including Gaguin, which set out his intention to write Terentianarum comediarum interpretationem adolescentibus apprime utilem, ‘an interpretation of Terence’s comedies above all useful to young men,’36 an attitude towards the text which closely matches that of Jouenneaux as he sets it out in his prefatory letters.37 By the time Badius had received a response from Guy, who by this stage must have retired to Chezal-​Benoît, the first two plays in the corpus, Andria and Eunuchus, had already been printed.38 Badius’ solution was a compromise; he included his additional commentary on Andria and Eunuchus at the end of the volume, following his letter to the reader,39 then from the start of 34

For Charles, see BN 7.35–​8 [É. Varenbergh]; dbf 13.1044–​5 [Y. Destianges], for Jean, BN 7.38–​9 [F. Loise], and for both brothers Peter G.  Bietenholz and Thomas B.  Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 21–​2 [G. Tournoy], as well as Tritheim, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 1494, f.  136rv. See further the extensive note on the brothers’ relationship with both Jouenneaux and Robert Gaguin at Louis Thuasne, ed., Roberti Gaguini epistole et orationes, vol. 1 (Paris: Émile Bouillon, 1904), 327–​9 n.10. 35 See Chapter 3.2.1 and n. 27. 36 Fernand, Caroli Fernandi Brugensis musici regii Epistolae familiares 1488, c3r, and for a similar description in the letter of Charles which accompanies this letter, Fernand, Epistolae familiares 1488, c2v (these letters were subsequently republished by Badius in Fernand, Epistolae longe festiuissimae atque ad amussim excultae Caroli Phernandi Brugensis 1506; see c3v-​c4r). 37 See Chong-​Gossard, “The Pope’s Shoes,” and Chapter 4.2.1. 38 Nam priusquam eius rei admoniti fueramus, duae comoediae impressae erant, ‘for before I was advised of this matter, two comedies had been printed’, Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q4v. 39 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q4v-​5r.

The Lyon Terence and Its Initial Impact

19

the third play in the collection, Heauton timorumenos had his own notes appended after Guy’s at the end of each relevant scene and prefixed by ascensivs or an abbreviated form of his name. As well, at the start of Heauton timorumenos Badius included a short preface, in which he repeated his assertion that he was merely making minor corrections to the text of Guy, and with his full knowledge and permission.40 The contents of these corrections will be discussed later in this study, but at this point it can at least be noted that the comments he makes on the second play, Eunuchus, at the conclusion of the work are extremely brief,41 and refer to just six points in the entire play, nearly all of them alternate textual readings. Whether this resulted from extreme haste or else consideration of space is unclear; nevertheless, he would address the uneven nature of these comments in his third edition, some eight years later. No information is available on the print-​run of the Lyon Terence, although thirty-​nine extant copies, either complete or partial, have so far been identified.42 As an illustrated edition which presumably cost purchasers a considerable outlay, we can conjecture that better care was taken of copies of this book by these owners and subsequent collectors, so that a higher percentage of copies survives than for unillustrated books, but little more. The Lyon Terence does not appear to have been reprinted after this original print-​run, and Catarina Zimmermann-​Homeyer has argued that Trechsel may not have considered the work a commercial success which repaid the considerable investment he put into it, particularly to pay the artist and draughtsmen.43 In a large commercial operation such as this, however, involving not only artists, but also the original author of the commentary Guy, any number of other factors may have come into play. The de luxe nature of the volume may simply have meant that Trechsel was satisfied that he had reached his target audience; on the other hand, the proliferation of derivative copies in Germany and Italy, particularly in Venice where they were protected under privilege, may have precluded him from undertaking any further reprintings.44 The woodcuts were in any case

40 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, o7r. 41 He notes at their outset that ‘In Eunucho autem pauciora sunt’ (‘however, there are fewer for Eunuchus’), Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q5r. 42 The istc (last edit 15 September 2017)  lists thirty-​eight extant copies; to these can be added a single leaf now in Christchurch, New Zealand (Collection of Christchurch Art Gallery Te Puna o Waiwhetū. Woodcut 72/​100. Presented by Gordon H.  Brown, 30 October 1972). 43 Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke, 85. 44 For discussion, see Chapter 7.2.

20 Chapter 1 preserved, and were much later to be re-​used in 1539 in the bilingual Latin and French edition Le grant Therence en francoys.45 With regard to the likely costs incurred by Trechsel to enable publishing, some comparative data exists, especially from Italy; considerable outlays were required by publishers at this early stage, and Richardson notes that typical expenses included the presses, matrixes and types, paper (a major cost in this period), labour, warehouses for storage, and distribution.46 Information on sales prices is hard to come by, and must have varied greatly from country to country, and even from individual bookseller to bookseller.47 The only evidence we have uncovered so far for the Lyon Terence occurs in a stray note in a copy of the Lyon Terence now in Uppsala which was owned around the end of the fifteenth century by Fredericus Amtheim, a deacon and canon in Reval (the modern-​day Tallinn in Estonia), and which records that ‘anno 1499 comparaui mihi librum istum pro floreno aureo et iij albis’ (‘in the year 1499 I obtained that book for myself for a golden florin and three albi’).48 Some useful comparative data with regard to general question of distribution of the work are provided in a prefatory letter Badius wrote in 1526 to Noël Béda, which discusses the distribution of the 625 copies he printed at his press in Paris of Béda’s critical annotations on commentaries on the letters of St Paul and Gospels by Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples and paraphrases by Erasmus.49 In the letter he states that some forty-​five of these were reserved for notable 45 46

47

48

49

See Chapter 7.5. See Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers, 25–​7. For general discussion of the costs incurred by publishers in producing incunabula at this stage, see also Louise Katz, “La presse et les lettres: Les épîtres paratextuelles et le projet éditorial de l’imprimeur Josse Bade (c.1462–​1535)” (PhD diss., École pratique des Hautes Études, University of Paris, 2013), 74–​5. For some important recent contributions on prices and sales in the late fifteenth century, see Lotte Hellinga, Incunabula in Transit: People and Trade (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 6–​19 (“Book auctions in the fifteenth century”) and 20–​39 (“Advertising and selling books in the fifteenth century”), while noting her important caveat that: ‘[d]‌espite four centuries of incunable studies, surprisingly little is known about the early book trade,’ 20. The information on pricing is written above the author portrait in Uppsala University Library, Ink. 32:87, a1r; the ownership mark is written on the verso of the preceding flyleaf in a late fifteenth century hand. See also the transcription in the library’s catalogue entry (‹http://​tinyurl.com/​trdlwn5›, consulted on 12.12.2019). ustc 145735 (consulted on 11.12.2019), which lists five extant copies; Philippe Renouard, Bibliographie des impressions et des œuvres de Josse Badius Ascensius, imprimeur et humaniste 1462–​1535, vol. 2 (Paris: Ém. Paul et fils et Guillemin, 1908), 155 lists nine, all from different libraries to those cited in the ustc entry.

The Lyon Terence and Its Initial Impact

21

persons, fifty were kept in his shop for sale, and others were distributed elsewhere; notably fifty sent to Lyon for eventual sale in Italy, two separate lots of thirty-​two and forty to booksellers in Germany, and forty to a bookseller in England.50 With regard to evidence for the geographic distribution of the copies of the Lyon Terence, we see from our scanty evidence traces of a similar pattern, particularly with regard to Northern Europe. Our earliest dated copy, now in Darmstadt, states that it was owned in 1495 by Johannes Rifferschit, in the service of the Count of Moers (near Düsseldorf);51 the copy in Uppsala may also have come through a German centre, such as Frankfurt.52 A copy now in Oxford seems to have been owned around 1500 by a certain William Smith,53 while two other copies in British collections have early ownership marks which suggest that they may have been in England relatively soon after the publication date.54 Given Badius’ attested strong ties with the Carmelites, it is interesting that one copy of the book was possessed by a Carmelite convent at Ypres in Flanders.55 But the most significant provenance is that of a copy in Basel56 owned

50 51 52

53 54

55

56

The letter is printed at Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 155; see also the discussions at Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 57 and Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 75–​6. The volume is Universitäts-​und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt, Inc. iii-​9. We are grateful to Birgit Reeg-​Lumma of the ulb Darmstadt for sending us a copy of the unpublished catalogue description which includes the information about provenance. For the early dominance of the fairs in Frankfurt and Leipzig in the book trade in Germany, see Andrew Pettegree and Arthur der Weduwen, The Bookshop of the World: Making and Trading Books in the Dutch Golden Age (New Haven, CT:  Yale University Press, 2019), 267–​8. Oxford, New College Library BT1.45.9. Information on provenance can be found in the description on the Bodleian Library website (http://​solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/​permalink/​f/​ 89vilt/​oxfaleph016025043, consulted on 12.12.2019). Cambridge, University Library, Peterborough.P.5.21, was owned by one John Leye in the sixteenth century (see http://​idiscover.lib.cam.ac.uk/​permalink/​f/​t9gok8/​44CAM_​ ALMA21379619380003606). Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, IF Ly 93 may have first been possessed by English owners, since on the title page there is written ‘liber M. Ed helton pro quo soluit pro batellis domino Robertson xxd’, and ‘This is wyam hoslers boke of Radnayge’ (perhaps Radnage in Buckinghamshire). We are grateful to Timothy Cutts of the National Library of Wales for providing us with this information. Brugge, Bibliotheek Biekorf, 3861 (see https://​brugge.bibliotheek.be/​catalogus/​terentius-​ afer-​publius/​3861-​guidonis-​iuuenalis-​natione-​cenomani-​terentium-​familiarissima-​ interpretatio/​library-​v-​obbrugge-​oudedrukken_​14016, consulted on 12.12.2019). For Badius and the Carmelites, see Chapter 3. Basel, Universitätsbibliothek, UBH Bb II 44 (see https://​aleph.unibas.ch/​F/​?local_​ base=DSV01&con_​lng=GER&func=find-​b&find_​code=SYS&request=002718856, consulted on 12.12.2019).

22 Chapter 1 by the Basel publisher Johann Amerbach, an older contemporary of Badius who died in 1513, and who may possibly have been associated with Sebastian Brant in his endeavour to publish an illustrated Terence.57 The chance survival of this single copy owned by a publisher working within the same general milieu as Badius does not of course indicate specific influence of the work on him, but when taken together with other evidence for the impact of the Lyon Terence on contemporary publishers in Italy and Germany,58 it provides further evidence for the influence of this book in the years immediately following its publication. In fact, the unauthorised copying of Badius’ text and illustrations, which in modern terminology might be described as piracy (although strictly at this stage exclusive privileges to print works were only issued in particular locations in the Holy Roman Empire and Italy, especially Venice, and were hardly known in France), provides some of the strongest evidence for the impact of this work.59 Already on 20 February 1494 an unillustrated edition of Terence edited by Simon Bevilaqua which incorporated Guy’s and Badius’ commentaries alongside Donatus was published in Venice,60 while in 1496 another derivative edition was published by Johannes Grüninger in Strassburg which was far more successful than the original.61 Grüninger also reprinted the commentary by Guy and Badius as well as Donatus, and included a series of images at the start of each scene; the relationship of these to the images in Badius’ edition is difficult to determine, but Grüninger’s frontispiece showing the theatre is clearly modelled on the Lyon original.62 An edition of Terence with the commentary of Donatus but with illustrations and act divisions based on those of the Lyon 57

For Amerbach (c. 1440–​1513), see dbe 1.114; for his putative association with Brant, see Chapter 2.3 and n. 199. 58 See Chapter 7. 59 For Badius’ own complaints about the unauthorised reprinting of his works, see Paul White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius:  Commentary, Commerce and Print in the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 167. For the early evidence on privileges issued in Germany and Italy, see Elizabeth Armstrong, Before Copyright: The French Book-​Privilege System 1498–​1526 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 2–​7, who notes that the earliest royal privilege attested in France was in 1498, and for a book produced by the press of Trechsel, although this was a very isolated occurence, and the next attested privilege was issued in 1505 (7). For the development of the privilege system in Venice, see Christopher L.C.E. Witcombe, Copyright in the Renaissance. Prints and the privilegio in Sixteenth-​Century Venice and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 21–​40, and Chapter 7.2. 60 Terentius, Comoediae 1494. The istc (last edit 15 September 2017) lists 24 extant copies. 61 Terentius, Comoediae 1496. The istc (last edit 15 September 2017) lists 158 extant copies. 62 Terentius, Comoediae 1496, a1r and a3v; compare Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a4v (Figure 1.2).

The Lyon Terence and Its Initial Impact

23

Terence was published in Venice by Lazzaro de’ Soardi in January 1497, and a re-​edition by de’ Soardi in July of that year also included the commentaries of Jouenneaux and Badius.63 The Lyon Terence was now well on the way to transforming the Renaissance visualisation and understanding of Terence’s theatre. 63

See Chapter 7.

­c hapter 2

Terence’s Plays: Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print 2.1

Terence as an Educational Classic: Text and Commentary from Antiquity to Medieval and Renaissance Europe

Publius Terentius Afer, or Terence, was the author of six plays which premiered in Rome between 166 and 160 bc—​Andria, Heauton timorumenos, Eunuchus, Phormio, Hecyra, and Adelphoe. Some information on the circumstances of the production of each play can be obtained from the didascaliae,1 while the prologues reveal that they were produced in a vibrant and at times vitriolic literary environment. A biographical tradition concerning Terence only developed much later; in the early second century ad Suetonius wrote a Life, which was subsequently supplemented and attached to the commentary of Aelius Donatus (for which see below), while in Late Antiquity it appears that another very brief Life, known as the Vita Ambrosiana, was composed, which provides a few facts independent of the Life found in Donatus.2 In these traditions, we are told that Terence came originally from Carthage in Northern Africa (hence his cognomen, Afer, or ‘the African’); that he was taken to Rome at a young age as a slave, and was adopted and freed there by a senator, Terentius Lucanus, from whom he took his name, and by whom he was educated; that he subsequently was befriended by some of the leading figures in Roman society associated with Scipio Africanus Aemilianus (185/​4–​129 bc); and that he died young on a trip to Greece, where he had gone in order to purchase more comedies to translate. Traditionally, his life is dated to either 195 or 185 bc to 159.3 The six comedies are adaptations into Latin of Greek plays of the so-​called New Comedy. The Latin comic genre based on the plays of New Comedy, which

1 The didascalia to Andria survived only in the commentary of Donatus, and only made its way back into the manuscript tradition in the fifteenth century. 2 Discussed in Marcus Deufert, “Die Vita Ambrosiana:  Datierung, Terenzbild, Rezeption,” in Theater, Theaterpraxis, Theaterkritik im kaiserzeitlichen Rom, ed. Joachim Fugmann et  al. (Munich: K.G. Saur, 2004), 83–​102. 3 For further discussion of this biographical tradition, including an edition and translation of Donatus’ Life, see Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill, eds., A Companion to Terence (Chichester: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2013), 1–​6.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/978

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

25

dates to roughly a century after the heyday of the original, is usually denoted fabula palliata, or comedy whose characters wear the pallium (a type of Greek cloak), and is the earliest genre in Latin literature for which we have extensive evidence;4 it survives not only in the plays of Terence, but also those of his older contemporary, Titus Maccius Plautus (fl. c. 210–​184 bc), for whom we now have twenty-​one plays surviving in full or in part. Menander of Athens (342/​1–​291/​0 bc) is the only author of New Comedy whose production fortuitously survived in more than just fragments, and four of his plays were adapted by Terence (Andria, Heauton timorumenos, Eunuchus, Adelphoe), with some additional material incorporated within them,5 while Terence’s other two (Phormio, Hecyra) were adapted from works by Apollodorus of Carystus (fl. 3rd century bc).6 Despite their Latin texts these plays are all set in an idealised Attica, and on the surface have little to do with the Roman world of the mid-​second century bc.7 Rather, their plots deal almost exclusively with domestic matters—​generational conflicts, love stories, forced marriages, and inheritances—​and the characters generally fall into stock types, such as truculent old men, young men in love, prostitutes, interfering older women, and resourceful slaves, to the extent that the same names are found for the same characters in different plays.8 They always take place on a street outside of the houses of the main protagonists, which are conveniently clustered together, and although there are many references to characters going to the countryside, and less frequently to them travelling by sea to other locations in the Aegean, these serve merely as plot devices, enabling characters to be absent and return at unexpected moments. 4 For discussion of the extant works and fragments, see Gesine Manuwald, Roman Republican Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 144–​56. 5 In Eunuchus he included characters from another play by Menander, the Colax (cf. Ter. Eu. 19–​34), and in Adelphoe a scene from Synapothnescontes by Menander’s contemporary playwright Diphilus (Ad. 6–​11). 6 See Peter Brown, “Terence and Greek New Comedy,” in A Companion to Terence, ed. Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill (Chichester:  Wiley-​Blackwell, 2013), 17–​32, for discussion of Terence’s use of his Greek originals. 7 See, however, the discussion of John H. Starks, “opera in bello, in otio, in negotio: Terence and Rome in the 160s BCE,” in A Companion to Terence, ed. Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill (Chichester: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2013), 132–​55, for the ways in which Roman values of this period (e.g. client/​patron relationships) are projected in Terence’s plays. 8 E.g. Davus for a slave (Andria, Phormio), Pamphilus for a young man in love (Andria, Hecyra), Chremes for an old man (Andria, Heauton timorumenos, Phormio; the name is also used of a young man in Eunuchus), Bacchis for a prostitute (Heauton timorumenos, Hecyra), Sostrata for a matron (Heauton timorumenos, Adelphoe); the examples can be multiplied.

26 Chapter 2 The indebtedness of Terence to his Greek models is not limited to their plots. The metres are closely modelled on those of Greek drama; longer passages of narrative and dialogue are written in iambic senarii (closely related to the iambic trimeters of Greek drama), while other sections are written in lyric metres to be sung to a musical accompaniment.9 The actors wore masks that enabled them to play multiple roles and the audiences to identify their character type swiftly, again as in Greek theatre.10 In Terence’s plays the only real innovation came with his prologues, which unlike any others in our surviving corpus of Greek and Roman comedy, represent a statement of the poet himself, Terence, about the circumstances of the performance of the play, and of his arguments with critics about the appropriateness of his translations and innovations.11 Terence’s writing was appreciated from a very early stage for its elegance and the purity of its Latin.12 Cicero comments in private correspondence on Terence’s authority on the forms of Greek names in Latin (Att. 7.3.10),13 while even the enormously influential Quintilian, who otherwise is extremely critical of the fabula palliata states of his writings:  quae tamen sunt in hoc genere elegantissima, ‘which, however, are the most elegant in this genre’ (Quint. inst. 10.1.99). However, the real growth in interest in Terence as the writer par excellence of fabula palliata appears to have come in the fourth century 9

10

11

12

13

See Marcus Deufert, “Metrics and Music,” in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C.  Scafuro (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2014), 477–​97; Timothy J. Moore, “Meter and Music,” in A Companion to Terence, ed. Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill (Chichester: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2013), 89–​110. For the question of masks in Plautus, see Antonis K. Petrides, “Plautus between Greek Comedy and Atellan Farce:  Assessments and Reassessments,” in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 433–​40, and the useful bibliography on 441. See the discussion in Gianni Guastella, “Ornatu prologi:  Terence’s Prologues on the Stage/​on the Page,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing: Illustration, Commentary and Performance, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 200–​18, particularly 201–​7. For general discussion of the reception of Terence in Antiquity, see Heinrich Marti, “Zeugnisse zur Nachwirkung des Dichters Terenz im Altertum,” in Musa iocosa: Arbeiten über Humor und Witz, Komik und Komödie der Antike, ed. Udo Reinhardt and Klaus G.  Sallmann (Hildesheim:  Georg Olms, 1974), 158–​78; Roman Müller, “Terence in Latin Literature from the Second Century bce to the Second Century ce,” in A Companion to Terence, ed. Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill (Chichester:  Wiley-​Blackwell, 2013), 363–​79; Andrew Cain, “Terence in Late Antiquity,” 380–​96. Discussed in Salvatore Monda, “Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians: Shared and Distinguishing Features,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 109–​10.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

27

ad, when his works were incorporated within the literary curriculum, and grammarians began to cite them with increasing frequency.14 It was from this period too (or else the fifth century) that our first surviving manuscripts of Terence begin to appear: some papyrus fragments from Egypt and a palimpsest leaf, as well as a much more substantial manuscript, Vatican City, bav, Vat. lat. 3226 (siglum A), commonly denoted Codex Bembinus after its fifteenth-​century owners, the Venetian humanist Bernardo Bembo and his son Cardinal Pietro Bembo.15 The spread of manuscripts was accompanied by a vibrant commentary tradition. The plays themselves, dating to the earliest major phase of Latin literature, are rich in linguistic archaisms, and many distinctive early Latin forms are preserved in them,16 while constant semantic shifts meant that many common Latin words had acquired new meanings, or had been replaced by cognates. Allusions to contemporary personages or customs, while perfectly comprehensible in their own day, were much harder to grasp in an increasingly Christianised society and needed explanation. A hundred or so years after its copying A was glossed, quite thickly in places, with a series of commentary notes or scholia now known as the Scholia Bembina, which provided lexical glosses as well as more substantial explanations of references in Terence.17 Detailed study of the metre of the plays also developed in this early period. In the sixth century the great African grammarian Priscian had complained that some of his contemporaries denied that Terence’s comedies were even written in metre, and that the ineptitude of some copyists had prevented readers from understanding them properly, so that he felt compelled to write his

14 15

Monda, “Terence Quotations,” 116–​20. See the summary accounts in Leighton D. Reynolds, ed., Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 414–​15 [M.D. Reeve], and Benjamin Victor, “The Transmission of Terence,” in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 700. A more detailed description of A can be found in Élisabeth Pellegrin et al., Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, vol. 3.2 (Paris: cnrs, 2010), 117–​20. 16 E.g. ipsus, ‘himself’, for Classical ipse; puere, ‘oh boy’, for Classical puer, faxis ‘you should have done’, for Classical feceris. For an overview of the language of fabula palliata in general, see Evangelos Karakasis, Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Karakasis “The Language of the palliata,” in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 555–​79. 17 Published in James F. Mountford, The Scholia Bembina (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934).

28 Chapter 2 own treatise De metris fabularum Terentii et aliorum comicorum (‘Concerning the metres of the plays of Terence and of other comic poets’).18 Great care was taken with some manuscripts, particularly de luxe ones, to ensure that the verses were properly set out on the page in accordance with the metres and so facilitate proper recitation,19 and appropriate pauses were marked in the text using a rudimentary system of punctuation called pointing; A provides a good example of this practice.20 By far the most significant development in Late-​Antique scholarship on Terence, however, came with the publication of the extensive commentary on his plays by Aelius Donatus (fl. c. 350).21 The commentary seems to have been written in order to provide instruction on proper delivery of Terence’s text to pupils at Donatus’ school in Rome,22 but in addition to this it is a major source of information on the plays and theatre of its day. It transmits important textual variants, both in its lemmata (citations of the first few words of the original) and commentary notes, sometimes provides lines from the lost Greek models for the plays, or else lines from lost Latin works, comments on how lines are meant to be delivered or what gestures and postures the actors should adopt, provides detailed lexical glossing, and classifies particular phrases or passages in accordance with the principles of rhetoric. This interest in understanding

18

19 20 21

22

Cf. his comments miror quosdam … abnegare esse in Terentii comoediis metra, ‘I am amazed that some deny that there are metres in the comedies of Terence’, and His igitur exemplis facillime diligentes omnium possunt … uersus, si quos imperitia scriptorum confuderit, ad integrum restituere musicae locum, ‘and so by these examples those who love all of these writers can most easily restore verses, if the inexperience of copyists has confused them, to the correct musical position’ (Prisc. de metris 19.10–​11 and 28.25–​7 [Passalacqua]). See the discussion in Renato Raffaelli, “Die metrische Präsentation des Terenztexts in der Antike: der Codex Bembinus,” in Terentius Poeta, ed. Peter Kruschwitz, Widu-​Wolfgang Ehlers, and Fritz Felgentreu (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2007), 73–​91. See Malcolm B. Parkes, Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993), 13–​14. For Donatus, see Robert A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press, 1988), 275–​8; James E.G. Zetzel, Critics, Compilers, and Commentators:  An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 BCE—​800 CE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 254; for a concise summary of the work (as it survives today), its original layout, and methodology; Chrysanthi Demetriou, “Aelius Donatus and His Commentary on Terence’s Comedies,” in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 782–​4. Cf. Demetriou, “Aelius Donatus and his Commentary,” 787, and Demetriou, “Donatus’ Commentary: The Reception of Terence’s Performance,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, ed. Andrew J.  Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden:  Brill, 2015), 181.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

29

Terence as an exemplification of rhetorical points is also found in the one other surviving commentary from Late Antiquity, that of Eugraphius (of uncertain date, but definitely later than Donatus, whom he uses), which otherwise offers little new in comparison, and indeed largely comprises paraphrases of the action of each play.23 Despite the consistently high quality of the textual scholarship in A, the manuscript had no real influence on the subsequent transmission of Terence. Manuscripts began to be copied in large numbers from the Carolingian period onwards,24 when a system of monastery scriptoria and schools was firmly established, but they were all dependent on a lost manuscript which is usually denoted Σ, and which contained a large number of errors. This tradition divided in turn into two major branches, denoted Γ and Δ, as well as a highly contaminated mixed branch.25 The two main branches present the plays in different orders; the earliest Γ-​manuscripts have the order Andria, Eunuchus, Heauton timorumenos, Adelphoe, Hecyra, Phormio, while the Δ-​manuscripts have the so-​called alphabetic order, Andria, Adelphoe, Eunuchus, Phormio, Heauton timorumenos, Hecyra.26 Manuscripts were copied from this early stage both in poetic lines and (increasingly) in prose. Ancient works on metre, such as Priscian’s, were usually only copied along with other related grammatical works at this early stage, and

23

See Demetriou, “Aelius Donatus and his Commentary,” 794–​7; Zetzel, Critics, Compilers, and Commentators, 255 for brief discussions. 24 For the period 800 to 1200 roughly 122 copies are known today; see Birger Munk Olsen, L’étude des auteurs classiques latins aux xie et xiie siècles, vol. 2 (Paris: cnrs, 1985), 599–​ 648 and vol. 3.2. (1989), 132–​38. For a comprehensive survey of the entire manuscript corpus, see Claudia Villa, La lectura Terentii, vol. 1:  Da Ildemaro a Francesco Petrarca (Padua:  Antenore, 1984), 295–​ 454, now updated in Villa, “Terence’s Audience and Readership in the Ninth to Eleventh Centuries,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 249–​50. 25 In addition to the summary account of the transmission of Terence in Texts and Transmission, 412–​20 [M.D. Reeve], the major recent study is that of John N. Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition of Terence (Toronto:  University of Toronto Press, 1986), now updated in Benjamin Victor, “New Manuscript Sources of the Terence-​Text,” in Terentius Poeta, ed. Peter Kruschwitz, Widu-​Wolfgang Ehlers, and Fritz Felgentreu (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2007), 1–​14; Victor, “History of the Text and Scholia,” in A Companion to Terence, ed. Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill (Chichester:  Wiley-​Blackwell, 2013), 343–​62, and Victor, “The Transmission of Terence,” in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C.  Scafuro (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2014), 699–​716. 26 Villa, La lectura Terentii, 2, discusses the origins of these different orders; see also Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition, 19.

30 Chapter 2 were seldom found together with Terence,27 and new manuscripts of Terence copied in verse lines began to include more and more errors in their poetic lines as copyists introduced ad hoc line divisions, to the extent that study of the colometry in them has become an important method of determining their relationship.28 The text of Terence that circulated throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance also incorporated a number of elements besides the plays themselves. In many manuscripts a short poem in elegiac couplets known as the Epitaphium Terentii or ‘epitaph of Terence,’ perhaps written in Late Antiquity,29 was copied at the beginning, while at the start of each play the didasca­ lia was followed by a short, twelve-​line summary of the action of the particular play written in iambic senarii and attributed to the second-​century grammarian Sulpicius Apollinaris.30 Particularly associated with the Γ-​tradition was an otherwise unidentified scholar named Calliopius.31 His name appears in two of the oldest witnesses for this branch, Vatican City, bav, Vat. lat. 3868 (c. 820, siglum C), and Paris, BnF lat. 7899 (9c., siglum P), on the rubric on the title pages after a list of contents in the phrase FELICITER CALLIOPIO (‘‹read› with good fortune by Calliopius’) and in the final rubric of these two and another important early witness, Paris, BnF, lat. 7900 (9 c., siglum Y), in the variant FELICITER CALLIOPIO BONO SCHOLASTICO (‘‹read› with good fortune by Calliopius, a good scholar’). His name is also found in the phrase Calliopius recensui (‘I, Calliopius, edited ‹this play›), or variants thereof, at the conclusion of the last five plays in P and at the end of two plays in C and Y, suggesting

27

28

29 30 31

Manuscripts Florence, bml, Plut. 38.24 (10/​11 c., siglum D), Leiden, UB, VLQ 34 II (10 c.), and Oxford, Bod, MS Auct. F. 2. 13 (12 c., siglum O) are noteworthy in that the main copyists also appear to have copied the work of Priscian on Terence’s metres as part of the same volume (the one surviving page in O was later bound in the manuscript at f. 119; see Bernard J. Muir and Andrew J. Turner, eds., Terence’s Comedies, Bodleian Digital Texts 2, [Oxford, 2011] §5.3). See John N.  Grant, “Contamination in the Mixed MSS of Terence:  A Partial Solution?,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 105 (1975): 123–​53; Benjamin Victor and Bruno Quesnel, “The Colometric Evidence for the History of the Terence-​Text in the Early Middle Ages,” Revue d’Histoire des Textes 29 (1999): 141–​68. See Villa, La lectura Terentii, 24 and no.  69, 46–​7; the poem was subsequently included in the collection Anthologia Latina, only compiled in the 19c. For Sulpicius, see “C. Sulpicius Apollinaris [ii 2],” bnp 13.938 [P. Gatti], and for the verses, Ronald H. Martin, Terence: Adelphoe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 97. plre 1.174–​5 lists five individuals of this name (including the figure associated with Terence, no. 5), and plre 2.251–​3 another seven; aside from our (unidentified) figure, all came from the Greek-​speaking provinces of the Empire, and several (Calliopius 2,3, and 4 in plre 1) had strong literary backgrounds.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

31

that it may derive from the common ancestor of these manuscripts, usually thought to have been written in Late Antiquity.32 This ascription began to spread widely in manuscripts, and Calliopius soon obtained an important place in the Medieval scholarship on Terence, as well as in the illustrations of his plays. More than ever, in the ninth and tenth centuries the plays of Terence required exegesis for readers unfamiliar with his language or the society in which he lived,33 but the text of Donatus had been rendered unusable to most contemporary readers. Manuscripts were scarce, the text had been corrupted considerably by the processes of transmission, with many lines thrown out of order, doublets inserted, and the text of Heauton timorumenos missing entirely,34 while its frequent use of Greek made it increasingly harder to understand and copy in the Western European society of its day.35 Like A, Donatus virtually vanished from sight during the Middle Ages, only to re-​emerge in the Renaissance. To fill the gap, new commentaries began to appear, loosely modelled on 32

33 34

35

Victor, “The Transmission of Terence,” 708 strongly argues against this interpretation and proposes instead that the ascription of an editorial role to Calliopius was based on educated guesses by a Carolingian editor about the initial and final rubrics. He cites as evidence for this the subscriptions in C and Y being added in later hands, but there are a number of partial arguments to suggest that Calliopius recensui was in fact found in the Late-​Antique archetype. Firstly, it is found written in P in the main scribal hand after all plays apart from the initial play Andria, and it is generally agreed that the initial materials from Eunuchus were lost because a folio fell out of the archetype before they were copied in the Carolingian period (cf. Victor, “The Transmission of Terence,” 701), so that the loss of the subscription from Andria might be explained in the same way. Secondly, the additions in C and Y are in hands contemporary to those of the principal scribes (David H. Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence [Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2006], 125 ascribes the additions in C to the scribe who also wrote a missing passage of Andria on an inserted folio in the manuscript; see also his remarks about the colophons in C and Y on 190–​1), and are only made to the same two plays, Adelphoe and Hecyra; it is generally agreed that both C and Y, both written as prose, descend from an intermediary manuscript or at least phase of amended text denoted Ψ (Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition, 141–​4; Victor, “The Transmission of Terence,” 703–​5), so that this intermediate manuscript may in fact have only included these subscriptions. Although copied in monastery scriptoria, the primary audience of these editions was not necessarily novices; see Villa, “Terence’s Audience and Readership” for an important re-​ evaluation of the evidence for secular audiences at this period. See Victor, “The Transmission of Terence,” 711, and note the comment of James E.G. Zetzel, “On the History of Latin Scholia,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 79 (1975):  335-​ 54 that Donatus’ work ‘was abridged and recompiled at some point before our earliest manuscripts were written, and the miserable remains, repetitive, dull, and incoherent in places … are but a sad reminder of what the commentary must once have been’ (339–​40). For its rediscovery, see Chapter 2.3.

32 Chapter 2 other commentaries on Classical texts, but lacking any real knowledge of the ancient world, and at times prone to ridiculous guesses. The commentary known as the Commentum Brunsianum (CB)36 appears to have been compiled in the general area of Northern France in the early ninth century using a variety of miscellaneous resources, and circulated widely in association with manuscripts of Terence.37 Also in the early ninth century, probably in Brescia in Northern Italy, another commentary known as the Commentum Monacense (CM) was compiled which had a strong focus on providing short lexical definitions, and which shared many notes with the CB, while adding many more of its own.38 These two works are preceded by substantial texts, comprising Lives of Terence, as well as an accessus (plot summary) to the first play, Andria; although the CM itself is only known from a single manuscript, the Life attached to it, usually denoted the Praefatio Monacensis, gained a life of its own, and is found transmitted in many Terence manuscripts from all over Europe. The Lives in these collections reveal no knowledge of the Life in Donatus or the Vita Ambrosiana, and characteristically begin with an egregious error which derives from the fifth-​century Christian historian Orosius, confusing Terence with a senator named Terentius Culleo, who had been freed at the conclusion of the second Punic War (some seven or seventeen years before Terence was apparently born), and who marched in the triumph of Scipio Africanus in 201 bc wearing a freedman’s cap.39 36 37

38

39

P. Bruns, P. Terentii Afri comoediae sex: Textum ad fidem codicis Halensis (Halle: Renger, 1811). For the date and provenance, see Rainer Jakobi, “Das Commentum Brunsianum,” in Terentius Poeta, ed. Peter Kruschwitz, Widu-​ Wolfgang Ehlers, and Fritz Felgentreu (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2007), 48, and for the sources 39–​43, and Muir and Turner, Terence’s Comedies, §6.3. For the circulation, see Yves-​François Riou, “Essai sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentum Brunsianum des comédies de Térence,” Revue d’Histoire des Textes 3 (1973): 79–​113, updated in Riou, “Les commentaires médiévaux de Térence,” in Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship, ed. Nicholas Mann and Birger Munk Olsen (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 36, and for the spread of different recensions of the work, Andrew J. Turner, “The Ghent Manuscript of Terence and Its Intellectual Environment,” Journal of Medieval Latin 25 (2015): 62–​4. For the Northern Italian provenance, see Villa, La lectura Terentii, 9–​23, Franz Schorsch, Das commentum Monacense zu den Komödien des Terenz (Tübingen: Narr, 2011), 32–​45, Enara San Juan Manso, El Commentum Monacense a Terencio, Anejos de Veleia, Series Minor 31 (Vitoria-​Gasteiz:  Universidad del Pais Vasco/​Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, 2015), 28–​30; for the nature of the contents see Schorsch, Das commentum Monacense 8–​20, San Juan Manso, El Commentum Monacense, 17–​22, and for discussion of the relative strengths of these two modern editions, as well as the enigmatic relationship of the two Medieval commentary traditions, Andrew J. Turner, Review of El Commentum Monacense a Terencio, Exemplaria Classica 21 (2017): 423–​6. Cf. the parallel texts of the CB and CM printed at Riou, “Essai sur la tradition manuscrite,” 106; see also Jakobi, “Das Commentum Brunsianum,” 40.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

33

Lacking, as they did, any direct evidence from the time of Terence, these commentaries also perpetuated a major misunderstanding of the nature of performance of Classical drama that was popularized throughout the Middle Ages by Isidore of Seville (c. 560–​636) through his great encyclopaedia, the Origines or Etymologies. Describing systematically aspects of the various performative arts, Isidore had stated: Theatrum est quo scena includitur, semicirculi figuram habens, in quo stantes omnes inspiciunt … Scena autem erat locus infra theatrum in modum domus instructa cum pulpito, qui pulpitus orchestra vocabatur; ubi cantabant comici, tragici, atque saltabant histriones et mimi … Orchestra autem pulpitus erat scenae, ubi saltator agere posset, aut duo inter se disputare. Ibi enim poetae comoedi et tragoedi ad certamen conscendebant, hisque canentibus alii gestus edebant. Isid. Orig. 18.42.1, 43, 44

The theatre is where the stage building is enclosed; it has the shape of a semi-​circle, in which everyone stands and looks on … And the stage building was a place inside the theatre, built in the manner of a house with a wooden platform, called the orchestra, where the comic and tragic poets used to sing, and the actors and mimes used to dance … The orchestra was the wooden platform of the stage building, where a dancer would be able to act, or two could argue between themselves. For comic and tragic poets used to climb up there for competitions, and while these men were singing the others used to produce gestures. Rather than actors speaking their own lines, then, the poet himself would sing as dancers and mimes performed to his words.40 This conception of ancient performance appears to have entered the Terence commentary traditions via an early Carolingian commentary on Horace’s Ars poetica,41 and the CB expands this by ascribing the key part of recitator or reciter to Calliopius, stating: Illud etiam animaduertendum has fabulas non ab ipso esse recitatas in scena sed a Calliopio clarissimo uiro satisque erudito, cui ipse praecipue 40

41

For a similar style of theatrical performance in the early Byzantine period, see Walter Puchner, “Acting in the Byzantine theatre: evidence and problems,” in Greek and Roman Actors:  Aspects of an Ancient Profession, ed. Pat Easterling and Edith Hall (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 312. Jakobi, “Das Commentum Brunsianum,” 42.

34 Chapter 2 adhaerebat cuiusque ope sustentabatur et auctoritate audiebatur … Illud uero quod in fine omnium fabularum habetur, uidelicet ‘plaudite’, uerba sunt Calliopii eius recitatoris qui, dum fabulam terminasset, eleuabat aulaeam scaenae et alloquebatur populum inquiens: uos ualete, uos plaudite, siue fauete et plaudite.42 However, this should be noted, that these comedies were not recited by ‹Terence› himself on stage, but by Calliopius, a most excellent man and fully educated, to whose side ‹Terence› himself used to stick closely, and by whose help he was supported and by whose authority he was heard … But that which is found at the end of all the comedies, that is ‘Applaud’, are the words of Calliopius his reciter, who, when he had finished the play, used to lift the curtain of the stage and address the audience, saying: ‘May you be well, and applaud, or, be favourable and applaud.’ This belief that Calliopius had a central role in the production of Terence’s plays and indeed in his whole career, although an early-​Medieval invention, came to be reflected in the iconography associated with the plays as well and, as will be shown, has a quite prominent place in the iconography of the Lyon Terence. Commentaries, all anonymous, continued to be adapted and written throughout the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and the advent of scholastic thought provided a particular impetus for them.43 Details from Donatus’ commentary appear to have occasionally seeped into these traditions,44 but by and large this work still remained unknown, especially outside of France,45 and the later commentaries perpetuated and even amplified the mistakes of the 42

43 44

45

Riou, “Essai sur la tradition manuscrite,” 108, 112; for the derivation of the second passage from Carolingian scholia on Hor. Ars 154b (printed in Hendrik J. Botschuyver, ed., Scholia in Horatium λ φ ψ codicum Parisinorum latinorum 7972, 7974, 7971 [Amsterdam: H.A. van Bottenburg, 1935], 434), see Jakobi, “Das Commentum Brunsianum,” 42 nn. 16 and 18. Riou, “Les commentaires médiévaux,” 36–​43; Claudia Villa, “Commenti medioevali alle commedie di Terenzio,” in Terentius Poeta, ed. Peter Kruschwitz, Widu-​Wolfgang Ehlers, and Fritz Felgentreu (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2007), 31–​2. See Riou, “Les commentaires médiévaux,” 38–​9 for discussion of the possible influence of Donatus on the commentary tradition known as Poeta iste (for which Villa, “Commenti medioevali,” 31–​2), and Villa, “Commenti medioevali,” 31 for references to him in the tradition Auctor iste. See the discussion in Michael D.  Reeve and Richard H.  Rouse, “New Light on the Transmission of Donatus’ Commentum Terentii,” Viator 9 (1978): 235–​50, who conclude that the work owed its survival to scholars in north-​central France (249), and the paltry list of references by contemporary scholars in Texts and Transmission, 154 [M.D. Reeve]. See also Remigio Sabbadini, Storia e critica di testi latini, 2nd edition, Medioevo e Umanesimo

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

35

Carolingian witnesses.46 Towards the end of the twelfth century it appears that Terence began to be used in schools far less often; certainly far fewer manu­ scripts are known today from the thirteenth century than the twelfth.47 In some respects his role as the sole representative of drama on the Latin syllabus seems to have been partially eclipsed by Seneca, whose plays began to be copied in increasing numbers from the late thirteenth century onwards, accompanied by extensive commentaries explaining the many obscure references in these works.48 But as with all other surviving writers from the Classical world, renewed attention was paid to Terence in Italy right from the end of the thirteenth century; thus even Dante Alighieri (c. 1265–​1321), whom an older generation of critics supposed not to have had any direct knowledge of Terence, has been shown by Claudia Villa probably to have had access not only to the text itself, but also to some of the commentary traditions.49 Manuscripts of Terence’s six plays accompanied by commentary began to be produced in increasing numbers in Italy throughout the fourteenth century, particularly written on the new and cheaper medium of paper.50 A new and highly influential text that was composed in this era was the commentary of Giacomino da Mantova, or Giacomino Robazzi (b. c. 1320, d. after 1384).51 11 (Padua; Antenore, 1971), 153–​7 for knowledge of the work by the fourteenth-​century humanist Nicholas de Clémanges. 46 See Villa, La lectura Terentii, 114 for the incorporation of Calliopius into the group of Terence’s three friends and supporters in these commentaries. We are also grateful to Peter Bruun Hansen for advising us that absurd stories in the CB such as the explanation that flautists who played on pipes of unequal length were known as Claudi (‘lame’) because lame men have one leg shorter than the other (cf. Turner, “El Commentum Monacense,” 426) are also included in the scholiastic traditions. 47 Using the catalogues in Villa, La lectura Terentii, and “Terence’s audience and readership,” we estimate that roughly some 39 manuscripts survive which were written in the twelfth century (with the largest proportion coming from France, then Italy, England and Germany), and only nine from the thirteenth century. 48 For discussion, see Gianni Guastella, “Seneca Rediscovered:  Recovery of Texts, Redefinition of a Genre,” in Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Senecan Tragedy, ed. Eric Dodson-​Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 77–​100. 49 See Claudia Villa, “Un’ ipotesi per l’epistola a Cangrande,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 24 (1981): 18–​63, reprised and developed in Villa, La lectura Terentii, 137–​74. 50 Using Villa’s figures, perhaps 47 witnesses survive which were copied in the fourteenth century (the intense production of manuscripts around the year 1400 makes it difficult to be more precise about this), of which some 43 were Italian. For the effect of the introduction of paper within the broader context of increased book production in this period, see Bernhard Bischoff, Paläographie des römischen Altertums und des abendländischen Mittelalters (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1979), 281–​2. 51 For discussion of this figure, see Giuseppe Billanovich, “Terenzio, Ildemaro, Petrarca,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 17 (1974): 1–​14; updated in Adrián López Miguel, “Estudio

36 Chapter 2 Giacomino’s commentary, which was very much in the mould of scholarship on Seneca associated with Padua and the English commentator Nicholas Trevet,52 was a comprehensive work treating the plays phrase by phrase, and it circulated both as continuous text and also as marginal comments excerpted in many Terence manuscripts of the period.53 This new commentary was, however, still largely dependent on the scholastic commentaries on Terence for its information about the author and his world;54 thus Giacomino repeats the assertion that Terence appeared in Scipio’s triumphal procession in 201 bc, and also still ascribes a major role to Calliopius in producing Terence’s plays.55 It was Petrarch (1304–​74) in particular who brought about the revitalisation of studies into Terence in this period. Dissatisfied with the prevailing biographical tradition on Terence, he wrote his own Life of Terence that corrected the mistaken identification with Terentius Culleo which dated back to Orosius, and also made use of the Vita Ambrosiana for more accurate biographical details.56 Petrarch’s Life began to circulate widely in manuscripts, and his methodology of searching out better copies also provided impetus to members of his circle, in particular Pietro da Moglio (c. 1313–​83),57 who reorganised Robazzi’s commentary, often accompanying his comments with careful annotations as to their sources, and who paid particular attention to the text of Terence, attempting to restore proper colometry and incorporating in his manuscripts a rare alternative ending to the opening play Andria, which he discovered in a library in Bologna.58

52 53

54 55 56 57 58

y edición del comentario de Giacomino da Mantova a Terencio:  Andria, 1–​300,” (Thesis, University of the Basque Country, 2017)  ‹addi.ehu.es/​handle/​10810/​21269›, 11–​13. Billanovich, “Terenzio, Ildemaro, Petrarca,” 15. Billanovich, “Terenzio, Ildemaro, Petrarca,” 23; López Miguel, “Estudio y edición,” 14–​ 15. For the ascription of the comments to Giacomino, cf. the rubric on Milan, BA, A 33 inf., f. 5v, which reads Sequuntur aliqua extracta de scripto Magistri Jacobini de Mantua super Terentium (‘there follow certain excerpts from the writing of Master Giacomino da Mantova concerning Terence’). Cf. López Miguel, “Estudio y edición,” 14. Comentario de Giacomino da Mantova a Andria 1–​300 [= López Miguel, “Estudio y edición,” 23–​44], lines 3–​8, 10-​11, 44-​5. See the comprehensive discussion in Villa, La lectura Terentii, 191–​216. For da Moglio, see Giuseppe Billanovich, “Petrarca, Pietro da Moglio e Pietro da Parma,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 22 (1979): 367–​95; Villa, La lectura Terentii, 217–​31, and the biography in dbi 75.267–​73 [L. Quaquarelli]. hanc scenam nusquam alibi uidi, preterquam in codice Terentii qui est in catenis et apud Sanctum Dominicum Bononie; ubi ipsam repperi de littera admodum antiqua superaddita, ‘I have not seen this scene anywhere else, apart from in a codex of Terence which is chained and at the basilica of San Domenico in Bologna, where I found it added in

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

37

Until the end of the fourteenth century all new scholarship on Terence seems to have been produced in Italy, but at the start of the fifteenth century it appears that another new commentary was written in France by a certain ‘Laurencius’, identified by Villa with the humanist scholar Laurent Guillot, more usually known as Laurent de Premierfait (c. 1360/​70–​1418).59 Laurent was a minor cleric and poet, who had worked at the Papal court at Avignon before moving to Paris and obtaining influential patronage at the royal court, and the commentary seems to have been produced there in the same period that de luxe, illustrated manuscripts of Terence were being copied for the Dauphin and other royal dukes. The commentary still perpetuates the assumption that Calliopius recited all of Terence’s plays,60 but places a strong value on presenting Terence as a Classical poet, to be read and understood as such; consequently, there is a particular emphasis on the questions of metre, which Laurent argued should be restored to its original form after centuries of ignorance by copyists.61 Laurent also proposes a slightly modified version of Isidore’s concept of theatrical performance, stating with regard to the word scena or ‘scene,’ that: Scena est portio actus multarum aut solius personarum, solitariam uel alternam ostendens prolocutionem cum gestibus, et licet scena uere dicatur umbraculum habens cortinam protensam, a quo emittuntur persone que locuntur uocem recitatoris imitantes, scenam tamen hic recte accipio pro mutatione personarum respectu scene precendentis.62

59

60 61 62

letters which were sufficiently ancient’ (printed in Billanovich, “Petrarca, Pietro da Moglio e Pietro da Parma,” 381; see also Milan, BA, A 33 inf., f. 24r). For this ending, believed now to be spurious but of ancient date, see Victor, “The transmission of Terence,” 709. Claudia Villa, “Laurencius,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 24 (1981): 123–​36 (revised and expanded in Villa, La lectura Terentii, 237–​59); see also the discussion in Carla Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence,” in Vestigia: Studi in onore di Giuseppe Billanovich, ed. Rino Avesani et al. (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1984), 93–​129 (particularly 110–​ 15 for similar interest shown by both Laurent de Premierfait and the author of the commentary in metre, grammar, and rhetoric). For the biography of Laurent de Premierfait, see Richard C. Famiglietti, “Laurent de Premierfait: The Career of a Humanist in Early Fifteenth-​Century Paris,” Journal of Medieval History 9 (1983):  25–​42; Carla Bozzolo, “Introduction à la vie et à l’œuvre d’un humaniste,” in Un traducteur et un humaniste de l’époche de Charles V:  Laurent de Premierfait, ed. Carla Bozzolo (Paris:  Publications de la Sorbonne, 2004), 17-​30. For the date of the commentary on Terence, see Bozzolo, “Introduction à la vie,” 22. Cf. Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence,” 110. Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence,” 110–​12. Transcribed from Paris, BnF, lat. 7907 f. 1v; the text can also be found in Vatican City, bav, Reg. lat. 1875, f.  1r (the version of the commentary found in Paris, BnF lat. 7907A and

38 Chapter 2 The ‘scene’ is a portion of an act of many characters or a single one, showing individual speech or dialogue with gestures. And although ‘scene’ is truly spoken of as a tent having a stretched curtain, from which the characters are sent forth miming the voice of the reciter, nevertheless here I understand ‘scene’ as the change-​over of characters with regard to the previous scene. The fifteenth century saw an explosion in the number of Terence manuscripts, which were still predominately written in Italy, although other countries now began to produce copies in increasing numbers, notably Germany, France, and to a lesser extent, England and Spain.63 Two major factors were to alter radically the nature of the Terence text in the second part of this century: the rediscovery and popularisation of Donatus, and the introduction of printing, but as these are closely related they will be handled at a later stage of this chapter. One final point of relevance to the Lyon Terence to be addressed in this section, however, concerns the order of the plays. As noted earlier, one of the two main orders of the plays in the early Medieval period was the Γ order, in which the plays appeared as Andria, Eunuchus, Heauton timorumenos, Adelphoe, Hecyra, and Phormio. This order, by and large, became the dominant one in the later part of the Middle Ages, except that at some early stage (and not consistently) the order of the last two plays was reversed, so that in some manuscripts Phormio comes second last and Hecyra comes last.64 This order is followed both in the Lyon Terence, as well as Badius’ earlier (1491) edition of Terence and Donatus. Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 664 does not include it). See also the transcription and translation in Henry A.  Kelly, Chaucerian Tragedy (Cambridge:  D.S. Brewer, 1997), 160 n. 36, and the partial transcription and discussion in Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence,” 109. 63 Using Villa’s figures, there survive from the fifteenth century approximately 361 copies written in Italy, 77 in Germany, 43 in France, and 14 from England and Spain. 64 Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition, 120 argues that the order was already present in manuscript Vienna, önb, 85 (his siglum Vb), dated by him as 11 c. (Villa, La lectura Terentii, 441 dates it as 10 c., while Munk Olsen, L’étude, vol. 2, 645 dates it as ‘s. xi in.’). Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence,” 96 comments that the order Phormio Hecyra is ‘le plus répandu aux xive et xve siècles’, although of the manuscripts containing Laurent which she discusses, Paris, BnF, 7907A has the order Hecyra Phormio, while BnF, lat. 7907 and Arsenal, MS 664 have the order Phormio Hecyra. Of the manuscripts we have examined for this study, the order Phormio Hecyra is also found in London, BL, Harley 2525 (Italian, fourteenth century, cf. Villa, La lectura Terentii, 353), Milan BA, A 33 inf. (Italian, 1408, cf. Villa, La lectura Terentii, 362–​3), and Oxford, Bod, Canon. class. lat. 96 (Italian, 1419; cf. Villa, La lectura Terentii, 384).

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

2.2

39

The Development of Manuscript Illustrations of Terence

The cycle of illustrations in the Lyon Terence is remarkable in that some of its formal as well as iconographical elements can be traced back through a series of illustrated manuscripts to an original which must have been produced in Late Antiquity, and which in turn built on a substantial body of illustrations derived from the standardised depictions of Greek New Comedy.65 David Wright, whose work on the illustrated tradition has in part superseded the study of Leslie W. Jones and Charles R. Morey from 1931 that for a long time dominated critical discussion,66 argues that this original manuscript was copied c. 400 ad in Rome where, in his opinion, it was commissioned or edited by Calliopius. Despite this manuscript being subsequently lost, it was still extant in the ninth century, when it circulated in the scriptoria of Northern France and was painstakingly copied, producing four key witnesses which survive today; C, P, Y, and F (Milan, BA, S.P. 4 bis [H 75 inf.]), all members of the Γ textual tradition.67 These earliest surviving illustrated manuscripts, particularly C and P, have been studied extensively because of the partial information they impart on the ancient Roman conception of theatre. Both C and P begin with an author portrait showing an idealised Terence, flanked by two male figures wearing masks.68 There are illustrations placed at the start of every scene in every play; in C there are a total of 144 for the six plays, although there are likely to have been two more in the lost Late-​Antique exemplum, since before it was copied in the Carolingian period two folios containing two separate scenes in Andria dropped out of it.69 Moreover, at the beginning of five of the six plays (excepting Eunuchus) both C and P also depict a full page aedicula, an open cabinet with a pediment or semi-​circular arch, and framed by two Corinthian columns, on which the masks for each of the characters sit on shelves, as if ready to be used by performers.70 65

For discussion, see Sebastiana Nervegna, “Graphic Comedy:  Menandrian Mosaics and Terentian Miniatures,” in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 717–​34. 66 Leslie W. Jones and Charles R. Morey, The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence Prior to the Thirteenth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1931). 67 Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 1, and for a reconstruction of the manuscript and analysis of its images, 206–​24. 68 See Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 6 for discussion of the elaborately coloured portrait in C. 69 Cf. Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 30–​1; Victor, “The Transmission of Terence,” 701. 70 The aedicula for Eunuchus was lost together with some preliminary materials and lines 1–​30 of the Prologus at an early stage of the transmission history.

40 Chapter 2 The scene illustrations do not show a theatre per se or an audience; rather, they selectively depict some aspects of Antique theatrical performances, including the masks on characters, coloured costumes (this is particularly the case for C, in which the illustrations are fully painted), the codified gestures made by characters, and stylised doorways, usually just a frame and curtain; the figures are also carefully distinguished by name.71 The speakers of the prologues are also depicted, wearing masks and occasionally holding items such as branches.72 With regard to the scene illustrations, Wright comments that the original illustrator: generally [created] an illustration that reads from left to right, with the figures in the order of speaking, as they were listed in the scene heading of his textual exemplar, generally depicting the situation at the start of the scene and ignoring episodes towards the end of it. But a number of times he was forced to show two separate moments in a scene in order to show an appropriate action for each character in the cast list, especially when one figure enters later in the scene.73 There are a few illustrations in the early manuscripts which do not accurately reflect the list of speakers for that particular scene, which in turn has provoked debate about whether these illustrations derive from a parent manuscript from either the Γ tradition or another, earlier tradition which had different scene divisions.74 In Heauton timorumenos the illustrations for scenes v.i and v.ii in C on the one hand, and P and F on the other, have notably different arrangements; in C the two speakers for v.i are depicted, and in v.ii they are retained and the two new speakers required for that scene are introduced, while in PF all four speakers are depicted at v.i, in similar poses but in a different configuration and different labels from the illustration of v.ii in C, while the space for an illustration at v.ii has been left blank. This anomaly has led to quite different interpretations of which illustrations, those of C or PF, most faithfully represent those in the lost Late-​Antique exemplar,75 but is of particular interest for this study for the possible influence it had on subsequent illustrative traditions, 71

Sometimes the labels in the earliest witnesses differ, pointing to confusion in the lost archetype. See, for instance, the discussion of the labels for Adelphoe ii.i and the illustrations from C and P at Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 100–​1. 72 See Guastella, “Ornatu prologi,” 207–​9. 73 Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 213. For a list of scenes where the action from two parts of a scene is represented, see Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition, 223 n.  29. 74 In particular see Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition, 18–​59, summarizing the earlier positions of Leo, Jachmann, and Jones and Morey as background to his own arguments. 75 See Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition, 26–​39, arguing for the priority of PF on the one hand, and Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 178–​80 for that of C on

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

41

both in manuscript and printed form. Likewise, the technique noted above of depicting two separate parts of a scene within the same situation, which in two scenes, Hecyra iii.iv and v.iv, led to figures being repeated in the same illustration,76 seems to have been productive of an important development in later illustrative traditions. At two locations, Eunuchus v.iv (l. 943) and Adelphoe iii.iii (l. 364), the illustrated manuscripts insert new scene divisions not found in A, together with appropriate illustrations. Occasionally, items not mentioned in the text of Terence will be shown in the illustrations, most notably in the illustration to Andria i.i, where the items carried into Sosia’s house by the slaves in preparation for the wedding feast, only described in the text as istaec (‘those things,’ An. 28), are depicted carefully—​they comprise a jug of liquid, a dead game-​bird, a branch, possibly palm, and fish suspended from a ring.77 The order of these items corresponds to the description of this scene in the CB, which states: Quia Simo nuptias simulabat se uelle celebrare, serui illius eulogias ei detulerunt, et ministri quod unusquisque poterat; quidam pisces, quidam aues, quidam uinum, quidam lac, et cetera talia;78 Because Simo was pretending he wished to celebrate a wedding, his slaves and servants gathered together food and drink for him, whatever they each could: some of them fish, some of them birds, some of them wine, some of them milk, and all other such things; strongly suggesting that this commentary was written for a textual tradition that incorporated pictures.79

76 77

78 79

the other. Wright argues that the mistake came about in P because the copyist of the text did not leave space for the second illustration, and that the illustrator shifted the second illustration to the space left for the first; he simply explained the identical mistake in F as a ‘very strange anomaly’ (180). Against this, it should be pointed out that there was no space left for the second illustration in Y, as Grant perceptively notes (30); C and Y are descended from the same lost parent manuscript Ψ (Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition, 141–​4, Victor, “The Transmission of Terence,” 703–​5). Discussed at Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 137 and 146. For a description of the items as they appear in C, see Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 12, who identifies the branch as a palm branch. Illustrations of this scene for the manuscripts O and P can be found at Turner and Torello-​Hill, Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, as Figures 2 and 3. Transcribed from O and reproduced in Muir and Turner, Terence’s Comedies. As already suggested by Jakobi, “Das Commentum Brunsianum,” 41–​2, basing his argument on the comment in the CB (Riou, “Essai sur la tradition manuscrite,” 109) that non

42 Chapter 2 One of the most noteworthy features of these illustrations is the way in which the stances of the characters and the hand-​gestures made by them can be shown to reflect a codified system, which at times appears to have strong parallels to a system of gestures and posture from Roman rhetoric explained in detail by Quintilian in his Institutio oratoria (particularly inst. 11.3.65–​136).80 Gestures on stage originally functioned to reinforce particular points, clarify, or even undercut them, although ancient rhetorical theorists were also careful to stress the primacy of oratory as a literary genre, often treating theatrical performance in a condescending way.81 The original group of copies of the Late-​Antique exemplar was supplemented over the following three centuries by a second generation of manuscripts that were either direct copies or direct descendants of these originals. In their illustrations, masks now became indistinct or disappeared entirely, and costumes and buildings began to be modernised, but the basic dramatic structures were largely preserved, and while the significance of the original gestural language seems no longer to have been understood, hand gestures still remained a very prominent feature.82 The main surviving representatives of these manu­ scripts are Vatican City, bav, Archivio di San Pietro H. 19 (10/​11 c., siglum B), a direct copy of C made in a French scriptorium with very poorly executed images originally extending as far as Eunuchus i.i (subsequently erased),83 Leiden,

80 81 82

83

absque re imagines Terentianae turgido et inflato ore pinguntur (‘there is good reason why Terentian portraits are drawn with swollen and inflated cheeks’); this evidence is, however, complicated by the fact that the same phrase also appears in the Carolingian scholia on Horace, which Jakobi himself cites as a source for the CB (42; for Horace, see Scholia in Horatium λ φ ψ codicum [Botschuyver], 442). For discussion of the gestures as they appear in the Carolingian manuscripts, see Chapter 5.3. Cf. Dorota Dutsch, “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence and Late Revivals of Literary Drama,” Gesture 7 (2007), 45, quoting Cic. de. orat. 3.220. This may of course have been due to any number of factors associated with Medieval artistic traditions. In his study, Charles R. Dodwell, Anglo-​Saxon Gestures and the Roman Stage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 101–​54 had in fact argued for the direct influence of the gestures in the illustrated Terence manuscripts on contemporary Anglo-​Saxon manuscript art, but see also David H. Wright, Review of Anglo-​Saxon Gestures, 233–​4 for the relationship of gestures both to the Terence traditions and ‘a particular Carolingian style, with elongated linear fingers, not an authentic tradition from the Roman stage.’ Described in Pellegrin et al. Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane vol. 1 (1975), 45–​7; see also Veronika von Büren, “Note sur le ms. Vaticano Arch. S. Pietro H 19 et son modèle Vaticano lat. 3868: les Térence de Cluny?,” Scriptorium 48 (1994): 287–​ 93; Marco Buonocore, ed., Vedere i classici: L’ illustrazione libraria dei testi antichi dall’età romana al tardo Medioevo (Rome: Fratelli Palombi Editore, 1996), 200–​2 [D.H. Wright];

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

43

UB, lip 26 (early 11 c., siglum Ld), a manuscript made in Flanders at St Peter’s in Ghent, with images extending to Andria iii.ii,84 and Oxford, Bod, MS Auct. F. 2. 13 (mid 12 c., siglum O), a copy from England with a full set of images, which was copied from a manuscript very closely related to P, most probably a lost twin.85 Aside from modernisation of costume and architecture, the most significant change in O to the original cycle was the creation by its artist or the artist of its archetype of suitable images to illustrate Andria v.i and v.ii, which had been lost in the exemplar used to produce the first generation of manuscripts, including C and P, and which were supplied from another manuscript in O.86 A few other witnesses contain isolated images which may have been derived from the Carolingian cycle,87 and other manuscripts were produced in the Γ-​family which seem to have been intended for illustration because of the spaces left at the start of each scene, although the programme was never

84

85 86 87

David H. Wright, “An Abandoned Early Humanist Plan to Illustrate Terence,” in Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 7, Studi e testi 396 (Vatican City: bav, 2000), 481–​500. See Turner, “The Ghent Manuscript,” for detailed discussion of the manuscript and its codicology, noting the observation that the manuscript was designed not only to include scene illustrations, but also full or half page illustrations at the beginning of each new play, corresponding to the aedicula in the earlier manuscripts (55–​7). Beatrice Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts of Terence,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 43 argues that the images ‘are unrelated to illustrations in earlier Terence manuscripts’, although her comments are more relevant to the specific style of the individual figures, and not the general iconography inherited from the earlier illustrated cycle; thus the illustration for Andria i.i on f. 2r of Ld, although now indistinct, still depicts two slaves carrying foodstuffs on the right of the picture. See further the discussion in Erik Kwakkel and Anne S. Korteweg, “The Monastic World,” in Splendour of the Burgundian Netherlands: Southern Netherlandish Illuminated Manuscripts in Dutch Collections, ed. Anne M.W. As-​Vijvers and Anne S. Korteweg (Zwolle: wbooks, 2018), 43–​5. For discussion, see Muir and Turner, Terence’s Comedies, Introduction §§5.3 and 7; see also Victor, “The Transmission of Terence,” 705. See Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition, 149–​54, noting his conclusion that the images in O were a fabrication of the artist (154); see also Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 30–​1; Muir and Turner, Terence’s Comedies, Introduction §7.3. For Paris, BnF, lat. 7903 (11 c., siglum Z), a copy from central France which has only three images, only one of which, the illustration for Andria i.i, seems to be directly modelled on the earlier cycle of illustrations, see Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 54–​5 and Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence, 201–​2, noting in particular his comment ‘[t]‌hat first illustration was copied here in contemporary style … but respecting the basic postures, gestures, and attributes of the figures.’ (201). For Paris, BnF, lat. 12322 + 12244 (10 c., siglum π), see Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 57–​8 and for Paris BnF, lat. 18544 (11 c.), 58; the drawings in this witness are reproduced in Turner and Torello-​Hill, Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, as Figure 6.

44 Chapter 2 achieved,88 but more noticeable departures from the traditional corpus of illustrations began to be produced from the eleventh century onwards, by artists most probably working in the general area of the Loire Valley in central France. In Leiden, UB, vlq 38 (10/​11 c., siglum N), perhaps written in Fleury and containing some 51 images extending as far as Heauton timorumenos iii. ii,89 an artist began to incorporate elements within his images which derived, as Bernard Muir as shown, from his close reading of the text of Terence rather from the illustrated tradition per se.90 Like the artist for O, he also created an image for the missing scene Andria v.i on f. 22v, but of particular interest is the image on f. 1v, immediately preceding the prologue of Andria, which introduces into the illustrative cycle a portrait of the poet in the process of dictating his work to a scribe (Figure 2.1); this element was later to appear both in the Parisian manuscripts from the early fifteenth century (discussed below), and perhaps also the Lyon Terence itself (cf. Figure 1.1). A major artistic development in the representation of ancient theatre and the processes of composition can be found in another manuscript from Southern France, perhaps from the vicinity of Tours, Vatican City, bav, Vat. lat. 3305 (11/​12 c., siglum S).91 The images in this manuscript are reproduced and discussed in detail by Wright; in particular, he concludes that the text of the manuscript cannot have been copied from one of the great illustrated Γ manuscripts,92 but that the artist seems to have had access to a manuscript with the standard Carolingian iconography, and to have been inspired by some details in it in his more original creations, while directly copying other illustrations.93 88 89

90 91

92 93

Such as Paris, BnF, lat. 16235, and Valenciennes, BM, 448; the blank space left in these manuscripts was soon filled by scholiasts, obscuring the fact that they were designed to be illustrated. See Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 43–​4, and Radden Keefe, “Creative Borrowing in a Leiden Terence (UB MS VLQ 38),” in After the Carolingians: Re-​defining Manuscript Illumination in the 10th and 11th Centuries, ed. Beatrice Kitzinger and Joshua O’Driscoll (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2019). Bernard J. Muir, “Terence’s Comedies: Development, Transmission, and Transformation,” in Turner and Torello-​Hill, Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, 28–​9. Discussed in Pellegrin et al., Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane vol. 3.2, 235–​7; David H. Wright, “The Forgotten Early Romanesque Illustrations of Terence in Vat. lat. 3305,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 56 (1993): 183–​206; Buonocore, Vedere i classici, 218–​23 [D.H. Wright]; Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 63–​4. Note in particular his points in Wright, “The Forgotten Early Romanesque Illustrations,” 189 that the text in S is of the mixed type and includes a scene division at An. 206 which is not found in the Γ manuscripts. With regard to the illustration for Andria i.i in S, which has the characteristic collection of a jug, birds, and spoon seen in manuscripts such as C and P, Wright argues that there is enough similarity ‘to suggest that our artist may have inspected a manuscript with the

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

45

It is the frontispiece in S, which immediately precedes its prologue on f. 8v, which is the most innovative in its conception. In it there are three frames, one above and two below, and in the first of these Calliopius is given centre place, sitting on a throne and reciting the opening words of Andria (Poeta cum primum animum, ‘When the poet first ‹applied› his mind’, An. 1) from an open book on a lectern. On the left-​hand side, Terence himself sits in a relaxed pose and watches on, while on the right two figures denoted Adversarii, or ‘rivals’, also watch the recitation; above them the name Luscius Lavinius (sic) has been added slightly later than the main illustration was drawn, although possibly by the same artist.94 Beneath the recitation, a line of figures denoted Romani or ‘Romans’ sits and listens attentively. Finally, in the frames beneath these figures two scenes relating to Andria are depicted; in the first the slave Davus is shown in dialogue with his owner, the old man Simo, and in the second the lovers Pamphilus and Glycerium are shown in an intimate pose. Wright observes that this latter scene does not correspond to any dramatic situation in the play itself.95 The dominant position given to Calliopius in this picture reflects the growing tendency in Carolingian scholarship to assign a major role to him in the editing and recitation of Terence’s plays. Another important addition to the illustrative cycle here is that of Luscius, whose correct cognomen is Lanuvinus, and who was a contemporary playwright of Terence identified by Donatus in his commentary as the anonymous maleuolus uetus poeta, ‘malevolent old poet’ whom Terence blamed for having a poor reputation amongst his contemporaries.96 Luscius Lanuvinus was not only mentioned by Donatus, but also in the derivative commentary by Eugraphius, which was much more widely known in the Carolingian period, and where his cognomen occurs in the variant spelling Lanuinus.97 Wright argues that this scene, with its attentive audience of

94 95 96

97

Carolingian iconography … gotten some ideas from it, but not been able to copy it directly’ (Wright, “The Forgotten Early Romanesque Illustrations,” 194). For his direct modelling on a Carolingian exemplar for the final image in Andria and two in Heauton timorumenos, see 198–​203. Wright, “The Forgotten Early Romanesque Illustrations,” 192. Wright, “The Forgotten Early Romanesque Illustrations,” 193. Terence’s critics, including the uetus poeta, are mentioned by him at An. 6–​7, 15–​16; Hau. 22, 30–​2; Eu. 4–​19; Ph. 1–​24; Hec. 21–​3; Ad. 15–​21. For Donatus’ identification of the uetus poeta with Luscius Lanuvinus, see Don. Ter. An. 7.6; Eu. 9.2, 9.4, 10.2; Ph. 2.1, 6.2. For discussion of Lanuvinus and the culture of criticism in contemporary Rome, see George F. Franko, “Terence and the Traditions of Roman New Comedy,” in A Companion to Terence, ed. Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill (Chichester: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2013), 35–​8. For the manuscripts of Eugraphius, which include both F and B, see Paul Wessner, ed., Donatus:  Commentum Terenti, vol. 3 (Leipzig:  Teubner, 1908), vi-​xv. For references to

46 Chapter 2 Romans watching on, depicts them participating in a literary discussion, ‘a Medieval disputatio between author and critics,’98 but the role given to Calliopius as a reader and the presence of the two scenes at the bottom of the picture also suggests that the artist may have been influenced by the conception of ancient theatre in Isidore, where the performance is made by mimes acting in conjunction with a single reader narrating the entire text of the plays. The probable influence of Isidore’s conception of the theatre on the illustration of performance is clearer when we look at a third manuscript originating from the same general area, Tours, BM, MS 924 (early 12c., siglum Tur), possibly copied at St Martin in Tours.99 At the conclusion of Andria on f. 13v half a page was left blank, and a scene was depicted in which a reader sits on a raised platform beneath a partially completed arch and with an open book in his hand, a crowd of smaller figures, presumably actors or mimes, stand below him, and a further crowd of figures stand to the left of the picture, watching the performance.100 The artist provided illustrations to the missing scenes v.i and v.ii of Andria (f. 11r), while illustrations elsewhere in this manuscript reflect a general tendency towards modernisation and innovation, and were drawn in contemporary costume and without masks; on some occasions the artist also added in details not occurring in the Late-​Antique illustrative cycle, but mentioned in the text, such as a procession of maids carrying baggage in the illustration to Heauton timorumenos ii.iv on f. 32r.101 Nevertheless, the inspiration of the Carolingian series of illustrations with respect to the positioning of characters and other pictorial elements can be clearly seen in many places, such as the scenes where a baby is discovered in Andria iv.iv (f. 10r), where the house of the prostitute Thais is attacked by a motley assembly of slaves in Eunuchus iv.vii (f. 23r), or where a slave is gutting fish inside a house in Adelphoe iii.iii (f. 45v). The thirteenth century seems to have seen, as noted earlier, a sharp decline in the number of manuscripts of Terence, but this tendency was reversed in the fourteenth. Illustrated manuscripts began to be produced in increasing Luscius Lanuvinus, see Eugraph. Ter. An. prol. [Wessner p. 3]; Eu. prol. 10; Hau. prol. 22; Ph. prol. [Wessner p. 213], 1, 5, 6, 9; Ad. prol. 1. 98 Wright, “The Forgotten Early Romanesque Illustrations,” 192. 99 Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 59–​60; see also Munk Olsen, L’étude, vol. 2, 638–​9. 100 Reproduced in Turner and Torello-​Hill, Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, Figure 24. 1 01 The maids are in fact only mentioned in the previous scene (Hau. 245–​6); we are grateful to Professor Muir for this observation. Note also the comments of Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 59 regarding other original elements introduced in this manuscript.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

47

numbers as well, above all in Italy,102 but the illustrations tend to be drawn far more sparsely, and usually there is no obvious link between them and the Carolingian cycle of illustrations; typical of these new types of illustration are those incorporated at the start of each play in Vatican City, bav, Ottob. lat. 1368 (copied in Basel in 1436), the first of which (f. 3r) shows a scene where character Pamphilus pulls his beloved Glycerium away from the funeral pyre of her sister.103 One apparent exception to this new attitude towards illustration occurs in B, which had arrived in Italy from France by the beginning of the fifteenth century, and which, as Wright has shown, had its existing (and very crude) images erased by a humanist scholar as part of a scheme to re-​illustrate the manuscript entirely; unfortunately, this never came to fruition.104 It was in Paris in the period immediately following 1400 that the next major group of fully illustrated manuscripts was produced. Two lavishly illustrated manuscripts survive in almost pristine condition, Paris, BnF, lat. 7907A (copied c. 1408), and Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 664 (copied c. 1411), while a third, the partially completed Paris, BnF, lat. 8193 (beginning of fifteenth century), offers important insights into the processes of illustration.105 BnF, lat. 7907A and Arsenal, MS 664 both contain the commentary of Laurent de Premierfait, while BnF, lat. 8193, which may in fact predate the other two,106 begins with the Vita Terentii of Petrarch (ff. 1r-​2v), then contains the same scene summaries found in the two other manuscripts, written as marginal glosses.107 The two complete manuscripts are the earliest datable witnesses for the text of Laurent,108 leading some scholars to conclude that he was also closely involved in the process of designing the pictures in them.109 Certainly, his participation 1 02 103 104 105 106 107 1 08 109

Catalogued in Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts.” Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 62. See Wright, “An Abandoned Early Humanist Plan.” Summary descriptions as well as bibliographies can be found in Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 51–​52, 55–​7. See Marie-​Hélène Tesnière and Inès Villela-​Petit, “Terence, Œuvres,” in Paris 1400: Les arts sous Charles VI, ed. Élisabeth Taburet-​Delahaye (Paris: Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 2004), 242. Concluding on f. 123v with the gloss to Ad. 5.7; the comparable glosses in BnF, lat. 7907A are found at ff. 143v-​159r, while those in Arsenal, MS 664 are adapted and incorporated within the resume of each scene (Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence,” 98). See Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence,” 96–​9. See in particular Anne D.  Hedeman, “Laurent de Premierfait and the Visualization of Antiquity,” in Medieval Manuscripts, Their Makers and Users: A Special Issue of Viator in Honor of Richard and Mary Rouse (Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), who argues in her abstract that ‘[n]‌ot only did Laurent rethink the mise-​en-​texte in this manuscript so as to distinguish Terence’s Latin plays and subsequent collaborators’ commentaries on them, but

48 Chapter 2 in providing some of the text for part of this project is suggested by the fact that whereas BnF, lat. 8193 and Arsenal, MS 664 are copied as prose, BnF, lat. 7907A is written in poetic lines, and shows very accurate colometry, particularly for this late period.110 This latter manuscript also has the plays in the order Hecyra Phormio, whereas the other two witnesses have Phormio Hecyra. Both BnF, lat. 7907A and Arsenal, MS 664 contain a frontispiece showing Terence at the bottom left presenting his book to two men, and a performance taking place at the top in a circular building denoted theatrum (‘theatre’), in which a figure labelled Calliopius sits in a structure called scena and reads from the same volume, while ioculatores (‘mimes’) wearing grotesque masks dance, musicians play, and an all-​male audience denoted populus Romanus (’the Roman people’) watches on (see Figure 2.2).111 Millard Meiss has argued that the depiction of the theatre in these manuscripts was strongly influenced by Isidore’s conception of performance, while also suggesting that the frontispiece in S may have provided an iconographic precedent;112 moreover, the depiction of the tent bears a striking resemblance to Laurent’s statement that a ‘scena is truly spoken of as a tent having a stretched curtain, from which the characters are sent forth miming the voice of the reciter’,113 and suggests a close connection between his participation in these projects and the design of the pictures.

110

111

112

113

he also devised an unusual frontispiece designed to define Calliopius’s role and recreate the appearance of a Roman theater, and he employed artists who, presumably, with the advice of a libraire or of Laurent himself, deployed contemporary visual rhetoric of dress to introduce and characterize the individuals in Terence’s plays’ (27). Using as a sample the four tables given in Grant, “Contamination in the Mixed mss,” 130, 132, 146, 149, BnF, lat. 7907A provides an exact match to the correct verse distinctions of P and O (for Eu. 943–​87, Eu. 539–​75, Ph. 231–​52, Ad. 96–​111) against the readings of many mixed manuscripts. It should be noted, however, that BnF, lat. 7907A also preserves verse distinctions in a large section of Eunuchus (Eu. 275–​516) for which P and O have only prose lines. There are small differences in labelling in BnF, lat. 7907A, which writes Calliomus for Calliopius and gesticulatores for the virtually synonymous ioculatores. The frontispiece from Arsenal, MS 664 is reproduced as Figure 4 in Turner and Torello-​Hill, Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing. Millard Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry:  The Limbourgs and their Contemporaries, vol. 1 (New York: George Braziller, 1974), 51. See also Hedeman, “Laurent de Premierfait,” 31–​4. However, her comment that ‘[p]‌uzzling through this evidence [i.e. from the subscriptions to the plays], Laurent came to a different conclusion, and transformed Calliopius into a public reader’ (30) seems to be overstated; Villa, La lectura Terentii, 114 notes that in 12c. commentaries he was already being ascribed the role of declamator (‘narrator’), while the evidence from S shows that he was also appearing as such in the iconographical traditions at a much earlier stage than Laurent. See Chapter 2.1.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

49

Despite occasional claims that there is no connection between the scene illustrations in these Parisian masterpieces and the Carolingian manuscripts,114 there can be little doubt that there was at least some study undertaken of the iconography in one or more of the Carolingian manuscripts still surviving in that era as part of the preparation of these witnesses;115 the occurrence of the two slaves carrying foodstuffs in each of the illustrations to Andria i.i in the Parisian manuscripts suggests this immediately.116 There are some general principles that the Parisian artists took over wholesale, such as including an illustration at the start of each scene, or (in BnF, lat. 7907A) identifying the characters with labels painted above their heads.117 Their adaptations could be very innovative, while still showing their origin in the earlier cycle. Masks are absent, apart from those worn by the mimes in the frontispieces, but there is still a strong interest in stylised gesture and posture, albeit with little apparent connection to Late-​Antique conventions associated with theatrical and oratorical practice.118 In particular, Meiss notes how the Parisian illustrators 114 Cf. the summary of Meiss, French Painting, vol. 1, 46 and his references to earlier critics in n. 190 (441). More recently, Kelly, Chaucerian Tragedy, contends that ‘Meiss believes [the artist] was inspired by the Carolingian illustrators of the comedies, but in view of the considerations noted by Claudia Villa, such influence must be deemed unlikely’ (159 and n. 31). Villa, La lectura Terentii, 246–​7 in fact simply discusses the lack of evidence for research and study of the Carolingian witnesses by Laurent, restricting her comments to text and commentary, and says that Meiss’ argument is ‘una suggestiva ipotesi’ (246). That there was in fact extensive research of P in the fifteenth century by a scholar who had access to another manuscript of Terence which had scene labels very close to those which also appear in BnF, lat. 7907A and Arsenal, MS 664, is now shown in Andrew J. Turner, “Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions: The Oedipus Scholion in BnF, lat. 7899,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 138–​77. 115 See Meiss, French Painting, vol. 1, 45–​6 and Tesnière and Villela-​Petit, “Terence, Œuvres,” noting their comment ‘[l]‌es leçons textuelles, la mise en page et l’illustration du lat. 7907A dérivent d’exemplaires carolingiens et romans’ (241). Even Hedeman, “Laurent de Premierfait,” who otherwise argues for a very prominent role for Laurent in the production of these illustrations (see nn. 109 and 112 above), comments that ‘[i]n preparing this volume of plays, Laurent radically rethought the traditional mise-​en-​page of Terence, which he could have known from a Carolingian copy’ (28). 116 On f. 5v of BnF, lat. 8193, f. 3v of BnF, lat, 7907A, and f. 4v of Arsenal, MS 664. Of these, that in MS 664 is in fact closest to the comparable image in P (f. 6r), since both show Sosia with a ladle in his hand, while one of the baskets carried by the slave in MS 664 contains live birds. 117 Meiss, French Painting, vol. 1, 46 notes how ‘inscriptions of this kind belong to the tradition of illustration of the Comedies and not to early fifteenth-​century painting.’ 118 See also Meiss, French Painting, vol. 1, 46, who observes that ‘[t]‌he gestures, for one thing, do not resemble those of the Carolingian manuscripts.’

50 Chapter 2 considerably developed and extended the technique occasionally found in the Carolingian witnesses of depicting the same characters twice in the same illustration in different dramatic settings,119 so much so that it becomes almost ubiquitous in Arsenal, MS 664. Other illustrations, however, remain problematic. Both manuscripts supply illustrations for Andria v.i and v.ii, but BnF, lat. 7907A also supplies another for v.vi, a scene division which occurs in the Δ-​manuscripts but which was not illustrated in the early Γ-​manuscripts, while Arsenal, MS 664 does not mark it.120 For Eunuchus v.iv, where early Γ-​manuscripts made an extra scene division and included an illustration, BnF, lat. 7907A includes an illustration but Arsenal, MS 664 does not; both manuscripts, however, do illustrate the extra scene division at Adelphoe iii.iii.121 For Heauton timorumenos v.i, BnF, lat. 7907A depicts the two characters Menedemus and Chremes in dialogue, with Chremes also addressing his wife Sostrata, whose back can be seen within his house, and apart from the added figure of the non-​speaking Sostrata, this recalls the arrangement in C (see above). In Arsenal, MS 664, however, the illustration of this same scene shows three separate vignettes from it with direct correspondence to the text of Terence; Menedemus talking to himself (Hau. 874–​8), Chremes talking to Sostrata (879–​81), and finally the extensive dialogue between Menedemus and Chremes (882–​954). Whether they were inspired directly by Carolingian models or rather independently represent a close reading of the text by the artist now seems impossible to determine. A final discrepancy occurs in Hecyra iii.i, where a new scene division occurs in Arsenal, MS 664 (but not in BnF, lat. 7907A) at line 318;122 this scene division is also found in Italian manuscripts from the fourteenth-​and fifteenth centuries as well as incunabula from the 1470s,123 and may go back to an earlier stage in the transmission. The Parisian manuscripts produced between 1400 and 1410 represent a second highpoint, after the Carolingian period, of the illustrative cycle originating 1 19 Meiss, French Painting, 47. 120 BnF, lat. 7907A ff. 21r, 21v, 29r; Arsenal, MS 664, ff. 37v, 38v, and see 44v for the continuous text. 121 BnF, lat. 7907A ff. 47r, 83r; Arsenal, MS 664, ff. 80r (continuous text), 141v. Some other scenes in Arsenal, MS 664 are not marked by scene divisions or illustrated (Heauton timorumenos ii.ii, iv.ii), while blank parchment is found where other scenes should begin, together with their illustrations (Andria iv.iii, v.iii; Heauton timorumenos iv.iii; cf. ff. 33, 40, 110), suggesting either that they were never completed or else were excised. 122 Arsenal, MS 664, f. 219r. 123 E.g. Florence, bml, Plut. 38.15, 22, 23, 30, and 31; Villa, La lectura Terentii, 322 dates Plut. 38.22 to the first half of the fourteenth century. For the incunabula, including Badius’ 1491 edition, see Chapter 4.1.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

51

in Late Antiquity. Prior to the age of printing, there does not seem to have been much further interest in producing illustrated manuscripts of Terence based on this cycle, although a major witness for the text of Laurent, Paris, BnF, lat. 7907, copied in Paris around 1440, seems at least to have been designed to include pictures at the start of every scene.124 One partial exception, however, comes with Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek, gks 1994 4o, a manuscript copied in either Northern France or Flanders at some stage in the fifteenth century, most probably in its second half.125 The frontispiece on f. 1r, which at some stage suffered water damage, shows a performance taking place on a stage made of wooden planks, which is surrounded by an audience looking up; in the centre of the stage stands a single male figure, presumably a reader holding a scroll, while behind him in the stage building stand various actors, perhaps mimes, including a pair of lovers in the centre.126 Otherwise, this manuscript is relatively small, measuring just 166 x 115 mm,127 and illustrations are limited to selected scenes painted in the bottom margins, corresponding by and large to the beginnings of acts.128 Some elements, such as attention to gestures, may derive from study of the Parisian manuscripts, but in general there is only a rough correspondence to the earlier cycle of illustrations. 2.3

The Impact of New Learning and Technologies: Donatus and the Advent of Printing

Prior to 1430 humanist manuscript copies of Terence were again circulating widely throughout Europe, particularly Italy, and new artistic trends strongly influenced the treatment of the traditional cycle of images in the handful of 1 24 Bozzolo, “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence,” 99. 125 Described in Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 39–​40, with an incorrect dating; for a general dating of fifteenth century, see Ellen Jørgensen, Catalogus codicum latinorum medii aevi bibliothecae regiae Hafniensis (Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1926), 291. Klaus Neiiendam, “Le théâtre de la Renaissance à Rome (1480 environ à 1530),” Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 5 (1967): 105, argues for a provenance from Flanders. 126 Reproduced as Figure 5 in Turner and Torello-​Hill, Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing. A redrawing showing much greater detail in reproduced at Neiiendam, “Le théâtre,” 106. 127 Radden Keefe, “Illustrating the Manuscripts,” 39. 128 For Andria and Eunuchus, as well as Adelphoe, the images are found at the beginning of acts (excepting at Eunuchus ii.ii and Adelphoe v.iii); only one illustration is found for Heauton timorumenos (iv.i), three for Hecyra (i.i, iii.i, iv.i), and four for Phormio (i.i, ii.iii, iv.i, v.ii). We are indebted to Peter Bruun Hansen for examining the manuscript in situ for us.

52 Chapter 2 fully illustrated manuscripts, but studies of the text of Terence itself had stagnated. Apart from the pioneering work of Petrarch and da Moglio, very little new about the text or Terence’s world had been added to the corpus of knowledge transmitted through the extant commentaries, all largely outgrowths of Carolingian traditions,129 and seriously deficient texts such as the CB still continued to be copied in manuscripts alongside other works such as Petrarch’s Vita or Laurent’s commentary, as if they provided a valid alternative tradition to them.130 The manuscripts themselves were often dependent solely on one immediate exemplar for their text, with the result that a substantial proportion of them continued to be written as prose,131 while those copied in verse lines seem often simply to have replicated the corrupt colometry of their ancestors. The first major development in the study of Roman comedy came in 1429, when Nicholas of Cusa brought to Rome an eleventh-​century copy of the plays of Plautus (now Vatican City, bav, Vat. lat. 3870, or D) that he had discovered in Germany.132 Only eight of the twenty plays of Plautus which survived in more or less complete state had been known in Italy up to this juncture, existing in more than a hundred manuscript copies, but the remaining twelve were contained in Nicholas of Cusa’s manuscript and these quickly came to the attention of leading Classical scholars, including Poggio Bracciolini and Guarino Guarini (or Veronese);133 manuscripts of the full corpus deriving from an edited copy of D soon began to circulate widely in a version known as the Itala recensio.134 Roman comedy now began to 129 For the mid-​fifteenth-​century commentary of the German Petrus Luder, which in turn appears to have been largely dependent on scholia found in the Italian manuscript Florence, bml, San Marco 244, see Riou, “Les commentaires médiévaux,” 46–​9 and Riou, “L’influence italienne dans le commentaire à Térence de l’humaniste allemand Petrus Luder de Kislau,” in Gli umanesimi medievali:  Atti del II congresso dell’ Internationales Mittellateinerkomitee, ed. Claudio Leonardi (Florence:  Sismel, Edizioni del Galluzzo, 1998), 567–​82. 130 Riou, “Essai sur la tradition manuscrite,” 89–​90 lists thirteen manuscripts from the fifteenth century containing the CB in part or whole. 131 Of twenty-​five Italian manuscripts of Terence dating to the fifteenth century in the bml examined by Turner in January 2016, ten were written as prose, while one other (Florence, bml, Ashburnham 1142) begins with poetic lines, but soon switches over into prose. 132 For Nicolas (1401–​64) and his career, including his participation in the Council of Basel, see dbe 7.419–​20 [H. Boockmann]; for his interest in Greek, Walter Berschin, Griechisch-​ Lateinisches Mittelalter:  Von Hieronymus zu Nikolaus von Kues (Bern:  Francke, 1980), 314–​17. 133 For Guarino Guarini (1374–​1460), see dbi 60.357–​69 [G. Pistilli]. 134 For a concise and useful summary of the textual history of Plautus, see Wolfgang D.C. de Melo, ed., Plautus: Amphitryon, The Comedy of Asses, The Pot of Gold, The Two Bacchises, The Captives (Cambridge, MA:  Harvard University Press, 2011), civ-​cxii. For the early

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

53

be regarded more widely not merely as a school text used to instil perfect Latinity in school-​children, but something worthy of imitation, and new works inspired by Terence and Plautus by Neo-​Latin writers began slowly to proliferate.135 The critical development for the study of Terence, however, came just four years later with the rediscovery of Donatus’ commentary. The noted Greek scholar and bibliophile Giovanni Aurispa, who had settled in Ferrara and, on the recommendation of his friend Guarino, became tutor to Niccolò iii d’Este’s son,136 attended the church council in Basel in 1433 escorting his pupil,137 and took advantage of the travel to visit monasteries in Mainz, Cologne, and Aachen in search of rare books. It was in Mainz that he discovered a codex of Donatus; this copy subsequently came into the hands of Nicolas of Cusa, who then brought it to the attention of the Archbishop of Milan, Francesco Pizolpasso, who was well connected with humanist circles in Italy.138 Back in Milan, Pizolpasso then made the whole or part of the manuscript available to his friend Pier Candido Decembrio,139 who in 1436 copied at least the commentary on Phormio, and the commentary began to spread throughout Italy,140 although the manner of copying appears sometimes to have been piecemeal, and the text soon became even more contaminated than it originally

135

1 36 137 138 139 140

history of the formation of the Itala recensio and especially the role of Poggio, see Cesare Questa, Per la storia del testo di Plauto nell’Umanesimo:  la recensio di Poggio Bracciolini (Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1968), especially his compilation of relevant correspondence at 7–​12. For discussion of the linguistic and thematic influences of Terence and Plautus in Leon Battista Alberti’s play Philodoxeos fabula, written shortly before 1424 and extensively revised in 1434/​7, see Martin McLaughlin, “The Recovery of Terence in Renaissance Italy: From Machiavelli to Alberti,” in The Reinvention of Theatre in Sixteenth-​Century Europe: Traditions, Texts, and Performance, ed. T.F. Earle and Catarina Fouto (Cambridge: Legenda, 2015), 116–​24. See also Jean-​Frédéric Chevalier, “Neo-​Latin Theatre in Italy,” in Neo-​Latin Drama and Theatre in Early-​Modern Europe, ed. Jan Bloemendal and Howard B. Norland (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 53–​8 for discussion of Latin farces written in Italy in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries which were influenced by Plautus and Terence, and 58–​64 for the Philodoxeos fabula and Enea Silvio Piccolimini’s Chrysis which, like Alberti’s play, was strongly influenced by the Roman playwrights, to the extent that it was written in pseudo-​senarians in imitation of Terence’s and Plautus’ main metre, the iambic senarius. For biography of Aurispa (1376–​1459), see dbi 4.593–​5 [E. Bigi]. For the Council in Basel (1431–​1449), see dhge 6.356–​62 [A. Jacquin]. For Pizolpasso, (c. 1375–​1443) see dbi 84.330–​3 [F. Somaini]. For Decembrio (1399–​1477) see dbi 33.488–​98 [P. Viti]. For a partial edition of relevant correspondence on the rediscovery and copying, see Sabbadini, Storia e critica, 159–​81. Decembrio’s dedicatory letter to Pizolpasso is preserved in Oxford, Bod, Canon. Class. lat. 95, ff. 138v-​139r.

54 Chapter 2 was. Aurispa maintained his great interest in the work, and by 1447 had obtained another Medieval copy of the work from the cathedral library at Chartres, which was copied and which added to the complexity of the manuscript tradition.141 When Aurispa died in 1459 in Ferrara, his sons auctioned off his library; the first volume listed in his impressive collection of 578 volumes was in fact a copy of Donatus’ commentary written on cotton paper and beginning at Eunuchus, while he had owned a further four or five copies of Donatus’ commentary, two written on parchment, as well as three more copies of Terence’s plays.142 Donatus’ work was prefaced by the Life of Terence deriving from Suetonius, which offered important insights into the biographical traditions which had sprung up in antiquity around Terence,143 and also by a work De Fabula (‘Concerning plays’) by an otherwise obscure grammarian Evanthius who apparently predated Donatus,144 and another text entitled Excerpta de comoedia (‘Excerpts concerning comedy’), ascribed variously by modern critics both to Evanthius and Donatus.145 De Fabula discusses the characteristics of Terence’s plays, then provides a taxonomy of Roman comedy, classifying it first by genre 141 For recent studies, see inter alia Michael D. Reeve, “The Textual Tradition of Donatus’s Commentary on Terence,” Hermes 106 (1978):  608–​18, Reeve “The Textual Tradition of Donatus’ Commentary on Terence,” Classical Philology 74 (1979): 310–​26 (revising his earlier position in several respects), Texts and Transmission, 153–​6 [M.D. Reeve], and Carmela Cioffi, “Ricerche sulla tradizione manoscritta del Commento di Donato a Terenzio,” Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 69 (2012): 145–​83, Cioffi “Riconoscere la contaminazione: Il Chisianus h VII 240 & la famiglia Λ,” Hermes 143 (2015): 356–​78. See also the overview at Carmela Cioffi, ed., Aeli Donati quod fertur commentum ad Andriam Terenti (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017), ix-​xvii. 142 See the inventory in Adriano Franceschini, Giovanni Aurispa e la sua biblioteca: notizie e documenti, Medioevo e Umanesimo 25 (Padua: Antenore, 1976), 55–​169; for Donatus see nos. 1, 288, 336, 387, and 577 (391 is listed simply as Comentum Terentii). The Terence manuscripts are nos. 165, 222, and 487. 143 For the text of Suetonius, together with translation and critical notes, see Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill, eds., A Companion to Terence (Chichester: Wiley-​Blackwell, 2013), 1–​6, and for another edition and French translation, Bruno Bureau and Christian Nicholas, “Aelio Donato quae adscribitur Vita Terenti,” Hyperdonat (Lyon: Université Jean Moulin-​Lyon, 2009) ‹http://​hyperdonat.huma-​num.fr/​editions/​html/​DonVit.html›. 144 Text and French translation are available in Bruno Bureau and Christian Nicholas, “Euanthi De fabula et Excerpta de comedia,” Hyperdonat (Lyon: Université Jean Moulin-​ Lyon, 2009)  ‹http://​hyperdonat.huma-​num.fr/​editions/​html/​DonEva.html›. For discussion of his identity, see Bureau and Nicholas n.2; Kaster, Guardians of Language, 278–​9; Zetzel, Critics, Compilers, and Commentators, 255–​6. 145 For ascription to Evanthius, see Bureau and Nicholas, “Euanthi De fabula”; for Donatus, Demetriou, “Aelius Donatus and his commentary,” 783; Zetzel, Critics, Compilers, and Commentators, 256.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

55

(togata, praetexta, Atellana, Rinthonica, tabernaria, mimus),146 then by type (motoria, stataria, and mixta), before dividing each play into four subsections (prologue, protasis, epitasis, and catastrophe). The Excerpta de comoedia give more historical and factual background, such as the history of the genre, its stagecraft, the games at which it was performed, and its division into diverbia (‘spoken parts of a play’) and cantica (‘parts set to music’).147 The genres of drama described by Evanthius do not include the palliata, in which both Plautus and Terence wrote. Nevertheless, Evanthius gave scholars in the fifteenth century a new insight into the vibrant dramatical scene which existed during the Roman republic, and which still today only survives in scattered fragments. His definition of the types of comedy (motoriae turbulentae, statariae quietiores, mixtae ex utroque actu consistentes, ‘the motoriae ‹are› boisterous, the statariae more sedate, ‹while› the mixtae [‘mixed’] take their substance from both impulses,’ Evanth. de com. 4.4),148 and divisions of the play both into five acts as well as (in structural terms) four parts,149 were likewise highly influential on the work of subsequent Renaissance commentators, including Angelo Poliziano, Guy Jouenneaux, and Badius himself. Finally, the Excerpta de comoedia provide an important detail which is reflected in the illustrative programme of the Lyon Terence; first discussing the games in which comedies were performed, the Ludi Megalenses dedicated to the goddess 146 For discussion of the genres praetexta, Atellana, Rinthonica, and mimus and the evidence which exists for plays written in these forms, see Manuwald, Roman Republican Theatre, 140–​4 (praetexta), 169–​78 (Atellana), 178–​84 (mimus), and Peter Brown, “The Beginnings of Roman Comedy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 403–​4 (Rinthonica). Regarding the togata, Evanthius considered this as deriving ab scaenicis atque argumentis Latinis ‘from Latin characters and plots’ (Evanth. de com. 4.1), and Manuwald notes that in Evanthius as well as in some grammatical sources the term simply ‘functioned as an overall description of all Roman types of drama (in accordance with a distinction between the Roman toga and Greek pallium)’ (157); other ancient authorities, however, equated the togata with the tabernaria, which Evanthius considered characterized ab humilitate argumenti ac stili, ‘from the crude nature of their plot and style’ (4.1). For further discussion, see Manuwald, Roman Republican Theatre, 156–​69. 147 See also Demetriou, “Aelius Donatus and His Commentary,” 783. 148 See Harry D. Jocelyn, “Horace and the Reputation of Plautus in the Late First Century bc,” in Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration, ed. Stephen J. Harrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 243–​4 for discussion of the use of these terms in early Terentian criticism. 149 For the chaotic nature of the division into acts prior to the circulation of Donatus, as well as the fact that many manuscripts and commentaries were simply divided into scenes, see Riou, “L’influence italienne,” 569 and n. 4 (foreshadowing a study which has not yet appeared).

56 Chapter 2 Cybele,150 funeral games, plebeian games, and the Ludi Apollinares dedicated to Apollo,151 the text continues: in scaena duae arae poni solebant; dextera Liberi, sinistra eius dei, cui ludi fiebant (‘on the stage two altars were usually positioned, on the right that of Liber [i.e. Bacchus], on the left that of the god for whom the games were being held,’ Don. de com. 8.3). The commentary itself contained, as already mentioned, a multitude of important insights into the text, meaning, and performance of Terence’s plays which provided a whole new way of thinking about theatre, but there were genuine difficulties for Renaissance scholars due to the very poor state of the text. One major problem seems first to have arisen in Late Antiquity when, it has been argued, two series of excerpts were made from the original commentary and were written as marginal comments in separate manuscripts; then at some later stage these excerpts were amalgamated and the edition of Donatus, which we use today, was reconstructed.152 Due, however, to the way in which these were amalgamated, there arose many repetitions and confusions, while in places the lines were out of order; added to this, the commentary on Heauton timorumenos was lost entirely at some stage in the transmission process. The extensive use of technical terms and other phrases written in Greek also created its own difficulties in a period when scholarship on the language in the West was feeble.153 The earliest manuscripts we possess of Donatus copied in fifteenth century Italy do not reproduce any of the Greek;154 rather, whenever they come to a place in the text where Greek was required, they simply left blank spaces of an approximate length, and when later copyists made their own transcripts of these manuscripts, they simply left the spaces where they found them, perpetuating this omission. Finally, as noted, the piecemeal way 150 For discussion, see bnp 7: 871–​2 [G. Freyburger]; the name derives from the Greek title μεγάλη (‘great’) given to Cybele, which the Excerpta de comoedia wrongly infers was related to all the great gods (Megalenses, magnis dis consecrati, quos Graeci μεγάλους appellant, ‘the Megalensian ‹games›, consecrated to the great gods, whom the Greeks call μεγάλους,’ Don. de. com. 8.2). 151 For the Ludi Apollinares and Ludi plebei, see bnp 7:870, 872; the Ludi funebres were essentially private games (866). 152 Wessner, Donatus, vol. 1, xlvi; for further discussion of the issue of when this happened, and the relationship of these scholia to those in A, see Zetzel, “On the History.” 153 For knowledge of Greek in the West in the Medieval period, see Berschin, Griechisch-​ Lateinisches Mittelalter, 130–​210; Federica Ciccolella, Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 85–​97. 154 Cf. Wessner, Donatus, vol. 1, xliv; Texts and Transmission, 155 [M.D. Reeve]. The ultimate source of the Greek portions of the text is uncertain, although given the considerable facility of both Aurispa and Decembrio in that language, it seems likely that the exemplar they obtained from Mainz was defective with respect to the Greek.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

57

in which the surviving text of Donatus was transmitted undoubtedly delayed its full impact on scholarship for several years, although the large number of manuscripts also provides indirect evidence for the eagerness with which this text was received.155 The influence of Terence now began to spread, and in particular, his prologues provided a template for addresses by contemporary poets to their audiences. In the Latin comedy Isis by Francesco Ariosto Peregrino, a pupil of Guarino Guarini, which was performed in Ferrara before Leonello d’Este in 1444, the speaker of the prologue even introduced himself as ‘Calliopius;’ the comedy itself, although largely modelled on Ovid, includes many phrases derivative of Plautus, and is also preceded in the manuscripts by a didascalia strongly influenced by those to Terence’s plays.156 The situation with regard to the transmission of Terence was to change again radically with the advent of printing. Originating from the workshop of Johannes Gutenberg in Mainz around 1450, the first printed books catered for specialised markets, ecclesiastical and educational.157 They were expensive to produce, particularly at this formative stage,158 but they also had immense advantages over manuscripts, in that they could be produced far quicker once the initial laborious process of type-​setting had taken place, and they allowed identical copies of texts to circulate, often in print-​runs of several hundreds.159 Printing spread quickly within the South-​West of the German-​speaking world to centres such as Bamberg, Cologne, and Strassburg which were situated along major trade routes,160 but it was above all in Italy, where there pre-​existed a very favourable combination of factors, such as ready availability of paper from local paper mills, a superior quality of steel produced locally which was 155 Cioffi, Commentum ad Andriam, xxix-​xxx lists 29 extant copies made in the fifteenth century just including Andria. 156 See Antonio Stäuble, La commedia umanistica del Quattrocento (Florence:  Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 1968), 189–​91; Guastella, ‘Ornatu prologi,’ 212–​14 and n. 49; and now in particular Marco Petoletti, “Pro onestis et castissimis moribus: La commedia Isis di Francesco Ariosto,” in Comico e tragico nel teatro umanistico, ed. Stefano Pittaluga and Paolo Viti (Genoa: Ledizioni, 2016), 127–​37, who transcribes the preface with its frequent Plautine borrowings (132–​3), as well as the didascalia (136). 157 For Gutenberg (c. 1400–​1468) see dbe 4.267–​9 [S. Corsten], and for his workshop and early editions, Stephan Füssel, Gutenberg und seine Wirkung (Frankfurt:  Insel Verlag, 1999), 3–​38. 158 See Brian Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 25–​7, and for Gutenberg’s initial financial difficulties, Füssel, Gutenberg, 14–​16. 159 Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers, 21–​4. 160 Füssel, Gutenberg, 39–​40.

58 Chapter 2 used in the production of print-​type, highly flexible systems of trade, and an appreciably higher level of literacy and university education, that the printing industry really took off. The first Italian press was established by 1465 outside of Rome at the monastery of Subiaco by German monks, and by the end of the century there were presses at more than 70 centres in central and northern Italy, above all in Venice, which became a centre for the production of the book.161 Classical Latin literary works very soon entered the printers’ repertoire; one of the first two books to be produced at Subiaco was Cicero’s De oratore, while the first press to be established in France was in Paris in 1470 under the direction of the Sorbonne, which contracted German-​speaking printers with the specific aim of producing Classical and humanistic texts.162 Terence, being so well entrenched within the curriculum, was bound to appear sooner rather than later, and in fact four editions of his plays (unfortunately all undated) appeared more or less independently in either 1469 or 1470 from presses located in Rome, Venice, Strassburg, and Naples.163 The very earliest editions of Terence tended to be written as prose rather than in poetic lines, the initials were left blank for a professional rubricator to fill in at a later stage (which in many cases did not occur), and they were printed with wide margins, allowing scholiasts to write in their own comments on the text by hand, since the earliest technology did not yet have the capacity to print a document using different font sizes.164 In some texts preliminary materials such as the Praefatio Monacensis or else the Vita Terentii of Petrarch were found,165 as well as the Epitaphium Terentii. But versions of the text set out with an approximate

161 Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers, 4–​5; Füssel, Gutenberg, 40–​6. For the particular factors contributing to the enormous output of Latin texts in Venice during this early period, see also Brian Richardson, Print Culture in Renaissance Italy: The Editor and the Vernacular Text, 1470–​1600, (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1994), 28–​30, and for technical advances in the production of type in the area of Venice, Lotte Hellinga, Incunabula in Transit: People and Trade (Leiden: Brill, 2018), 84–​5. 162 Anatole Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie en France au XVe et au XVIe siècle, vol. 1 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1900), 17–​60; Füssel, Gutenberg, 46. 163 Paul F. Gehl, “Selling Terence in Renaissance Italy: The Marketing Power of Commentary,” in Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, ed. Christina S. Kraus and Christopher Stray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 253. 164 In the copy of Terentius, Comoediae 1472a in the BnF (RESG-​YC-​994), bounding lines have been drawn by a scribe after the text was printed, and numerous marginal comments have been added in hand. 165 See Terentius, Comoediae 1472b, printed in Subiaco by the German monks Conradus Sweynheym and Arnoldus Pannartz, for the Praefatio Monacensis, and Terentius, Comoediae 1473, probably printed in Venice by Wendelin von Speyer, for the Vita by Petrarch.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

59

colometry soon began to be printed, one in Venice in 1472 or 1473,166 and from that point onwards the plays are found printed in both formats, prose and poetic lines, although at this stage there was no real understanding of the metres used by Terence, and the editions would merely replicate the format of their manuscript exemplars.167 Donatus’ commentary appeared in print soon afterwards; what was probably the earliest edition appeared in Rome in 1472 and it largely preserved the mise-​en-​page of the manuscript copies, printing the text as blocks of unindexed prose, and also leaving spaces for the Greek.168 Then in 1476 Giovanni Perlanza Ruffinoni, more commonly known as Giovanni Calfurnio,169 made use of technical advances in printing to publish, with the Venice-​based printer Jacobus Rubeus (or Jacques Le Rouge), his edition of Terence, written in (quasi) poetic lines, which was accompanied by Donatus and supplemented by his own Latin commentary on Heauton timorumenos, which he composed in a similar style.170 The text of Terence, which followed the order Phormio Hecyra at the end, was set in a larger font in the centre of the page, and the notes from Donatus were printed in a smaller font in the margins, in imitation of standard practice in many glossed manuscripts. This printing technique appears to have been a fairly recent development, perhaps developed in Mainz and brought to Venice by German printers;171 a text such as this had an enormous advantage 1 66 Terentius, Comoediae 1473. 167 Cf. the comment by Joseph A.  Dane, The Myth of Print Culture:  Essays on Evidence, Textuality, and Bibliographical Method (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 144, that the texts were set: ‘sometimes as straight prose; sometimes as metre that, at least for certain of the easier metres (iambic senarii), is recognizable today; and sometimes simply as arbitrarily defined colometric lines; that is, lines begin with capital letters and the right margin is ragged, but the lines have no prosodic integrity.’ See also Jürgen Leonhardt, “Classical Metrics in Medieval and Renaissance Poetry,” Classica et Mediaevalia 47 (1996):  320 for discussion of disturbed arrangement of verse in both manuscripts and print; he estimated that roughly two thirds of the 40 or so incunabula of Terence he examined were written in poetic lines. 168 Donatus, Commentum 1472. In fact, in the Vita Terentii on f. a2r some short phrases in Greek (including απο του τραγου and απο του κωμαζειν) appear to have been typeset in a Greek font along with the Latin, but on subsequent folios the spaces for Greek have been left blank, as in the manuscripts. For the priority of this edition see Cioffi, Commentum ad Andriam, xvii. 169 For Calfurnio (c.1443–​1503), see dbi 89.121–​4 [B. Valtorta]. 170 Terentius, Comoediae 1476. 171 For the technical problems encountered by early printers trying to set type outside of the text area, see Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers, 130. Martin Lowry, Nicholas Jenson and the Rise of Venetian Publishing in Renaissance Europe (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 128–​9 argues that the technique was pioneered (in Venice at least) by Nicholas Jenson, with his

60 Chapter 2 for readers studying the relationship of Terence and Donatus by putting the two texts side by side, and eliminating the need to have two volumes open concurrently.172 The novelty of this format, with text and commentary on the same page, is also suggested by the fact that when an edition of Terence incorporating some of Donatus’ text as well as Calfurnio’s was published in Paris one or two years later, the Parisian printer only elected to print the introductions to each play and not the commentary on the poetic lines, leaving the margins surrounding the main text blank.173 Calfurnio’s postscript to this edition, phrased in the form of a letter to the Venetian aristocrat Marco Aurelio, contains an angry excursus in which he attacks contemporary commentaries for their verbosity and inconsequential remarks, and praises instead the concision and accuracy of Donatus.174 Calfurnio’s criticisms may have had their effect, for Donatus remained the only commentator on Terence whose work was printed together with the plays until the time of Guy Jouenneaux, with the exception of a German commentary printed in the edition of Eunuchus published in Ulm in 1486 (discussed below); the istc database lists some twenty separate editions including Terence, Donatus, and Calfurnio’s supplement which appeared between 1476 and 1491.175 These editions, though no doubt a vast improvement on many of the manuscripts still circulating, nevertheless perpetuated many problems with the text of Terence, not only its colometry but also many textual variants, as edition of Gratian’s Decretum published on 28 June 1474 (GW 11354; istc ig00363000; see also Lowry, Nicholas Jenson, Plate 9b), and that the technique was extended by Le Rouge to include Classical texts, including Terence; ‘text and explanation [scil. of Classical commentaries] had so far appeared in separate volumes. Le Rouge pioneered a technique of bringing the two together by printing the text in a block of forty-​seven lines in the centre of the page while sixty-​fives lines of commentary, set in a somewhat smaller Roman font, surrounded it in the margins’ (128). However, an edition of the Constitutiones of Pope Clemens v printed in Mainz on 13 August 1471 by Peter Schoeffer (GW 7080; istc ic00713000) is already printed with this mise-​en-​page; see the illustration in Hellinga, Incunabula in Transit, 114. For the development of different types in Mainz, and the roles played in this by both Schoeffer and Jenson, see Hellinga, Incunabula in Transit, 40–​88. For a similar mise-​en-​page in an edition of Vergil, accompanied by the commentary of Servius, printed in Venice by Antonio Miscomini, which is generally dated to 1476 (GW M49821; istc iv00167000), see Füssel, Gutenberg, 56. 172 See Gehl, “Selling Terence,” 257–​8 for discussion of the postscript to the second edition of Calfurnio’s edition of Terence and Donatus, and the praise heaped in a poem by Gerolamo Bologni on the printer Hermann Liechtenstein for his skill in typesetting the edition. 173 Terentius, Comoediae 1478. This edition also prints the plays as blocks of prose and has the order Hecyra Phormio at the end. 174 Gehl, “Selling Terence,” 257. 175 For further discussion, see Chapter 4.1.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

61

well as presenting Donatus in the highly corrupt form in which it was circulating. Given the broad dissemination of these printed texts within universities and schools throughout Italy and Western Europe, it was inevitable that a new phase of textual scholarship would arise. In particular, Terence came to the attention of arguably the greatest Italian scholar of Classical literature in this period, the Florentine Angelo Poliziano.176 Poliziano had a specific interest in ancient drama and its place in literary theory, compiling large anthologies of excerpts (zibaldoni) from ancient texts related to these topics, including scholia on Classical Greek plays, for his personal study.177 He also had a personal involvement in the restaging of ancient drama, which began to take place in Italy during the 1470s and 80s, and which culminated with the performances of Plautus’ and Terence’s comedies in Italian held in Ferrara from 1486 onwards.178 At some time around 1484/​85, most probably in relation to a series of lectures on Terence he gave at the Studio Fiorentino,179 Poliziano wrote a manuscript which contained a lengthy introduction to the nature of ancient comedy and a commentary on the first 200 lines of Andria. Unlike some of his other works, the introductory essay was never printed in his lifetime or indeed for many centuries afterwards,180 but it nevertheless circulated among the Florentine intellectual circles many years after his death. In addition to Donatus and Evanthius, the introduction to theatre draws on a wide range of Latin and Greek sources, including Quintilian, the Late-​Antique Latin grammarian Diomedes, Aristotle’s Poetics, and Iulius Pollux, a second-​century ad grammarian and rhetor from Egypt who produced a major work of lexicography called the Onomastikon with many entries describing theatrical 176 For Poliziano (1454–​94), see dbi 2.691–​702 [E. Bigi]. For discussion of his commentary and examination of A, see also Luca Ruggio, “Poliziano e Terenzio,” in Cultura e filologia di Angelo Poliziano: Traduzioni e commenti, ed. Paolo Viti (Florence; Leo S. Olschki, 2016), 205–​19. 177 See Giulia Torello-​Hill, “Angelo Poliziano’s De poesi et poetis (bncf. Naz. ii.i.99) and the Development of Ancient Dramatic Criticism,” I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 20 (2017): 106–​7. 178 A comprehensive list of revival performances is provided in Stäuble, La commedia uma­ nistica, 200–​1; Anna Maria Coppo, “Spettacoli alla Corte di Ferrara,” Contributi dell’Istituto di Filologia Moderna, Serie Storia del Teatro 1 (1968), 37–​8. For discussion of Poliziano and the Florentine performances, see the Introduction above, and for the possible relationship of the performances in Ferrara to the Lyon Terence, Chapter 6.5. 179 Torello-​Hill, “Poliziano’s De poesi et poetis,” 107 and n. 6. 180 It survives as München, bsb, clm. 754 ff. 203v-​209r, and was first printed as Rosetta Lattanzi Roselli, Angelo Poliziano: La commedia antica e l’Andria di Terenzio, Studi e testi 3 (Florence: Sansoni, 1973).

62 Chapter 2 stagecraft.181 The commentary on Andria, although brief and largely consisting of lists of cognate words, nevertheless shows consciousness of the metrical problems associated with the text, citing Priscian’s work on Terence’s metre,182 and also makes direct references to variant readings that Poliziano had observed in early manuscripts. Specifically, he refers to readings of ancient manuscripts of Terence he had studied in Rome in the Vatican Library when he visited there in December 1484, as well as in Florence, and in all probability refers both to C and D (Florence, bml, Plut. 38.24).183 Poliziano’s most important contribution towards establishing the text of Terence came with his detailed study of another and, in textual terms, far more important manuscript, A. In 1491, together with his friend Pico della Mirandola, he travelled to Venice, where they were hosted by the patrician Bernardo Bembo and his son Pietro,184 and Poliziano was allowed to study A in the family library; using an incunabulum of Terence printed in 1475 he took down copious notes of the variant readings and spellings, and carefully marked where 181 For Diomedes, see ‘Diomedes [4]‌’, bnp 4.463 [P. Gatti]; for Pollux, ‘Iulius Pollux [iv.17]’, bnp 6.1086–​7 [R. Tosi]. 182 Andria Terenti 55.2–​10 [Lattanzi Roselli], citing Prisc. de metris 25.27–​26.2 [Passalacqua]; see also 14.24–​15.3 [Lattanzi Roselli] for Poliziano’s discussion of the selection of metres for comedy. 183 Discussing the archaic Roman use of the accusative after abutor found in An. 5 (operam abutitur, frequently appearing in later manuscripts as opera abutitur), Poliziano mentions that this is the reading in the codex Palatinus, and although an inexperienced scribe subsequently erased the suspension which changed opera into operam, traces of it still remained (Andria Terenti 30.3–​4 [Lattanzi Roselli]); in fact, there are clear traces of a suspension which has been erased at this point in C (f. 4r). He also states that operam is the reading in the codex Laurentii Medicis vetustissimus (‘the very oldest codex of Lorenzo de Medici’), and the reading operam appears in D (f. 2v). With regard to the archaic spelling aduortite in An. 8, Poliziano says this is found in the codex Romanus (31.9 [Lattanzi Roselli]), and this spelling appears in C on f. 4r. Lattanzi Roselli, La commedia antica, xi argues in fact that the two terms, Palatinus and Romanus, refer to the same manuscript, C, and C is known to have been in the Vatican after 1475 (Pellegrin et al., Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, vol. 3.2, 342). For the probability that Poliziano’s visit to the Vatican Library occurred in 1484, as well as his study of other manuscripts in the library’s collection, including of Vergil, Martial, and Suetonius, see Vittore Branca and Manlio Pastore Stocchi, “La Biblioteca Vaticana nella seconda centuria dei Miscellanea di Angelo Poliziano,” in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. 6, Studi e testi 236 (Vatican City: bav, 1964), 141–​6. 184 Riccardo Ribuoli, La collazione polizianea del codice Bembino di Terenzio, Note e discussioni erudite 17 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1981), 19–​21. See also Susan Nalezyty, Pietro Bembo and the Intellectual Pleasures of a Renaissance Writer and Art Collector (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), 47 and Alessandro Daneloni, Per l’edizione critica delle note di viaggio del Poliziano, Progetto Poliziano. L’Opera 3 (Messina: Università degli Studi di Messina, 2013), passim.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

63

the lines ended in the original for the greater part of the text (even then A was missing nearly all of Andria as well as the conclusion of Adelphoe).185 His work on the line endings in particular was instrumental in restoring a far more accurate colometry than was currently available, although its real impact was not to be felt until well after his early death in 1494,186 and so after the printing of the Lyon Terence. A final major technological development in printing which would have direct consequences for the Lyon Terence was the introduction of the printing of illustrations by woodcuts. During the earliest phases of printing, illustrations, like rubrics and scholia, were never part of the original mise-​en-​page, but were sometimes added afterwards by artists on pages or spaces left blank for them. Woodcut printing was first introduced in Germany in 1461,187 and even when woodcut illustrations in black and white became more common they would sometimes be coloured by an artist.188 The earliest Italian volume using woodcuts was printed in 1467, although books illustrated with woodcuts remained rare in Italy before 1490,189 while the first volumes to be produced in Lyon itself containing woodcuts began to be printed from 1478 onwards.190 The first incunabulum to contain woodcut illustrations of any part of Terence, and the only one to predate the Lyon Terence, was published by Conrad Dinckmut in Ulm in 1486, and contained only the text and a commentary on 185 For the edition used as the base text (GW M45420; istc it00070600), see Ribuoli, La collazione, 17 n.7. 186 See Ribuoli, La collazione, 73–​7; Gehl, “Selling Terence,” 255. 187 The earliest illustrated incunabulum using woodcuts appears to have been the edition of Der Edelstein by Ulrich Boner, published by Albrecht Pfister in Bamberg on 14 Feb. 1461 (GW 4839; ISTC ib00974500); see Natalis Rondot, Graveurs sur bois à Lyon au seizième siècle (Paris: Georges Rapilly, 1897), 8–​9. 188 See e.g. Martha W.  Driver, “Woodcuts and Decorative Techniques,” in A Companion to the Early Printed Book in Britain 1476–​1558, ed. Vincent Gillespie and Susan Powell (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2014), 95–​9, noting the systematic production of such hybrid paintings in continental incunabula; for good examples, see Füssel, Gutenberg, figs. 28 (Terence) and 31 (Vergil). 189 Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers, 134; the first Italian book illustrated with woodcuts was the Meditationes of Torquemada (GW M48257; ISTC it00534800). 190 For the publication of the Mirouer de la rédemption de l’umain lignaigne (GW M43026; ISTC is00661000) by Martin Husz on 26 August 1478, see Robert Brun, Le livre français (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1969), 21; he notes that the figures which adorn it are taken from a Latin edition printed in Basel in 1476. Rondot, Les graveurs sur bois et les imprimeurs, 26–​7 had earlier argued for the first illustrated works to be printed in Lyon to be Abusé en court (GW 00133; ISTC ia00015000) and Le doctrinal du temps présent (GW M23350; ISTC im00567000), dating them to 1479–​80, although the istc entries date them to c. 1485 and c. 1484 respectively.

64 Chapter 2 Eunuchus translated into West Upper German dialect, most probably by Hans Neidhart of Ulm.191 The commentary makes considerable use of Donatus, while employing a variety of other sources;192 it is strongly didactic, aimed at drawing moral lessons from Terence’s play for the education of younger readers, reflecting a contemporary trend in South-​West Germany of employing Terence’s plays for this particular purpose.193 The woodcuts in it are placed at the start of each scene and are large, occupying almost the entire page, with only two or three lines of text set above them briefly summarizing the scene.194 Analysing carefully the structure of these images, the positions of the figures and their gestures, as well as the labels, James H.K.O.Chong-​Gossard has argued convincingly that the artist of these woodcuts drew his inspiration from the earlier illustrated traditions of Terence, in places showing strong similarities to the type of artwork exemplified by BnF, lat. 7907A and Arsenal, MS 664—​ despite immediate impressions to the contrary which are simply a product of their starkly different media, colour painting on vellum on the one hand, and black and white woodcut printing on the other.195 The special provenance of these two French masterpieces, which formed part of royal or ducal collections,196 might seem at first to argue against one or both of them having been used as a direct model for the Ulm edition, but given the great losses of manu­ scripts in the Wars of Religion and Revolutions over the following centuries, 191 Discussed in James H.K.O. Chong-​Gossard, “Thais Walks the German Streets: Text, Gloss, and Illustration in Neidhart’s 1486 German Edition of Terence’s Eunuchus,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​ Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 67–​101. 192 Terentius, Eunuchus, 1486. For the contents of Neidhart’s commentary, see Chong-​ Gossard, “Thais Walks the German Streets,” particularly 74–​86. Peter Amelung, Konrad Dinckmut der Drucker des Ulmer Terenz: Kommentar zum Faksimiledruck 1970 (Dietikon-​ Zürich: Verlag Bibliophile Drucke von Josef Stocker, 1972), 23–​5 argues that Neidhart may have consulted a manuscript of Terence written in the vicinity of Ulm around 1460 (now München, bsb, Clm 21275)  during his research, which contains extensive interlinear glossing of Terence, both in Latin and Swabian dialect, as well as sparse marginal glosses referring to points in Donatus. 193 The appropriation of Terence’s comedies for didactic purposes can also be found in Petrus Luder, whose commentary on Terence (see n. 129 above) circulated in many manuscript copies in South-​Western Germany; for Luder, see also Cora Dietl, “Tragoedia est encomium. Gab es eine frühe Humanistentragödie in Heidelberg?,” in Encomia-​Deutsch, Sonderheft der deutschen Sektion der International Courtly Literature Society, ed. Henrike Lähnemann and Andrea Sieber (Tübingen: Dt. Seminar, 2000), 27–​9. 194 See Turner and Torello-​Hill, Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, Figures 8, 15, 18, 21. 195 Chong-​Gossard, “Thais Walks the German Streets,” 87–​96, especially 90. 196 Cf. Meiss, French Painting, vol. 1, 41.

Commentary and Illustration from Manuscript to Print

65

it could just as well be argued that the Ulm artist modelled his woodcuts on another member of this family, since lost. The impact in the years immediately after 1486 of this illustrated edition written in the vernacular and containing only one of Terence’s plays is difficult to assess,197 but it seems a logical conclusion that given the strong interest by printers in Terence’s Latin text at this stage,198 the great cachet attached by artists and patrons to the illustrated manuscripts themselves, and the increasing confidence by printers in using woodcuts as well as technological advances in the field, there would be strong impetus for printers to be the first to produce a complete illustrated version of the six plays. It is commonly argued that at some stage around 1492 there were plans to create an illustrated edition of Terence using woodcuts based on sketches by Albrecht Dürer, which was to be printed in Basel; the leading figure in this enterprise was the great editor and publisher Sebastian Brant.199 According to Thomas Wilhelmi, this project was abandoned due to a severe outbreak of plague in 1492, which led to Dürer fleeing to Strassburg and the printers in Basel drastically restricting their output.200 Nevertheless, as Catarina Zimmermann-​Homeyer shows, this dating is open to critical re-​examination, since it is dependent on an absolute identification of the artist as Dürer, and fitting an appropriate sojourn in Basel in with the few dates we have for this early part of his career; we have no information such as a publisher’s colophon to date this work.201 Only the preliminary drawings for the woodblocks, together with a handful of cut blocks and prints made from cut blocks since lost, still survive in Basel, together with lemmata written on the backs of the sketches to identify the scene, in a hand identified by Wilhelmi as Brant’s.202 The edition was to have begun with a frontispiece showing a performance by mimes and musicians in 197 See Chong-​Gossard, “Thais Walks the German Streets,” 69, for the number of surviving copies, and 96–​100 for the immediate reception of this work. 198 Cf. the remarks of Gehl, “Selling Terence,” 253–​4 regarding the initial flurry of thirty separate editions between 1469 and 1480, and the continued appearance of editions until 1500, despite a slight decline in numbers due to saturation of the market. 199 Either with the printers Bergmann von Ople or Johann Amerbach; see Thomas Wilhelmi, “Zur Entstehung des «Narrenschiffs» und der illustrierten Terenz-​Ausgabe: Beschreibung der Rückseiten der Terenz-​Druckstöcke,” in Sebastian Brant: Forschungsbeiträge zu seinem Leben, zum «Narrenschiff», und zum übrigen Werk, ed. Thomas Wilhelmi (Basel: Schwabe & Co., 2002), 107. For Brant (1457–​1521), a native of Strassburg, see dbe 2.73 [R. Müller]. 200 Wilhelmi, “Zur Entstehung,” 104–​7. 201 Catarina Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke lateinischer Klassiker um 1500 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018), 51–​4. 202 Wilhelmi, “Zur Entstehung,” 107, and for a full list of illustrations and their lemmata, 111–​24.

66 Chapter 2 a semi-​circular theatre, which has distinctive Classical features,203 with a king and audience looking on from the topmost tier, then each scene was preceded by an illustration without labels.204 Little more can be deduced about it, other than it was to have included an illustration for the extra scene for Andria v.vi not included in the illustrated Γ-​manuscripts, as well as the extra scene found for Adelphoe iii.iii.205 Whatever the truth behind the failure of the Basel edition or its date, by the beginning of 1493 no illustrated edition of Terence, other than Neidhart’s translation of Eunuchus, had appeared. The way was left clear for Trechsel and his editor Badius in Lyon to produce their masterpiece. 203 Erwin Panofsky, Albrecht Dürer, 2nd edition revised, vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1945), 28 states that this depiction is ‘almost archaeologically correct’ (presumably with reference to the design of Roman theatres) as compared to that in the Strassburg Terence of 1496, the Latin edition of Johannes Grüninger (Terentius, Comoediae 1496); for which see Chapter 7.4. 204 Reproductions of the frontispiece and the twelve illustrations found on the completed woodcuts can be found in Walter L.  Strauss, Albrecht Dürer: Woodcuts and Woodblocks (New York: Abaris, 1980) 42–​9 (see also Wilhelmi, “Zur Entstehung,” 108–​10 for an illustration on an uncut block as well as views of the backs of the blocks). 205 Cf. Wilhelmi, “Zur Entstehung,” 114, 119.

­c hapter 3

The Editor of the Lyon Terence: Jodocus Badius Ascensius 3.1

Badius

The editor of the Lyon Terence, Jodocus Badius Ascensius (1461/​2–​1535), or Badius, was to become one of the most influential and financially successful academic editors and publishers of the early sixteenth century in France.1 His commercial activities and popularism resulted in a certain notoriety in humanist circles later in his lifetime,2 but it is indisputable that he was thoroughly trained in Latin literary scholarship, and that he always maintained a strong interest in Classical literature, publishing a wide range of critical editions (including Latin translations of Greek classics). In particular, he was not only directly involved in producing the Lyon Terence, but also two other quite distinct editions of Terence’s six plays in the initial part of his career, before his press was established in Paris in 1503 and he became a publisher in his own right.3 This chapter will look at the evidence for his life and literary career in the years prior to the appearance of the Lyon Terence, then his activities in the 1 For earlier biographies, see BN 1.610–​15 [J. de Saint-​Genois], Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas B. Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 79–​81 [G. Guilleminot]. For his publications, see Philippe Renouard, Bibliographie des impressions et des œuvres de Josse Badius Ascensius, imprimeur et humaniste 1462–1535​(Paris: Ém. Paul et fils et Guillemin, 1908), passim. 2 See in particular Paul White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius: Commentary, Commerce and Print in the Renaissance (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2013), 144–​78, noting his comment that ‘[t]‌he contempt for Badius derived partly from the fact that he was a bourgeois tradesman with no other income “save the fruits of his daily toil;” it was also partly to do with his reputation as a mere schoolmaster whose erudition extended only to the most basic kind of grammatical explanation,’ 148. See also Isabelle Diu, “Medium typographicum et respublica literaria: Le rôle de Josse Bade dans le monde de l’édition humaniste,” in Le livre et l’historien: Études offertes en l’honneur du Professeur Henri-​Jean Martin, ed. Frédéric Barbier et al. (Geneva: Droz, 1997), 111–​24 for discussion of the role Badius envisaged for himself as a commentator and printer in the new humanism, and the reaction this received from purists. For a comprehensive discussion of his commercial milieu and patrons, see Louise Katz, “La presse et les lettres:  Les épîtres paratextuelles et le projet éditorial de l’imprimeur Josse Bade (c. 1462–​1535),” (PhD diss., École pratique des Hautes Études, 2013). 3 For which see Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 22.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/978

68 chapter 3 years leading up to his third edition of Terence’s plays in 1502, noting his literary and scholarly output over this period, particularly in light of the enormous influence exercised on his conception of Classical literature, including theatre, by contemporary Italian Renaissance scholars. Our work builds to a large extent on foundations laid at the beginning of the twentieth century by Philippe Renouard, whose massive bibliographical and biographical study from 1908 is an essential tool for all scholars studying Badius. Nevertheless, a small number of key works missed by Renouard (especially the 1491 edition of Terence), together with advances in recent years facilitated by digitisation of relevant incunabula and early editions, have meant that we are now capable of forming a far more refined view of his life and literary career in these early years when he first began to edit Terence. 3.2

Early Life and Literary Career to 1493

3.2.1 Flanders and Brabant Badius was born in 1461/​2, most probably in the Flemish-​speaking area of modern-​day Belgium, either at Ghent in the County of Flanders, or Assche in the Duchy of Brabant. The German theologian and ecclesiastical historian Johann Tritheim, a major intellectual influence on Badius in the early part of his career, stated in works published in 1494 and 1495 that Badius was Gandensis, natione Teutonicus (‘from Ghent, of Germanic race’), and further that he was oriundus ex Gandauo (‘born in Ghent’).4 Badius himself seems to have identified Ghent as his home town in later writing: he signed himself as Jodocus Badius Gandensis (‘Jodocus Badius of Ghent’) in an entry he submitted to a poetry contest in 1497,5 while even in his commentary on the letters of Angelo Poliziano from 1520 he discusses the use of the preposition ab with place-​names, and follows with these highly specific examples:  a Flandria, a Gandauo, a prato, ab Hispania (‘from Flanders, from Ghent, from a meadow, 4 Tritheim, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 1494a, f.  136v; Tritheim, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 1495, f. 68r. Badius’ approximate year of birth is also provided by Tritheim in these discussions; in his catalogue of 1494, writing prior to 1 September, he states that he was 32 years of age, and in the following year that he was 33 (Tritheim, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 1494a, f. 137r; Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 1495, f. 68v). For Tritheim (1462–​1516), see ndb 26.425–​6 [K. Arnold]; Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 159–​63. 5 Reprinted at Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 3, 31; for the competition, see Ann Moss, Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 195. See also Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 5 for other instances where Badius described himself as a citizen of Ghent.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

69

from Spain’).6 Nevertheless, it has also been argued that the Latin form of his surname Badius derives from the Dutch family name De Bauw, a prominent family in Assche,7 while writing in 1602 the Belgian historian Aubert le Mire asserted: Badio natale solum Asca, uetus et opulentum Bruxellensis agri muni­ cipium, Ascensii cognomen fecit. adolescens Gandaui in fratrum D. Hie­ ronymi, qui tum celebria per Belgium gymnasia habebant, disciplina fuit, unde fortassis ab educationis loco Gandensis a plerisque est habitus.8 His native soil of Assche, an old and wealthy municipality of the district of Brussels, provided Badius with the name Ascensius. As a young man in Ghent he was under the instruction of the Brothers of St Jerome, who at that stage possessed renowned schools throughout Belgium, and so perhaps he has been considered by many to come from Ghent from the place of his education. Regardless of the exact place of his birth, at this stage both Flanders and Brabant formed part of the Duchy of Burgundy, a vast agglomeration of territories stretching along the border of France and the Holy Roman Empire, from the Netherlands to the middle Loire Valley, and almost as far South as Lyon. Although it experienced a gradual economic decline in the fifteenth century, Flanders was still famous in the late Middle Ages for its wealth and developed urban society, while the Burgundian court at Bruges was equally renowned for its artistic patronage and festivals, including a dynamic theatrical scene, with a strong focus on religious drama.9 A major crisis, however, came in 1477, 6 Poliziano, Epistolae cum Syluianis commentariis et Ascensianis scholiis 1520, f. 95v. Later in the same commentary Badius provides a detailed description of aromatic plants growing in the empty plains between Ghent and Bruges (f. 154r). 7 Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 5. 8 Le Mire, Elogia illustrium Belgii scriptorum 1602, 145. For Le Mire (1573–​1640), see BN 14.882–​95 [A. Wauters]; Cathleen Flanagan, “Aubertus Miraeus, an Early Belgian Librarian,” The Journal of Library History 10, no. 4 (1975): 341–​53. For discussion of the issue of Badius’ origin, see also Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 4–​6; White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 2–​6. 9 For the political history of Flanders in this period, see David Nicholas, Medieval Flanders (London: Longman, 1992), 317–​45 and 392–​9, for economic development and decline in the province, 357–​91 and Peter Stabel, Dwarfs among Giants: The Flemish Urban Network in the Late Middle Ages (Leuven-​Apeldoorn: Garant, 1997), passim, and for overviews of the cultural renaissance in Flanders and its theatrical scene, Nicholas, Medieval Flanders, 346–​56 and Elsa Strietman, “Medieval Drama in Europe: The Low Countries,” in The

70 chapter 3 with the death of the last Duke, Charles the Bold, in battle, and the subsequent death in 1482 of Charles’ only daughter, Maria, who had married Maximilian of Austria, the son and heir of the Holy Roman Emperor. The Burgundian lands became a battle ground between Maximilian and the French kings Louis xi and Charles viii, and the cities of Brabant and Flanders were frequently involved directly in the fighting.10 Nothing is known about Badius’ family background, although the deferential tone of letters dedicating some of his later works to members of the local Flemish nobility strongly suggests that his social rank was not high.11 We do, however, know that he was educated by a religious order in Ghent, the Brethren of the Common Life,12 which had been founded in Holland in the fourteenth century and whose production of quality books as a means to support the order and its educational aims was undoubtedly a key factor in his later development as an editor and publisher.13 He acknowledged his debt to it in prefaces to his later editions, in particular in his edition of the works of Thomas à Kempis,14 one of the many eminent scholars associated with the Brethren.

10 11 12 13

14

Cambridge Guide to Theatre, ed. Martin Banham, 3rd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 709–​12. See the detailed discussion in Henri Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique, vol. 3:  De la mort de Charles le Téméraire à l’arrivée du Duc d’Albe dans le Pays-​Bas (1567), 3rd edition (Brussels: Maurice Lamertin, 1923), 3–​56. For discussion of his life-​long relationship with the elites of Ghent, see Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 219–​32. For his early education in Ghent, see Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 8; White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 12–​14. For the history of the order, see dhge 18.1438–​54 [W. Lourdaux], particularly cols. 1445–​8 discussing the emphasis it placed on the literary education of the young, the copying of manuscripts, and the establishment of libraries and printing presses; for their pervasive influence on contemporary society in the Netherlands, İ. Semih Akçomak, Dinand Webbink, and Bas ter Weel, “Why did the Netherlands develop so early? The legacy of the Brethren of the Common Life,” The Economic Journal 126 (2016): 821–​60; for the order’s presence in Ghent, dhge 19.1005–​58 at 1043 [J. Decavele] under 6.  Hiéronymites (the order’s convent was dedicated to St Jerome); and for the extant books from the library, Albert Derolez et al., Corpus catalogorum Belgii, vol. 7 (Brussels: Koninklijke Acadamie van België, 2009), 144–​5. Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 304–​5 discusses their influence on Badius’ future career and concludes that the Brothers: ‘lui apprirent probablement dès son plus jeune âge à considérer la typographie comme un formidable moyen de répandre la parole divine.’ See White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 14–​15. He also apparently dedicated a commentary edition of Horace’s Epistulae to the Brothers; see the preface printed at Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 500–​1, where he ascribes it to an edition of 1500 which he had not seen, but inferred had existed from the statement appearing in subsequent editions that it was printed on 13 October 1500; there is no record of such an edition in either istc or fb.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

71

Referring in his preface to the generation of scholars at Ghent who had studied at the order’s main house at Windesheim near Zwolle in the Netherlands, established by one of the co-​founders of the order, Florent Radewijns,15 Badius uses a striking Classical metaphor when he states that he owes great thanks for his skills in writing: pueritiae meae institutoribus domus diui Hieronymi apud Gandauum fratribus, qui ex domini Florentii sodalitio et schola, ut ex equo Troiano armati quamplurimi, prodierunt …16 to the teachers of my childhood, the brothers of the house of St Jerome at Ghent, who came forth in great numbers from the fellowship and the school of Master Florent, like armed warriors from the Trojan horse … Precise details of the curriculum he studied there are not available, but it can be assumed he received very thorough training in the Latin language, a natural prerequisite for entry to university, through its three branches of grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, as well as in the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music), which together formed the septem liberales artes (‘seven liberal arts’).17 Following completion of his education, Badius may have tutored boys from aristocratic families in Flanders, as argued by Louise Katz.18 Also in Ghent, Badius is likely at this stage to have become closely acquainted with the Carmelite friars there, and in particular their leading scholar, Arnold de Bost, who later became another important influence in his life.19 From Ghent Badius then moved to study at the University of Leuven in Brabant, at this stage the only university in the Low Countries.20 Names of all 15 16 17

18 19 20

For Radewijns (1350–​1400) and the foundation of the order, see dhge 18.1438–​9. Thomas à Kempis, Opera 1523, aa2v. For discussion of the school system in the Northern Netherlands in this period, see Ad Tervoort, The Iter italicum and the Northern Netherlands:  Dutch Students at Italian Universities and their Role in the Netherlands’ Society (1426–​1575) (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 32–​ 8. He notes that the books most frequently used in Latin instruction were the Ars minor of Donatus and the Doctrinale by the Norman French grammarian Alexander de Villa Dei (34). For Badius’ criticism of Alexander and other French grammarians in his Silvae Morales, see Chapter 3.2.3 and n. 121 below. Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 226. For de Bost (1446–​99), see BN 2.762–​4 [A. Vander Meersch]; Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus, vol. 1, 176 [G. Tournoy]. In the dedicatory epistle to his edition of the Quaestiones of Pope Adrian vi of 1516 he describes Adrian as Lovaniensis academiae (quae mater mea) doctoris, ‘a doctor of the

72 chapter 3 incoming students (matriculants) were added to the university’s rolls, usually giving their name in a Latinised form together with the diocese of their home town. Badius’ personal name Jodocus, characteristically written as Judocus, is relatively uncommon, and a very close approximation of it can be found on 4 March 1483, when the rolls record a certain Judocus de Baden diocesis Tornacensis, ‘Jodocus de Baden of the diocese of Tournai’;21 in this period the diocese of Tournai was quite extensive, and extended northwards to include both Ghent and Bruges.22 If this identification is correct and it was Badius’ first degree, at twenty-​one or -​two he would have been slightly older than many of his contemporaries,23 but there are otherwise no indications of the circumstances of his entry to the university, other than that March was a relatively unusual time of the year to matriculate; most students matriculated at the beginning of September. There were faculties of Arts, Law, Medicine, and Theology in Leuven, and the Faculty of Theology included a Carmelite college.24 The precise length of his study in Leuven and the course he undertook there are unknown, although typically students at Leuven who went on to study at other universities in faculties such as Law, Medicine, or Theology, began their study in the Faculty of Arts.25 At some stage following his studies at Leuven, Badius travelled to Italy to study at the University of Ferrara. His return from there to take up a publishing position in Lyon can be dated to a few months before November 1491, at the very latest, while another piece of evidence for his early career in the North has a direct bearing on this question of dating. In a letter to de Bost from January

academy of Leuven, which is my mother institution;’ see Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 482. 21 Renouard had asserted that Badius’ name was not found in the registers (Bibliographie, vol. 1, 8 n.1), but see Leuven, Rijksarchief, 22 (Secundus liber intitulatorum), f. 171v, edited at Arnold H. Schillings, Matricule de l’Université de Louvain, vol. 2, Publications in quarto 58 (Brussels: Académie royale des sciences, des lettres, et des beaux-​arts de Belgique, 1946), 470. We are grateful to Marc Carnier of the Rijksarchief Leuven (email correspondence of 3.10.2017) for initially providing us with this identification. 22 See dhge 19.1005–​8 [J. Decavele] for an account of the early history of the church in Ghent, prior to establishment of its own diocese, and 1015–​16 for a map of diocesan boundaries prior to 1559. 23 For discussion of the available evidence for matriculations amongst students from the Northern Netherlands, see Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 121–​7; his figures, while extremely tentative due to the sparse data, give an average age of 17.4 for first matriculations at universities outside of Italy, and 21.7 for second matriculations. 24 See Henricus G.J. Lansink, Studie en onderwijs in de Nederduitse provincie van de Karmelieten gedurende de middeleeuwen (Nijmegen: Gebr. Jannsen, 1967), 131–​6. 25 Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 44.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

73

1489 the French Carmelite Robert Gaguin discusses his poem praising the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary,26 written, at de Bost’s urging, in response to the Dominican Vincenzo Bandello da Castelnuovo, who had openly attacked the doctrine in a debate held in Ferrara before the duke, Ercole d’Este, in 1480 or 1481.27 Gaguin had dedicated the work to de Bost on 26 December 1488, but just prior to the work being printed de Bost had passed it on to Badius, who had offered some criticisms of the verse, and Gaguin now discusses these passages.28 Given the short timelines involved, it seems almost certain that Badius will have been living in Ghent or the immediate environ when this happened. Renouard argued that Badius’ sojourn in Italy could have occurred either before this point or after it, not coming down on either side of the argument,29 but later critics have generally assumed that he travelled there before 1488.30 Nevertheless, as we shall argue below, it is quite possible that Badius travelled to Italy after this date. 3.2.2 Italy Exactly when Badius studied in Ferrara is a point of great interest for this study given both the productions of Classical comedy held there between 1486 and 26

For Gaguin (c. 1423–​1501), see Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus, vol. 2, 69–​70 [M. Reulos and P.G. Bietenholz], and for a lengthy account of his life and career, Louis Thuasne, ed., Roberti Gaguini epistole et orationes, vol. 1 (Paris:  Émile Bouillon, 1904), 4–​158; see further Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 313 n. 1008. The letter is reproduced in Thuasne, Gaguini epistole et orationes, vol. 1, 326–​31 and Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 456–​7. 27 For the date, with preference given to 1480, see Paul O.  Kristeller, “A Thomist Critique of Marsilio Ficino’s Theory of Will and Intellect: Fra Vincenzo Bandello da Castelnuovo O.P.  and His Unpublished Treatise Addressed to Lorenzo de’ Medici,” in Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters iii, ed. Paul O.  Kristeller (Rome:  Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1993), 148 and n. 3, and for discussion of the response from Gaguin, Thuasne, Gaguini epistole et orationes, vol. 1, 72–​6. Bandello’s critique was subsequently published as Vincenzo Bandello, De singulari puritate 1481, with a dedication to Duke Ercole on ff. 1r-​4r. 28 Commenting de his que vel Badius vel ipse annotasti, alia festinationi nostre, alia librario danda vicio sunt, ‘concerning those things which either Badius or you yourself have noted, some of them should be attributed as mistakes to my great haste, some of them to the copyist’, Thuasne, Gaguini epistole et orationes, vol. 1, 329; see 330 for the criticisms made by Badius. 29 Concluding: ‘[c]‌e voyage doit donc être placé soit avant décembre 1488 … soit après janvier 1489,’ Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 9. 30 Cf. Maurice Lebel, Josse Bade, dit Badius (1462–​1535):  Préfaces de Josse Bade (Louvain: Peeters, 1988), 3 (‘en Italie où il séjourna plusieurs années, probablement de 1480 à 1488, il lui fut donné de connaître, entre autres, Ange Politien, Alde Manuce et Baptiste de Mantoue’) and White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 15 (‘More important was the time he spent studying in Italy during the 1480s’).

74 chapter 3 1502 and his later knowledge of and engagement with the works of Angelo Poliziano. Tritheim tells us that Badius was already recognized in 1494 as an outstanding orator, philosopher, and poet: qui olim Ferrariae Baptistam Guarinum litteras graecas docentem audivit, et in ea quoque scientia doctus evasit, Lugdunum modo eruditione sua exornat.31 who once heard Battista Guarino teaching Greek literature in Ferrara, and came back learned in that science as well, and now graces Lyon with his learning. Apart from Tritheim, our evidence for Badius’ time in Italy comes chiefly from his own works. In the preface to his edition of the Orationes et poemata of Filippo Beroaldo of 1492 he describes how his patron Laurent Bureau brought him a copy of these works back from Italy, and refers to the occasion when he heard Beroaldo himself speaking in Bologna: Philippi Beroaldi uiri quam clarissimi orationes nobis adduxisti, quas nunc tanto quidem desiderio perlegimus, quanto olim ipsum docentem Bononiae paucos quidem dies audiuimus.32 You brought me the orations of Filippo Beroaldo, that most famous of men, which I  have now read through with as much longing, as once I heard the man himself, over a few days, lecturing in Bologna. Another important piece of evidence is provided in Badius’ edition of the poem by Eloi Houckaert on the life of St Livinus, a legendary apostle in Ghent during the seventh century, published in January 1511. The edition was dedicated to Badius’ friend Anton Clava from Bruges, who had matriculated at Leuven on 29 August 1479, and who would later become a prominent citizen of Ghent

31 Tritheim, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 1494a, f.  137r (reprinted Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 287). 32 Beroaldo, Orationes 1492, a2v (reprinted Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 159). For Filippo Beroaldo the Elder (1453–​1505), see dbi 9.382–​4 [M. Gilmore], as well as the contributions in Silvia Fabrizio-​Costa and Frank La Brasca, eds., Filippo Beroaldo l’Ancien: Un passeur d’humanités (Bern: Peter Lang, 2005). This reference is unfortunately of no use in determining the date of Badius’ travel to Bologna, since Beroaldo held his chair there continuously from 1472 until his death in 1505.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

75

itself,33 and in the dedicatory letter Badius casts himself as a young admirer of Clava, and states: Quippe qui dulcedine humanitatis tuae pellectus, tuamque auctoritatem secutus, per medios belli furores, Alpes ipsas ad Ferrariense usque gymnasium superauerim. Nec me quam de te praeceperam fefellit opinio, semper enim uel illic te humanissimum expertus sum.34 In as much as I was captivated by the sweetness of your noble nature, and having followed your example through the midst of the madness of warfare, I conquered the Alps themselves on route to the gymnasium in Ferrara. Nor did the opinion deceive me which I had formed about you in advance, for indeed I have always found you to be a most high-​minded person, even over there. Clava went on to be appointed as a legal specialist in Bruges in 1487, and so if he followed the pattern described above, of completing an Arts degree at Leuven before undertaking his legal studies in Ferrara, where the Faculty of Law was particularly geared to accepting foreign students,35 his travel to Italy should have been at some stage between 1481 and 1487.36 Badius’ travel should therefore have followed at some stage after 1481, although by no means immediately afterwards, especially given the constant interruptions caused in this period by local conflicts (see below). Finally, two key statements overlooked in previous scholarship are contained in Badius’ edition of Poliziano’s letters from 1520, in which he added his own comments to those of François Dubois.37 In the commentary on a letter from Battista Guarino to Poliziano from August 1494 (ep. 7.34), Badius picks up on the syntax of the verb animaduerto (‘I take heed’, often found in the sense ‘punish’)38 as it was used by Guarino, saying: 33

For Clava (d. 1529) see Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus, vol. 1, 307 [M.A. Nauwelaerts and P.G. Bietenholz]. 34 Houckaert, Livinii vita 1511, a1v (reprinted Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 518). 35 Cf. Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 51. 36 Given the minimum two years for a graduation in Arts at this period; see Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 99 n. 157. 37 For Dubois (d. c. 1530), who wrote under the Latin name Franciscus Sylvius, see dbf 11.931 [A. Labarre], Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus, vol. 1, 408 [M.-​ M.  de la Garanderie]. For his close association with Badius, see Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 136–​9. 38 See tll 2.76.74–​77.19.

76 chapter 3 Frequentius tamen dicimus ‘animaduerto in te’, id est rite punio te, quam ‘animaduerto tibi’, sed sic quoque dicere licere docet uir doctissimus, quem Ferrariae aliquot menses audiui.39 Nevertheless, we say animaduerto in te, that is ‘I properly punish you’, more frequently than animaduerto tibi, but that it is permissible to speak in this way as well is taught by the most learned man, whom I heard over a number of months in Ferrara. The other statement comes as a gloss on a letter to Poliziano from Aldo Manu­ zio of October 1485 (ep. 7.7),40 in which Manuzio had explained how he first became acquainted with Poliziano’s writing, beginning: Annum abhinc tertium, quo Veneti Ferrariam oppugnabant, me … ex urbe Ferraria Mirandulam contuli ad Ioannem Picum, principem aetatis nostrae doctissimum, qui et amaret literatos uiros et faueret ingeniis. Three years ago, in the year when the Venetians were besieging Ferrara, … I went in refuge from the city of Ferrara to Mirandola to the house of Giovanni Pico, the most learned leader of our time, who both loves men of letters and facilitates their great thoughts. Manuzio next describes how he met the scholar Manuel Adramyttenus, who showed him a letter written in Greek by Poliziano, then subsequently moved to Carpi, where after a number of months he was rejoined by Pico, bringing with him from Florence a copy of Poliziano’s poem Rusticus, one of his collection known as the Silvae which was first published on 26 October 1483.41 The siege of Ferrara to which he refers here was conducted by the Venetians in May 1482 at the outset of the War of Ferrara or Guerra del Sale (Salt War), which between 1482 and 1484 pitted Ferrara, Milan, and the Kingdom of Naples, against Venice, Genoa, and the Papal States.42 Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who came from 39 Poliziano, Epistolae cum Syluianis commentariis et Ascensianis scholiis 1520, f. 156v. 40 For Manuzio (c. 1450–​1515), see dbi 69.236–​45 [M. Infelise]. 41 For the date, see Charles Fantazzi, ed., Angelo Poliziano: Silvae, I Tatti Renaissance Library 14 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), xii. 42 See Paul M. Dover, “Italy: Narrative (1300–​1493),” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, ed. Clifford J. Rogers, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 419; Michael E.  Mallett, “Venice and the War of Ferrara, 1482–​84,” in War, Culture, and Society in Renaissance Venice, ed. David S. Chambers, Cecil H. Clough and Michael E. Mallett (London: Hambledon Press, 1993), 57–​72.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

77

a major aristocratic family and who had also studied in Ferrara,43 gave shelter to a number of humanist intellectuals at this critical time besides Manuzio, who had been studying Greek with Guarino when the siege occurred. Conditions in the city must have been particularly difficult for students at this time; indeed, we also know that, as a result of the fighting and an outbreak of plague, the university at Ferrara was largely closed between 1483 and 1484, reopening fully only after the conclusion of peace in August 1484.44 With regard to the opening lines of the letter of Manuzio, Badius provides the following marginal commentary: oppugnabant, non expugnabant tamen. eo autem anno ego Ferrariam incolui, illicque Politianum uidi Venetias proficiscentem.45 They were besieging [Ferrara], nevertheless they did not subdue it. However, in that year I myself was an inhabitant of Ferrara, and I saw Poliziano setting out from there to Venice. Although Badius sometimes uses first-​person forms in his commentary to mirror the language of the correspondents,46 the comment about seeing Poliziano depart for Venice does not relate to anything said by Manuzio in this letter, and unless the text is corrupt here, it seems most likely to refer to Badius himself. But in this case the comment raises problems involving chronology. It is not clear whether by eo anno Badius means us to understand the year when the siege of Ferrara was conducted (i.e. 1482), or when he thought the letter was written (e.g. 1485). The first would seem natural given the immediate context, and it would receive some corroboration from his statement to Clava that he followed him to Ferrara per medios belli furores, ‘through the midst of

43

For Pico della Mirandola (1463–​94), see dbi 83.268–​75 [F. Bacchelli]. His close association with Ferrara is stressed by his nephew in his biography (Pico della Mirandola, Opera 1496a, a1r-​a11v); cf. in particular his statement that his uncle thought of Ferrara as civitatem sibi quasi domicilium, ‘a city as it were like a home for him’ (a9r). 44 Giuseppe Pardi, Lo studio di Ferrara nei secoli xv e xvi (Ferrara: G. Zuffi, 1903), 37. Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 71 notes that there is no record for students from the Northern Netherlands at Ferrara over the period of the war. 45 Poliziano, Epistolae cum Syluianis commentariis et Ascensianis scholiis 1520, ff. 144v-​145r. 46 The commentary thus continues:  Mirandula, id est per Mirandulam, perrexi Carpum, quod uicinum est oppidum (‘from Mirandula, that is through Mirandula, I  travelled to Carpi, which is a neighbouring town,’ Poliziano, Epistolae cum Syluianis commenta­ riis et Ascensianis scholiis 1520, f. 145r), but here the first-​person form perrexi is part of the lemma.

78 chapter 3 the madness of warfare’,47 but it would necessitate that the identification of Badius with the ‘Judocus de Baden’ who matriculated at Leuven in March 1483 is most probably incorrect. If on the other hand we take Badius as meaning a later date of 1485, Ferrara itself will have been at peace, although his statement about travelling to Italy through warfare in his letter to Clava could still have been correct. As already noted, Flanders itself became engulfed by warfare in the aftermath of the disintegration of the Burgundian state, and there was heavy fighting from November 1484 until July 1485 between the Flemish allies of Charles viii of France and Maximilian of Austria; Bruges and Ghent, which were centres of the rebellion, were the last to capitulate to Maximilian’s mercenaries, in June and July 1485 respectively.48 The second problem comes with the chronology of Poliziano’s visits to Venice. Poliziano made two well-​attested visits to Venice—​in 1479, when he spent an extensive period in that city, and in 1491, when he travelled there more briefly with Pico della Mirandola in order to study manuscripts, in particular the Codex Bembinus (A) of Terence.49 The earlier date of 1479 may be excluded, since Badius describes himself as following Clava across the Alps to Ferrara after some (undefined) interval of time, and Clava only matriculated at Leuven at the end of August 1479. On present evidence for Poliziano, this leaves only 1491 as possible. The precise chronology of this later journey is at least well known, particularly through the work of Alessandro Daneloni. Poliziano departed Florence with Pico on 3 June 1491, and spent a few days in Bologna, where he and Pico attended a reading of an Italian translation of Plautus’ Menaechmi, heard a lecture by Filippo Beroaldo on Horace, studied Greek manu­ scripts in the library of the humanist Lianoro Lianori, and were presented to various members of the ducal family, including Lucrezia, the daughter of Duke Ercole of Ferrara.50 From Bologna, they travelled to Ferrara, from where, after 47

Renouard in fact dismissed this phrase as evidence for the date of Badius’ travel, merely asserting that the Alps had been the scene of constant conflict throughout the last quarter of the fifteenth century (‘[c]‌ette indication ne peut suffire à fixer l’époque de son passage en Italie, puisque les Alpes, dans le dernier quart du xve siècle, ont été le théâtre de luttes constantes,’ Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 8), but Badius does not state specifically that the war was in the Alps, but rather that it was being waged while he travelled to Ferrara; the phrase can just as easily be read with secutus (‘having followed’), and the war might in fact have been occurring at any point on his journey from Ghent, or Leuven, to Italy. 48 Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique, vol. 3, 40–​1. 49 For the two visits, see Vittore Branca, “Poliziano a Venezia e l’origine veneziana della Fabula di Orfeo,” in Giorgione e l’umanesimo veneziano, ed. Rodolfo Pallucchini, vol. 1 (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1981), 112. For his study of A during 1491, see also Chapter 2.3. 50 Alessandro Daneloni, Per l’edizione critica delle note di viaggio del Poliziano, Progetto Poliziano. L’Opera 3 (Messina:  Università degli Studi di Messina, 2013), 35–​62, and for Beroaldo’s lecture, 64.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

79

a very brief stay around 11/​12 June, they departed for Rovigo, and from there to Venice (in Venice they in fact stayed in the residence of Duke Ercole).51 Poliziano states in a letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici written in Venice on 20 June that he had last written to him from Ferrara when he was passing through,52 but unfortunately that letter is lost. If Badius’ comment about seeing Poliziano does in fact refer to these events in 1491, he must have been mistaken about the chronology of Manuzio’s letter when he wrote his commentary note in 1520, since full-​blown conflict with Venice has ceased some seven years before 1491.53 A later dating of his study in Italy also necessitates that Badius would have left Ferrara very soon afterwards (a matter of one or two months at the very most), in order to be in Lyon and oversee production of his first edition of Terence, published in November 1491. On the other hand, the very late date of Badius’ commentary on the Letters, published almost thirty years after he had first settled in Lyon, may explain why he was confused about the dates. Certainly, the very brief span of Poliziano’s stay in Ferrara makes better sense of Badius’ terse statement that he saw Poliziano Venetias proficiscentem (‘setting out … to Venice’), since he may not have had any opportunity otherwise to meet him and Pico, even if introduced by Guarino. Furthermore, a later date of travel to Italy after January 1489 and before June 1491 is not at all inconsistent with Badius’ statement that he travelled through the ‘madness of warfare’; Flanders was again the scene of anarchic fighting in 1488/​89, and despite treaties struck between France and the Empire in 1489, Bruges and Ghent continued fighting until late 1490.54 In the Alps themselves there was a brief war amongst the Swiss fought in St Gallen, which was occasioned by the destruction of a new abbey on 28 July 1489, but which broke out in earnest in late October 1489, and finally concluded in February 1490.55 Comparative age should not be an issue; in his late twenties, Badius will have been older than many of his contemporaries, but no less so than his great Frisian 51

For the chronology of this part of their travel, see Vittore Branca, Poliziano e l’umanesimo della parola (Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1983), 136–​41, and for Poliziano’s activities in Padua and Venice, Daneloni, Per l’edizione critica, 83–​103. 52 ‘Da Ferrara vi scrissi l’ultima,’ epist. 30 [Del Lungo]. 53 For the tense political situation, but absence of fighting, over these intervening years, see Trevor Dean, “After the War of Ferrara: Relations between Venice and Ercole d’Este, 1484–​1505,” in War, Culture, and Society in Renaissance Venice, ed. David S. Chambers, Cecil H. Clough and Michael E. Mallett (London: Hambledon Press, 1993), 73–​98. 54 Pirenne, Histoire de Belgique, vol. 3, 51–​3. 55 Philip Robinson, Die Fürstabtei St. Gallen und ihr Territorium 1463–​1529:  Eine Studie zur Entwicklung territorialer Staatlichkeit, St. Galler Kultur und Geschichte 24 (St. Gallen: Staatsarchiv und Stiftsarchiv, 1995), 247–​50.

80 chapter 3 predecessor Rodolphus Agricola, who studied humanities at Ferrara, and particularly Greek under Battista Guarino, between 1475 and 1479, when he was in his early thirties.56 Although an accurate dating of Badius’ Italian trip is not possible on present evidence, the question is nevertheless very important when we consider the question of theatrical revivals in Ferrara, and the possibility that the images in the Lyon Terence have been in some way influenced by Badius’ witnessing of performances. An earlier date for the Italian journey of 1482/​5 would mean that Badius was in Ferrara while preparations were still taking place for the first performance of Plautus’ Menechini in 1486, with no certainty that he ever saw it. If, however, he was indeed there in June 1491, then it seems almost certain (especially given that he also says he studied ‘for several months’ with Battista Guarino), that he will have been there in January 1491 when performances of Menechini, Amphitruo, and Terence’s Andria took place.57 This issue aside, a few other very tentative scraps can be inferred about the circumstances and date of his travel to Ferrara. In his letter to Clava the use of the emphatic pronoun ipsas together with Alpes (‘the Alps themselves’) may perhaps imply that warfare caused Badius to divert via a hazardous route over the Alps, although at this stage students travelling to Italy from the North tended to follow established pilgrim routes, and some major routes, such as the Via Francigena or the Brenner Pass, crossed the Alps anyway.58 In any case travel across the Alps at this period, whether French, Swiss, or Austrian, could be a dangerous and costly business;59 Badius emphasizes the dangers again in a dedicatory poem to Laurent Bureau included in his edition of Beroaldo’s Orationes et poemata, where he describes Bureau crossing the Alps in the midst of constant storms, as well as enduring the summer heat of Italy.60 It is possible that the dates for the academic calendar in Italy may have had some bearing 56

For Agricola (1444–​85), see the contributions in Fokke Akkerman and Arie J. Vanderjagt, Rodolphus Agricola Phrisius 1444–​1485: Proceedings of the International Conference at the University of Groningen 28–​30 October 1985 (Leiden: Brill, 1988), especially Jozef IJsewijn, “Agricola as a Greek Scholar,” 21–​37 for his study and knowledge of Greek, and Agostino Sottili, “Notizie per il soggiorno in Italia di Rodolfo Agricola,” 79–​95 for discussion of the evidence for his dates in Italy. 57 For discussion of the chronology of revival performances in Ferrara, see Chapter 6.5. 58 Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 45 and 84. 59 For a general discussion of this issue, see Jean-​François Bergier, “Le trafic à travers les Alpes et les liaisons transalpines du haut Moyen Âge au XVIIe siècle,” in Le Alpi e l’Europa 3: Economia e transiti (Bari: Laterza, 1975), 1–​72. 60 Tu siquidem assiduis horrentes imbribus Alpes /​Et solem haec referens passus es aestiferum (‘you indeed suffered the Alps, bristling with perpetual storms, and the heat-​bearing sun when you brought these things back’), Beroaldo, Orationes 1492, a3r (reprinted in Silvia Fabrizio-​Costa, “La prefazione alla prima edizione francese delle Orationes di F. Beroaldo

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

81

on when Badius travelled; the formal beginning of the academic year in Italy at this stage was on St Luke’s day (18 October), while it ended in September. Nevertheless, Ad Tervoort also notes that students from the North could, and often did, matriculate at Italian universities at any time of the year.61 Study in Italy, by its very nature, was almost prohibitively expensive, and students from the North required either independent wealth or sponsorship; Tervoort has shown that in this period only about two or three students each year from the entire Northern Netherlands are recorded as studying at universities in Italy, compared to 160 or so who matriculated each year either in Cologne or Leuven, and as well there was a considerable slump in numbers travelling to Italy between 1476 and 1485.62 However, despite the costs involved and the difficulties caused in these years by warfare, Ferrara was still a top destination, after Bologna and Padua, for those students from the northern and southern Netherlands who could afford or wanted to study in Italy.63 Badius will certainly have encountered the vibrant intellectual culture in Ferrara, which had the direct sponsorship of Duke Ercole I  d’Este, who had become duke of Ferrara, Modena, and Reggio in 1471, and whose pivotal role in the revival of ancient comedy has already been discussed.64 In addition to his interest in reviving theatre on stage, Ercole also sponsored music, and Flemish singers and musicians were a small but very noticeable feature at his court.65 Theological debate was vigorous in these years; as already noted, it was Ercole himself who had chaired the debate on a key theological issue which was to preoccupy Badius in the earlier part of his career, the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Finally, Badius is likely at this stage to have studied the il Vecchio (Lione, settembre 1492),” in Filippo Beroaldo l’Ancien: Un passeur d’humanités, ed. Silvia Fabrizio-​Costa and Frank La Brasca [Bern: Peter Lang, 2005], 185). 61 Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 53. 62 Cf. Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 27–​9 and accompanying tables, noting his comment that ‘[i]‌t is very clear from the table that … Italian universities taken together must be seen as a very exclusive destination’ (27). 63 See Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 67–​72, and for the particular influence students who studied in Ferrara had over the development of humanism in Frisia, Agostino Sottili, “Ferrara:  The Cradle of Humanism in Frisia,” in Renaissance Humanism and University Studies:  Italian Universities and their Influence on the Studia Humanitatis in Northern Europe (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 298–​325. 64 See the Introduction above. For Ercole I  d’Este (1431–​1505), see dbi 43.97–​107 [T. Dean]. For discussion of his wide-​ranging interests, including theatre, see also Thomas Tuohy, Herculean Ferrara:  Ercole d’Este (1471–​1505) and the Invention of a Ducal Capital (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), especially 257–​64. 65 For discussion, see Lewis Lockwood, Music in Renaissance Ferrara 1400–​1505: The Creation of a Musical Center in the Fifteenth Century, 2nd ed. (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 2009).

82 chapter 3 works of the writer who strongly influenced his later writing, the Carmelite Battista of Mantua, or Battista Spagnoli, who in the 1480s and 1490s was moving between Bologna (where he was apparently a strong influence on Beroaldo), Mantua, and Rome, and who as early as 1475 had been corresponding with Arnold de Bost.66 The precise length of Badius’ study at Ferrara is unknown, although his statement that he studied aliquot menses (‘several months’) with Guarino suggests that it may not have been long in total. As Tervoort notes, doctoral degrees in Italy would normally take anywhere between four and eight years to complete, depending on the discipline, although students who could demonstrate study at another university would be entitled to a reduction in years; certainly at Ferrara student stays could be far briefer, given its reputation as a graduation university, often lasting two and a half years or even less.67 Although a formal graduation could take place, where the student would be presented to the bishop and confirmed in his office of doctor, many students would avoid this due to the very substantial costs involved, and simply return to their cities with a licentia and their status of doctor taken for granted.68 Badius’ name does not appear on the extant records of graduations at Ferrara, but neither do those of Anton Clava or Rodolphus Agricola.69 One final point which needs to be considered here is that, as suggested by Renouard, prior to moving to Lyon Badius may have been appointed to a 66

For Spagnoli (1447–​1516), see Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus, vol. 2, 375 [J.F.  d’Amico]; Wilfred P.  Mustard, The Eclogues of Baptista Mantuanus (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, 1911), 11–​17 (particularly n. 13); Ludovico Saggi, La congregazione mantovana dei Carmelitani sino alla morte del B.  Battista Spagnoli (1516) (Rome:  Institutum Carmelitanum, 1954), 116–​33; Daniela Marrone, “L’Apologeticon di Battista Spagnoli,” Atti e Memorie, Accademia Nazionale Virgiliana di Scienze Lettere e Arti, Mantova di 68 (2000): 19–​28; for his strong influence on Beroaldo and Badius’ later reception of the two writers, Andrea Severi, “Sulla fortuna dell’umanesimo bolognese in Europa a fine Quattrocento: il caso Beroaldo-​Mantovano,” Studi e problemi di critica testuale, 85, no. 2 (2012):  117–​40. His letter to de Bost is reproduced by Benedictus Zimmermann, Monumenta historica Carmelitana (Lérins:  ex typis Abbatiae, 1907), 490–​2 and Percy S. Allen, “Letters of Arnoldus Bostius,” The English Historical Review 34 (1919): 227–​8. 67 Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 99–​100, 136–​7, although his sample for Ferrara (25 students), is relatively small, and does not make allowances for developments over time; in his discussion of Padua (136) he notes that study durations there were somewhat longer in the fifteenth century than they were in the sixteenth. 68 Tervoort, The Iter italicum, 100–​1. For a typical doctorate in Arts from Ferrara in this period, see Sottili, “Ferrara: The Cradle of Humanism in Frisia,” 321–​2. 69 The known degrees are tabulated in Giuseppe Pardi, Titoli dottorali conferiti dalla studio di Ferrara nei sec. XV e XVI (Lucca, 1900, reprinted Bologna: Forni, 1970); Agricola does appear as a witness, however, in graduations in 1475, 1478, and 1479 (65, 69, 71).

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

83

position at the University of Valence (Drôme) in France, and taught Classical literature there, including Persius; certainly in the dedication to his 1499 edition of Persius, he describes his teaching of Persius in Valentino perquam celebri gymnasio et in Lugdunensi clarissimo emporio, ‘in the extremely well-​ known school of Valence, and the most famous market-​place of Lyon.’70 A university had been founded at Valence in 1452,71 and although the structure of its teaching in these early years and the names of most of its professors are unknown, we know that it underwent a reorganization in 1490 under the rector Adhémar de l’Orme, and that his regulations laid particular emphasis on the cult of the Virgin Mary,72 which may have had some bearing on his appointment there. If Badius was indeed still in Ferrara in early June 1491, and in Lyon well before November in the same year, then there does not seem to have been any time for him to have taken up a teaching position at Valence, but there is no reason why this appointment needs to be placed at this juncture of his career; conceivably he could have taught there at any stage after completing his degree at Leuven. 3.2.3 Lyon When Badius arrived in Lyon, he had already established his name as a minor literary figure. Tritheim, describing his literary output in 1494, at the very beginning of his career, states: Scripsit carmine et prosa multa praeclara opuscula (‘He has written many brilliant shorter works in poetry and prose’), and besides his Silvae Morales (discussed below), mentions: Contra Vincentium (Vincenti infoelix quae te de) … Psalterium Mariae: sapphicis (Quam chorus uatum ue); De grammatica … Epigrammata plura; Epistolae uariae; et alia conplura:73 ‘Against Vincenzo’ ([beginning] Vincenti infoelix quae te de) … ‘A psalter of Mary’, in Sapphics ([beginning] Quam chorus uatum ue); ‘On grammar’ … many epigrams; various letters; and very many other things.

70 Persius, Persii familiare commentum 1499 a2r; see Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 9. 71 See Joseph C. Nadal, Histoire de l’université de Valence (Valence: Imprimerie E. Marc Aurel, 1861), 11–​18. 72 Nadal, Histoire, 29–​31. For a useful discussion of the role and social status of professors of humanities in Italy during the same period, see Silvia Fabrizio-​Costa and Frank La Brasca, “Le professeur d’humanités dans les Universités de Bologne et de Florence à la fin du XVe siècle,” in Fabrizio-​Costa and La Brasca 2005, 29–​63. 73 Tritheim, Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis 1494a, f. 137r.

84 chapter 3 Contra Vincentium, although since lost, must have been an attack on Vincenzo Bandello da Castelnuovo, who had attempted to disprove the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin in Ferrara in 1481, and seems to have been written either in elegiac couplets (the metre of Gaguin’s work) or dactylic hexameters, while the Psalterium Mariae appears to be based on the hymn Quod chorus uatum uenerandus (‘that which a venerable chorus of poets’), also written in Sapphic stanzas, and included since the twelfth century in the order for the feast of the Purification of Mary.74 Badius also published grammatical works at later stages of his career, which no doubt incorporated much material from his early work De grammatica.75 By 13 November 1491, when his first edition of Terence appeared, Badius must have been established in Lyon for one or two months, at the very minimum.76 In his dedicatory letter to Laurent Bureau in this edition he states that Bureau had persuaded the publisher Matthias Husz of Lyon to summon him in hanc prouinciam (‘into this province’), suggesting that he had arrived there directly from Italy or else Flanders.77 Bureau was a rising star in the Carmelite order, who was later to become Bishop of Sisteron,78 and Badius acknowledged his patronage and inspiration in prefaces to several of his earliest works. It was Bureau, probably in mid-​1491, who recommended Badius as a suitable textual editor to Husz, after he had undertaken to publish his own, corrected version of Terence due to what he saw as the proliferation of poor editions.79 74

There is a copy included in Utrecht, UB, Ms 406 [3 J 7] at f. 54v; see the Cantus website ‹http://​cantus.uwaterloo.ca/​chant/​493226›. 75 Notably his works De recte scribendi ratione, ‘Concerning the theory of writing correctly,’ Apex Ascensianus de Grecis dictionibus ex Tortellio depromptus, ‘An appendix by Ascensius concerning expressions in Greek taken from Tortelli,’ based on the grammatical work of Giovanni Tortelli (1400–​66) which follows it in the same edition (Badius, De recte scribendi ratione 1500b), and the later Introductio Ascensiana in grammaticen, ‘Introduction of Ascensius to grammar’ of c. 1510 (see Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 85–​6). 76 The edition, Terentius, Comoediae 1491, is a quarto volume consisting of 102 sheets; as noted in Chapter 1.3, Brian Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 22 estimates a rough average rate of one sheet per day for compositors working in the sixteenth century. This would suggest that work may possibly have begun on the edition around the start of August 1491. 77 Terentius, Comoediae 1491 [con] 8v [f. 199v]. Vera Sack, “Die erste Lyoner Terenz-​Ausgabe (1491) des Jodocus Badius Ascensius,” Gutenberg-​Jahrbuch (1972), 92 argues that Badius came directly to Lyon from Valence, for which see Chapter 3.2.2. 78 For Bureau (d. 1505), see the brief biography in dbf 7.687 [T. de Morembert] and Fabrizio-​ Costa, “La prefazione,” 169–​70. 79 For Husz (d. after 1507), who came from Botwar in Württemberg and who took over the firm of his brother or cousin Martin Husz (publisher of the first illustrated French

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

85

The work is rare—​only three copies are now known—​and it was not noticed in modern scholarship until 1972,80 but it provides key evidence for Badius’ subsequent editions, since it incorporated Donatus’ commentary, linking it directly to the plays by means of marginal notes, and contained a justification of his own amendments to the text of Terence. As well, his text of Donatus is a considerable improvement on contemporary editions; as will be shown,81 in it many of the numerous errors found in the vulgate of Donatus were corrected, either through Badius’ editorial intervention or through his recourse to good manuscripts. As noted, it is dedicated to Bureau, who is addressed as Carmeli gregis laudatissimo diuinarum et humanarum litterarum ornamento, ‘the most highly praised member of the Carmelite order and an ornament of sacred and worldly letters.’82 The edition is set in a Gothic type, with which Badius subsequently may have expressed his dissatisfaction (see below), and the small number of copies perhaps reflects a limited print run. In any case Badius seems not to have found his association with Husz satisfactory. Vera Sack, who first identified Badius as the editor of this work and published his dedication to Bureau, conjectured that his very specialized and erudite scholarship may not have sat well with the tendency of Husz’ press to publish large print-​runs aimed at being accessible to a broad, mainstream audience.83 Badius’ position is likely to have been relatively junior at this stage, and we know that he also taught extensively in Lyon, often dedicating works to his former students, who came largely from aristocratic families.84 Whatever his relations were with Husz, by 26 July 1492 Badius had moved to work with another Lyon-​based publisher of German origin, Johannes Trechsel,85 and initially enjoyed very close relations with him and his family.86 This incunabulum) in Lyon in 1482, see Anatole Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie en France au XVe et au XVIe siècle, vol. 3 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1904), 245–​328. Like Renouard, Claudin was unaware of the edition of Terence which Badius edited for Husz. 80 Sack, “Die erste Lyoner Terenz-​Ausgabe.” Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 77, independently identified this edition from the copy possessed by Provins, BM; however, Laure Hermand-​ Schebat, “Le commentaire de Josse Bade aux comédies de Térence,” Exercices de rhétorique 10 (2017), 3, ‹http://​journals.openedition.org/​rhetorique/​562›, mistakenly argues that Katz was the first to identify this work. 81 See Chapter 4.1. 82 Terentius, Comoediae 1491 [con] 8r [f. 199r]. 83 Sack, “Die erste Lyoner Terenz-​Ausgabe,” 93. 84 Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 9–​10. 85 For Trechsel (d. 1498), a German who had established his printing-​house in Lyon by 1488, see Claudin, Histoire, vol. 4, 51–​96. 86 For his lodging in Trechsel’s house and payment of an annual salary, see Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 11.

86 chapter 3 terminus ante quem is provided by his dedicatory letter to Laurent Bureau of his second major edition, the Orationes et poemata of Filippo Beroaldo the Elder, a copy of which Bureau had brought back with him from Italy for Badius, and which was subsequently published on Trechsel’s press on 4 September.87 The Orationes et poemata were originally published in Bologna in 1491,88 and Badius depicts himself in his preface as being transfixed by the books which Bureau had brought back with him from Italy for the explicit purpose of educating French youth: reditum faciens, ab instituto tuo nusquam aberrasti, uerum semper communi commoditati consulendo, omnia secretiora Italica ut optima quaeque dicendi uiuendique praecepta nobis afferas penetrasti. quo factum est, ut Gallica iuuentus desiderata olim iam pluscula uolumina tuo auspicatu lectitare possit …89 Upon your return you in no manner deviated from your mission, but always making plans for the common good, you went into all the most secluded places in Italy so that you might carry back for me all the very best works on speaking and living properly. Whereby it came about by your foresight that the young men of France were able to read with great attention very many volumes which they had desired for a long time …

87 Beroaldo, Orationes 1492. The istc (last edit 1 December 2017) lists 45 extant copies. 88 Beroaldo, Orationes 1491. The istc lists 56 extant copies. The first eight of Beroaldo’s orations focus on writers from Classical Latin literature, discussing the poetry of Vergil (Georgics), Propertius, Silius Italicus, Lucan, Juvenal, Horace, and Persius, the rhetorical works of Cicero, and the histories of Livy and Sallust. Beroaldo then moves on to encomiastic speeches addressed to contemporary figures, including incoming rectors at Bologna University and senior political figures, the most prominent of whom was Ludovico Sforza, regent of Milan from 1481 to 1494. In his lengthy encomium of the lavish marriage of Lucrezia d’Este, daughter of Duke Ercole, to Annibale Bentivoglio in Bologna in 1487, the Nuptiae Bentivolorum (‘marriage of the Bentivoglios’), he provides a description of various entertainments held over several days, including theatrical pageants or mimes based on Classical themes; thus he describes a restaging of the judgement of Paris performed by female dancers (Beroaldo, Orationes 1491, e4r-​v [= 1492, e7v]), and on the next evening a pageant by comic actors representing hunters dressed like Hercules and hunting animals (Beroaldo, Orationes 1491, e5r [= 1492, e8v]). The remainder of the work includes Beroaldo’s translation into Latin of two novellas by Boccaccio from the Decameron, one into poetry and one into prose, a Latin verse translation of an Italian poem on the Virgin Mary by Petrarch (Canzoniere 366), and his own poetry, comprising both erotic and religious verse. 89 Beroaldo, Orationes 1492, a2r-​v.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

87

Apart from this dedication, however, and the two poems to the reader,90 at the beginning and end of the volume, the edition remains very much a reprint of the 1491 work. Its real significance with regard to the Lyon Terence rests in its employment of a clear Italian font based on humanist script which included Greek letters, which Trechsel had specially imported from Italy.91 Badius explicitly championed the use of Italian type over the existing Gothic fonts in the preface, stating: caeterum cum plurimos imprimendi caracteras ineptiores censerem quam quibus tam conditum opus crederemus, multosque aut inscitia aut uecordia imprimentium libros deprauatos mendososque uiderem, paulisper ab incoeptu moratus sum, dum egregiam candidamque Iohannis Trechsel, alamani, huiusmodi artis peritissimi, famam omnium testimonio laudatam intelligerem, sciremque ipsum italicam litteram paratam habere qua tersius castigatiusque opus hoc imprimi posset.92 Furthermore, since I judged that very many characters used in printing were more unsuitable than those to which we should entrust such a treasured work, and I saw many books distorted and corrupted either by the ignorance or the insanity of printers, I delayed for a little while from my undertaking, until I learned of the outstanding and brilliant reputation of Johannes Trechsel, a German, the most experienced in this art, which was praised by the testimony of everyone, and I knew that this same man had an Italian font ready with which this work could be printed with more refinement and strict accuracy. On 14 November in the same year Trechsel published Badius’ Silvae Morales.93 The Silvae Morales is a major work of scholarship by Badius; it includes his extensive commentary on a number of Classical Latin as well as contemporary Christian texts (including the first modern commentary on a fragment of Ennius), and must have been the result of several years researching and teaching, which overlapped with his work on Terence. The work is also very much a product of his intense engagement with contemporary Italian scholarship, and 90 Beroaldo, Orationes 1492, a3r, k6r (reprinted at Fabrizio-​Costa, “La prefazione,” 184–​5, Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 160). 91 For the use of this font in the Beroaldo edition, and Badius’ preliminary remarks in his dedicatory letter to Laurent Bureau, see Fabrizio-​Costa, “La prefazione,” 179. 92 Beroaldo, Orationes 1492, a2v. 93 Badius, Silvae Morales 1492. The istc (last edit 1 November 2017) lists 68 extant copies.

88 chapter 3 it employs Trechsel’s Italian font, making full use of its capacity to print Greek alongside the Latin. Books 1 to 8 of the Silvae Morales excerpt and provide commentary on Classical Latin poetry, with a particular focus on Horace and Juvenal, under the titles De uitiis fugiendis, ‘Concerning vices which should be shunned;’94 De fragilitate hominis, ‘Concerning the fragility of man;’95 De fragilitate rerum, ‘Concerning the fragility of possessions;’96 De uotis, ‘Concerning prayers;’97 De amicitiae atque urbanitatis officio, ‘Concerning the duties of friendship and politeness;’98 De obsequiis amico praestandis, ‘Concerning rendering services to a friend;’99 Praecepta amicitiae et moralitatis, ‘Advice on friendship and morality;’100 and De officio parentum in filios et de humanitate seruanda, ‘Concerning the duties of parents towards their sons, and the need to preserve human dignity.’101 Books 9 and 10 turn to classicising Latin poetry by contemporary Italian scholars; Book 9, De uitio impudice scribentium, ‘Concerning the vice of those who write unchastely,’ comments on a poem on this topic by Battista Spagnoli, while Book 10, De moribus mensarum, ‘Concerning table manners,’ comments on a poem on this topic by Giovanni Sulpizio da Veroli.102 Finally, Book 11 comments on the Moralia Catonis, ‘The Moralia of Cato,’ a collection of moral sayings attributed in the Medieval period to Cato the Censor (234–​149 bc), but written in the 3rd or 4th century ad;103 while Book 12 comments on Parabolae Alani, ‘The Parabolae of Alanus,’ moral verses by the scholastic theologian Alain de Lille (c. 1120–​1202).104 94

95 96 97 98

99 100 101 102 103 104

Commenting on fragments of poems attributed incorrectly to Vergil, in fact works of Ausonius (Auson. xiv.20 [Green]) and from the Late-​Antique collection Symposium XII sapientum, perhaps written by Lactantius (cf. Fritz Felgentreu, “Anne Friedrich, Das Symposium der XII Sapientes: Kommentar und Verfasserfrage,” Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.12.25), as well as one of Horace (Hor. Ep. 1.16.73–​9). Commenting on Hor. Carm. 4.7, 2.14, and 2.3. Commenting on Hor. Carm. 2.18, 2.10, 2.16, and 2.2. Commenting on Hor. Carm. 1.31, Pers. 2.62–​76, and Juv. 10.346–​66. Commenting on a fragment of Ennius’ Annales found in Aulus Gellius; Enn. Ann. 8 fr. 12 [Skutsch] = Gel. 12.4.4. Badius, following Gellius, assigns the fragment to Book 7; for discussion of its location, see Otto Skutsch, ed., The Annals of Quintus Ennius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 447–​8. Commenting on Hor. Carm. 4.8 and 4.9. Commenting on Hor. Carm. 3.2, Ep. 1.18. Commenting on Juv. 14.1–​85, 107–​40, 179–​239, 244–​7 and 288–​321; 15.138–​74. For Sulpizio, see Bietenholz and Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus, vol. 3, 300 [J. Rice Henderson]. See Manfred Landfester, “Catonis dicta/​Dicta Catonis,” BNP Supplements: Dictionary of Greek and Latin Authors and Texts (2009): 148–​9. For Alain, see dhge 1.1299–​304 [M. Jaquin], where the Parabolae are discussed under the title Doctrinale minus (col. 1300).

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

89

The title Silvae evokes immediately the miscellaneous collection of poetry in different metres on quite disparate themes and with prose introductions by the Classical poet Statius, rediscovered by Poggio Bracciolini in 1418 and copied throughout Italy.105 Renaissance scholars frequently appropriated this term as a title for their own miscellanies, and it has been argued that Badius may have been influenced in his overall concept by a series of didactic works also called Silvae by Poliziano.106 In 1503 Badius published a collection of poems by Battista Spagnoli written on different topics and in different metres which he described in his title and prefatory letter as Silvae,107 but another possible influence may have been a collection of poems by Battista Guarino, which likewise were written in a variety of different metres and to different addressees, although the published version of this only appeared in 1496, and it contains poems dating to after 1492.108 The notion of ‘moral’ Silvae is in any case quite new on Badius’ part, and refers to his interpretations of the works he cites, predominately by pagan authors, for the purposes of Christian education.109 Badius makes this intention explicit when he cites Augustine’s precept from De doctrina Christiana that: philosophi maxime Platonici, si qua fidei nostrae consentanea dixere, non solum formidanda non sunt, uerum etiam ab eis tamquam ab iniustis possessoribus in usum nostrum conuertenda110 105 Leighton D. Reynolds, ed., Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 397–​9 [M.D. Reeve]. For Badius’ knowledge of this work, see Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, f.  176v, where he cites Statius’ Genethliacon Lucani ad Pollam (Stat. Silv. 2.7). 106 White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 182–​3. See also Tobias Leuker, “Die Sylvae aliquot des Aquiles Estaço und ihr Schlussgedicht, das Genethliacon Domini,” in Portuguese Humanism and the Republic of Letters, ed. Maria Berbara and Karl A.E. Enenkel (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 320–​2 for discussion of the spread of this term, particularly in Bologna around 1500. 107 Battista Spagnoli, Sylvarum sex opuscula 1503, AA1r-​v. 108 Guarino, Poema diuo Herculi Ferrariensium duci dicatum 1496. Like Statius’ collection, each book of which begins with eulogies of the emperor Domitian, each book of Guarini’s begins with a poem or poems dedicated to Duke Ercole or his half-​brother and predecessor, Duke Borso, then moves to other themes; prominent imitations of Statius include a descriptive poem of a villa (c8r-​f1r) and the verses describing Borso’s dog Leo (i8v-​k1r). A terminus post quem for the collection is provided by a poem on the death of the Duchess Eleonora in 1493 (l8r). 109 See the useful discussions of White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 179–​206, as well as Mark Crane, “Virtual Classroom:  Josse Bade’s Commentaries for the Pious Reader,” in The Unfolding of Words:  Commentary in the Age of Erasmus, ed. Judith Rice Henderson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), 101–​17. 110 Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, f. 183r (= Aug. doctr. christ. 1.40 [61]).

90 chapter 3 If philosophers, above all Platonic, have said any words which agree perfectly with our faith, these words should not only not be feared, but also should be converted to our usage from them as if they are taken from unjust possessors. As noted, these works are accompanied by extensive commentaries written by Badius himself, and in them he provides the reader with an array of heterogenous information, such as parallel instances from other Classical authors, information about the metre, the persons and mythological and historical figures mentioned, rhetorical figures, and so on.111 In part, Badius was modelling his work on the tradition of the great Classical commentaries which were already part of the educational system, and he also cites these within this work, including (occasionally) Donatus’ commentary on Terence,112 and most notably the commentary on Vergil by the late fourth-​or early fifth-​century Servius.113 The ancient authorities whom Badius cites directly in the Silvae Morales include Vergil, Horace, the Elder Pliny, Aulus Gellius, Cicero, Seneca, Sallust, Juvenal, Persius, Plautus, and also Terence. It may also be noted that there is an appreciable change towards the end of the work in the commentaries on the Moralia Catonis and the Parabolae of Alain, in which Badius made extensive use of Biblical citations in order to exemplify points (perhaps because existing literary commentaries on these works were unavailable),114 and also introduced a few, almost random references to contemporary events. Thus he describes how, when he was in Italy, he witnessed fraudulent snake-​handlers claiming to be bitten by poisonous snakes and then cured by magical potions, and provides a short anecdote about Duke Charles the Bold.115 But Badius also gives the literary works of Spagnoli and Sulpizio a very prominent place, locating them immediately after the Classical poets Vergil, 111 See also the discussion in White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 181–​2, who goes as far as to characterise the commentaries as a ‘more or less haphazard, directionless accumulation of information’ aimed at extending the reader’s encounter with the text in question. 112 See Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, ff. 15v (citing Don. Ter. An. 937), 90r (Ph. 27, 28), 140r (An. 609), 142v (Eu. 400), and 146r (Eu. 395). 113 For Servius’ dates and works see “Servius [2]‌,” bnp 13:333–​5 [W. Suerbaum], and for discussion of the educational nature of his work, Robert A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988), 169–​97. 114 A good instance can be seen on Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, f. 155v, where exemplifying the theme of honouring parents found in the Moralia Catonis he cites first the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6.9), the ten commandments (Exod. 20.12), then Deut. 5.16, Prov. 19.26, 28.24, Tob. 4.3, and [Sirach] 7.29 and 3.6. 115 Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, ff. 227r, 186r.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

91

Horace, Juvenal, Persius, and Ennius, and his commentaries include many citations of near-​contemporary scholars from Italy. Lorenzo Valla’s work is particularly prominent on points of grammar and usage,116 while Badius also uses the commentaries of Domizio Calderini on the first of the fragments of Pseudo-​ Vergil and on Juvenal,117 and of the Florentine scholar Cristoforo Landino,118 whose 1482 commentary on Horace, by far the most prominent Classical author in this work, is quoted extensively. Spagnoli is also cited as an authority on literary and moral points throughout the work.119 Badius’ comments on one particular point made by Spagnoli have a direct resonance with the depiction of prostitutes standing beneath the arches in the theatre illustrated on a4v of the Lyon Terence. Spagnoli remarks in his poem: Mater adulterii Venus est strupri repertrix Atque lupanari fornicibusque fauet Venus is the mother of adultery, and the inventor of sexual crimes, and she takes pleasure in the brothel and the fornices and Badius then explains: Fornices sunt arcus aedificiorum quales in theatro, in quibus prostabant togatae, id est famosae mulieres, unde tractum est ut fornices etiam lupanaria significent. Fornices are the arches of buildings such as in the theatre, in which togatae, that is women of bad reputation, offer themselves for sale, from which the meaning has been derived that fornices also signify brothels.120

116 On Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, f. 6v Valla (1407–​57) and Niccolò Perotti (1429/​30–​80: see dbi 82.431–​3 [P. D’Alessandro]) are named with ancient grammarians and commentators as authorities, specifically on the gender of dies (tunc autoribus omnibus Seruio, Donato, Nonio Marcello, Laurentio Vallensi, Perotto etc foeminini dumtaxat generis est, ‘then for all of the authorities Servius, Donatus, Nonius Marcellus, Lorenzo Valla, Perotti and so on, it is in this respect of the feminine gender’). 117 For Calderini (1446–​78), see dbi 16.599–​604 [A. Perosa]; Julia H. Gaisser, “From Giovanni Pontano to Pierio Valeriano:  Five Renaissance Commentators on Latin Erotic Poetry,” in Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, ed. Christina S. Kraus and Christopher Stray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 279–​84. 118 For Landino (1425–​98), see dbi 63.428–​33 [S. Foa]. 119 Cf. Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, ff. 74v-​75r, 81v, 82v, 139v. 120 Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, ff. 125v.

92 chapter 3 By way of contrast, other European scholarship is very rarely cited, and is usually disparaged,121 while the work of Alain de Lille, on which the final chapter is based, is dismissed in terms of its Latinity as being: non sane eleganti stilo scriptae … ideoque imbecillibus et adhuc in lingua latina titubantibus parcius ministrandae. not written with a sufficiently elegant style … and so to be offered very sparingly to those who are weak and still struggling with the Latin language.122 Although we only have the specific reference of Tritheim to Badius studying Greek with Guarino in Ferrara, his occasional use of it throughout the Silvae Morales indicates a fair degree of competence. Mostly he uses it to give the original forms and etymologies of technical terms or proper names, but occasionally he also gives paradigms of Greek nouns,123 while at one stage, when discussing the names of the Muses, he appears to show direct knowledge of the Greek text of a passage of the historian Diodorus Siculus.124 When citing a line found throughout the vulgate tradition of Juvenal, ‘all girls learn this before alpha and beta,’125 Badius then proceeds to a discussion of the Greek alphabet, which is noteworthy both for the way in which he mentions that all books of Homer’s Iliad are numbered according to the letters of the alphabet, and the way in which his pronunciation of particular letters reflects the contemporary

121 At Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, f.  142v he criticises the Flemish scholastic grammarian Eberhard of Béthune (fl. 1212), known also as ‘Graecista,’ as well as the Norman French grammarian Alexander de Villa Dei and many theologians for assigning the wrong gender to the word sal, and on 194v he criticizes ‘many Frenchmen’ for writing locuplex instead of locuples (‘opulent’), noting that they were ignorant of ‘their own Alexander’ in this matter. For Badius’ general advocacy for Italian humanist Latin due to its elegance, see Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 359–​62. 122 Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, f. 203r. 123 For technical terms, see e.g. Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, f. 9v (‘hypermeter,’ from ὑπέρ and μετρός), for proper names f. 16r (‘Chiron,’ from χείρ); for declensions, ff. 15v (τὸ νέκταρ τοῦ νέκταέρος [sic]) and 51r (ἡ θράκη τῆς θράκης). 124 On Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, f. 25r he cites Diodorus for the story that Silenus was the guardian of Bacchus when he was an infant (cf. D.S. 4.4.3), and on f. 25v he discusses the meanings of the names of the Graces Aglaia, Euphosyne, and Thalia, noting that their parentage is described by Hesiod in his Theogony (cf. Diodorus 4.7.2, citing Hesiod) and that this last name is derived from ἀπὸ τοῦ θάλλειν (= D.S. 4.7.4). 125 hoc discunt omnes ante alpha et beta puellae (Juv. 14.209). This line and the previous are now excluded from the text by most modern editors of Juvenal.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

93

teaching in Western Europe, strongly influenced by Byzantine Greek scholars living in exile in Italy.126 3.3

Later Career to 1502

For five years following publication of the Lyon Terence Badius continued to produce editions for Trechsel, although now the editions he produced were largely restricted to Christian writers, predominately scholiastic studies on theology and philosophy as well as collections of sermons.127 There is no firm evidence to suggest why he might have shied away from publishing Classical texts in this period in favour of these Christian works. Paul White argued that he may have been aware of the partial collapse of the Venetian book market in the 1470s due to an oversupply of Classical texts,128 but any decisions on the output of the press or its print runs will have been the responsibility of Trechsel. These books appear indeed to have been a mainstay of Trechsel’s press, and must have contributed substantially to its profitability; around 624 copies still survive of the three works of William of Ockam that Badius edited, as do some 163 of the works of Leonardo da Utino (d. 1469), a Dominican preacher from Northern Italy.129 Katz examines the evidence provided in paratexts written by Badius in this period, particularly dedicatory letters to editions, and shows that Badius was firmly establishing his position within Lyon as a leading textual editor.130 In these intervening years Badius seems also to have established wide-​ranging 126 Badius, Silvae Morales 1492, f. 112v. He even takes early manuscripts of Juvenal to task for writing beta instead of uitta, which is how he pronounced it (Vnde miror codices habere ante alpha & beta). For the pronunciation of Greek prior to Erasmus’ reforms (published in 1528), see Martin Hinterberger, “Pronunciation:  I. Greek,” BNP Classical Tradition, 4 (2009): 792–​4. 127 For his editorial activities and prefaces to these works, see Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 11–​12. For his intellectual engagement with Christian writers, see Crane, “Virtual Classroom.” 128 White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 165. 129 Works by William edited by Badius are the Dialogorum libri septem adversos haereticos (GW 11908; istc io00009000; published after September 1494), Opus nonaginta dierum et dialogi (GW 11910; istc io00013000; 16 July 1495), and Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros sententiarum Petri Lombardi (GW 11916; istc io00015000; 9–​10 November 1495); works by Leonardo are the Sermones quadragesimales de legibus dicti (GW M17916; istc il00149000; published 5 June 1494)  and Sermones floridi de tempore (GW M17875; istc il00142000; 15 July 1496). Extant copies are listed in the istc entries. 130 Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 77–​81.

94 chapter 3 networks with humanist scholars writing religious poetry, particularly along the Rhine Valley, many of them already friends or correspondents of de Bost.131 In March 1495 Badius sent a letter and eulogistic poem to Sebastian Brant of Basel.132 As discussed earlier, at the beginning of the 1490s Brant may have been involved in an attempt to print the first fully illustrated edition of Terence, with designs perhaps contributed by Albrecht Dürer, but for whatever reason this project was not completed.133 Badius’ letter does not, however, touch on this issue, but states that he is desirous of meeting Brant, having been urged to do so by Johann Tritheim, and refers largely to Brant’s own devotional work, a collection of poems on the Virgin and the saints.134 Badius maintained his high opinion of Brant, and in 1500 published his satirical work Stultiferae naues (‘ship of fools’), which was largely inspired by Brant’s Narrenschiff, first published in 1494.135 Further insights into Badius’ career in this period are given in the correspondence of de Bost. De Bost describes him as Badio nostro (‘our Badius’),136 and it seems clear that he was the main source of news for de Bost from Lyon. In a letter which was probably written in February 1496, de Bost writes to his fellow Carmelite Jan van Outwater who was resident in Frankfurt describing events in Lyon involving Laurent Bureau, of which he has just been informed, and adds: et quod maximum est omnium, quod etiam ipse adiutorio Iodoci Badii confecerit et compleuerit opus binum de ordine nostro.

131 For discussion of de Bost’s role in convening a poetry competition amongst his correspondents in praise of St Joachim, the husband of St Anne and father of the Virgin Mary, see Moss, Renaissance Truth, 195–​6. Badius later published these works as an appendix to his edition of the Vita Iesu Christi (‘Life of Jesus Christ’) by Ludolph of Saxony from 1502; see Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 3, 29–​30 for a description of contents and 31 for Badius’ own contribution. 132 Both poems and the letter to Brant are edited in Hugo Holstein, “Ungedruckte Gedichte oberrheinischer Humanisten,” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte und Renaissance-​Litteratur 4 (1891): 472–​3. 133 See Chapter 2.3. 134 Carmina in laudem B. Mariae Virginis multorumque sanctorum (‘Poems in praise of the blessed Virgin Mary and many saints’; GW 5067; istc ib01077000; published in Basel, not before 1494). 135 Badius, Stultiferae naues 1500; the editio princeps of Brant’s Narrenschiff from 1494 was in German (GW 5041; ISTC ib01080000), but translations subsequently appeared in Latin (cf. GW 5054; ISTC ib01086000, published in Basel in 1497). For Badius’ imitation and adaption of Brant, see White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 19, 244–​6. 136 Zimmermann, Monumenta, 520; Allen, “Letters of Arnoldus Bostius,” 233.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

95

And what is the most important news of all is that he also, with Jodocus Badius as his helper, will compile and complete a work in two parts concerning our order. These works were to be written in prose and poetry, with the poetry divided into three books, written in hexameters, lyric metres, and elegiac couplets, and Badius had requested many items be sent to him by the beginning of Lent; de Bost remarks that the letters had come to him late although they had been written well in advance.137 De Bost’s death in April 1499 undoubtedly had a deep effect on Badius, and another critical moment seems to have come in May 1498 when Trechsel died. His widow remarried a German publisher who took over the firm, and Badius left it soon after, although he did eventually marry a daughter from Trechsel’s first marriage.138 He was by no means left destitute, however, for he had already established friendly relationships with influential publishers in Paris.139 His next few years appear to have been spent moving between Lyon and Paris, and editions of his works were published by different printers in both ­locations. His publications from 1498 already indicate a shift away from erudite theological and philosophical discussions to literature infused with the spirit of the Classical literary past, and the extensive nature of his commentary on Boethius (first published in April 1498 with the Lyon printer Jean de Vingle) and even that on Juvenal (published in November in the same year),140 suggest that these works were composed while he was still working for Trechsel. The bulk of his editorial work in this period now comprised either editions of the pagan writers, or else the works of contemporary writers inspired by them—​in particular Filippo Beroaldo, Angelo Poliziano, and (most importantly) Battista Spagnoli. In particular, Badius produced editions, with his own commentaries, of Cicero (1499), Persius (1499), Horace (1499/​1500), Vergil (1500/​01), and Ovid (Heroides, Sappho, Ibis; 1500/​01). That this work itself is likely to have been profitable is shown by Katz, who points out how the development of schools and academies in this period made a lucrative market for the sale of such books.141 137 Printed at Zimmermann, Monumenta, 512–​13; Allen, “Letters of Arnoldus Bostius,” 234. Although the date is transmitted in the manuscript, the year is not, and Allen in fact dates it to 1498. 138 Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 16. 139 Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 1, 12–​13. See also Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 81–​3. 140 Boethius, Commentum duplex 1498 and Juvenalis, Juvenalis familiare commentum 1498. 141 Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 96–​7, and for students being Badius’ primary audience, 320–​1.

96 chapter 3 His work continued to be strongly influenced by contemporary Italian scholarship, which he often reprinted from recent editions and then edited. Thus his edition of Juvenal, which appeared with the Lyon publisher Nicolaus Wolf in November 1498, adapts the commentary of Antonio Mancinelli, which was published in Venice in December 1492.142 In August 1499 he published an edition of four key philosophical works of Cicero, his De officiis, De amicitia, De senectute, and Paradoxa stoicorum, in Lyon;143 the first three works were accompanied by the commentaries of Pietro Marso,144 Niccolò da Lonigo (better known as Niccolò Leoniceno), and Martino Filetico respectively, and the final one by an anonymous commentary found in the Italian editions of these works, while Badius provided his own supplementary comments to those of Marso, and may also have provided a conclusion to the commentary on Paradoxa stoicorum, which was left incomplete in earlier editions.145 Although these works had already been printed in several editions in France as well as Italy, including other editions produced in Lyon,146 the work may have had special significance for Badius, since both da Lonigo and Filetico had strong connections with Fer­ rara. Filetico had studied there and was very closely associated with his teacher Guarino Veronese, the father of Battista Guarino,147 while da Lonigo lived there from around 1464 until his death in 1524, first as the Ducal librarian, and then as a professor of medicine at the University, and in 1472, at the request of Duke Ercole, produced a translation of Diodorus Siculus.148 The years after 1498 and prior to Badius’ third edition of Terence also saw a strong renewal of his interest in the contemporary Italian reception of Classical literature. In May 1498 he published an edition of Spagnoli’s philosophical treatise De patientia, a work modelled on the philosophical dialogues of Cicero and Seneca; the first edition of this had appeared in Brescia the previous year.149 Editions of Spagnoli’s lengthy religious poems, Parthenice prima 142 Iuuenalis cum tribus commentariis, published by Giovanni Tacuino (GW M15792; istc ij00662000). For Mancinelli (1452–​1505), see dbi 68.450–​3 [C. Mellidi]. 143 Cicero 1499. 144 For Marso (1441–​1511), see dbi 71.5–​10 [S. Benedetti]. 145 The final section (Cic. Parad. 42–​52) remained unglossed in the Italian editions. In Badius’ edition, the commentary begins (unlike the Italian editions) with a transliteration of the Greek motto used by Cicero (Titulus hoc grecus est: Oti monos o sophos plusios, Cicero, De officiis 1499, f. 287v). 146 The istc lists 17 or 18 editions of this work prior to Badius’, mostly originating from Venice or Milan, but also including two or three from Lyon and one from Paris. 147 For Filetico (c. 1430–​c. 1490), see dbi 47.636–​40 [C. Bianca]. 148 For da Lonigo (1428–​1524), see dbi 78.409–​14 [P. Pellegrini]. 149 The Brescia edition is De patientia, published by Bernardino Misinta (GW 3304; istc ib00076000). Badius’ edition was published in Lyon by François Fradin and Jean Pivard

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

97

and Parthenice secunda,150 poems narrating the lives of the Virgin Mary and St Catherine of Alexandria, but written in the dactylic hexameters of traditional Roman epic, appeared in 1498 and 1499/​1500, while in 1499 Badius also produced an edition of De calamitatibus temporum, in which Spagnoli narrated the War of Ferrara in a style very strongly influenced by the last six books of Vergil’s Aeneid; Badius provides an extensive commentary on this work which focuses largely on explicating the references to the Classical past.151 At some stage after 1496 Badius published the letters of Pico della Mirandola, the close friend of Poliziano and protege of Spagnoli. Badius reprinted Pico’s correspondence with, inter alios, Guarino, Beroaldo, Poliziano, Marsilio Ficino, Aldo Manuzio, and Spagnoli, as the Aureae epistolae (‘golden letters’), using the printer Conrad Hist from Speyer in Germany.152 But it was above all at this time that Badius became directly engaged with the works of Poliziano himself. A  prolific correspondent, especially with both Beroaldo and Guarino, Poliziano stood at the centre of a network of scholars and major patrons in northern and central Italy, and was a voracious reader who had access to the rich Medicean collection of manuscripts and incunabula of Greek and Roman classics. After his early death in 1494 he left behind a substantial legacy of unedited and unpublished works, including his partially completed commentary on Terence’s Andria, preceded by a comprehensive introduction to ancient comedy.153 Many of these works were edited by Alessandro Sarti and published in an editio princeps in Venice by Manuzio in July 1498,154 although others, including the commentary on Andria, disappeared from view, and were not published until the late twentieth century. Badius made immediate use of the editio princeps. In January 1499 he published with Nicolaus Wolf of Lyon an edition of Persius including the commentary of in 1498 (GW 3305; ISTC ib00077000), and was dedicated jointly to Bureau and de Bost (cf. Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 95–​6). 150 Badius’ edition of Parthenice prima was published in Paris by Georg Wolf and Thielman Kerver either in 1499 or 1500 (GW 3288; ISTC ib00064000), and was dedicated to Bureau (cf. Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 2, 102–​3). Parthenice secunda was published in Paris by Thielman Kerver (GW 3303; ISTC ib00072000). 151 Battista Spagnoli, De calamitatibus 1499. 152 Pico della Mirandola, Aureae epistolae 1496b. For Conrad Hist and his brother Johann, see Hermann Engel and Gerhard Stalla, “Die Brüder Johann und Conrad Hist und ihre Drucke,” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 16 (1976): 1649–​54, and for the edition of Pico, appearing ‘not before 1497’, 1668. 153 Published as Rosetta Lattanzi Roselli, Angelo Poliziano: La commedia antica e l’Andria di Terenzio, Studi e testi 3 (Florence: Sansoni, 1973). See also Chapter 2.3 above. 154 Poliziano, Omnia opera 1498.

98 chapter 3 Giovanni Britannico of Brescia,155 in which he appended his own comments to those of Britannico, and included as prefaces an oration of Filippo Beroaldo on Persius, reprinted from Badius’ Orationes et poemata, and the Praelectio, or preface, of Poliziano to Persius’ works, taken from the editio princeps.156 In February of the same year, also with Wolf, he published an edition of Poliziano’s collected letters taken straight from the edition of Manuzio (although at this stage not including any commentary of his own),157 while in 1501, when he published the third volume of his edition of the collected works of Vergil, including apocryphal works, he prefaced this work with a citation from Poliziano on the authenticity of the poem Priapus.158 And although, as will be established in Chapter 4, there is no evidence at all that Badius used the commentary on Andria, he is at the very least likely to have known of its existence together with other commentaries, including one on Persius, since in his dedicatory letter to Marin Sanudo prefacing the editio princeps, Manuzio rues the fact that these ‘learned annotations’ are being held back from publication by certain men in Florence who were desirous of passing them off as their own work.159 Badius was by no means a slavish advocate solely for Italian scholarship, and the years after 1498 also saw a deepening of his engagement with French humanist writers.160 But his education in Italy and encounters, however brief, with leading figures of the period, including Guarino, Beroaldo, and Poliziano himself, form important background not only to the edition of Beroaldo and the Silvae Morales, but also his three editions of Terence, from 1491, 1493, and 1502. 1 55 156 157 158

For Britannico (d. after 1518), see dbi 14.342–​3 [U. Baroncelli]. Badius’ edition is Persius, Persii familiare commentum 1499. Badius’ edition is Poliziano, Illustrium virorum epistulae, 1499. The citation from Poliziano (Vergilius, Opera 1500, vol. 3, f.  1v) is taken from his Liber Miscellaneorum c. 59 (see Poliziano, Omnia opera 1498, G2r-​G3r). 159 Sed utinam et secundam centuriam Miscellaneorum, et Epiphyllidas, et in Tranquillum, in Terentium, in Statium, in Quintilianum, ingeniosas et doctas annotationes, et  alia quam plurima ex quibus uel centum facere centurias potuisset, habuissemus; prodiissent et illa in publicum profutura hominibus, quae (ut audio) quidam Florentiae occultant, ut edant pro suis (‘But if only we had his second century of Miscellanea, and his Epiphyllidae, and his brilliant and learned annotations on [Suetonius] Tranquillus, on Terence, on Statius, on Quintilian, and so many other things from which he could have produced a hundred centuries; those things would have come forth into public as a benefit for mankind, which, I hear, certain men in Florence are concealing, in order that they might issue them as their own,’ Poliziano, Omnia opera 1498, a1v). 1 60 Note here the comment of Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 5 that he was also involved: ‘dans le épanouissement de l’humanisme français, dont il édite les représentants plus ou moins célèbres, comme Guillaume Budé, Jacques Lefèvres d’Étaples, Claude de Seyssel, Germain de Brie, Christophe de Longueil.’

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

99

Badius published his third edition of Terence on 15 June 1502 in Lyon with the publisher François Frandin. The first edition of this work is very rare,161 but it came to be reprinted on a number of occasions in the following years in Lyon, London, and Paris, including an edition published by Badius himself in 1504 on his own press in Paris.162 It is clear that this work was the culmination of many years of research and teaching on the subject; thus in his dedicatory letter dated 1 January 1501, which is addressed to the Lyon-​based lawyer Hervé Bésin, Badius states: Cohortaris, virorum praestantissime, ut nostra in Terentium elucidamenta quae, cum hisce diebus istic (Lugduni dico) agerem, dixi eo animo collecta quo in vernaculam Gallorum linguam vertantur, Simoni Vincentio, amico communi et bibliopolarum diligentissimo, ipsius impendio curaque imprimenda concredam.163 You exhort me, most outstanding of men, that I entrust my insights into Terence to Simon Vincent, our common friend and that most attentive of book-​sellers, to be printed at his expense and care; insights which, while I was living during those days over there (I mean in Lyon), I said had been collected with the intention that they might be changed into the vernacular speech of the Gauls. The French version of his comments did not eventuate, or is lost. What is truly original about this Latin edition, however, is the way in which it combines dramatic theory with commentary. Thus in the dedicatory letter to Bésin, after characteristically humble statements about the lack of sophistication in his work, but also his efforts to ensure that it contained good learning and would be useful to an uneducated public, Badius continues: Quocirca in hanc tandem concessimus sententiam ut praenotamenta et primi prologi primaeque scenae glossemata, veluti praegustamenta 161 FB 87859 lists a single copy at the Houghton Library, Harvard University (call-​sign gen Lt 6 192*), and Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 3, 283–​4 copies in Auch and Lille; the copy in Auch is still extant, although there is now no record of a copy held by the BM in Lille (email correspondence of 16.2.2019 and 22.1.2019). The work was subsequently reprinted in Lyon on 18 December 1502 by Claude Many and Étienne Baland for Simon Vincent, and there is one copy in the Newberry Library, Chicago, which was used for this study (Terentius, Comoediae 1502). 162 See Renouard, Bibliographie, vol. 3, 284–​5. 163 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a1v.

100 chapter 3 quaedam de reliquis periculum factura, illius fidei etiam integra atque immutata committam, caetera mihi recepturus dum haec largos retule­ rint manipulos. Wherefore I finally agreed to this argument in order to entrust to the good faith of that man the Praenotamenta and commentary notes on the first prologue and first scene, whole and unchanged, as a sort of a foretaste which will make a trial of the remainder, and he will receive the rest from me provided that these things have rendered abundant crops. The Praenotamenta, or preliminary remarks, in this edition comprise a detailed discussion in 26 chapters of poetics, the nature of the theatre and distinction between tragedy and comedy, the physical environment of theatrical performances in the ancient world, the stage, props, masks, and costumes, before turning to Terence himself (ch. 25), recounting his brief biography and concluding with a discussion of his physical appearance, his works, and his subsequent fame (ch. 26).164 Badius then interleaves his extensive commentary on the preliminary materials to Andria with that of Guy, and precedes the first scene of the Andria with his own detailed discussion of it,165 before at last reverting to the text of Terence surrounded by Guy’s commentary, as it appears in the 1493 edition. The only other significant change he made to the format of the 1493 edition was that for Andria and Eunuchus he removed the comments from the end of the book and placed them at the end of their appropriate scenes so that the format was now consistent with that of the last four plays; at the same time he added many new comments on these two first plays, so that the length of his comments on each point was also comparable. The 1502 edition of Terence was Badius’ last contribution to study of the playwright. His three editions—​1491, 1493, and 1502—​differ considerably in their physical form, and are each in their own way incomplete studies of the six plays, but when taken together they reveal a remarkable consistency of approach as well as the depth of Badius’ scholarship, which was to have a powerful effect on the contemporary reception of Terence. The illustrations of the 1493 edition are particularly important since this edition represents the earliest surviving printed version of a full cycle of illustrations which goes back 164 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a2r-​b3v. A French translation of this part of the work can be found in Lebel, Préfaces de Josse Bade, 49–​119, although it is occasionally unreliable, omitting a short chapter (c. 21), and frequently marking text off as citations where it is apparently Badius’ original text (notably on pp. 57 and 65–​9). 165 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, b3v-​c7r.

The Editor of the Lyon Terence

101

to Late Antiquity, and while Badius does not explain his decisions for incorporating many new iconographical elements in this edition, being restricted by the circumstances of publication, they can be found discussed in detail in the Praenotamenta. The Praenotamenta of the 1502 edition in turn reveal the depth of his engagement with the literary theory of the Italian Renaissance, such as the works of Battista Spagnoli, whose work Badius had already published in his Silvae Morales. And finally, his work on Terence was informed throughout by his detailed study of Donatus’ commentary, on which he had published as early as 1491.

­c hapter 4

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence 4.1

The 1491 Edition and Donatus

Badius’ first edition of Terence, accompanied by the commentary of Donatus, was printed in Lyon on 13 November 1491 by Matthias Husz.1 The text of Terence is printed in a Gothic font and is set out in poetic lines,2 with the plays in the order Andria, Eunuchus, Heauton timorumenos, Adelphoe, Phormio, and Hecyra, while the text of Donatus is set in the margins in a smaller Gothic font in imitation of the edition of Terence and Donatus by Giovanni Calfurnio, published in Venice in 1476 together with his own commentary on Heauton timorumenos.3 Like all contemporary editions of Donatus, Badius’ edition also included Calfurnio’s commentary, since Donatus’ commentary on this play had been lost at an early stage in the transmission. The title-​page of the 1491 Terence does not give the name of the editor, merely stating that the book is Terentius cum Donati commentariis multa lucubratione emendatus, ‘Terence with the commentaries of Donatus, emended with much hard work,’4 and it is not until we reach the conclusion of Hecyra that we find from his dedicatory letter that Badius was indeed the editor. In this letter, which was addressed to his patron Laurent Bureau,5 Badius sets out detailed reasons for producing a new edition of the plays, stating that Terence’s natural literary qualities had ensured his works survived from antiquity, but that: his … armis et maxime sermonis sui familiaritate atque claritudine munitus barbarorum feritatem effugere potuit, imperitorum temerarios ausus non potuit. quot etenim locis Donato prohibente personarum sedes transposuerunt? quotiens que idem subaudiri dicit ineptissime adiecerunt? quotiens barbaras connectiones, quo sui similem tam elegantem 1 For Husz and the 1491 edition, see Chapter 3.2.3. 2 For the font used by Husz in this period, see Anatole Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie en France au XVe et au XVIe siècle, vol. 3 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1904), 297. 3 Terentius, Comoediae 1476. For Calfurnio and this edition, see Chapter 2.3. 4 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, a1r. In the 1491 edition, the title page and end materials are not foliated, and so are referenced in this discussion according to signatures. 5 For Bureau, see Chapter 3.2.3.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/978

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

103

poetam redderent, confuserunt? atque (quo magis mireris) cum Terentio nullus poetarum impressus sit frequentior, nullus tamen eo permansit incorrectior. quod doctorum quorundam uirorum (si uera dicere liceat) malicia atque prauitate comparatum est qui, ut impressoribus morem gererent, eleganti quadam praefatione se dictum poetam emendasse pro­ fitentur, cuius corrigendi animo ne uerbum quidem lectitasse uidentur.6 Fortified by these weapons and above all the trustworthiness and the clarity of his speech he was able to escape the ferocity of the barbarians, ‹but› not the reckless attempts of the ignorant. For in how many places did they assign lines to the wrong characters, although Donatus had forbidden it? How often did they most inelegantly insert words which the same man had said were to be understood? How often did they throw in such barbaric connections,7 so that they rendered so elegant a poet the equivalent of themselves? And—​in this you will be all the more amazed—​although no poet is printed more frequently than Terence, not one of them has remained more incorrect than him. This has been brought about by the malice and perversity of certain learned men (if I am permitted to tell the truth), who in order that they might indulge the printers, claim in some elegant preface that they have emended the aforesaid poet, whose words they do not even appear to have read with the intention of correcting them. Badius’ attack on these ‘learned men’ is reminiscent of some of the aggressive rhetoric found in Calfurnio’s edition.8 Like those of Badius, the comments of Calfurnio on other editors were not found as a preface, but were incorporated 6 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, [con] 8rv [= f.  199rv]; reprinted Vera Sack, “Die erste Lyoner Terenz-​Ausgabe (1491) des Jodocus Badius Ascensius,” Gutenberg-​Jahrbuch (1972): 96; Louise Katz, “La presse et les lettres: Les épîtres paratextuelles et le projet éditorial de l’imprimeur Josse Bade (c. 1462–​1535)” (PhD diss., École pratique des Hautes Études, University of Paris, 2013), 427. 7 Badius’ term connectio (for conexio), translated here simply as ‘connection,’ is attested with both grammatical and metrical meanings (see tll 4.168.73–​169.4 and 169.4–​7); we are uncertain to which he might refer here. 8 See Paul F. Gehl, “Selling Terence in Renaissance Italy: The Marketing Power of Commentary,” in Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, ed. Christina S. Kraus and Christopher Stray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 257, where he appropriately describes Calfurnio’s tone as ‘truculent.’ Calfurnio’s most barbed comments are, however, reserved for printers who falsely claimed to use the work of eminent scholars, such as his own teacher Ognibene de’ Bonisoli, known by the Latinised name Omnibonus Leonicenus (see Terentius, Comoediae 1476, &8r). For Badius’ use of uituperatio in his letters, see also

104 Chapter 4 within a dedicatory letter (or postface) printed at the conclusion of his edition where, as Paul Gehl notes, they were far more likely to excite the interest of customers browsing through unbound new editions in shops.9 Whom Badius may have meant here is, however, unclear. Besides Calfurnio himself, whose editorial remarks Gehl describes as ‘tendentious,’ there were at least two other early editors of incunabula of Terence whom he identifies as having made extravagant claims about the extent of their intervention in the text of Terence;10 Raffaele Regio, who produced an edition in Venice in 1473,11 and Giovanni Britannico, who published a revised version of Calfurnio’s text in Brescia in 1485.12 Britannico announced boldly in his own postface that he had been persuaded to undertake this massive task ad communem omnium adolescentium uti­ litatem (‘for the common good of all young men’), then went so far as to state that he had found the text of Terence he had been given so deficient ut locis supra quidem mille codex sit emendatus (‘that the volume was indeed emended in more than a thousand places’); he adds that further errors had been introduced by the printers, which he urges his reader to correct by hand.13 In his letter to Bureau, Badius narrates how Husz had wanted to print his own corrected version of Terence before illness intervened, and had requested (on the advice of Bureau) that Badius come to Lyon to edit the work.14 He then details an ambitious programme of correction and editing both for the text of Terence and the accompanying commentary of Donatus, in order to produce a volume which is both accurate and easy to use, stating:

Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 39–​40, who, however, concludes that this practice is extremely rare. 9 Cf. Gehl, “Selling Terence,” 257 with regard to Calfurnio’s strident attacks on his predecessors. 10 Gehl, “Selling Terence,” 255. 11 For Regio (d. 1520), see dbi 86.744–​8 [F. Pignatti]. His edition of Terence (GW M45501; ISTC it00067300) is rare, extant only in three copies; for an electronic version of the dedication to Regio in this volume by the Croatian poet Alviz Cipiko (1456–​1504), published as Cippicus ad lectorem, see Neven Jovanović et al., Croatiae auctores Latini (Zagreb: Facultas philosophica universitatis studiorum Zagrebiensis, 2014), ‹http://​www.ffzg.unizg.hr/​klafil/​croala/​›, consulted on 23/​10/​2018. 12 For Britannico, whose commentary edition of Persius Badius later reprinted and edited, see Chapter 3.3. 13 Terentius, Comoediae 1485, r6r. 14 See Chapter 3.2.3 for discussion of the phrase me in hanc prouinciam uocauit (‘he [Husz] summoned me into this province’) which Badius uses (Terentius, Comoediae 1491, [con] 8v [= f. 199v]); as we argue there, this must mean either that he came to Lyon directly from Italy (if his statement about seeing Angelo Poliziano in Ferrara is correct), or else from Flanders.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

105

Primo urgentissima uigilantia annisus sum, ut singulas dictiones suis distinctionibus punctisque segregem suisque elementis notificem [a lengthy digression then follows regarding the correct early spelling of dei, ‘gods’] deinde … singulas chartas numeris discreuimus ut, quo in loco quidlibet dictum fuerit, facile repertu sit. tum non sine magna uigilantia semper cum principio Terentii principium Donati posuimus. tum quandoquidem Donatus actus in Terentianis comediis non faciles distinctu putauit eos, quanta maxima potuimus diligentia, discreuimus singulisque chartis inscripsimus. tum quum in Donati commentariis multa notatu dignissima sunt, que preter cetera egregia putauimus in marginibus fideliter notata atque sub alphabeticam tabulam in fine huius operis collecta uoluimus. tum quibus consulibus, quibus edilibus, quibus actoribus et modulatoribus singule comedie empte, acte et modulate fuerunt, iuxta Donati indicium, a quo nescio quo consilio aut potius errore alii defecerunt, semper in capite comediarum premonstrauimus. postremum ne, cuius alios arguimus, nos quoque negligentie damnari possimus, opus multa lucubratione impressum relegimus atque omnium que fideliter correximus rationem dabimus.15 First, I exerted myself with the utmost care to separate single words by their proper spaces and punctuation points and to make them clearly comprehensible with their ‹various› components … Then I divided off each page with its own number, so that it would be easy to find in which location whatsoever thing had been said. Then with exceeding care I always placed the beginning of ‹each phrase of› Terence together with the beginning of ‹each explanation by› Donatus. Then whenever Donatus considered that the acts in Terence’s comedies were not easy to distinguish, with the greatest possible care I could I distinguished them and inscribed them on each page. At those points when many things in the commentaries of Donatus were most worthy of noting, I desired those of them which I considered to be outstanding above all to be faithfully noted in the margins and to be collected into an alphabetic table at the end of this volume. Then under which consuls, which aediles, which actors and musicians each of the comedies had been purchased, acted, and performed, I  always set out first at the start of the comedies according to the indications of Donatus, from whom the others had

15 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, [con] 8v [= f. 199v]; reprinted Sack, “Die erste Lyoner Terenz-​ Ausgabe,” 96; Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 428.

106 Chapter 4 deviated for some incomprehensible reason, or rather error. Finally, so that I might not be condemned for the same negligence of which I have accused others, I  have reread the work which was printed with much hard work and I shall give explanations of all things which I have corrected in good faith. Badius’ comments about properly punctuating the text, inserting page numbers, placing the beginning of each phrase of Terence together with the beginning of each explanation by Donatus, and indexing the marginal comments, are best understood in light of the need felt by editors to advertise the advantages of their works widely in an extremely competitive field.16 His edition is, in many sections, largely dependent on the edition of Calfurnio with regard to its wording and punctuation of Donatus and the associated texts (examination of the Vita Terentii prefixed to the work shows very minimal variation between the two texts, or indeed that of Britannico),17 although detailed examination of selected passages in the text of Terence itself also shows that, while there are many strong similarities to readings in Calfurnio (which in turn appear to have a number of affinities to the Δ-​tradition),18 there is a small number of variants at key junctures, suggesting that he may perhaps have used a copy of Calfurnio’s edition, or one of the numerous reprints or re-​editions of it, as a template for his own edition, and written his own corrections in it derived from other editions or indeed manuscripts.19 Other variant readings based on 16 17

See Gehl, “Selling Terence,” particularly 253–​9. On a few occasions Badius will provide a correct reading not found in Calfurnio or Britannico, which may be ascribed either to good manuscripts of Donatus or else his own grammatical intervention in the text; thus he correctly reads tradat and ingressum for the tradit and ingressus of Calfurnio and Britannico (Suet. Vita Ter. 2, 4 [Wessner]). Otherwise, he very occasionally omits connectives like et or particles like ita. His punctuation of the text into cola and sentences, by means of semi-​colons and full stops, is clearly based on that of Calfurnio, but again shows slight variations, while he also employs parentheses. 18 In Andria characteristic Δ-​readings such as pro deum fidem atque hominum (237), nisi id (249), miserum libera (351), dare sese (353), ibi forte (357), obiurgabit (389), mutet suam (393), uelle te (394), and aliquid interea (398), can be multiplied; similarly in Eunuchus there are already several characteristic Δ-​variants in the prologue (sciat praesumat [5]‌, quale sit [6], prius [6], nunc quae [17]). 19 Using as a basis the selected readings for Andria and Eunuchus in John N. Grant, Studies in the Textual Tradition of Terence (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986), we found 24 out of 29 agreements between Terentius, Comoediae 1476 (Calfurnio) and Terentius, Comoediae 1491 (Badius) for Andria, and 29 out of 30 for Eunuchus. One or two of these, such as An. 427, could be attributed to a chance corruption independent of the manuscript traditions (Badius omits an esse here which occurs in Calfurnio), but noteworthy are An. 614 (Badius correctly reads me here while Calfurnio twice writes de me), An. 927

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

107

Donatus seem to have been introduced silently into the text. Thus at An. 344 Badius gives the reading habeo (‘I have’), which was offered as alternative by Donatus to abeo (‘I go away’), a common variant reading in the fourth century (Don. Ter. An. 344.2), and which in fact is the standard reading found both in the manuscript tradition and Calfurnio’s edition. Some perspective on his adaptation of these existing texts is also provided by the colometry of his edition. As previously discussed,20 the complexity of the metres used in Terence’s plays had already been recognised as a problem in Late Antiquity, which was compounded in the Middle Ages as copyists with no knowledge of dramatic metres made ad hoc decisions about where to place line-​endings in their copies. In the fifteenth century, knowledge of the basic metre employed by Terence for the conversational passages which comprise around half of his text, the iambic senarius,21 seems to have spread through dissemination of Priscian’s work De metris fabularum Terentii (‘Concerning the metres of the plays of Terence’),22 while early editors of incunabula also appear to have had access to manuscripts which preserved good colometry, although there is also often variation from play to play. Calfurnio’s 1476 edition is typical in this respect; in samples taken from Andria (scene i.i) he has 92% accuracy with regard to correct colometry of iambic senarii, but from Eunuchus (scenes i.i and i.ii) only 65%. His accuracy with regard to scenes predominately written in lyric metres is far less, and if lines written in iambic senarii are excluded, the colometry appears almost haphazard.23 (Badius reads se esse Atticam ciuem for se Atticam fuisse in Calfurnio), and Eu. 639 (Badius reads licet for potest in Calfurnio). Each of these competing variants is found in manuscripts examined by Grant, but coming from a very late period in the transmission history of Terence, when there was extensive cross-​contamination of the text, it is very difficult to state exactly where they came from; Grant’s tabulation of manuscripts at 188–​96 provides no exact or even close matches. 20 See Chapter 2 passim. 21 The precise percentages vary according to authorities; Timothy J. Moore gives the overall percentage of senarii in Terence’s plays both as 54% and 48% (“Terence as Musical Innovator,” in Terentius Poeta, ed. Peter Kruschwitz, Widu-​ Wolfgang Ehlers, Fritz Felgentreu [München:  C.H. Beck,  2007], 93; “Meter and Music,” in A Companion to Terence, ed. Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill [Chichester:  Wiley-​Blackwell,  2013], 91), while Marcus Deufert, “Metrics and Music,” in The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, ed. Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 484 gives 52%. 22 The editio princeps of Priscian’s grammatical works was published by Benedetto Brognoli in Venice in 1470 (GW M35404; ISTC ip00960000), and also included the shorter work by Rufinus of Antioch De metris comicis (‘On the metres of the comic writers’). 23 In Andria scenes i.ii, iii, and v he shows 58% accuracy, but if two passages of iambic senarii are excluded, this figure falls to 38%.

108 Chapter 4 In places in his first edition, Badius appears either to have based his line-​ divisions on another edition or manuscript, or else to have made some effort towards re-​establishing proper colometry, particularly in the prologues to the plays, where his colometry is much superior to that in Calfurnio’s edition.24 In the same passages discussed with respect to Calfurnio above, however, he shows only 78% accuracy for Andria i.i and 60% for Eunuchus i.i and i.ii, but of the lines in the passage from Eunuchus, 18% give the same error for both Badius and Calfurnio, suggesting again that Badius’ edition may have been partly based on Calfurnio’s, or at least an intermediary edition. His understanding of lyric metres appears even flimsier than Calfurnio’s; indeed, for Andria i.iv, a short scene of eight lines written in regular trochaic septenarii, he makes mistakes in each line, whereas Calfurnio sets them all correctly. Nevertheless, his edition still compares quite favourably with that of Britannico, who shows only 48% accuracy for Andria i.i; while long passages in Britannico seem derivative of Calfurnio, the line divisions in others appear quite arbitrary, and he often concludes lines with a preposition or a conjunction. With regard to the version of the text of Donatus he uses, it is noteworthy that Badius follows the edition of Calfurnio closely in reordering the comments on particular lines. As discussed earlier,25 besides losing the commentary on Heauton timorumenos, Donatus’ work had suffered badly during the processes of transmission from an early attempt to amalgamate at least two different redactions of the work. Not only did the compiler repeat sections, but many of the notes were placed out of order; thus on An. 108: curabat una funus: tristis interim together ‹with them› he was taking care of her funeral: grieving at times the transmitted text of Donatus first discusses curabat una funus, explaining what a funeral is, moves on to explain interim, then moves back to provide 24

25

In the prologue to Andria, Badius has 25 correct line endings out of 27 lines, compared to Calfurnio’s 21, in the prologue to Eunuchus 38 out of 45, compared to 25 in Calfurnio. In Heauton timorumenos, where Calfurnio appears to have written the text as prose, Badius provides correct colometry for all 52 lines. Calfurnio also sets the prologue to Phormio (34 lines) entirely as prose, but while Badius sets its beginning and end as prose, he also sets lines 12–​28 with correct colometry. In Adelphoe and Hecyra the colometry is less secure; for Adelphoe Badius has 14 correct lines and Calfurnio 16 out of a total 35, while for Hecyra Badius has 31 correct lines and Calfurnio 22 out of a total 63. See Chapter 2.1 and 2.3.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

109

another comment on curabat una funus (Don. Ter. An. 108.1–​3).26 In Calfurnio’s edition, however, which was the first printed edition to have the two texts on the same page, and therefore be directly comparable, we find a reordering of the text of Donatus which shifts the comment on interim to follow the other two, and Badius follows this reordering here and elsewhere in his edition.27 Another way in which Badius follows Calfurnio is in his treatment of the original Greek used by Donatus, which is found right throughout his work as longer citations of verse as well as single words (mostly rhetorical or grammatical terms), and which could not be printed in the Greek alphabet using the limited fonts Husz and other early printers employed. Generally, the solutions followed by editors of Donatus were to leave gaps of varying length in the text (presumably so that a scribe with adequate knowledge of Greek and an appropriate exemplum could fill them in by hand), or else to transliterate the single words into Latin letters, and Badius employs both methods, closely modelling his text on Calfurnio. Thus in his text of Evanthius, which has extensive citations of Greek, he leaves spaces of comparable length exactly where they are found in Calfurnio,28 while a few instances of transliterated Greek are also very similar, particularly where they share a corruption or even superior reading.29 It is with Badius’ running headers for acts on each page, however, that we encounter a significant development in this edition. Divisions of the text in Terence seem originally to have been made only by scenes, and this is certainly the form in which they appear in the earliest manuscripts such as A, but it is also the case that in antiquity critics divided them into acts to bring 26 Cf. e.g. the text as transmitted in Paris, BnF, lat. 7920, f. 13r. 27 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, f. 9v (cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1476, a10r); on f. 10r opposite there is extensive reordering of the text of Don. Ter. An. 113, 115, 116–​17, 121–​3, 127 (cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1476, a10v-​b1r). A crucial scene in discussions of the process of contamination of the text of Donatus (cf. Benjamin Victor, “History of the Text and Scholia”, in A Companion to Terence, ed. Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill [Chichester: Wiley-​ Blackwell, 2013], 353–​4) is Phormio ii.iii, where there are many doublets; Badius’ text of Donatus (Terentius, Comoediae 1491, ff. 155v-​158v) follows the order of that of Calfurnio (Terentius, Comoediae 1476, t4r-​u1r) almost exactly here. 28 See Terentius, Comoediae 1476, a2v-​a5r. On a2v of the copy of Calfurnio from Berlin used in this study, a scribe at some early stage has filled in some of the shorter gaps with largely incorrect approximations of the original readings (e.g. απο του τράγου, τρυγέο, ἀπο τοῦ κωμαζέι [sic]). 29 Examples are Don. Ter. An. 27.3 ἔξω agendae (excludendae, Calfurnio, Badius; exagendae, ω [Cioffi]); 533.4 μεταλημπτικῶς (metalepticos, Calfurnio, Badius; metallencticos, Σ [Cioffi]); 570.2 ἀνακόλουθον (anac(h)oluthon, Calfurnio, Badius; anacolit(h)on BΛ; anochotim Θ [Cioffi]).

110 Chapter 4 them into conformity with Horace’s famous prescription: neue minor neu sit quinto productior actu fabula (‘let a play not be shorter nor more drawn out than the fifth act,’ Hor. ars 189–​90).30 Act divisions were in fact discussed in some depth by Evanthius and Donatus. Evanthius, whose fragmentary discussion of Terence and ancient comedy precedes the text of Donatus as transmitted,31 sets out the evolution of act divisions from Old Greek comedy, where the five acts were clearly demarcated by choruses, through the New Comedy of Menander, where the choruses had dropped out but a space for them was left in the text, to Roman comedy, where not even a space was clearly demarcated, concluding that is difficult to distinguish where acts begin in Latin comedy.32 His views are echoed by Donatus, who states at the start of Andria that: Difficile est diuisionem actuum in Latinis fabulis internoscere obscure editam: causam iam dudum demonstrauimus. (Don. Ter. An. praef. 2.3) It is difficult to pick out the division of acts in plays in Latin since it has been handed down indistinctly; I have shown the reason for this some time ago. However, Donatus also sets out clear principles for deciding where act divisions should occur in Roman comedies, the main one of which is for the editor to examine the text carefully and determine when all characters have left the stage together (Don. Ter. An. praef. 2.3). Horace’s formula seems also to have been popularised in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries through scholiastic authorities such as Giacomino Robaz­zi,33 who stated at the outset of his commentary on Andria that:  notandum ‹est› quod omnis comedia in quinque actus diuiditur (‘it should be noted that every comedy is divided into five acts’).34 Robazzi made act divisions which appear to have been in line with scholiastic thought, since each division is classified 30

See George E. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952), 98–​101; John A. Barsby, “Actors and Act-​ Divisions: Some Questions of Adaptation in Roman Comedy,” Antichthon 16 (1982): 77–​87. 31 For Evanthius, see Chapter 2.3. 32 Evanth. de com. 3.1. 33 See Chapter 2.1. 34 Transcribed from Vatican City, bav, Pal. lat. 1628, f. 2r. Robazzi’s comment may in turn derive from those on act divisions contained in the scholiastic Commentarius recentior, for which see Claudia Villa, La lectura Terentii, vol. 1: Da Ildemaro a Francesco Petrarca (Padua: Antenore, 1984), 91.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

111

according to the main focus of action; all of those for the last four plays coincide exactly with the modern act divisions, but those for the first two plays, Andria and Eunuchus, differ considerably.35 His work was excerpted and widely disseminated in manuscript form throughout Italy, often as marginal glosses, and seems to have influenced the description of act divisions found in the French commentary of Laurent de Premierfait;36 Laurent’s divisions are closer to the modern ones than Robazzi’s, although he later introduces an error of his own.37 Despite this intellectual activity, however, prior to 1491 there were few incunabula explicitly showing act divisions by means of such devices as subheadings or running headers.38 In 1474 Bartolomeo da Valdezocco produced an edition of Terence in Padua which is preceded by a life of the playwright derived from that of Suetonius.39 Bartolomeo then included subheadings denoting each act before the lists of characters at the start of the corresponding scenes, such as: PRIMVS ACTVS ANDRIAE. SIMO SENEX, SOSIA COQVS, ‘The first act of Andria: Simo, an old man; Sosia, a cook.’40 His division into acts is close to the modern division, although it still shows some affinities to that of Robazzi; noticeable, also, is that he gives Andria two Acts iv in successive scenes, and also omits two act subheadings from Heauton timorumenos.41 Another early printed edition to give indications of act beginnings was the German translation 35

We base our analysis here on the divisions given in Vatican City, bav, Pal. lat. 1628. For Andria, Robazzi’s acts and their descriptions are 1. (scene i.i), De simulatione nuptiarum, ‘Concerning the pretence of a wedding;’ 2. (scene i.iv), Disturbatio nuptiarum, ‘the disturbance of the wedding;’ 3. (scene iii.iii), De apparatione uerarum nuptiarum, ‘concerning the preparation for the true wedding;’ 4.  (scene iv.ii), Disturbatio uerarum nuptiarum, ‘the disturbance of the true wedding;’ and 5.  (scene iv.v), De compositione et mitigatione omnium turbationum,‘concerning the resolution and mitigation of all disturbances.’ Robazzi’s act divisions for Eunuchus occur at i.i, ii.ii, iii.iii. iv.v, and v.ii. 36 For Laurent, see Chapter 2.1 and 2.2. 37 Using the divisions made in Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 664, Laurent agrees with Robazzi and against the modern accepted division at Andria 3 (scene iii.iii), 4 (scene iv.ii), and 5 (scene iv.v), at Eunuchus 2 (scene ii.ii), and introduces a false division at Hecyra 4 (scene iii.v). 38 Gary Grund, Humanist Comedies, I Tatti Renaissance Library 19 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), p. x remarks that the first division into acts occurs in the 1473 edition of Raffaele Regio (see n. 11 above). 39 Terentius, Comoediae 1474 [f. 1r]. For Bartolomeo (b. 1446), see dbi 6.780–​2 [A. Cioni]. 40 Terentius, Comoediae 1474 [f. 3v]. 41 Bartolomeo’s duplicated act division in Andria occurs at scenes iv.i and iv.ii; the second of these corresponds to Robazzi’s division, as does his Act v (scene iv.v). The two act divisions omitted entirely are Heauton timorumenos Acts iii and v. Bartolomeo also includes a wrong act division at Phormio Act iii (scene iii.iii).

112 Chapter 4 of Eunuchus published in Ulm in 1486 by Hans Neidhart;42 in the preliminary materials the edition gives a clearly set-​out and succinct description of the contents of each ‘geschicht’ or act in a manner almost certainly derivative of Donatus, on whose work Neidhart or his scholiast relied to a great extent.43 Most other editions failed to indicate act divisions separately, and a particular case is that of Calfurnio from 1476. Calfurnio’s edition of course still contained Donatus’ remarks on the contents of each act for five plays in the marginal commentary, as well as his own much briefer remarks replacing the missing commentary on Heauton timorumenos.44 With regard to the main text of Terence, however, there is no indication of where the divisions occurred, and because this edition became a template for all subsequent reprints of Calfurnio as well as Britannico’s edition, most of these editions have an identical mise-​en-​page. The only real advance on this situation prior to Badius’ 1491 edition may have come through an edition published in Strassburg by Johann Prüss at some stage between 1489 and 1493, which numbers successive scenes in the running headers as well as with marginal comments, so that Andria has eighteen scenes, Eunuchus twenty-​seven, and so on.45 In denoting the acts in his edition of 1491, Badius employed running headers such as Primus actus (Act i) or Secundus actus (‘Act ii’) on each verso; usually he also inserted similar marginal annotations next to the beginning of the relevant commentary in Donatus.46 There are some mistakes, which may possibly be attributed to the carelessness of the compositor rather than Badius himself,47 although it is possible that others may reflect his uncertainty about where to place the act division, or else changes made during the process of typesetting. Badius’ act divisions for Andria and Eunuchus in his 1491 edition in any case coincide exactly with those made by Donatus, now used in modern editions, 42

For discussion see James H.K.O. Chong-​Gossard, “Thais Walks the German Streets: Text, Gloss, and Illustration in Neidhart’s 1486 German Edition of Terence’s Eunuchus,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing:  Illustration, Commentary and Performance, ed. Andrew J.  Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden:  Brill, 2015)  and Chapter 2.3. 43 See Terentius, Eunuchus 1486, a5r-​a6r; for the scholiast’s reliance on Donatus, Chong-​ Gossard, “Thais Walks the German Streets,” 76–​86. 44 See Terentius, Comoediae 1476, l1v. 45 GW M45490; ISTC ooo86500. 46 After Andria, however, he or his compositor omitted the marginal annotation for the first act of each play. 47 Thus on f. 30v, Terentius, Comoediae 1491 has Tertius actus (‘Act iii’) as a running header in the middle of Act iv of Andria, while on f. 41v it has Primus actus (‘Act I’) as a header for the prologue to Eunuchus.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

113

and which often contrast with those in Robazzi and the other manuscript and printed sources. For Adelphoe, his act divisions all coincide with the modern editions apart from that for Act V, which occurs at the same point (the start of scene v.ii) indicated by Donatus in his preface to the play (Don. Ter. Ad. praef. 3.5). Likewise, in Hecyra he places an act division for Act V at the same point as the position stipulated by Donatus (the start of scene v.iii), but for this play he marks his own Act iv much earlier than is normal, at the start of a new scene introduced in some fourteenth-​and fifteenth-​century manuscripts, as well as in the editions of Calfurnio and Britannico, at Hec. 318 (part way through scene iii.i).48 This new scene begins with the opening words of the character Myrrina inside her house, and it seems possible that Badius may have confused this with the description of the contents of Act iv by Donatus, since this also begins with a reference to Myrrina (Don. Ter. Hec. praef. 3.4). Regarding the other two plays, Heauton timorumenos only had very brief remarks on the contents of the acts in the introductory material of Calfurnio, and Badius’ divisions differ markedly from those in modern editions,49 but it is noticeable that at least for Acts ii and iii the scenes selected by Badius to begin these acts contain lists of characters which coincide with the description of the acts in Calfurnio.50 Phormio is more difficult to characterise, as Badius’ act divisions coincide exactly neither with Donatus’ nor those of Robazzi used today, although there are also indications that he was uncertain about where to place his divisions;51 48 49

50

51

For this new scene, see Chapter 2.2 and nn. 122 and 123. In his comments on emendations to the text at the end of the work, he states:  In Heauton cum Donatus non extat, Calphurnium secuti sumus. actus tamen nostro more discreuimus, ‘regarding Heauton, since Donatus does not exist, I  have followed Calfurnio. Nevertheless, I have divided the acts in my usual way’ (Terentius, Comoediae 1491, A1v [= f. 200v]). For Act ii, Calfurnio (cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1476, l1v) had stated: Secundus actus continet quemadmodum adolescentes amicas receperint (‘the second act contains how the young men recovered their girlfriends’), and scene ii.ii, with which Badius begins his Act ii, is a dialogue between the young men Clinia and Clitipho; likewise for Act iii, Calfurnio had stated: Tertius actus exprimit Syri fallaciam in Chremetem (‘the third act expresses the deceit of Syrus against Chremes’), and scene iii.ii, with which Badius begins his Act iii is a dialogue of Syrus and Chremes. Badius’ division for Act iv occurs at scene iv.ii, while that for Act v coincides with the modern division. Badius marks divisions at Phormio i.i, i.iii, ii.ii, iv.i, and v.iii, whereas those in Donatus fall at i.i, ii.i, ii.iii, iv.i, and v.ii (Don. Ter. Ph. praef. 3.1–​5). However, on f. 147v, Terentius, Comoediae 1491 has both a running header and marginal annotation Secundus actus indicating Act ii of Phormio, but against the beginning of scene i.iii. The following two verso folios have headers denoting Act ii, but on f. 150v, opposite the correct scene which begins Act ii, the header reverts to Primus actus (‘Act I’), before returning to Secundus actus on f. 151v.

114 Chapter 4 moreover, the first part of the discussion of the contents of each act in Donatus (Don. Ter. Ph. praef. 3.1–​2) is lacunose. With regard to his supplying the names of the consuls, aediles, actors, and musicians under whom or by whom each play was performed, Badius refers here to the didascaliae or production notices. In manuscripts of Terence dida­ scaliae are found at the beginning of each play and before the other paratextual materials (i.e. the argumenta of Sulpicius Apollinaris and Terence’s prologues), while in Donatus the relevant didascalia for each play is also cited in its preface in what is virtually an independent textual tradition. The didascalia for Andria was apparently missing in the lost parent of all Carolingian witnesses for the plays, Σ,52 and it seems only to have become available to Renaissance scholars by means of Donatus (Don. Ter. An. praef. 1.6); certainly the few manuscripts of the plays in which it is included postdate the rediscovery of Donatus, or else the didascalia appears to have been added at a later stage by a second hand.53 On the other hand, the didascalia for Heauton timorumenos is missing in Donatus, and has to be supplied from the manuscript tradition. Nevertheless, comparison between the manuscript tradition for Terence’s plays and the didascaliae included in Donatus in the other four plays shows that there are noteworthy differences between the two versions of these texts; for instance, according to the dominant Γ-​and Δ-​manuscript traditions Phormio was first performed at the Ludi Romani (‘Roman Games’), while in Donatus as well as in the manuscript A we are told that it was performed at the Ludi Megalenses (’Megalensian Games’). The earliest incunabula typically followed the manuscripts on which they were based in not providing a didascalia for Andria.54 However, already by 1473 in some early editions which printed the last two plays in the order Phormio Hecyra the didascaliae for these two plays were printed attached to the wrong play, while a second copy of the didascalia for Phormio was appended at the end of Hecyra, giving a reader the superficial impression that there were didascaliae for all six plays, to be found right at the end of each play instead 52 53

54

For Σ, see Chapter  2.1 above. Whether they were present in the fifth-​century witness A is unknown, since nearly all of Andria, including its beginning, is lost in this manuscript. Fifteenth-​century witnesses containing the didascalia for Andria we have examined are Oxford, Bod, D’Orville 155 (f. 2v), and Florence, bml, Conv. Sopp. 517 (f. 1v); in bml, Plut. 38.22, a fourteenth-​century witness (Villa, La lectura Terentii, 322), the didascalia is added in a later hand in the margin (f. 1r). Typical of this tendency are the c. 1470 Strassburg edition of Johann Mentelin (Terentius, Comoediae 1470), and the 1472 Rome edition of Sweynheym and Pannartz (Terentius, Comoediae 1472b).

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

115

of its beginning.55 With Calfurnio’s 1476 edition the error was corrected with regard to the order of the didascaliae at the start of Phormio and Hecyra, but the additional didascalia for Phormio remained at the end of Hecyra, while in subsequent re-​editions of Calfurnio’s edition another development added to the confusion. As early as 1481 a didascalia for Andria, derived from Donatus, was printed at the beginning of this play, but the remaining didascaliae remained untouched, and so the text of Terence now had seven didascaliae included within it;56 it would be clear that the first text belonged to Andria, but after that confusions could easily arise as to whether a didascalia referred to the play preceding it or the one following. In his 1491 edition, Badius corrects this error in the printed tradition, placing each of the six didascaliae in its proper position at the start of its play;57 moreover, he also demonstrates here his deep conviction in the superiority of Donatus’ readings, as stated in the postface, by following his text at many critical junctures, against the readings of both manuscripts and the earlier editions. Thus in Eunuchus he follows Donatus by naming the producers as Lucius Numidius Prothinus and Lucius Ambivius Turpio (the manuscripts and editions name Lucius Ambivius Turpio and Lucius Attilius Praenestinus);58 in Adelphoe he agrees with Donatus in omitting the names of the curule aediles, stating simply that the play was first performed at the funeral games for Lucius Aemilius Paulus; in Phormio he states that this play was performed at the Ludi Mega­lenses, as did Donatus; and in Hecyra he also states that this play was performed at the Ludi Megalenses (the earlier printed editions give the Ludi Romani), and like Donatus names the curule aediles as Sextus Iulius and Gaius Rabirius (the manuscripts and editions give Sextus Iulius Caesar and Gnaeus Cornelius). There are a few signs that he engaged critically with the text, attempting to improve when he found errors in his original. Donatus had not stated in 55

Editions with this error include the Venice edition of Wendelin von Speyer from 1472 or 1473 (Terentius, Comoediae 1473) and the 1474 Padua edition of Bartolomeo da Valdezocco (Terentius, Comoediae 1474). 56 The earliest edition we have noticed with this development is the 1481 Treviso edition of Aloisius Strazarolus (GW M45492; ISTC it00079000); it occurs also in two Venetian editions of 1482 (GW M45579; ISTC it00080300, and GW M45548; ISTC it00080400), and significantly in the 1485 edition of Giovanni Britannico from Brescia (Terentius, Comoediae 1485). 57 The didascaliae in Terentius, Comoediae 1491 are found on ff. 4r (Andria), 40v (Eunuchus), 80r (Heauton timorumenos), 102v (Adelphoe), 140r (Phormio), and 169v (Hecyra). 58 In this didascalia he also follows Donatus by omitting the cognomina of the two aediles named at the first performance, Lucius Postumius [Albinus] and Lucius Cornelius [Merula], although their full names are cited in many manuscripts and incunabula.

116 Chapter 4 his didascalia to Hecyra that the play was derived from an original by Apollodorus, although he does say so at the outset of his commentary (Don. Ter. Hec. praef. 1.1), and the other early editions had also omitted this information; but Badius does provide it in his own didascalia using typical wording (TOTA GRAECA EST AB APOLLODORO TRANSLATA, ‘the entire play is a Greek one, translated from Apollodorus’). In Andria he may have attempted to correct an anomaly, in that the standard transmitted text of Donatus appears to give the names of three curule aediles for the year of the first production, although there were only ever two magistrates of this rank each year in Rome.59 The transmitted text of Donatus had stated that the first production was held M. FVLVIO M’ GLABRIONE Q. MINVCIO VALERIO AEDILIBVS CVRVLIBVS (‘when Marcus Fulvius, Manius Glabrio, and Quintus Minucius Valerius were curule aediles’); by omitting the second praenomen (Manius), the text of Badius then appeared superficially to give two names in complete conformity with standard Roman naming practice, Marcus Fulvius Glabrio and Quintus Minucius Valerius. Finally, with regard to his emendations to the text which he summarises at the conclusion of his edition, Badius shows a very strong reliance on the authority of Donatus. He gives separate lists of corrections for Andria and Eunuchus,60 then under the subheading correcta in aliis comediis (‘corrections to the other comedies’), he first notes that the commentary on Heauton timorumenos is missing in Donatus, then states explicitly: in sequentibus comediis non admodum mutauimus, semper autem Donati autoritatem condiximus nobis, ‘in the following comedies [i.e. Adelphoe, Phormio, and Hecyra] I  did not constantly make changes, however, I  always claimed the authority of Donatus for myself.’61 A key point to observe here is that many of the errors in the text of Terence to which Donatus drew attention were already imbedded in the manu­script traditions of his own day and continued to be perpetuated throughout the Middle Ages and in the earliest printed editions 59

The problem seems to have arisen because some of the lists of aediles in the didasca­ liae, as well as producers and consuls, appear to conflate information from separate productions in the early period. For a general summary of the question, see Roman Müller, “Terence in Latin Literature from the Second Century bce to the Second Century CE,” in A Companion to Terence, ed. Antony Augoustakis and Ariana Traill (Chichester: Wiley-​ Blackwell, 2013), 363–​4, and for the specific questions raised by the identification of curule aediles, Jerzy Linderski, “The aediles and the didascaliae,” Ancient History Bulletin 1 (1987): 83–​8. 60 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, A1rv [= 200rv]. 61 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, A1v [= 200v]. It may be noted, however, that the few corrections he does give explicitly in this section do not include any for Adelphoe.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

117

which derived from them. A good example of this is the erroneus assignment of speeches to the wrong characters, for which Badius notes a number of examples, and which had also been assigned to the wrong characters in editions such as those of Calfurnio and Britannico, although the latter did provide correct readings for a few of these.62 His justification of Donatus’ readings is sometimes accompanied by scornful remarks about other editors; in rejecting a reading muliebrem in place of mulierem at Eu. 357, found in Calfurnio (although not Britannico), he characterises his opponents as grammatorculi (‘small-​time grammarians’), and questioning a reading of animum in place of animus at Hec. 311, found incidentally in both Calfurnio and Britannico, he asks: quis prima sapiens Latinitatis (non dico grammatices) elementa animum leget? (‘what man who knows the first elements of Latin, let alone of grammar, will read animum?’).63 His references to authorities other than Donatus in this section are very limited, but at the same time suggestive of his intense engagement with Italian Classical scholarship. In justifying a reading of the plural form arbitrantur over arbitratur, found in some manuscripts as well as Calfurnio and Britannico, he calls on the authority not only of Donatus by also of Giovanni Sulpizio da Veroli, a contemporary Italian poet and grammarian, whose poem on table manners he was the next year to cite in his Silvae Morales.64 In what is his only significant departure from both the received tradition of Terence as well as the authority of Donatus, at the conclusion of Phormio he amends neglegentia tua neque odio … tuo to neglegentia tui neque odio … tui (‘neither by your neglect nor by your hatred,’ to ‘neither by neglect of you nor by hatred of you,’ Ph. 1016), justifying his change by what he considers the clear meaning of the text and by the possibility of corruption to the text of Donatus, as well as to that of Terence; he then corroborates his editorial intervention by citing a similar change suggested for a passage in Heauton 62

His examples include Eu. 50–​6 (assigned to Parmeno in many Δ-​class manuscripts, as well as by Calfurnio and Britannico, but to Phaedria in Donatus and A; Badius also cites Horace [serm. 2.3.264–​71] as an authority in this question), 312, 430 (assigned to Thraso in all early Γ—​and Δ—​class manuscripts, but given to Gnatho in Donatus), 447, 459, 530, 811; and Hec. 243. Britannico also assigns Eu. 447, 459, and 811 to the characters specified by Donatus. In An. 853, where Badius challenges the assignment of the line to Simo, Calfurnio and Britannico both share his correction to Chremes. 63 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, A1rv [= ff. 200rv]. Other variant readings in which he follows Donatus against some manuscripts and the printed tradition, as represented by Calfurnio and Britannico, are: An. 293 (reading maximum for maximi), 614 (me for de me), and Hec. 441 (facie for facies). 64 See Chapter 3.2.3.

118 Chapter 4 timorumenos by Lorenzo Valla, one of the most important Italian authorities on Classical Latin usage, although he does not in fact choose to amend this passage himself.65 Two more observations made by Badius here, although not attributed to any particular source, show interesting parallels to remarks by Angelo Poliziano.66 Poliziano was certainly an authority on Terence; he had taught a course on his works at the Studio Fiorentino some time around 1484/​5, and in association with this had written a commentary on the opening 200 lines of Andria, together with an introduction on the nature of Roman comedy,67 while furthermore in 1491, in Venice he had examined the oldest surviving near-​complete manuscript of the six plays, A, and taken extensive notes on its readings and colometry.68 In his commentary on An. 5, Badius argues for the reading operam abutitur (‘he is squandering his effort’) over opera abutitur, which is found in nearly all manuscripts and incunabula, justifying his amendment by recourse to antiquissimi grammatici (‘the most ancient grammarians’),69 the most prominent of whom was undoubtedly the fourth-​century ad authority Diomedes;70 the same emendation is found in the commentary of Poliziano, who cites Diomedes explicitly, and who spent some time investigating readings in early manuscripts.71 Likewise, when discussing an emendation to the preliminary verses written in iambic senarii to Eunuchus, Badius first remarks: scilicet non Terentianum est (‘although ‹this poem› is not the work of Terence’),72 and this too finds a parallel in the work of Poliziano. In a letter written by his pupil Pietro Crinito shortly after Poliziano’s death in 1494,73 Crinito states: 65 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, A1v [= f. 200v]. For Valla, see Chapter 3.2.3 and n. 116. Valla’s proposed emendation (scires desiderio tuo to tui, ‘ you know by your desire’ to ‘by desire of you,’ Hau. 307) is found in Book 2 of his Elegantiae linguae Latinae (‘elegant constructions of the Latin language’) in the section De tribus pronominibus mei tui sui, ‘concerning the three pronouns mei, tui, and sui’ (cf. Valla, Elegantiae 1479, d3v). 66 For Poliziano, see also Chapter 2.3. 67 Rosetta Lattanzi Roselli, Angelo Poliziano: La commedia antica e l’Andria di Terenzio, Studi e testi 3 (Florence: Sansoni, 1973). 68 Published in Riccardo Ribuoli, La collazione polizianea del codice Bembino di Terenzio, Note e discussioni erudite 17 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1981). 69 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, A1r [= f. 200r]. 70 For Diomedes, see ‘Diomedes [4]‌’, bnp 4.463 [P. Gatti]. The variant is found at Diom. gramm. 316.16 [Keil]. 71 Lattanzi Roselli, La commedia antica, 29–​30; see also Chapter 2.3, in particular n. 183. 72 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, A1r [= f. 200r]. 73 For del Riccio-​Baldi (1474–​1507), see dbi 38.265–​8 [R. Ricciardi]; del Riccio-​Baldi was a student at the Studio Fiorentino from 1491 onwards.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

119

is apud Terentium obseruauit argumenta illa, quae senariis constant ac initio fabularum apponuntur, haud quaquam esse poetae Terentii, ut multis fere persuasum, sed Apollinaris Sulpitii.74 he (Poliziano) observed in Terence that those argumenta which consist of senarii and are placed at the outset of the plays, were not in any respect the work of Terence, as has been accepted by a great deal of people, but of Sulpicius Apollinaris. Neither of these parallels need suppose a direct influence of Poliziano on Badius at this early stage, although later in the 1490s he came to republish and use his works, particularly the Letters and Preface to Persius.75 Poliziano’s commentary on Andria remained unknown long after his death, and was not in fact printed until 1973, while his observations about Sulpicius Apollinaris seem probably to date to the time of his examination of the manuscript A in Venice, shortly after Badius may have seen him depart Ferrara, since this is the only manuscript in which his name is inscribed above the prefaces. It is still possible that Badius may have heard of these discoveries and theories through common acquaintances, such as Poliziano’s pupils, but in the absence of any further evidence it seems safer to assume that they reflect a common attitude towards textual scholarship which was characteristic of the period, rejecting slavish devotion to the received text as it was constituted in the later Middle Ages in favour of a systematic re-​evaluation of it, based on careful reading of the oldest manuscripts available and testimonia in important early witnesses, such as Late-​Antique grammarians, and especially, at least in the case of Badius, Donatus. The 1491 edition of Terence is in many ways highly innovative when compared to its rivals, such as the various reprints of Calfurnio, with a vast amount of careful scholarship expended to establish its texts, and with its pagination and indexing it is clearly designed to be user-​friendly in a way that other contemporary incunabula were not. The question then arises of why the work sank practically without a trace, except within Badius’ own work. A relatively small print-​run, as well as possible conflicts with Husz, may be reasons,76 but in a period when pirating of texts was rampant it seems surprising that other printers did not simply appropriate all of Badius’ hard work. The simple fact 74 Poliziano, Opera omnia 1498, r2v (= ep. 12.23 [227]). 75 See Chapter 3.3 for his use of Poliziano’s introduction to Persius in his own edition of the poems. 76 See Chapter 3.2.3, citing the theory of Vera Sack (n. 83).

120 Chapter 4 may have been that his 1491 edition was completely eclipsed by another work, which by reason of its accessibility to different audiences came to dominate the French commercial market for many years to come, and which Badius himself came to reprint and supplement in the Lyon Terence—​the comprehensive commentary edition of 1492 by Guy Jouenneaux. 4.2

The Lyon Terence: The Commentary of Guy Jouenneaux and Badius’ Revisions

4.2.1 The Commentary Edition of Guy Jouenneaux Guy Jouenneaux (or Guido Juvenalis as he called himself in Latin) edited a text of Terence and accompanying commentary which was first published on 20 October 1492 in Paris by the publisher Georg Wolf, using a Gothic font.77 The initial print-​run seems to have been moderate,78 but the edition seems to have struck a chord with some publishers, particularly in Lyon, where two separate re-​editions were published in 1493 even before the appearance of the Lyon Terence.79 Typically for many scholars of the period, we have little information about Guy, although this may also reflect his deeply religious nature and desire to retire from the world.80 Of the five different figures to whom he variously dedicates his commentary on Terence, at least three were then or later became clerics,81 while his close friends in Paris, the Fernand brothers from Bruges, who

77 Terentius, Comoediae 1492. For the sake of convenience, in the following discussion references to this edition are cross-​referenced, where appropriate, to the Lyon Terence (e.g. Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a2v [= 1493, a3r]). 78 Thirteen surviving copies are listed in the istc database (last edit 13/​7/​2016). 79 These are the reprints by Perrinus Lathomi of 1 January 1493 (GW M45394; istc it00089600 and it00091200), with three copies surviving, and by Antonius Labillion of 22 April (GW M45352; istc it00090000), with five; Labillion’s reprint (available as a digital resource from the Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart) is printed using a Gothic font. 80 A concise biographical summary can be found at Peter G.  Bietenholz and Thomas B. Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 2 (Toronto:  University of Toronto Press, 2003), 247 [P.G. Bietenholz]. There is also a useful summary in the thesis of Sandra Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento all’ Andria di Terenzio” (PhD diss., University of Fribourg, 2007), iii-​v. 81 Of the dedicatees, whose identities are summarised in Jean Liron, Singularités historiques et littéraires (Paris: Chez Didot, 1738–40), Germain de Ganay (d. 1520; dbf 15.320–​1 [T.  de Morembert]; cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a2r [= 1493, a2r]) became a bishop and Michel Bureau (d. 1518; dbf 7.687 [Roman d’Amat]; cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1492, L6r [= 1493, Q6r]) took orders as a monk after a career teaching at the Sorbonne, while

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

121

were in turn members of the circle of Badius’ sponsor, the Carmelite Arnold de Bost, followed his example and became monks when Guy retired from academic life to the monastery of Saint-​Pierre de Chezal-​Benoît (Cher) in central France during 1492.82 The text of Terence in Guy’s edition follows the order Andria, Eunuchus, Heauton timorumenos, Adelphoe, Phormio, and Hecyra, and is set in prose. Following his two letters of dedication to his two principal dedicatees, Germain de Ganay and Nicholaus de Capella,83 Guy then gives a short (amounting to a single page) description of the nature of ancient comedy,84 before providing the text of the six plays, surrounded by marginal commentary in the same manner as Calfurnio’s edition and its many imitations (including Badius’ 1491 edition).85 At the conclusion of the volume Guy includes his other three dedicatory letters, to Martin Guerrand, Nicholas le Pelletier, and Michel Bureau (it is unknown if he was related to the bishop), and the volume concludes with poems written in elegiac couplets by Guy himself and Jean Gilles de Noyers praising the educative value of Terence and, in the opinion of Gilles de Noyers, the great achievement of Guy in editing him so ­meticulously.86 Guy’s edition does not mark act divisions by means of running headers or internal subheadings; indeed, although he discusses the term in his description of comedy, citing Horace’s prescription from the Ars poetica, he only very Martin Guerrand was a priest and secretary to the Bishop of Le Mans, Guy’s native city (cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1492, L4r [= 1493, Q5r]). Germain was much later (after 1507) also to become a significant patron of Badius; see Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” 260–​6. The other two figures are obscure. Nicholaus de Capella (cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a2v [= 1493, a3r]), who according to Guy was a distinguished professor of civil as well as ecclesiastical law, and who had studied extensively in Italy, may possibly be identified with Nicholas Heems of Brussels, who called himself de Capella and who studied law at Leuven, although he may have been far too young, being apparently born around 1470 (see BN 8.830–​1 [E. Heusens]). Nicholas le Pelletier (cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1492, L4v [= 1493, Q5v]) seems to have been a wealthy sponsor of Guy from Le Mans; see Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” 11 n. 27. 82 See Chapter 1.3. 83 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a2r-​a3r [= 1493, a2r-​a3v]; the letters are edited in Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” 2–​8. 84 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a3r-​a3v [= 1493, a4r]; the text is edited in Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” 17–​18. 85 See also James H.K.O. Chong-​Gossard, “The Pope’s Shoes: The Scope of Glosses in Guido Juvenalis’s Commentary on Terence,” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 27, no. 2 (2020): 193-​214 ‹https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12138-​018-​0492-​8› for discussion of the formatting of Guy’s edition. 86 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, L5r-​L6v; the letters and poems are edited in Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” 9–​16. For the identity of Gilles de Noyers, see 15 n. 35.

122 Chapter 4 inconsistently includes references to act divisions in his commentary.87 With regard to his scene divisions, which are marked by large spaces two lines high left for coloured initials in imitation of manuscript decoration,88 he has a division at Andria 965 (the modern scene v.vi, not marked in A or the illustrated Carolingian witnesses, but found in the Δ-​manuscripts), and inserts extra scene divisions within Eunuchus v.iv at line 943, Adelphoe iii.iii at line 364, and Hecyra iii.i at line 318, corresponding to extra divisions found in some fifteenth-​ century manuscripts, including the illustrated Paris manuscripts.89 Due to the extensive cross-​contamination of the Terence text at this period and its existence in a multitude of manuscript copies (many since lost), a precise source for the text used in Guy’s edition has not been identified,90 but in her discussion of his commentary on Andria Sandra Clerc demonstrated that there are good grounds for supposing that the text used by the printer was different from that used by Guy in preparing his commentary, since there are a number of differences from the readings given in Guy’s lemmata (a point also noticed by Badius in the Lyon Terence).91 Guy’s commentary is of particular importance because, unlike the succession of re-​editions of Terence accompanied by Donatus (which included Badius’ own edition of 1491), it was the first new commentary on the plays to appear

87

88

89 90

91

In the description of comedy, Guy derives his comment that the division of each comedy into five acts cannot be easily discerned from Evanthius (Evanth. de com. 3.1), then provides a description of the types of action contained in each act in language reminiscent of the scholiastic discussions of act divisions: e.g. pars prima argumentum explicet (‘the first part unfolds the plot,’ Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a3v [= 1493, a4r]). However, in his commentary on Andria he does not discuss any act divisions apart from a comment on the inserted scene v.vi, right at the end of the work, where he states: In hoc actu mira arte ea que restant de comedia breuiter explicantur (‘in this act those matters which remain unresolved from the comedy are untangled in a marvellous way,’ Terentius, Comoediae 1492, f4v [= 1493, g6r]); in Eunuchus he mentions act divisions at the correct places for Acts I and II (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, g1r [= 1493, h2r]; 1492 g5r [= 1493, h8r]), but not elsewhere. In the Newberry Library copy consulted for this study, a rubricator has supplied the initials in red and blue ink, and has also added gold leaf to the initials for the argumentum, prologue, and first six scenes of Andria, as well as to some isolated initials later in the volume. See Chapter 2.2. The extra scenes can be found at Terentius, Comoediae 1492, l6r [= 1493, n5v], 1492 v6r [= 1493, &2r], 1492 H6r [= 1493, N3r]. Of the selected Δ-​readings identified in the Italian printed editions which derive from Calfurnio’s, including Badius’ 1491 edition (see n. 18 above), the text of Terence in Guy’s edition reprints most, with the exception of An. 389, 398, and Eu. 5, where the readings coincide with Γ-​readings (iurgabit; interea aliquid; om. sciat praesumat). Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” xvi-​xx.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

123

in mass circulation since the scholiastic period,92 and it was written with a specific, pedagogical purpose, namely to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new medium of printing and educate contemporary youth who were literate in Latin but did not have access to an expensive education. Jean Fernand had in fact already set out the need for such a work when he announced in a public oration, probably before 1489, his intention to write: Terentianarum comediarum interpretationem adolescentibus apprime utilem, ‘an interpretation of Terence’s comedies above all useful to young men,’93 while the exhaustive, word-​by-​word form of exegesis Guy used in his work bears many similarities to, and indeed may have come to inform, the type of commentary which Badius developed throughout the 1490s, the familiaris interpretatio or commentum familiare, and had already pioneered in his Silvae Morales.94 Donatus’ commentary did in fact provide Guy with a central core of source material for his own work, which was constantly acknowledged in phrases such as ut ait Donatus or ut uult Donatus (‘as Donatus says,’ or ‘as Donatus desires ‹us to understand›’). Nevertheless, as shown by James H.K.O. Chong-​Gossard, his use of Donatus is not slavishly repetitious, and he makes omissions determined by his specific pedagogical aims; noticeably, he refrains from repeating the moral lessons drawn by Donatus.95 Use of Donatus, moreover, presented its own particular problems. Besides the loss of the commentary on Heauton timorumenos, and the constant duplication of comments elsewhere in slightly different wording, it can be quite sparse in places, particularly towards the conclusion of Phormio, while its intended audience clearly possessed a level of Latinity far greater than that which Guy set out to address.96 Guy’s work 92

Chong-​Gossard, “The Pope’s Shoes,” 195, notes that the only real exceptions in terms of printed works were Calfurnio’s commentary on the Heauton timorumenos from 1476, and Hans Neidhart’s German commentary on Eunuchus from 1486. For the commentary of the German humanist Petrus Luder, available in six manuscripts dating to between 1462 and 1471, see Yves-​François Riou, “L’influence italienne dans le commentaire à Térence de l’humaniste allemand Petrus Luder de Kislau,” in Gli umanesimi medievali: Atti del II congresso dell’ Internationales Mittellateinerkomitee, ed. Claudio Leonardi (Florence: Sismel, Edizioni del Galluzzo, 1998). 93 Fernand, Epistolae familiares 1488, c3r. 94 For the varying terms Badius used to describe this form, and his method and audience, see Paul White, Jodocus Badius Ascensius: Commentary, Commerce and Print in the Renaissance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 73–​93, and for its place in a broad Christian educational system, Mark Crane, “Virtual Classroom:  Josse Bade’s Commentaries for the Pious Reader,” in The Unfolding of Words: Commentary in the Age of Erasmus, ed. Judith Rice Henderson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012). 95 Chong-​Gossard, “The Pope’s Shoes,” 203-​6. 96 Compare. e.g., Guy’s explanation of the adjective Andrius at the start of the play Andria: Andrie autem hic est adiectiuum ab Andro, nomine substantiuo, deriuatum, declinaturque

124 Chapter 4 therefore remedied this by substantially supplementing Donatus’ commentaries with other sources, and simplifying them where necessary.97 His intense focus on grammatical, lexical, and literary parallels is exemplified in his letter to Germain de Ganay, where having described the types of student he is most anxious to reach with this commentary, he continues: quorum discendi cupiditatem miseratus (quantum mihi per facultatem licuit) minima quaeque in lucem prodidi, haud indignum ratus, si nec ipsas quidem particulas (quae plurimam plerumque ignoratae afferunt structurae et intellectui difficultatem) intactas praetermitterem.98 having pitied their desire of learning, inasmuch as it was in my mental powers, I brought forth every tiny detail into the light. I even thought it was unworthy to overlook the particles themselves (which produce very great difficulty in a completely unknown structure and its understanding) and to leave them untreated. The sources used by Guy to supplement Donatus which we can easily identify are, not surprisingly, nearly all Latin grammarians, lexicographers, or literary commentators; Clerc notes that for Andria he used the ancient sources Diomedes, Priscian, Festus, Nonius, Servius, and Aulus Gellius, and amongst contemporary grammarians, the Italians Lorenzo Valla and Giovanni Tortelli.99 Nevertheless, Guy must also have been influenced by Medieval commentary or iconographical traditions on Calliopius. As explained earlier, Calliopius is first mentioned in the colophons to some Carolingian manuscripts of Terence and may have been responsible for undertaking an early recension of the plays, while in later Medieval commentaries (and occasionally in the illustrative cycle) he was identified as the reciter of these texts, and the speaker of the final words of each play, who enjoins the audience to applaud.100 When Guy discusses the prologues of the plays, for Andria he first describes ‘Andrius, -​a, -​um’, id est de Andro illa insula, ‘here, however, Andriae is an adjective derived from Andros, a substantival noun, and it is declined Andrius, -​a, -​um, that is from that island, Andros’ (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a4r [= 1493, a5v]). 97 Cf. the comment of Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” xii: ‘In effetti, la sua esegesi sembra voler integrare, in un’ottica di semplificazione e completezza, il commento del grammatico antico.’ 98 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a2r [= 1493, a2r]. 99 Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” xii-​xiii. For Valla, see Chapter 3.2.3, and for Tortelli, one of whose grammatical works Badius himself edited in 1500, Chapter 3 n. 75. 100 See Chapter 2.1 (especially n. 32) and 2.2.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

125

the various types of prologue found in ancient comedies in terms of definitions given in the preliminary materials to Donatus,101 then states that in this play a defensor poetae (‘defender of the poet’) is introduced, whose task it is to eulogise the poet, and to take his adversary to task for malicious remarks.102 In the prologue to Eunuchus Guy states explicitly: Poete defensor introductus Calliopius hunc prologum in maledicos pronuntiat (‘Calliopius is introduced as the defender of the poet ‹and› speaks this prologue against his defamers’),103 while in his comments on the final words Calliopius recensui (‘I, Calliopius, edited ‹this›’) for each of the last five plays, he explains that Calliopius is Terentii or poete defensor (‘the defender of Terence’ or ‘the poet’s’).104 The matter is not clear-​cut, since in the prologues to Heauton timorumenos, Phormio, and Hecyra, Guy states that the speakers are an unnamed actor, an actor who is the defensor poetae, and the actor Lucius Ambivius respectively,105 but given his overwhelming preference for sources which come from antiquity, or else Renaissance scholarship, the survival of this name in such a prominent position is significant, and seems to have had further consequences for the illustrative programme of the Lyon Terence. 4.2.2 Badius’ Re-​edition of Guy Badius’ move in the course of 1492 to join the printing house of Johannes Trechsel, his first two publications with Trechsel using the new Italian type-​ face he had imported, and his preliminary negotiations with Guy seeking permission to add his own comments to those of Guy at the conclusion of each scene of the Lyon Terence, have already been described.106 His close connections with religious figures, including not only de Bost but also Laurent Bureau, may have stood him in good stead when he wrote to Guy asking 101 The different types of prologue are discussed in the Excerpta de comoedia (Don. de. com. 7.2); Guy cites them, then describes the prologue to Andria as a ‹prologus› relatiuus, quo aut aduersario maledicta aut gratiae populo referuntur (‘a relative prologue, in which either curses are made against a rival or thanks ‹given› to the people,’ Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a4v [= 1493, a6v; Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” 22]). 102 Hic autem prologus relatiuus est, in quo defensor poete introductus ostendere nititur poetam modestum minimeque errantem, et aduersarium in inuidiam uocare (‘this prologue is relative, in which a defender of the poet is introduced who strives to demonstrate that the poet is modest, and to rebuke the adversary,’ Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a4v [= 1493, a6v; Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” 22]). 103 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, f. 6r [= 1493, g8r]. 104 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, m5v, s4r, A3v, G2r, L5r [= 1493, o6v, x3v, D5v, L3r, Q4r]. 105 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, m6r, A4v, G2v [= 1493, o8r, D6v, L4v]. For Adelphoe, Guy does not make any specific comments on who delivers the prologue. 106 See Chapter 1.3.

126 Chapter 4 if he could add to the existing commentary, but all we know for certain is that by the time a letter arrived from Guy granting his permission, both Andria and Eunuchus had already been typeset, and Badius was forced to print his own additional comments on these plays at the conclusion of the ­volume.107 When Badius came to reprint Guy’s edition in the Lyon Terence, his intervention was at first apparently limited to incorporating woodblock images at the start of every scene, as well as the prologues and epilogues. However, one small innovation he was able to introduce from the start came from his use of the humanist font supplied by Trechsel, since this allowed him to print Greek words and phrases used by Guy in the original alphabet, instead of transliterating them into Gothic lettering as Guy had been forced to do. That this was Badius who did this, and not a compositor employed by Trechsel, is strongly suggested both by his training in Greek in Ferrara and his use of this font in the Silvae Morales from 1492.108 Nevertheless, the number of specific examples in the Lyon Terence is small, and largely limited to the preliminary materials in the volume, Guy’s letter to Germain de Ganay, his description of ancient comedy, and his commentary on the argumentum and prologue to Andria,109 suggesting that he abandoned this process early on; his use of diacritic marks to indicate accentuation and breathing is also erratic, but may simply reflect the teaching of the period.110 Another innovation which Badius was able to introduce at the outset, made possible by the capacity of Trechsel’s press to print running headers, was to include act divisions; these are given both in the headers and in subheadings at the feet of the relevant illustrations. The divisions are those of his 1491 edition, with some small exceptions. For Adelphoe, he shifts the beginning of Act v to scene v.iii, while in Hecyra, he moves the beginning of Act iv from its incorrect placement at Hec. 318 to its proper position at scene iv.i, although he still retains the scene division at the earlier juncture.111 The innovation is also acknowledged in the postface, where he states: ne in actuum distinctione, quam difficilem Donatus indicat, quis oberret, secundum eiusdem Donati sententiam 1 07 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q4v-​Q5r. 108 See the discussion in Chapter 3.2.3. 109 At Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a2r, a4r, a5r and a6v, with two isolated instances occurring later on b2v (συμβαλλω) and n5r (λυγορέιν [sic], partially transliterating ligonein in Guy). 110 Typical examples of this small group are ἄσυμβωλοι (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a2r), κωμαι, κωμου, ἄπο τοῦ τραγοῦ, and ωδῆ (a4r). For the evidence provided for Badius’ knowledge of Greek, see Chapter 3.2.3, especially nn. 123–​6. 111 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, C1r, O4r, N3r.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

127

eos discreuimus, ‘lest anyone go astray in distinguishing the acts, which Donatus indicates is difficult, I have divided them according to the opinions of this same Donatus’.112 He soon came to make much more significant additions to the commentary of Guy, but these only commence in a physical sense with the third play, Heauton timorumenos, which he prefaces as follows: Quandoquidem (ut post finem operis dicturi sumus) auctor ipse Guido Iuuenalis operam nostram amicissime efflagitauit, qua commentaria in Terentium properanti, ut inquit, studio edita … recognosceremus, noluimus in tam pia re difficiles nos exhibere. ne quis autem eius, quae plurima sunt, bene et argute dicta a nobis deprauata putet, non duximus eius dicta immutare sed, ipsis fideliter impressis, nostras annotatiunculas, quotiens commodum uidebitur, superaddere instituimus.113 Seeing that (as I shall explain at the end of this work) the author himself, Guy Jouenneaux, requested earnestly but in a most friendly way that I revise these commentaries on Terence which were edited, as he says, with hasty zeal, I did not wish to reveal myself to be difficult in such a devout undertaking. But so that no one should think that his statements, which are very many and have been expressed clearly and convincingly, have been perverted by me, I did not set out to change his statements but, having printed these faithfully, I decided to add my own small annotations wherever it will appear appropriate. This explanation at the end of the work, his editorial postface, is in fact sandwiched between the conclusion of Hecyra and before Guy’s own end-​ materials, and as in other incunabula is in the form of a letter to his readers. In it, besides mentioning the programme of illustration, Badius sets out reasons for his editorial interventions, explaining that certain people (who he is not at all specific) had asked him how Guy’s edition had pleased him, and he replied very much, but that non deesse tamen locos pauculos quos ipse aliter interpretatus fuissem, ‘nevertheless, there were a very few places which I would have interpreted otherwise.’ Spurred on by these supporters, he then wrote to Guy, and received his permission to correct those places which had not been properly completed due to uel librariorum negligentia uel sua 1 12 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q4v. 113 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, o7r.

128 Chapter 4 ipsius in aliis negociis nimia occupatio, ‘either the neglect of compositors or his own too great a preoccupation with other matters.’114 Because, however, Guy’s permission had not come to him until after the sheets for Andria and Eunuchus had been printed, Badius was forced to print his comments on these two plays after his letter; the comments for Eunuchus are particularly brief, although still insightful.115 His comments on the four other plays can be found in their proper place, at the conclusion of Guy’s commentary for each scene, and prefaced clearly by ascensivs or else an abbreviated form of this name. A remarkable aspect of the Lyon Terence is the extent to which Badius, despite his clear expertise in the area, remains true to his word and preserves the wording and even format of Guy’s edition. Thus the text of Terence is set as prose, as in Guy, and it would henceforth remain in prose in Badius’ future editions.116 The wording of the didascalia to Andria, the initial segment of ancient text that a reader would encounter after Guy’s preliminary materials, stays true to Guy’s version, and there is no attempt by Badius to correct the erroneous statement that the work was premiered under three aediles; the same fidelity to Guy is found in the other five didascaliae.117 There is some silent correction of obvious errors, perhaps made by Guy’s compositors,118 but where a reading of Guy’s is different from Badius’ interpretation in the 1491 edition, Badius most often retains Guy’s reading in the main text-​block as well as the original commentary, sometimes repeating his earlier criticisms in his own additional commentary,119 1 14 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q4r-​Q4v. 115 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q4v-​Q5r. 116 However, when Badius’ commentary was itself excerpted, along with that of Guy, and reprinted in Italian editions in the early 1500s, it also came to be included in volumes which contained the text of Terence set out in the corrected colometry based on Poliziano’s collation of A; see Chapter 7.3. 117 The didascaliae are found at Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a3v [= 1493, a5r] (Andria); 1492 f5r-​f5v [= 1493, g7r] (Eunuchus); 1492 m5v [= 1493, o7r] (Heauton timorumenos); 1492 s4r [= 1493, x4r] (Adelphoe); 1492 A4r [= 1493, D5v] (Phormio); and 1492 G2r [= 1493, L3v] (Hecyra). 118 E.g. at An. 54 Guy prints prohibeant in place of prohibebant (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a6r; cf. Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” xvii), but Badius prints the correct form prohibebant (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, b1r). 119 At An. 477, where Badius in 1491 had challenged a variant reading of immemor es (‘you are forgetful’) in place of immemores (the plural adjective ‘forgetful’), Guy prints immemor es in his text-​block and commentary (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, d1v [= 1493, d5r; Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” 67]), but Badius points out the error in his postponed commentary on Andria (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q5r). Compare also the assignment of lines to speakers at Eu. 49 and 530, where Guy’s assignments, which follow manuscript

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

129

and sometimes not.120 This extends even to where Badius had been contemptuous of other editors. Thus at Eu. 357, where Badius in 1491 had described editors who wrote muliebrem instead of the correct reading mulierem as grammatorculi (‘small-​time grammarians’), Guy had included muliebrem both in his text-​block and commentary, and Badius retains both in his own 1493 reprint, merely commenting at the end of the volume that multi legunt senem mulierem ubi est muliebrem, ‘many read senem mulierem where there is muliebrem [i.e. in Guy’s text and commentary].’121 Very occasionally Badius changes readings in Guy’s text-​block. A  noticeable instance occurs at Ph. 1016 where, as discussed, Badius had amended the text in his 1491 edition from neglegentia tua neque odio … tuo to neglegentia tui neque odio … tui, arguing that a corruption had arisen from the grammatically correct form; Guy had printed tua and tuo in his 1492 edition, but Badius silently replaces them with tui and tui in his 1493 re-​edition of Guy, not noting the change in his own commentary notes.122 At Hec. 311, where Badius in 1491 had asked ‘what man who knows the first elements of Latin, let alone of grammar, will read animum?,’ and had amended the text in accordance with Donatus to animus, Guy had written animum both in his text-​block and the lemma in his commentary; in his 1493 edition Badius again corrects this back to animus in the text-​block, noting the variants in his own commentary.123 Further instances occur where Badius notices a discrepancy between Guy’s commentary and the text-​block printed in his edition. At Ad. 259 Guy’s edition had printed fratrem homini neminem (‘no brother to a man’) in the text-​ block, a reading found in many manuscripts, but had given as its lemma ‹fratrem› neminem hominem, the reading recommended by Donatus, and in his 1493 edition Badius corrects this in the text-​block, stating in his own comment that textus quem cum commentario hoc offendi habuerat homini, sed iuxta mentem Donati et etiam commentoris feci hominem, ‘the text at which I, as well as traditions questioned by Donatus, are also disputed by Badius (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, g1r, i3v [= 1493, h2r, k6v] and cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q5r). 120 Cf. Hec. 441, where Badius in 1491 follows Donatus in amending facies to facie (see n. 63 above), but in 1493 follows Guy in printing facies both in the text and commentary (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, h4v [= 1493, i7r]); also Eu. 811, where Badius in 1491 follows Donatus and assigns a line to Thraso instead of Gnatho, but in 1493 follows Guy in giving it to Gnatho (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, l2r [= 1493, m7r]). 121 For Guy, see Terentius, Comoediae 1492, h4v, and for Badius, Terentius, Comoediae 1493, i7r and Q5r. 122 See Terentius, Comoediae 1492, G1r and 1493 L1r. 123 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, H6r [=1493 N2r] and cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1493, N2v, where he justifies both versions by altering the punctuation.

130 Chapter 4 this commentator [i.e. Guy], have taken offence had homini, but according to the opinion of Donatus and also the commentator I made it hominem.’124 At Ad. 331 he corrects a reading of nostrarum omnium uitam in the text-​block of Guy’s edition to the synonymus nostram omnium uitam (‘the life of all of us’), commending Guy for his correct reading in the commentary which coincides cum fidis exemplaribus (‘with faithful manuscripts’).125 But there are also a few instances where Badius agrees with the reading in the text-​block and against Guy’s lemmata; these readings usually coincide with those of his 1491 edition, and he does not touch Guy’s commentary at all, merely noting his divergence at the end of the scene.126 The recycling of comments from the 1491 edition in Badius’ additional notes is not common, and one reason that seems partly to have obviated the need to do so in the 1493 edition is that in many instances Guy’s interpretation had concurred anyway with that of Badius from 1491. For example, the reading ope­ ram abutitur at An. 5, which Badius had substantiated in his 1491 edition by reference to antiquissimi grammatici (‘the most ancient grammarians’), and which had also been amended by Angelo Poliziano in his unpublished commentary, is defended also by Guy, who specifically cites Diomedes’ grammar in this context.127 Some of these changes are made by Guy with comments more extensive than those of Badius, and some without any comment at all,128 but 124 For Guy’s original readings, see Terentius, Comoediae 1492, v1v, and for Badius’ amendment, Terentius, Comoediae 1493, z3r. In his 1491 edition, Badius had printed hominem without comment (Terentius, Comoediae 1491, f. 112v). The reading homini is in fact found in most early manuscripts, including A; hominem is only found in a few early Δ witnesses besides Donatus, such as p (BnF, lat. 10304). 125 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, v5r; 1493, &1r. A further instance occurs at Eu. 312–​17, where Guy’s text had assigned a speech to Parmeno; his commentary had stated these lines were better assigned to Chaerea, and in his 1493 edition Badius assigns the lines to Chaerea in his text-​block (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, h2v; 1493, i5r). 126 Cf. Ad. 242, where he favours the reading alicunde for aliunde in Guy’s commentary; Ad. 471, where he questions Guy’s omission of factum in commentary to Vbi scit factum ad matrem uirginis; and Ph. 474, challenging his variant subdolet instead of the subolet found in the text-​block (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, z2r, &8v, G6r). 127 Vbi aduertendum puto dictum Diomedis legentis operam abutitur (‘where I  judge the statement of Diomedes should be given heed to, who reads operam abutitur,’ Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a4v [=1493, a7r]). 128 Of the first kind, compare his notes on An. 608 (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, d5r [=1493, e3v; Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” 77]) explaining that nulli is an archaic genitive of nullus (at Terentius, Comoediae 1491, A1r [= f. 200r] Badius simply advises other editors to turn to Donatus for the correct reading) and Hec. 243 (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, H3v [=1493, M6v]), where he explicitly states that the scene begins with an aside by Phidippus to his daughter (at Terentius, Comoediae 1491, A1v [= f. 200v] Badius explains simply that he has corrected the wrong attribution of characters at this point). Of the second type, cf.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

131

in any case we have no way of demonstrating a direct connection between the two editions (i.e. of Badius from 1491 and Guy from 1492) any more than we can demonstrate a direct connection between Badius and Poliziano. Badius’ additional comments are never extensive, although at times they give insights into his scholarship. In his commentary to Heauton timorumenos he twice cites the grammarian Valla as a source,129 and for the same play he also sometimes prefers the explanations of Calfurnio over those of Guy.130 On Hau. 806–​7, where critical opinion had vacillated between quam and quae in the phrase uel me haec deambulatio, quam non laboriosa, ad languorem dedit (‘indeed this walk, although not taxing, has given me over to tiredness’), Badius first recommends Guy, who had favoured quam, then Calfurnio, who had favoured quae, then states audiui tertiam lectionem non minus bonam, in qua non erat illud me (‘I have heard a third interpretation, no less attractive, in which that word me was absent’); unfortunately, he does not expand at all on where he had heard this key point.131 He mentions other editions or manuscripts on a few other occasions.132 Significantly, when discussing the phrase incredibile est quantum erum ante eo sapientia (‘it is amazing how I surpass the master in wisdom’) at Ph. 247, he notes that the variant reading quanti supplied in the text-​block (Guy had read quantum) was an attractive alternative (non puto omnino mendosum, ‘I do not consider it utterly faulty’), but that exemplum uerum nostrum habet quanto herum ante eo, atque id approbo (‘my exemplum has quanto herum ante eo, and I approve that’).133 The term exemplum is commonly used to denote a manuscript copy consulted by an editor, and in this context it can be noted that the reading quanto is characteristic of the Γ-​tradition of Terence, the reading maximi in place of maximum at An. 293 (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, c1v [=1493, c3v; Clerc, “Guido Juvenalis: Commento,” 49], and cf. n. 63 above), and revised character assignments at Eu. 447 and 459 (Terentius, Comoediae 1492, i1r and i1v [=1493, k3r and k3v]). 129 For comments on Hau. 182 and 229 (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, p8r, q1v). 130 Cf. his comments on Hau. 556 and the beginning of scene v.i (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, r8r, u4v). 131 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, t6r. 132 In his comment of Ad. 623 he notes that both Guy and textus plurimi (‘very many texts’) add id (‘that’) to the phrase Sensi ilico illas suspicari (‘I saw straightaway that those women suspected’), producing a significant shift in meaning (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, A8v). Likewise, at Ph. 743 he questions Guy’s reading of est, on the grounds that it doesn’t make sense of a new character tag, and proposes instead hem, which he reads cum aliis exemplis (‘with other witnesses,’ Terentius, Comoediae 1493, I4r); the interjection hem is in fact the reading in his 1491 edition at this point (Terentius, Comoediae 1491, f. 164r), and while the Carolingian manuscripts read either est or sit, the key manuscript A has the interjection st. 133 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, F5v. In this context, the relative pronouns quantum, quanti, and quanto are virtually synonymous; see old s.vv. quantum B7 and B6, and quanto 2.

132 Chapter 4 although it should also be noted here that Badius prints quanto in his edition of 1491.134 Badius also makes comments which reveal his theoretical understanding of drama. In reaction to a line in Adelphoe, where the old man Micio remarks non est flagitium, mihi crede, adulescentulum scortari neque potare (‘believe me, it is no disgrace for a young man to visit prostitutes or to drink,’ Ad. 101–​2), Guy had been moved beyond his normal reticence, and went so far as to state openly: non contendit Mitio non esse peccatum sed dicit non esse flagitium, id est crimen dignum flagitione, id est acerba increpatione, cum tamen (pace sua dixerim) non sit uerum, quandoquidem tales adolescentuli non modo sunt increpandi, sed etiam duris uerberibus fatigandi. propterea, iuuenis lector, non sequaris haec comica dicta … multa enim sunt quae longe melius est nescire quam scire, ait Augustinus (Aug. enchir. 5).135 Micio does not argue that there was no sin, but says that there was no disgrace, that is an accusation worthy of blame, that is sharp reprimand, although nevertheless (may I speak with his permission) this is not true, in that young men of such a kind ought not only to be reprimanded, but also assailed with heavy beatings. On this account, young reader, you ought not follow these words from comedy … For there are many things which it is far better not to know than to know, Augustine says. Badius, who agrees essentially on the underlying point of Christian morality, nevertheless makes his own additional comments on this point which are worth quoting, as they also demonstrate his understanding of characterisation in theatre: Iudicio commentarii poeta contra mores probos sentit, et certe contra Christianae religionis honestatem. ne nimis seueris‹s›imus in poetam censores [sic], pauca quae ipse poeta melius si adesset excusaret in purgationem adducam. sciemus ergo poetas, ut monet Horatius, ­praecipue in genere drammaticae [sic], hoc est actiuo, ubi poeta non loquitur sed personae introductae (et etiam mixto quantum ad partem actiuam) so­ lere proferre thesis siue positiones, non ex sua sed ex loquentis sententia 134 Terentius, Comoediae 1491, f. 151v. For exemplum used in the sense of a manuscript copy, cf. old s.v. 9b, tll 5.1349.39–​1350.50. 135 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, t1r [=1493, x8v].

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

133

… hoc loco, licet Mitio leni et clementi ingenio natus putet non esse flagitium adolescentulum scortari, non ideo sequitur Terentium id ­sensisse.136 In the judgement of the commentator [i.e. Guy] the poet has expressed himself contrary to proper morals, and certainly against the honesty of the Christian religion. Lest you are far too severe in your criticism of the poet, however, let me add a few words which the poet himself would say much better if he were present to exonerate himself. For we will be aware that poets, as Horace tells us, and especially in the type of drama which is active, where the poet does not speak but the characters brought in (and also in the mixed ‹type› in as much as it relates to the active part) are accustomed to put forward opening statements or points-​of-​view, not from their own but from the opinion of the speaker … In this place, although Micio, who has been raised with a mild and forgiving nature, may think it is not blameworthy that a young man should visit prostitutes, it does not follow from that that Terence thought the same thing. Badius’ reference to Horace seems most likely to allude to the discussion of dramatic characterisation in his Ars poetica (Hor. ars. 153–​78); the terms active and mixed derive from the work of Diomedes (whom Badius seems also to have used as his source for the reading operam at An. 5), who classifies poetry under the headings of actiuum (‘active’), in which actors alone speak with no intervention of the author, exegeticon (‘exegetic’), in which the author alone speaks, and mixtum (‘mixed’), in which both authors and actors speak (Diom. gramm. 482.13–​25 [Keil]). Badius goes on in an extended discussion to defend Terence from accusations that he has spoken inappropriately here by remarks that he speaks in accordance with the morals and customs of his own day, and that the statement needs to be taken in its dramatic context, which is Micio attempting to mitigate the harsh words and deeds of his brother Demea against his own son. This view of drama is repeated in the Lyon Terence; commenting on an exclamation by one of the characters in Phormio, ut ludos facit! (‘how he plays games!,’ Ph. 945), Badius states: Illud autem ut ludos facit non interpretarer, id est, qualiter spectacula exhibet populo. nam qui in comoediis loquuntur, non ita introducuntur 136 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, y3r.

134 Chapter 4 quasi populo fabulam agant, sed perinde atque rem ipsam gerant, ideoque praeter prologum nihil ad populum uel de populo spectanti ­geritur.137 But I  would not interpret that phrase ut ludos facit as if he presented shows to the people. For those who speak in comedies are not introduced as if they are performing a play to the people, but just as if they are going about their own business, and so apart from the prologue nothing is done to the people or concerning the people who are watching. while in Hecyra, where one of the characters comments: placet non fieri hoc itidem ut in comoediis (‘it’s pleasing that this is not happening in the same way as ‹it does› in comedies,’ Hec. 866), Badius contests an interpretation of this meaning in aliis comoediis (‘in other comedies,’ i.e. as opposed to the one you’re watching now) which is found in Guy’s commentary, and is in turn based on a suggestion of Donatus,138 stating (slightly erroneously): Terentius Donati iudicio scite omisit illud aliis quod commentarius adiecit. non enim dicit ut aliis comoediis, sed dumtaxat ut in comoediis, quasi uero haec comoedia non sit, sed historia.139 In the judgement of Donatus Terence consciously omits the aliis that the commentator [Guy] throws in. For he does not say ‘as ‹in› other comedies’, but simply ‘in comedies,’ as if indeed this is not a comedy, but an historical narrative. A final point, the sole explicit statement by Badius in the commentary itself which can be related directly to the illustrative programme in the Lyon Terence, comes from his notes on Andria. Discussing the opening words of Andria i.i, Vos istaec intro auferte (‘you men carry those things inside,’ An. 28), uttered by the father Simo who is arranging a sham marriage for his son, Badius remarks: Nam siue (ut plurimi uolunt) ligna aut quaeuis alia quibus intus opus erat, siue obsonia intro auferri iubeat, non magni refert, quamuis docti 1 37 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, K7v. 138 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, L4v [=1493, Q3r-​v]. Cf. Don. Ter. Hec. 866.3, aut deest aliis (‘or aliis is missing’). 139 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q3v.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

135

uiri dicent non uerisimile esse senem ad simulatas nuptias obsonatum, cum Dauus postea dicat: Hem, paululum obsonii etc [An. 359–​60].140 For whether, as many men want to be the case, he orders logs and whatever other things there is a need of indoors to be carried inside, or rather foodstuffs, is of little consequence, although learned men will say that it is not plausible that the old man had purchased foodstuffs for a marriage which was only pretence, since Davus later says: ‘Alas, so little food’ etc. Who the plurimi (‘many men’) were whom Badius mentions advocating an interpretation of istaec (‘those things’) as ‘logs’ is unknown. As already discussed in Chapter 1, however, the manuscript illustrations of this scene, which derive ultimately from a Late-​Antique original, show slaves bringing various items of food into the house,141 and this detail then appears to have been incorporated in the Medieval commentary traditions, beginning with the CB,142 and extending to subsequent works in which the term is glossed almost always as types of foodstuff.143 But the slaves in the illustration in the Lyon Terence are shown carrying logs into the building (Figure 4.1), and so Badius’ commentary note, with its appeal to the opinion of ‘learned men’ in this matter, reads in fact like a justification of the iconography. 4.3

The 1502 Terence and Its Sources

When Badius came in 1502 to publish his third edition of Terence, which included a re-​edition of Guy’s commentary and his own additional comments (with those for Andria and Eunuchus now printed at the correct junctures and

1 40 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q4v. 141 For the illustrations in O and P, see Turner and Torello-​Hill, Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, Figures  2 and 3.  For the illustrations in the fifteenth-​century Parisian witnesses BnF, lat. 8193, BnF, lat. 7907A, and Arsenal, MS 664, see also Chapter 2.2 and n. 116. 142 See Chapter 2.2 and n. 77. 143 Thus the CM glosses istaec as pisces et uolatilia, ‘fish and birds’ [San Juan Manso, El Commentum Monacense, 86], while Robazzi glosses it as scilicet carnes, pisces etc, ‘that is to say, meat, fish, etc’ (transcribed from Vatican City, bav, Pal. lat. 1628, f. 2v). The wording of the description in Laurent de Premierfait (see Chapter 2.1) seems to derive directly from the CB; i.e. serui illius eulogias ei detulerunt, ut puta pisces, uolatilia, uinum, lac, et huiuscemodi rerum species ad comesationem conuocatorum ad nuptias, ‘his slaves gathered together food and drink for him, for instance fish, birds, wine, milk, and the appearance of things of this

136 Chapter 4 augmented by new notes), he prefaced it with a major study of ancient comedy, the Praenotamenta, as well as his own analysis of the preliminary materials to Andria and the opening scene of the play.144 In his introductory letter to his dedicatee, Hervé Bésin, he states that his notes on the plays had been collected over a number of years while he taught in Lyon with the intention of publishing in French, that this work is intended for a uulgo illiterato (‘an unlearned public’), and so lacks any polish or sophistication, and that these preliminary remarks were published by way of a sample, and if they were well received he would publish the whole work,145 although this presumably did not eventuate. Traces of the didactic origin of his commentary can be seen at various points; for instance, Badius uses a French term to gloss personae or ‘masks’ in the statement personae autem sunt faulx visaiges, ‘personae, however, are false faces.’146 Badius had already touched on some themes relevant to Terence’s comedies in his commentary on Horace’s Ars poetica of 1500, dedicated to his former private pupils in Lyon.147 Discussing Horace’s injunction to a would-​be playwright to listen to his advice if he wanted the audience to remain sitting where they were until the cantor had spoken the final words of the play, uos plaudite (‘you people applaud,’ Hor. ars 153–​5), Badius explains cantor, id est principalis actor, ut Calliopius (‘the cantor, that is the first actor, like Calliopius’).148 As well, illustrating his observation that in drama some major actions should occur off-​stage and be narrated to the audience (Hor. ars 180–​7), Badius draws on examples from Eunuchus, where Pythias exacts revenge on the slave Parmeno, terrifying him by falsely narrating a story of how his master’s son Chaerea has been seized inside the house and is about to be castrated in revenge for his rape of a freeborn Athenian girl (Ter. Eu. 941–​70), and Andria, where it is announced by Davus at the end that the marriage will take place inside (An. 980).149 When illustrating the principal differences between comedy and tragedy, Badius provides an extensive quotation of Diomedes’ lengthy note on comedy, tragedy, satyr plays, and mimes (Diom. gramm. 488.3–​492.14 [Keil]),150 that had formed kind in order to feed those summoned to the wedding’ (transcribed from Paris, BnF, lat. 7907, f. 7r). 144 See Chapter 3.3. 145 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a1v. 146 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a7v. Other aspects which appear to derive from a pedagogical approach include the very high number of citations taken from texts such as Vergil’s Aeneid, or else citations of the Bible (see below), which could be expected to be well-​ known to younger readers. 147 Horatius, Ars 1500, f. 1v. 148 Horatius, Ars 1500, f. 22r. 149 Horatius, Ars 1500, f. 23r. 150 Horatius, Ars 1500, ff. 24v-​26r.

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

137

the basis of Guy’s brief history of ancient theatre that prefaced his own edition and was reprinted in the Lyon Terence,151 and which would also provide the basis for Badius’ discussion of this topic in c. 4 of the Praenotamenta.152 With regard to the 1502 Terence as a whole, some elements are absent which might have been expected in a comprehensive analysis of Terence’s plays, such as a discussion of the metres,153 or else the rhetorical language of the gestures which are a major feature of the illustrations. Nevertheless, the Praenotamenta, together with the introduction to Andria, represent an important development in the theorisation of ancient drama during the Renaissance. An analysis of these two closely connected works and their impact on subsequent scholarship is beyond the scope of the present study, but it needs to be recognised also that they build directly on his own earlier studies of Terence, including the Lyon Terence, expressing more fully ideas touched on in the earlier work, or else articulating for the first time aspects of the programme of iconography. In these respects, consideration of the works and their sources can contribute directly to our understanding of the Lyon Terence. The text of Terence which Badius uses is largely based on that of Guy which he printed in the Lyon Terence, with some minor changes drawing on his text from 1491;154 noticeably the text of the didascaliae either follows the 1491 text or incorporates details from it.155 With regard to the preliminary materials, 1 51 Terentius, Comoediae 1492, a3r-​a3v [= 1493, a4r]. 152 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a6r. Diomedes is used in a number of other contexts, such as in the description of Atellan farces in c. 13 (b1r), or the claim that masks were first adopted in Roman comedy because of the ugliness of the actor Roscius in c. 7 (a7v); see Diom. gramm. 490.18–​28, 489.10–​13 [Keil]. 153 A brief discussion of different speaking styles in poetry, prose, and drama, is given in c. 3 of the Praenotamenta (Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a6r), but without any detailed references to the various forms which Terence uses, well-​known to Renaissance scholars through Priscian’s discussion of comic metres. 154 Badius still retains Guy’s reading muliebrem in the text-​block (Terentius, Comoediae 1502, i3r) but expands his additional comment to state ueri textus habent mulierem, ut per emphasim, non muliebrem, ‘correct texts have mulierem, as it were by way of emphasis, not muliebrem’ (i4v). 155 The didascalia for Andria, to which Badius provides his own commentary as part of his preliminary materials, derives from the 1491 version, not Guy’s (Terentius, Comoediae 1502, b4r). For Eunuchus he prints Guy’s text, but notes Donatus’ variants in his own additional commentary (g4v). For Heauton timorumenos, he prints Guy’s text, but as Donatus’ version of this didascalia had given different consuls for the publication of the text, he adds these as an alternative (i.e. edita M. Iunio et T. Sempronio aut A. Nitimo et M. Cornelio coss., ‘published in the consulship of Marcus Iunius and Titus Sempronius or Aulus Nitimus [sic] and Marcus Cornelius’, m1v). There is similar contamination in the didascalia to Adelphoe (p8v), while those for Phormio and Hecyra (v1r, z7v) are almost identical to Badius’ text from 1491.

138 Chapter 4 Classical literary texts from the standard educational curriculum provide one of the foundations of Badius’ exegesis of Terence. Thus he begins the theoretical discussion in the Praenotamenta by citing Plato and Aristotle on the role of the poet, although he mostly uses Latin works, particularly Horace’s poetry, and especially his Ars poetica, as well as Vergil’s Georgics and Aeneid and Cicero’s rhetorical treatises.156 There is also very strong emphasis throughout on Christian texts, including the Vulgate,157 as well as Church fathers such as Augustine and Jerome.158 Otherwise, several of the writers Badius quotes either in the Silvae Morales or his other early publications as modern models for imitation are cited, including Filippo Beroaldo, Battista Spagnoli, Lorenzo Valla, and Alain de Lille.159

156 For Plato, Aristotle, as well as Cicero’s De officiis, see e.g. Badius’ prefatory address Quoniam diutius (Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a2r). The lengthy opening chapter of the Praenotamenta (a2r-​a5v) frequently cites Horace (Hor. serm. 1.4.39–​44; ars 372–​3, 403–​7, 295–​301, 151–​2, 99–​100, 391–​407; carm. 4.8.13–​30), but in it there are also substantial citations of Vergil (Aen. 6.45–​51, 77–​80, 660–​2; georg. 2.475–​7, 1.476) and Cicero ([Pseudo-​ Cicero] Rhet. Her. 1.13 [8]‌; inv. 2 [1]). Other poets cited include Persius (prol. 1–​3; a2v) and, in the discussion of the prologue to Andria, Propertius (3.9.17; c1r). 157 Thus early in his discussion of poetry and divine inspiration in c. 1 Badius adduces learned testimony for various books of the Bible being originally written in verse (Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a2v). There are many further citations of Scripture; for instance in his discussion of the prologue to Andria, Badius cites Prov. 18.19 as the words of Solomon on the nature of adolescence (c1r). 158 For instance, Badius begins his discussion of beauty in literature by citing a passage from a sermon attributed to Augustine which describes the heavens at the time of the Epiphany (Ps. Aug. serm. ed. Caillau 1 app. 17.2; cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a1v), and cites Jerome’s preface to Jeremiah (Hier. praef. Vulg. Ier.) defending the prophet’s simple language (a3v). Later in c. 5 when discussing a legend of St Anthony encountering satyrs in the desert, Badius mentions that actors in Greek drama put on formam et habitum deorum agrestium quos satyros uocant, qualem diuo Anthonio occurrisse dicunt [‘the appearance and clothing of the country divinities that they call satyrs, just like the one they say ran into St Anthony,’ Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a6v]; the reference seems to be to Jerome’s Vita beati Pauli, where St Anthony encountered a satyr in the desert when searching for the hermit Paul (Hier. vita Pauli 8 [Leclerc et  al]). Badius also cites other patristic writers; for instance, the commentary on Cicero’s De inuentione by the Late-​Antique grammarian and Christian convert Marius Victorinus (Mar. Victorin. rhet. 1.2 p. 11 [Riesenweber]; see Terentius, Comoediae 1502, c1r). 159 He describes Beroaldo in c. 1 as uir multo omnium doctissimus (‘the most learned man of all by far’), and quotes him as an authority on various books of the Bible being written in verse (Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a2v). Spagnoli is quoted on several occasions in c. 1 (a2r, a3v, a5r), and is also described as nostra tempestate facile doctissimus when he discusses Augustine (‘easily the most learned man of our days’, a2r). Valla is introduced in some new notes to Eunuchus as an authority on the omission of the exclamatory o (h6v, i1r), while Alain (for whom see Chapter 3.2.3 n. 104) is quoted in the discussion of the prologue to Andria (b8v).

Text and Commentary in Badius’ Three Editions of Terence

139

This great array of sources often has little to do with the comedies per se, and more with a general appreciation of poetry. However, in c. 8 of the Praenotamenta Badius also quotes an extensive chunk from Tortelli’s De orthographia discussing the history of the theatre in the city of Rome, which in turn draws on accounts of theatres in Pliny’s Natural History, a favourite early source for Renaissance theorists.160 Moreover, in his discussion of theatre Badius draws extensively not only on Donatus and Evanthius (whose work on ancient comedy was in any case assumed at this stage to be that of Donatus), but also other ancient technical sources, not only Diomedes but also Vitruvius. Vitruvius’ account of the architecture of ancient theatres (Vitr. 5.3–​8) was another favorite piece for Renaissance scholars.161 In cc. 9 to 11 of the Praenotamenta Badius discusses specific aspects of the staging and costuming of the plays, which will be treated in Chapter 6 of this study with regard to the theatricality of the Lyon Terence. His observation in his 1491 edition that the argumenta found at the beginning of the plays were not the work of Terence is also treated more fully in his analysis of the brief, twelve-​line summary or argumentum to Andria, and his discussion here reveals a surprisingly modern understanding of the theatricality of the plays. Observing that an argumentum should be a brief but thorough précis of the entire work, he continues: quod quidem argumentum creditur a poeta ipso non esse compositum. neque est de integritate comedie, neque recitatur, sicut sequentia omnia, quia non expediret populo euentum rerum aperire. alioquin enim statim aufugeret, uisis quibusdam partibus, nec finem expectaret, sicut nunc quando desiderio finis uidendi et dubii exitus sciendi detinetur. compo­ sita autem huiusmodi argumenta sunt a grammaticis et expositoribus comediarum ut per ea iuuenes seriem totius rei intelligant.162 Indeed, this argumentum is believed not to have been composed by the poet himself. It is neither part of the comedy itself, nor is it recited, like of 160 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a7v-​a8r; cf. Tortelli, De orthographia 1471 [unfoliated] s.v. theatrum. For an overview of the influence of Pliny in this period, see Peter Fane-​Saunders, Pliny the Elder and the Emergence of Renaissance Architecture (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2016), 57–​61, and for discussion of Tortelli and his methodology, 51–​4. 161 For Vitruvius’ description of the various types of theatre sets required by tragedy, comedy, and satyr plays (Vitr. 5.6.9), see c. 9 (Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a8r). For his popularisation by Pellegrino Prisciani and the role of this in the revival of comedy in Ferrara, see Giulia Torello-​Hill, “Gli Spectacula di Pellegrino Prisciani e il revival del teatro classico a Ferrara,” La Rivista di Engramma 85 (2010): 4–​10 and Giulia Torello-Hill, “The Exegesis of Vitruvius and the Creation of Theatrical Spaces in Renaissance Ferrara,” Renaissance Studies 29, no. 2 (2015): 227–46. 162 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, b5v.

140 Chapter 4 all the following ‹text is›, since it would not have been of advantage to reveal the outcome of matters to the people. For otherwise they would have departed in haste at once, once certain plot-​elements had been revealed, nor would they have awaited the ending, just as ‹they do› now whenever they are detained by the desire of seeing the ending and of learning the outcomes which were in doubt. Argumenta of this kind, however, were written by grammarians and commentators of the comedies so that by them young men might understand the succession of events in entirety. Badius, who in his own commentary never departs from his perception of himself as an educator, proceeds to provide his own very detailed summary of the plot of the play for these young readers, only omitting to narrate what happens at the end of the play.163 Nevertheless, this idea of comedy as something performed in real time before the eyes of an audience, holding them in suspense as to the eventual outcome, builds directly on his observations in the Lyon Terence that the actors are not conscious of their environment on stage, but are normal people ‘going about their own business.’ As such, it is a major advance on the Medieval concept of the theatre, illustrated in the iconography of some manuscripts,164 where the poet sits in a prominent position and reads the entire play himself, while the characters themselves are reduced to mimes. 1 63 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, b5v-​b6v. 164 E.g. Tours, BM, MS 924, f. 13v; Paris, BnF, lat. 7907A, f. 2v; see Chapter 2.2 and Figure 2.2.

­c hapter 5

The Illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition 5.1

Badius’ Appropriation of the Carolingian Tradition

The Lyon Terence is illustrated with 161 woodcuts; of these two are full page illustrations that represent Terence or Guy Jouenneaux at work in his library and an ancient theatre building (Figures 1.1 and 1.2), while 159 half-​page illustrations of scenes are interspersed in the book. The scene backdrop that unmistakably represents a stage is equipped with contiguous curtained doors that are surmounted by historiated lunettes and separated by decorated columns. The iconography is consistent throughout the six plays, although the configuration of the stage differs. In Andria and Eunuchus the backdrop runs parallel with the stage, whereas in Heauton timorumenos, Adelphoe and Phormio it maintains the half-​hexagonal shape of the theatre building. Finally, in Hecyra the backdrop is square-​shaped with the houses of Phidippus and Laches parallel to the stage and those of Bacchis and Syra on an angle at the right hand side of the stage. In a number of woodcuts, the curtains are partly drawn to reveal the interior of one of the signposted houses and, in the case of Andria, Philumena lying on a bed.1 Most woodcuts are used only to represent a single scene. However, Heauton timorumenos v.i is illustrated by the same woodcut designed originally for v.ii, and v.v repeats the woodcut already used for the previous scene. The start and end of each play is demarcated by a single woodcut representing the Prologue and Epilogue respectively. Each play has a unique character that represents the Prologue/​Epilogue and only the Prologue character of Eunuchus reuses the woodcut of Andria’s Prologue/​Epilogue; in this case the repetition is likely to be due to a typesetting error. Characters are also always identified through a floating label, in keeping with the Carolingian tradition, except for four silent characters that are not labelled. Unlike in Carolingian manuscripts, where characters are often mis-​labelled as name tags were not the work of the illustrator but were added by a rubricator at a later stage, in the Lyon Terence characters are accurately named.2 The only case of mis-​labelling occurs at Andria i.iv in which Misis is named ‘Les(bia).’3 1 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, d4r. 2 Nancy E. Carrick, “The Lyons Terence Woodcuts” (PhD diss., University of Arizona, 1980), 67. 3 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, b8v. See Carrick, “The Lyons Terence,” 64.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/978

142 Chapter 5 The iconographic plan of the Lyon Terence shows both continuity and innovation with the illustrative tradition of Terence. While often the early extant Carolingian manuscripts depict the characters alone, in some instances there are attempts at drawing a rudimentary backdrop. For instance in P, whenever the artist needs to differentiate the onstage from the offstage, this separation is represented by a door frame. Fifteenth-​century manuscripts usually present a more elaborate background that include multi-​tiered buildings equipped with doors and windows, although they resemble simpler urban or domestic settings and there is nothing to suggest that they represent a theatrical stage. In keeping with the Carolingian witnesses, the Lyon Terence incorporates in the illustrations elements that are not supported by the text, but that have become an integral part of the illustrative tradition of Terence. This happens in the opening scene of Andria (see Figure 4.1), in which slaves are depicted carrying branches that appear along with other paraphernalia in Carolingian manuscripts.4 In scenes v.i and v.ii of Heauton timorumenos, whose illustration differs quite significantly in the Vatican witness (C) and the Parisian (P) and Milanese (F), the Lyon Terence follows the tradition of PF in presenting all four characters in v.i, although according to the text, the other two speakers only enter the stage in the following scene.5 The illustration to scene v.i of the Lyon Terence not only includes the four characters, but also repurposes the same woodcut to illustrate scene v.ii. While there are no ways to tell whether or not this repetition was deliberate, it is worth noting that the repurposing of woodcuts to illustrate multiple scenes within a play and also across different plays will become common practice in sixteenth century editions of Terence.6 Even the distinctive feature of the Lyon Terence of depicting different sequences of the same scene in one woodcut can be traced back to the illustrative tradition of Terence. Examples can be found already in C in the illustrations to Hecyra iii.iv and v.iv, but it becomes a more prominent phenomenon with early fifteenth century manuscripts such as Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 664 (‘Térence des ducs’).7 In the Lyon Terence this technique of illustrating two sequences of a scene in the same woodcut is utilised for the large majority of illustrations. It creates a dynamicity that transcends the mono-​dimensional nature of the page while prompting the audience to understand the sequentiality of the plot of each play.8 4 See Chapter 2.2. 5 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, u1r and u5r; the manuscript evidence is discussed in Chapter 2.2. 6 See Chapter 7. 7 See Chapter 2.2. 8 As discussed in Chapter 6.

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

143

An iconographic innovation of the Lyon Terence is the introduction of illustrations at the start and the end of each play, which function as a Prologue and Epilogue respectively. In the Carolingian tradition only the Prologue character is depicted, and only sporadically. Both illustrations in the Lyon Terence depict a monologue spoken by a character who is labelled as ‘Calliopius’, an unidentified Late-​Antique scholar whose name appears on the rubric of early illustrated manuscripts of the Γ-​tradition.9 As discussed in Chapter 2, the name Calliopius appears on a rubric on the title page in C and P in the phrase Calliopio feliciter and at the end of the plays in C, P, and Y he is mentioned again in the phrase Calliopius recensui. The mention of Calliopius at the start and the end of each play could explain why Calliopius becomes the embodiment of the Prologue and Epilogue in the Lyon Terence. Guy explained the presence of Calliopius at the start of each play by the fact that he was identified as the defensor poetae who had the function of defending Terence from his detractors.10 That the Prologue was a character in its own right at the time of Terence is evidenced by the opening line of the second prologue of Hecyra when the first character to enter the stage announces he is coming in front of the audience ‘in the guise of a prologue’ (ornatus prologi).11 There is no iconographical evidence from Classical or Late Antiquity to give us any clues on what the Prologue would have looked like, with the exception of the prologue to Heauton timorumenos (1–​2) in which the Prologue character is said to be a young man (adu­lescens). The appearance of the Prologue character in the Lyon Terence changes drastically from play to play. In Adelphoe and in Phormio he is an adu­ lescens, who is depicted with laurel-​crowned long hair, but he appears as an adult male in Andria and Eunuchus. It is most likely by a mistake of the compositor that the Prologue of Eunuchus is identical to that of Andria since a different character appears in the epilogue. The Prologue of Hecyra is also an adult man, who is wrapped in a short cloak that conceals his arms. Lastly, the Prologue of Heauton timorumenos is a senex whose apparel, a cloak with a short mantel, gives him a rustic appearance, perhaps in reference to the countryside 9 10 11

See Chapters 2.1 and 4.2.1. See Chapter 4.2.1. For a detailed study of the function of the Prologue in Antiquity and Early Modern Italian theatre see Gianni Guastella, “Ornatu prologi:  Terence’s Prologues on the Stage/​on the Page,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing: Illustration, Commentary and Performance, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 200–​18. We have followed Guastella in the capitalisation of Prologue and Epilogue when they refer to the characters rather than the parts of a play.

144 Chapter 5 setting of the play. Prologue characters hold a scroll to symbolise their function as announcers, although in Hecyra the scroll is not visible, presumably being concealed under the cloak and the Epilogue of Eunuchus seems to be holding a partially visible book.12 5.2

Gestures in Medieval and Early Modern Culture

The continuity of the illustrative tradition of Terence from the Carolingian period into the printing era is particularly noticeable in the representation of gestures. Gestures are a fundamental aspect of theatre practice. Despite this, theatrical gestures were not formally identified and codified until well into the seventeenth century. This informational vacuum has impaired the few scholarly publications that have attempted to draw attention to non-​verbal communication in Early Modern drama.13 The Lyon Terence represents a rather peculiar case that cannot be assimilated to any other Early Modern dramatic text. On the one hand, the woodcut illustrations exhibit compelling similarities to the miniatures of Terence’s Carolingian manuscripts. On the other hand, this edition was illustrated by an anonymous Lyonnais artist, who was conversant with the artistic trends of the Franco-​Flemish tradition. Since most artists at the time worked both as miniaturists and painters or assistants to painters, their practice would have been informed by contemporary artistic conventions. Before exploring these aspects, some general considerations about gestures at large and theatrical gestures in particular are essential to a methodological approach to gestures in the Lyon Terence. Scholarship on the development and features of gestures in Western Europe has established a continuum from Classical Antiquity to modern time.14 In particular, in the Middle Ages hand gestures acquired a particular importance as they began to be charged with symbolism. The low level of literacy of a large part of the population made

12 13 14

The Prologues and Epilogues in the Lyon Terence occur at Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a6v and g6v (Andria); o6v (Eunuchus); o7v and x3v (Heauton timorumenos); x4v and D5r (Adelphoe); D6r and L3r (Phormio); L4v and Q4r (Hecyra). See, for instance, Robert G. Benson, Medieval Body Language: A Study of the Use of Gesture in Chaucer’s Poetry (Copenhagen:  Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1980)  and John A.  Burrow, Gestures and Looks in Medieval Narrative (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). See Michael Argyle, Bodily Communication (London: Routledge, 1975); Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg, eds. Gestures in History: A Cultural History of Gestures from Antiquity to the Present (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991).

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

145

gestures a very effective vehicle of communication. Gestures became fundamental in religious activities and legal transactions.15 This common code of gestures developed in monasteries where the vote of silence imposed the necessity of non-​verbal communication, but also spread as accompaniment to religious preaching.16 The development of sacred drama determined the rapid consolidation and spreading of gestural language by touring theatre troupes. The ubiquitous presence of gestures in Medieval theatre practice stemmed from economic necessity. Limited opportunities of making a living in their towns or even their own countries forced Medieval performers to increasing mobility. Touring across Europe, they had to overcome language barriers and rely on a common language of gestures.17 Early Christian teaching attributed a negative value to gestures that were against the decorum expected of humankind. Measured gestures started being perceived as a reflection of morality, and in the Renaissance there was a proliferation of tracts that aimed to teach the nobility the rules of good deportment. Inevitably, gestures played a major role in these didactic tracts and their models of morality that youth should adhere to, and had an impact on iconography, both in painting, in particular in portraiture, and in manuscript illustration. As discussed above, in the Middle Ages and in the early Renaissance the language of gestures, whether on or off stage, was not formally prescribed. Theoretical treatises on gestures emerged from the early seventeenth century onwards in different parts of Europe and with different purposes. In Italy Giovanni Bonifacio published his L’arte de’ Cenni in 1616, while in 1620 Juan Pablo Bonet published a hand-​gesture alphabet for the deaf. A few years later John Bulwer published his highly influential Chirologia and Chironomia (1644). Although these tracts postdate the Lyon Terence by over a century, they are likely to be repositories of common knowledge which had since been lost. In particular, it is worth noting that Giovanni Bonifacio illustrates his L’arte de’ Cenni with a very large number of examples that come from a vast array of Classical authors, including Ovid, Vergil and Cicero, but also with references that come from Italian literary texts that were widely published across Europe, such as Dante’s Divine Comedy, Petrarch’s Canzoniere, and Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso. Lastly, before looking closely at gestures in the Lyon Terence, it is worth remembering the inherent theatricality that accompanies any public interaction 15

Jean-​Claude Schmitt, La raison des gestes dans l’Occident médiéval (Paris:  Éditions Gallimard, 2010), 60. 16 Schmitt, La raison des gestes, 68. 17 Nicholas Dromgoole, Performance Style and Gesture in Western Theatre (London: Oberon Books, 2007), 74–​5.

146 Chapter 5 in Renaissance Europe. Theatrical apparatuses and performances of different sorts often accompanied official occasions, such as dynastic marriages or diplomatic visits. Moreover, codified gestures were used to negotiate international relations, a fact that on one hand emphasises the blurring between theatrical and non-​theatrical gestures while on the other hand is a testament to the transnational nature of gestural language.18 5.3

Carolingian Gestures

A systematic analysis of the representation of gestures in the Lyon Terence must start from a survey of the Carolingian gestures reproduced by its illustrator. Such gestures feature in a cycle of illuminated manuscripts of Terence that includes thirteen witnesses dated between the mid-​ninth century and the twelfth century which form part of the so-​called Γ-​tradition. It is believed that all these manuscripts derived from the same archetype, which has been dated to the fifth century ce.19 The similarity of the theatrical gestures depicted in these witnesses is compelling and has led scholars to posit the existence of a codified set of gestures that were consistently used on stage.20 Their intrinsic theatricality is beyond question and is proved by the commentary that accompanies the plays of Terence which was compiled by Donatus in the fifth century. Recent studies have suggested that Donatus’s remarks on specific gestures could not possibly reflect second-​century bc staging practice, but reflect performances of other dramatic genres, especially pantomimes, that would have been staged in his own time.21 The taxonomy of gestures proposed in this chapter builds upon Dorota Dutsch’s studies of the gestures depicted in the Parisian manuscript BnF, lat. 7899, known as P, and their interrelation with rhetorical gestures, as described by the Roman educator Quintilian based on Cicero and Donatus’ commentary on the plays of Terence. In the eleventh book of his Institutio Oratoria 18

Ellen R. Welch, A Theater of Diplomacy: International Relations and the Performing Arts in Early Modern France (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017). 19 See Chapter 2.1. 20 Dorota Dutsch, “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence and Late Revivals of Literary Drama” Gesture 7 (2007): 39–​71; Dorota Dutsch. “Towards a Roman Theory of Theatrical Gesture,” in Performance in Greek and Roman Theatre, ed. George W.M. Harrison and Vayos Liapis (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 409–​31. 21 See Chrysanthi Demetriou, “Donatus’ Commentary:  The Reception of Terence’s Performance,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 181–​99, with extensive bibliography.

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

147

Quintilian provides a vademecum of deportment for the good orator. Quintilian divides natural gestures into deictic gestures, that are produced by pointing towards an object of reference, nominal gestures that describe emotional states, quantity and time, and performative gestures that convey actions.22 Quintilian discusses mainly rhetorical gestures, although in his work there are occasional references to theatrical gestures. These references are usually introduced to warn future public speakers about the dangers of imitating theatrical gestures and to insist on the importance of a moderate and tasteful use of bodily language. Mimetic gestures, in particular, are among those to be avoided in oratory at all times. An analytical categorisation of gestures inevitably has its flaws, as gestures are often polysemic:  the same gesture can carry different meanings, which are often dictated by the context. On the other hand, and particularly when it comes to symbolic gestures, an emotion can be expressed through more than one gesture.23 When looking at theatrical gestures, the text often provides exegetic clues since on the Classical Roman stage actors were prompted to engage in specific gestures by recurring words.24 It should also be noted that Dutsch’s catalogue is limited to gestures that are represented in Andria alone and fails to include other gestures that appear in the other five Terentian plays or examine gestures in any Carolingian manuscript other than P. As a result, some gestures that recur frequently throughout the manuscript but are not depicted in Andria do not receive any consideration, neither do variations of gestures listed in her catalogue. A case in point is the gesture of dismay which entails ‘stretching out both arms, while his hands, palms open, are turned towards the left.’25 There is a variant of this gesture in which a character stretches out the right lowered arm. This gesture occurs several times in P and partly, although not entirely, corresponds to gestures of dismay in the Lyon Terence.26 Despite these limitations, Dutsch’s categorisation remains the most systematic classification of Carolingian gestures to date and, as such, an essential point of reference for this comparative analysis of gestures in the Lyon Terence.

22 23 24 25 26

See Dutsch, “Towards a Roman Theory of Theatrical Gesture,” 414. Dutsch, “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence,” 46 and 48. Dutsch, “Towards a Roman Theory of Theatrical Gesture,” 424–​5. Dutsch, “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence,” 66. For example, Pythias at Eunuchus iv.iv (P, f. 53v; cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1493, l6v), Syrus in Heauton timorumenos ii.iv (P f. 77r; q8v) and iv.i (P f. 82v; s2v). It should be noted that in the Lyon Terence the palm of the outstretched arm faces upwards whereas in P it faces downwards.

148 Chapter 5 Dutsch’s categorisation of Carolingian gestures include: support, subservience (gestus servilis), statement and interpellation, pleading, accusation, compliance, protest, fulfilling a request, supplication, dismay, utter despair, pondering, bafflement, astonishment, resignation, remorse and irritation.27 Ten out of these sixteen Carolingian gestures can be identified in the woodcut illustrations of the Lyon Terence.28 Performative gestures seem to be particularly conspicuous and occurrences of the gestures of statement and interpellation (see Figure  5.1),29 pleading (Figure  5.2), affirmation and insistence (Figure  5.3) and protest and disagreement are frequent.30 The Carolingian Gesture of dismay represented by both arms bent at elbow and outstretched, turned to the left with facing palms, is rarely reproduced in the Lyon Terence, which seems to privilege a different gesture. Deictic gestures also occur frequently. This is hardly surprising given that they are the first form of non-​verbal communication adopted by humankind. Among the nominal gestures—​those that express emotions—​only the gesture of resignation which combines the bowing of one’s head and the casting down of the eyes while lowering the arms, is represented.31 Arguably the display of emotional states is more subject to variation over time and across cultures, as it often mirrors a comportment that is socially acceptable. Carolingian mimetic gestures that are represented in the Lyon Terence are those of support and subservience or gestus servilis. The gestus servilis (see Davus in Figure 5.4) is characterised by raised shoulders and shortened neck and it is described by Quintilian (11.3.83) as a base and servile pose and charged with moral connotations.32 The hunched position of the servus transferred to a character in Renaissance attire, without the characteristic padding and mask of Roman theatre, looks prima facie rather awkward and unnatural. But it can be explained by the symbolic association between the physical deformity of the ‘hunchback’ and the characteristic cunningness and dishonesty that is still noted in the Arte de’ cenni (44.6).

27 See the catalogue of gestures in Dutsch, “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence,” 62–​71. 28 A full catalogue of gestures in the Lyon Terence is appended at the end of this chapter. 29 Bonifacio, Arte de’ cenni 1616, 28.23 (‘Spiegare l’indice e il medio e restringer l’altre dita’); Bulwer, Chirologia 1644, 47 (gesture 16, Silentium postulo). 30 As described in Bulwer, Chirologia 56 (gesture 22, dimitto). 31 Bonifacio, Arte de’ cenni 1616, 43. 3 explains that bowing one’s neck (‘Cervice piegata’) is a sign of unhappinness 27.10, while to explain the lowering down of the hands (‘Mani abbassate’) he quotes a passage from Plautus’ Epidicus. 32 Dutsch, “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence,” 62; Demetriou, “Donatus’ Commentary,” 185.

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

5.4

149

Non-​Carolingian Gestures

5.4.1 Manly Gestures While many gestures reproduced in the woodblocks replicate the gestures of Terence’s illustrative tradition, some gestures depart from the Carolingian tradition to reflect contemporary customs. These non-​Carolingian gestures are marked by gender and social status. Male characters of high social standing are often portrayed in a ‘gesture of boldness or control,’ to put it in the words of Joaneath Spicer who has investigated the insurgence and the diffusion of this gesture in Western portraiture of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. In this gesture one arm often rests along the body or on a stick, while the other is akimbo, i.e. rests on a hip with the elbow bowed outward and the body weight rests on one leg ‘in a hip-​shot pose.’33 In some instances the hand is partly or totally concealed by the cloak while in others has the flat palm facing away from body. This was originally a military posture that evolved into an assertive and authoritative gesture associated with social status. Whether explicitly or implicitly associated with military contexts, this gesture conveys manly connotations:  the legs are spread out to signify strength and authority and the holding of a stick is a reference to a heightened social status.34 The widespread popularity of the gesture of boldness and control is attested by its consistent inclusion in sixteenth and seventeenth-​century treatises on comportment, such as Erasmus’ Handbook of Good Manners for Children (1532) and Giovanni della Casa’s Galateo (1558). These treatises are unanimous in condemning this gesture for lacking modesty and composure. Similarly, the treatises on gestures by Bonifacio and Bulwer view the postures of the arm akimbo and the act of concealing one’s hands under a cloak as a sign of laziness and affectation.35 In the woodcuts the gesture of boldness or control is typical of free-​born young male characters. Often such characters engage in this gesture while interacting with characters of lower status, namely slaves, as in the case of Carinus in conversation with Byrria at Andria ii.ii, or as in the exchange between

33

See Joaneath Spicer, “The Renaissance Elbow,” in Gestures in History: A Cultural History of Gesture, ed. Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburgh (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991), 86 who also records the first examples of artistic representation of this gesture in fifteenth-​ century Florentine sculptures of the triumph of David over Goliath. 34 Bonifacio, Arte de’ cenni 1616, 39.27 (‘Star ritto con le gambe larghe’) and 27.78 (‘Bastone in mano’). 35 Spicer, “The  Renaissance Elbow,” 95. See Adam Kendon, Gesture:  Visible Action as Utterance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 23–​8.

150 Chapter 5 Simo and the slave Mysis and the midwife Lesbia at Andria iii.i.36 High status older characters (senes) also engage in the gesture of boldness or control; however, it should be noted that older characters’ gestures present variations. First of all, the arm akimbo is typically concealed under the cloak, covering at times even the character’s hand. Secondly, the other arm is often folded with the thumb hooked through the belt. These variations convey the social and familial authoritative status without the ostentation of the gesture of younger characters. Only in two instances this gesture is associated with a character of lower status. In both cases it is Davus, the scheming slave of Andria, who is depicted twice engaged in a gestus servilis in combination with the gesture of boldness and control. This apparent contradiction can be resolved when one turns to the text. In scene ii.iii Davus dispenses advice to Pamphilus; he assertively urges Pamphilus to agree to marry Philumena in compliance with his father’s wishes.37 Scene iii.v starts with Pamphilus’ threat to punish the slave as he is now forced to marry Philumena. Davus who overhears Pamphilus’ words realises that to escape, or at least postpone, punishment, he must resort to his oratorical skills. This time he adopts a far more condescending attitude, but nevertheless states that he can see a way through.38 5.4.2 Female Gestures The iconographic record of gestures in Carolingian manuscripts indicates that gestures are not gendered-​marked. Both male and female characters engage in the same gestures with the only exception of the gestus servilis that is unique to male slaves. Conversely the 161 woodblocks that illustrate the Lyon Terence reveal, even at the first glance, a gender imbalance. Female characters are often depicted in symbolic gestures that convey their emotional state and makes them passive participants of the actions carried out by their male counterparts. In the illustrations of the Lyon Terence there are just fourteen cases of female characters taking a more active role in the action through gestures, which account for less than 10% of the total number of woodblocks. Unsurprisingly, these instances occur predominantly in the two Terentian plays that have a female character in a leading role, namely Thais in Eunuchus and Bacchis in Hecyra, which share between them ten of the total instances. This transgression into gestures that are typical of male characters can be explained 36 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, c6r and d4r. 37 Note how Davus resorts here frequently to imperatives: ‘agree to marry’ (dic te ducturum, An. 383), ‘don’t refuse’ (ne nega, 384), ‘consider the advantages’ (ex ea re quid fiat vide, 385). 38 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, c8r and e3r.

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

151

with the fact that these characters are both courtesans and as such not bound by social norms. In most woodcuts, women appear in a static pose in the act of concealing one or both hands in their dress cuffs; this gesture (or lack of) will be referred to throughout this study as gesture of demureness (see Figure 5.5).39 Portraiture in fifteenth-​century Flanders often features women (and less frequently men) soberly attired and in the act of concealing their hands under an open book or by placing one hand on top of the other, in ‘a pose that suggests aloof refinement and innate nobility.’40 The inclusion of the hands in portraiture is a Netherlandish feature that will rapidly spread across Europe.41 Women portrayed in the gesture of demureness feature frequently in late fifteenth-century historical chronicles, Classical or Medieval works that are written in manuscript or in print in vernacular French or Flemish. The sample of manuscripts surveyed among the holdings of the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the British Library range in date between 1475, the date of Cité des Dames of Christine de Pizan, translated into Flemish (London, BL, Add. 20698), and the late 1490s with an edition of the Roman de la Rose (BL, Harley 4425), whose illustrations have been attributed to the Master of the Prayer Book. The works that feature prominently, besides the ever popular Roman de la Rose, are romanced historical works, such as Le Trésor des Histoires. Among the Classical texts translated in French feature La vie de Alexandre le grant, a translation into French of Curtius Rufus’ Life of Alexander, and Ovid’s Metamorphoses. The mundane nature of these texts suggests that they were produced with the purpose of entertaining, but also with the intention of educating the young. Classical works, chivalric poems and historical novels would have been considered to have a particular appeal to a young female readership. Thus the miniatures or woodcuts that illustrated these works ought to remind the young 39

Examples in the Lyon Terence can be found in the Appendix to this chapter. For an insightful analysis of the use of stillness to convey female constancy in Shakespeare’s Winter’s Tale see Miranda F. Thomas, “Stillness: Female Constancy in the Winter’s Tale,” in Miranda F. Thomas, Shakespeare’s Body Language: Shaming Gestures and Gender Politics on the Renaissance Stage (London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2020), 187–​98. 40 Keith Christiansen and Stefan Weppelmann, eds., The Renaissance Portrait:  From Donatello to Bellini (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011), 134 in reference to Hans Memling’s Portrait of a Young Man (ca. 1472–​75). 41 Christiansen and Weppelmann, The Renaissance Portrait, 96 note how Filippo Lippi’s depiction of the hands in his Portrait of a Woman and a Man in a Casement (ca. 1440–​4) is an innovation in Italian art that has been linked to ‘his awareness of Netherlandish practice.’ For an overview of Netherlandish art see Jeffrey C. Smith, The Northern Renaissance (London: Phaidon, 2004).

152 Chapter 5 female nobility about the importance of chastity and demure deportment. In the third quarter of the fifteenth century, the patronage of the Valois dukes of Burgundy had an impact on the development of Flemish miniatures. This resulted in an increase in the production and a growing demand for lavishly illustrated vernacular texts, which extended well beyond the borders of the Low Countries.42 The common features that characterise these miniatures, particularly in the representation of set scenes and gestures, are not simply a reflection of societal norms, but can also be explained by the family and guild ties among the illuminators and the painters. As Kren and Ainsworth demonstrated, many limners were trained by family members who were painters and vice versa. More importantly, mutual exchange among artists of different specialisation was facilitated by their working side by side to produce ephemeral works which celebrated weddings, triumphal entries, and other official occasions sponsored by the Burgundian court.43 5.4.3 Affective Gestures The gestures that depart from the Carolingian tradition are mostly symbolic gestures that pertain to the sphere of emotions (affective gestures). This is hardly surprising given that conveying emotions or responding to them are actions deeply rooted in social and cultural norms. A typical example is the gesture of supplication. In the Carolingian tradition a supplicating character, typically a male slave pleading with his master, stretches out both lowered arms. In the Lyon Terence characters supplicate by joining their palms adopting the gesture of Christian prayer.44 Characters performing this gesture are either young males or female characters and only in one instance a male slave. Dorus, the male slave at Eunuchus iv.iv who is wrongly held responsible for the rape of Pamphila, pleads his case by joining the palms but also by genuflecting.45 42

Scot McKendrick, “Reviving the Past: Illustrated Manuscripts of Secular Vernacular Texts, 1467–​1500,” in Illuminating the Renaissance: The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe, ed. Thomas Kren and Scot McKendrick (Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 64–​5. 43 Thomas Kren and Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Illuminators and Painters: Artistic Exchanges and Interrelationships,” in Illuminating the Renaissance:  The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe, ed. Thomas Kren and Scot McKendrick (Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 36–​7. 44 See, for instance, Archylis (Andria i.iv) or Pamphilus (Andria i.v). The gesture is described in Bonifacio, Arte de’ cenni 1616, 27.3:  Mani giunte dinanzi al petto. See also Bulwer, Chirologia 41 (gesture 13). 45 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, l6v.

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

153

The gesture of utter despair is exemplified in Carolingian manuscripts with the wide spreading of one’s hands to the sides. Dutsch argues that this is a universal gesture in Western culture. It should be noted at any rate that this popular gesture in modern societies is one that describes a state of perplexity over the course of action one should take and in contemporary societies can hardly be reconciled with a state of grief. In the ancient Roman world, a public display of grief was considered dishonourable for men, and only female funeral lamentation was barely tolerated. It is for this reason that from the Republican age it became common practice to hire professional female mourners (praeficae). Funerary iconography, such as the relief of Amiternum and the Mausoleum of Haterii depicts the praeficae in the act of tearing their faces or striking their chests. Male mourners, on the other hand, express their grief in contemplative poses, including the resting of one’s chin over spread thumb and forefinger that closely resemble the pondering gesture of Carolingian tradition.46 Pensive and self-​reflective expressions of grief, including the covering of one’s face can be found across time in Western culture. Unlike imitative postures, affective gestures are often represented by more than a single gesture to illustrate a different degree of intensity. Gestures that symbolise grief and desperation are more likely to present geographical variation as they are deeply rooted in social norms and cultural practices. In the Lyon Terence, characters express utter despair by clapping their hands above their heads. The gesture closely resembles displays of grief in the iconography of early Renaissance Flemish painting. That iconography would influence the representation of human grief in other art media is hardly surprising, also considering the fact that in fifteenth-​century Flanders many miniaturists also collaborated in the painting of large altarpieces.47 To give just one example, the clapping of hands above one’s head to express grief appears in the late sixteenth-century painting of the Massacre of the Innocents by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c. 1525–​1569). The gesture of Flemish painting is certainly comparable with that exhibited by Terentian characters in the Lyon Terence. It should be noted, however, that in Flemish religious painting the utter despair gesture is gendered-​marked, as it is exhibited by female characters only. In the Lyon Terence, both female and male characters are depicted in this gesture, although male characters that are unable to restrain their emotions are only adulescentes, such as Chaerea in Eunuch ii.iii.48 46

On Roman mourning gestures see Anthony Corbeill, Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 77–​84. 47 Kren and Ainsworth, “Illuminators and Painters,” 44, here particularly in reference to painter-​limner Hieronymus Bosch, and 47. 48 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, i4r.

154 Chapter 5 5.5

Characterisation through Costuming

The influence of the cultural milieu in which the Lyon Terence was produced is particularly evident in the costuming of the characters depicted in the woodcuts. These costumes meticulously document the Flemish fashion style of the late 1480s and early 1490s. In Medieval and Early Modern times there was the expectation that dress reflected one’s social standing. Deviating from the prescribed dress code was viewed as a lack of morality.49 Artists exploited this dress code, confirming to it or transgressing it to depict a character’s social standing, moral characterisation and, at times, their provenance.50 The costuming of the characters in the Lyon Terence reflects the new fashion trends that revolutionised both male and female fashion in the late 1480s. The most noticeable change in the trends in women’s fashion is the abandonment of the turret bonnet that had been typical of the Medieval Franco-​Flemish tradition, while men started wearing long loose gowns, round-​toed shoes and a round hat known as carmignolle.51 In the Lyon Terence older freeborn characters, such as Simo in Andria, typically wear a loose and long outer garment with bombard sleeves (houppelande).52 Contemporary iconography seems to indicate that this type of gown is more formal and thus fitting for the austere and socially established senex of Classical comedy.53 The most common headgear for older character is the carmignolle, which became increasingly fashionable in the 1480s. However, the two characters that are named Chremes in Andria and Heauton timorumenos respectively wear a more traditional draped chaperon,54 the popularity of which was in decline at the end of the fifteenth century.55 This headgear may have been chosen to reflect the conservative demeanour in keeping with their 49

Anne H.  van Buren, Illuminating Fashion:  Dress in the Art of Medieval France and the Netherlands, 1325–​1515 (New York: The Morgan Library and Museum, 2011), 1. 50 Jean-​Pierre Bordier, “Le Moyen Âge: la fête et la foi,” in Le théâtre en France ed. Alain Viala (Paris:  Presses universitaires de France, 2016), 87 remarks how costume-​disguise functioning as a ruse to transgress one’s low social standing is a common theme exploited by contemporary farce. 51 Van Buren, Illuminating Fashion, 298. 52 Cf. Andria i.ii (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, b5r). For the garment, van Buren, Illuminating Fashion, 307–​8. 53 For instance, it is depicted in a manuscript illustration of Theseus slaying the Minotaur (Ovid, Heroides, after 1492, private collection [f. 13]; see van Buren, Illuminating Fashion 252, 255). 54 Cf. Andria iii.iii (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, d7v), Heauton timorumenos i.i (p1v). 55 Hilda Amphlett, Hats: A History of Fashion in Headwear (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003), 65–​6.

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

155

characterisation. By contrast, Menedemus in Heauton timorumenos does not wear any headdress at all, and his hair and beard are long and ungroomed.56 Young freeborn characters sometimes wear the houppelande, the foot-​ length gown, just as older characters do, but more often sport a shorter gown, known as sayon, worn with a fitted waist and a gored skirt and lower stocks.57 The sayon is the garment of nobility; for instance it is worn by the king and his courtiers in the frontispiece of the hunting treatise by Guillaume Tardif, L’art de fauconnerie et des chiens de chasse, which was published by Vérard in 1492.58 In some cases, young characters wear slippers with an open back (demy pantouffles) as Pamphilus does at Andria v.iii.59 A typical accessory of the noble youth is a wide-​brimmed hat adorned with feathers. An excessive use of feathers to adorn hats is a sign of ostentation, as in the case of the opulent apparel of the soldier Thraso in the Eunuchus.60 Far more sombre is the apparel of slaves who usually wear a shorter tunic and high boots; their head is often covered by a simple coif, which at times is held on by a ribbon passing under the chin, like the one worn by the slave Byrria at Andria ii.v.61 Exceptions to this customary headgear, are the hats of the slaves Geta in Phormio, Simalio, who is a silent character at Eunuchus iv.vii, and Syrus in Adelphoe. In the Lyon Terence, Simalio wears a tight short gown and a turban decorated with feathers to signify his foreignness.62 Geta, who plays a catalyst role in the Phormio, wears a bycocket, a hat with a large brim that is folded at the back and pointed at the front to resemble a bird’s beak.63 Lastly, the slaves Parmeno in Eunuchus and Syrus in Heauton timorumenos are the only characters in the woodcut illustrations to wear upper stockings known as boulevars with a prominent codpiece.64 Boulevars became particularly fashionable in Paris in the late 1480s, but they must have met with criticism in more conservative parts of France and the Low Countries for being too revealing. By way of example, wearing

56 Cf. Heauton timorumenos i.i (p1v). 57 Van Buren, Illuminating Fashion, 316. 58 gw m44753; istc it00015900 (printed on vellum as Paris, BnF, Vélin 1023, f. a2r). See van Buren, Illuminating Fashion, 252. 59 Van Buren, Illuminating Fashion, 312. See Terentius, Comoediae 1493, g1r. 60 See the illustration of Eunuchus iii.i (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, k1r). 61 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, d2r. 62 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, m4v. The turban is used to signify alterity also in the illustrations of Vergil’s Aeneid edited by Sebastian Brant and published by Grüninger in 1502, as noted by Carrick, “The Lyons Terence,” 8. 63 Van Buren, Illuminating Fashion, 297. See Terentius, Comoediae 1493, E7v (Phormio i.iv). 64 Van Buren, Illuminating Fashion, 317 s.v. stocks. Cf. Eunuchus i.i, Heauton timorumenos ii.iii (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, h2r, q3r).

156 Chapter 5 red-​patterned boulevars in the illuminated copy of Jacques de Cessoles’ Jeu des échecs moralisés, is one of the rowdies of Babylon.65 The association of this garment with a character of low morality is no doubt quite deliberate. To complete this overview of male apparel in the woodcuts, the case of Gnatho, the parasite of Eunuchus, should be mentioned briefly. He is clad in a doublet, a hip-​long tight jacket that entered the Western European fashion at the end of the fourteenth century and remained quite popular until well into the seventeenth century. Like many other doublets represented in fifteenth-century iconography, the one worn by Gnatho is complete with a skirt to which hose were directly tied up.66 This garment was common among men of all social standing, but the doublets of nobility were usually made of luxury fabrics, such as silk and velvet, and some of them had padded upper sleeves.67 From the fifteenth century, most doublets presented a low standing collar, just like that worn by Gnatho. Usually doublets were worn under an upper garment, a gown or houppelande.68 The departure from this common custom may be an indication of Gnatho’s poverty and his inability to afford an outer garment. Female characters generally wear a simple smooth gown with a square or trapezoidal neck. Women’s social standing in the woodcuts is signalled by the type of headdress they wear. Female slaves wear snoods. In the woodcuts the Netherlandish hood (hovercleet) that is frequently represented in Flemish paintings and illuminations of the 1490s and is typical of middle-​class women, but never worn by aristocrats, is used exclusively to depict older household women, for instance Sophrona (Eunuchus) and the Nurse Canthara (Heauton timorumenos), perhaps in recognition of both their age and loyalty.69 An exception to the simplicity of women’s attire is represented by the lavish costumes of Thais and Bacchis, the courtesans of Terence’s Eunuchus and Heauton timorumenos respectively.70 These courtesans wear aristocratic gowns bordered with bands and ermine lining. Their head is covered by a black veil that reveals underneath a finely pleated coif. This headdress appears in Flemish portraiture and miniatures of the 1490s and is worn exclusively by the female 65 Paris, BnF, fr. 24274, f. 34, see van Buren, Illuminating Fashion, 246–​7. 66 Cf. Eunuchus ii.ii (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, i1r). 67 Margaret Scott, A Visual History of Costume:  The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (London: Batsford, 1986), 15 and 142, s.v. doublet. 68 Jacqueline Herald, Renaissance Dress in Italy 1400–​1500 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981), 53. 69 Scott, A Visual History of Costume, 127 no. 137. Cf. Eunuchus v.iii; Heauton timorumenos iv.i (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, n3v, s2v), and see Figure 5.6. 70 Cf. Eunuchus i.ii; Heauton timorumenos ii.iv (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, h3v, q8v).

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

157

nobility.71 The sumptuousness of their apparel is a reflection of their financial means and perhaps their desire to elevate themselves in social class rank. Lastly, a unique case is that of Sostrata in the Hecyra, whose headdress does not match any of those presented so far, but who seems to wear a sort of turban.72 As John Friedman puts it, since antiquity, alterity from an identity-​formation system in terms of provenance, religion, and costumes is often signalled through headwear.73 Sostrata’s alterity lies in her contravening the stereotyped image of the stage mother-​in-​law to become an advocate for women’s rights and identity.74 The headdress she wears is comparable to that worn by Penelope, in an illustration of Ovid’s Heroides by French illuminator and painter Robinet Testard. Testard flourished at the court of Charles d’Orléans, Count of Angoulême, and his wife Louise of Savoy in Cognac. It was Louise’s predilection for distinguished female figures of antiquity that triggered Testard’s propensity to paint a very large number of female characters. Among the twenty-​nine books illuminated by Testard, there are some that were particularly likely to please a female patron, such as Boccaccio’s De mulieribus claris (Des Cleres et Nobles Femmes) and Ovid’s Heroides. Besides these works, female personifications abounded in Évrart de Conty’s Livre des éschecs amoureaux moralisés, the travel book Secretz de la nature and the ever-​ popular Roman de la rose. In his illuminations, Testard used ‘turbans as a self-​ conscious borrowing from a historically and geographically indeterminate “otherness”.’75 Testard’s female turbans, however, are blended with contemporary headgears and styles, such as hairnets and snoods. While Sostrata’s headgear may be less elaborated than those worn by Ovid’s heroines, her wearing turbans sets her apart from other female characters and similarly symbolises her otherness. The meticulous illustration of clothing and headgears in the Lyon Terence certainly reflects a contemporary society in which the nobility affirmed their social status through appearance. Clothing marked status, but in the absence of a sumptuary law, ‘civic elites did not hesitate to imitate, compete and enjoy 71

As in the portrait of Anne de Beaujeu, daughter of Louis xi of France attributed to the Master of Moulins (c. 1493). See Scott, A Visual History of Costume, 128–​9, no. 139. 72 Cf. Hecyra ii.i (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, M4r). 73 John B.  Friedman, “The Art of the Exotic:  Robinet Testard’s Turbans and Turban-​Like Coiffure,” in Medieval Clothing and Textiles:  Volume 4, ed. Robin Netherton and Gale R. Owen-​Crocker (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2008), 173. 74 See Terry McGarrity, “Reputation vs. Reality in Terence’s Hecyra,” The Classical Journal 76, no. 2 (1980): 149–​56. 75 Friedman, “The Art of the Exotic,” 183.

158 Chapter 5 the public display of their wealth,’76 and in doing so attempted to blur social division. The Lyon Terence reflects these social estates and depicts courtesans such as Thais and Bacchis wearing the apparel of nobility. The relative facility by which wealthy commoners could easily heighten their social status, at least in terms of appearance, must have alarmed the nobility as early as the fourteenth century, and the situation was exacerbated towards the end of the fifteenth century. In 1497, only four years after the publication of the first edition of the Lyon Terence, the Habsburg Archduke Philip the Fair issued a sumptuary law that forbade civic subjects to wear luxury clothes and accessories. Up until this point fashion in France and the Low Countries had remained free from the restrictions inflicted upon other European countries such as Italy, Germany and England.77 5.6

Gestures, Illustrations and Commentary Derivative of Donatus in the Lyon Terence

As modern readers or audiences or critics we tend to look at the performative gestures of Quintilian’s classification to make sense of the play that is unfolding before our eyes, rather than pay particular attention to affective gestures, which are those that convey a character’s emotions. However, Renaissance understanding of theatrical gestures relied heavily on Donatus’ commentary on Terence, a text that was in vogue in the last quarter of the fifteenth century. Donatus wrote his commentary on Terence to provide practical pointers for rhetorical education and provided student readers with a large number of remarks on gestures and delivery.78 Donatian references to text delivery are sporadic and refer primarily to diction rather than gestures. Guy Jouenneaux, who extensively quoted Donatus’ commentary on Terence, was naturally inclined to include explanatory notes to make Terence’s Latin more accessible to a fifteenth-century audience, and cited his comments both on nominal (or affective) gestures and delivery on numerous occasions.

76 77

78

Peter Arnade, “Urban Elites and the Politics of Public Space in Late-​Medieval Low Country Cities,” in Core and Periphery in Late-​Medieval Urban Society, ed. Myriam Carlier, Anke Greve, Walter Prevenier, and Peter Stabel (Leuven: Garant, 1997), 39. For an overview of sumptuary law see Alan Hunt, Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Press, 1996); a detailed treatment of sumptuary law in Italy in the Middle Ages and early Renaissance is in Catherine Kovesi Killerby, Sumptuary Law in Italy, 1200–​1500 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002). Demetriou, “Donatus’ Commentary.”

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

159

For instance, commenting on the delivery of the first scene of Andria Guy remarks how Simo, after dismissing his servants (lines 1–​2) says the following line ‘in a low voice’ (summissa voce). At line 73, which is also spoken by Sosia after he heard about the beautiful woman from Andros, the interjection ‘hei’ is said to express disappointment and indignation.79 Badius’ additional notes appended after Guy’s commentary, which he reproduced entirely, also refer to line delivery in two instances, commenting on Andria 954 and Adelphoe 703. The first instance, Andria 954, refers to theatrical delivery. It comes at the end of the fourth scene of Act v when the identity of Glycerium has been revealed, and Pamphilus says that he will ask his slave Davus to bring her to his house. It is at this point that Simo says that Davus is unable to do it as ‘he is tied up,’ with an intended pun. Badius remarks that this line is delivered ‘jokingly’ (iocans).80 The focus here is clearly on diction, although possibly there could be a reference to a corresponding gesture. The second instance occurs at Adelphoe v.v, when Badius adds at the end of the scene that Micio, who speaks line 703, according to Donatus does so ‘while laughing’ (ridenti ore).81 These examples demonstrate how Badius engaged with Donatus, supplementing Guy’s commentary as he saw fit. The accuracy and specificity of each woodcut illustration provides strong evidence that the iconography of the Lyon Terence was overseen in some places by Badius, who knew intimately Terence as well as Donatus. This is particularly evident at Adelphoe 563 when the slave Syrus affectionately remembers holding his master Ctesipho in his arms when he was very little (quem ego modo puerum tantillum in manibus gestaui meis, ‘whom I once nursed as a boy of such a tiny size in my hands’), and Donatus states that he mimics with his hand the small size of Ctesipho as an infant (uidetur enim manu fingere quam paruulum). In the commentary of the Lyon Terence, Guy elaborates Donatus’ gloss by adding that the mimicry of the small size of the baby is a combined gesture of the thumb and the hand, and the image contained in the Lyon Terence depicts this gesture accurately.82 That Badius strove to represent aspects that were peculiar to Roman comedy can be demonstrated by looking at the visual representation of the servus. 79 Terence 1493, b1v: hei interiectio dolentis et indignantis. 80 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, Q5r. The illustration to this scene can be found at Terentius, Comoediae 1493, g2v. 81 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, B4v. 82 Don. Ter. Ad. 563.4. The illustrations to this scene in the Lyon Terence can be found at Terentius, Comoediae 1493, A3r.

160 Chapter 5 While, as remarked above the representation of the slave with shrugged shoulders (gestus servilis) derives from the illustrations of Carolingian manuscripts, the iconography of the servus currens, the running slave delivering news, could have only been drawn from Donatus’ commentary. Episodes of slaves delivering news occur four times in the plays of Terence, but they are only illustrated in two instances in the Lyon Terence, at Andria ii.ii and Adelphoe iii.ii.83 In the Lyon Terence the slaves delivering news are depicted in a runner’s pose and a floating cloak and with their right hand raised to signal the urgency of their message.84 This visual representation reflects Donatus’ comments on the two scenes. In particular, commenting on Geta’s arrival in the Adelphoe, Donatus remarks that this is a typical scene of a running slave who brings bad news, adding also that this is a very dynamic part of the scene (pars scaenae motoria est, Don. Ter. Ad. 299.1). If the poignancy and preciseness of the illustrations in the Lyon Terence can be explained by assuming that Badius had an active role in the iconographic plan of the book, on the other hand, they are also the product of an artist of great talent and with exceptional vision. 5.7

The Illustrator of the Lyon Terence

The woodcut illustrations of the Lyon Terence can be attributed to an individual designer, the uneven quality of the woodcuts, however, suggests that more than one engraver of different ability was involved in the execution of the woodcuts.85 The identity of the illustrator of the Lyon Terence is unknown. 83

The other two instances that are not illustrated in the Lyon Terence are both in Phormio (i.iv and v.vi). On the servus currens in Roman theatre see George E.  Duckworth, The Dramatic Function of the ‘Servus Currens’ in Roman Comedy (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1936); C.W. Marshall, The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2006), 193–​4; J.C.B. Lowe, “Terence and the Running-​Slave Routine,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 152, no. 3–​4 (2009): 225–​34. On the pervasiveness of this convention in Menander see Angela M. Heap, Behind the Mask: Character and Society in Menander (London: Bloomsbury, 2019), 106–​7 with bibliography; she suggests that it may derive from a parody of tragic messengers, for which see Simon Perris, “What Maketh the Messenger? Reportage in Greek Tragedy,” in Refereed Papers from the 32nd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Classical Studies, ed. Anne MacKay, 2011, ascs.org.au/​news/​ascs32/​Author.pdf, with extensive bibliography. 84 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, c6r and z6r. 85 Natalis Rondot, Les graveurs sur bois et les imprimeurs à Lyon au XVe siècle (Lyon: Mougin-​ Rusand, 1896), 37; Anatole Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie en France au XVe et au XVIe siècle, vol. 4, (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1914), 77; Madeleine Huillet d’Istria, “Au sujet

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

161

Two different schools of thought developed in the twentieth century in the attempt to identify the anonymous artist who designed the iconographic plan of the Lyon Terence. The German art historian Fedja Anzelewsky attempted to establish a correspondence between the artist responsible for the woodcuts of the Lyon Terence and the anonymous illustrator of the Lübeck Bible. He drew attention to similarities between the depiction of Chremes in Heauton timorumenos and the biblical scene of the consecration of Joshua; one of the most striking similarities is the character’s apparel, but this only corresponds to the current, although slightly conservative, Flemish style.86 Anzelewsky’s identification was revived by Bodo Brinkmann, who suggested that the illustrations of the Lyon Terence may derive from an early iconographic plan that originated in Italy and that was reproduced in the 1497 edition of Terence by Lazzaro de’ Soardi.87 Brinkmann’s contention that the artist of the Lyon Terence, originally from Flanders, would have sojourned in Germany and then in Italy before moving to Lyon, is putative at best. Despite this, his suggestion still has some currency in art historical scholarship.88 Different conclusions were reached by a set of studies by French art historians. In the nineteenth century Ambroise Firmin-​Didot identified the artist of the Lyon Terence with Jean Perréal, the painter and limner of illuminated manuscripts that were commissioned by Charles of Bourbon, Charles viii, Louis xii and Francis I. This claim, which was rediscussed by Huillet d’Istria in the 1950s, was rejected by Felix Desvernay and Anatole Claudin for being ‘too problematic.’89 Desvernay and Claudin more prudently named this Lyonnais artist ‘Le Maître aux pieds-​bots,’ the Master of the Club Feet, due to the excessively large and round shape and outwards position of his characters’ feet. Claudin attributed to the Master of the Club Feet the illustrations of two other

d’articles récents sur Jean Perréal—​Le Maître aux Pieds Bots,” Gazette des beaux-​arts 40 (1952): 60. 86 Fedja Anzelewsky, “Der Meister der Lübecker Bibel von 1494,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 27, no. 1 (1964), 50. On the apparel of the senex in the Lyon Terence see Chapter 5.5 above. 87 Bodo Brinkmann, “Neues vom Meister der Lübecker Bibel,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 29–​30 (1987–​88): 124. 88 Thomas Kren, “Consolidation and Renewal: Manuscript Painting under the Hapsburgs, circa 1485–​1510,” in Illuminating the Renaissance:  The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe, ed. Thomas Kren and Scot McKendrick (Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 377; Catarina Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke lateinischer Klassiker um 1500 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018), 76. 89 Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie, vol. 4, 75; Huillet d’Istria, “Au sujet d’articles récents sur Jean Perréal,” 60.

162 Chapter 5 works: the chivalric epic Les quatre fils Aymon (The Four Sons of Aymon), published in 1497 at the press of Jean de Vingle, and Les vigilles de la mort du feu roy Charles septiesme (The Death Vigils of the Late King Charles vii) by Martial d’Auvergne, also published in Lyon around 1497, which contained a chronicle in verse of the Hundred Years’ War.90 Claudin identified as common features, beside the clothing and hairstyles,91 the use of ‘the engraving cuts to brighten up the shaded areas,’ the simplicity of the background, flaws in the use of the perspective and the particular attention that the artist paid to facial features and the gaze of his characters.92 Les quatre fils Aymon and Les vigilles belong to the chivalric and historic novel genre respectively, two genres that enjoyed great popularity throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Their Medieval heritage influences also their iconography, in particular in scenes of battles, sieges and massacres, which are reused several times. It is only in the scenes that are most specific to each storyline, such as the imprisonment of Joan of Arc in the Vigilles, that the artist expresses his personal style.93 These woodcuts bear striking resemblances to those of the Lyon Terence. The copy of Les vigilles published in Lyon and Les quatre fils Aymon share one identical woodcut that illustrates the scene of an imminent battle, with soldiers on guard armed with spears and historiated shields and cannons lined up in front of them.94 This can be explained by the fact that Les quatre fils Aymon as well as Les vigilles were printed by Lyonnais editors who were likely to work with the same local artists and to borrow and exchange woodcuts to reduce production costs. The theatre setting of the Lyon Terence makes the background of the woodcuts more uniform and plain compared to the group scenes of Les vigilles and Le quatre fils Aymon. Despite this, the similarities in the portrayal of the male and female characters are striking in all the three works. These correspondences are not limited to their apparel but extend to facial features and gestures including the characteristic male standing pose with legs spread apart and feet pointing outwards that prompted Claudin to label the artist as the Master of the Club Feet. The originality of the iconographic plan of our artist is apparent 90

GW 3137; istc ia01433550 (Les quatre fils Aymon) and GW M21239; istc im00295000 (Les vigilles). 91 As discussed in the previous section, however, costumes and hairstyles simply reflect current fashion trends and can only serve as chronological pointers. 92 Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie, vol. 4, 75–​6. 93 Reproduced at van Buren, Illuminating Fashion, 265. 94 Compare Bnf, RES-​Y2-​366, c1r (Les quatre fils Aymon) with Library of Congress, Incun. x. M34 d2v (Les vigilles de la mort du feu roy Charles septiesme).

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

163

when comparing his woodcut illustrations of the Vigilles with the miniatures that enrich a de luxe manuscript of this work, Paris, BnF, fr. 5054. The manuscript was produced around 1483 for the French King Charles viii and the illuminations have been attributed to Jean Bourdichon.95 The miniatures illustrate exactly the same scenes, but they are very different in terms of interpretation, composition and position of the characters. Claudin tentatively suggested that the “Master of the Club Feet” could be identified with an artist named Jean de Vingle from Tournai, a municipality 85 kilometres southwest of Brussels. This artist, who was related to the better-​known Lyonnais publisher Jean de Vingle, resided with the latter in Lyon in 1492–​3.96 All that can be affirmed with confidence about the illustrator of the cycle of illustrations of the Lyon Terence is that he was a Flemish artist who worked in Lyon in the 1490s and designed the iconographic plan of the Lyonnais editions of Les vigilles and Les quatre fils Aymon. His family relation with printer Jean de Vingle is not certain, although possible, given that the latter printed the 1497 edition of Les quatre fils Aymon. Badius would have also been well acquainted with the printer Jean de Vingle, who published three of his editions and commentaries of Classical texts between 1498 and 1503.97 The level of sophistication and originality of the woodcuts resist any attempt to be linked to a specific artist. Ultimately, the woodcuts of the Lyon Terence are the product of the synergy of the editor’s engagement with the text and the commentary tradition, and the artist’s negotiation of artistic trends. As argued in the next chapter, contemporary theatre practice must also have played a significant role in shaping the iconographic plan of the Lyon Terence.98

95

Franck Collard, “Des idées politiques aux images du pouvoir: l’iconographie de la royauté dans le manuscrit des  Vigiles de la mort de  Charles  VII  de Martial d’Auvergne offert à Charles VIII,” in Images, pouvoirs et normes: exégèse visuelle de la fin du Moyen Âge (xiiie-​ xve siècle), ed. Franck Collard, Frédérique Lachaud and Lydwine Scordia (Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2018), 97–​114. 96 Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie, vol. 4, 76; see also Renouard, Bibliographie des impressions, vol. 1, 38. 97 See Katz, “La presse et les lettres,” on Badius’ 1498 edition of Boethius (Boethius, Commentum duplex 1498), 79; on the editions of Cicero’s De officis (Cicero, De officiis 1499), 98, and of Ovid’s Heroides (Ovidius, Heroidum epistulae 1503), 321. 98 The interplay between visual culture and dramatic production in the context of Italian Renaissance plays is discussed by Kristin Phillips-​Court, The Perfect Genre: Drama and Painting in Renaissance Italy (Farnham: Ashgate, 2011).

164 Chapter 5

Appendix: A Catalogue of Gestures

In this catalogue references to act and scene divisions are taken from the modern critical editions of Terence, and some instances conflict with Badius’ own act divisions. In those instances in which Badius provides two illustrations within the same scene, the second illustration is labelled as ‘additional scene.’ References to signatures and to the foliation of the Munich edition of the Lyon Terence are conveniently provided in the Concordance of images. The section on Carolingian gestures follows entirely the classification proposed by Dorota Dutsch.99

Carolingian Gestures

1. Support A character supports another character by placing one hand on their shoulder, holding their hand and/​or placing the right arm around their shoulder. Andria ii.ii (Pamphilus supports Carinus), ii.iv (Davus supports Pamphilus), v.vi (Pamphilus supports Carinus); Eunuchus iii.ii (Gnatho), iii.iii (Pythias supports Chremes). 2. Subservience (gestus servilis) The gestus servilis of Caroligian manuscripts consists of the slave crouching his head between the shoulders, as described by Donatus. Andria ii.iii (Davus), iii.iv (Davus), iii.v (Davus), iv.iv (Davus), v.ii (Davus), v.vi (Davus); Eunuchus v.vii (Gnatho); Heauton timorumenos ii.iii (Syrus); Adelphoe v.vi (Geta); Phormio iii.iii (Geta), iv.iii (Geta), v.vi (Geta).

99

For a discussion of Badius’ own scene and act divisions see Chapter 4.1. The classification of Caroligian gestures follows Dutsch, “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence,” 62–​71.

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

165

3. Servus currens A slave in a runner’s pose and a floating cloak and with his right hand raised. Andria ii.ii (Davus); Adelphoe iii.ii (Geta). 4. Statement and Interpellation Arm outstretched in an almost horizontal position, the fingers are outstretched, in some instances the thumb is folded. Andria ii.ii (Carinus), ii.iii (Pamphilus), ii.iv (Davus), ii.v (Pamphilus), v.iv (Crito); Eunuchus iii.v (Chaerea), iv.vii (Thais), v.vii (Gnatho), v.viii (Gnatho); Heauton timorumenos ii.iii (Syrus), ii.iv (Antiphila), iv.iv (Syrus, Dromo), v.ii (Clitipho); Adelphoe iii.iii (additional scene) (Hegio), iii.iv (Hegio), iv.v (Micio), v.v (Demea); Phormio i.iv (Geta), ii.iii (Geta), iii.iii (Geta), iv.iii (Geta), v.i (Sophrona), v.iii (Demipho), v.viii (Phormio); Hecyra ii.ii (Phidippus), iii.i (Parmeno), iii.ii (Parmeno), iii.v (Pamphilus), iv.i (Phidippus), iv.iii (Pamphilus), v.iii (Bacchis), v.iv (Bacchis). 5. Pleading Arm bent at elbow, upper arm outstretched pointing upwards, palm outstretched with thumb pointing upwards. Andria i.i (Sosia), iii.iv (Davus), iv.ii (Pamphilus), v.ii (Davus), v.iii (Pamphilus), v.v (Pamphilus); Eunuchus iii.v (Antipho), v.vi (Pythias), v.viii (Chaerea); Heauton timorumenos i.i (Chremes), iv.iii (Syrus), iv.v (Syrus); Adelphoe ii.ii (Syrus addressing Ctesipho), ii.iii (Syrus), ii.iv (Aeschinus, Ctesipho, Syrus), iii.iv (Demea in soliloquy), iv.i (Syrus), iv.vi (Demea), v.vi (Geta), v.viii (Aeschinus), v.ix (Demea); Phormio i.iv (Antipho in aside), iii.i (Antipho), iii.ii (Phaedria), iii.iii (Antipho), v.iii (Chremes); Hecyra i.i (Syra), iii.i (Parmeno), iv.i (Phidippus), iv.iv (Phidippus addressing Philumena), v.i (Laches), v.ii (Bacchis).

166 Chapter 5 6. Protest and Disagreement Arm bent at elbow and flat palm raised facing the interlocutor. Andria iii.iv (Simo), iv.i (Davus), v.i (Chremes); Eunuchus v.ix (Gnatho); Heauton timorumenos ii.ii (Clinia), v.v (Menedemus); Adelphoe i.i (Demea entering the stage), i.ii (Micio), ii.iv (Sannio), iii.iv (Demea); Phormio i.ii (Geta); Hecyra ii.i (Laches), iii.i (additional scene) (Pamphilus), iii.iv (Pamphilus). 7. Bafflement Right arm bent at elbow with palm pointing to face. In the Carolingian tradition index and middle fingers are extended while all other fingers are folded, while in the Lyon Terence fingers are curled up. Adelphoe v.iii (Demea in aside). 8. Resignation Arms along the body and gaze cast down. Eunuchus ii.ii (Parmeno); Heauton timorumenos iv.viii (Menedemus); Hecyra i.i (Philotis), i.ii (Philotis). 9. Deictic Extended arm with pointing index finger or index and middle finger or palm with thumb outstretched. Andria iv.iv (Chremes, Davus), iv.v (Davus); Eunuchus iii.ii (Parmeno), v.i (Pythias), v.vi (Pythias), v.ix (Phaedria); Heauton timorumenos iv.i (Nurse, pointing to the ring held by Sostrata); Phormio ii.ii (Geta pointing to Demipho), iii.i (Geta pointing to Phaedria who is not yet visible); Hecyra iii.i (Pamphilus). 10. Mimetic Andria v.iv (Simo points his index finger downwards as to signify ‘here!’ to order Crito to come forward);

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

167

Eunuchus v.viii (Thraso imitates the gesture of supplication by which he intends to surrender to Thais); Adelphoe iv.ii (Demea raises his stick as if to bash Syrus, Syrus mimics with his hand the small size of Ctesipho as a baby).

Non-​Carolingian Gestures

11. Boldness or Control One arm akimbo, often partially or totally concealed by the cloak, other arm rests along the body or supported by a stick. Andria i.i (Simo), i.iii (Davus), ii.i (Carinus addressing Byrria), ii.iii (Davus), ii.iv (Simo), ii.v (Simo), ii.vi (Simo), iii.i (Simo), iii.iii (Simo), iii.iv (Chremes), iii.v (Davus), iv.i (Carinus, Pamphilus), iv.iv (Chremes), v.i (Chremes, Simo), v.ii (Chremes), v.iv (Chremes), v.v (Carinus), v.vi (Carinus); Eunuchus ii.ii (Gnatho), ii.iii (Parmeno), iii.i (Thraso), iii.ii (Thraso), iii.iv (Antipho), iv.vi (Chremes), iv.vii (Chremes), v.ii (Chaerea in aside), v.vii (Thraso), v.ix (Thraso); Heauton timorumenos i.ii (Clitipho, Chremes), ii.i (Clitipho), ii.ii (Clitipho), ii.iii (Clinia, Clitipho, Dromo), ii.iv (Clitipho), iii.ii (Chremes), iii.iii (Chremes, Clitipho), iv.ii (Chremes), iv.iv (Syrus), iv.vi (Clitipho), iv.vii (Chremes in aside), v.i (Menedemus), v.ii (Menedemus), v.iii (Chremes); Adelphoe ii.iii (Ctesipho), iv.i (Demea), iv.vii (Micio, Demea), v.iii (Micio); Phormio i.iii (Phaedria), i.iv (Phaedria), ii.iii (Hegio), iii.i (Antipho), iii.ii (Antipho), iii.iii (Geta), iv.i (Chremes), iv.iii (Chremes), iv.iv (Geta, Antipho), v.ii (Demipho), v.iv (Antipho), v.v (Antipho), v.vi (Geta, Antipho, ­Phormio); Hecyra iii.iii (Pamphilus), iii.iv (Pamphilus), iii.v (Pamphilus), iv.iii (Pamphilus), iv.iv (Pamphilus). 12. Demureness Arms relaxed along the body with hands concealed in cuffs or under the gown. Andria i.v (Mysis), iii.i (Lesbia, Mysis), iv.ii (Mysis), iv.iv (Mysis); Eunuchus i.ii (Thais), iii.ii (Pythias, Thais), iv.i (Dorias), iv.iii (Dorias), iv.iv (Pythias, Dorias), iv.v (Pythias), iv.vi (Pythias, Thais), iv.vii (Thais), v.i (Thais, Pythias), v.ii (Thais, Pythias), v.iii (Pythias, Sophrona), v.iv (additional scene) (Pythias), v.vi (Pythias);

168 Chapter 5 Heauton timorumenos ii.iii (Bacchis, Phrygia), ii.iv (Bacchis, Antiphila in aside), iv.i (Sostrata), iv.iv (Bacchis); Adelphoe ii.i (Bacchis), iii.i (Sostrata, Canthara); Phormio v.i (Sophrona), v.iii (Nausistrata), v.ix (Nausistrata); Hecyra i.i (Philotis), i.ii (Philotis), v.i (Bacchis), v.ii (Bacchis), v.iii (Bacchis), v.iv (Bacchis). 13. Listening Right or left hand slightly bent at elbow with right/​left hand flat across lower part of body, hand facing body or right/​left arm or both arms bent at elbow, with thumb hooked through belt or resting on a stick. Andria i.i (Simo), ii.i (Carinus), ii.iv (Simo), ii.v (Byrria, Simo), ii.vi (Simo), iii.iii (Simo), iii.iv (Chremes), v.ii (Chremes, Simo), v.iii (Chremes), v.iv (Chremes); Eunuchus i.i (Phaedria), i.ii (Phaedria), ii.i (Phaedria), iv.iv (Phaedria), iv.v (Chremes), iv.vi (Chremes), iv.vii (Chremes), v.ii (Chaerea), v.viii (Parmeno); Heauton timorumenos iii.iii (Clitipho), iv.ii (Chremes), iv.v (Chremes), iv.vi (Clitipho), iv.viii (Chremes in aside), v.ii (Chremes, Menedemus), v.iii (Clitipho), v.v (Chremes); Adelphoe i.ii (Demea), ii.i (Sannio), ii.ii (Sannio), iv.v (Aeschinus), iv.vii (Micio), v.iii (Micio), v.vii (Aeschinus, Geta); Phormio ii.ii (Demipho), ii.iii (Hegio, Demipho), iv.i (Demipho), iv.iii (Chremes), iv.v (Demipho), v.i (Chremes); Hecyra iii.v (Phidippus, Laches), iv.ii (Pamphilus), v.ii (Phidippus, Laches), v.iv (Pamphilus). 14. Arguing Arm bent, with hand high and palm facing up, fingers lightly curled. Andria iv.i (Carinus), v.v (Carinus); Eunuchus ii.iii (Parmeno), v.ii (Chaerea in aside); Heauton timorumenos i.ii (Clitipho), iv.ii (Syrus), iv.vi (Syrus), v.iii (Chremes); Adelphoe ii.ii (Syrus addressing Ctesipho); Phormio ii.i (Geta), ii.iv (Hegio), iii.ii (Dorio), iv.iv (Geta), v.ii (Demipho), v.vi (Antipho); Hecyra iii.v (Pamphilus in aside), iv.ii (Sostrata).

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

169

15. Affirmation and Insistence Left arm bent at elbow, palm folded facing the body of the speaker. Heauton timorumenos iii.ii (Chremes); Adelphoe ii.iii (Ctesipho); Phormio iv.i (Chremes with left hand clenched in fist to signal irritation), iv.iii (Demipho); Hecyra i.ii (Parmeno), ii.ii (Phidippus, Laches, Sostrata), iii.iii (Parmeno), iv.iv (Phidippus), v.iii (Parmeno). Variation: palm facing the listener, all fingers are folded except the thumb and the index that point upwards. Andria i.i (Simo), ii.i (Byrria). 16. Irritation Arm bent at elbow, hand with fist clenched against chest or clenched fist in combination with another gesture. Andria ii.i (Carinus, who also has his right hand clenched in a fist behind his back), v.i (Simo); Heauton timorumenos iv.viii (Chremes). 17. Astonishment and Anxiety Right arm bent at elbow, with upper part close to the body and lower part of the arm horizontally or diagonally across the body (in the latter case the palm is outstretched and at shoulder height). Andria iv.v (Mysis); Eunuchus i.ii (Thais), iv.i (Dorias); Heauton timorumenos iii.ii (Syrus), iv.i (Chremes), v.v (Sostrata); Adelphoe iii.i (Canthara), iii.v (Hegio, Sostrata); Phormio i.iii (Antipho), v.iii (Nausistrata), v.ix (Nausistrata); Hecyra ii.iii (Sostrata), iv.i (Myrrina both in aside and with Phidippus), v.i (Bacchis in aside), v.ii (Phidippus in aside). Variation: Right arm bent at elbow, palm facing downwards, fingers slightly curled. Andria iii.i (Davus), iv.i (Carinus entering the stage); Eunuchus v.iii (Chremes), v.vi (Parmeno);

170 Chapter 5 Heauton timorumenos ii.i (Clitipho), ii.ii (Clitipho), v.ii (Syrus); Adelphoe iii.ii (Canthara), v.vii (Demea); Phormio i.iii (Phaedria), i.iv (Phaedria in aside), v.vi (Geta). 18. Supplication Joined palms Andria i.iv (Archylis), i.v (Pamphilus); Eunuchus v.viii (Thraso); Heauton timorumenos v.v (Clitipho); Phormio v.i (Sophrona in aside), v.ix (Phormio in aside). Genuflection Eunuchus iii.ii (Ethiopian slave, Chaerea posing as a eunuch), iv.iv (Dorus); Heauton timorumenos ii.iv (Antiphila); Adelphoe v.ix (Syrus). 19. Fear Arm outstretched pointing downwards or bent at elbow, bent wrist and palm facing outwards. Andria ii.vi (Davus); Eunuchus v.iv (Pythias); Heauton timorumenos ii. iv (Clinia). 20. Dismay Arm outstretched pointing downwards with facing palm. Andria iv.iv (Chremes); Eunuchus iv.iii (Dorias); Heauton timorumenos i.ii (Clitipho); Phormio i.iv (Phaedria), ii.iv (Geta). Variation (in keeping with the Carolingian tradition): arms bent at elbow and outstretched, turned to the left with facing palms. Andria iii.ii (Simo); Phormio i.iv (Antipho), ii.i (Phaedria).

The illustrative Programme of the 1493 Edition

171

21. Anger Arms bent at elbow facing upwards, open palms facing outwards. Adelphoe v.iii (Demea). 22. Utter Despair Clapping hands above head. Andria iii.v (Pamphilus); Eunuchus ii.iii (Chaerea), v.iv (additional scene) (Pythias); Phormio v.ii (Geta). Variations: Andria iii.iv (Davus bends down and pulls his hair), Adelphoe iv.iv (Aeschinus, arms lowered towards the ground and joined palms). 23. Pondering Left arm bent at elbow resting across the waist with open palm touching opposite hip or left arm bent at elbow resting on hip, right arm bent at elbow with open palm (or palm flat on chest) or both arms bent at elbow and hands resting on hips. In soliloquies right/​left hand bent at elbow, open palm turned outwards and facing audience or outstretched palm facing up with slightly curled fingers. Eunuchus iii.i (Parmeno), iii.iv (Antipho), iv.ii (Phaedria), iv.iii (Phaedria in aside), v.ii (Chaerea), v.iv (Parmeno), v.v (Laches in soliloquy, Parmeno); Heauton timorumenos i.ii (Clinia), iii.i (Chremes, Menedemus in aside), iv.v (Chremes in aside), v.i (Chremes); Adelphoe i.i (Micio), iii.iii (Demea), iii.iii (additional scene) (Demea), v.iv (Demea); Phormio ii.i (Demea), iv.ii (Geta), v.i (Chremes in aside), v.iv (Antipho in soliloquy), v.vi (Geta in aside); Hecyra iii.iii (Pamphilus in aside), iii.v (Pamphilus). 24. Signalling Right straight arm raised with a flat palm to signal attention and prompt an action agreed between two characters. Adelphoe ii.i (Aeschinus, Parmeno).

­c hapter 6

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence 6.1

The Lyon Terence and Performance

The woodcuts of the Lyon Terence depict unmasked characters communicating through gestures, in monologues or dialogues, on what unmistakably looks like a stage. The backdrop of the stage building is made of a number of contiguous curtained doors that are labelled with the name of each house owner.1 Entrances and exits of characters are clearly represented and the illustrator has established artistic conventions that regulate asides and off-​stage scenes. All these elements make a strong case for a performance-​driven representation of Terence’s plays. Yet a highly influential view expressed by T.E. Lawrenson and Helen Purkis, in the 1964 essay collection Le lieu théâtral à la Renaissance, branded the woodblock illustrations of the 1493 edition of Terence as ‘foncièrement injouable,’ ‘basically unplayable,’ and thus categorically divorced from theatre practice.2 Their viewpoint has been almost uncritically accepted by generations of scholars to the extent that the extraordinary woodcuts that enrich this edition have been almost completely neglected by the critics.3 1 Usually the character’s name appears in the genitive with an implicit or abbreviated domus, for instance ‘do[mus] Symonis,’ (‘Simo’s house’), ‘[domus] Thaidis,’ (‘Thais’ house’). See also Chapter 6.3 and n. 40. 2 Thomas E. Lawrenson and Helen Purkis, “Les éditions illustrées de Térence dans l’histoire du théâtre: Spectacles dans un fauteuil?,” in Le lieu théâtral à la Renaissance, ed. Jean Jacquot (Paris: cnrs, 1964), 10. 3 See, for instance, Bruce R. Smith, Ancient Scripts and Modern Experience on the English Stage 1500–​1700 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), 78; Julie S. Peters, Theatre of the Book, 1480–​1880:  Print, Text, and Performance in Europe (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2000), 368. Jean-​Frédéric Chevalier, “Neo-​Latin Theatre in Italy,” in Neo-​Latin Drama and Theatre in Early-​Modern Europe, ed. Jan Bloemendal and Howard B.  Norland (Leiden:  Brill, 2013), 45 argues that these illustrations, like a famous fourteenth-​century frontispiece to a copy of Seneca’s plays depicting a performance of Hercules Furens, ‘are in fact, in spite of numerous debates, less illustrations of theatrical reality than attempts to reconstruct a stage from the extant data, especially those from the Etymologies of Isidore.’ Marie-​Madeleine Fragonard, “La Renaissance ou l’apparition du ‘théâtre à texte’,” in Le théâtre en France, ed. Alain Viala (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2016), 128 mentions the importance of the woodcuts of the 1499 Grüninger edition, but overlooks completely the Lyon Terence which not only predates it, but it is also more relevant to French performances. A  more balanced judgement is expressed by Luigi Allegri, “On the Rebirth of Theatre, or of the Idea of Theatre in Humanistic Italy,” in Theatrical Spaces and Dramatic Places. The Reemergence of the Theatre

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/978

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

173

This chapter sets out to demonstrate the performative nature of the Lyon Terence. The terms performativity and theatricality are here loosely intended and contextualised in the cultural milieu in which the text was produced. Renaissance courtly entertainment was intrinsically theatrical. Performances of different nature accompanied any public engagement: from banquets to civic festivals, from official visits of dignitaries to weddings.4 Additionally, people of all social standing enjoyed public performances of a variety of genres, including farces and pantomimes, in Italy, Flanders, and throughout Europe. Alongside courtly and popular spectacles, Classical and Medieval texts in verse were routinely read out loud and acted out both in school settings and in the private sphere. Classical Roman texts were considered prime texts to teach rhetorical skills, including diction and gestures, to the future leaders. And among Classical authors, Terence was considered of the greatest pedagogical value for its elegant style and the moral lessons his plays could teach.5 6.2

Stage Design: The Lyon Terence and the Representation of Theatre Buildings

The second woodcut of the Lyon Terence, that comes after a depiction of Terence or Guy at work in his study (Figure 1.1),6 is a representation of an ancient Roman theatre (Figure  1.2).7 Its hexagonal base does not have any correspondence to ancient Roman theatres, but it is a common feature of

Building in the Renaissance. Theatre Symposium vol. 4 (Tuscaloosa, AL: Southeastern Theatre Conference and the University of Alabama Press, 1996), 52. See also Nancy E. Carrick, “The Lyons Terence Woodcuts” (PhD diss., University of Arizona, 1980), in particular pp. 22–​3, and Laure Hermand-​Schebat, “Texte et image dans les éditions latines commentées de Térence (Lyon, Trechsel, 1493 et Strasbourg, Grüninger, 1496),” Camenae 9 (2011), http://​www.paris-​ sorbonne.fr/​IMG/​pdf/​ARTICLE_​9_​Hermand-​Schebat.pdf. 4 For a general overview of Renaissance performance culture in France see Ellen R. Welch, A Theater of Diplomacy: International Relations and the Performing Arts in Early Modern France (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017); for Italy, see Sarah Bonnemaison and Christine Macy, eds., Festival Architecture (London: Routledge, 2008). 5 On Classical education in Renaissance school settings in Italy 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, 2007). On the introduction of Terence’s plays in Ferrara’s school curriculum in the fifteenth century, see Marco Villoresi, Da Guarino a Boiardo: la cultura teatrale a Ferrara nel Quattrocento (Rome: Bulzoni, 1994). 6 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a1r. 7 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a4v.

174 Chapter 6 theatre buildings of northern Europe.8 The pervasiveness of the hexagon in Gothic architecture is evident once one turns to church architecture of central Europe, which follows closely the polygonal base model of French cathedrals.9 Among these polygonal shapes, the hexagon symbolises the six days of creation and, in the multiplication of its shape, the tree of life.10 As a building block of Gothic architecture, it features frequently in the shape of apses, such as those at Reims and Florence cathedrals, and in vaults and as pavement patterns—​the so-​called Cosmatesque—​as can be seen in Westminster Abbey. The connection between theatres and temples has much deeper roots that date back to Medieval traditions. In the Middle Ages, when ancient theatres were ruins that were often looted and repurposed, the idea of the structure of theatre buildings was lost, and attempts to describe them relied mostly on Late-​Antique literary sources. The Colosseum was one of the most prominent examples of a building constructed for performance to survive partially from antiquity, and it became the model of ancient theatre. Often represented as a tall circular building, it began to be assimilated to a temple, in view of its association with Christian martyrdom. The representation of the Colosseum as a round building endured until well in the fifteenth century. It can be found in the frontispiece of Lazzaro de’ Soardi’s Terence edition, which will be discussed later in the chapter, and in the floorplan of the vernacular translation of De architectura by Cesare Cesariano.11 The transient nature of temporary theatre structures that characterises fifteenth-​century Europe hampers assessment of the diffusion of hexagonal-​ based structures in the stagecraft of contemporary performances. Despite this, their use is attested in France in the sixteenth century, as corroborated by a rare depiction of a passion play. The 1547 staging of the Passion of Valenciennes is illustrated in a manuscript that preserves this text now at the Bibliothèque nationale.12 The large fold-​out frontispiece that occupies the equivalent of three pages depicts hexagonal ‘stations,’ small stage buildings that are covered by a roof. In keeping with the Medieval tradition, the Passion of Valenciennes was a 8 9 10 11 12

Donald C. Mullin, “An Observation on the Origin of the Elizabethan Theatre,” Educational Theatre Journal 19, no. 3 (1967): 322–​6. Nelly S. Ramzy, “The Dual Language of Geometry in Gothic Architecture: The Symbolic Message of Euclidian Geometry versus the Visual Dialogue of Fractal Geometry,” Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture 5, no. 2 (2015), 146. Ramzy, “The Dual Language of Geometry,” 154 and 157, Figure 17-​a. See also Giulia Torello-​Hill, “The Exegesis of Vitruvius and the Creation of Theatrical Spaces in Renaissance Ferrara,” Renaissance Studies 29 (2015): 240–​1. Paris, BnF, fr. 12536, ff. 1v-​2 bis. See the digitised version available at www.gallica.bnf.fr.

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

175

processional drama in which the audience would walk from a station to another to view subsequent scenes of the play. The Lyon Terence depicts a multi-​tiered building that has three levels of rows for spectators, an elevated box where the Roman magistrates responsible for public games (aediles) sit, a high narrow stage and a backdrop made of curtained doors. The theatre building rests on a three-​arched platform. Behind the central window and in front of the building prostitutes approach their clients. The association of theatres with brothels derives from Isidore’s Etymologies where prostitutes are said to offer their services at the end of theatrical performances (Isid. Orig. 18.42.2) and ‘lie under arches’ (10.110).13 The spectators are disposed in three elevated tiers facing the stage; they are all standing in keeping with Isidore’s description (18.42.1).14 The audience arrangement hardly reflects that of a Roman cavea. Isidore does not provide any further details about the structure of ancient theatre buildings and the word cavea is very rare in Medieval dictionaries and whenever it occurs its meaning is invariably misunderstood.15 While the stage backdrop that the Lyon Terence labels proscoenium (sic) instead of proscaenium will be discussed in the following section, it is worth noting the representation of a raised stage, which is placed at the same level as the second tier of spectators’ row. This depiction can be compared with Isidore’s description of the acting space that he erroneously calls orchestra as made of a stage (pulpitum) where actors would perform (18.43). His words are based on a widespread inaccurate notion of Classical theatre that posited that a recitator standing on a raised platform read a play out loud while actors mimed it on stage. This notion is replicated throughout the Middle Ages and appears also in Nicholas Trevet’s Expositio Herculis furentis.16 13 14

15 16

For discussion of Badius’ comments on the association of prostitutes with theatres, see also Chapter 3.2.3. A standing audience creates a very imaginative and effective idea of a cavea in the representation of an ancient theatre in Tours, BM MS 924, f. 13v (see Andrew J. Turner, and Giulia Torello-​Hill, eds. Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing: Illustration, Commentary and Performance [Leiden: Brill, 2015], Figure 24.) Sandra Pietrini, “Medieval Entertainers and the Memory of Ancient Theatre,” Revue International de Philosophie 252 (2010), 175. Et nota quod tragedie et comedie solebant in theatro hoc modo recitari: theatrum erat area semicircularis, in cuius medio erat parva domuncula, que scena dicebatur, in qua erat pulpitum super quod poeta carmina pronunciabat: extra vero erant mimi, qui carminum pronunciationem gestu corporis effigiabant, ‘and note that tragedies and comedies used to be recited in the theatre in this manner:  the theatre was a semi-​circular space, in the middle of which there was a small house, which was called the scena, in which there was a platform upon which the poet used to recite his poems; on the outside there were mimes, who used to portray the recitation of the poems with bodily gestures’, Expositio

176 Chapter 6 In the Lyon Terence the stage is occupied neither by the recitator nor by the actors, but by a flute player. He is positioned rather precariously between the acting space and the audience space, being seated on the stage but having his outstretched legs supported by the pedestal of one of the supporting columns. The presence of a flute player on stage is also reminiscent of Isidore’s Etymologies 18.47, where the word for which he offers an etymology is thymelici, stage musicians who performed at the outset of a play on a raised platform (thymele) on the orchestra. The representation of the theatre building of the Lyon Terence follows in the footsteps of the Medieval illustrative tradition for the Roman playwright. Late Medieval and early Renaissance manuscripts of Terence have at their outset a representation of the staging of a play. This usually consists of a recitator, miming actors and an audience.17 Although in these early representations theatre buildings are very rudimentary structures, the demarcation of audience and performance spaces is clear enough. The theatre building woodcut of the Lyon Terence inspired Johannes Grüninger in the frontispiece of his 1496 edition and the following reprints.18 Lazzaro de’ Soardi also set the interior of a theatre building as the frontispiece to his 1497 and all subsequent editions of the plays. His representation greatly differs from that of Badius. The interior of de’ Soardi’s theatre, which is labelled as ‘Coliseus sive theatrum’ (Colosseum or theatre) presents the audience seated on two rows of a semicircular cavea as they watch an actor performing on a stage while another actor is entering the stage from a curtained door positioned on the right wing.19 This representation of the theatre seems to be informed by the principles of theatre architecture that Vitruvius delineated in the fifth book of his De architectura.20 The editio princeps of Vitruvius’ treatise edited by Sulpizio da Veroli appeared in Rome in 1486. A year earlier Lorenzo de’ Medici had patronised the first edition in print of Leon Battista Alberti De re aedificatoria that aimed at re-​elaborating Vitruvian Herculis furentis p. 5.13–​18 [Ussani]. See also Chapter 2.1 for the version of Isidore’s comments which circulated in the work of Laurent de Premierfait. 17 See Chapter 2.2 for discussion of the development of the theatre illustration in the manu­ script tradition. For illustrations of Terence see Tours, BM, MS 924, f. 13v; Paris, BnF, lat. 7907a, f. 2v; Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal 664, f. 1v. See also the illustration at the beginning of Seneca’s Hercules furens in bav, Urb. lat. 355, f. 1r. 18 Terentius, Comoediae 1496, a6v. For a detailed study of the impact of the Lyon Terence on subsequent printed editions see Chapter 7. 19 Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, a4v [=1497b f. 6v]. 20 On the exegesis of Vitruvius in the Italian Renaissance see Torello-​Hill, “The Exegesis of Vitruvius,” with references to further literature.

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

177

architectural doctrine. These editions mark the flourishing of humanist exegesis of the complex and partly corrupted text of Vitruvius that culminated with the first fully illustrated edition of Giovanni Giocondo in 1511. A number of sixteenth-​century Italian and French illustrated editions of Terence still included a woodcut illustrating the staging of a performance. Girolamo Scoto in his 1545 edition of Terence included a woodcut at the start of each play right before the didascalia (Figure 6.1).21 The woodcut represents an actor on centre stage with a perspectival backdrop that resembles Sebastiano Serlio’s tragic scenography as it appears in the second book of I sette libri dell’architettura, published in Paris in 1545.22 6.3

The Stage

The woodcuts of the Lyon Terence depict characters interacting on a wooden stage against a backdrop that is made of contiguous houses with curtained doors. In the illustrations to Andria, the stage is flanked by aedicules, consisting of a column surmounted by a pediment and a niche with a statue of Apollo (Phoebus) on the right-​hand side, and a statue of Bacchus (Liber) on the left. This arrangement is specifically said to rely on the authority of Donatus; thus in ­chapter  9 of his Praenotamenta,23 Badius states ut uero Donatus au‹c›tor est, iuxta proscenia altaria duo fiebant, alterum Liberi patris, alterum Phebi (‘as, however, Donatus is the authority, there were constructed two altars next to the proscenium, one of them to father Liber [i.e. Bacchus], the other to Phoebus [i.e. Apollo]’),24 and he specifies in c­ hapter 11 that the altar to Liber is on the right, and that to Apollo on the left: In pauimento autem proscenii supra quod ambulabant strata erant tapeta, sub ipsa autem scena superficies erant domorum cum inscriptionibus dominorum suorum. Deinde suppara seu cortinae tenues erant post quas histriones latebant et inde lusuri prodibant. In dextra parte proscenii ara erat Liberi patris, in sinistra Apollinis.25

21 Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1545, f. 1r. 22 Serlio, Il secondo libro di perspettiva f.  69r, which is included in Serlio, Il primo libro d’Architettura, 1545. 23 See Chapters 3.3 and 4.3 for discussion. 24 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a8r. 25 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a8v. Donatus, de comoedia 8.3 states that the second altar was of the deity who each festival was dedicated to (sinistra cuius dei cui ludi fiebant).

178 Chapter 6 On the floor of the stage on which they walk rugs had been laid out and under this covered area were the structures of the houses with the labels of their owners. [Hanging] from there were drapes or thin curtains behind which the actors used to hide and to come out of to act. On the right-​hand side of the stage was an altar dedicated to the father Liber. On the left hand-​side one dedicated to Apollo. In fact, Donatus only states in scaena duae arae poni solebant:  dextera Liberi, sinistra eius dei, cui ludi fiebant (‘on the stage two altars were usually placed: on the right to Liber, on the left to that god for whom the games were being held,’ Don. de com. 8.3), so Badius has either extrapolated that the second god was Apollo from Evanthius’ statement that primitive Athenian dramas were performed at the festivals of Apollo (Evanth. de com. 1.3), or derived his detail from another source. Badius uses the words cortina and supparus interchangeably to refer to the curtained doors of the houses as they appear in the woodcuts. The issue of stage curtains had already been discussed by Badius in ­chapter 10 of the Praenotamenta, where he also calls on the authority of Donatus. In the Excerpta de comoedia, the author refers to the practice of covering the stage with embroided rugs (aulaea in scena sternuntur) that allegedly are named aulaea from King Attalus iii of Pergamon who died bequeathing his kingdom to the Romans.26 Donatus adds how at a later stage the Romans started using stage curtains (siparia). His words resonate in the words of Badius: Aulea quoque in scena in terram sternuntur. Erant autem aulea qualia nunc tapeta fiunt in Flandria plurima, quae aulea dicebant quia in aula Attali regis inuenta sunt qui populum romanum heredem instituit. Solent autem aulea ut plurimum pendi et tapeta prosterni, sed confunduntur vocabula. Ob memoriam ergo Attali aulea et pendebantur et prosternebantur. Sed ut dicit Donatus etas posterior pro auleis suppara accepit. Est autem supparus minutum uelum quod populo obstitit dum fabularum actus commutantur, de cuius umbra histriones pronunciabant. Haec Donatus. And aulaea are laid out on stage on the floor. Aulaea were such rugs (tapeta) as are found nowadays everywhere in Flanders. They used to call

26

The rule of Attalus iii (138–​133 bce) postdates the dramatic career of Terence; see Attalus [6]‌, bnp 2.307–​8 [A. Mehl]).

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

179

them aulaea because they were found in the palace (aula) of King Attalus who nominated the Roman people as his heirs. Usually aulaea are mostly hung out and tapeta laid out, but these words are confused, and so on account of the memory of Attalus aulaea were both hung out and laid out. But, as Donatus says, a later era started using suppara (stage curtains) instead of aulaea. This supparus is actually a very small hanging that stood in front of the audience between performances of plays. From its shade the actors spoke their lines. Donatus says this.27 Donatus’ words are themselves puzzling. Badius attempts to clarify the meaning of aulaeum by proposing that this word has been used interchangeably with tapetum to refer both to a rug and a hanging. But tapetum is used sparingly in Classical Latin and it appears in Plautus twice in reference to precious oriental rugs,28 while aulaea is commonly used with the meaning of stage curtain.29 Furthermore, it is not clear what he meant by minutum velum (‘very small hanging’). As Charles Magnin suggested in the nineteenth century, Donatus is unlikely to allude to the change of backdrop between acts of a play, but rather to the intermission between performances of different plays during a dramatic festival, which was filled with short drama plays such as mimes and farces.30 Badius’ discussion of the didascalia to Andria could be taken as a possible reference to contemporary theatre practice. Here Badius notes that the title of the play is Greek, and adds: Sciendum est quod omnes iste comedie primum erant in Greca lingua composite et acte in ciuitate Atheniensi, et ideo persone fere omnes Athenienses sunt. et quamuis postea a Terentio in Latinam linguam sunt translate, tamen materia et persone manserint eedem et sepe etiam nomina, et ideo semper presupponi debet quod comedie aguntur in ciuitate Atheniensi et de personis Atheniensibus, licet Rome aut etiam in Galliarum regionibus agantur.31

27 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a8v. 28 Pl. Ps. 147, St. 378. 29 For tapetum, see old s.v tapete; for aulaeum, old s.v. and tll 2.1459–​61 (particularly 1459.57–​1461.16). 30 Charles Magnin, Les origines du théâtre modern, vol. 1.  (Paris:  Hachette, 1838), 348. See also Ludwig Schwabe, Teuffel’s History of Roman Literature, vol. 1. translated from the fifth German edition by George C.W. Warr (reprinted Nikosia: TP Verone, 2017), 8. 31 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, b4r.

180 Chapter 6 It should be recognised that all these comedies were first composed in the Greek language and acted in the city of Athens, and so almost all the characters are Athenians. And although afterwards they have been translated by Terence into the Latin language, nevertheless their subject matter and characters will stay the same, and often also the names, and so it should always be presupposed that the comedies are being acted in the city of Athens and concern Athenian characters, although they are being acted at Rome or even in the regions of Gaul. There is nothing in Badius’ language here to suggest that he may be referring specifically to known contemporary productions, such as the staging of Plautus and Terence in Rome by the academy of Pomponio Leto in the 1480s, or otherwise unattested revival performances by students in Lyon or elsewhere in Gaul; Rome may have been selected as an instance simply because it was the site of Terence’s premières, and Gaul because Badius’ teaching was written for Lyonnaise students. But what is significant here is that Badius shows clear consciousness of the plays’ potential to be performed to contemporary audiences, rather than simply to be studied by younger students as a model of perfect Latinity, or by scholars solely out of antiquarian interest. A more specific reference to contemporary Flanders occurs in ­chapter  7, this time with a specific reference to theatre performance. Commenting on the use of masks in ancient theatre to allow actors to play multiple roles, Badius notes this to be current practice in Flanders: Ideoque qui historias regum principumque in cameris precio ludunt, ut nunc uulgo est uidere in Flandria et regionibus uicinis, uarias personas accipiunt.32 And for this reason, those who perform the stories of kings and princes in chambers for a fee, as nowadays the populace can see in Flanders and neighbouring regions, wear different masks. Although the reference to masked performances that dramatise ‘the stories of kings and princes’ for the enjoyment of a paying audience seems prima facie quite generic, it deserves further treatment. First of all, it should be noted that the fact that he uses the term ‘in cameris’ indicates that Badius is not concerned with popular street entertainment. The word camera points 32 Terentius, Comoediae 1502, a7v.

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

181

unmistakably to the halls of an enclosed public or private building and it cannot refer to the wagons of touring troupes. The fact that an audience is expected to pay an entrance fee also excludes courtly performances that were staged on official occasions for distinguished guests. It is likely that Badius here refers to indoor public performances staged by Chambers of Rhetoric (rederijkerskamers), dramatic societies that were established in Flanders from the early fifteenth century. These associations were sponsored by each individual municipality and had the character of guilds or confraternities. They were made of semi-​professional actors and competed at the dramatic contests that were being held across the Low Countries.33 Their establishment coincided with the development of secular dramatic forms that could not be performed in sacred spaces. Chambers of Rhetoric rehearsed and performed in dedicated spaces, often in upper storeys of public buildings, known as kamers, chambers.34 More difficult is to ascertain what dramatic genre Badius compares and contrasts against ancient performances. Max Herrmann suggested that the mention of ‘stories of kings and princes’ could refer to the vernacular genre of chivalric drama, known as abele spelen, that flourished in Flanders in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.35 Abele spelen literally means ‘fine plays’ and alludes to the more sophisticated nature of these dramatic pieces as opposed to other popular genres of vernacular drama, such as farces that relied mostly on improvisation and stock characters. Only twenty fifteenth-​century abele spelen survive as opposed to nearly six hundred plays that were produced in the sixteenth century.36 There is no evidence to suggest that these plays were ever performed by masked actors; on the contrary the exiguous number of characters that feature in each play makes it difficult to suggest the use of masks for the purpose of role doubling. But official records of Flemish municipalities are a goldmine of information concerning a variety of dramatic genres being staged by both local and touring companies. These municipal records list performances of more popular forms of chivalric plays, which were no more than dramatisation of poems such as the Chanson de Roland, Floris et Blanchefleur,

33

On dramatic contexts see Alan E. Knight, “Drama and Society in Late Medieval Flanders and Picardy,” The Chaucer Review 14 (1980), 380–​2. 34 Willem M.H. Hummelen, “Performers and Performance in the Earliest Serious Secular Plays in the Netherlands,” Comparative Drama 26, no. 1 (1992), 26. 35 Max Herrmann, Forschungen zur deutschen Theatergeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance (Berlin:  Weidmann, 1914), 300–​ 18; Hummelen, “Performers and Performance,” 22. 36 Hummelen, “Performers and Performance,” 19.

182 Chapter 6 Le quatre fils Aymon, and the Roman de la Rose.37 Many of these texts gained an increasingly wider popularity in the fifteenth century. It is towards the last quarter of the century that de luxe editions of these epics began to be in high demand in the Low Countries as well as in France, Germany and England.38 Deluxe editions were lavishly illustrated by Flemish miniaturists and consisted both of hybrid editions in manuscript format and printed editions. Beside this ever-​popular genre, there were also commissioned romanticised contemporary histories and, on a smaller scale, ancient texts, mostly in vernacular translations. As discussed in Chapter 5,39 the illustrator of the Lyon Terence is likely to have illustrated some of these works, and thus Classical and chivalric texts were assimilated, at least as far as their visual imagery was concerned. Donatus’ description of ancient stagecraft bears no mention of the presence of houses with labels that describe their ownership, a consistent feature in the Lyon Terence.40 In the earliest Carolingian illustrated manuscripts of Terence characters are usually identified by a floating label, but buildings are not designated by labels even in those later manuscripts that present a more elaborate backdrop, such as the Parisian manuscripts Paris, BnF, lat. 7907a and Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, MS 664, from the early 1400s. Unlike the woodcuts of the Lyon Terence, the scenes illustrated in the miniatures of these de luxe French manuscripts are not set on a stage. In many instances the backdrop consists of non-​contiguous houses equipped with doors and windows. Off-​ stage scenes, such as the birth-​scene in Andria are depicted inside a building in which the characters are visible through large windows. The representation of practicable houses with doors and windows could reflect contemporary theatre practice. A similar arrangement was implemented in the mise-​en-​scene of 37 38 39 40

Herman Pleij, “The Late Middle Ages and the Age of the Rhetoricians, 1400–​1560,” in A Literary History of the Low Countries, ed. Theo Hermans (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2009), 74. Scot McKendrick, “Reviving the Past: Illustrated Manuscripts of Secular Vernacular Texts, 1467–​1500,” in Illuminating the Renaissance, ed. Thomas Kren and Scot McKendrick (Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 64. See Chapter 5.7. Thus for Andria, the Lyon Terence denotes the four houses as ‹Domus› Carini, ‹Domus› Chreme‹tis›, ‹Domus› Chrisidis, Do‹mus› Symonis (‘the house of Charinus, the house of Chremes, the house of Chrysis, the house of Simo’); cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a5v. There are occasional variations, suggesting that the compositors typeset each picture individually; thus for Andria i.i the last inscription reads Domus Symonis in full (a8r), but then the pictures revert to the abbreviated form Do‹mus›, the name Chremetis is sometimes found in full and Symonis abbreviated to Symo‹nis› (e.g. e1v), while at Eunuchus iii.v (k8r) the inscriptions for the first two houses (do‹mus› Lachis, ‹domus› Thaidis, ‘the house of Laches, the house of Thais’) are inverted.

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

183

the plays of Plautus and Terence that were revived at the end of the fifteenth century at the court of Ercole I in Ferrara, as discussed later in the chapter. But regardless of whether the curtained doors of the backdrop of the Lyon Terence are a remnant of the mansions of Medieval drama or, more likely, a visual reconstruction of Donatus/​Evanthius’s treatise On comedy, the positioning of the characters on stage, their gestures and interaction intimate a strong sense of theatricality. 6.4

Stage Conventions

6.4.1 Entrances and Exits The woodcuts of the Lyon Terence often illustrate simultaneously two sequences of a given scene. This practice is not exclusive to Badius’ edition of Terence, but can be traced back to some illustrated manuscripts of Terence. In the Terence manuscripts, nevertheless, this phenomenon is not as ubiquitous. The simultaneous representation of multiple sequences confers the woodcut motion and sequentiality. The artist who designed the iconographic plan follows consistently and with very few exceptions a set of dramatic conventions that reveal a deep knowledge of Classical theatre and understanding of theatre practice. The woodcut illustrations of the Lyon Terence consistently represent the stage conventions that feature in Classical Roman comedy such as soliloquies, asides and eavesdropping.41 Since in Roman comedy the dramatic action is continuous, entrances and exits are essential to creating dramatic tension. In Roman comedy the entrance and exit of a character is often anticipated by ‘visual announcements,’ verbal cues that included the deictic pronouns, naming of the character, or reference to his or her movement.42 Verbal cues functioned as internal stage directions, prompting the actor to enter the stage. The woodcut illustrations of the Lyon Terence depict entrances and exits of characters very accurately. Characters entering the stage are depicted in the act of pulling aside the curtain and with a leg outstretched as they set foot onto the stage. Conversely, exiting characters are represented with their upper body 41 42

For an overview of Roman stage conventions see George E.  Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy:  A Study in Popular Entertainment (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 1952), 102–​38. The terminology used in this section is taken from K.B. Frost, Exits and Entrances in Menander (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

184 Chapter 6 already concealed by the curtain and with the back of the body partially visible. Often only one shin is visible; whenever this occurs the exiting character is not labelled. The accuracy in the visual representation of the Lyon Terence becomes particularly apparent in scenes that feature almost simultaneous exits and entrances. At the end of the first scene of the first act of Andria Simo has finished explaining his plan of feigning the wedding between his son Pamphilus and Philumena. Sosia then exits the stage right after Simo’s words that invite the slave to ‘go first.’ At the beginning of the next scene, Andria i.ii, after pondering the situation for two and a half lines (An. 172–​4) Simo provides once again the internal stage direction by announcing that Davus is entering the stage (174). The artist aptly illustrates these two scenes in one woodcut: Sosia exiting the stage on the left-​hand side of the curtain, only partly visible, but clearly labelled, and entering into Simo’s house while Davus is entering the stage emerging from the right-​hand side of the curtain of Simo’s house (see Figure 6.2).43 ‘Talking back entrances’ are also frequently represented in the Lyon Terence.44 This type of entrance occurs when a character talks back to another character, and the Lyon Terence represents the on-​stage character with their head or entire body turned back to the curtained door. ‘Talking back entrances’ often function to announce the entrance of another character. Whenever this happens the character that is about to enter is partly visible behind the curtain, but remains at the threshold without setting foot onto the stage.45 Slightly different is the case in which a character enters the stage talking back to another character that is visible behind the curtain but is not to enter the stage. In this case the character’s talking back does not anticipate the other character’s entrance, but rather functions as an off-​stage scene.46 Other types of announced entrances that are depicted in the Lyon Terence are those summoned by noise or door knock. At Hecyra iv.i Myrrina hears a commotion coming from her house and anticipates the entrance of Phidippus. Accordingly, the woodcut depicts Myrrina facing the audience but with her head turned towards their house.47 Bodily orientation and gaze are consistently used by the illustrator of the Lyon Terence to visually represent a connection between the on-​stage and the

43 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, b5r. 44 Frost, Exits and Entrances, 7–​8. 45 As in Eunuchus ii.i, where Phaedria addresses Parmeno, who is still off-​stage (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, h7v); likewise, Hecyra ii.ii, where Phidippus addresses Philumena (M6v). 46 This occurs at Adelphoe iv.v and v.iii (in both instances Micio is addressing Sostrata; Terentius, Comoediae 1493, B1r and C1r), and v.viii (Micio is addressing Syrus; D1r). 47 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, O4r.

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

185

off-​stage. At Eunuchus iii.iii Chremes is depicted as looking back to the off-​ stage as Pythias who has just entered the stage taps him on his shoulder. Visible behind the curtain is the slave Dorias who will be prompted by Pythias to enter the stage.48 The majority of entrances and all exits illustrated in the Lyon Terence occur through a stage door, as the characters arrive from and depart to one of the signposted houses. Wing entrances only occur eight times; five of these are in Phormio alone.49 The wing entrances depicted in the woodcuts contravene in most cases the largely accepted view that the right wing (on the audience side) symbolises the direction of the forum while the left wing leads to the countryside and the harbour. This alleged stage convention is still highly debated by critics since the ancient authorities that discuss it, Vitruvius and Pollux, do not provide conclusive evidence. Vitruvius in De architectura 5.6.8 simply states that one wing indicated entrances ‘from the forum’ (a foro) while the opposite one was for entrances ‘from abroad’ (a peregre). Pollux in his Onomasticon 4.126 places the exit to the city and harbour on the same side, while the exit to the countryside is represented by the opposite wing. However, neither Vitruvius nor Pollux specifies which entrance is on the right wing and which one is on the left wing. Internal stage directions in the plays of Plautus and Terence suggest that such conventions were far from rigid. Wing entrances could be used interchangeably to signify the city and the countryside or harbour; occasionally side entrances seem to be used also to signify the direction to a house.50 In the wing entrances illustrated in the Lyon Terence, Badius takes the left wing as the direction to the forum and the right wing as leading to the harbour/​countryside. Thus Davus at Andria ii.ii and Geta at Adelphoe iii.ii, who enter the stage hastily to deliver some crucial news to their master, are certainly coming from the forum and enter accordingly from the left wing. Their dramatic role resonates with the servus currens, the running slave of Roman comedy.51 On the other hand, Bacchis and Antiphila, who are said to be returning from a long trip at Heauton timorumenos ii.iv, enter from the right wing.

48 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, k5v. 49 These occur at Andria ii.ii (Davus; Terentius, Comoediae 1493, c6r); Heauton timorumenos ii.iv (Bacchis and Antiphila; q8v) Adelphoe iii.ii (Geta; z6r); Phormio i.i (Davus; D7v), iv.ii (Geta; H4r), v.i (Sophrona; I2v), v.ix (Nausistrata; K8r); Hecyra i.i (Philotis and Syra; L7r). 50 Alexandra G. Smith, “Was There a Convention Controlling the Use of Exits and Entrances on the Roman Comic Stage?” (Master’s thesis, University of California, 1906). 51 On the servus currens see Chapter 5.6.

186 Chapter 6 The side entrances of Sophrona and Nausistrata in the Phormio are more difficult to explain. Sophrona’s entrance at v.i conflicts with the internal stage direction contained in the words of Chremes, who sees her exiting the house of Demipho,52 which is positioned at the opposite side of the stage. Likewise, Nausistrata at v.ix is meant to enter the stage from Chremes’s house and should therefore be positioned in front of his house on centre stage. The incongruence can be explained by the fact that in both cases the illustrator had to accommodate two sequences within the same scene. Nausistrata, who has been summoned out of her house by the noise (l. 990) speaks first to Phormio before Chremes enters the conversation (l. 993). The woodcut depicts this early part of the scene on the left-​hand side. In the centre of the same illustration is the sequence of Phormio being attacked by Chremes and Demipho before the final conciliation. 6.4.2 Asides, Eavesdropping, and Off-​Stage Scenes Asides are the most deployed theatrical device of Roman comedy. Their pervasiveness in Early Modern theatre can be explained by the fact that they allow ‘to represent a multiplicity of actions, dialogues, points of view.’53 David Bain has identified two types of aside in Roman comedy: the aside that is treated as an unspoken thought and is therefore ignored by the other on-​stage character(s), and the aside that is treated as being spoken aloud. In the latter case the other speaker reacts to the aside, validating the fact that s/​he has heard at least part of the character monologue providing a delayed stage direction.54 The most common situation when asides are being spoken aloud is either at the end of a monologue that is partly heard by an entrant character or when an onstage character overhears a conversation of two characters entering the stage.55 As in Roman comedy the action is continuous, entrances and exits and characters speaking in asides often occur within the same scene. The woodcuts of the Lyon Terence reflect the dynamic of Terentian scenes and often two sequences of the same scene are illustrated in the same woodcut. The two sequences of a scene depict either a soliloquising character and a dialogue

52

nam quae haec anus est exanimata a fratre quae egressast meo? (‘but why is this old lady stirred up who has come out of my brother’s ‹house›?’ Ph. 732). 53 Jeremy Lopez, Theatrical Convention and Audience Response in Early Modern Drama (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 56 notes that the use of asides ‘opens up a variety of problems with respect to the negotiation of physical space on the stage itself.’ 54 David Bain, Actors and Audience. A  Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek Drama (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), 156–​7. 55 Bain, Actors and Audience, 158–​9.

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

187

scene in which the characters interact with other characters who have entered, or when one or more characters speak in aside and then they interact with one another in a dialogue sequence. Generally, in representing two-​sequence scenes the illustrator follows a left-​to-​right progression. The first sequence is depicted in the far-​left corner of the woodcut and the second sequence in the middle or right-​hand side. But there are exceptions to this rule that occur when a character enters the stage from a house that is positioned to the stage right of an entrant character or when a character has entered from a side entrance. In scenes that feature characters speaking in aside, or one character speaking in aside while two other characters enter the stage in dialogue before they all interact,56 the illustrator disregards the sequence of action and depicts the characters that are in separate asides at the opposite sides of the stage, while the dialogue is depicted on centre stage. Their physical separation is a visually effective way of presenting characters that are not interacting with one another and cannot hear the other party. An exemplary case of multiple asides is Andria iii.i, in which Mysis and the midwife Lesbia enter the stage that is already occupied by Simo and Davus. Mysis and Lesbia are unaware of the presence of Simo and Davus, who on the other hand overhear the conversation and make comments in asides. In the Lyon Terence, Simo and Davus are depicted on the right-​hand side of the stage and their lack of interaction is visually represented by the fact that Davus stands behind Chremes rather than in front of him.57 In several instances asides are spoken by a character that is about to enter the stage and that sometimes, but not always, eavesdrops on one or more on-​stage characters. When this occurs, the character is depicted behind the curtain with a foot already set onstage and the body and gaze turned to an onstage character. Often the eavesdropper holds the curtain open, presumably to signify a delayed entrance.58 Typically, the eavesdropper is a male or female slave who comments in an aside on the words being spoken by the on-​stage character, and who expresses the intention of deceiving the other character.59 Eavesdropping scenes are fairly frequent in Roman drama and staged in combination with asides. Typically, an on-​stage character eavesdrops on the

56 Bain, Actors and Audience, 162 ff. 57 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, d4r. 58 Compare Eunuchus v.iv (Pythias; Terentius, Comoediae 1493, n4v); Adelphoe iii.iii (Syrus; &1v), v.vi (Syrus; C6v), v.viii (Syrus; D1r); Phormio iv.iii (Antipho; H5r). 59 The only study dedicated exclusively to eavesdropping in Roman comedy is still Vergil E. Hiatt, “Eavesdropping in Roman Comedy” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1946), 29, n. 10. See also Bain, Actors and Audience, 171.

188 Chapter 6 dialogue between characters that have just entered the stage before interacting with the newcomers.60 The deployment of this stage device rests on the audience’s acceptance of Classical stage conventions that posit that the character before their eyes is not visible to the dialoguing characters. The illustrator of the Lyon Terence differentiates a scene in which eavesdropping occurs as the result of a delayed entrance, as discussed above, from when an onstage character hides to escape the notice of dialoguing characters. The latter instance is illustrated three times in the Lyon Terence.61 In two of these scenes, Eunuchus v.i and Phormio ii.i the eavesdropper is depicted as he hides behind a stage column while his face turns to the other characters. The position of Chaerea at Eunuchus v.i at the far-​left corner of the stage prompted Lawrenson and Purkis to deny the Lyon Terence any sense of theatricality. On the contrary, these illustrations are a very effective way of depicting eavesdropping scenes. In the Eunuchus the scene is crucial to the subsequent unfolding of the plot, as Chaerea is unmasked and scolded for the rape of Pamphila. This changes his persona from a victim of love to a ruthless perpetrator. At Phormio iv.v Chremes and Demipho enter the stage carrying a bag of money, while Geta is depicted behind the curtain. Unlike other scenes of eavesdropping that occur as a result of a delayed entrance, in the illustration to this scene Geta remains at the threshold and does not make any physical contact with the performative space. In the woodcuts we have three types of off-​stage scenes. There are instances in which a character enters the stage while still in conversation with a character inside. For instance at Andria i.iv, Mysis enters the stage from Glycerium’s house while speaking back to the housekeeper Archylis, who insists that she should retrieve Lesbia.62 For reasons of practicality we can assume that in the original staging of this scene, Archylis did not appear at all and only her voice was heard. The illustrator of the Lyon Terence, however, must make each scene as clear as possible to his readers. Thus Archylis is well visible beyond the curtains seated and in a pleading gesture. Mysis holds the curtain and gives her back to the audience to signify her exchange with an off-​stage character. The contraposition between the on-​and off-​stage is also very clearly represented in the corresponding scene in Paris, BnF, 7907A (f. 7v). In this case a doorframe is the only divider of these two spaces, but the contraposition is clear enough. 60 Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy, 109-​11. 61 Eunuchus v.i (Chaerea; Terentius, Comoediae 1493, m7v); Phormio ii.i (Geta; F2v), iv.v (Geta; I1v). 62 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, b8v.

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

189

A second type occurs when the attention of a character who is already on stage is drawn to the off-​stage as the character witnesses the off-​stage scene, but does not interact with it. This happens in the additional scene Badius inserted at Hecyra iii.i when Pamphilus and Parmeno hear Myrrina who is off-​ stage pleading her case with her daughter.63 This coincides with an eavesdropping scene and Pamphilus leans towards the door without having any physical contact with it. Myrrina who is giving her back to the stage is visible through the drawn curtain (see Figure 6.3). In few instances an on-​stage character interacts with an off-​stage character. This happens three times in the Lyon Terence and in all scenes the interaction between the on-​stage and off-​stage characters is spoken in aside with the implication that other on-​stage characters will not hear this exchange. For instance, at Adelphoe iv.ii Syrus has his back turned to the off-​stage while he talks to Ctesipho who appears at the threshold of Micio’s house as he confirms his fear that Demea is looking for him.64 Lastly, Heauton timorumenos i.ii is meant to be an off-​stage scene according to the text, but in the Lyon Terence it is depicted as taking place on stage. In the text Clitipho, who has entered, talks back to Clinia; the lack of response on Clinia’s part implies that this was conceived as an off-​stage scene. In the Lyon Terence, this first sequence of the scene is visually represented as an interaction between Clitipho and Clinia while on the right-​hand side of the woodcut Clitipho engages in conversation with Chremes.65 6.5

Terence on Stage in Renaissance Italy and France

The level of sophistication of the woodcut illustrations of the Lyon Terence suggests that, whoever designed the iconographic plan, had extensive knowledge of the text, and deep understanding of both artistic convention and theatre practice. Badius clearly conceived the woodcuts as an effective tool to unlock the intricacies of Terentian plots. This in itself suggests that he must have overseen the design plan and worked in close collaboration with the artist who designed it. Twentieth-​century scholarship has discussed, mostly to disprove it, whether a connection between the illustrations of the Lyon Terence and the revival of the plays of Plautus and Terence at the court of Ercole I d’Este in Ferrara could

63 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, N1r. 64 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, A3r. Similarly see Adelphoe v.ii (B8r) and v.viii (D1r). 65 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, p6r.

190 Chapter 6 be established.66 The Ferrarese performances were inaugurated in 1486 with the staging of Menechini or Meneghini, a translation into vernacular Italian of Plautus’ Menaechmi, in the public square between the ducal palace and the cathedral. Between 1486 and 1503 thirteen plays of Plautus and two plays of Terence were staged to celebrate official visits, weddings and the Carnival.67 These performances are of particular significance, since they are likely to be concurrent to the time Badius stayed in Ferrara to complete his humanist education. As discussed in Chapter 3, there is no evidence that indicates explicitly that Badius was a spectator at any of these performances. The present scanty knowledge of his biography still hinders us from determining the exact dates of his Ferrarese stay. All that can be stated with confidence is that Badius must have been in Ferrara at least for a period of several months at some stage between 1481 and 1491, and possibly (although by no means certainly) in 1491, when repeat performances of Plautus’ Menechini and Amphitruo, as well as of Terence’s Andria, took place.68 Contemporary chnonicles and epistolary correspondence provide us with details of the mise-​en-​scene of these productions. These documentary sources describe the stage as made of practicable houses with windows against a painted backdrop that represent the city of Ferrara. This backdrop, labelled by Ludovico Zorzi as ‘città ferrarese’ is a far cry from the curtained houses of the Lyon Terence.69 A unique instance that could potentially indicate the influence of the iconography of the Lyon Terence, perhaps through the mediation of the Venetian inprints, is represented by the revival of Classical Roman comedy that took place on the Capitol in Rome in 1513. The revival was part of lavish celebrations organized by Pope Leo x which are well documented by contemporary sources.70 Paolo Palliolo’s description of the temporary 66 67

68 69 70

Arguments of early scholarship are summarised in Carrick, “The Lyons Terence,” 22–​31. Anna Maria Coppo, “Spettacoli alla Corte di Ferrara,” Contributi dell’Istituto di Filologia Moderna, Serie Storia del Teatro 1 (1968), 37–​8; lists Terence, Andria (1491), Eunuchus (1499, 1500, 1503); Plautus, Amphitruo (1487, 1491), Asinaria (1500, 1502), Aulularia (1503), Bacchides (1502), Captivi (1500, 1501), Casina (1502), Curculio (1490), Epidicus (1502), Menaechmi (1486, 1491, 1493, 1501, 1503), Mercator (1500), Mostellaria (1503), Miles gloriosus (1502), Pseudolus (1501). For discussion of the evidence presently available to us, see Chapter 3.2.2. Ludovico Zorzi, Il teatro e la città. Saggi sulla scena italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1977), 76–​8. This is also noted by Carrick, “The Lyons Terence,” 24. Fabrizio Cruciani, Il teatro del Campidoglio e le feste romane del 1513 (Milan: Il Polifilo, 1969), reports the chronicles of the events by Marcantonio Altieri (3-20), Paolo Palliolo (21-67, 69-94) and Aurelio Sereno (95-123); Fabrizio Cruciani, Teatro nel Rinascimento:  Roma 1450–​1550 (Rome:  Bulzoni, 1983) collects the accounts of Francesco Chierigati (4169) and Notturno Napolitano (421-34); see also Stefano Benedetti, “Roma, settembre

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

191

stage-​building erected for the occasion resonates with scene illustrations of the Lyon ­Terence: Guardando avanti, se apresenta la fronte della scena, in v compassi distinta per mezzo di colonne quadre, con basi e capitelli coperti de oro. In ciascuno compasso è un uscio di grandezza conveniente a private case … agli usci delle scene furono poste portiere di panno de oro. El proscenio fu coperto tutto di tapeti con un ornatissimo altare in mezzo.71 Looking in front, there is the scaenae frons divided into five compartments by squared columns, with pediments and capitols covered in gold. In each compartment there is a door the size of those of private dwellings … above the doors of the stage building were placed curtains of golden fabric. The proscenium was all covered in rugs with an elaborately decorated altar in the middle. Classical plays ceased to be revived at Ferrara after the death of Ercole I in 1505, but had another brief spell in Venice in the 1510s. Actor and impresario Francesco Nobili, who had taken part in the Ferrarese performances, took the stage scripts produced in Ferrara and presented them in front of a paying audience. New developments on the Italian stage soon brought about a decreasing interest in staging of vernacular adaptations of Classical Roman comedy.72 While the plays of Terence started being staged in Italy in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, in France there is no record of plays of Terence being staged before the 1540s. Just as it happened in Italy with the Ferrarese revival, the staging of Terentian plays coincided with the production of a number of translations into French vernacular. In 1539 the translation of the six plays in both verse and prose that was published by Vérard in 1499–​1503 was reprinted in Paris. Le grant Therence en francoys tant en rime que en prose contained a better original text and included the woodcut illustrations of the Lyon Terence. In the early 1540s, Charles Estienne published a translation of Andria in prose (1541) and one in verse (1542). The otherwise unknown schoolteacher Joannes Ericius translated Eunuchus and Heauton timorumenos. Lastly, Jean-​Anthoine

71 72

1513: Spettacolo, poesia e satira in Theatro Capitolino,” in Poésie latine à haute voix (1500–​ 1700), ed.  Lambert Isebaert and Aline Smeesters (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 111-31. Allardyce Nicoll,  The  Development of the Theatre:  A Study of  Theatrical  Art from the Beginnings to the Present Day (London: Harrap, 1927), 82; Carrick “The Lyons Terence,” 27. For an overview of the development of Italian Early Modern theatre see Marzia Pieri, La nascita del teatro moderno in Italia tra XV e XVI secolo (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1989).

192 Chapter 6 de Baïf translated and staged L’Eunuque in 1565.73 In addition there are a number of anonymous translations of Andria in verse (1555) and in a scholastic edition (1558), fragments of scholastic translations of Eunuchus, Heauton timorumenos and Hecyra (1558), while translations of Andria, Heauton timorumenos and Hecyra are also part of the 1560 Lyonnais ‘Triplex’ edition compiled by Pierre Antesignan.74 Madeleine Lazard claimed that the proliferation of these translations could be related to the didactic role that had long been assigned to the plays of Terence.75 While in some instances these translations were written to support school pupils in their learning, the format of other editions suggests that they targeted different readerships.76 The monumental Le grant Therence en francoys tant en rime que en prose is a de luxe product that was aimed at a wealthy readership. More accessible are the translations of Estienne who specifically acknowledged his target readerships. The 1541 translation in verse is said to be written for the benefit of young readers (in adolescentulorum gratiam), while the translation in prose targets an adult readership and is accompanied by an introduction on ancient theatre, Des Scènes et Thèâtres.77 A turning point in the development of translations of Terence in French vernacular, is L’Eunuque by Jean-​Anthoine de Baïf. L’Eunuque represents the first attempt at appropriating themes and plots of Classical comedy that aims to suit a contemporary audience. The Terentian prologue is not included in this adaptation and the names of the characters are modernised. The text is written in octosyllables, a metre that is traditionally associated with popular dramatic genres, such as farces and sotties.78 Translations of Classical authors 73

Paris, BnF, fr. 867, f. 52v records the completion date as 26 December 1565. On de Baïf’s dramatic production see Simone Maser, “J.A. de Baïf, dramaturge,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 47, no. 3 (1985), 555–​67. 74 Terentius, Comoediae 1560. On translations of Terence into French in the sixteenth century see Harold W. Lawton, Térence en France au XVIe siècle, vol 1 (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970), 368–​562; Madeleine Lazard, Le théâtre en France au XVIe siècle (Paris:  Presses universitaires de France, 1980), 161. 75 Lazard, Le théâtre en France, 161. 76 Badius also intended to publish a translation of his commentary on Terence into French, as noted at pp. 99 and 136. See also Paul White, “From Commentary to Translation: Figurative Representations of the Text in the French Renaissance,” in The Culture of Translation in Early Modern England and France, 1500–​1660, ed. Tania Demetriou and Rowan Tomlinson (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 73. 77 Lawton, Térence en France, vol. 1, 426–​49. 78 Lazard, Le théâtre en France, 69. For an overview of dramatic genres in Renaissance France see Charles Mazouer, Le théâtre français de la Renaissance (Paris:  Honoré Champion, 2002). For a treatment of Medieval genres that still survive during the Renaissance see

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

193

into French vernacular in the second half of the sixteenth century resonated with the aspiration for a development of national literary outputs advocated by Jean-​Anthoine de Baïf and the other members at the forefront of La Pléiade.79 French modern theatre (the so-​called théâtre savant) developed from increasingly independent translations of the plays of Terence and Plautus, just as the Italian commedia erudita.80 It is through a gradual appropriation of the themes of Classical comedy and the striving to gain a deeper understanding of ancient theatre practice, as attempted by Estienne’s Des Scènes et Thèâtres, that French intellectuals promoted the establishment of more learned forms of dramatic genres in a bid to establish their linguistic and cultural identity. Our earliest records of performances of Classical comedy in France come from the 1540s, precisely at a time in which Terence began to be translated into the vernacular. The record of these performances is quite scanty and relies on the notary records for Paris collected by Ernest Coyecque in 1905, which includes documents only up to 1545.81 As has been noted, a much-​needed study of notaries beyond this date and extended to other French cities would be able to shed light on sixteenth century performance practice in France.82 Despite these limitations, the 1544 records of the city of Paris contain three notary documents that refer to a bilingual touring company led by a Piedmontese Italian actor and impresario named Jean Anthoine that included Italian and French actors. One of these documents is a contract in which a young training actor commits to working in the company for at least six months while Jean Anthoine ‘must demonstrate and teach to him his art and skills of playing ancient Roman plays.’ A separate contract binds Jean Anthoine and his fellow Italian actors from Verona along with two French actors, Thomas Molynier and Guillaume Quatrece, to work exclusively for this company at the service of the King of France for a year. The document also details the repertoire of the troupe that includes ancient plays, morality plays, farces, and other dramatic forms both in Italian and French.

Jean-​Pierre Bordier, “Le Moyen Âge: la fête et la foi,” in Le théâtre en France, ed. Alain Viala (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2016), 71–​102. 79 Lawton, Térence en France, vol. 1, 59–​60. 80 For an overview of the théâtre savant see Fragonard, “La Renaissance ou l’apparition du ‘théâtre à texte’,” 141–​51. Lyon was also the first French city to have a permanent theatre building from 1541 while Paris did not have one until 1548, as Fragonard notes (111). 81 Ernest Coyecque, ed., Recueil ďactes notariés relatifs à l’histoire de Paris et ses environs au xvie siècle (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1905–​1923), nos. 3161, 3264. 82 Stephen K.  Wright, “Records of Early French Drama in Parisian Notary Registers,” Comparative Drama 24, no. 3 (1990): 232–​54.

194 Chapter 6 The presence of Italian actors in Lyon is also recorded in the 1540s. The well documented performances were staged on the occasion of the entry into the city of Henry ii and Caterina de’ Medici in 1548. For the festivities, Italian male and female actors from Florence led by Domenico Barlacchi were called into the city to perform La calandria by Bibbiena. The contemporary chronicler Maurice Scève, in his detailed report of the celebrations, commented on the great expense that the city of Lyon had to sustain, while Pierre de Brantôme remarked that such performances were unprecedented in France.83 Lyon also saw the first publication of the vernacular translation of the Italian anonymous play Gl’Ingannati. Translated by Charles Estienne, it appeared in Lyon in 1543, shortly after his translations of Andria were published. If Terence’s plays only appear to be staged in France from the 1540s, many other theatrical genres that originated in the Middle Ages kept flourishing in the fifteenth century through performances sponsored by individual municipalites or staged by itinerant companies. Morality plays, farces, and sotties co-​existed alongside the developing French drama well into the sixteenth century, as the documentary record of the bilingual company led by Jean Anthoine shows. A unique perspective of performance practice in Lyon at the time of the publication of the Lyon Terence comes from the exceptionally detailed account of the performances held in the city on the occasion of the entry of Charles viii in 1490.84 Among the performances organised to welcome the king of France were mystery plays (mystères), short performances on biblical, historical or allegorical themes (échafauds or histoires), and morality plays (moralités), which commonly had allegorical characters. These short performances were often presented as tableaux vivants and at times the texts were read out loud while the actors mimed the action.85 Particularly interesting is the record of the leading role played by Jean Perréal in designing the temporary theatrical structures and overseeing the work of the many artists and artisans involved in this ambitious undertaking. Perréal was the royal painter at the service of Charles viii and later on in the retinue of Louis xii and Francis I. An eclectic artist, Perréal was a portraitist, a celebrated limner and a set designer.86 As discussed, some

83 84 85 86

Virginia Scott, Women on the Stage in Early Modern France 1540–​1570 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 73–​4. Tania Lévy, “Les séjours et entrées de la Cour à Lyon,” in  Lyon Renaissance. Arts et Humanisme, ed. Ludmila Virassamynaïken (Lyon: Somogy Éditions d’Art, 2015), 140. Bordier, “Le Moyen Âge,” 74–​5. Maxence Hermant, “Production et commande de manuscrits enluminés à Lyon à la fin du Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance,” in Virassamynaïken 2015, 276.

The Theatricality of the Lyon Terence

195

scholars have attempted to identify him as the artist of the Lyon Terence, although this has been disputed.87 Although Badius was most probably not yet in Lyon in 1490, the artist who designed the iconography of the Lyon Terence could have been involved in the creation of the ephemeral theatrical structures. It seems very likely that preparations for such a unique event would have involved the best Lyonnais artists, while royal entries had a vast resonance that continued well after the end of the events.88 The transient nature of these temporary theatre buildings that were built ad hoc and subsequently dismantled means we have no evidence to substantiate a thesis that these structures influenced the design of the backdrop that appears in the woodcuts of the Lyon Terence. But the leading role of Jean Perréal, as well as the involvement of many artists remain highly significant, as they demonstrate the presence of a cohort of artists who would have acquired a direct knowledge of performance practice shortly before the time in which the Lyon Terence was in the planning stage. 87 88

See Chapter 5.7. As Scott, Women on the Stage, 73 remarks in relation to the performances for the entrance of Henry ii and Caterina de’ Medici in 1548, chronicler Pierre de Brantôme was only eight at the time and his later account must have relied on the public memory of the event.

­c hapter 7

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the Sixteenth Century 7.1

Terence in Print in the Late Fifteenth and Sixteenth Century

The plays of Terence take centre stage in the print market of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.1 Terence was a central author in the canon of school texts, and this gave rise to commercial mass production of his works. Just to give a sense of the breadth of this phenomenon, it will suffice to note that twenty-​two new editions appeared in the 1480s and eighteen in the 1490s, the decade in which the Lyon Terence was published. Reprints were also very common throughout the sixteenth century, since books were generally printed in small runs, as paper was expensive, and were reprinted on demand. This in turn necessitated updating the commentaries to these texts and, in the case of de luxe illustrated editions, their iconography, in order to remain profitable in an ever-​competing market. In the 1490s, Venetian printers included in their editions commentary and illustrations imported from France to appeal to a wider base of readers.2 The Lyon Terence became the primary iconographic model for most of the subsequent illustrated editions. 7.2

The Venetian Illustrated Editions of Terence of Lazzaro de’ Soardi

The mastermind behind the first illustrated editions of Terence to be printed in Italy was Lazzaro de’ Soardi.3 Originally from the town of Savigliano in Piedmont, de’ Soardi, like many other Italian printers, established his printing

1 See Paul F. Gehl, “Selling Terence in Renaissance Italy: The Marketing Power of Commentary,” in Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre, ed. Christina S. Kraus and Christopher Stray (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 253–​74 and Chapter 2.3. For a general overview of the printing history of the Classical text see Howard Jones, Printing the Classical Text (Utrecht: Hes and De Graaf, 2004). 2 Gehl, “Selling Terence,” 256 with bibliography. On printers’ necessity to secure financial backing for their enterprises, see Jones, Printing the Classical Text, 3–​4. 3 For de’ Soardi (c. 1450–​1517), see dbi 93 [P. Pellegrini].

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/978

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

197

business in Venice in the early 1490s and remained in Venice until his death in 1517. The first illustrated edition of Terence appeared in Venice on 24 January 1497. It was printed by Giacomo Pencio from Lecco and edited by Cristoforo Piero Gigante da Fossombrone,4 but was financed by de’ Soardi, whose printing device features in the colophon.5 It contained the commentaries of Donatus and Giovanni Calfurnio, with act divisions included in running headers by Gigante, two full-​folio illustrations—​in the frontispiece the canonical representation of Terence with his commentators and at f. 6v the interior of a Classical theatre building—​and 153 small vignettes. A second edition, likewise financed by de’ Soardi, appeared at the press of Simone da Lovere on 5 July 1497,6 marking act divisions in the running headers and containing the same illustrations, but with the commentaries of Guy Jouenneaux and Badius (although his work is not acknowledged on the title-​ page) alongside those of Donatus and Calfurnio.7 The colophon of the edition specified that de’ Soardi had obtained the privilegio di stampa the privilege that forbade any unauthorised reproduction of his work in Venice and in the territories under its dominion.8 A third Venetian edition of the plays was published on 7 November 1499; it included the commentaries of Donatus, Guy, Calfurnio, and Badius, now fully acknowledged on the title page, and illustrations which mostly replicated those of the previous edition.9 The colophon acknowledges Lazzaro de’ Soardi 4 Apparently also the author of an epigram addressed to the contemporary lutenist and composer Francesco Spinacino; see dbi 93 ‘Spinacino, Francesco’ [F. Saggio]. 5 Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, f. 132r. Jones, Printing the Classical Text, 93 does not include Pencio’s edition in his 1497 catalogue of printed editions of Classical texts. 6 On Simone da Lovere see Eleonora Gamba, In inclita Venetiarum civitate: Editori e tipografi bergamaschi a Venezia dal XV al XVI secolo (Bergamo: Archivio Bergamasco, Centro Studi e Ricerche, 2019), 192–​208. 7 Terentius, Comoediae 1497b. In the copy of this edition from the bsb examined for this study the illustrations have been painted in colour by hand up to the fourth scene of the second act of Andria (f. 25r); for discussion of hand-​painting of illustrations in incunabula, see Martha W. Driver, “Woodcuts and Decorative Techniques,” in A Companion to the Early Printed Book in Britain 1476–​1558, ed. Vincent Gillespie and Susan Powell (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2014), 96–​7. 8 Terentius, Comoediae 1497b, f. 240r, stating of de’ Soardi: qui obtinuit a dominatione Veneta quod nullus possit imprimere nec imprimi facere in eorum dominio sub poena contenta in priuilegio (‘who obtained under privilege from the dominion of Venice that no one might be able to print the contents nor to allow them to be printed within their dominion on threat of punishment’). 9 Terentius, Comoediae 1499. The title page states that the volume is Terentius cum quattuor commentis, uidelicet Donati, Guidonis, Calphurnii, et Ascensii (‘Terence with four commentaries, that is to say of Donatus, Guy, Calfurnio, and Ascensius [i.e. Badius]’).

198 Chapter 7 as the official printer, and states that he has obtained the printing privilege, using the same formulaic language as in the edition of Simone da Lovere.10 The privilegio di stampa forbade the unauthorised reproduction of the printed editions that were listed in the supplication. In Venice before 1517 supplications for the privilegio had to be submitted to the Venetian College (Collegio) and, once granted, they were recorded in the Notatorio del Collegio (Registry of the College).11 Such privileges generally lasted for ten years, but sometimes for longer and, unlike modern-​day copyrights, they were not restricted to a specific work; once granted, they could be extended to any other output produced by the same editor within that time frame.12 The Notatorio del collegio records how de’ Soardi was granted the printing privilege three times between July 1496 and March 1498. Two of these instances relate to the printing of the works of Terence. The first document from 2 July 1496 lists ‘plays or illustrations on Terence’ (historie o ver figure sopra Terentio) among the texts for which the supplication is being submitted.13 The privilege concerns not only the plays themselves, but first and foremost the illustrations. Presumably at this stage de’ Soardi had already planned the illustrated edition of Terence, and perhaps requested the privilege ahead of time while the work was in the making. Less clear is the reason why de’ Soardi felt the need to submit a second supplication to obtain the privilege less than two years after being granted one. Perhaps his inclusion of Terence in the list of prospective publications was prompted by the plan of producing another edition of the plays, as well as an edition of Donatus’s commentary. The record of the Notatorio del collegio states: Egualmente Lazzaro Soardi, il quale vuol dare alle stampe (chè sono inediti ancora): un Commento su Plauto, il Commento su Terenzio, il Commento sulle tragedie di Seneca, le opere di Dionisio Areopagita e di San Giovanni Damasceno, e i sermoni di Ugo cardinate; oltracciò Terenzio, 10 Terentius, Comoediae 1499, f. 236r. 11 Horatio F.  Brown, The Venetian Printing Press (London:  John C.  Nimmo, 1891)  71; Christopher L.C.E. Witcombe, Copyright in the Renaissance. Prints and the privilegio in Sixteenth-​Century Venice and Rome (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 41–​2. 12 On the privilege system see also Angela Nuovo, The Book Trade in the Italian Renaissance, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 195–​257. 13 The other works comprise a commentary by Guillelmus Vorrilong on the Libri Sententiarum of Peter Lombard (GW M51346; istc iv00373000) and an unidentified edition of the sermons of Bonaventure; see Rinaldo Fulin, “Documenti per servire alla storia della tipografia veneziana,” Archivio Veneto 23 (1882), 124, no. 52.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

199

Plauto, le tragedie di Seneca, le opere di San Bonaventura, le epistole di San Paolo colle esposizioni di San Tommaso. Le postille del Guillerino (Guillermus parisiensis) con le figure, le Instituta con aggiunte, ed orazioni funebri e nuziali, latine e volgari, opera che fece emendare con grandissima diligenza.14 (14 March 1498) Equally Lazzaro de’ Soardi, who wants to give to the press (as they are still unpublished): a commentary on Plautus, the commentary on Terence, the commentary on Seneca’s tragedies, the works of Dionysius the Areopagite and Saint John of Damascus and the Sermones of Hugo of Cardino. And moreover, Terence, Plautus, the tragedies of Seneca, the works of Saint Bonaventure, the letters of Saint Paul, with the commentaries of St Thomas [Aquinas]. The annotations of Guillerinus [Guillermus of Paris] with illustrations, the Institutes [of Justinian] with additions and funeral and nuptial orations, both in Latin and in the vernacular, works that he ensured were revised with the utmost diligence. The ‘equally’ (egualmente) that opens de’ Soardi’s supplication refers back to the previous entry, which happened to be that submitted by Giacomo Pencio. Pencio is said to have requested and obtained ‘the usual privilege with the usual sanctions’ (il solito privilegio con le solite sanzioni) as a necessity to avoid ‘being ruined by the malevolent insanity of the competition that it is customary in this miserable art.’15 The jurisdiction of the privilege-​granting authority from 1469 onwards was limited to Venice and its territories. Competitors from other Italian cities, let alone from overseas, were not legally bound by the privilegio. This inevitably determined the proliferation of counterfeits that were produced overseas and, in particular, within the thriving book trade of Lyon.16 As already discussed, from the 1480s Lyon enjoyed an unprecedented economic and demographic growth.17 The fair that was held four times a year in 14 15

asv, CN, reg. 14, f. 161r. Fulin, “Documenti,” 132, no. 78. Fulin, “Documenti,” 132, no.  77: ‘per non essere ruinato da la perfida rabia de la concorrentia consueta fra questa miserabel arte.’ 16 Angela Nuovo, “Transferring Humanism:  The edition of Vitruvius by Lucimborgo da Gabiano (Lyon 1513),” in Lux Librorum:  Essays on Books and History for Chris Coppens, ed. Goran Proot, David McKitterick, Angela Nuovo and Paul F. Gehl (Mechelen: Vlaamse Werkgroep Boekgeschiedenis, 2018), 20. 17 For general background, see André Latreille, ed., Histoire de Lyon et du lyonnais (Toulouse: Privat Éditeur, 1975), 133–​7, and for an overview of the effect of this growth on the publishing industry and cultural institutions, James B.  Wadsworth, Lyons,

200 Chapter 7 the town attracted merchants from Florence, Venice, Genoa and Milan, many of whom settled in the city. Italian merchants exported a wide range of commodities, among which books accounted only for a small percentage. However, as the book trade became transnational, printers saw an opportunity for establishing presses in Lyon to service the local market. The increasing profitability of the market prompted printers to produce counterfeits, pirating the newest products that appeared on the Italian market in their typesets, iconography and typeface. Scholars have mostly presented evidence for the production of counterfeits, such as the notorious counterfeit Aldines, that were produced by Italian printers overseas where the printing privilege could not be enforced.18 However, transnationalism entails mutual exchange, and the developing Lyonnais book market certainly impacted on the production and trends of the Italian market. De’ Soardi is likely to have seen a high degree of novelty and appeal in the illustrated Lyon Terence and sought the opportunity to replicate the woodcut illustrations to create an edition that aimed to be very competitive. A highly appealing product at the turn of the sixteenth century was almost a guarantee of success for de’ Soardi, whose books circulated far and wide. As evidenced in his will, which was written in 1514, he used to distribute his books to booksellers based in the Italian cities of Pavia, Bologna, Ferrara, Rimini, Ancona, Rome and Naples, and also in European cities that play a crucial role in the book trade such as Lyon, Salamanca and Lisbon.19 In a recent contribution, Angela Nuovo challenges the scholarly consensus that views replicas of Italian editions produced mostly in Lyon merely as counterfeits whose quality and value are inferior to those of the originals. Presenting as a case study the illustrated edition of Vitruvius published in Lyon in 1523 by the Piedmontese Gabiano family that had established a press in Lyon in 1497, Nuovo contends that often these editions were far more than counterfeits. Printers drew on existing editions, while making their own additions to enhance the marketability of the new product. In so doing,

1473–​1503: The Beginnings of Cosmopolitanism (Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1962), 3–​4. See also Chapter 1.2 with additional bibliography. 18 For discussion, see e.g. William Kemp, “Counterfeit Aldines and Italic-​Letter Editions Printed in Lyons 1502–​1510: Early Diffusion in Italy and France,” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada 35, no. 1 (1997): 75–​100. 19 The testament is preserved in asv, Archivio notarile antico,  Testamenti, b.  1184, no.  301 and is transcribed in Dennis E.  Rhodes, Annali tipografici di Lazzaro de’ Soardi (Florence: Olschki, 1978), 83–​6; see also Nuovo, The Book Trade, 89.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

201

they improved the overall quality of the edition of Classical texts and ensured their wider circulation.20 Detailed study of the woodcuts of de’ Soardi’s editions against the illustrations of the Lyon Terence reveals that while there are many similarities, there are also aspects of originality in the Venetian editions. The similarities are undeniably striking: de’ Soardi adopts the stage layout of the Lyon Terence, including the half octagonal stage of Heauton timorumenos, the half hexagonally shaped one of Adelphoe and Phormio, and the angular one of Hecyra. As in the Lyon Terence, the backdrop consists of a set of contiguous curtained ‘houses.’ Many scenes are also faithfully replicated in terms of staging, gestures and even costumes. Scene staging is the aspect in which de’ Soardi seems to follow the Lyon Terence more closely. Out of the 155 woodcuts that illustrate the play, only 15 scenes, which amount to 9% of the total, depart from the original. In five instances, the only difference from the original lies in having the characters disposed in reverse order.21 Such changes re-​establish the order in which the characters speak. This also happens when a character is represented in the same woodcut soliloquising and then interacting with another character. For instance at Eunuchus iv.v, Chremes soliloquises (lines 727–​9) before Pythias enters the stage. The Lyon Terence represents on centre stage the exchange between the characters Chremes and Pythias, while Chremes is depicted for a second time alone on stage on the right-​hand side and a step behind the other two figures. De’ Soardi chooses to depict the scene of the soliloquy on the left-​ hand side and the second scene next to it.22 This choice helps a reader clarify the scene progression. In three instances, differences from the original concern eavesdropping and off-​stage scenes. In contrast to the visual representation of the Lyon Terence, in which eavesdropping scenes are always visually represented, in the Venetian editions this does not happen.23 For instance, at Hecyra iii.i, Pamphilus 20

Nuovo, “Transferring Humanism,” 20–​1. On the Lyonnais press of the Gabiano family see Nuovo, The Book Trade, 165–​70; on Lucimborgo da Gabiano’s 1523 edition of Vitruvius, Nuovo, “Transferring Humanism,” 22–​37. 21 These are Andria v.iii; Eunuchus iv.v, iv.vi; Adelphoe i.ii; Phormio iv.v (cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1493, g1r, m1v, m2v, x7v, I1v, and Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, e1r, h3r, h3v, m5r, s6v [=1497b, ff. 42r, 77r, 77v, 99r, 197v]). In the illustration for Phormio iv.iv, the edition of Pencio from 1497 has the same character order as the Lyon Terence (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, H8r, Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, s6r), but de’ Soardi’s later version from the same year reverses the labels for the characters (Terentius, Comoediae 1497b, f. 196v). 22 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, m1v; Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, h3r [=1497b, f. 77r]. 23 Compare, for instance, Eu. iii.iii; Hec. iii.i.

202 Chapter 7 discloses his love troubles to Parmeno (Hec. 281–​7). As he hears noises coming from the inside, Pamphilus warns Parmeno to be silent and walks towards the door to eavesdrop as Myrrina speaks to her daughter Philumela. The Lyon Terence clearly depicts the ensuing eavesdropping scene (beginning at Hec. 318) with Pamphilus kneeling forward towards Myrrina’s house, while raising his hand towards Parmeno in a gesture of protest to silence him.24 De’ Soardi’s editions depicts Pamphilus as he gives his back to the audience and approaches Myrrina’s house.25 In this case, the Lyon Terence illustrates this scene more accurately in depicting Myrrina’s address to her own daughter. It is likely that de’ Soardi decided to represent an earlier sequence of this scene to avoid depicting Pamphilus as frontally or half-​frontally faced. There are many similar examples throughout the woodcuts of the editions of de’ Soardi. These can be explained by the fact that the woodcuts of the Venetian editions are a quarter the size of those of the Lyon Terence. Smaller woodcuts would have required a much higher degree of craftsmanship to be cut, particularly when it came to facial features and small details. Conversely, at Adelphoe v.vi, the eavesdropping scene appears in de’ Soardi, but not in the Lyon Terence (Figure 7.1).26 The Venetian editions illustrate the opening of the scene that sees Geta speaking to his mistress Sostrata, who appears behind the curtains, and then on centre stage the main scene of the interaction between Geta and Demea. A  scene from Andria deserves a special mention: to illustrate Andria v.iii, de’ Soardi depicts two sequences of the scene. In the first of these in de’ Soardi’s editions, Pamphilus appears in a gesture of dismay that illustrates his brief aside, which is not illustrated in the Lyon Terence.27 In the Lyon Terence, the woodcut of the personified character of the Prologue/​Epilogue is placed at the start and the end of each play. The character is labelled as ‘Calliopius’, the probable fifth-​century commentator who is mentioned in the colophons in manuscripts of the Γ family.28 The Prologue/​Epilogue character of the Lyon Terence is also peculiar to each play, changing in 24 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, N3r. As discussed in Chapter  2.2, this scene is only found in some Italian manuscripts from the fourteenth-​and fifteenth centuries; see also Chapter 4.1 and 4.2 for its inclusion in Badius’ editions. 25 Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, u6v [=1497b, f. 218v]. 26 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, C6v; Terentius, Comoediae 1497b, f. 166r. 27 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, g1r; Terentius, Comoediae 1497b, f. 42r. 28 For Calliopius, see Chapter  2.1; for a discussion of the representation of the Prologue, see Gianni Guastella, “Ornatu prologi: Terence’s Prologues on the Stage/​on the Page,” in Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing, ed. Andrew J. Turner and Giulia Torello-​Hill (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 200–​18.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

203

appearance, apparel, age and status.29 De’ Soardi’s editions typify these characters using only two woodcuts: one to represent the Prologue and one to represent the Epilogue. The same figure for the Epilogue is found at the end of each play in de’ Soardi’s three editions, and the Prologue figure is found at the start of Phormio and Hecyra in the first edition from 1497 (printed by Pencio), although not in the other two later editions from 1497 and 1499.30 The Prologue woodcut is also reused in scenes of soliloquy such as Eunuchus iii.iv (Antipho), iv.ii (Phaedria), and at Phormio v.iv (Antipho).31 A similar reuse of sole figures is found with female characters; thus the woodcut representing Sostrata alone on stage at Hecyra ii.iii is first used to represent Dorias at Eunuchus iv.i.32 The editions of de’ Soardi show a higher degree of independence from the Lyon Terence in the representation of gestures. However, one of the instances in which it replicates the 1493 edition should be mentioned. At Andria iii.iv the Venetian editions slavishly imitate the Lyon Terence with respect to Davus’ gesture of desperation and portrays him in the act of bending forward and pulling his hair (compare Figures 7.2 and 7.3).33 This gesture does not appear in Italian iconography, but it is found in Flemish paintings, for instance in the sixteenth-​century painting of The Massacre of the Innocents by Pieter Bruegel the Elder.34 It was in fact to become an integral part of the illustrative tradition of Terence’s plays, and would be invariably replicated in printed editions throughout the sixteenth century. Nevertheless, Andria iii.iv is exceptional, considering that over a third of the gestures (36%) used by de’ Soardi do not correspond to those depicted in the Lyon Terence; de’ Soardi seems to reproduce more closely the gestures of the Carolingian tradition and its successors.35 This is particular evident in 29

The illustrations occur at Terentius, Comoediae 1493, a6v and g6v (Andria); g8r (by error, the epilogue of Andria is repeated here) and o6v (Eunuchus); o7v and x3v (Heauton timorumenos); x4v and D5r (Adelphoe); D6r and L3r (Phormio); and L4v and Q4r (Hecyra). See also Chapter 5.1. 30 For the Prologue to Andria, see Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, a4v and 1497b, f. 6v; for the Prologues to Phormio and Hecyra in Pencio’s edition, Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, q4v and t6r. 31 Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, g4v, g6v, t2r [=1497b ff. 69r, 72v, 200v]. At Heauton timorumenos i.iii (Clitipho) Pencio’s edition uses another figure (Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, k2v), but de’ Soardi’s later version from the same year reuses the Prologue figure (Terentius, Comoediae 1497b, f. 99r). 32 Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, g6v, u5v [=1497b ff. 72r, 217r]. 33 Terentius, Comoediae 1493, e1v; Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, d1r [=1497b f. 31v]. 34 For the two versions of this work, painted around 1565–​7, see Fritz Grossmann, Pieter Bruegel: Complete Edition of the Paintings, 3rd ed. (London: Phaidon, 1973), 198. 35 See Chapter 2.2 for the development of the illustrative tradition on Terence’s plays from the Carolingian period onwards.

204 Chapter 7 dialogues between two characters when the Venetian editions adopt the typical Carolingian dialogue scene, in which one character is depicted in a gesture of statement and interpellation and the other in a gesture of compliance/​listening.36 Ultimately these combined gestures provide very clear visual cues to immediately identify the speaker and the listener. Another gesture typical of the Carolingian manuscripts and some of their later copies, which is rarely represented in the Lyon Terence, but appears in the de’ Soardi’s editions, is that of dismay. In this gesture a character has his arms stretched out and turned to one side with the palms facing each other. In the Carolingian tradition the arms are always turned to the left in keeping with the Classical tradition of averting bad omens.37 In the de’ Soardi editions, in which this gesture is depicted three times, the orientation of the arms varies to accommodate the staging of the scene as a whole.38 The use of gestures that do not feature in the Lyon Terence are a testament to a deep engagement with the text and a careful planning of the iconographic plan for the Venetian editions that goes well beyond the mere replication of the Lyon Terence. To give one instance, in the off-​stage sequence of scene i.ii 36

37 38

Using as a basis of comparison the illustrations in C and David Wright’s comprehensive discussion of them, relevant images can be found at Andria ii.ii, iv.iii (C ff. 8v, 14v; David H. Wright, The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence [Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2006], 17, 28; and compare Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, c1v, d4r [=1497b, ff. 22v, 36v] and Terentius, Comoediae 1493, c6r, e8v); Eunuchus iii.v, v.iii, v.vi, v.vii (C ff. 25v, 31v, 33r, 33v; Wright, The Lost Late Antique, 46, 56, 60, 61; and compare Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, g4v, i1v, i3v, i4r [= 1497b, ff. 69v, 85r, 88v, 89v] and Terentius, Comoediae 1493, k8r, n3v, n8v, o2r); Heauton timorumenos iii.iii (C f. 42v; Wright, The Lost Late Antique, 78; and compare Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, l1r [= 1497b, f. 109r] and Terentius, Comoediae 1493, r8r); Adelphoe iii.ii (C f. 55r; Wright, The Lost Late Antique, 106; and compare Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, n5r [= 1497b, f. 140v] and Terentius, Comoediae 1493, z6r); Phormio v.iii (C f. 88r; Wright, The Lost Late Antique, 171; and compare Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, t1v [= 1497b, f. 199r] and Terentius, Comoediae 1493, I5v); Hecyra ii.i, iii.v, iv.iii (C ff. 67v, 71r, 73r; Wright, The Lost Late Antique, 132, 138, 141; and compare Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, u4r, x3v, x6v [= 1497b, ff. 213v, 223v, 229r] and Terentius, Comoediae 1493, M4r, O1v, O8r). The image for Heauton timorumenos v.i is of particular interest here; as noted in Chapter 5.1 Badius repeats the same image in scenes v.i and v.ii, perhaps reflecting a confusion in the earlier illustrated traditions, but de’ Soardi provides an image for v.i of two figures in conversation which parallels the image in C (C f. 47r; Wright, The Lost Late Antique, 88; and compare Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, l6r [= 1497b, f. 119r]). Dorota Dutsch, “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence and Late Revivals of Literary Drama,” Gesture 7 (2007), 66. Performing the gesture of dismay are Clinia at Heauton timorumenos ii.ii, Micio at Adelphoe i.ii and Pamphilus at Hecyra iii.v (see C ff. 38v, 52r, 71r; Wright, The Lost Late Antique, 73, 99, 138; and compare Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, k3r, m5r, x3v [= 1497b, ff. 99v, 129r, 223v] and Terentius, Comoediae 1493, q2r, x7v, O1v).

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

205

of Heauton timorumenos that de’ Soardi, following the Lyon edition, illustrates in the woodcut along with the main scene of the dialogue between Clitipho and Chremes, he depicts Clinia in a gesture of dismay, while in the Lyon Terence Clinia appears in a listening gesture.39 The illustrator of the Lyon Terence follows closely the Terentian text which has Clitipho addressing Clinia, who is off-​stage and remains silent. In de’ Soardi’s editions Clinia’s gesture of dismay is justified by the textual cue in Clitipho’s words: nil adhuc est quod vereare, Clinia, ‘there is nothing to be afraid of, Clinia’ (Hau. 175). A gesture, the depiction of which departs from both the Carolingian tradition and the Lyon Terence, is the gestus servilis, or the gesture of subservience typical of the slave of Roman comedy. In de’ Soardi’s editions the slave is not hunchbacked as in the Carolingian tradition, which the Lyon Terence follows, but his leaning forward to his master makes it a gesture of deference and almost supplication.40 When pleading their case to older characters, young characters are depicted in a very similar posture with their legs bent and leaning forward in a gesture of supplication.41 The 1499 edition of de’ Soardi was a commercial success, as proven by the reprints in 1504, 1508, 1512. In these reprints, changes to the original edition were minimal. Indexes were added after the frontispiece and some, but not all, of the errors in the labelling of characters were rectified,42 while in the 1504 edition de’ Soardi added a fifth commentary that he incorrectly attributed to the fifth-​century CE commentator on Vergil, Servius, although it has long been recognised that this work is a version of a series of scholastic commentaries which were probably compiled in the twelfth century.43 With regard to the images, a typesetting error seems to have occurred in Hecyra where the woodcuts that illustrate scenes iv.i (f. 221v) and v.i (f. 228r) were erroneously swapped over in all three editions. This clearly indicates that the 1504 typeset was used for the 1508 and 1512 editions. 39 Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1493, p6r and Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, k2r [=1497b, f. 97v]. 40 See Heauton timorumenos iv.vi (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, t5r and Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, l5r [= 1497b, f. 113r]); Phormio ii.ii, iv.iii (Terentius, Comoediae 1493, F6r, H5r, and Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, r6r, s5r [=1497b, ff. 185v, 195r]). 41 See, for example, Clitipho supplicating his parents at Heauton timorumenos v.iii (Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, m2r [=1497b, f. 123r]). 42 Eunuchus iv.vii, Adelphoe ii.iv, but Andria iii.i, Heauton timorumenos v.i, Adelphoe iii.iv remained unchanged. 43 See Claudia Villa, La lectura Terentii, vol. 1:  Da Ildemaro a Francesco Petrarca (Padua: Antenore, 1984)  121 n.  67 and Yves-​François Riou, “Les commentaires médiévaux de Térence,” in Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship, ed. Nicholas Mann and Birger Munk Olsen (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 39–​42.

206 Chapter 7 The error was only rectified in the very last edition of Terence, which de’ Soardi published in Venice on the 3 October 1515. Considering that the print run of Classical texts in Venice in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries varied between approximately 600 to 1000 copies, we can assume that de Soardi’s multiple illustrated editions must have dominated the Italian market in the first quarter of the sixteenth century.44 7.3

The Italian Illustrated Editions of the Sixteenth Century

The death of Lazzaro de’ Soardi in November 1517 ended his monopoly over illustrated editions of Terence. As he had left no heirs, his printing warehouse was dismantled. Much of his printing machinery was acquired by Simone da Lovere, who had been one of Lazzaro’s first collaborators and close friends, while some of his woodcuts were acquired by the printer Giovanni Rusconi.45 Between 1518 and 1526 four new illustrated editions of Terence were published in Northern Italy, attesting to the great potential marketability of this product nearly thirty years after the appearance of the first Pencio-​de’ Soardi edition. Among this new generation of printers, some hit the market with innovative ideas, whereas others produced replicas of the de’ Soardi edition. Giovanni Rusconi published his first illustrated edition of Terence less than six months after the death of de’ Soardi, on the 22 March 1518; it was reprinted on the 23 March 1521.46 Rusconi illustrated his editions with the woodcuts that belonged to de’ Soardi and that he had purchased after his death. There are fifty illustrations in this edition, including the original frontispiece depicting Terence flanked by his commentators. That only one third of the original illustrations made their appearance in this edition can perhaps be explained by him acquiring only some of woodcuts that originally belonged to de’ Soardi. To maximise the potential of the illustrations, Rusconi would then have reused some of them to illustrate different plays, according to a practice that was to become common in sixteenth-century print. For instance, seven out of a total of twelve illustrations of Phormio are woodcuts that were originally cut for other plays.

44 Nuovo, The Book Trade, 99–​101. These data are based on the scanty documentary evidence that records a print run of 600 copies for the complete works of Ovid published by Giovanni Rosso and 1025 copies of a translation of Pliny’s letters published by Nicolaus Jenson. 45 Rhodes, Annali tipografici, 11. De’ Soardi’s will appears in asv, Archivio notarile antico, Testamenti, B. 999 no. 145. 46 Terentius, Comoediae 1518, 1521b; see the colophons at ff. 241v and 195v respectively.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

207

A fresh approach to illustrating the plays of Terence was the edition of Giovanni Tacuino, which was published in Venice in 1522 (Figure 7.4).47 Tacuino attempted to simplify the illustrative plan of his Terence edition by displaying the illustrations at the start of each play in a ‘comic strip style.’48 In his edition there are eight illustrations for each play, arranged in two rows of four, which provide a visual reference to select scenes. The illustrations of Tacuino were replicated in the editions of Guglielmo da Fontaneto (Venice, 1523), Alessandro Paganino (Benaco, 1526 and see Figure  7.5), and Venturino Ruffinelli (Venice, 1539).49 The only departure from the iconography of Tacuino is the arrangement of the illustrations into four rows of two in the 1526 Paganino edition to suit the octavo format. In these illustrations, the first woodcut in each strip represents the Prologue, but this is the only instance of soliloquy scenes to appear in the illustrations. The last scene of the play is illustrated only for Adelphoe and Phormio while the remaining selected scenes are crucial to understanding each play’s plotline. By way of example, among the illustrated scenes of Eunuchus are those of the presentation of the gifts to Thais (iii.ii) that allows Chaerea to enter her house disguised as a eunuch and that of the arrival of Thraso accompanied by a mob of household slaves (iv.vii). Among the innovators Giacomo Giovanni da Legnano certainly deserves a special mention. His father Giovanni, the founder of the press, had already acted as the financier of two early editions of Terence at the press of Antonio Zarotto in 1481 and 1484 and as a printer of two other editions financed by Scinzenzeler in 1501 and 1509.50 He had also published a separate edition in collaboration with his sons in 1506.51 It was his son Giacomo Giovanni who printed an illustrated edition of Terence that appeared in Milan on the 23 February 1521.52 The da Legnano Terence 47 Terentius, Comoediae 1522, f. 34v. For Giovanni da Cerreto (d. after 1541), who used the surname Tacuino, see dbi 55.779–​80 [M. Breccia Fratadocci]. 48 Rusconi’s edition is ustc 858693; for an illustration, see Paul F.  Gehl, Humanism for Sale:  Making and marketing school-​books in Italy, 1450–​1650 (blog), 2008 ‹http://​www. humanismforsale.org/​text, 1.07›. 49 Terentius, Comoediae 1526, f. 1r. For Ruffinelli (fl. 1534–​59), see dbi 89.97–​102 [F. Pignatti]. The copy of Fontaneto’s edition examined for this study (Terentius, Comoediae 1524) is a reprint of the 1523 edition (ustc 858688). Paganino’s and Ruffinelli’s editions are ustc 858687 and 858717. 50 The 1481 edition is gw M45424; istc it00078000. Guido Sutermeister, Gli editori “da Legnano,” 1470–​1525 (Legnano: Società Arte e Storia, 1946–​48), 9 wrongly dates it to 1470. The 1484, 1501, and 1509 editions are gw m45426; istc it00081300, ustc 858672, and ustc 858668. 51 For Giovanni da Legnano (fl. 1480–​1502), see dbi 56.67–​9 [M. Breccia Fratadocci]. 52 Terentius, Comoediae 1521a, with colophon on f. 168r. For the edition, see Sutermeister, Gli editori “da Legnano,” 200. On the originality of illustrated books produced in Milan in the

208 Chapter 7 not only included the commentaries of Donatus, Guy and Badius, like previous editions, but also incorporated materials from Badius’ Praenotamenta that prefaced his 1502 edition. An innovative feature was the inclusion of the list of characters (fabulae interlocutores) at the start of each play and a note on the colometry of each scene below the characters’ headings. The layout of this edition is a significant improvement from de’ Soardi’s. Each scene is clearly labelled, making it easy for a reader to understand the text, and the marginal keys to different commentaries have also disappeared. Furthermore, the da Legnano brothers designed their own illustrations, which are clearly inspired by the Venetian edition of de’ Soardi. Although the majority of illustrations draws upon those of de’ Soardi, in terms of staging, gestures and characters’ appearance, the da Legnano edition has a certain degree of originality. The Prologue woodcut that prefaced each play in the de’ Soardi’s edition has now disappeared, whereas the Epilogue is only used at the end of Eunuchus and of Heauton timorumenos.53 Overall the artistic quality of the woodcuts is superior to those of the Venetian editions of de’ Soardi; they are more refined and more detailed, particularly in terms of defining facial features and apparel. Conversely, gestures are much more fluid and there is little or no trace of Carolingian gestures. For example, the gesture of interpellation that is used widely by de’ Soardi becomes a more generic gesture. Characters performing this gesture are depicted with their right arm and also all their fingers stretched out.54 The gesture of interpellation of the Carolingian tradition with the index finger stretched out while the other fingers are clasped in the palm is used exclusively as a deictic gesture.55 While the da Legnano edition mostly follows the iconography of the edition of de’ Soardi, in three instances the artist seems to interpret the scene more independently. The first of these is Eunuchus iv.vi in which Pythias is not depicted in the static pose typical of female characters in the Lyon Terence, but with her hand on Chremes’ shoulder, adding more depth to the characterisation of Pythias.56 The second instance concerns Adelphoe ii.ii. In depicting this scene the artist of the da Legnano edition is more faithful to the text by choosing to illustrate, along with the dialogue between Syrus and Sannio,

sixteenth century see Ennio Sandal, Editori e tipografi a Milano nel Cinquecento (Baden-​ Baden: Koerner, 1978), vol. 2, 8–​11. 53 Terentius, Comoediae 1521a, ff. 65r and 92r. 54 See, for instance Chremes in Andria iv.iii (Terentius, Comoediae 1521a, f. 28r). 55 As Chremes in Andria iv.iv or Thais in Eunuchus iii.ii (Terentius, Comoediae 1521a, ff. 28v, 46v). 56 Terentius, Comoediae 1521a, f. 54v.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

209

Ctesipho’s soliloquy (254–​9), which is interrupted by Syrus (Figure 7.6). In the Venetian editions, which in this instance follow closely the Lyon Terence, Ctesipho is represented as he enters the stage while being approached by Syrus.57 Lastly, at Phormio v.iii Nausistrata is depicted with both arms stretched and turned to a side rather than in a listening pose with both her arms folded to her bosom, perhaps in an attempt to express her frustration at Chremes’s erratic behaviour.58 Essentially, this edition is a de luxe product; the typeset is elegant, it is enriched by sophisticated illustrations and it is designed with the reader in mind. It has, however, lost some of the elements of theatricality of the Lyon Terence or the Venetian editions. The refinement of the illustrations of the edition was likely to attract the interest of subsequent editors of the comedies of Terence. There is no specific indication that a privilege had been granted to the da Legnano brothers to protect their intellectual property, although Terence may be among the 74 instances of privileges recorded by Arrigoni.59 The edition’s cover advertises the inclusion of three new plates, while the colophon acknowledges the conspicuous expenses that they incurred to produce the decorated initials.60 It would have certainly been a costly enterprise to produce not only the initials, but also the woodcuts. The da Legnano press closed down in 1533 following the death of Giovanni Giacomo da Legnano. After this date the da Legnano family seems to remain in the industry throughout the sixteenth century, but only in the capacity of booksellers, as documented by a list of Milanese booksellers of 1548–​9 that mentions Benedetto and Provaso da Legnano.61 In 1545 Girolamo Scoto published his own Terence, which is often credited for being the last fully illustrated modern edition and, as such, the most influential on the Lyonnais editions produced in the middle of the sixteenth century.62 Contrary to this established view, Scoto replicated some of the woodcuts of the 1521 da Legnano edition, repurposing some of them to suit multiple scenes in different plays and illustrating a total of 144 scenes. 57 Terentius, Comoediae 1521a, f. 98r. and cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1493, y7v and Terentius, Comoediae 1497a, n2r [=1497b, f.135r]. 58 Terentius, Comoediae 1521a, f. 161v. 59 Paola Arrigoni, “I privilegi librari a Milano nei secoli XV-​XVI:  una analisi quantitativa,” La Bibliofilia 116 (2014), 212; Angela Nuovo, “Privilegi librari a Milano (secc. XV-​XVI),” La Bibliofilia 116 (2014): 193–​204. 60 Terentius, Comoediae 1521a, f. 168r; impensaque non levi (‘at not inconsiderable expense’). 61 Sutermeister, Gli editori “da Legnano,” 33. 62 Terentius, Comoediae 1545. A short biography of Scoto (c. 1505–​73) is in Jane A. Bernstein, Music Printing in Renaissance Venice. The Scotto Press (1539–​1572) (Oxford:  Oxford

210 Chapter 7 The only original woodcut of this edition represents an actor on a perspectival sixteenth-​century stage facing a seated audience (see Figure 6.1). Presumably this woodcut, which features at the start of each play and right below the performance note, is a visual representation of the Prologue character.63 In Scoto’s edition, the labels that identify each ‘house’ and that the da Legnano brothers had printed just outside the frame of each illustration rather than above the curtains, disappear completely. Characters’ labels are also removed and this in turns allows for the repurposing of various illustrations. Comparatively, it seems that Andria, Eunuchus and Hecyra follow more closely the iconographic plan of the da Legnano edition. In contrast, in Heauton timorumenos, Adelphoe and Phormio there are instances in which woodcuts that belong to other plays are repurposed for particular scenes. Mostly the reuse of particular illustrations, which happens occasionally in the Lyon Terence as well, is conducted with intelligence. For instance in Adelphoe, the two dialogue scenes between Micio and Demea (i.ii and iv.vii) are illustrated with the woodcut that also depicts the exchange between Chremes and Menedemus in Heauton timorumenos (v.i).64 This is perfectly acceptable since in both cases the dialogue takes place between two senes (‘old men’). Several monologue scenes also use repeatedly the same woodcut. In fact, it often happens that this considered repurposing produces results that are more congruent with the text than the original illustrations of da Legnano. Although in some cases the characters’ apparel differs and the same character may look rather different in scenes that reuse woodcuts originally cut for other plays, quite often only a very observant and meticulous reader would be able to tell the difference. Occasionally, woodcuts are reused inappropriately, for instance the monologue scene of the senex Demea (Adelphoe iii.iii) is rendered using the illustration of the young Chaerea’s soliloquy at Eunuchus ii.iii.65 More rarely, woodcuts are reused for a completely different and unrelated scene, as in the dialogue between Demea and Geta (Adelphoe v.vi), which is illustrated by the woodcut of Hecyra iv.iii in which Laches, Sostrata and Pamphilus are on stage.66

63 64 65 66

University Press, 1998), 42–​7; see also the biography of his father Ottaviano at dbi 91.634–​ 8 [F. Pignatti and L.D. Quadrelli] at 637. The specific date of Girolamo’s arrival in Venice and of his involvement with the Scoto press is unknown, but from 1539 he took full control of the Scoto Press. Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1545 i., f. 1r. Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1545 i., f. 150r and ii., ff. 5v and 34v. Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1545 i., f.82v and ii., f. 19r. Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1545 ii., ff. 41v and 70r.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

211

Girolamo Scoto realised the potential of the iconographic plan of the da Legnano edition, whose refined woodcuts were sure to please the mid-​sixteenth century market. Although born and raised in Venice, Scoto was well connected with the Milanese print market. The founder of the press, Ottaviano Scoto was originally from Monza and had moved to Venice at around 1475, seeking the opportunity to establish his business. The name of Girolamo appears in the Milanese list of booksellers. It seems that he was a book distributor, as he appears to be based in other bookseller shops, such as the botega of the Calvi family (1548–​9) and in that of Francesco Avancini (1558–​9).67 Certainly, he could be guaranteed a wide circulation of his printed books and rely on his well-​developed commercial networks with the major Venetian printers and booksellers of his time. His partnership with the Gryphe printers, who after establishing their reputation in Paris established their headquarters in Venice also gave him access to the French market.68 7.4

The Influence of the Lyon Terence in Germany: The Illustrated Terence of Johann Grüninger and Its Tradition

The model of the Lyon Terence also greatly influenced the illustrated edition published by Johann Grüninger in Strassburg in 1496, providing it with both text and commentary.69 The 1496 Grüninger edition is illustrated with woodcuts by an anonymous local artist who is referred to as the Master of the Grüninger Terence. The illustrations are printed mostly from 88 composite blocks, which are often repeated to produce the whole of the 159 illustrations. Some of the woodblocks were repurposed by Grüninger to illustrate other books, including the 1498 edition of the works of Horace.70 The technique of composite blocks 67 Sutermeister, Gli editori “da Legnano,” 33. 68 For Girolamo Scoto’s participation in the Societas Aquilae, a partnership with the major Venetian fellow printers see Nuovo, The Book Trade, 66–​7. For his partnership with the Gryphe printing press see Chapter 7.5. 69 Terentius, Comoediae 1496. See Catarina Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke lateinischer Klassiker um 1500 (Wiesbaden:  Harrassowitz, 2018), 95–​144. For Grüninger (c. 1455-​c. 1533), see ndb 7.201 [F. Ritter] and Mark P.O. Morford, “Johann Grüninger of Strasbourg,” in Syntagmatia: Essays on Neo-​Latin Literature in Honour of Monique Mund-​ Dopchie and Gilbert Tournoy, ed. Dirk Sacré and Jan Papy (Leuven:  Leuven University Press, 2009), 119–​36. 70 Cécile Dupeux, L’imaginaire strasbourgeois. La gravure dans l’édition strasbourgeoise 1470–​ 1520 (Strasbourg:  La Nuée bleue, 1989), 29–​39; Morford, “Johann Grüninger,” 129; Laure Hermand-​Schebat, “Texte et image dans les éditions latines commentées de Térence

212 Chapter 7 as well as the urban setting and the iconography is clearly inspired by the Ulm edition. The influence of the Lyon Terence on the Grüninger edition is less obvious but equally significant. The Grüninger edition draws upon the Lyon Terence in the representation of the theatre building in the frontispiece of the edition and in representing the Prologue to open each of the plays. Particularly striking are the similarities in the depiction of the ancient theatre building with multiple tiers that open into arches (fornices) and the presence of three couples in enamoured poses in front of the building and also behind the opening of the fornices. However, it is not clear whether the couples that in the Lyon Terence represent prostitutes with their clientele have become the actors of the plays in Grüninger. If this is the case, then it could be assumed that the figures overlooking from the fornices are actors waiting to enter the stage.71 As Zimmermann-​Homeyer remarks, in the Grüninger edition theatre space and audience space are not clearly demarcated. Also, the position of the audience who are overlooking from the upper circles and the orientation of the actors who give their backs to the audience are not functional to a performance.72 Arguably, this arrangement could simply be attributed to the artist who inevitably must depict the actors facing the reader at the expense of the likelihood of the scene. The arrangement of the audience is also likely to reflect contemporary festival architecture.73 Just like in the Lyon Terence, the Prologue character is not only personified, but also is depicted with different features in each of the six Terentian plays.74 The appearance, posture and gestures of many characters of the Lyon Terence are replicated in the Grüninger edition. For instance, in the Eunuchus Thraso’s ostentatious appearance is conveyed by his wearing a short cloak and sporting a walking stick.75 Dorias at Eunuchus iv.i is depicted with the jewellery box under her arm and the opposite arm folded to support the weight.76 Andria iv.iv is similarly depicted with Mysis standing in front of the baby that lies down on the ground as Chremes enters the stage.77 An innovation of Grüninger’s edition is the inclusion of a folio-​large woodcut at the start of each play and before the prologue that functions as a (Lyon, Trechsel, 1493 et Strasbourg, Grüninger, 1496),” Camenae 9 (2011), 4–​6, http://​www. paris-​sorbonne.fr/​IMG/​pdf/​ARTICLE_​9_​Hermand-​Schebat.pdf. 71 Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke, 108–​9. 72 Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke, 109. 73 Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke, 112. 74 For the prologues, see Terentius, Comoediae 1496, ff. 2r, 29r, 61r, 86v, 117v, 156v. 75 E.g. Eunuchus 3.1 at Terentius, Comoediae 1493, k1r and Terentius, Comoediae 1496, f. 38v. 76 Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1493, l3r and Terentius, Comoediae 1496, f. 44r. 77 Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1493, f2r and Terentius, Comoediae 1496, f. 21r.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

213

visualisation of the plot summary. In this so-​called figurae declaratio, characters are visually connected with other characters they interact with by arrows that aim to guide a reader through the unfolding of the plot.78 The plotline woodcut would remain a feature of German printed editions of Terence well into the end of the sixteenth century.79 Unlike in the Lyon Terence, each woodcut only illustrates one scene. The characters are depicted always in full-​frontal position and as a result the vignettes appear rather one-​dimensional and give very little sense of the action that takes place on stage. Conversely, a small banner with their name, positioned above each character, makes them immediately identifiable to the reader. The name of each character was supplied by hand in brown ink in the copy in the bsb, as is customary in hybrid editions of the last quarter of the fifteenth century. This explains why several character labels both in the 1496 edition and the 1499 reprint in copies from the same library are blank.80 In 1503, German intellectual Heinrich Bebel edited the plays of Terence, which were printed once again by Grüninger.81 Bebel had been a much-​ revered professor of rhetoric at the University of Tübingen since 1496 and an acclaimed poet. This edition seems to be specifically designed as a teacher’s manual since it is prefaced by an index of adages and an index of comedy’s functional language, divided into topics: greetings, dubitative words, words of praise, of desperation, of supplication, of threat, of cursing, of command, and of farewell. The woodcuts that illustrate this edition are mostly those of the original 1496 edition, with very few exceptions. The urban backdrop is more refined and the woodcut that depicts arboreal vegetation is always placed on either side of the backdrop cuts rather than between two characters. Very often character woodcuts of the 1496 edition are reused to depict a different character in the same or in a different play. Thus for instance, the woodcut depicting Parmeno 78 The figurae declarationes in Grüninger are found at Terentius, Comoediae 1496, ff. 1v, 28v, 60v, 86r, 116v, 156r. For a detailed treatment of the declaratio figurae see Zimmermann-​ Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke, 125–​35. 79 As in the bilingual edition Sechs comoedien jetzt new auß lateinischer spraach in artliche und kuenstliche Teutsche rheymen, by Johann Bischoff (Frankfurt 1568). See Julie S. Peters, Theatre of the Book, 1480–​1880:  Print, Text, and Performance in Europe (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2000), 181–​2. 80 On the 1499 reprint see Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke, 145–​50. 81 Terentius, Comoediae 1503a. Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke, seems to be unaware of this edition. On Bebel see Peter G. Bietenholz and Thomas B. Deutscher, Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, vol. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 112 [J. Rice Henderson].

214 Chapter 7 (Eunuchus) in the 1496 edition is used to represent Carinus (Andria) and so on.82 Some of the older woodcuts are not used in the new edition, in particular those depicting the slave Davus (Andria), Clinia (Heauton timorumenos) and Antipho (Phormio). Original woodcuts are those of Pamphilus and Phormio. The Phormio of the 1503 edition, who sports striped boulevars and a curious feathered helmet, is much more pretentious than the character of the original edition.83 The impact of the iconographic design of the Grüninger edition is notable, but it remained confined to the German printing market. The sole exception to this is represented by the woodcuts of Thérence en François, a bilingual edition of Terence in Latin and vernacular French, that Antoine Vérard published sometime between September 1500 and August 1503.84 The frontispiece of Thérence en françois represents Vérard himself kneeling down in the act of presenting the book to the enthroned king of France.85 This woodcut has been attributed to François Le Barbier, formerly known as the Master of Jacques de Besançon.86 The presentation woodcut was first used in Vérard’s vernacular edition of the Ethics of Aristotle and then reproduced in many others of his printed editions.87 The six plays of Terence appear in a dual translation: one in prose that has been attributed to Guillaume Rippe and one in verse that could be the work of Octavien de Saint-​Gelais.88 Despite being branded as inaccurate, long and tedious, these translations responded to the needs and the 82

Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1496, f. 34v (Eunuchus ii.ii) and Terentius, Comoediae 1503a, 18r (Andria ii.i). 83 Cf. Terentius, Comoediae 1496, 127v and 1503a, f. 123r (Phormio iii.i). 84 Terentius, Thérence en francois 1503b. On Vérard see Mary B. Winn, Anthoine Vérard: Parisian Publisher, 1485–​1512:  Prologues, Poems and Presentations (Geneva:  Droz, 1997); on translation issues see Ludmilla Evdokimova, “Les comédies de Térence dans la traduction de Guillaume Rippe. La prose et le vers, le latin et le vernaculaire dans le Therence en François d’ Antoine Vérard,” Le moyen français 69 (2011): 59–​82. The publication date of Thérence en françois is unknown. However, in the colophon Vérard states that he resides ‘en la gran rue Saint Jacques pre petit pont.’ Based on colophons of his many books it is possible to infer that he lived there from September 1500 to August 1503 (Winn, Anthoine Vérard, 24). 85 Terentius, Thérence en francois 1503b, a2r. 86 Winn, Anthoine Vérard, 35 and 67–​9. The artist who was active in Paris c. 1480–​1500 has been identified as François Le Barbier, a son who took over the workshop of his father, also named François Le Barbier and previously known as Master François. See Mathieu Deldicque, “L’enluminure à Paris à la fin du XVe siècle:  Maître François, le Maître de Jacques de Besançon et Jacques de Besançon identifiés?,” Revue de l’art 183 (2014): 9–​18. 87 Winn, Anthoine Vérard, 437, Fig. 5.24. 88 See Harold W. Lawton, Térence en France au XVIe siècle, vol. 1. (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970), 368–​425. At 398–​9 he casts doubt over the authorship of the translation, which relies on resemblances between passages of the translation and ballades composed by Octavien de Saint Gelais.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

215

taste of a sixteenth-​century readership. Both translations incorporate explicative glosses of linguistic, historical and mythological nature within the text. Frequent are also moralising remarks such as the tirade about the despicable life of a courtesan.89 These arbitrary insertions may compromise the charm and the wit of the original Terence, but they serve the function of making the text intelligible and accessible to a contemporary readership. The translation in verse presents lyrical parts in the style of the French ‘ballades’ that a Renaissance readership would immediately connect with.90 The woodcuts that illustrate the scenes of the play were executed by a different artist, or perhaps more than one. Just as in the Grüninger edition, Vérard includes the frontispiece woodcut that represents a round and multi-​tiered theatre building and the plotline woodcut at the start of each play.91 These woodcuts are clearly inspired by the 1496 German edition; however, they are all original and most likely the work of a French or Flemish artist. In keeping with the German tradition, the scene background is not a theatre stage, but an urban setting, with buildings flanking the characters at the two peripheral sides of the stage. The representation of the characters is quite detailed in terms of apparel and facial features and sometimes includes additional props. For instance, at Andria ii.i, Byrria is depicted with a dog on a leash.92 As in the German edition, the characters of each play are mostly represented in one woodcut image that is used repeatedly in subsequent scenes and, as a result, the posture and gestures in which they are framed is not always appropriate to the situation. Nevertheless, the woodcut illustrations provide an immediate visual reference to the reader about the characters on stage. The inaccuracy in representing gestures and the absence of interaction among characters are compensated by notes of variable length that preface each scene. Often these state the name of the characters and the order in which they speak. Asides are also flagged up in the text (a par) and it is always specified whether or not the soliloquising character can be heard by the other characters on stage. Accordingly, the character is either said to be speaking loudly (hault) and pretending not to see the other character(s) or to be far away from the other characters.93 These notes do not provide the details about gesturality or delivery

89 Lawton, Térence en France, vol. 1, 410–​1 (on the translation of Andria 796ff.). 90 Lawton, Térence en France, vol. 1, 395–​8. 91 Terentius, Thérence en francois 1503b, f. 3v. 92 Terentius, Thérence en francois 1503b, f. 17v. 93 Compare, for instance, Andria ii.vi:  ‘Parle Dave a par soy comme non voyant Symon.’ (‘Davus speaks in aside as if he could not see Simo’) [Terentius, Thérence en francois 1503b, f.  29r] with Andria ii.iv:  ‘Et parle Simo a par, soit distant de Pamphile et de Dave, qui

216 Chapter 7 that can be found in Donatus’ commentary. In some cases, the translator gives indirect hints to the modality of movement and delivery of a particular scene by commenting on the character’s feeling. For instance, at Andria ii.iv, Simo fears that his son Pamphilus will not honour his obligation to marry Chremes’s daughter Philumena and as he is about to confront his son he appears ‘in deep thoughts’ (tout meditatif) as he thinks about what to say to bring Pamphilus to reason.94 Presumably, a sixteenth-​century reader would have related such explanations to a specific posture or gesture, in this case a pondering one. Undeniably, this bilingual edition is a ground-​breaking attempt at disseminating Terence among a wider audience, providing it with practical tools to unlock the text. The influence of the 1496 Grüninger edition over German editions of Terence continued well into the sixteenth century. From the early sixteenth century and with the exception of the Bebel 1503 edition discussed above, the illustrations are often limited to the declaratio figurae, as in the 1503 edition by Johann Prüss, reprinted in 1506.95 7.5

The French Tradition of Terence after 1493

The interest in the production of editions of Terence in Lyon and Paris did not fade away after 1493.96 In the period between the appearance of the Lyon Terence and publication of the 1502 edition prefaced by the Praenotamenta, other new editions were printed in Lyon at the presses of Claude Gibolet (1496 and 1497), Jean Pivard (1498), Jean de Vingle (1499) and in Paris by Ulrich Gering (1495), Johann Philippi de Cruzenach (1496 and 1499), André Bocard for Jean Petit (after January 1496 and in 1499), and Gaspard Philippe (1500).97 soit ensemble’ (‘And Simo speaks in aside, being far from Pamphilus and Davus who are together.’) [f. 27r]. 94 Terentius, Thérence en francois 1503b, f. 26v. 95 Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Illustrierte Frühdrucke, 158–​60. 96 Out of 22 French incunables of Terence, 12 were produced in Lyon and 10 in Paris (Rhodes, Annali tipografici, 287). 97 See Anatole Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie, en France au XVe et au XVIe siècle, (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1900-14), vol. 4 325–​9 (Gibolet; his editions are GW M45381; istc it00093700 and M45384; it00098200); vol. 4, 329–​34 (Pivard; M45396; it00099000); vol. 4, 221–​44 (de Vingle; M45401; it00096000 and M45402; it00104500); for Gering ndb 6.291 [F. Geldner] and Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie, vol. 1, 17–​111 passim (M45355; it00081270); for Philippi vol. 2, 235–​40 (M45452; it00094200 and M45454; it00102000); for Bocard vol. 2, 141–​50 (M45441; it00093300 and M45436; it00102500); and for Philippe vol. 2, 361–​4 (it00105550).

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

217

None of these editions attempted to replicate the illustrations of the Lyon Terence or develop their own iconography but one. This sole illustrated edition, which was also the first vernacular translation and was published in Paris by Antoine Vérard sometime between 1499 and 1503, has been discussed in the previous section. In the 1520s, while in Italy there was a proliferation of rival illustrated editions, the French market produced books that included the Praenotamenta Ascensiana, but did not attempt illustrating the plays of Terence. If, sporadically, illustrations complemented an edition, these were only generic and did not bear any reference to the plays’ plotlines. For instance, the Lyonnais editions of Jean Marion (1517) and Jacques Myt (1525) are illustrated by two woodcuts that are alternatively repeated at the start of each play;98 the first of these represents a scholar seated on a throne, who could well be Badius, attended by an assistant. In the second woodcut, which only appears in Heauton timorumenos and Adelphoe, these two figures are accompanied by a group of young men. These additional figures are likely to represent the youth being educated by the learned commentary of Badius. A case in point that demonstrates how palpable the influence of the Lyon Terence was nearly half a century after its publication is Le grant Therence en francoys, published by Jean Petit in 1539.99 This bilingual edition, in Latin and vernacular French, faithfully replicates most of the woodcuts of the Lyon Terence, except the epilogue and a few other illustrations.100 Most woodcuts are duplicated in a text that is comparatively more extended having to accommodate both the French and Latin version, along with commentaries in the two languages.101 Peculiar to this edition is the fact that each woodcut is combined with an additional small woodcut strip representing an urban setting, like in the Grüninger edition. This conflation of traditions is a tangible indication of the impact of the Lyon and Grüninger editions on sixteenth-​century printing. This is reflected not only in the iconography, but also in the text itself as the Latin text appears in a Roman (antiqua) typeface, while the French text and commentary is in a Gothic typeface, just like in Grüninger and in the 1500–​1503 Vérard edition.

98

Copies of both editions (Terentius, Comoediae 1517 and 1525) are held by the Newberry library and were consulted in situ. 99 Terentius, Le grant Therence 1539. 100 The woodcut illustrations that were not reproduced are: Andria iii.i, v.i, Adelphoe iii.v and v.ix. It should be noted that Andria v.i (Chremes and Simo) is replaced by the illustration for iii.iii (Terentius, Le grant Therence 1539, h5v). 101 Misplaced scenes are Eunuchus v.iv and Adelphoe iii.i and v.v.

218 Chapter 7 In the 1550s interest in illustrating Terence was rekindled in the French market in the wake of the publication of Girolamo Scoto’s Terence in 1545. This is likely to coincided with Jean Gryphe’s establishment of a branch of the Gryphe publishing firm from Lyon in Venice in 1544. Jean and Sébastien Gryphe were already well established in Lyon and known for the rigour of their Classical editions.102 It is likely that Jean Gryphe (or Giovanni Griffio as he is also commonly known), who had become a business associate of the Scoto press, was instrumental in securing the illustrations of the Scoto edition to be reproduced for the French market. The Parisian edition of Jean de Roigny (1552) replicated entirely the woodcuts of the 1545 Scoto edition with the exception of the Prologue woodcut. Like Scoto, de Roigny placed a woodcut representing one actor on stage in front of an audience at the start of each play. However, in the French edition, the audience sits on the three sides of the stage. Other figures, perhaps actors or privileged spectators, are seated on stage behind the actor, while others overlook the performance through arches (Figure 7.7). De Roigny’s edition also included Scoto’s large body of commentaries, such as Cesare Scaligero’s contribution on ancient comedy and Pietro Bembo’s textual emendations. Folio 2r is taken entirely by the royal privilege written in French and accorded on the 26 September 1551 for ten years. In the privilege de Roigny is credited for having commissioned woodcuts that are ‘commodes et utiles’ (‘convenient and useful’).103 The woodcuts produced by Giovanni Giacomo da Legnano for his 1521 edition, which were replicated by Girolamo Scoto and reproduced in the edition of Jean de Roigny, had been the last original product of the refashioning of the iconography of the Lyon Terence from Italian printing presses. While in the 1530s unillustrated Aldine editions seemed to dominate the printing market as a more portable and more affordable product and thus particularly suited to school education, voluminous editions, complete with illustrations and an array of commentaries were still regularly produced. From the 1540s Sébastien Gryphe launched on the French and Italian markets the even more portable format of the sextodecimo.104 102 For the activity of the family in Lyon and their editions, see Natalie Z. Davis, “Le monde de l’imprimerie humaniste: Lyon,” in Henri-​Jean Martin and Roger Chartier, eds. Histoire de l’édition française: Tome I, Le livre conquérant, Du Moyen Âge au milieu du XVIIe siècle (Paris: Promodis, 1982), 255–​77, at 263–​5. 103 Terentius, Comoediae 1552, f. 2r. See Lawton, Térence en France, vol. 1, 185–​6 (no. 309). 104 David S. Wilson-​Okamura, Virgil in the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 23. For the diffusion of Gryphe’s editions of Classical texts on the Italian market see Ugo Rozzo, “La cultura italiana nelle edizioni lionesi di Sébastien Gryphe (1531–​ 1541),” La Bibliofilia 90, no. 2 (1988): 161–​95.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

219

An exquisite example of these miniature books is the edition printed by Pierre Regnault in Paris in 1550.105 Unlike Gryphe’s miniature book, this sextodecimo Terence is notable for being beautifully illustrated. The title of this edition vouches for the quality and the originality of these illustrations which, as claimed, have never been published before.106 The 46 illustrations, just over a quarter of the illustrations of the Lyon Terence, are the tangible results of a very thorough selection process. Every play features a Prologue woodcut that, just like in the Lyon Terence, differs from play to play. The rest of the illustrations are interspersed in the miniature volume: each play features seven illustrated scenes apart from Phormio and Hecyra, which only have six. Eunuchus, Adelphoe and Hecyra are the only plays to have the last scene of the play illustrated. Otherwise, the illustrations are not equally divided by act, but often two contiguous scenes are illustrated and an entire act may not be illustrated at all. No soliloquies are visually represented, and most woodcuts illustrate group scenes and are clearly designed to help a reader navigate through the intricacies of Terentian plots. This miniature book is remarkable on many levels. First of all it follows closely the Lyon Terence in the representation of the backdrop and staging of the scenes. Each woodcut includes the characters’ labels which have taken the place of the ‘house’ labels. This is quite common in early-​sixteenth century editions, but generally by the middle of the century, characters are no longer labelled. The characters’ gestures are also in keeping with the iconography of the Lyon Terence, particularly in the use of the gestures of statement and interpellation and compliance/​listening. Notwithstanding the many similarities, the illustrator of the miniature Terence exhibits a certain degree of originality that is symptomatic of a deep engagement with the text. For instance, at Andria iii.i, Misis is depicted with her back turned to the audience and in the act of drawing the curtain but, unlike in the Lyon Terence, Glycerium is not visible (Figure 7.8).107 At scene iv.v, Chremes has entered the stage to find Davus, Misis and Glycerium’s baby. In the miniature Terence Misis is depicted with her arm wrapped around the curtain, in an attempt to escape the notice of an angry Chremes (Figure 7.9).108 105 Terentius, Comoediae 1550. As noted in the bibliography, this edition did not appear in the ustc at the time of writing, and it has not been possible to establish whether the Newberry copy is the only one in existence. 106 Comoediae sex, iam recenter pulcherrimis imaginibus, ante hac nunquam aeditis, illustratae (‘the six comedies, just recently illustrated with the most beautiful images, never published beforehand,’ Terentius, Comoediae 1550, a1r). 107 Terentius, Comoediae 1550, f. 18r. 108 Terentius, Comoediae 1550, f. 25v.

220 Chapter 7 These nuances aside, the miniature Terence is very close in inspiration and execution to the Lyon Terence and is a testament to the legacy of the 1493 edition that was still enduring over half a century later. The miniature Terence also points to a wider geographical dissemination beyond the major printing centres, being printed in Paris by the Rouen-​based Regnault. In the sixteenth century Normandy became a lucrative market, thanks both to the intellectual community of the University of Caen, where Regnault served as librarian, and to the clergy of Rouen. Regnault established himself in this more peripheral market, extending his trade to Brittany, while maintaining strong ties with ­Paris.109 7.6

Conclusion

The miniature Terence of Pierre Regnault gives us a glimpse of the readership of de luxe Terence editions in the midst of the sixteenth century and it is the last original product of the enduring legacy of the Lyon Terence. In the second half of the sixteenth century fully illustrated editions were phased out. Illustrations became mostly ornamental, often representing a commentator at work in his study, or vignettes that decorated elaborated initials and were completely unrelated to the text. In an increasing globalised market, editions contained a vast array of commentaries compiled by humanists from across Europe. For instance, the cover page of the 1553 Venetian edition published by Bartolomeo Cesano purports to contain not only the commentaries of Donatus, Guy, Pietro Marso, Stephanus Doletus (Andria and Eunuchus) and Giovanni Calfurnio (Heauton timorumenos), but also many more additional scholarly materials, such as the notes of Erasmus on dramatic genres, very clear plot summaries of each play by German humanist Philip Melanchthon, the notes of the Portuguese Antonio de Gouveia on Terentian metre, and the commentaries of the French Bartholomeus Latomus, the German Johannes Rivius, and the Swiss Heinrich Glareanus.110 The interest in the plays of Terence was now firmly on philological accuracy and the 1553 edition claims to have correctly restored the text’s metrical scheme and to have added variant readings on margin after collating the Aldine 109 On Regnault and his connections with Brittany and Paris, see Diane E. Booton, Publishing Networks in France in the Early Era of Print (Milton Park: Routledge, 2018), 82. 110 See the description in ustc 858746. Giulia was able to view a newly acquired copy of this edition that was yet to be catalogued at the Newberry Library in November 2018 courtesy of Suzanne Karr-​Schmidt.

The Legacy of the Lyon Terence in the sixteenth Century

221

and Gryphian editions.111 The influence of the Lyon Terence is still palpable in the selection of Donatus and Guy as the main commentaries of unillustrated editions up to the 1580s. From the mid-​sixteenth century, more portable editions of Terence in octavo and sextodecimo format became increasingly popular and would determine the streamlining of the commentary body even in quarto editions. 111 Terentius, Comoediae 1546, title page:  metris in suum ordinem recte restitutis, ac variis lectionibus in margine appositis ex collatione postremarum editionum Aldini et Gryphiani exemplaris.

Conclusion The Lyon Terence is a book of many firsts: it is the first illustrated edition of the six plays to appear in Europe, and the first Classical text in original Latin to be illustrated against the common practice of limiting the use of illustrations to vernacular texts. It is also the first illustrated dramatic text that eschews the practice of depicting characters of narrative texts against a generic urban or naturalistic setting, and places them on a stage. Despite this, this remarkable book has received very little attention from the critics in recent years. Twentieth-​century scholarship can partially be blamed for this oversight. Early scholarship was divided between those who advocated that the woodcuts should be viewed as illustrations of the revival of Terence that took place in Italy in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, and those who denied such a connection.1 This line of enquiry was later abandoned as proven unfruitful due to the ephemeral nature of theatre buildings that were set up for performances of Terence in Florence, Rome and Ferrara, but has informed the view in subsequent scholarship that the Lyon Terence must be completely divorced from contemporary theatrical practice. This study re-​establishes the centrality of the Lyon text in the development of the intellectual debate on dramatic criticism that paved the way to the birth of Early Modern theatre in Europe, by looking at the rich illustrative and scholiastic tradition of Terence and at its enduring legacy. The text of Terence and accompanying commentary edited and composed by Guy Jouenneaux, the first new Latin commentary of the fifteenth century to challenge the supremacy of Donatus, form a solid core for this volume. But the Lyon Terence is much more than just this. Technically, it is a work of great sophistication, which pushes the new technologies offered by woodblock illustration to their limits in order to offer the reader a comprehensive experience of ancient theatre, or at least a contemporary vision of it. The entire mise-​en-​ page is carefully designed to direct the reader’s attention to the form and content of Terence’s plays. The quality of all this work is highly suggestive of an expert team of artisans and printers hired at great expense by the publisher, Johannes Trechsel, but much of the credit for this achievement must belong to the work’s overall editor, Badius.

1 Nancy E.  Carrick, “The Lyons Terence Woodcuts” (PhD diss., University of Arizona, 1980), 22–​31.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | DOI:10.1163/978

Conclusion

223

Close examination of his poorly known 1491 edition of Terence, accompanied by the text of Donatus, reveals much about Badius and his role in the Lyon Terence. His attempts to sort out the highly corrupt didascaliae to each of Terence’s plays on a logical basis show a keen intellectual engagement with the text; significantly, these amended texts did not appear in the Lyon Terence, but resurfaced in his 1502 edition of Terence, suggesting that he was to an extent hamstrung in 1493 by a requirement to reproduce Guy’s text exactly. Of greater significance for the subsequent presentation and understanding of Terence was his inclusion of act divisions, which were marked both in the margins and in the running headers of his 1491 and 1493 editions. Badius was not the first to mark these divisions in this way—​isolated examples of incunabula with act divisions exist prior to him—​but the dominance of Calfurnio’s combined edition of Terence and Donatus, which became a template for editions throughout the 1480s and which did not include running headers, meant that, for the most part, readers were forced to go back to Donatus’ introductions to gain an idea of where acts began and finished, which in turn had implications for understanding the dramaturgy of Terence’s plays. Following the Lyon Terence, the major new editions of Terence produced by De’ Soardi in Italy and Grüninger in Strassburg all included the act divisions in their mise-​en-​page, copied from or modelled on Badius’ divisions. Badius’ time spent studying in Italy and his encounters with such figures as Battista Guarino, Filippo Beroaldo, and Angelo Poliziano, undoubtedly informed his subsequent career; the breadth of his humanist education is shown in the Silvae Morales, published just ten months before the Lyon Terence, while his conception of ancient theatrical performance was to be codified in his Praenotamenta, which draw heavily on his Italian sources, and which were eventually to become one of the most influential theoretical texts of the sixteenth century. The Praenotamenta first appeared in his third and final edition of Terence from 1502, but as he notes there in his preface, they were the product of many years of teaching and research in Lyon. Real theoretical advances in this later work, such as his understanding of theatre as something acted in real time before an audience, are prefigured in the Lyon Terence in his additional comments to Guy’s text. As well, many elements of the illustrations of this earlier work, such as the statues of Bacchus and Apollo in Andria, the curtains before the alcoves for actors, or the names above each house, are prescribed in the Praenotamenta as part of the dramatic ­environment. One of the most compelling aspects of the woodcut illustrations overall is the representation of gestures and hand gestures in particular. This book attempts to produce a taxonomy of gestures in the Lyon Terence, building on studies of

224 Conclusion Carolingian gestures.2 A detailed analysis of gestures has indicated that while the Lyon Terence to some extent perpetuates the illustrative tradition of Terence, it also introduces other gestures that would resonate with a Renaissance readership. This set of non-​Carolingian gestures is marked by gender and social status. In particular, male characters of high social standing often appear in a ‘gesture of boldness and control,’ while their female counterparts, on the other hand, are almost always depicted in a static pose with their hands concealed in their cuffs, in what is labelled in this book a ‘gesture of demureness.’ The gesture of demureness abides to contemporary societal norms that prescribed that women comported themselves modestly. In the Lyon Terence characterisation also happens through costuming. The apparel worn by the characters, which reflects the new trends that changed contemporary fashion in the 1490s, is used to signal status and morality. For instance, the use of boulevars or of feathers on hats that is typical of the apparel of some young characters is viewed as a sign of ostentation. On the contrary, the apparel of the senex is always very sober and often completed by a walking stick to signal authority. The high degree of accuracy in portraying the characters’ apparel, posture, gestures and gaze begs the question of who this skilled artist could have been. We have tried to steer clear of the sometimes treacherous territory of art-​ historical attribution, limiting ourselves mainly to presenting the identifications proposed by expert scholars in the field, although our constant engagement with the text and images has led us to some tentative conclusions. The German art historians Fedja Anzelewsky and Bodo Brinkmann identified the artist of the Lyon Terence with the Master of the Lübeck Bible.3 This identification still has some currency, but rests on a set of unverifiable assumptions, including an undocumented stay of the artist in Italy.4 More convincing from our perspective is the position of French scholarship headed by Anatole Claudin, who suggested that the artist, who was originally from Northern France or Flanders, settled in Lyon at a time when book illustration was thriving, 2 See Dorota Dutsch, “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence and Late Revivals of Literary Drama,” Gesture 7 (2007): 39–​71 and Dutsch, “Towards a Roman Theory of Theatrical Gesture,” in Performance in Greek and Roman Theatre, ed. George W.M. Harrison and Vayos Liapis (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 409–​31. 3 Fedja Anzelewsky, “Der Meister der Lübecker Bibel von 1494,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 27, no. 1 (1964): 43–​59; Bodo Brinkmann, “Neues vom Meister der Lübecker Bibel,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 29–​30 (1987–​88): 123–​61. 4 Thomas Kren, “Consolidation and Renewal: Manuscript Painting under the Hapsburgs, circa 1485–​1510,” in Illuminating the Renaissance: The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe, ed. Thomas Kren and Scot McKendrick (Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003), 377.

Conclusion

225

and worked, along a group of local artists and artisans at the service of local ­printers.5 Book illustration, which started in Lyon as early as 1478, became the trademark of the Lyonnais printing industry. Determining this unprecedented development was the fact that there was no university in fifteenth-​century Lyon and therefore a limited market for legal, theological and other specialist texts printed for a readership of intellectuals.6 By contrast, four annual fairs attracted a large number of merchants from all over Europe and provided a lucrative market for all sorts of goods, including books. Inevitably, the books that were printed privileged reading for leisure, mostly in vernacular French, and illustrated by images that could provide immediate visual cues to the narrative. The rapid development of book illustration allowed for the presence of a number of artists of high level of craftmanship that would have been required to design the sophisticated iconography of the Lyon Terence. Lyon was also a cosmopolitan city that attracted Italian merchants from Milan, Genoa, Lucca and Florence, who settled there from the early fourteenth century. Florentines were particularly numerous in the city and formed a sort of corporation, the Nazione Fiorentina, whose representative had a role in the city’s decision making.7 The presence of Italian settlers and in particular of merchants who maintained constant business ties with their mother cities could well explain the Italianate influences that have been identified in the woodcuts. Nevertheless, the Lyon Terence is groundbreaking in conflating the attractive format of vernacular illustrated books with the more sombre typeset with text in original Latin surrounded by the commentary. While the paratext could prima facie indicate that the Lyon Terence targeted a student readership, the inclusion of two full-​folio and 159 half-​folio woodcut illustrations would have made it a costly product. A survey of the ownership notes inscribed in some of the extant copies confirms that the Lyon Terence was purchased by members of the nobility and the clergy.8 Targeting an elitist audience would have limited the marketability of the Lyon Terence and one may wonder if Trechsel, as the financier of the enterprise and Badius as the editor would have taken such a 5 Anatole Claudin, Histoire de l’imprimerie au XVe et au XVIe siècle, vol. 4 (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1914), 75–​6. See Chapter 5.7. 6 Robert Brun, Le livre français (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1969), 14–​15; Ilaria Andreoli, “Échanges d’images, images d’échanges: le livre illustré lyonnais à la Renaissance,” in Lyon Renaissance: Arts et Humanisme, ed. Ludmila Virassamynaïken (Lyon: Somogy Éditions d’art, 2015), 62. 7 See Federica Carta, “La nation florentine à Notre-​Dame-​de-​Confort,” in Virassamynaïken 2015, 204–​9. 8 See Chapter 1.3.

226 Conclusion risk. Louise Katz’s excellent unpublished thesis has provided new insights into the network of patronage that Badius established in Lyon, particularly with powerful members of the clergy.9 These associations, particularly with religious orders such as the Carmelites, would have ensured further dissemination of the Lyon Terence outside of Lyon and across the Alps. Paul White’s Jodocus Badius Ascensius: Commentary, Commerce and Print in the Renaissance has the merit of considering Badius not simply as the morally and pedagogically rigorous editor of the classics, but also as a businessman driven by commercial profitability. Pleasing clerical and lay members of Lyon’s high society was then a calculated manoeuvre to obtain financial backing for his future editorial pursuits. Through a detailed study of Badius’ commentaries, White has suggested that Badius purposely wrote each of his commentaries, targeting each time a specific readership.10 The Lyon Terence is no exception to this, as it was preceded by a first unillustrated edition published in 1491, which must have had limited success, judging by the exiguous number of copies, and was followed by the 1502 edition that contained the Praenotamenta.11 Badius’ planned translation of his commentary on Terence into French vernacular has not survived,12 but demonstrates once more his intention to reach a wider audience, while of course repurposing materials that had already been written for previous editions. This study on the Lyon Terence inevitably had to consider the thorny question of whether or not the illustrations reflect contemporary staging of the plays of Terence. In the first half of the twentieth century a number of scholars attempted to claim that the woodcut illustrations reflected the staging of Terence that took place in Italy at the end of the fifteenth century. These discussions were silenced by an article by Lawrenson and Purkis that rejected any connection between scene representation in the Lyon Terence and contemporary theatre practice.13 The theatrical backdrop of the revival 9

Louise Katz, “La presse et les lettres: Les épîtres paratextuelles et le projet éditorial de l’imprimeur Josse Bade (c. 1462–​1535)” (PhD diss., École Pratique des Hautes Études, University of Paris, 2013), particularly 96–​121. See also Chapter 3.2.3. 10 Paul White, “The Classical Commentary in Renaissance France:  Bilingual, Mixed-​ Language, and Translated Editions,” Renaissance and Reformation 41, no. 2 (2018), 21–​36. 11 See Chapter 4. 12 Paul White, “From Commentary to Translation:  Figurative Representations of the Text in the French Renaissance,” in  The Culture of Translation in Early Modern England and France, 1500–​1660, ed. Tania Demetriou and Rowan Tomlinson (London:  Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 71–​85. 13 Thomas E.  Lawrenson and Helen Purkis, “Les éditions illustrées de Térence dans l’histoire du théatre: Spectacles dans un fauteuil?,” in Le lieu théâtral à la Renaissance, ed. Jean Jacquot (Paris: cnrs, 1964), 6–​10.

Conclusion

227

of Classical drama at the court of Ercole i in Ferrara that Badius may have witnessed consisted of a panel depicting the city of Ferrara and up to five practicable houses equipped with windows; this arrangement is quite different from the contiguous curtained houses depicted in the Lyon Terence.14 As discussed in ­chapter 5, the backdrop that consistently appears in the woodcuts is likely to be an attempt at reconstructing the ancient scaenae frons of Roman theatres as it appears in the Donatus/​Evanthius’ treatise Excerpta de comoedia as specific references to key passages from the treatise are disseminated in Badius’ Praenotamenta.15 A close analysis of the representation of theatrical conventions in the Lyon Terence, including entrances and exits, asides, eavesdropping and off-​stage scenes, has revealed that the designer of the woodcuts had a deep understanding of performance practice. The artist often depicts two sequences of a scene in the same woodcut, following very rigorous artistic conventions. Entrances are particularly emphasised by depicting the characters partly visible through the drawn curtain with an outstretched leg while setting their foot on stage. The curtains consistently represent the threshold that sets apart the onstage from the off-​stage and the utmost attention is put into representing off-​stage characters as visible through a drawn curtain but not having any physical contact with the stage. Particularly effective is the representation of multiple asides where each aside is depicted on the side stage of the proscenium, while the dialogue scene always appears on centre stage. The systematic analysis of the artistic conventions used in the woodcuts indicates beyond doubt that the artist who conceived the iconography of the Lyon Terence had direct experience of contemporary performances. In Lyon, like many other centres around France, farces, sacred drama and morality plays were routinely performed. But the woodcut illustrations point to a level of understanding of theatrical practice that suggest that the artist had hands-​ on experience of mise-​en-​scene. An extraordinary opportunity would have been presented itself less than three years before the appearance of the Lyon Terence with the royal entry of Charles viii in 1490. For the occasion, several performances were organised under the artistic direction of royal portraitist Jean Perréal, who oversaw the work of a great number of artists and artisans to build, paint and decorate the backdrops for each performance.16 The most 14 15 16

On the so-​called città ferrarese see Ludovico Zorzi, Il teatro e la città. Saggi sulla scena ita­ liana (Turin: Einaudi, 1977), 76–​8 and Elena Povoledo, “Origini e aspetti della scenografia in Italia,” in Nino Pirrotta, Li due Orfei: da Poliziano a Monteverdi (Turin: Einaudi, 1975), 357–​71. See Chapter 6.3. Tania Lévy, “Les séjours et entrées de la Cour à Lyon,” in Virassamynaïken 2015, 138–​42.

228 Conclusion skilled artists would have been involved in such a high scale event, including most likely the artist of the Lyon Terence. Certainly, the exceptional development of illustration of narrative books accelerated the development of theatre architecture. Book illustrations and theatre practice are intertwined and, for instance, on the occasion of the celebrations organised for the entrance of King Louis xii later in 1507, the choice of theming all performances around Ovid’s Metamorphoses is mostly likely related to the productions of illustrated vernacular editions of Ovid in Lyonnais printmaking.17 The level of sophistication and narrative poignancy of the woodcut illustrations of the Lyon Terence invite the question as to why Badius chose to move back to an unillustrated text with the edition of 1502. If the Lyon Terence did not have immediate impact on the French production of editions of Terence, with the exception of Vérard’s bilingual edition, its impact over the Italian market between the end of the fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth century was enormous. Chapter 7 contains the first complete survey of illustrated editions of Terence produced in Italy, France, and Germany in the sixteenth century and presents cinquecentine that are very little known. Rejecting the common paradigm that brands these editions as mere counterfeits, allows us to appreciate the individual features of these editions, which draw upon previous models but at the same time introduce novel elements. In so doing these editions perpetuate the ongoing development of the illustrative tradition of Terence, facilitating the transition into a novel medium. This overview demonstrates the enduring legacy of the iconography of the Lyon Terence that becomes the blueprint for all the subsequent editions in France and Italy. We may never be able to fully determine the sources that influenced the design of the woodcut illustrations or what genres of contemporary theatrical performances impacted on the iconology of the illustrations. But it is quite conceivable to assume that the sophisticated iconography of the Lyon Terence was a product not only of the craftmanship of a skilled artist, but also of the intellectual milieu that produced it, as well as of Badius’ own direct contact with Italian humanist culture and his deep engagement with Terence and its enduring tradition. 17

As noted by Lévy, “Les séjours et entrées de la Cour à Lyon,” 142.

Bibliography

Incunabula and Other Early Editions Cited

Badius 1492. Silvae Morales cum interpraetatione Ascensii. Lyon:  Johannes Trechsel, 14.11.1492. [GW 3154; ISTC ib00003000; copy consulted:  Düsseldorf, Universitäts-​ und Landesbibliothek N.Lat.8 (Ink.); ‹urn.nbn:de:hbz:061:1-​18224›]. Badius 1500a. Stultiferae naues sensus animosque trahentes mortis in exitium. Paris: Thielman Kerver, 18.2.1500. [GW 3155: ISTC ib00004000; copy consulted: Baden, Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe, Ink. 59 A 3334]. Badius 1500b. Jodoci Badii Ascensii de recte scribendi ratione compendiosa traditio. Paris: Jean Maurand?, after 1500? [GW M49233; ISTC iv00047100; copy consulted: Bonn, Universitäts-​und Landesbibliothek, Ink.759]. Bandello, Vincenzo 1481. De singulari puritate et praerogativa conceptione salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi. Bologna: Ugo Ruggeri. [GW 3238; ISTC ib00049000; copy consulted Munich, bsb, 4 Inc. c.a. 181; ‹urn.nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb00065467-​8›]. Beroaldo, Filippo 1491. Orationes et poemata. Bologna: Platone de’ Benedetti. [GW 4144; ISTC ib00491000; copy consulted: Munich, bsb, 4 Inc. c.a. 817]. Beroaldo, Filippo 1492. Orationes Philippi Beroaldi uiri quam clarissimi Bononiae litteras bonas docentis. Lyon: Johannes Trechsel, 4.9.1492. [GW 4145; ISTC ib00492000; copy consulted: Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek 17-​1-​rhet-​3; ‹diglib.hab.de/​inkunabeln/​17-​1-​rhet-​3/​start.htm›]. Boethius 1498. Commentum duplex in Boetium de consolatione philosophie cum utriusque tabula. Item commentum in eundem de disciplina scholarium, cum commento in Quintilianum de officio discipulorum. Lyon: Jean de Vingle, 20.4.1498 [GW 4569; ISTC ib00808000]. Bonifacio, Giovanni, 1616. L’arte de’ cenni con la quale formandosi fauella visibile, si tratta della muta eloquenza, che non è altro che un facondo silentio. Divisa in due parti. Vicenza: Francesco Grossi [USTC 4025806]. Bulwer, John, 1664. Chirologia: or the naturall language of the hand. Composed of the speaking motions, and discoursing gestures thereof. Whereunto is added Chironomia: or, the art of manuall rhetoricke. Consisting of the naturall expressions, digested by art in the hand, as the chiefest instrument of eloquence. London: Thomas Harper [USTC 3047870]. Cicero 1499. De officiis; Laelius, sive de amicitia; Cato maior, sive de senectute; Paradoxa stoicorum. Lyon:  Etienne Gueynard. [GW 6973; ISTC ic00614500; copy consulted: Vatican City, bav, Inc.IV.34]. Donatus 1472. Commentum in Terentii comoedias. Rome: Conrad Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz, 10.12.1472 [GW 9036; ISTC id00353500; copy consulted: Munich, bsb, Ink. D-​276; ‹urn.nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb00036535-​7›].

230 Bibliography Fernand, Charles 1488. Caroli Fernandi Brugensis musici regii Epistolae familiares ad Robertum Gaguinum. Paris: Johannes Higman or Ulrich Gering, between 1487 and 1488 [GW 9795; ISTC if00100500; copy consulted: Bonn, Universitäts-​und Landesbibliothek, Ink. 309; ‹urn:nbn:de:hbz:5:1-​35237›]. Fernand, Charles 1506. Epistolae longe festiuissimae atque ad amussim excultae Caroli Phernandi Brugensis ad Robertum Gaguinum. Paris: Jodocus Badius Ascensius [copy consulted: Paris, BnF, Rés. Z-​1067]. Guarino, Battista 1496. Baptistae Guarini poema diuo Herculi Ferrariensium duci dicatum. Modena: Domenico Rocociolo. [GW 11598; ISTC ig00531000; copy consulted: Modena, Biblioteca Estense, α.&.2.28.3]. Houckaert, Eligius 1511. Livini archiepiscopi et martyris Gandavorum vita. Paris: Jodocus Badius for Victor Van Crambrugghe and Gerardus Zweemere, 13.1.1511 [USTC 410077]. Horatius 1500. Quinti Horatii Flacci de arte poetica opusculum aureum ab Ascensio familiariter expositum. Paris: Thielman Kerver, 15.5.1500 [GW 13495; ISTC ih00467000; copy consulted: Boston, Public Library Q.405.138]. Juvenalis 1498. Juvenalis familiare commentum, cum Antonii Mancinelli uiri eruditissimi explanatione. Lyon: Nicolaus Wolff. [GW M15700; ISTC ij00656000]. Le Mire, Aubert 1602. Elogia illustrium Belgii scriptorum. Antwerp: Widow and heirs of Iohannes Bellerus. [USTC 1003401]. Ovidius 1503. Heroidum epistole, Sapphus atque in Ibin argutie cum triplici explanatione altera familiari et cum totius operis exactissima castigatione. Lyon:  Jean de Vingle [copy consulted: Wien, ÖNB, 76.B.18]. Persius 1499. Persii familiare commentum cum Joannis Britannici eruditissima interpretatione. Argumenta satyrarum ac prefationis Persiane per Jodocum Badium. Lyon: Nicolaus Wolf. [GW M31428; ISTC ip00359000; copy consulted University of Melbourne Library Mtb/​7; ‹hdl.handle.net/​11343/​55030›]. Pico della Mirandola 1496a. Opera. Bologna: Benedetto di Ettore, 2 parts, 20.3.1496 and 16.7.1496. [GW M33276; ISTC ip00632000]. Pico della Mirandola 1496b. Aureae epistolae Ioannis Pici Mirandulae ab Ascensio recognitae. Speyer: Conrad Hist, after 1496. [GW M33316; ISTC ip00636000]. Poliziano 1498. Omnia opera Angeli Politiani et alia quaedam lectu digna. Venice: Aldo Manuzio. [GW M34727; ISTC ip00886000; copy consulted Munich, BSB, 2 Inc. c.a. 3680 m; ‹urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb00050563-​2›]. Poliziano 1499. Illustrium uirorum epistulae. Lyon: Nicholaus Wolf, 1499/​1500 [GW 9368; ISTC ip00888200; copy consulted:  Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Inc. Guelf. 970]. Poliziano 1520. Illustrium uirorum epistolae ab Angelo Politiano partim scriptae, partim collectae, cum Syluianis commentariis et Ascensianis scholiis. Paris: Jodocus Badius [USTC 160378: copy consulted Gent, UB, 9193]. Serlio, Sebastiano 1545. Il primo libro d’Architettura di Sebastiano Serlio, Bolognese: Le premier liure d’Architecture de Sebastian Serlio, Bolognois, mis en langue Francoyse

Bibliography

231

par Iehan Martin. Paris:  Jean Barbé [USTC 856046; copy consulted Munich, bsb, Res/​2 A.civ. 198-​1/​5; ‹urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb10195345-​5›]. Spagnoli, Battista 1499. De calamitatibus temporum seu contra peccatorum monstra Aureum Baptistae Mantuani Poema familiariter ac succinte declaratum. Paris: Georg Wolf and Thielman Kerver. [GW 3255; ISTC ib00095000; copy consulted: Valenciennes, BM, Inc. 12(2)]. Spagnoli, Battista 1503. Sylvarum F. Baptistae Mantuani Carmelitae sex opuscula cum commento. Paris: Jodocus Badius Ascensius and Jean Petit [copy consulted: Munich, bsb, 4 P.lat. 860#Beibd.2]. Terentius 1470. Publii Terentii Afri poetae comici comediarum liber. Strassburg: Johann Mentelin, not after 1470 [GW M45489; ISTC it00064000; copy consulted: Paris, BnF, RES-​G -​YC-​182; ‹ark:/​12148/​cb31443375g›]. Terentius 1472a. Publii Terentii Afri comoediae sex. Paris: Ulrich Gering, Martin Crantz, and Michael Friburger, c. 1472 [GW M45451; ISTC it00065800; FB 87843; copy consulted: Paris, BnF, RES-​G -​YC-​994; ‹ark:/​12148/​btv1b8604281x›]. Terentius 1472b. Publii Terentii Afri comoediae sex. Rome: Conrad Sweynheym and Arnold Pannartz, 6.10.1472 [GW M45474; ISTC it00065500; copy consulted: Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève, OEXV 98 RES; ‹ark:/​13960/​t9w105r6h›]. Terentius 1473. Publii Terentii Afri comoediae sex. Venice: Wendelin von Speyer, c. 1472 or 1473 [GW 45575; ISTC it00067000; copy consulted: Munich, bsb, 2 Inc. c.a. 1011; ‹urn.nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb00059025-​9›]. Terentius 1474. Publii Terentii Afri comoediae sex. Padua:  Bartolomeo da Valdezocco, 4.8.1474 [GW M45433; ISTC it00068000; copy consulted: Munich, bsb, 2 Inc. c.a. 315; ‹ urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb00070071-​1›. Terentius 1476. Aelii Donati grammatici clarissimi in sex P.  Terentii Afri comoedias examinata interpretatio. Venice:  Jacques Le Rouge, 25.8.1476 [GW M45564; ISTC it00073000; copy consulted: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, 4° Inc 3724; ‹resolver.staatsbibliothek-​berlin.de/​SBB00021D9A00000000›]. Terentius 1478. Terentii comoediae sex. Paris: Ulrich Gering, between 1478 and 1483 [GW M4544810; ISTC it00076500; copy consulted: Paris, BnF, Res gYc 188; ‹ark:/​12148/​bpt6k204435n›]. Terentius 1485. P. Terentii Afri comoediae VI cum Aelii Donati et Joann. Calphurnii in Heautontimorumenon commentariis. Brescia:  Giovanni Britannico, 20.10.1485 [GW M45364; ISTC it00082000; copy consulted:  Munich, bsb, 2.  Inc. c.a. 1690; ‹urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb00069742-​5›]. Terentius 1486. Hernach volget ain Maisterliche und wolgesetzte Comedia [Eunuchus]. Ulm: Konrad Dinckmuth [GW M45593; ISTC it00108000; copy consulted: Darmstadt, Universitäts-​und Landesbibliothek, Inc. iv.79; ‹ http://​tudigit.ulb.tu-​darmstadt.de/​ show/​inc-​iv-​79›]. Terentius 1491. Terentius cum Donati commentariis multa lucubratione emendatis. Lyon:  Matthias Husz [GW 45389; ISTC it00087600; FB 87846; copies

232 Bibliography consulted: Genova, Biblioteca Universitaria, Rari D.II.26; Freiburg i.Br., Universitätsbibliothek, Ink. 4o D 7521, f]. Terentius 1492. Guidonis Juvenalis natione Cenomani in Terentium familiarissima interpretatio. Paris: Georg Wolf, 20.10.1492 [GW M45458; ISTC it00089500; FB 84847; copy consulted: Göttingen, Staats-​und Universitätsbibliothek, 4 AUCT LAT I, 3635 INC]. Terentius 1493. Guidonis Iuuenalis natione Cenomani in Terentium familiarissima interpretatio cum figuris unicuique scaenae praepositis. Lyon:  Johannes Trechsel, 29.8.1493. [GW M45397; ISTC it00091000; FB 87851; copies consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, folio Inc. 8602, Uppsala, Universitetsbibliotek, Ink. 32:  87; Munich, bsb, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m; ‹urn.nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb11303143-​5›]. Terentius 1494. Terentius cum duobus commentis, uidelicet Donato et Guidone. Venice: Lazzaro de’ Soardi. [GW M45516; ISTC it00092000; copy consulted Munich, bsb, 2 Inc. c.a. 3115; ‹urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb00059001-​7›]. Terentius 1496. Terentius cum directorio, glosa interlineali, commentariis Donati, Guidonis, Ascensii. Strassburg: Johannes Grüninger. [GW M45481; ISTC it00094000; copy consulted:  Darmstadt, Universitäts-​und Landesbibliothek, Inc. IV 77; ‹urn.nbn. de.tuda-​tudigit-​9983›]. Terentius 1497a. Terentius cum duobus commentis. Venice: Giacomo Pencio, 24.1.1497 [GW M45559; ISTC it00098000; copy consulted Liège, Bibliothèque universitaire, XV.B4]. Terentius 1497b. Terentius cum tribus commentis, uidelicet Donati, Guidonis, et Calphurnii. Venice:  Simone da Lovere, 5.7.1497 [GW M45539; ISTC it00095000; copy consulted: Munich, bsb, 2 Inc. c.a. 3548; ‹urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb00058998-​9›]. Terentius 1499. Terentius cum quattuor commentis, uidelicet Donati, Guidonis, Calphurnii, et Ascensii. Venice:  Lazzaro de’ Soardi, 7.11.1499 [GW M45544; ISTC it00103000; copy consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, folio Inc. 5625]. Terentius 1502. P. Terentij Aphri Comedie a Guidone Juvenale familiariter explanate, cum Ascensij prenotamentis. Lyon:  Claude Many and Étienne Baland. [edition not included in the ustc catalogue as at 23.2.2019; copy consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.M28]. Terentius 1503a. Terentius comico carmine. Strassburg:  Johannes Grüninger, 18.3.1503 [USTC 696096; copy consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 547.G912 (not included in the ustc catalogue as at 23.2.2019)]. Terentius 1503b. Therence en francois. Paris: Antoine Vérard, between 1500 and 1503. [USTC 71486: copy consulted: Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève, OE XV 710 Rés.]. Terentius 1517. Terentius cum commento: Publii Terentii Aphri comicorum latino principis comedie abs I. Badio perque familiariter post Donatum et G. Juvenalem in latina lingua cantatissimos exposite, quibus ultra Taurapis Melchinensis in singulas comedias argumenta. Lyon: Jean Marion for Simon Vincent. [USTC 144833; copy consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, Case Y 672.T305].

Bibliography

233

Terentius 1518. Terentius cum quinque commentis, uidelicet Donati, Guidonis, Calphurnii, Ascensii, et Seruii. Venice: Giorgio Rusconi, 22.3.1518. [USTC 858684: copy consulted: Munich, bsb, Res/​2 A.lat.a. 240; ‹urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb10195826-​6›]. Terentius 1521a. Terenti Aphri comicorum elegantissimi comoediae a Guidone Iuuenale perque litterato familiariter explanate, et a Iodoco Badio Ascensio una cum explanationibus rursum annotate atque recognite, cumque eiusdem Ascensii prenotamentis. Milan: Giovanni Giacomo da Legnano and brothers, 23.2.1521. [USTC 858685: copies consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing folio ZP 535.L515; Gent, UB, 9612]. Terentius 1521b. Terentius cum quinque commentis, uidelicet Donati, Guidonis, Calphurnii, Ascensii, et Seruii. Venice: Giorgio Rusconi, 23.3.1521. [USTC 858693: copy consulted: Munich, bsb, Res/​2 A.lat.a. 241; ‹urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb10195827-​2›]. Terentius 1522. P. Terentii Aphri comoediae in sua metra restitutae, interpretantibus Aelio Donato grãmatico dignissimo: Guidone Juuenale Cenomano: Jo. Calphurnio: necnon [et] Seruio: Jodocoqz Badio Ascẽsio. Cum figuris aptissimis: multisq[ue] in locis adiunctis dictionibus graecis quae deerant. Necnon [et] ornatissimus index tã vocabulorũ q̃ [ue] Adagiorum: quae digna annotatu visa sunt. Nouiter impressae. Venice: Giovanni Tacuino, 1522. [USTC 858708: copy consulted: Toronto, Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library E-​10 02506]. Terentius 1524. P. Terentii Aphri comoediae in sua metra restitutae, interpretantibus Aelio Donato grammatico dignissimo, Guidone Iuuenale Cenomano, Iodocoque Badio Ascensio, nouiter impressae. Venice:  Guglielmo da Fontaneto, 21.7.1524. [cf. USTC 858709: copy consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 535.F68 (not included in the ustc catalogue as at 23.2.2019)]. Terentius 1525. Comoediae cum famatissimorum oratorum commentis. Lyon:  Jacques Myt, 30.10.1525 [cf. USTC 123724: copy consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.M993 (not included in the ustc catalogue as at 25.2.2019)]. Terentius 1526. Pub. Terentii Afri Comoediae in sua metra restitutae: interp[re]tantibus Aelio Donato gra[m]‌matico, Guidone Iuuenale Cenomano, Io[hanne] Calphurnio, nec no[n] & Seruio, Iodocoq[ue] Badio Asce[n]sio: cu[m] figuris aptissimis multisq[ue] in locis adiu[n]ctis dictionibus Graecis q[uae] deera[n]t: necnon & ornatissimus index tam vocabulorum q[uam] adagiorum quae digna annotatu visa sunt: nouerit [i.e. noviter] impressae. Benaco: Alessandro Paganino. [not included in the USTC catalogue: copy consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 535.P12]. Terentius 1539. Le grant Therence en francoys. Paris: Jean Petit. [USTC 49858: copy consulted: Munich, bsb, Res/​2 A.lat.a. 246 (not included in the ustc catalogue as at 25.2.2019)]. Terentius 1545. P. Terentii Aphri comoediae. Venice: Girolamo Scoto. [USTC 858729; copy consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 535.S42]. Terentius 1546. P. Terentii Afri Poetae Lepidissimi Comoediae Sex:  Ex emendatissimis ac fide dignissimis codicibus summa diligentia castigatae. Metris in suum ordinem

234 Bibliography recte restitutis ac variis lectionibus in margine appositis ex collatione postremarum editionum Aldini et Gryphiani exemplari. Venice: Venturino Ruffinelli. [copy consulted: Chicago: Newberry Library, Wing folio ZP 535.R856]. Terentius 1550. Comoediae sex, iam recenter pulcherrimis imaginibus, ante hac nunquam aeditis, illustratae. Paris: Pierre Regnault. [copy consulted: Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.R265 (not included in the ustc catalogue as at 25.2.2019)]. Terentius 1552. P. Terentii Afri poetae lepidissimi comoediae. Paris: Jean de Roigny. [cf. USTC 151033:  copy consulted:  Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.P925 (not included in the ustc catalogue as at 25.2.2019)]. Terentius 1560. Terentius in quem triplex edita est P. Antesignani Rapistagnensis Commentatio. Lyon: Antonio Vincenzo. Thomas à Kempis 1523. Opera Thomae a Campis cognomento Malleoli. Paris: Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 13.6.1523. [copy consulted Wien, ÖNB, 19.0.27]. Tortelli, Giovanni 1471. De orthographia dictionum e Graecis tractarum. Venice: Nicholaus Jensen. [GW M47219; ISTC it00395000]. Tritheim, Johann 1494a. Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis. Basel:  Johann Amerbach. [GW M47578; ISTC it00452000; copy consulted Darmstadt, Universitäts-​und Landesbibliothek, Inc. IV 2; ‹urn.nbn.de.tuda-​tudigit-​9303›]. Tritheim, Johann 1494b. De laudibus sanctissimae matris Annae. Mainz:  Peter von Friedberg, 21.7.1494 [GW M47550; ISTC it00444000; copy consulted Munich, bsb, 4 Inc. c.a. 1466]. Tritheim, Johann 1495. Cathalogus illustrium virorum Germaniam suis ingeniis et lucubrationibus omnifariam exornantium domini Iohannis Tritemii abbatis Spanhemensis. Mainz: Peter von Friedberg, after 14 Aug. 1495 [GW M47516; ISTC it00433000; copy consulted Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, A: 115.4 Quod. (4), ‹ http://​ diglib.hab.de/​inkunabeln/​115-​4-​quod-​4/​start.htm›]. Valla, Lorenzo 1479. Elegantiae linguae latinae. Milan:  Filippo Cavagni di Lavagna, 31.10.1479 [GW M49280; ISTC iv00056000; copy consulted: Munich, bsb, 2 Inc. c.a. 895; ‹urn.nbn:de:bvb: 12-​bsb00065291-​7›]. Vergilius 1500. P. Vergilius Maronis Bucolica et Georgica; Aeneis Vergiliana; Vergiliana opuscula familiariter exposita. Paris:  Thielman Kerver, 3 vols, 1500–​1501 [GW M49979; ISTC iv00196000].



Modern Secondary Works Cited

Aguzzi Barbagli, Danilo. Pellegrino Prisciani: Spectacula. Modena: Panini, 1991. Akçomak, İ. Semih, Dinand Webbink and Bas ter Weel. “Why Did the Netherlands Develop So Early? The Legacy of the Brethren of the Common Life.” The Economic Journal 126 (2016): 821–​60.

Bibliography

235

Akkerman, Fokke and Arie J. Vanderjagt, eds. Rodolphus Agricola Phrisius 1444–​ 1485: Proceedings of the International Conference at the University of Groningen 28–​30 October 1985. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Allegri, Luigi. Translated by Stanley V. Longman. “On the Rebirth of Theatre, or of the Idea of Theatre in Humanistic Italy.” In Theatrical Spaces and Dramatic Places. The Reemergence of the Theatre Building in the Renaissance. Theatre Symposium vol. 4, 51–​61. Tuscaloosa, AL: Southeastern Theatre Conference and the University of Alabama Press, 1996. Allen, Percy S. “Letters of Arnoldus Bostius.” The English Historical Review 34, no. 134 (1919): 225–​36. Amelung, Peter. Konrad Dinckmut der Drucker des Ulmer Terenz:  Kommentar zum Faksimiledruck 1970. Dietikon-​Zürich: Verlag Bibliophile Drucke von Josef Stocker, 1972. Amphlett, Hilda. Hats: A History of Fashion in Headwear. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003. Andreoli, Ilaria. “Fabulae artificialiter pictae: illustrazione del libro e decorazione cera­ mica nel Rinascimento.” In Fabulae pictae: miti e storie nelle maioliche del Rinascimento, edited by Marino Marini, 110–​25. Florence: Giunti Editore, 2012. Andreoli, Ilaria. “Échanges d’images, images d’échanges: le livre illustré lyonnais à la Renaissance.” In Virassamynaïken 2015, 62–​7. Anzelewsky, Fedja. “Der Meister der Lübecker Bibel von 1494.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 27, no. 1 (1964): 43–​59. Argyle, Michael. Bodily Communication. London: Routledge, 1975. Armstrong, Elizabeth. Before Copyright:  The French Book-​Privilege System 1498–​1526. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Arnade, Peter. “Urban Elites and the Politics of Public Space in Late-​Medieval Low Country Cities.” In Core and Periphery in Late-​Medieval Urban Society, edited by Myriam Carlier, Anke Greve, Walter Prevenier, and Peter Stabel, 33–​50. Leuven: Garant, 1997. Arrigoni, Paola. “I privilegi librari a Milano nei secoli XV-​XVI: una analisi quantitativa.” La Bibliofilia 116 (2014): 205–​14. Augoustakis, Antony and Ariana Traill, eds. A Companion to Terence. Chichester: Wiley-​ Blackwell, 2013. Bain, David. Actors and Audience. A Study of Asides and Related Conventions in Greek Drama. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977. Barsby, John A. “Actors and Act-​Divisions: Some Questions of Adaptation in Roman Comedy.” Antichthon 16 (1982): 77–​87. Benedetti, Stefano. “Roma, settembre 1513: Spettacolo, poesia e satira in Theatro Capitolino.” In Poésie latine à haute voix (1500–​1700), edited by  Lambert Isebaert and Aline Smeesters, 111–​9. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013.

236 Bibliography Benson, Robert G. Medieval Body Language: A Study of the Use of Gesture in Chaucer’s Poetry. Copenhagen: Rosenkilde and Bagger, 1980. Bergier, Jean-​François. “Le trafic à travers les Alpes et les liaisons transalpines du haut Moyen Âge au XVIIe siècle.” In Le Alpi e l’Europa 3: Economia e transiti, 1–​72. Bari: Laterza, 1975. Bernstein, Jane A. Music Printing in Renaissance Venice. The Scotto Press (1539–​1572). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Berschin, Walter. Griechisch-​Lateinisches Mittelalter: Von Hieronymus zu Nikolaus von Kues. Bern: Francke, 1980. Bietenholz, Peter G. and Thomas B. Deutscher, eds. Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation. 3 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Billanovich, Giuseppe. “Terenzio, Ildemaro, Petrarca.” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 17 (1974): 1–​60. Billanovich, Giuseppe. “Petrarca, Pietro da Moglio e Pietro da Parma.” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 22 (1979): 367–​95. Bischoff, Bernhard. Paläographie des römischen Altertums und des abendländischen Mittelalters. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1979. 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, 2007. Bonnemaison, Sarah and Christine Macy, eds. Festival Architecture. London: Routledge, 2008. Booton, Diane E. Publishing Networks in France in the Early Era of Print. Milton Park: Routledge, 2018. Bordier, Jean-​Pierre. “Le Moyen Âge: la fête et la foi.” In Viala 2016, 47–​102. Botschuyver, Hendrik J. Scholia in Horatium λ φ ψ codicum Parisinorum latinorum 7972, 7974, 7971. Amsterdam: H.A. van Bottenburg, 1935. Bozzolo, Carla. “Laurent de Premierfait et Térence.” In Vestigia:  Studi in onore di Giuseppe Billanovich, edited by Rino Avesani et al., 93–​129. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1984. [reprinted in Bozzolo 2004, 145–​80]. Bozzolo, Carla. Un traducteur et un humaniste de l’époche de Charles VI: Laurent de Premierfait. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2004. Bozzolo, Carla. “ Introduction à la vie et à l’œuvre d’un humaniste.”  In Bozzolo 2004, 17–​30. Branca, Vittore. “Poliziano a Venezia e l’origine veneziana della Fabula di Orfeo.” In Giorgione e l’umanesimo veneziano, edited by Rodolfo Pallucchini. 2 vols. 1.109–​27. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1981. Branca, Vittore. Poliziano e l’umanesimo della parola. Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1983.

Bibliography

237

Branca, Vittore and Manlio Pastore Stocchi. “La Biblioteca Vaticana nella seconda centuria dei Miscellanea di Angelo Poliziano.” In Mélanges Eugène Tisserant vol. 6, Studi e testi 236, 141–​59. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964. Bremmer, Jan and Herman Roodenburg, eds. Gestures in History: A Cultural History of Gestures from Antiquity to the Present. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991. Brinkmann, Bodo. “Neues vom Meister der Lübecker Bibel.” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 29–​30 (1987–​88): 123–​61. Brown, Horatio F. The Venetian Printing Press. London: John C. Nimmo, 1891. Brown, Peter. “Terence and Greek New Comedy.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013, 17–​32. Brown, Peter. “The Beginnings of Roman Comedy.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 401–​8. Brun, Robert. Le livre français. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1969. Bruns, Paul J. P. Terentii Afri comoediae sex: Textum ad fidem codicis Halensis. 2 vols. Halle: Renger, 1811. Buonocore, Marco, ed. Vedere i classici. L’ illustrazione libraria dei testi antichi dall’età romana al tardo Medioevo. Rome: Fratelli Palombi Editore, 1996. Bureau, Bruno and Christian Nicholas. “Aelio Donato quae adscribitur Vita Terenti”. Hyperdonat (blog), Université Jean Moulin-​Lyon 3. 27 July 2009. Accessed 14 May 2018. ‹http://​hyperdonat.huma-​num.fr/​editions/​html/​DonVit.html›. Bureau, Bruno and Christian Nicholas. “Euanthi De fabula et Excerpta de comedia”. Hyperdonat (blog), Université Jean Moulin-​Lyon 3. 25 April 2012. Accessed 14 May 2018. ‹http://​hyperdonat.huma-​num.fr/​editions/​html/​DonEva.html›. Burrow, John A. Gestures and Looks in Medieval Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Cain, Andrew. “Terence in Late Antiquity.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013, 380–​96. Carlson, Marvin. A. Theories of the Theatre. A Historical and Critical Survey from the Greeks to the Present. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993. Carrick, Nancy E. “The Lyons Terence Woodcuts.” PhD diss., University of Arizona, 1980. Carta, Federica. “La nation florentine à Notre-​Dame-​de-​Confort.” In Virassamynaïken 2015, 204–​9. Chambers, David S., Cecil H. Clough and Michael E. Mallett, eds. War, Culture, and Society in Renaissance Venice. London: Hambledon Press, 1993. Chevalier, Jean-​Frédéric. “Neo-​Latin Theatre in Italy.” In Neo-​Latin Drama and Theatre in Early-​Modern Europe, edited by Jan Bloemendal and Howard B. Norland, 25–​101. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Chong-​Gossard, James H.K.O. “Thais Walks the German Streets: Text, Gloss, and Illustration in Neidhart’s 1486 German Edition of Terence’s Eunuchus.” In Turner and Torello-​Hill 2015, 67–​101. Chong-​Gossard, James H.K.O. “The Pope’s Shoes: The Scope of Glosses in Guido Juvenalis’s Commentary on Terence.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 27, no. 2 (2020): 193-​214. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s12138-​018-​0492-​8.

238 Bibliography Christiansen, Keith and Stefan Weppelmann, eds. The Renaissance Portrait: From Donatello to Bellini. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011. Ciccolella, Federica. Donati Graeci:  Learning Greek in the Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Cioffi, Carmela. “Ricerche sulla tradizione manoscritta del Commento di Donato a Terenzio.” Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici 69, no. 2 (2012): 145–​83. Cioffi, Carmela. “Riconoscere la contaminazione: Il Chisianus h VII 240 & la famiglia Λ.” Hermes 143, no. 3 (2015): 356–​78. Cioffi, Carmela. Aeli Donati quod fertur commentum ad Andriam Terenti. Berlin:  De Gruyter, 2017. Cioffi, Carmela. Prolegomena a Donato: commentum ad Andriam. Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte (Book 129). Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018. Claudin, Anatole. Histoire de l’imprimerie en France au XVe et au XVIe siècle, 5 vols. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1900–​1915. Clerc, Sandra. “Guido Juvenalis: Commento all’ Andria di Terenzio.” PhD diss., University of Fribourg, 2007. Collard, Franck. “Des idées politiques aux images du pouvoir:  l’iconographie de la royauté dans le manuscrit des Vigiles de la mort de Charles VII de Martial d’Auvergne offert à Charles VIII.” In Images, pouvoirs et normes: exégèse visuelle de la fin du Moyen Âge (xiiie-​xve siècle), edited by Franck Collard, Frédérique Lachaud and Lydwine Scordia, 97–​114. Paris: Classiques Garnier, 2018. Coppo, Anna Maria. “Spettacoli alla Corte di Ferrara.” Contributi dell’Istituto di Filologia Moderna, Serie Storia del Teatro 1 (1968), 30–​60. Corbeill, Anthony. Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Coq, Dominique. “Les incunables:  textes anciens, textes nouveaux.” In Martin and Chartier 1982, 177–​93. Coyecque, Ernest, ed. Recueil ďactes notariés relatifs à l’histoire de Paris et ses environs au xvie siècle. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1905–​1923. Crane, Mark. “Virtual Classroom: Josse Bade’s Commentaries for the Pious Reader.” In The Unfolding of Words: Commentary in the Age of Erasmus, edited by Judith Rice Henderson, 101–​17. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012. Cruciani, Fabrizio. Il teatro del Campidoglio e le feste romane del 1513. Milan: Il Polifilo, 1969. Cruciani, Fabrizio. Teatro nel Rinascimento: Roma 1450–​1550. Rome: Bulzoni, 1983. Dane, Joseph A. The Myth of Print Culture:  Essays on Evidence, Textuality, and Bibliographical Method. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003. Daneloni, Alessandro. Per l’edizione critica delle note di viaggio del Poliziano. Progetto Poliziano L’Opera 3, Messina: Università degli Studi di Messina, 2013.

Bibliography

239

Davis, Natalie Z. “Le monde de l’imprimerie humaniste: Lyon.” In Martin and Chartier 1982, 255–​77. Dean, Trevor. “After the War of Ferrara: Relations between Venice and Ercole d’Este, 1484–​1505.” In Chambers, Clough and Mallett 1993, 73–​98. Deldicque, Mathieu. “L’enluminure à Paris à la fin du XVe siècle: Maître François, le Maître de Jacques de Besançon et Jacques de Besançon identifiés?.” Revue de l’art 183 (2014): 9–​18. Del Lungo, Isidoro. Angelo Ambrogini Poliziano: Prose volgari inedite e poesie latine e greche edite e inedite. Firenze: G. Barbèra, 1867. Demetriou, Chrysanthi. “Aelius Donatus and His Commentary on Terence’s Comedies.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 782–​99. Demetriou, Chrysanthi. “Donatus’ Commentary:  The Reception of Terence’s Performance.” In Turner and Torello-​Hill 2015, 181–​99. Derolez, Albert. et  al., eds. Corpus catalogorum Belgii. 7 vols. Brussel:  Koninklijke Acadamie van België, 1994–​2016. Deufert, Marcus. “Die Vita Ambrosiana: Datierung, Terenzbild, Rezeption. In Theater, Theaterpraxis, Theaterkritik im kaiserzeitlichen Rom, edited by Joachim Fugmann et al., 83–​102. Munich: K.G. Saur, 2004. Deufert, Marcus. “Metrics and Music.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 477–​97. Dietl, Cora. “Tragoedia est encomium. Gab es eine frühe Humanistentragödie in Heidelberg?.” In Encomia-​Deutsch, Sonderheft der deutschen Sektion der International Courtly Literature Society, edited by Henrike Lähnemann and Andrea Sieber, 27–​41. Tübingen: Dt. Seminar 2000. Diu, Isabelle. “Medium typographicum et respublica literaria:  Le rôle de Josse Bade dans le monde de l’édition humaniste.” In Le livre et l’historien: Études offertes en l’honneur du Professeur Henri-​Jean Martin, edited by Frédéric Barbier et al., 111–​24. Geneva: Droz, 1997. Dodwell, Charles R. Anglo-​Saxon Gestures and the Roman Stage. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2000. Dover, Paul M. “Italy: Narrative (1300–​1493).” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology, edited by Clifford J. Rogers. 3 vols. 2.407–​22. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Driver, Martha W. “Woodcuts and Decorative Techniques.” In A Companion to the Early Printed Book in Britain 1476–​1558, edited by Vincent Gillespie and Susan Powell, 95–​ 124. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2014. Dromgoole, Nicholas. Performance Style and Gesture in Western Theatre. London: Oberon Books, 2007. Duckworth, George E. The Dramatic Function of the ‘Servus Currens’ in Roman Comedy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1936.

240 Bibliography Duckworth, George E. The Nature of Roman Comedy: A Study in Popular Entertainment. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952. Dupeux, Cécile. L’imaginaire strasbourgeois. La gravure dans l’édition strasbourgeoise 1470–​1520. Strasbourg: La Nuée bleue, 1989. Dureau, Jeanne-​Marie. “Les premiers ateliers français.” In Martin and Chartier 1982, 163–​75. Dutsch, Dorota. “Gestures in the Manuscripts of Terence and Late Revivals of Literary Drama.” Gesture 7 (2007): 39–​71. Dutsch, Dorota. “Towards a Roman Theory of Theatrical Gesture.” In Performance in Greek and Roman Theatre, edited by George W.M. Harrison and Vayos Liapis, 409–​ 31. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Engel, Hermann, and Gerhard Stalla. “Die Brüder Johann und Conrad Hist und ihre Drucke.” Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 16 (1976): 1649–​80. Evdokimova, Ludmilla. “Les comédies de Térence dans la traduction de Guillaume Rippe. La prose et le vers, le latin et le vernaculaire dans le Therence en François d’ Antoine Vérard.” Le moyen français 69 (2011): 59–​82. Fabrizio-​Costa, Silvia and Frank La Brasca, eds. Filippo Beroaldo l’Ancien: Un passeur d’humanités. Bern: Peter Lang, 2005. Fabrizio-​Costa, Silvia and Frank La Brasca. “Le professeur d’humanités dans les Universités de Bologne et de Florence à la fin du XVe siècle.” In Fabrizio-​Costa and La Brasca 2005, 29–​63. Fabrizio-​Costa, Silvia. “La prefazione alla prima edizione francese delle Orationes di F.  Beroaldo il Vecchio (Lione, settembre 1492).” In Fabrizio-​Costa and La Brasca 2005, 167–​87. Famiglietti, Richard C. “Laurent de Premierfait:  The Career of a Humanist in Early Fifteenth-​Century Paris.” Journal of Medieval History 9 (1983): 25–​42 [reprinted in Bozzolo 2004, 31–​52]. Fane-​Saunders, Peter. Pliny the Elder and the Emergence of Renaissance Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Fantazzi, Charles, ed. Angelo Poliziano:  Silvae. I  Tatti Renaissance Library 14. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004. Felgentreu, Fritz. Review of Das Symposium der XII Sapientes:  Kommentar und Verfasserfrage, by Anne Friedrich. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2002.12.25. Flanagan, Cathleen. “Aubertus Miraeus, an Early Belgian Librarian.” The Journal of Library History 10, no. 4 (1975): 341–​53. Fontaine, Michael and Adele C. Scafuro, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Fragonard, Marie-​Madeleine. “La Renaissance ou l’apparition du ‘théâtre à texte’.” In Viala 2016, 103–​60.

Bibliography

241

Franceschini, Adriano. Giovanni Aurispa e la sua biblioteca:  notizie e documenti. Medioevo e Umanesimo 25. Padua: Antenore, 1976. Franko, George F. “Terence and the Traditions of Roman New Comedy.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013, 33–​51. Friedman, John B. “The Art of the Exotic: Robinet Testard’s Turbans and Turban-​Like Coiffure.” In Medieval Clothing and Textiles: Volume 4, edited by Robin Netherton and Gale R. Owen-​Crocker, 173–​191. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2008. Frost, K.B. Exits and Entrances in Menander. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Fulin, Rinaldo. “Documenti per servire alla storia della tipografia veneziana.” Archivio Veneto 23 (1882): 84–​212. Füssel, Stephan. Gutenberg und seine Wirkung. Frankfurt: Insel Verlag, 1999. Gaisser, Julia H. “From Giovanni Pontano to Pierio Valeriano: Five Renaissance Commentators on Latin Erotic Poetry.” In Kraus and Stray 2016, 275–​98. Gamba, Eleonora. In inclita Venetiarum civitate: Editori e tipografi bergamaschi a Venezia dal XV al XVI secolo. Bergamo: Archivio Bergamasco, Centro Studi e Ricerche, 2019. Gehl, Paul F. Humanism for Sale: Making and Marketing School-​Books in Italy, 1450–​1650 (blog), 2008, http://​www.humanismforsale.org/​text. Gehl, Paul F. “Selling Terence in Renaissance Italy: The Marketing Power of Commentary.” In Kraus and Stray 2016, 253–​74. Grant, John N. “Contamination in the Mixed MSS of Terence:  A Partial Solution?.” Transactions of the American Philological Association 105 (1975): 123–​53. Grant, John N. Studies in the Textual Tradition of Terence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986. Green, R.P.H. Ausonii opera. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Grossmann, Fritz. Pieter Bruegel:  Complete Edition of the Paintings. 3rd ed. London: Phaidon, 1973. Grund, Gary R., ed. Humanist Comedies. I  Tatti Renaissance Library 19, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. Guastella, Gianni. “Ornatu prologi: Terence’s Prologues on the Stage/​on the Page.” In Turner and Torello-​Hill 2015, 200–​18. Guastella, Gianni. “Seneca Rediscovered: Recovery of Texts, Redefinition of a Genre.” In Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Senecan Tragedy, edited by Eric Dodson-​ Robinson, 77–​100. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Hardwick, Lorna. Reception Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Heap, Angela M. Behind the Mask: Character and Society in Menander. London: Bloomsbury, 2019. Hedeman, Anne D. “Laurent de Premierfait and the Visualization of Antiquity.” In Medieval Manuscripts, Their Makers and Users: A Special Issue of Viator in Honor of Richard and Mary Rouse, 27–​50. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Hellinga, Lotte. Incunabula in Transit: People and Trade. Leiden: Brill, 2018.

242 Bibliography Herald, Jacqueline. Renaissance Dress in Italy 1400–​1500. Atlantic Highlands, NJ:  Humanities Press, 1981. Hermand-​Schebat, Laure. “Texte et image dans les éditions latines commentées de Térence (Lyon, Trechsel, 1493 et Strasbourg, Grüninger, 1496).” Camenae 9 (2011). ‹http://​www.paris-​sorbonne.fr/​IMG/​pdf/​ARTICLE_​9_​Hermand-​Schebat.pdf›. Hermand-​Schebat, Laure. “Le commentaire de Josse Bade aux comédies de Térence.” Exercices de rhétorique 10 (2017). ‹http://​journals.openedition.org/​rhetorique/​562›. Hermant, Maxence. “Production et commande de manuscrits enluminés à Lyon à la fin du Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance.” In Virassamynaïken 2015, 274–​9. Herrmann, Max. Forschungen zur deutschen Theatergeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance. Berlin: Weidmann, 1914. Hiatt, Vergil E. “Eavesdropping in Roman Comedy.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1946. Hinterberger, Martin. “Pronunciation: I. Greek”, BNP Classical Tradition, 4 (2009): 792–​4. Holstein, Hugo. “Ungedruckte Gedichte oberrheinischer Humanisten.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte und Renaissance-​Litteratur 4 (1891): 446–​73. Huillet d’Istria, Madeleine. “Au sujet d’articles récents sur Jean Perréal—​Le Maître aux Pieds Bots.” Gazette des beaux-​arts 40 (1952): 57–​63. Hummelen, Willem M.H. “Performers and Performance in the Earliest Serious Secular Plays in the Netherlands.” Comparative Drama 26, no. 1 (1992): 19–​33. Hunt, Alan. Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Press, 1996. IJsewijn, Jozef. “Agricola as a Greek Scholar.” In Akkerman and Vanderjagt 1988, 21–​37. Jakobi, Rainer. “Das Commentum Brunsianum.” In Kruschwitz, Ehlers and Felgentreu 2007, 37–​49. Jocelyn, Harry D. “Horace and the Reputation of Plautus in the Late First Century BC.” In Homage to Horace: A Bimillenary Celebration, edited by Stephen J. Harrison, 228–​ 47. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Jones, Howard. Printing the Classical Text. Utrecht: Hes and De Graaf, 2004. Jones, Leslie. W. and Charles R. Morey. The Miniatures of the Manuscripts of Terence Prior to the Thirteenth Century. 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1931. Jørgensen, Ellen. Catalogus codicum latinorum medii aevi bibliothecae regiae Hafniensis. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1926. Jovanović, Neven et al. Croatiae auctores Latini. Zagreb: Facultas philosophica universitatis studiorum Zagrebiensis, 2014 23 October 2018. ‹http://​www.ffzg.unizg.hr/​ klafil/​croala/​›. Karakasis, Evangelos. Terence and the Language of Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Karakasis, Evangelos. “The Language of the palliata.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 555–​79.

Bibliography

243

Kaster, Robert A. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988. Katz, Louise. “La presse et les lettres: Les épîtres paratextuelles et le projet éditorial de l’imprimeur Josse Bade (c. 1462–​1535).” PhD diss. École Pratique des Hautes Études, University of Paris, 2013. Keil, Heinrich. Grammatici Latini. 8 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1855–​80. Kelly, Henry A. Chaucerian Tragedy. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer 1997. Kemp, William. “Counterfeit Aldines and Italic-​Letter Editions Printed in Lyons 1502–​ 1510: Early Diffusion in Italy and France.” Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Canada 35, no. 1 (1997): 75–​100. Kendon, Adam. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Knight, Alan E. “Drama and Society in Late Medieval Flanders and Picardy.” The Chaucer Review 14 (1980): 379–​89. Kovesi Killerby, Catherine. Sumptuary Law in Italy, 1200–​1500. Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 2002. Kraus, Christina S. and Christopher Stray, eds. Classical Commentaries: Explorations in a Scholarly Genre. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Kren, Thomas. “Consolidation and Renewal:  Manuscript Painting under the Hapsburgs, circa 1485–​1510.” In Kren and McKendrick 2003, 313–​409. Kren, Thomas and Maryan W. Ainsworth. “Illuminators and Painters: Artistic Exchanges and Interrelationships.” In Kren and McKendrick 2003, 35–​57. Kren, Thomas and Scot McKendrick. Illuminating the Renaissance:  The Triumph of Flemish Manuscript Painting in Europe. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2003. Kristeller, Paul O. “A Thomist Critique of Marsilio Ficino’s Theory of Will and Intellect. Fra Vincenzo Bandello da Castelnuovo O.P. and His Unpublished Treatise Addressed to Lorenzo de’ Medici.” In Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters III, edited by Paul O. Kristeller, 147–​71. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1993. Kruschwitz, Peter, Widu-​Wolfgang Ehlers, and Fritz Felgentreu, eds. Terentius Poeta. Munich: C.H. Beck, 2007. Kwakkel, Erik and Anne S. Korteweg. “The Monastic World.” In Splendour of the Burgundian Netherlands:  Southern Netherlandish Illuminated Manuscripts in Dutch Collections, edited by Anne M.W. As-​Vijvers and Anne S. Korteweg, 36–​49. Zwolle: wbooks, 2018. Landfester, Manfred. “Catonis dicta/​Dicta Catonis.” BNP Supplements I Volume 2: Dictionary of Greek and Latin Authors and Texts (2009): 148–​9. Lansink, Henricus G.J. Studie en onderwijs in de Nederduitse provincie van de Karmelieten gedurende de middeleeuwen. Nijmegen: Gebr. Jannsen, 1967. Lattanzi Roselli, Rosetta. Angelo Poliziano: La commedia antica e l’Andria di Terenzio. Studi e testi 3. Florence: Sansoni, 1973.

244 Bibliography Latreille, André, ed. Histoire de Lyon et du lyonnais. Toulouse: Privat Éditeur, 1975. Lawrenson, Thomas E. and Helen Purkis. “Les éditions illustrées de Térence dans l’histoire du théâtre: Spectacles dans un fauteuil?.” In Le lieu théâtral à la Renaissance, edited by Jean Jacquot, 1–​31. Paris: cnrs, 1964. Lawton, Harold W. Térence en France au XVIe siècle. 2 vols. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970–​1972. Lazard, Madeleine. Le théâtre en France au XVIe siècle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1980. Lebel, Maurice. Josse Bade, dit Badius (1462–​1535). Préfaces de Josse Bade. Louvain: Peeters, 1988. Leonhardt, Jürgen. “Classical Metrics in Medieval and Renaissance Poetry.”  Classica et Mediaevalia 47 (1996): 305–​23. Leuker, Tobias. “Die Sylvae aliquot des Aquiles Estaço und ihr Schlussgedicht, das Genethliacon Domini.” In Portuguese Humanism and the Republic of Letters, edited by Maria Berbara and Karl A.E. Enenkel, 319–​49. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Lévy, Tania. “Les séjours et entrées de la Cour à Lyon.” In  Virassamynaïken 2015, 138–​43. Linderski, Jerzy. “The aediles and the didascaliae.” Ancient History Bulletin 1 (1987): 83–​8. Liron, Jean. Singularités historiques et littéraires. 4 vols. Paris: Chez Didot, 1738–​40. Lockwood, Lewis. Music in Renaissance Ferrara 1400–​1505:  The Creation of a Musical Center in the Fifteenth Century. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Lopez, Jeremy. Theatrical Convention and Audience Response in Early Modern Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. López Miguel, Adrián. “Estudio y edición del comentario de Giacomino da Mantova a Terencio: Andria, 1–​300.” Thesis, University of the Basque Country, 2017. addi.ehu. es/​handle/​10810/​21269. Lowe J.C.B. “Terence and the Running-Slave Routine.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 152, no. 3–​4 (2009): 225–​34. Lowry, Martin. Nicholas Jenson and the Rise of Venetian Publishing in Renaissance Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. McGarrity, Terry. “Reputation vs. Reality in Terence’s Hecyra.” The Classical Journal 76, no. 2 (1980): 149–​56. McKendrick, Scot. “Reviving the Past:  Illustrated Manuscripts of Secular Vernacular Texts, 1467–​1500.” In Kren and McKendrick 2003, 59–​78. McLaughlin, Martin. “The Recovery of Terence in Renaissance Italy: from Machiavelli to Alberti.” In The Reinvention of Theatre in Sixteenth-​Century Europe:  Traditions, Texts, and Performance, edited by T.F. Earle and Catarina Fouto, 115–​40. Cambridge: Legenda, 2015. Magnin, Charles. Les origines du théâtre moderne. vol. 1. Paris: Hachette, 1838.

Bibliography

245

Mallett, Michael E. “Venice and the War of Ferrara, 1482–​84.” In Chambers, Clough and Mallett 1993, 57–​72. Manuwald, Gesine. Roman Republican Theatre. Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2011. Marrone, Daniela. “L’Apologeticon di Battista Spagnoli.” Atti e Memorie dell’ Accademia Nazionale Virgiliana di Scienze Lettere e Arti di Mantova 68 (2000): 19–​155. Marshall, C.W. The Stagecraft and Performance of Roman Comedy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Marti, Heinrich. “Zeugnisse zur Nachwirkung des Dichters Terenz im Altertum.” In Musa iocosa: Arbeiten über Humor und Witz, Komik und Komödie der Antike, edited by Udo Reinhardt and Klaus G. Sallmann, 158–​78. Hildesheim:  Georg Olms, 1974. Martin, Henri-​Jean and Roger Chartier, eds. Histoire de l’édition française: Tome I, Le livre conquérant, Du Moyen Âge au milieu du XVIIe siècle. Paris: Promodis, 1982. Martin, Ronald H. Terence: Adelphoe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Martindale, Charles. “Reception—​a New Humanism? Receptivity, Pedagogy, the Trans­ historical.” Classical Receptions Journal 5, no. 2 (2013): 169–​83. Maser, Simone. “J.A. de Baïf, dramaturge.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 47, no. 3 (1985): 555–​67. Mazouer, Charles.  Le théâtre français de la Renaissance. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2002. Meiss, Millard (with the assistance of S.  Off Dunlap Smith and E.  Home Beatson). French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Limbourgs and their Contemporaries. 2 vols. New York: George Braziller, 1974. Melo, Wolfgang D.C. de, ed. Plautus: Amphitryon, The Comedy of Asses, The Pot of Gold, The Two Bacchises, The Captives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011. Monda, Salvatore. “Terence Quotations in Latin Grammarians:  Shared and Distinguishing Features.” In Turner and Torello-​Hill 2015, 105–​37. Monfrin, Jacques. “L’histoire de Didon et Énée au xve siècle.” In Études littéraires sur le xve siècle: Actes du ve colloque international sur le Moyen Français, Milan, 6–​8 mai 1985, vol. 3 (Contributi del “Centro studi sulla letteratura medio-​francese,” vol. 5), 161–​97. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1986. Moore, Timothy J. “Terence as Musical Innovator.” In Kruschwitz, Ehlers and Felgentreu 2007, 93–​109. Moore, Timothy J. “Meter and Music.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013, 89–​110. Morford, Mark P.O. “Johann Grüninger of Strasbourg.” In Syntagmatia: Essays on Neo-​ Latin Literature in Honour of Monique Mund-​Dopchie and Gilbert Tournoy, edited by Dirk Sacré and Jan Papy, 119–​36. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009. Moss, Ann. Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Mountford, James F. The Scholia Bembina. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1934.

246 Bibliography Muir, Bernard J. “Terence’s Comedies: Development, Transmission, and Transformation.” In Turner and Torello-​Hill 2015, 15–​35. Muir, Bernard J. and Andrew J. Turner. Terence’s Comedies. Bodleian Digital Texts 2. Oxford 2011 [Digital facsimile of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. F. 2. 13]. Müller, Roman. “Terence in Latin Literature from the Second Century BCE to the Second Century CE.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013, 363–​79. Mullin, Donald C. “An Observation on the Origin of the Elizabethan Theatre.” Educational Theatre Journal 19 no. 3 (1967): 322–​6. Munk Olsen, Birger. L’étude des auteurs classiques latins aux xie et xiie siècles. 4 vols. Paris: cnrs, 1982–​2014. Mustard, Wilfred P. The Eclogues of Baptista Mantuanus. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press, 1911. Nadal, Joseph C. Histoire de l’université de Valence. Valence: Imprimerie E. Marc Aurel, 1861. Nalezyty, Susan. Pietro Bembo and the Intellectual Pleasures of a Renaissance Writer and Art Collector. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017. Neiiendam, Klaus. “Le théâtre de la Renaissance à Rome (1480 environ à 1530).” Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 5 (1969): 103–​97. Nervegna, Sebastiana. “Graphic Comedy: Menandrian Mosaics and Terentian Miniatures.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 717–​34. Nicholas, David. Medieval Flanders. London and New York: Longman, 1992. Nicoll,  Allardyce. The Development of the Theatre: A Study of Theatrical Art from the Beginnings to the Present Day. London: Harrap, 1927. Nuovo, Angela. The Book Trade in the Italian Renaissance. Trans. Lydia G. Cochrane. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Nuovo, Angela. “Privilegi librari a Milano (secc. XV-​XVI).” La Bibliofilia 116 (2014): 193–​204. Nuovo, Angela. “Transferring Humanism: The edition of Vitruvius by Lucimborgo da Gabiano (Lyon 1513).” In Lux Librorum: Essays on Books and History for Chris Coppens, edited by Goran Proot, David McKitterick, Angela Nuovo and Paul F. Gehl, 17–​38. Mechelen: Vlaamse Werkgroep Boekgeschiedenis, 2018. Panofsky, Erwin. Albrecht Dürer. 2nd ed. revised. 2 vols. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1945. Pardi, Giuseppe. Titoli dottorali conferiti dalla studio di Ferrara nei sec. XV e XVI. Lucca, 1900, reprinted Bologna: Forni, 1970. Pardi, Giuseppe. Lo studio di Ferrara nei secoli xvo e xvio. Ferrara: G. Zuffi, 1903. Parkes, Malcolm B. Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1993. Passalacqua, Marina, ed. Prisciani Caesariensis Opuscula. Sussidi eruditi 40. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1987.

Bibliography

247

Pellegrin, Élisabeth et al. Les manuscrits classiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane. 3 vols. Paris: cnrs, 1975–​2010. Perris, Simon. “What Maketh the Messenger? Reportage in Greek Tragedy.” In Refereed Papers from the 32nd Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Classical Studies, edited by Anne MacKay, 2011. ascs.org.au/​news/​ascs32/​Author.pdf. Peters, Julie S. Theatre of the Book, 1480–​1880: Print, Text, and Performance in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Petoletti, Marco. “Pro onestis et castissimis moribus:  La commedia Isis di Francesco Ariosto.” In Comico e tragico nel teatro umanistico, edited by Stefano Pittaluga and Paolo Viti, 127–​37. Genoa: Ledizioni, 2016. Petrides, Antonis K. “Plautus between Greek Comedy and Atellan Farce: Assessments and Reassessments.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 424–​43. Pettegree, Andrew and Arthur der Weduwen. The Bookshop of the World: Making and Trading Books in the Dutch Golden Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019. Phillips-​Court, Kristin. The Perfect Genre:  Drama and Painting in Renaissance Italy. Farnham: Ashgate, 2011. Pieri, Marzia. La nascita del teatro moderno in Italia tra XV e XVI secolo. Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1989. Pietrini, Sandra. “Medieval Entertainers and the Memory of Ancient Theatre.” Revue International de Philosophie 252 (2010): 149–​76. Pirenne, Henri. Histoire de Belgique. vol. 3: De la mort de Charles le Téméraire à l’arrivée du Duc d’Albe dans le Pays-​Bas (1567). 3rd edition. Brussels: Maurice Lamertin, 1923. Pleij, Herman. “The Late Middle Ages and the Age of the Rhetoricians, 1400–​1560.” In A Literary History of the Low Countries, edited by Theo Hermans, 63–​151. Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2009. Porter, James I. “Reception Studies: Future prospects.” In Companion to Classical Receptions, edited by Lorna Hardwick and Christopher Stray, 469–​81. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008. Povoledo, Elena. “Origini e aspetti della scenografia in Italia.” in Nino Pirrotta, Li due Orfei: da Poliziano a Monteverdi, 337–​460. Turin: Einaudi, 1975. Puchner, Walter. “Acting in the Byzantine theatre: evidence and problems.” In Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, edited by Pat Easterling and Edith Hall, 304–​24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Questa, Cesare. Per la storia del testo di Plauto nell’Umanesimo: La recensio di Poggio Bracciolini. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 1968. Radden Keefe, Beatrice. “Illustrating the Manuscripts of Terence.” in Turner and Torello-​Hill 2015, 36–​66. Radden Keefe, Beatrice. “Creative Borrowing in a Leiden Terence (UB MS VLQ 38).” In After the Carolingians:  Re-​defining Manuscript Illumination in the 10th and 11th

248 Bibliography Centuries, edited by Beatrice Kitzinger and Joshua O’Driscoll, 57–​85. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2019. Raffaelli, Renato. “Die metrische Präsentation des Terenztexts in der Antike: der Codex Bembinus.” In Kruschwitz, Ehlers and Felgentreu 2007, 73–​91. Ramzy, Nelly S. “The Dual Language of Geometry in Gothic Architecture: The Symbolic Message of Euclidian Geometry versus the Visual Dialogue of Fractal Geometry.” Peregrinations: Journal of Medieval Art and Architecture 5, no. 2 (2015): 135–​72. Reeve, Michael D. “The Textual Tradition of Donatus’s Commentary on Terence.” Hermes 106 (1978): 608–​18. Reeve, Michael D. “The Textual Tradition of Donatus’s Commentary on Terence.” Classical Philology 74 (1979): 310–​26. Reeve, Michael D. and Richard H. Rouse. “New Light on the Transmission of Donatus’ Commentum Terentii.” Viator 9 (1978): 235–​50. Renouard, Philippe. Bibliographie des impressions et des œuvres de Josse Badius Ascensius, imprimeur et humaniste 1462–​1535. 3 vols. Paris: Ém. Paul et fils et Guillemin, 1908. Reynolds, Leighton D., ed. Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Rhodes, Dennis E. Annali tipografici di Lazzaro de’ Soardi. Florence: Olschki, 1978. Ribuoli, Riccardo. La collazione polizianea del codice Bembino di Terenzio. Note e di­ scussioni erudite 17. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1981. Richardson, Brian. Print Culture in Renaissance Italy:  The Editor and the Vernacular Text, 1470–​1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Richardson, Brian. Printing, Writers and Readers in Renaissance Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Riesenweber, Thomas. C. Marius Victorinus: Commenta in Ciceronis Rhetorica. Accedit incerti auctoris tractatus de attributis personae et negotio. Bibliotheca Teubneriana, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Riou, Yves-​François. “Essai sur la tradition manuscrite du Commentum Brunsianum des comédies de Térence.” Revue d’Histoire des Textes 3 (1973): 79–​113. Riou, Yves-​François. “Les commentaires médiévaux de Térence.” In Medieval and Renaissance Scholarship, edited by Nicholas Mann and Birger Munk Olsen, 33–​49. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Riou, Yves-​François. “L’influence italienne dans le commentaire à Térence de l’humaniste allemand Petrus Luder de Kislau.”  In Gli umanesimi medievali: Atti del II congresso dell’ Internationales Mittellateinerkomitee, edited by Claudio Leonardi, 567–​82. Florence: Sismel, Edizioni del Galluzzo, 1998. Robinson, Philip. Die Fürstabtei St. Gallen und ihr Territorium 1463–​1529: Eine Studie zur Entwicklung territorialer Staatlichkeit. St. Galler Kultur und Geschichte 24. St. Gallen: Staatsarchiv und Stiftsarchiv, 1995.

Bibliography

249

Rondot, Natalis. Les graveurs sur bois et les imprimeurs à Lyon au XVe siècle. Lyon: Mougin-​Rusand, 1896. Rondot, Natalis. Graveurs sur bois à Lyon au seizième siècle. Paris: Georges Rapilly, 1897. Rozzo, Ugo. “La cultura italiana nelle edizioni lionesi di Sébastien Gryphe (1531–​1541).” La Bibliofilia 90, no. 2 (1988): 161–​95. Ruggio, Luca. “Poliziano e Terenzio.” In Cultura e filologia di Angelo Poliziano: Traduzioni e commenti, edited by Paolo Viti, 205–​19. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2016. Sabbadini, Remigio. Storia e critica di testi latini. 2nd edition. Medioevo e Umanesimo 11. Padua: Antenore, 1971. Sack, Vera. “Die erste Lyoner Terenz-​Ausgabe (1491) des Jodocus Badius Ascensius.” Gutenberg-​Jahrbuch (1972): 90–​7. Saggi, Ludovico. La congregazione mantovana dei Carmelitani sino alla morte del B. Battista Spagnoli (1516). Rome: Institutum Carmelitanum, 1954. San Juan Manso, Enara. El Commentum Monacense a Terencio. Anejos de Veleia, Series Minor 31. Vitoria-​Gasteiz: Universidad del Pais Vasco/​Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea, 2015. Sandal, Ennio. Editori e tipografi a Milano nel Cinquecento. 3 vols. Baden-​Baden: Koerner, 1978. Schillings, Arnold H. Matricule de l’Université de Louvain. vol. 2. Brussels:  Académie royale des sciences, des lettres, et des beaux-​arts de Belgique, 1946. Schmitt, Jean-​Claude. La raison des gestes dans l’Occident médiéval. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 2010. Schorsch, Franz. Das commentum Monacense zu den Komödien des Terenz. Tübingen: Narr, 2011. Schwabe, Ludwig. Teuffel’s History of Roman Literature. vol. 1. Translated from the fifth German ed. by George C.W. Warr. Reprinted Nikosia: TP Verone, 2017. Scott, Margaret. A Visual History of Costume: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. London: Batsford, 1986. Scott, Virginia. Women on the Stage in Early Modern France 1540–​1570. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , 2010. Sear, Frank B. Roman Theatres:  An Architectural Study. Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2006. Severi, Andrea. “Sulla fortuna dell’umanesimo bolognese in Europa a fine Quattrocento:  il caso Beroaldo-​Mantovano.” Studi e problemi di critica testuale 85, no. 2 (2012): 117–​40. Skutsch, Otto, ed. The Annals of Quintus Ennius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Smith, Alexandra G. “Was There a Convention Controlling the Use of Exits and Entrances on the Roman Comic Stage?” Master’s thesis, University of California, 1906. Smith, Bruce R. Ancient Scripts and Modern Experience on the English Stage 1500–​1700. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988.

250 Bibliography Smith, Jeffrey C. The Northern Renaissance. London: Phaidon, 2004. Sottili, Agostino. “Notizie per il soggiorno in Italia di Rodolfo Agricola.” in Akkerman and Vanderjagt 1988, 79–​95. Sottili, Agostino. “Ferrara:  The Cradle of Humanism in Frisia.” translated T. Valaer. In Agostino Sottili, Renaissance Humanism and University Studies:  Italian Universities and their influence on the Studia Humanitatis in Northern Europe. 298–​325. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Spicer, Joaneath. “The Renaissance Elbow.” In Bremmer and Roodenburgh 1991, 84–​128. Stabel, Peter. Dwarfs among Giants: The Flemish Urban Network in the Late Middle Ages. Leuven-​Apeldoorn: Garant, 1997. Starks, John H. “opera in bello, in otio, in negotio: Terence and Rome in the 160s BCE.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013, 132–​55. Stäuble, Antonio. La commedia umanistica del Quattrocento. Florence: Istituto Nazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento, 1968. Strauss, Walter L., ed. Albrecht Dürer: Woodcuts and Woodblocks. New York: Abaris, 1980. Strietman, Elsa. “Medieval Drama in Europe: The Low Countries.” In The Cambridge Guide to Theatre, edited by Martin Banham, 709–​12. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Sutermeister, Guido. Gli editori “da Legnano”, 1470–​1525. Legnano: Società Arte e Storia, 1946–​8. Tervoort, Ad. The Iter italicum and the Northern Netherlands: Dutch Students at Italian Universities and their Role in the Netherlands’ Society (1426–​1575). Leiden: Brill, 2004. Tesnière, Marie-​Hélène and Inès Villela-​Petit. “Terence, Œuvres.” In Paris 1400: Les arts sous Charles VI, edited by Élisabeth Taburet-​Delahaye, 241–​4. Paris: Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 2004. Thomas, Miranda F. “Stillness: Female Constancy in the Winter’s Tale.” In Miranda F. Thomas, Shakespeare’s Body Language: Shaming Gestures and Gender Politics on the Renaissance Stage, 187–​98. London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2020. Thuasne, Louis, ed. Roberti Gaguini epistole et orationes. vol. 2. Paris: Émile Bouillon, 1904. Torello-​Hill, Giulia. “Gli Spectacula di Pellegrino Prisciani e il revival del teatro classico a Ferrara.” La Rivista di Engramma 85 (2010): 4–​10. Torello-​ Hill, Giulia. “The Revival of Classical Roman Comedy in Renaissance Ferrara: From the Scriptorium to the Stage.” In Turner and Torello-​Hill 2015, 219–​35. Torello-​Hill, Giulia. “The Exegesis of Vitruvius and the Creation of Theatrical Spaces in Renaissance Ferrara.” Renaissance Studies 29 (2015): 227–​46. Torello-​Hill, Giulia. “Angelo Poliziano’s De poesi et poetis (BNCF. Naz. II.I.99) and the Development of Ancient Dramatic Criticism.” I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 20 (2017): 105–​26.

Bibliography

251

Tuohy, Thomas. Herculean Ferrara: Ercole d’Este (1471–​1505) and the Invention of a Ducal Capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Turner, Andrew J. “The Ghent Manuscript of Terence and Its Intellectual Environment.” Journal of Medieval Latin 25 (2015): 51–​80. Turner, Andrew J. “Problems with the Terence Commentary Traditions: The Oedipus Scholion in BnF, lat. 7899.” In Turner and Torello-​Hill 2015, 138–​77. Turner, Andrew J. Review of El Commentum Monacense a Terencio, by Enara San Juan Manso. Exemplaria Classica 21 (2017): 423–​6. Turner, Andrew J. and Giulia Torello-​Hill, eds. Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing: Illustration, Commentary and Performance. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ussani, Vincenzo, ed. Nicholai Treveti Expositio Herculis furentis. Rome: Edizioni dell’ Ateneo, 1959. van Buren, Anne H. Illuminating Fashion: Dress in the Art of Medieval France and the Netherlands, 1325–​1515. New York: The Morgan Library and Museum, 2011. Viala, Alain, ed. Le théâtre en France. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 2016. Victor, Benjamin. “New Manuscript Sources of the Terence-​Text.” In Kruschwitz, Ehlers and Felgentreu 2007, 1–​14. Victor, Benjamin. “History of the Text and Scholia.” In Augoustakis and Traill 2013, 343–​62. Victor, Benjamin. “The Transmission of Terence.” In Fontaine and Scafuro 2014, 699–​716. Victor, Benjamin and Bruno Quesnel. “The Colometric Evidence for the History of the Terence-​Text in the Early Middle Ages.” Revue d’Histoire des Textes 29 (1999): 141–​68. Villa, Claudia. “Un’ ipotesi per l’epistola a Cangrande.” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 24 (1981): 18–​63. Villa, Claudia. “Laurencius.” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 24 (1981): 120–​33. Villa, Claudia. La lectura Terentii, vol. 1: Da Ildemaro a Francesco Petrarca. Padua: Antenore, 1984. Villa, Claudia. “Commenti medioevali alle Commedie di Terenzio.” In Kruschwitz, Ehlers and Felgentreu 2007, 29–​35. Villa, Claudia. “Terence’s Audience and Readership in the Ninth to Eleventh Centuries.” In Turner and Torello-​Hill 2015, 239–​50. Villoresi, Marco. Da Guarino a Boiardo: la cultura teatrale a Ferrara nel Quattrocento. Rome: Bulzoni, 1994. Virassamynaïken, Ludmila. Lyon Renaissance. Arts et Humanisme. Lyon: Somogy Éditions d’Art, 2015. von Büren, Veronika. “Note sur le Ms. Vaticano Arch. S. Pietro H 19 et son modèle Vaticano lat. 3868: les Térence de Cluny?.” Scriptorium 48 (1994): 287–​93. Wadsworth, James B. Lyons, 1473–​1503: The Beginnings of Cosmopolitanism. Cambridge MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1962.

252 Bibliography Welch, Ellen R. A Theater of Diplomacy:  International Relations and the Performing Arts in Early Modern France. Philadelphia, PA:  University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017. Wessner, Paul, ed. Donatus: Commentum Terenti. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1902–​1908. White, Paul. Jodocus Badius Ascensius: Commentary, Commerce and Print in the Renaissance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. White, Paul. “From Commentary to Translation: Figurative Representations of the Text in the French Renaissance.” In The Culture of Translation in Early Modern England and France, 1500–​1660, edited by Tania Demetriou and Rowan Tomlinson (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 71–​85. White, Paul. “The Classical Commentary in Renaissance France:  Bilingual, Mixed-​ Language, and Translated Editions.” Renaissance and Reformation 41, no. 2 (2018): 7–​36. Wilhelmi, Thomas. “Zur Entstehung des «Narrenschiffs» und der illustrierten Terenz-​ Ausgabe: Beschreibung der Rückseiten der Terenz-​Druckstöcke.” In Thomas Wilhelmi, ed. Sebastian Brant:  Forschungsbeiträge zu seinem Leben, zum «Narrenschiff», und zum übrigen Werk, 103–​24. Basel: Schwabe, 2002. Wilson-​Okamura, David S. Virgil in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Winn, Mary B. Anthoine Vérard: Parisian Publisher, 1485–​1512: Prologues, Poems and Presentations. Geneva: Droz, 1997. Witcombe, Christopher L.C.E. Copyright in the Renaissance. Prints and the privilegio in Sixteenth-​Century Venice and Rome. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wright, David H. “The Forgotten Early Romanesque Illustrations of Terence in Vat. lat. 3305. ” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 56, no. 2 (1993): 183–​206. Wright, David H. “An Abandoned Early Humanist Plan to Illustrate Terence.” Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 7 (2000): 481–​500. Wright, David H. Review of Anglo-​Saxon Gestures and the Roman Stage, by Charles R. Dodwell. Classical Bulletin 78, no. 2 (2002): 230–​4. Wright, David H. The Lost Late Antique Illustrated Terence. Vatican City:  Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2006. Wright, Stephen K. “Records of Early French Drama in Parisian Notary Registers.” Comparative Drama 24, no. 3 (1990): 232–​54. Zetzel, James E.G. “On the History of Latin Scholia.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 79 (1975): 335–​54. Zetzel, James E.G. Critics, Compilers, and Commentators: An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200 BCE—​800 CE. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Bibliography

253

Zimmermann, Benedictus. Monumenta historica Carmelitana. Lérins: ex typis Abbatiae, 1907. Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Catarina. Illustrierte Frühdrucke lateinischer Klassiker um 1500. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018. Zorzi, Ludovico. Il teatro e la città. Saggi sulla scena italiana. Turin: Einaudi, 1977.

Index Locorum Adelphoe i.ii ii.i ii.ii ii.iv iii.i iii.ii iii.iii iii.iv iii.v iv.ii iv.v iv.vii v.ii v.iii v.v v.vi v.viii v.ix Andria prologue i.i

i.ii i.iii i.iv i.v ii.i ii.ii ii.iv ii.v ii.vi iii.i

201n21, 204n38, 210 40n71 208  205n42 217n101 160, 185 and n49, 204n36 41, 46, 50, 66, 122, 187n58, 210 205n42 217n100 189 184n46 210 189n64 51n128, 126, 184n46 159 202, 210 189n64 217n100 44, 106n18, 108n24, 122n88, 126, 138 nn156, 157, 159 41, 43 nn84 and 87, 44n93, 49, 107, 108, 111n35, 134, 142, 182n40 108n23, 154n52, 184 108n23 108, 111n35, 142, 152n44, 188 108n23, 152n44 214n82, 215 149, 160, 185 and n49, 204n36 215 and n93 155 215n93 150, 188, 206n42, 217n100, 219

iii.ii iii.iii iii.iv iv.i iv.ii iv.iii iv.iv iv.v v.i v.ii v.iii v.vi Eunuchus prologue i.i i.ii ii.i ii.ii ii.iii iii.i iii.ii iii.iii iii.iv iii.v iv.i iv.ii iv.iv iv.v iv.vi iv.vii v.i v.ii v.iii v.iv v.vi v.vii

42 111 nn35 and 37, 154n54 203 111n41 111 nn35, 37, 41 50n121, 208n54 46, 208n55, 212 111 nn35, 37, 41 43, 44, 46, 50, 217n100 43, 46, 50 50n121, 51n128, 155, 201n21, 202 66, 122 and n87 108n24, 112n47, 125 42, 107, 108, 111n35, 155n64 107, 108, 156n70 184n45 51n128, 111 nn35 and 37, 156n66, 214n82 210 155n60, 212n75 208n55 111n35, 185 203 182n40, 204n36 203, 212 203 147n26, 152 111n35, 201 and n21 201n21, 208 46, 155, 205n42 188 and n61 111n35 156n69, 204n36 41, 50, 122, 187n58, 217n101 204n36 204n36

255

Index Locorum Heauton timorumenos prologue 143 i.i 154n54, 155n56 i.ii 189, 205 ii.ii 50n121, 204n38 ii.iii 155n64 ii.iv 46, 147n26, 156n70, 185 and n49 iii.ii 44 iii.iii 204n36 iv.i 51n128, 147n26, 156n69 iv.ii 50n121 iv.iii 50n121 iv.vi 205n40 v.i 40, 50, 141, 142, 204n36, 206n42, 211 v.ii 40, 141, 142 v.iii 205n41 v.iv 141 v.v 141 Hecyra prologue i.i ii.i ii.ii ii.iii iii. i

143 51n128, 185n49 157n72, 204n36 184n45 203 50, 51n128, 122, 189, 201

iii.iv iii.v iv.i iv.iii v.i v.iii v.iv Phormio prologue i.i i.iii i.iv ii.i ii.ii ii.iii iii.i iii.iii iv.i iv.ii iv.iii iv.iv iv.v v.i v.ii v.iii v.vi v.viii v.ix

41, 111n37, 142 204 nn36 and 38 51n128, 184, 205 204n36, 210 205 113 41, 142 108n24 51n128, 113n51, 185n49 113n51 155n63, 160n83 113n51, 188 113n51, 205n40 51n128, 109n27, 113n51 214n83 111n41 51n128, 113n51 185n49 187n58, 205n40 201n21, 203 188, 201n21 185n49, 186 51n128, 113n51 113n51, 204n36, 209 160n83 133 (l. 945) 185n49, 186

Index of Manuscripts nb Selected sigla for Terence manuscripts are given in curved brackets following the shelf mark; e.g. Vat. lat. 3226 (A). Where a digital facsimile for a manuscript was freely available for consultation on the web at the time of composition of this volume, a url is given in square brackets after it.  Copenhagen, Kongelige Bibliothek  gks 1994 4o 51  Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana  Conv. Sopp. 517 114n53 Plut. 38.15 [‹http://​mss.bmlonline.it/​ ?search=Plut.38.15›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 50n123 Plut. 38.22 [‹http://​mss.bmlonline.it/​ ?search=Plut.38.22›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 50n123, 114n53 Plut. 38.23 [‹http://​mss.bmlonline.it/​ ?search=Plut.38.23›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 50n123 Plut. 38.24 (D) [‹http://​mss.bmlonline.it/​ ?&search=Plut.38.24›, consulted online 28.11.2019] 30n27, 62 Plut. 38.30 [‹http://​mss.bmlonline.it/​ ?search=Plut.38.30›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 50n123 Plut. 38.31 [‹http://​mss.bmlonline.it/​ ?search=Plut.38.31›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 50n123 San Marco 244 52n129 Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek  lip 26 42–3 and n84 vlq 34 ii 30n27 vlq 38 (N) 44 and n89 London, British Library  Harley 2525 38n64 Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana  A 33 inf 36n53, 37n58, 38n64 S.P. 4 bis [H 75 inf] (F) 39–40 and n75, 45n97, 142 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek  clm. 754 61n180 Oxford, Bodleian Library  Canon. class. lat. 95 53n140 Canon. class. lat. 96 38n64

ms Auct. F.2.13 (O) [‹https://​digital.bodleian. ox.ac.uk/​inquire/​p/​ca5e355c-​65a6-​4a01-​ 8fed-​51e6a0e19ea3›, consulted online 28.11.2019] 30n27, 43–4 and n86, 48n110, 135n141  Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal  ms 664 [‹https://​gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/​12148/​ btv1b8458135g›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 37n62, 38n64, 47–​50, 64, 111 n.37, 135n141, 142, 176n17, 182 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France  fr. 867 192n73 fr. 5054 163​ fr. 12536 174n12 fr. 24274 156n65 lat. 7899 (P) [‹https://​gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/​ 12148/​btv1b84525513›, consulted online 28.11.2019] 1–​2, 30–1 and n32, 39–43, 44n93, 48n110, 49nn114 and 116, 135n141, 142–3, 146–7 lat. 7900 (Y) [‹https://​gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/​ 12148/​btv1b8438676k›, consulted online 28.11.2019] 30–1 and n32, 39, 40n75, 143 lat. 7903 (Z) [‹https://​gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/​ 12148/​btv1b10542083m›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 43n87 lat. 7907 37n62, 38n64, 55, 135n143 lat. 7907 A [‹https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/ btv1b84521984›, consulted online 30.11.2019] xiv, 37n62, 38n64, 47–50, 64, 135n141, 140n164, 176n17, 182, 188 lat. 8193 [‹https://​gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/​12148/​ btv1b9067068q›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 47, 49n116, 135n141 lat. 12322 + 12244 (π) 43n87 lat. 16235 [‹https://​gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/​12148/​ btv1b105442224›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 44n88 lat. 18544 [‹https://​gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/​ 12148/​btv1b10721230j›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 43n87

Index of Manuscripts Tours, Bibliothèque municipale  ms 924 (Tur) [‹https://​bvmm.irht. cnrs.fr/​consult/​consult.php? reproductionId=8517›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 46, 140n164, 175n14, 176n17 Valenciennes, Bibliothèque municipale  ms 448 (v) [‹https://​gallica.bnf.fr/​ark:/​ 12148/​btv1b84526056›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 44n88 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana  Archivio di San Pietro H. 19 (B) [‹https://​ digi.vatlib.it/​mss/​detail/​Arch. Cap.S.Pietro.H.19›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 42 and n83, 45n97, 47 Ottob. lat. 1368 [‹https://​digi.vatlib.it/​mss/​ detail/​Ott.lat.1368›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 47​ Reg. lat. 1875 [‹https://​digi.vatlib.it/​mss/​ detail/​Reg.lat.1875›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 37n62

257 Urb. lat. 355 176n17 Vat. lat. 3226 (A) [‹https://​digi.vatlib.it/​ mss/​detail/​Vat.lat.3226›, consulted online 28.11.2019] 27–​8, 31, 41, 56n152, 61n176, 62–​3, 78, 109, 114 and n52, 117n62, 118–​19, 122, 128n116, 130n124, 131n132 Vat. lat. 3305 (S) [‹https://​digi.vatlib.it/​ mss/​detail/​Vat.lat.3305›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 44–​6, 48 Vat. lat. 3868 (C) [‹https://​digi.vatlib.it/​ mss/​detail/​Vat.lat.3868›, consulted online 28.11.2019] 1–​2, 30–1 and n32, 39–​42, 44n93, 50, 62 and n183, 142–​3, 204 nn36 and 38 Vat. lat. 3870 [‹https://​digi.vatlib.it/​mss/​ detail/​Vat.lat.3870›, consulted online 30.11.2019] 52 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek  ms 85 38n64

Index of Subjects  Aachen 53 abele spelen 181 act divisions 22, 110–​13, 121–​2, 126, 197, 223 Adramyttenus, Manuel 76 aediles 11, 105, 114, 115–​16, 128, 175 Agricola, Rodolphus 80 and n56, 82 Alberti, Leon Battista 5, 53n135, 176 Aldines 200, 218, 220 allegorical plays (échafauds) 194 Ambivius Turpio, Lucius 115, 125 Amerbach, Johann 22, 65n199 Amiternum 153 Amtheim, Fredericus 20 Ancona 200 Antesignan, Pierre 192 Anzelewsky, Fedja 161, 224 Apollo 13, 56, 177–​78, 223 Apollodorus of Carystus 25, 116 argumenta 1, 11, 55n146, 114, 119, 122n88, 126, 139–​40 Ariosto, Ludovico 145 Ariosto Peregrino, Francesco 57 Aristotle 138 Ethics 214 Poetics 61 Arrigoni, Paola 209 asides 172, 183, 186–​7, 215, 227 Assche 68–​9 Athens 179–​80 Attalus iii of Pergamon 178–​9 Attica 25 Attilus Praenestinus, Lucius 115 Augustine, St 138 and nn158–​9 De doctrina Christiana 89–​90 Enchiridion 132 Aulus Gellius 88n98, 90, 124 Aurelio, Marco 60 Aurispa, Giovanni 3–​4, 53–​4, 56n154 Avancini, Francesco 211 Avignon 37 Bacchus 13, 56, 92n124, 177, 223 Badius Ascensius, Jodocus ix, xiv, 1, 5–​8, 12–​13, 16–​23, 38, 55, 66, 67–​140 passim, 141, 159–​60, 163–​4, 172, 176–​81, 183, 185, 189–​90, 192n76, 195, 197, 208, 217, 222–​3, 225–​8

Early works 83–​4 Praenotamenta 6, 8–​9, 13, 99–​101, 136–​9, 177–​9, 208, 216–​17, 223, 226–​7 Silvae Morales 13, 16, 83, 87–​93, 98, 101, 117, 123, 126, 138, 223 Stultiferae naues 94 Bain, David 186 Bandello da Castelnuovo, Vincenzo 18, 73, 84 Bamberg 57, 63n187 Barlacchi, Domenico 194 Basel 15, 21–​2, 47, 63n190, 65–​6, 94 Council of 52n132, 53 Bebel, Heinrich 213–​14, 216 Béda, Noël 20 Bembo, Bernardo 27, 62 Bembo, Pietro (Cardinal) 27, 62, 218 Benaco 207 Beroaldo, Filippo (the Elder) 16, 74, 78, 80, 82, 86 and n88, 95, 97–​8, 138, 223 Bésin, Hervé 13, 99, 136 Bevilaqua, Simon 22 Bible 2, 136n146, 138n157 and n159 Bocard, André 216 Boccaccio, Giovanni 86n88 De mulieribus claris 157 Bologna 36 and n58, 74, 78, 81–​2, 86 and n88, 200 Bonaventure, St, 198n13, 199 Bonet, Juan Pablo 145 Bonifacio, Giovanni 145, 148nn29 and 31, 149, 152n44 Borgia, Lucrezia 4 boulevars 155–​6, 214, 224 Bourdichon, Jean 163 Brabant 68–​72 Bracciolini, Poggio 52, 89 Brant, Sebastian 22, 65, 94, 155n62 Brenner Pass 80 Brescia 32, 96, 104 Brethren of the Common Life 70 and n13 Brinkmann, Bodo 161, 224 Britannico, Giovanni (of Brescia) 98, 104, 106, 108, 113, 115n56, 117 Brittany 220 Bruegel, Pieter (the Elder) 153, 203

Index of Subjects Bruges 18, 69, 72, 75, 78–​9 Brussels 69, 163 Bulwer, John 145, 148 nn29–​30, 149, 152n44 Bureau, Laurent 74, 80, 84–​6, 94, 102, 104, 125 Bureau, Michel 121 Burgundy 14, 69, 152 Caen, University of 220 Calderini, Domizio 91 Calfurnio, Giovanni (Giovanni Perlanza Ruffinoni) 59, 102–​4, 106–​9, 112–​13, 117, 119, 131, 197, 220 Calliopius 30–​1, 33–​7, 39, 45–​6, 48, 57, 124–​5, 136, 143, 202 Calvi family 211 Carmelites 18, 21, 71–​3, 82, 84–​5, 94, 121, 226 carmignolle 154 Carpi 76, 77n46 Carrick, Nancy 6 Carthage 24 Cato the Elder (M. Porcius Cato) 88 Cesano, Bartolomeo 220 Cesariano, Cesare 174 Chanson de Roland 181 chaperon 154 costuming 154–​8 Charles viii of France 18, 70, 78, 161, 163, 194, 227 Charles the Bold of Burgundy 70, 91 Chartres 53 Chong-​Gossard, J.H.K.O. ix, 64, 123 Cicero (M. Tullius Cicero) 26, 86n88, 90, 145–​6 De oratore 58 Philosophical works 95–​6 Rhetorical works 138 cinquecentine (see sixteenth-​century editions) Classical comedy (see also fabula palliata, Greek comedy, revival performances, Roman comedy) 8, 12, 13, 26, 61, 73, 81, 97, 100, 110, 121, 122n87, 126, 134, 136, 139, 154, 192–​3, 218 Claudin, Anatole 161–​3, 224 Clava, Anton 74–​5, 77–​8, 80, 82 Clerc, Sandra 122, 124 Cologne 53, 57, 81 Colosseum 174, 176

259 colometry 8, 30, 36, 48, 52, 59–​60, 63, 107–​8, 118, 128n116, 208 commedia erudita 193 Commentum Brunsianum 32–​4, 35n46, 41, 52, 135 Commentum Monacense 32, 135n143 Comparini, Paolo 4 Cornelius, Gnaeus 115 Coyecque, Ernest 193 Crinito, Pietro 118–​19 Curtius Rufus, Quintus 151 Cybele 56 d’Este, Alfonso I 4 d’Este, Borso 89n108 d’Este, Ercole I 4–​5, 12, 73, 78–​9, 81, 89n108, 96, 183, 189, 191, 227 d’Este, Leonello 5, 57 d’Este, Lucrezia 78, 86n88 d’Este, Niccolò iii 53 da Fontaneto, Guglielmo 207 da Legnano, Benedetto 209 da Legnano, Giacomo Giovanni 207–​10, 218 da Legnano, Giovanni 207 da Legnano, Provaso 209 da Lonigo, Niccolò 96 da Lovere, Simone 197–​8, 206 da Moglio, Pietro 36, 52 da Utino, Leonardo 93 da Valdezocco, Bartolomeo 111, 115n55 Daneloni, Alessandro 78 Dante (Alighieri) 35, 145 Darmstadt 21 d’Auvergne, Martial 162 Les vigilles de la mort du feu roy Charles septiesme  162–​3 de Baïf, Jean-​Anthoine 191–​3  L’Eunuque 192 de Bost, Arnold 18, 71, 72–​3, 82, 94–​5, 121, 125 de Bourbon, Charles (Cardinal) 161 de Brantôme, Pierre 194, 195n88 de Capella, Nicolaus 10, 121 de Cessoles, Jacques  Jeu des échecs moralisés 156 de Conty, Évrart 157 de Ganay, Germain 10, 121, 124, 126 de Gouveia, Antonio 220 de Lille, Alain 88, 92, 138 de l’Orme, Adhémar 83

260  d’Orléans, Charles (Count of Angoulême) 157 de Pizan, Christine 151 de Premierfait, Laurent (Laurent Guillot) 37–​8, 47–​8, 51, 111 de Roigny, Jean 218 de Vingle, Jean 95, 162–​3, 216 de Vingle, Jean (of Tournai) 163 de’ Medici, Caterina 194, 195n88 de’ Medici, Lorenzo 62n183, 79, 176 de’ Soardi, Lazzaro 23, 161, 174, 176, 196–​206, 208, 223 Decembrio, Pier Candido 53, 56n154 della Casa, Giovanni 149 declaratio figurae 213, 216 demy pantouffles 155 Desvernay, Felix 161 didascaliae 11–​12, 24, 30, 57, 114–​16, 128, 137, 177, 179–​80, 223 Dinckmut, Conrad 63 Diodorus Siculus 92, 96 Diomedes 61, 118, 124, 130, 133, 136, 139 Dionysius the Areopagite 199 Doletus, Stephanus 220 Domizi, Pietro 4 Donatus (Aelius Donatus) 4–​5, 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, 28–​9, 31–​2, 34, 38, 45, 53–​4, 56, 59–​61, 64, 85, 90, 101, 102–​10, 112–​17, 119, 122–​7, 129–​30, 134, 139, 146, 158–​60, 164, 177–​9, 182–​3, 197–​8, 208, 216, 220–​3, 227 Dovizi da Bibbiena, Bernardo (Cardinal)  La calandria 194 Dubois, François 75 Dürer, Albrecht 65, 94 Dutsch, Dorota 146–​8, 153, 164 eavesdropping 183, 186–​9, 201–​2, 227 Ennius 87, 91 entrances 172, 183–​6, 227 Epitaphium Terentii 30, 58 Erasmus 20, 149, 220 Ericius, Joannes 191 Escher, M.C. 12 Estienne, Charles 9, 191–​4 Des scenes et thèâtres 9, 192–​3 Les abusez 9 Eugraphius 29, 45 Evanthius 54–​5, 61, 109–​10, 139, 178, 227

Index of Subjects Excerpta de comoedia 54–​5, 178, 227 exits 172, 183–​6, 227 fabula palliata 25–​6, 55 farce 173, 179, 181, 192–​4, 227 Fernand, Charles 18, 120 Fernand, Jean 18, 120, 123 Ferrara 4–​5, 12, 53–​4, 57, 61, 72–​84, 92, 96–​7, 119, 126, 183, 189–​91, 200, 222, 227 Ficino, Marsilio 97 Filetico, Martino 96 Firmin-​Didot, Ambroise 161 Flanders 5, 12, 21, 43, 51, 68–​71, 78–​9, 84, 151, 153, 161, 173, 178, 180–​1, 224 Fleury 44 Florence 4–​5, 62, 76, 78, 98, 194, 200, 222, 225 Cathedral 174 Floris et Blanchefleur 181 fonts 2, 58–​9, 109 Gothic 2, 14, 85, 87, 102, 120, 126, 217 Greek 16, 87–​8, 126 Italian 16, 87–​8, 125 Francigena (via) 80 Francis i of France 161, 194 Frandin, François 99 Frankfurt 21, 94 Gabiano family 200 Gaguin, Robert 18, 73, 84 Gehl, Paul x, 104 Genoa 76, 200, 225 Gering, Ulrich 14, 216 Gestures 1–​2, 4–​7, 9, 28, 33, 37–​8, 40, 42, 51, 64, 137, 144–​71, 173, 183, 201, 203–​4, 208, 212, 215, 219, 223–​4 affective 152–​3 Carolingian 164–​7 deictic 147–​8, 166, 208 female 150–​2 manly 149–​50 mimetic 147–​8, 166–​7 nominal 147–​8, 158 non-​Carolingian 149–​53, 167–​71 of affirmation and insistence 148, 169 of anger 171 of arguing 168 of astonishment and anxiety 148, 169–​70

261

Index of Subjects of bafflement 148, 166 of boldness and control 149–​50, 167, 224 of demureness 151, 167–​8, 224 of dismay 147–​8, 170, 202, 204–​5 of fear 170 of irritation 148, 169 of listening 168, 204–​5, 209, 219 of pleading 148, 165, 188, 205 of pondering 148, 153, 171, 216 of protest and disagreement 148, 166, 202 of resignation 148, 166 of signalling 171 of statement and interpellation 148, 165, 204, 219 of supplication 148, 152, 167, 170, 205 of support 148, 164 of subservience (gestus servilis) 148, 150, 160, 164, 205 of utter despair 148, 153, 171 Ghent 18, 43, 68–​74, 78–​9 Gibolet, Claude 216 Gigante da Fossombrone, Cristoforo Piero 197 Gilles de Noyers, Jean 121 Giocondo, Giovanni 177 Glareanus, Heinrich 220 Le grant Therence en francoys 8, 20, 191–​2, 217 Greek Comedy  Old Comedy 110 New Comedy 24–​5, 39, 110 Greek language and learning 12, 31, 53, 56, 59, 74, 76–​7, 80, 92–​3, 109, 126, 180 Grüninger, Johannes 7–​8, 22, 176, 211–​17, 223 Griffio (see Gryphe) Gryphe family 211, 218 Gryphe, Jean (Giovanni Griffio) 218 Gryphe, Sébastien (Sebastiano Griffio)  218–​19 Guarino Veronese 4–​5, 52–​3, 57, 96 Guarino, Battista 5, 12, 74, 75–​7, 79–​80, 82, 89, 92, 96–​8, 223 Guerra del Sale (Salt War) 76 Guerrand, Martin 120n81, 121 Guillermus of Paris 199 Gutenberg, Johannes 2, 57 Haterii, Mausoleum of 153 Henry ii of France 194, 195n88

Herrmann, Max 1n2, 181 Hist, Conrad 97 historical plays (histoires) 194 Homer  Iliad 92 Horace (Q. Horatius Flaccus) 78, 86n88, 88, 90–​1, 95, 110, 121, 133, 136, 138, 211 Ars poetica 33, 110, 121, 133, 136, 138 Sermones 117n62 Houckaert, Eloi 74 houppelande 154–​6 hovercleet 156 Hugo of Cardino 199 Huillet d’Istria, Madeleine 161 Husz, Martin 3, 15, 84n79 Husz, Matthias 84–​5 and n79, 102, 104, 109, 119 incunabula ix, xiv–​xv, 2, 10, 14–​15, 50, 62–​3, 68, 97, 104, 107, 111, 114, 118–​19, 127, 223 Gl’Ingannati 9, 194 Isidore of Seville  Origines (Etymologies) 33, 37, 46, 48, 175–​6 Iulius Caesar, Sextus 115 Iulius Pollux 61, 185 Jean Anthoine (of Piedmont) 193–​4 John of Damascus, St 199 Jones, Leslie W. 39 Jouenneaux, Guy (Guido Juvenalis) ix, 7, 10–​11, 13, 16–​19, 22–​3, 55, 60, 100, 120–​134 passim, 137, 141, 143, 158–​9, 173, 197, 208, 220–​1, 222 Justinian, Emperor  Institutes 199 Juvenal (D. Iunius Iuvenalis) 86n88, 88, 90–​3, 95–​6 Kamers 181 Katz, Louise x, 7, 71, 93, 95, 226 labels 40 and n71, 48–​9, 64, 66, 141, 143, 172, 175–​7, 178, 182, 184, 202, 205, 208, 210, 213, 219 Landino, Cristoforo 91 Latomus, Bartholomeus 220 Lawrenson, T.E. 172, 188, 226 Lazard, Madeleine 192

262  le Barbier, François (Master of Jacques de Besançon) 214 le Mire, Aubert 69 le Pelletier, Nicholas 120n81, 121 Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques 20 Leo x, Pope 190 Leuven 71–​2, 74–​5, 78, 81, 83 Lianori, Lianoro 78 Lisbon 200 Livre des Eneydes 15 Livinus, St 74 London 99 Louis xi of France 14, 70 Louis xii of France 161, 194, 228 Louise of Savoy 157 Lübeck Bible 161, 224 Lucca 225 Ludi Apollinares 56, 178 Ludi Megalenses 55, 114–​15 Ludi Romani 114–​15 Luscius Lanuvinus 45 Lyon 1, 3, 5, 7, 9–​10, 12–​16, 21, 63, 66, 69, 72, 74, 79, 82–​5, 93–​6, 99, 102, 104, 120, 136, 144, 161–​3, 180, 193n80, 194–​5, 199–​200, 218, 223–​7 Magnin, Charles 179 Mainz 2, 53, 57, 59 Mancinelli, Antonio 96 Mantua 82 Manuzio, Aldo 76–​7, 79, 97–​8 Maria (of Burgundy) 70 Marion, Jean 217 Marso, Pietro 96, 220 Martial (M. Valerius Martialis) 62n183 Master of Jacques de Besançon 214 Master of the Club Feet 161–​3 Master of the Grüninger Terence 211 Master of the Lübeck Bible 224 Master of the Prayer Book 151 masks 1, 26, 39, 40, 42, 48–​9, 100, 136 and n152, 148, 180–​1 Maximilian (of Austria) 70, 78 Meiss, Millard 48–​9 Melanchthon, Philip 220 Menander 25, 110 metre 26–​9, 37, 59, 62, 84, 89–​90, 95, 107–​8, 137, 220

Index of Subjects iambic senarii 26, 30, 53n135, 59n167, 107, 118–​19, 193 trochaic septenarii 108 Milan 53, 76, 86n88, 200, 207, 225 mimes (actors) 33, 46, 48–​9, 51, 65, 140, 175n16 mimes (dramatic genre) 146, 179 Mirandola 76 mystery plays (mystères) 194 Le Mirouer de la Rédemption de l’umain lignaigne 15, 63n190 Modena 81 Moers, Count of 21 Molynier, Thomas 193 Monza 211 Morality plays (moralités) 193, 194, 227 Moralia Catonis 88, 90 Morey, Charles R. 39 Muir, Bernard x, 44, 46n101 Myt, Jacques 217 Naples 58, 76, 200 Nazione Fiorentina 225 Neidhart, Hans 64, 66, 112 Nicholas of Cusa (Nikolaus von Kuës) 3, 52 Nobili, Francesco 191 Nonius Marcellus 124 Normandy 220 Nuovo, Angela 200 Octavien de Saint-​Gelais 8, 214 of Arc, Joan 162 of Ockam, William 93 off-​stage scenes 136, 172, 184, 188–​9, 201, 204–​5, 227 Orosius 32, 36 Ovid (P. Ovidius Naso) 57, 145, 228 Heroides 95, 157 Metamorphoses 151, 228 Oxford 21 Padua 36, 81, 111 Paganino, Alessandro 207 Palliolo, Paolo 190 pantomimes 146, 173 Papal States 76 Paris ix–​x, 8, 10, 13, 14, 18, 20, 37, 47, 49–​50, 58, 60, 67, 95, 99, 120, 155, 177, 191, 193, 211, 216–​20

263

Index of Subjects Paul, St 20, 199 Pavia 200 Pencio, Giacomo 197, 199, 203, 206 Penelope 157 Perréal, Jean 161, 194–​5, 227 Persius (A. Persius Flaccus) 83, 86n88, 90–​1, 95, 97–​8, 119 Petit, Jean 8, 217 Petrarch 36, 47, 52, 58, 86n88, 145 Philip the Fair (of Austria) 158 Philippe, Gaspard 216 Philippi, Nicolas 15–​16 Philippi de Cruzenach, Johann 216 Pico della Mirandola, Giovanni 62, 76–​9, 97 Piedmont 193, 196, 200 Pivard, Jean 96n149, 216 Pizolpasso, Francesco 53 Plato 138 Plautus (T. Maccius Plautus) 3–​5, 12, 25, 52–​3, 55, 57, 61, 90, 179–​80, 183, 185, 189–​90, 193, 199 Amphitruo 190 Menaechmi (Menechini, Meneghini) 4, 12, 78, 80, 190 Pléiade 193 Pliny the Elder (C. Plinius Secundus)  90, 139 Poliziano (Angelo Ambrogini) 4–​5, 13, 55, 61–​2, 68, 74–​9, 89, 95, 97–​8, 118–​19, 130–​1, 223 Commentary on Andria 61–​2, 119, 130 Silvae 76, 89 Pomponio Leto 180 Praefatio Monacensis 32, 58 printing privilege (privilegio di stampa) 19, 22n59, 197–​200, 209, 218 Priscian (Priscianus Caesariensis) 27, 124 De metris fabularum Terentii et aliorum comicorum 27, 29, 62, 107 Prisciani, Pellegrino 5 prologue 4, 24, 26, 40, 44–​5, 55, 57, 100, 106n18, 108, 112n47, 114, 122n88, 124–​5, 126, 134, 138n157 Prologue and Epilogue (characters) 40, 141, 143–​4, 202–​3, 207–​8, 210, 212, 218–​19 proscenium 11, 175, 177, 191, 227 Prüss, Johann 112, 216

punctuation 2, 28, 105–​6 and n17 Purkis, Helen 172, 188, 226 Les quatre fils Aymon 162–​3, 182 Quatrece, Guillaume 193 Quintillian (M. Fabius Quintillianus) 26, 42, 61, 146–​8, 158 Radewijns, Florent 71 recitator 33–​4, 37–​8, 175–​6 Reggio 81 Regio, Raffaele 104 Regnault, Pierre 219–​20 Reims Cathedral 174 Renouard, Philippe 68, 73, 82 Reval 20 revival performances 4–​6, 12, 61 and n178, 80–​1, 139n161, 172, 180, 189–​91, 193, 222, 226–​8 Riario, Raffaele (Cardinal) 4 Richardson, Brian 16, 20 Rifferschit, Johannes 21 Rimini 200 Rivius, Johannes 220 Rippe, Guillaume 214 Robazzi, Giacomino 35–​6, 110–​11, 113, 135n143 Roman de la Rose 151, 157, 182 Roman comedy 4, 10, 52, 54–​5, 110, 118, 159, 183, 185–​6, 187n59, 190–​1, 205 Rome 4, 11, 24, 28, 39, 52, 58–​9, 62, 82, 116, 139, 176, 179–​80, 190, 200, 222 Rouen 220 Rovigo 79 royal entries 195, 227 Rubeus, Jacobus (Jacques Le Rouge) 59 Ruffinelli, Venturino 207 Rusconi, Giovanni 206 Sack, Vera 85 sacred drama 145, 227 St Gallen 79 Saint-​Pierre de Chezal-​Benoît 18, 121 Salamanca 200 Sallust (C. Sallustius Crispus) 86n88, 90 Sanudo, Marin 98 Sarti, Alessandro 97 Savigliano 196 sayon 155

264  Scaligero, Cesare 218 Scève, Maurice 194 Scholia Bembina 27 Scinzenzeler, Giovanni Antonio 207 Scipio the Younger (P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus Aemilianus) 24, 32, 36 Scoto, Girolamo 177, 209–​11, 218 Scoto, Ottaviano 211 Seneca the Younger (L. Annaeus Seneca) 35–​6, 90, 96, 198–​9 Serlio, Sebastiano 177 Servius 90, 91n116, 124, 205 servus currens 160, 165, 185 Sisteron, Bishop of 84 Sixteenth-​century editions of Terence ix, xv, 6, 142, 177, 206–​21, 228 Smith, William 21 Sorbonne 14, 58 sottie 192, 194 Spagnoli, Battista 13, 82, 88–​91, 95–​7, 101, 138 De calamitatibus temporum 97 De patientia 96 Parthenice prima 96 Parthenice secunda 97 Silvae 89 Spicer, Joneath 149 Statius (P. Papinius Statius) 89, 98n159 Strassburg 7, 22, 57–​8, 65, 112, 211, 223 Subiaco 58 Suetonius (C. Suetonius Tranquillus) 24, 54, 98n159, 111 Sulpicius Apollinaris 11, 30, 114, 119 Sulpizio, Giovanni (da Veroli) 88, 90, 117, 176 tableaux vivants 194 Tacuino, Giovanni 207 Tardif, Guillaume 155 Terence (P. Terentius Afer)  biography and biographical traditions 24, 32, 34, 36, 47, 52, 54 and n143, 58, 100, 106, 111, 178n26 order of plays 24–​5, 29, 38, 59, 60n173, 102, 114, 121 portraiture in manuscripts 10, 39, 45, 48, 140, 197 textual problems 108, 118–​19 Terentius Culleo 32, 36 Terentius Lucanus 24

Index of Subjects Tervoort, Ad 71n17, 72n23, 77n44, 81–​2 Testard, Robinet 157 théâtre savant 193 Thomas à Kempis 70–​1 Thomas Aquinas, St 199 Tortelli, Giovanni 84n75, 124, 139 Tournai (town and diocese) 72, 163 Tours 44, 46 Trechsel, Johannes 1, 10, 12, 15–​16, 19–​20, 22n59, 66, 85, 87, 93, 95, 125–​6, 222, 225 Le Trésor des Histoires 151 Trevet, Nicholas 36, 175 Tritheim, Johann 68, 74, 83, 92, 94 Tübingen, University of 213 Ulm 60, 63–​5, 112, 212 Uppsala 20–​1 Valence 83, 84n77 Valenciennes, Passion of 174 Valla, Lorenzo 91, 118 and n65, 124, 131, 138 and n159 van Outwater, Jan 94 Venice 9, 19, 22–​3, 58–​9 and n161, 60n171, 62, 76–​9, 96–​7, 102, 104, 107n22, 115n55, 118–​19, 191, 197–​200, 206–​7, 210n62, 211, 218 Vérard, Antoine 8, 155, 191, 214–​15, 217, 228 Vergil (P. Vergilius Maro) 15, 60n171, 62n183, 86n88, 88n94, 90–​1, 95, 97–​8, 136n146, 137, 138n156, 145, 155n62, 205 Aeneid 15, 97, 136n146, 137, 138n156, 155n62 Georgics 86n88, 138 and n156 Vespucci, Giorgio Antonio 4 La Vie de Alexandre le grant 151 Villa, Claudia 35, 37, 48n11, 49n114, 50n123 Vincent, Simon 99 Vita Ambrosiana 24, 32, 36 Vitruvius 139, 176–​7, 185, 200 Westminster Abbey 174 White, Paul 7–​8, 67n2, 73n30, 89n109, 90n111, 93, 193n76, 226 Wilhelmi, Thomas 65 Windesheim 71 Wolf, Georg 120 Wolf, Nicolaus 96–​8

Index of Subjects woodblock illustration 2, 16, 126, 172, 222 Wright, David 39–​40, 42n82, 43n87, 44–​5, 47, 204n36 Ypres 21

265 Zarotto, Antonio 207 Zimmermann-​Homeyer, Catarina 6, 16n28, 19, 65, 212 Zorzi, Ludovico 190, 227n14 Zwolle 71

Concordance of Images in the Lyon Terence In the following concordance, the first column represents the signatures of pages containing images in the Lyon Terence, the second the page number in the digitized copy from the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m) freely available for download at ‹urn.nbn:de:bvb:12-​bsb11303143-​5› (consulted online 18 June 2020), and the third the act and scene division of the image according to modern editions, or else a succinct description. a1r a4v a6v a8r b5r b7r b8v c1r c4r c6r c8r d1v d2r d3r d4r d5v d7v e1v e3r e4v e7r e8v f2r f4v f6r f7r g1r g2v g5r

6 13 17 20 30 34 37 38 44 48 52 55 56 58 60 63 67 71 74 77 82 85 88 93 96 98 102 105 110

Author portrait Roman theatre and performance of comedy Andria prologue (Calliopius) Andria i.i Andria i.ii Andria i.iii Andria i.iv Andria i.v Andria ii.1 Andria ii.ii Andria ii.iii Andria ii.iv Andria ii.v Andria ii.vi Andria iii.i Andria iii.ii Andria iii.iii Andria iii.iv Andria iii.v Andria iv.i Andria iv.ii Andria iv.iii Andria iv.iv Andria iv.v Andria v.i Andria v.ii Andria v.iii Andria v.iv Andria v.v

Concordance of images in the Lyon Terence

g5v g6v g8r h2r h3v h7v i1r i4r k1r k3v k5v k7r k8r l3r l4r l5r l6v m1v m2v m4v m7v n1r n3v n4v n5v n7r n8v o2r o2v o4r o6v 07v p1v p6r p8v q2r q3r q8v r2r r6r

111 113 116 120 123 131 134 140 150 155 159 162 164 170 172 174 177 183 185 189 195 198 203 205 207 210 213 216 217 220 225 227 231 240 245 248 250 261 264 272

Andria v.vi Andria 980 (Calliopius) Eunuchus prologue (Calliopius) Eunuchus i.i Eunuchus i.ii Eunuchus ii.i Eunuchus ii.ii Eunuchus ii.iii Eunuchus iii.i Eunuchus iii.ii Eunuchus iii.iii Eunuchus iii.iv Eunuchus iii.v Eunuchus iv.i Eunuchus iv.ii Eunuchus iv.iii Eunuchus iv.iv Eunuchus iv.v Eunuchus iv.vi Eunuchus iv.vii Eunuchus v.i Eunuchus v.ii Eunuchus v.iii Eunuchus v.iv Eunuchus 943 (additional scene) Eunuchus v.v Eunuchus v.vi Eunuchus v.vii Eunuchus v.viii Eunuchus v.ix Eunuchus 1094 (Calliopius) Heauton timorumenos prologue (Calliopius) Heauton timorumenos i.i Heauton timorumenos i.ii Heauton timorumenos ii.i Heauton timorumenos ii.ii Heauton timorumenos ii.iii Heauton timorumenos ii.iv Heauton timorumenos iii.i Heauton timorumenos iii.ii

267

268  r8r s2v s5v s6v t1r t2v t5r t6v t7v u1r u5r u7v u8v x2r x3v x4v x5v x7v y3v y7v z2v z3v z5r z6r &1v &2r &6r A1r A1v A3r A6r A7r B1r B4v B5r B7r B8r C1r C3v C5v

Concordance of images in the Lyon Terence

276 281 287 289 294 297 302 305 307 310 318 323 325 328 331 333 335 339 347 355 361 363 366 368 375 376 384 390 391 394 400 402 406 413 414 418 420 422 427 431

Heauton timorumenos iii.iii Heauton timorumenos iv.i Heauton timorumenos iv.ii Heauton timorumenos iv.iii Heauton timorumenos iv.iv Heauton timorumenos iv.v Heauton timorumenos iv.vi Heauton timorumenos iv.vii Heauton timorumenos iv.viii Heauton timorumenos v.1 Heauton timorumenos v.ii Heauton timorumenos v.iii Heauton timorumenos v.iv Heauton timorumenos v.v Heauton timorumenos 1067 (Calliopius) Adelphoe prologue (Calliopius) Adelphoe i.i Adelphoe i.ii Adelphoe ii.i Adelphoe ii.ii Adelphoe ii.iii Adelphoe ii.iv Adelphoe iii.i Adelphoe iii.ii Adelphoe iii.iii Adelphoe 364 (additional scene) Adelphoe iii.iv Adelphoe iii.v Adelphoe iv.i Adelphoe iv.ii Adelphoe iv.iii Adelphoe iv.iv Adelphoe iv.v Adelphoe iv.vi Adelphoe iv.vii Adelphoe v.i Adelphoe v.ii Adelphoe v.iii Adelphoe v.iv Adelphoe v.v

Concordance of images in the Lyon Terence

C6v C7v D1r D3r D5r D6r D7v E1r E5v E7v F2v F6r F8r G3v G5r G6r G8v H2v H4r H5r H8r I1v I2v I4v I5v I7v I8v K1v K4r K8r L3r L4v L7r L8r M4r M6v M8r N1r N3r N4r

433 435 438 442 446 448 451 454 463 467 473 480 484 491 494 496 501 505 508 510 516 519 521 525 527 531 533 535 540 548 554 557 562 564 572 577 580 582 586 588

Adelphoe v.vi Adelphoe v.vii Adelphoe v.viii Adelphoe v.ix Adelphoe 997 (Calliopius) Phormio prologue (Calliopius) Phormio i.i Phormio i.ii Phormio i.iii Phormio i.iv Phormio ii.i Phormio ii.ii Phormio ii.iii Phormio ii.iv Phormio iii.i Phormio iii.ii Phormio iii.iii Phormio iv.i Phormio iv.ii Phormio iv.iii Phormio iv.iv Phormio iv.v Phormio v.i Phormio v.ii Phormio v.iii Phormio v.iv Phormio v.v Phormio v.vi Phormio v.viii Phormio v.ix Phormio 1055 (Calliopius) Hecyra prologue (Calliopius) Hecyra i.i Hecyra i.ii Hecyra ii.i Hecyra ii.ii Hecyra ii.iii Hecyra iii.i Hecyra 318 (additional scene) Hecyra iii.ii

269

270  N5v N8r O1v O4r O6v O8r P1r P4v P6v P8r Q2r Q4r

Concordance of images in the Lyon Terence

591 598 601 606 611 614 616 623 627 630 634 638

Hecyra iii.iii Hecyra iii.iv Hecyra iii.v Hecyra iv.i Hecyra iv.ii Hecyra iv.iii Hecyra iv.iv Hecyra v.i Hecyra v.ii Hecyra v.iii Hecyra v.iv Hecyra 880 (Calliopius)

Illustrations

­f igure 1.1  Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), a1r.

272 Illustrations

­f igure 1.2  Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), a4v.

Illustrations

­f igure 1.3  Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), a5r.

273

274 Illustrations

­f igure 2.1  Leiden University Libraries, ms. vlq 38, f. 1v.

Illustrations

­f igure 2.2  Paris, BnF, lat. 7907a, f. 2v.

275

276 Illustrations

­f igure 4.1  Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), a8r.

Illustrations

­f igure 5.1  Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, f. 6r.

277

278 Illustrations

­f igure 5.2  Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, f. 9r.

Illustrations

­f igure 5.3  Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, f. 23r.

279

280 Illustrations

­f igure 5.4  Paris, BnF, lat. 7899, f. 47r.

Illustrations

­f igure 5.5  Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), k3v.

281

282 Illustrations

­f igure 5.6  Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), s2v.

Illustrations

­f igure 5.7  Martial d’Auvergne, Les vigilles de la mort du feu roy Charles septiesme, Claude Dayne, Lyon c. 1500 (Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, inc. 454), f. 20r.

283

284 Illustrations

­f igure 5.8  Martial d’Auvergne, Les vigilles de la mort du feu roy Charles septiesme, Claude Dayne, Lyon c. 1500 (Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, inc. 454), f. 33r.

Illustrations

­f igure 6.1  Scoto, Venice 1545 (Chicago, Newberry Library, ZP 535.S42), f. 1r.

285

286 Illustrations

­f igure 6.2  Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), b5r.

Illustrations287

­f igure 6.3  Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), N3r.

288 Illustrations

­f igure 7.1  de’ Soardi, Venice 1497 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 2 Inc. c.a. 3548), f. 166r

Illustrations289

­f igure 7.2  Trechsel/​Badius, Lyon 1493 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 4 Inc. c.a. 1040 m), e1v.

290 Illustrations

­f igure 7.3  de’ Soardi, Venice 1497 (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, 2 Inc. c.a. 3548), f. 42r.

Illustrations291

­f igure 7.4  Tacuino, Venice 1522 (Toronto, Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, E-​10 02506), f. 34v.

292 Illustrations

­f igure 7.5  Paganino, Benaco 1526 (Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 535.P12), f. 1r.

Illustrations293

­f igure 7.6  da Legnano, Milan 1521 (Chicago, Newberry Library, VAULT Wing Folio ZP 535.l515), f. 98r.

294 Illustrations

­f igure 7.7  de Roigny, Paris 1552 (Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.P925), f. 53r.

Illustrations295

­f igure 7.8  Regnault, Paris 1550 (Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.R265), f. 18r.

296 Illustrations

­f igure 7.9  Regnault, Paris 1550 (Chicago, Newberry Library, Wing ZP 539.R265), f. 25v.