# Lexis Supplementi|Supplements 6

Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3

# — **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

**ANTIQUARIANISM**

**ATLAS OF RENAISSANCE** 

ACCIARINO

**6**

Ca'Foscari

Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism

# Lexis Supplementi | Supplements

Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature

Serie coordinata da Vittorio Citti Paolo Mastandrea Enrico Medda

6 | 3

# Lexis Supplementi | Supplements

Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature

### General Editors

Vittorio Citti (Università degli Studi di Cagliari; Università di Trento, Italia) Paolo Mastandrea (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Enrico Medda (Università di Pisa, Italia)

#### Scientific Board

Giuseppina Basta Donzelli (Università degli Studi di Catania, Italia) Luigi Battezzato (Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Italia) Riccardo Di Donato (Università di Pisa, Italia) Paolo Eleuteri (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Michel Fartzoff (Université de Franche-Comté, France) Alessandro Fusi (Università della Tuscia, Italia) Massimo Gioseffi (Università degli Studi di Milano, Italia) Liana Lomiento (Università degli Studi di Urbino Carlo Bo, Italia) Giuseppina Magnaldi (Università degli Studi di Torino, Italia) Silvia Mattiacci (Università degli Studi della Siena, Italia) Giuseppe Mastromarco(Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, Italia) Raffaele Perrelli (Università della Calabria, Cosenza, Italia)

### Editorial Board

Stefano Amendola (Università degli Studi di Salerno, Italia) Federico Boschetti (ILC-CNR, Pisa; VeDPH, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Antonella Candio (Ricercatrice indipendente) Laura Carrara (Università di Pisa, Italia) Federico Condello (Alma Mater Studiorum, Università di Bologna, Italia) Carlo Franco (Ricercatore indipendente) Alessandro Franzoi (già Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Massimo Manca (Università degli Studi di Torino, Italia) Roberto Medda (Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Italia) Valeria Melis (Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Italia) Luca Mondin (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Stefano Novelli (Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Italia) Giovanna Pace (Università degli Studi di Salerno, Italia) Antonio Pistellato (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Giovanni Ravenna (già Università degli Studi di Padova, Italia) Giancarlo Scarpa (Ricercatore indipendente) Paolo Scattolin (Università degli Studi di Verona, Italia) Matteo Taufer (Ricercatore indipendente) Olga Tribulato (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia) Martina Venuti (Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italia)

#### Lexis Supplementi | Supplements Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature e-ISSN 2724-0142 ISSN 2724-377X

URL https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/it/edizioni/collane/lexis/

# Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism

Damiano Acciarino

Venezia **Edizioni Ca' Foscari** - Digital Publishing 2022

Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism Damiano Acciarino

©2022 Damiano Acciarino for the text ©2022 Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing for the present edition

# cb

The text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Il testo è distribuito con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale

# cbknd

The images in the Open Access digital edition of this work are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Please refer to the "List of Figures" section in order to know the credits of the images here published. Le immagini pubblicate nella edizione digitale Open Access sono distribuite con Licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione-Non commerciale-Non opere derivate 4.0 Internazionale.

Si rinvia alla sezione "List of Figures" per consultare i crediti delle immagini qui pubblicate.

Scientific certification of the works published by Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing: this volume has received a favourable evaluation by subject matter experts, through a double blind peer review process under the responsibility of the Scientific Committee of the series. The evaluations were conducted in adherence to the scientific and editorial criteria established by Edizioni Ca' Foscari, using a dedicated platform. Certificazione scientifica delle Opere pubblicate da Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing: il saggio ha ottenuto il parere favorevole da parte di valutatori esperti della materia, attraverso un processo di doppia revisione anonima sotto la responsabilità del Comitato scientifico della collana. La valutazione è stata condotta in aderenza ai criteri scientifici ed editoriali di Edizioni Ca' Foscari.

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska- Curie (H2020-MSCA-IF-2016) grant agreement no. 745704. I am grateful to the following institutions for their support: Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, University of Toronto, Università Iuav di Venezia, Haifa Center for Mediterranean History, Association for Textual Scholarship in Art History.

Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing Fondazione Università Ca' Foscari | Dorsoduro 3246, 30123 Venezia http://edizionicafoscari.unive.it | ecf@unive.it

1st edition February 2022 ISBN 978-88-6969-538-4 [ebook] ISBN 978-88-6969-539-1 [print]

Printed on behalf of Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing, Venice in February 2022 by Skillpress, Fossalta di Portogruaro, Venice Printed in Italy

Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism / Damiano Acciarino — 1. ed. — Venezia: Edizioni Ca' Foscari - Digital Publishing, 2021. — 426 pp.; 23 cm. — (Lexis Supplementi | Supplements; 6, 3). ISBN 978-88-6969-539-1.

URL https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/en/edizioni/libri/978-88-6969-538-4/ DOI http://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969-539-1

**Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# Abstract

Renaissance antiquarianism can be defined as a cultural phenomenon that aims to interpret the past by cross-referencing heterogeneous sources accumulated and collected over time. This entailed the use of new investigative techniques that involved combining literary sources and material findings to provide a reliable foundation for the idea of history. *Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism*, moving along different lines of theoretical and practical conceptualisation, declines the matters according to a plethora of different disciplines: philology, iconology, numismatics, epigraphy, chronology, conviviality, art, and fashion. The purpose of this manifold investigation is to demonstrate how the antiquarian approach – which based the growth of thought on documented sources and empirical evidence – represented a methodological perspective capable to influence the way the past was viewed through a critical analysis of sources.

**Keywords** Renaissance. Antiquarianism. Classical tradition. Epistolography. Collecting.

a Daniele, mio padre

a Davide, mio figlio

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# Table of Contents


#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# Abbreviations

#### **Archives and Libraries**


#### **Dictionaries and Collections**


#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# Manuscripts


BCA S. Maria in Aquiro XXXIIII BCA II 384

BNN IV.A.3 BNN XIII.B.3

#### **Paris**

BNF Rés. X 96

#### **Reggio Emilia**

Paniz. 16 A 527 Paniz. 17 B 81

BAV Vat. Lat. 3321 BAV Vat. Lat. 3368 BAV Vat. Lat. 3369 BAV Vat. Lat. 3439 BAV Vat. Lat. 5958 BNCR 71. 3.F.20 Vall. A 18

#### **Turin**

ASTo Ja. II. 8 (vol. 21) ASTo Ja. II. 16 (vol. 29)

#### **Rome**

### ASU Series XI, vol. 1 ASU Prot. CC (25) BAV Vat. Lat. 1469 BAV Vat. Lat. 1549 BAV Vat. Lat. 3314

**Verona**

Cap. CCLXX, 245

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# Preface **Psychology of the Antiquary**

"Saxa loquuntur". Stones speak. This brief but dense Latin sentence ended the opening paragraph of Sigmund Freud's famous essay *Über die Ätiologie der Hysterie* (1896), which aimed at establishing a comparison between the rising psychoanalytic investigation and archaeology. Freud wanted to show that the latter field, which involved unearthing, cataloguing, and studying ancient relics from the past, splendidly represented the purpose of the new science he was developing, which consisted in exploring human memory beyond the sphere of the visible and into the depths of the subconscious. From archaeology, psychology should ideally acquire the ability to descend under the surface and bring back to light faded and forgotten elements, which were, despite their invisibility, still a fundamental part of that surface where contingency took place.<sup>1</sup>

Did the practice of unearthing relics from a buried past intend to explain the present? Did the present seek confirmation in relics unearthed from a buried past? Freud's purpose was of course to attain a sort of "archaeology of the soul", to expand and interpret through a scientific approach the notion of interiority, which until his time had been considered impenetrable. Thus, his psychoanalytic research drew methodological aspects directly from the field of archaeology, which focused on the collection and the elaboration of the data. Even

<sup>1</sup> This preface is inspired by the reading of Freud's essays *Über die Ätiologie der Hysterie* (1896) and *Konstruktionen in der Analyse* (1937), and the critical essay on his archaeological approach in psychoanalysis Hake 1993, 146-73. These texts are combined with multiple sources directly derived from Renaissance antiquaries, which, given the nature of these pages, are not worth mentioning.

if this analysis attempted to reconstruct a full and complete image of the past itself, the fragmentary status in which the relics emerged impeded the full accomplishment of the process.

However, to obtain a somewhat reliable reconstruction of an image of the past, an additional effort in terms of classification, preservation and interpretation was required: the development of a sensitivity towards collecting, emerging from the desire to possess an immaterial meaning through the material objects. The illusion of being capable of grasping a coherent and all-encompassing image of the object examined was a direct consequence of this research. Nonetheless, after an initial excavation phase, despite an analytic approach aiming at reaching objective results, the reconstruction of the fragments was still a subjective matter.

If the aim of psychoanalysis was to reconstruct a vision of the past which created a convergence among the sporadic pieces extracted from the mine of memory in a unitary picture, the consequence was that reconstruction exposed all the fragments to potential decay, given that oblivion appeared as a sort of autogenous form of self-preservation of the object. The interplay between preservation and destruction is subtle but strong. Preservation entails ignorance, knowledge destruction. From this dichotomy, a different idea of the past could be developed, paving the way to a new awareness of its dynamics. Which was the relationship between the fragmentary relics from the past and their understanding in a unitary vision? Through which paths can ignorance be transformed into knowledge, given the impossibility of reenacting the past in the present? Which hermeneutical tools become necessary to understanding a past which, regardless of its implicit participation in the present, is also corroded by the present itself? And is it ultimately even possible to understand the past through a rational systematisation of the data collected, which is restricted to a limited body of sources that is not explicable *per se*?

Even though the Renaissance did not benefit from the same methodological approach developed by Freud at the end of the nineteenth century, the birth of the previously mentioned archaeological sensitivity dates back to the end of the fourteenth century. This can more appropriately be defined as an antiquarian approach to antiquity and its relics, considering the timeframe. It was during these centuries that a critical approach towards the past, founded in the re-discovery of sources, began emerging more systematically than ever before. The past was uncovered from dark dungeon-like crypts and fragments were gradually brought to light through archeological excavation as well as a similar type of exploration in libraries. The more underground explorations were conducted, the stronger the desire to dig into the unknown buried past became. The fragmentary past gave rise to new questions, awakening unforeseen curiosities together with the hope of reconstructing a lost time.

In this light, Freud's metaphor that explained psychoanalysis through archaeology could be repurposed, attempting to explain the new antiquarian sensitivity born during the Renaissance. What could the acts of extracting antiquities from underground digs and ancient manuscripts from forgotten libraries tell us about the psychology of those who participated in this practice? How could this research reunite the fragments of a lost soul which, despite many lacunae, was still perceived as a whole? It appears that the evidence of the past, which was embodied by the relics, generated a genuine attraction towards the past itself. The materiality of sources possessed a tangible reality capable of actualising the past in the present, reorienting the comprehension of the present itself, fostering the idea of rebirth in a diachronic continuum.

If on the one hand humanists proclaimed the novelty of their intellectual movement by evoking, through the imagery of rediscovery, the victory of the light of knowledge over the darkness of ignorance, on the other hand ancient relics were much more visible and pervasive in the present than humanists would have us believe in their accounts. This means that part of the antiquarian experience was mediated by its literary narration, acquiring significance through humanistic rhetoric.

From an indeterminate attraction to the past, a strong fascination towards the relics of antiquity took place. This fascination created new hermeneutical approaches, by attempting to reconstruct their fragmentary status through specific techniques, which could not be accomplished without further progress in the method. In fact, an actual discernment of the past was possible only thanks to an investigation of the material dimension of the fragments, which could unfold the complex processes of cause and effect that produced them. Therefore, the past acquired the characteristics of a body subject to fixed mechanisms, the dynamics of which could be unveiled thanks to the study of its peculiar evolution in time – that is to say, the history of tradition.

If the investigation into the past took place below the surface, as perfectly represented by the practice of the archaeological dig, this actual underground journey finds a meaningful convergence with the descent into the underworld known as *katabasis*. *Katabasis* was usually undertaken to recover something lost, but still alive in the imagination of those attempting to retrieve it. In this case, a past that was dead and situated in an afterlife dimension, but which still possessed a marvellous vitality in the present.

Nevertheless, recovering the soul of lost civilisations was triggered by the inescapable incompleteness of its bequest. Incompleteness was the true catalyst for the reception of the past: the unknown became an opportunity to challenge the boundaries of its representation based on the extant sources, boundaries that could shift according to advancements in the fields which participated to its understanding. This meant that the past could be idealised if the fragments, through which it was trasmitted, allowed for a rational (and hence credible) reconstruction. But it also meant that the rationalisation of the past must not drift away from its idealised reconstruction, because idealisation and rationalisation were premised on one another.

This ostensible aporia became an essential doorway for the development of the Renaissance's relationship with the past. While at first the fragments provided an idealised and almost oneiric image of the past, which was not measurable and hence not comprehensible through rational parameters, a corresponding need to understand the materiality of the fragment that procured the image emerged. This was the critical spark which allowed antiquaries to establish an immediate dialogue with the real object, to understand the projection of the image derived from it. Paradoxically, it was the vision of the present that remained immutable, subject as it was to fate, while the past could instead change according to what was gradually rediscovered from beneath the surface of memory. To return to Freud, the opening quotation of his *Die Traumdeutung* (1900) hints very well to this process: "Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo" (Verg. *Aen*. 7.312).

The chapters that follow are arranged thanks to the data collected in *ATRA – Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism* (www.unive.it/atra), a digital system that maps the circulation of antiquarian learning in Renaissance Europe. Its purpose is to contribute to the promotion of new knowledge on antiquarian studies in the Renaissance and demonstrate how the antiquarian approach – that based the growth of thought on documented sources and empirical evidence – played a primary role in the evolution of the entire cultural/intellectual life of Early Modern times. The *ATRA* database collects, confronts and interconnects published and unpublished letters of humanists and scholars who participated in spreading the antiquarian method. The content of each letter is recorded and studied; issues and debates of the time investigated and reconstructed. The materials studied so far are written in Latin, Italian, French, Spanish, German and English and collected from all over Europe. The assortment provides indepth coverage of all aspects of Renaissance antiquarian learning and fills the present gaps with a complete analysis on the subject, given that antiquarian erudition is by nature a crossroad of disciplines and, as such, manifold are the fields of study involved.

The book in its final form intends to combine the itineraries emerging from *ATRA*, showing how, even in different disciplines, the common denominator is the antiquarian method.

# **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# 1 Introduction **A Theory of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

**Summary** 1.1 Scholarship. – 1.2 History. – 1.3 Methodology. – 1.4 Definition.

# 1.1 Scholarship

The first attempt to describe the phenomenon of antiquarianism as one of the defining moments in the evolution of Renaissance thought can be traced back to the 1950s. Arnaldo Momigliano, in his seminal article *Ancient History and the Antiquarian*, pointed out that the impact of material sources on the development of modern thought became a crucial and active factor in the classical tradition and the history of ideas. According to Momigliano, antiquarianism was a matter of historical method which involved "the systematic collection of relics from the past" and their critical interpretation. He considered it to be strongly linked to mankind's perception of time which, thanks to the accumulation of remains over the centuries, helped to shape a deeper historical consciousness.<sup>1</sup>

Scholars such as Eugenio Garin, Edgar Wind, Roberto Weiss, and Peter Burke attempted to coax out further aspects of antiquarian studies practiced during the Renaissance by taking into consideration the experience of scholars and artists from a diachronic perspec-

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae* 57 (2017), 485-502.

<sup>1</sup> Momigliano 1950.

tive.<sup>2</sup> Garin theorised that the Renaissance attitude towards antiquity could not be reduced to mere admiration or veneration of models; instead it established a new relationship with the past and the classics, which restored their essence by a renewed understanding of the sources, their language, and their meaning. Following the teachings of Aby Warburg and Erwin Panofsky, Wind confirmed that it was impossible to grasp the Renaissance rebirth of antiquity (in art and thought) without analysing in depth how antiquity was received by artists and scholars of the time. This was necessary to comprehend the Renaissance perception of the past as a tool to decode a broader history of classical tradition.<sup>3</sup> Weiss offered general overviews of the many phases of antiquarianism as a cultural movement, setting the coordinates for a first history of the origin of antiquarian scholarship itself. He also studied the antiquarian experiences of single scholars (e.g. Petrarch) and cultural dynamics (epigraphy and numismatics).<sup>4</sup> Burke determined that the Renaissance sense of past differed from the medieval, identifying three main innovations developed from the fourteenth century onwards. These were the sense of anachronism, the awareness of evidence, and the interest in causation, necessary prerequisites to attain a modern antiquarian method.<sup>5</sup>

All these scholars were fully aware that philology was the engine for the expansion of Renaissance antiquarianism.<sup>6</sup> This branch of knowledge, which dealt with the history and evolution of human expression thanks to a critical approach towards written language and texts, represented the capacity of determining the reliability of a text or a source in general, allowing scholars to place it in a historical frame and hence understand it according to the context from which it sprung. It is not by chance that modern scholarship on antiquarianism went hand by hand with the progresses of scholarship on Renaissance philology in general. The most remarkable outputs in this field must be considered the works by Sebastiano Timpanaro and Silvia Rizzo, who both contributed to improving the comprehension of philological awareness and methodology between fifteenth and sixteenth century. While Timpanaro focused on the systematic use of textual emendation by humanists as a hermeneutical tool, showing the variable attitude of scholars towards their sources,<sup>7</sup> Rizzo focused on Renaissance


6 This was also made clear in Pasquali 1971, where the interaction between philology and history are clearly explained; more recently Herklotz 2007, 131-6.

7 Timpanaro 1960, 3-13.

philological terminology, from which she could define not only the approaches to textual scholarship, but also understand the evolution of methods and techniques, which were acquired by other branches of erudition that fostered the development of antiquarianism itself.<sup>8</sup>

After these milestones, the foundations of the antiquarian tradition have been investigated thoroughly, from a multitude of angles, by several scholars, through multiple approaches. Important contributions to this area were made by Angelo Mazzocco, who explored the forms of antiquarianism during the fourteenth and the fifteenth century – especially focusing on Petrarch's and Flavio Biondo's scholarship.<sup>9</sup> Anthony Grafton opened up remarkable pathways for investigating the various aspects of antiquarian learning between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries: his works on Angelo Poliziano, Joseph Scaliger, and Leon Battista Alberti, as well as his many collections of theoretical essays, still represent fundamental gateways of the field.<sup>10</sup> Salvatore Settis established a general paradigm of antiquarian studies carried out during the Renaissance. Thanks to the magnificent collection of essays on Renaissance memory of antiquity he coordinated and edited, he was capable of creating a pattern through which understanding the path of rediscovery of classical past from late Middle Ages up to the Baroque, dealing with the reuse of antiquity in medieval times, the political resurgence of antiquity during the age of humanism, the birth of archaeology, the contamination of antiquity in figurative art, the creation and expansion of collections, and the interferences that the new antiquarian sensitivity could have with iconography.<sup>11</sup>

The strong foundations put in place by these masters have been built on more recently. Among the others, one cannot avoid mentioning Leonard Barkan. Moving from the field of archaeology, he attempted to write a history of the Renaissance discovery of ancient relics and its representation in literature. In his perspective, the practice of "unhearthing the past" could be intended as a hermeneutical process capable to unfold the attitude towards memory of scholars and artists who took part in this activity.<sup>12</sup> William Stenhouse, who led the way in understanding the scholarly tendencies in reading


10 To mention all Grafton's publication would be impossible in this context; his works will be cited along this book when specifically related to aspects directly discussed in each chapter. However, here it is worth to mention at least Grafton 1977; 1983-91; 2000; 2006. On Grafton's method, see the recent essay Soll 2016.

11 Settis 1984-86. Almost simultaneously, Bober, Rubinstein 1986 published a collection of sources for the rediscovery of ancient sculptures and their reuse by Renaissance artists.

12 Barkan 1999, which general approach is remarkably mutuated by Foucault 1969.

epigraphic inscriptions (both Greek and Latin), numismatics, collecting, and the idea of antiquarianism in general.<sup>13</sup> Christian Dekesel, Federica Missere Fontana, and John Cunnally, who, from different perspectives, broadly increased the approaches in Renaissance numismatics – the former by creating a catalogue of all the books on coins printed during the sixteenth century; the second by unveiling the use coin collectors made of their specimens, within and beyond the field of numismatics itself; the latter by exploring in detail the coin collection of Andrea Loredan.<sup>14</sup> Ingo Herklotz, who analysed the figure of the antiquarian scholar in Rome between sixteenth and seventeenth century, as well as several cases of ecclesiastical antiquarianism and antiquarianism in art.<sup>15</sup> Peter Miller, who approached antiquarianism with a geographical print and its interactions with collecting finds from antiquity, dedicating memorable pages to the scholarship of Nichols Fabri de Peiresc.16 Monica Centanni, who carried out a profound analysis of the many manifestations of classical tradition and rebirth of antiquity, as well as leading relentless readings of Warburg's *Atlas*. <sup>17</sup> Kelsey Jackson Williams, who renovated Momigliano's questions on the definition of antiquarianism, by delineating the state of the art and focusing on seventeenth and eighteenth century antiquarian scholarship.<sup>18</sup> Kathleen Christian and Bianca De Divitiis, who investigated the development of local antiquarian surveys throughout Europe.19 Maren Elizabeth Schwab, who recently rewrote a thematic history of antiquarianism from its fourteenth-century origins up to its maturity in mid-sixteenth century, with a focus

14 Dekesel 1997; Missere Fontana 2009; Cunnally 2016.

<sup>13</sup> On epigraphy, see Stenhouse 2000; 2003; 2005; 2010; 2019; 2020; on numismatics Stenhouse 2009a; 2019; on collecting see Stenhouse 2009b; 2014; 2017a; 2018; on theory of antiquarianism see Stenhouse 2013; 2017b – while I write, Stenhouse is editing a Brill companion to Renaissance antiquarianism, coordinating the work of some of the most remarkable scholars currently working in the field.

<sup>15</sup> On the figure of the antiquarian see Herklotz 2012a; 2014; on ecclesiastical antiquarianism see Herklotz 2001; 2007; 2012b; 2017a; 2019a; on women antiquarian scholars see Herklotz 2018.

<sup>16</sup> See See Miller 2011a; 2017; 2021; and Schnapp et al. 2013.

<sup>17</sup> See Centanni 2017 and in general the publications within the issues of *La Rivista di Engramma* (www.engramma.it).

<sup>18</sup> Jackson Williams 2016, 56-96.

<sup>19</sup> See Christian, De Divitiis 2018. Both scholars have published extensively and individually on antiquarianism, see e.g., Christian 2010; 2014; on collections in Renaissance Rome, Christian 2008; on the interplay between ancient ruins and gardens; see also De Divitiis 2015; 2019; 2020, who has worked on the impact of antiquarian scholarship in Southern Italian Renaissance. See also De Divitiis, Nova, Vitali 2018.

on the city of Rome.<sup>20</sup> Joan Carbonell and Gerard González Germain, who broadened the views on epigraphic scholarship, moving from the Spanish context they ended up investigating several aspects of European interest in epigraphy in general.21 Stefan Bauer, who unveiled new aspects of antiquarian studies within the context of ecclesiastical history, with a focus on doctrinal and confessional controversies, as well as on specific figures of the Renaissance antiquarian landscape, such as Bartolomeo Platina and Onofrio Panvinio.<sup>22</sup>

All the works carried out by these scholars have brought new readings to the multifarious and complex interpretations of this field, challenging, expanding, and even disclaiming each other. Nevertheless, the concept of Renaissance antiquarianism, which represents a unique declination of the broader concept of antiquarianism itself, has not yet been completely and fully defined: this remains very much a work in progress which deserves a thorough multidisciplinary examination of the phenomenon both from single local surveys and from a transnational perspective.

In this light, two fundamental questions may function as a compass for the future antiquarian studies, questions that the following pages will only attempt to answer:23 can a history of Renaissance antiquarianism be settled and described from its origins up to its epilogue? Is antiquarianism an independent discipline, and, if so, how does it relate to other fields of knowledge? These questions imply a more complex problem related to the identification of the nature of Renaissance antiquarianism itself, which cannot be fully embraced without considering the history of the phenomenon and its methodology. However, one must keep in mind that the very nature of Renaissance antiquarianism cannot be reduced to a simple methodological formulation, nor can it be encapsulated in a single history: antiquarianism during the

22 See in this regard Bauer 2006; 2020; 2021.

23 These questions emerge directly from Momigliano's essay. While the former, on the need of a history of antiquarianism, is formulated explicitly (Momigliano 1950, 286: "First of all we must ask ourselves who the antiquaries were. I wish I could simply refer to a History of Antiquarian Studies. But none exists" – in fn. 1, he refers to Stark 1880, Sandys 1906-08, and Holm, Thompson 1942 as works that could be used for this purpose), the latter is derived from Herklotz's more recent review of Momigliano's article (Herklotz 2007, 131: "However, a more fundamental question needs to be raised at this point. Some overlapping of antiquarian and historical interests notwithstanding, did the antiquary really think of himself as being either subservient or in opposition to the historian, as Momigliano implied? In other words, was historiography the primary point of reference for his discipline?").

<sup>20</sup> Schwab 2019. The book is cleverly organised in thematic chapters, which discuss various aspects of Renaissance antiquarian scholarship, including philological, epigraphic and numismatic surveys.

<sup>21</sup> See Carbonell, González Germain 2020. Both scholars have published extensively and individually on antiquarianism, see e.g., Carbonell 2005; 2011; 2012; 2016a; 2016b; see also González Germain 2012; 2013; 2017.

Renaissance is represented by a multitude of coexisting methods that are expressed through a plurality of histories.

#### 1.2 History

There are specific historical reasons why Renaissance antiquarianism became a vital piece in the puzzle of how to approach knowledge.

It probably sprung from what Richard Southern called 'medieval humanism', a prominent phenomenon during the Middle Ages, at least from the second half of the eleventh century. This is when scholars, most of whom were confined to monasteries at that time, started investigating theological truths through human parameters and patterns, placing introspection and experience at the centre of their system of thought. Thanks to this process, God, the creator, and the world, its creation, were perceived as intelligible through rational thinking, making it possible for mankind to expand its domains of knowledge.24 This change within the conception of the world represented a paradigm shift compared to the centuries that followed the fall of the Roman empire. A time when God and the world appeared to be mysterious, distant, and inaccessible to human thought.

This approach echoed in many fields of medieval knowledge and culture, and found a pragmatic application in the encyclopaedic practice, which forced the compilers to deal both with tradition and experience. Yet, this method was still not capable of examining the material gathered with a critical attitude and ended up accepting information without discretion. However, was it thanks to this newly developed approach, which aimed at comprising knowledge in one single all-inclusive system, that scholars started to understand the information collected as means which transmitted knowledge. In fact, this required a concrete counterpart to be proved and accepted. That is to say, the data collected started being perceived as a source.

The first witness of this approach, which was still at a very early stage, could perhaps be identified in Hugh of Saint Victor (1096-1141). In his *Didascalicon*<sup>25</sup> he realised the need to collect information on all

<sup>24</sup> Southern 1970, 29-61; 1995.

<sup>25</sup> On the role of sources in Hugh of Saint Victor, see Southern 2002, 93-103. See also, Hug. S. Vict. *Didasc*. 6.3 [*PL* 176 0799C-0800C]: "Sic nimirum in doctrina fieri oportet, ut videlicet prius historiam discas et rerum gestarum veritatem, a principio repetens usque ad finem quid gestum sit, [799C] quando gestum sit, ubi gestum sit, et a quibus gestum sit, diligenter memoriae commendes. haec enim quattuor praecipue in historia requirenda sunt, persona, negotium, tempus et locus. Neque ego te perfecte subtilem posse fieri puto in allegoria, nisi prius fundatus fueris in historia. noli contemnere minima haec. paulatim defluit qui minima contemnit. si primo alphabetum discere contempsisses, nunc inter grammaticos tantum nomen non haberes. Scio quosdam esse qui statim philosophari volunt. fabulas pseudoapostolis

disciplines in a granular way to control theoretical assumptions with tangible data and experience. The powerful attraction that sources exerted on Hugh can be summarised in the exclamation uttered at the very beginning of his *De Sacramentis*: "Date auctoritatem!" [*PL* 176 0549D-0550A], and in the first chapter of his *Expositio in Hierarchiam Coelestem S. Dionysii*, where the truth could be understood thanks to material proofs and visible signs: "Ipsa autem veritas […] et materialiter figuratur, atque formatur secundum […] signa visibilia […]" [*PL* 175 0948A].

The encyclopaedic practice, which developed thereafter, and the historiographic compilations of the time represented only a potential starting point for what could be defined as an antiquarian trend.<sup>26</sup> In fact, in some cases, encyclopaedias and histories included accurate antiquarian information, such as those carried out by Hildebert of Lavardin (1055-1133) and Otto of Freising (1109-1158), but above all William of Malmesbury's (1080-1143) descriptions of Roman antiquities included in the so-called *Mirabilia Romae Urbis*. <sup>27</sup> These works, and many others,

relinquendas aiunt. quorum scientia formae asini similis est. Noli huiusmodi imitari: *Parvis imbutus tentabis grandia tutus*. Ego tibi affirmare audeo nihil me umquam quod ad eruditionem pertineret contempsisse, [800A] sed multa saepe didicisse quae aliis ioco aut deliramento similia viderentur. memini me, dum adhuc scholaris essem, elaborasse ut omnium rerum oculis subiectarum aut in usum venientium vocabula scirem, perpendens libere rerum naturam illum non posse prosequi qui earundem nomina adhuc ignoraret. quoties sophismatum meorum, quae gratia brevitatis una vel duabus in pagina dictionibus signaveram, a memetipso cotidianum exegi debitum, ut etiam sententiarum, quaestionum et oppositionum omnium fere quas didiceram et solutiones memoriter tenerem et numerum! Causas saepe informavi, et, dispositis ad invicem controversiis, quod rhetoris, quod oratoris, quod sophistae officium esset, diligenter distinxi. [800B] calculos in numerum posui, et nigris pavimentum carbonibus depinxi, et, ipso exemplo oculis subiecto, quae ampligonii, quae orthogonii, quae oxygonii differentia esset, patenter demonstravi. utrumne quadratum aequilaterum duobus in se lateribus multiplicatis embadum impleret, utrobique procurrente podismo didici. saepe nocturnus horoscopus ad hiberna pervigilia excubavi. saepe ad numerum protensum in ligno magadam ducere solebam, ut et vocum differentiam aure perciperem, et animum pariter meli dulcedine oblectarem. haec puerilia quidem fuerant, sed tamen non inutilia, neque ea nunc scire stomachum meum onerat. haec autem non tibi replico, ut meam scientiam, [800C] quae vel nulla vel parva est, iactitem, sed ut ostendam tibi illum incedere aptissime qui incedit ordinate, neque ut quidam, dum magnum saltum facere volunt, praecipitium incidunt".

26 See Blanchard, Severi 2018, 13-58.

27 Weiss 1958, 143-4. Also remarkable is the description of Etruscan vases in Ristoro d'Arezzo's *La compositione del mondo* (1282); see Morino 1997, 311-15: "De li quali vasa, mirabilia per la loro nobiltà, certi savi ne féciaro menzione e·lli loro libri, come fo Esìdoro e Sidilio e altri; li quali féciaro de terra collata, sutilissima come cera, e de forma perfetta in ogni variazione. E·lli quali vasa fuoro designate e scolpite tutte le generazione de li animali che se puono pensare, in ogne atto, mirabile e perfettamente sì, che passaro denanti a l'operazione de la natura; e féciarli de doi colori, com'è azzurro e rosso, ma più rossi; li quali colori erano lucenti e sutilissimi, non avendo corpo. E questi colori erano sì perfetti che, stando sotto terra, la terra non li potea corrómpare né guastare. E segno de questo che noi avemo detto si è quello ch'avemo veduto che, quando se cavava e·llo nostro tempo per alcuna casione dentro de la città o de fore d'acertainly represented the interests that the Middle Ages had towards antiquity in general, and Roman antiquity specifically. Nevertheless, they still failed to create reactions among the objects described and other sources, either analogous or divergent. This would have allowed to put the antiquities discovered and described in their proper cultural frame, by establishing comparisons, grasping relationships and variations, and formulating theories based on the results of their surveys.

To reach this methodological achievement, the Middle Ages had to go through another fundamental process. Taking place slightly afterwards, this concerned the development of the practice of translating Latin into vernacular languages. This literary exercise was widespread throughout Europe, but was it in Italy that it met a major breakthrough, paving the way for the dawn of Humanism.<sup>28</sup> Throughout the thirteenth century, especially during the reign of emperor Fredrik II (1194-1260),<sup>29</sup> translations helped scholars deepen their knowledge of classical Latin. They also increased the possibilities for their own vernacular by expanding the vocabulary, stretch-

torno presso quasi a doe millia, trovavanse grande quantità de questi pezzi de vasa, e en tale luoco più e en tale luoco meno: de li quali era presumato ch'elli fóssaro stati sotto terra asai più de milli anni; […] E de queste vasa me ne venne a mano quasi mezza una scodella, e·lla quale erano scolpite sì naturali e sutile cose, che li conoscitori, quando le vedevano, per lo grandissimo diletto raitieno e vociferavano ad alto, e uscieno de sé e deventavano quasi stupidi, e li non conoscenti la voleano spezzare e gettare". In this passage, Restoro described an actual dig where many ancient Etruscan vases were unearthed, to which he claimed assisted in person. He also described the location (in the countryside of Arezzo), their shape (bowlike), colour (blue and red) and iconographies (animals, plants, humans), and assumed they were more than one thousand years old. Restoro himself affirmed he possessed a piece of these antiquities, half a bowl. The most interesting thing is that he refers to a community of people – he calls them *conoscitori* – that were happy for these kinds of discoveries. Hence, we can postulate a community of collectors which bore some interest in these findings and were able to acknowledge their value. However, according to Restoro nobody was able to date them precisely or to connect them to a specific historical context; it is not by chance that the only literary source he mentioned is Isid. *etym*. 6.5 [*PL* 82 0715A]: "Aretina vasa, ex Aretio municipio Italiae dicuntur, ubi fiunt; sunt enim rubra. De quibus Sedulius: Rubra quod appositum testa ministrat olus".

28 Segre 1953, 23-6; Witt 2000, 174-229.

29 It is probably not by chance that this renovated attitude towards antiquity emerged in the age of Fredrik, who had a certain interest in the rebirth and imitation of antiquity; see Weiss 1958, 147-9. However, as recently proved, some of the primary sources usually utilised to support the thesis that Fredrik was a promoter of archaeology and in general antiquarian investigations were overestimated. The vocabulary is too vague to determine an actual and aware antiquarian propension. For example, the famous quotation from the *Historia diplomatica* (5.2: 825) "inventiones maximas invenire […] sperantes inde habere posse proficuum", which for sure refers to digs where ancient finds could emerge, does not explain whether the intention behind the research was genuinely antiquarian, i.e. aiming at discovering antiquities for the cultural value, or merely material, i.e. for their monetary value; see Esch 2005. In this context the word *proficuum* is rather problematic, in that it was interpreted in the sense of 'satisfactory' while it should be intended as 'lucrative', given that the medieval Latin meaning was limited to profit (see Du Change 1883-87, 6: 527b: "Proficuum: Lucrum, emolumentum").

ing the syntax and the phrase structure, but above all by analysing the texts they dealt with from a new perspective.

The relationship with the ancient language, and hence with antiquity, was no longer passive; it encouraged instead an active and creative dialogue with its object of research. This fostered, on the one hand, a critical approach towards the text itself, boosting the philological activity essential to complete the task: to translate a text, scholars should understand the meanings of its words and the cultural context in which they were used. On the other hand, it showed how medieval Latin was distant from classical Latin. This severed the link between the two languages, which had been taken for granted to be one until the beginning of fourteenth century and contributed to strengthening the idea of unity between the present and the past.

It was in this phase that the past appeared to be different in quality from the present, and, thanks to the encyclopaedic approach previously developed, scholars could start fulfilling the new perceived gap in knowledge with concrete data acquired directly from the sources they considered more reliable. Of course, this does not mean that a mature and effective antiquarian method had already developed by the fourteenth century. Still, sparks of Renaissance antiquarianism glowed, following a growing philological sentiment combined with an increase in archaeological investigations. This revealed a sort of practical prefiguration of Humanism. Taking its first steps in Italy, antiquarianism spread throughout Europe between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries. This continued until the new empiric scientific culture, which was initially favoured by antiquarian studies themselves, began to replace it and establish a decisive influence as society moved toward a new phase of modernity.

The actual origin of antiquarianism is usually dated back to around the beginning of the fourteenth century in Padua, Veneto, where scholars such as Lovato Lovati (1240-1309) and Albertino Mussato (1261-1329) started taking a different approach to considering antiquity. They attempted to restore a classical shape to Latin language and culture by rediscovering the lost or forgotten manuscripts of ancient authors (e.g. the tragedies of Seneca), disputing the actual nature of ancient finds (e.g. the Tomb of Antenor), or copying and interpreting ancient epigraphic inscriptions. Around the same time, Giovanni de Matociis (d. 1337) of Verona adorned the margins of the manuscript of his *Historia imperialis* with pictorial representations of the emperors that corresponded to his narrative, and which were somehow inspired by ancient coins. Finds from different fields confirm a conventional literary history of the Roman empire.<sup>30</sup>

<sup>30</sup> Weiss 1958, 149-51; Larner 1976; Zampieri 1980; Billanovich 1986; 1989; Witt 2000, 82-173; Favaretto 2002, 31-42. On the antiquarian interest of Mansionarius, see Bottari 2019.

Concurrent and corresponding phenomena occurred in other areas of Italy. In Rome and its surrounding areas, interest in and investigations of ancient ruins can be detected in two places almost simultaneously: proto-humanists among whom Giovanni Colonna (1298-1343) and Zanobi da Strada (1312-1361) explored libraries discovering ancient manuscripts and started collecting and interpreting ancient epigraphic inscriptions. Cola di Rienzo's (1313-1354) public reading of the *Lex de imperio Vespasiani* represents an iconic transitional moment to a new perception of the antique and its role in history.<sup>31</sup> In Florence, Giovanni Villani attempted to describe the origins of his city by considering for the first time archaeological remains, such as aqueducts, walls, and temples, to prove its Roman foundation, as well as the traces of subsequent barbarian invasions.<sup>32</sup>

Even so, the title of founding father of Renaissance antiquarianism can justifiably be attributed to Petrarch (1304-1374), who began developing a philological attitude in parallel with the study of remains from antiquity, attempting to combine them.<sup>33</sup> As well established by scholarship, Petrarch discovered forgotten ancient codices in libraries, and made an effort to exert textual criticism to explain and correct obscure or corrupted passages of the manuscript tradition.<sup>34</sup>

32 G. Villani *NC* 2.1: "E in Firenze faceano capo le dette fontane a uno grande palagio che si chiamava termine, capud aque, ma poi in nostro volgare si chiamò Capaccia, e ancora oggi in Terma si vede dell'anticaglia", and 9.36: "E trovandomi io in quello benedetto pellegrinaggio ne la santa città di Roma, veggendo le grandi e antiche cose di quella, e leggendo le storie e' grandi fatti de' Romani, scritti per Virgilio, e per Salustio, e Lucano, e Paulo Orosio, e Valerio, e Tito Livio, e altri maestri d'istorie, li quali così le piccole cose come le grandi de le geste e fatti de' Romani scrissono, e eziandio degli strani dell'universo mondo, per dare memoria e esemplo a quelli che sono a venire presi lo stile e forma da·lloro, tutto sì come piccolo discepolo non fossi degno a tanta opera fare".

33 Clark 1922, 17; Weiss 1969, 30-47; Witt 2000, 230-91. On the influence of the Paduan proto humanists on Petrarch, see Witt 2006, 231-9.

34 Petrarch's activities as a philologist and a bibliophilist are extensively described in Nolhac 1907, especially 1: 33-123 (I. *Pétrarque bibliophile* and II. *Les livres de Pétrarque après sa mort*). However, the effectiveness and impact of Petrarch's method were questioned and downsized by Sabbatini 1907, 347-50 and Kenney 1974, 121- 2, who both limit the quality of Petrarch's textual criticism, and its reception in the following decades. Thanks to the studies of Billanovich – just to mention the most representative of his pivoltal production Billanovich 1947; 1959; 1960; 1974; 1981 – the books of Petrarch, and the exegesis he carried on them, were considered in the development of their tradition and fortune. Vincenzo Fera analysed critically Petrarch's philology in the context of his time and showed that, even if rudimentary compared to the achievements of his epigones, his work represented a breakthrough compared to the state of the art, pointing out, that the practices he came up with ended up becoming the model for the subsequent humanistic approach to texts and their sup-

<sup>31</sup> On the first philological and antiquarian enterprises in thirteenth-century Rome, see Sabbadini 1967, 1: 49-56; Miglio 1991; Internullo 2015 and 2016. On Cola and the *Lex de imperio Vespasiani*, see Collins 1998, 158-83; on his antiquarian approach, see Weiss 1969, 39-42; on his epigraphic interests, see Silvagni 1924. On his connections with Petrarch, see Blasio 2006.

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **26** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 17-52

At the same time, he cultivated an interest in ancient epigraphic inscriptions, ancient coins, and in general a strong cult in everything that could be defined as a ruin.35 His method and passion are reflected in many of his letters, treatises and poems.<sup>36</sup> With Petrarch ruins and remains from antiquity became 'sentiment of time', not statically focusing on the past, but projecting the past into the future – intending the past as a model to be restored.<sup>37</sup>

From Petrarch's spur, a broader restoration of the Latin golden age took place. A group of Florentine scholars, such as Coluccio Salutati (1331-1406), Niccolò Niccoli (1365-1437), and Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459), kept on discovering dispersed manuscripts and observing ruins, representing the most prominent examples of how this renewed humanistic sensitivity helped antiquarianism to develop in complexity.38 It is important to note that the Loggia dei Lanzi was being erected in Florence at approximately that time (ca. 1396), clear evidence that the antiquarian revival in literary output was matched by a resurgence in classical architecture.<sup>39</sup>

A fundamental contribution to the development of this cultural dynamic was provided by Cyriacus of Ancona (1391-1452), who, on account of his detailed descriptions of antiquity carried out during his many journeys throughout the Mediterranean, could very well be considered to be the initiator of modern archaeology.<sup>40</sup> At much the same time, Giovanni Marcanova (ca. 1410-1467) depicted Roman antiquities in his manuscripts,<sup>41</sup> while Flavio Biondo (1392-1463) rewrote the

37 Schnapp 2019, 33-4.

39 See Rubinstein 1967; Sexton 1998; Frey 1885.

40 On Cyriacus's antiquarian practice there is an extensive bibliography; it's enough to mention in this context the works by Bodnar, Foss, Mitchell 2015; Paci, Sconocchia 1998; Chatzidakis 2017.

41 Sighinolfi 1921; Cartwright 2007; Tosetti Grandi 2010; Sassi 2012.

port; see Fera 1992-93, esp. 373, where Petrarch's method of researching new manuscripts as described in *Fam*. 3.18 (the *inquisitio librorum*) was adopted across all European libraries.

<sup>35</sup> Weiss 1964; Mazzocco 1977, 203-24; Galbraith 2000; Eisendrath 2018, 24-48.

<sup>36</sup> General archaeological references, though still depending on the *Mirabilia*, are in *Fam*. 5.4.5; 6.2, the letter so-called *Deambulamus*, which is strictly intertwined with the walk across Rome described in *Africa* 8; epigraphy resurfaces in *Fam*. 24.8; *Sen*. 4.4; 5.1; *Metr*. 2.5.97-100; and in *Remed*. 1.41 and 1.114; interest in numismatics is attested in *Fam*. 18.8; 19.3-15 and *Memorand*. 2.73.

<sup>38</sup> Generally, on the heirs of Petrarch, see Garin 1952, 25-57; Baron 1966 and Weiss 1969, 48-58; Fubini 1990; Gordan 1993; Accame Lanzillotta 1994. On Salutati's role in Florentine humanism, see Ullman 1963; Petrucci 1972; Witt 2000, 292-337; Bianca 2010; Cardini, Viti 2012. On Poggio's life and works, see Walser 1914; for his *Opera Omnia* see Fubini 1964-69; about his activity as a philologist and as collector, see Castelli 1980; Canfora 2001; Ricci 2016; 2020. About Niccoli, see his epistolary edited by Hart 1984-87.

history of Rome and many other Italian cities in his *Roma Instaurata* and *Roma Triumphans*. <sup>42</sup> These scholars systematically linked their classical readings with the findings of numerous inspections made on location. It is also interesting to note that Filippo Brunelleschi (1377- 1446), inspired by the Pantheon in Rome, designed the dome of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence by applying the knowledge obtained from his observation of Roman ruins.43 He achieved this through his increased knowledge of forgotten elements of classical architecture and by using them to develop modern solutions: an ancient source became the doorway to new creations.

As sources of different types were uncovered, the understanding gradually dawned that texts and archaeological finds could be complementary elements. This realisation became essential for the interpenetration of history and cultural heritage, which implied the emergence of a renewed sensitivity to the unitary coherence of classical tradition. In essence, the antiquarian perspective embodied the spirit that allowed Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472) to read Vitruvius critically, to write *De re aedificatoria*, and to conceive the facade of the Basilica of Sant'Andrea in Mantova as a Roman triumphal arch. Alberti was also the creator of the *Certamen Coronarium* (1441), a poetry contest which celebrated the incorporation of the Latin quantitative metric system into the Italian language – the purpose was to translate the structure of ancient poetry into contemporary language.<sup>44</sup>

Classical philology kept on developing its tools in textual analysis by holding constant meditations on texts and language.<sup>45</sup> Lorenzo Valla (1405-1457) represents the peak of this movement:46 by working on the tradition of the classics, Valla developed an unprecedented

45 See Fera 1990.

46 The impact of Valla on European thought is discussed in the collection of essays edited by Regoliosi, Marsico 2013; on his impact on other Italian humanistic environments, see Besomi, Regoliosi 1986 (for Italy in general), Regoliosi 2009 (for Tuscany) and Anselmi, Guerra 2009 (for Bologna). About Valla's *Elegantiae*, see Regoliosi 1993,

<sup>42</sup> The studies on Biondo's antiquarian practice are boundless. A good resource for browsing these works is http://www.repertoriumblondianum.org/. Through this resource it is possible to retrieve the references of many fundamental studies on Biondo, e.g. those by Riccardo Fubini, Angelo Mazzocco and the more recent carried out by Anne Raffarin, Giuseppe Marcellino and Frances Muecke.

<sup>43</sup> On the inference of Brunelleschi's antiquarian observations on his conception of architecture, especially on his work on the Pantheon, see Horster 1973; Pane 1980, 381-8; Gambardella 2002; Gurrieri 2014.

<sup>44</sup> For various information in regard of Alberti's multifarious inspiration from antiquity, see Grafton 2000, which provides an intellectual biography of Alberti; Borsi 2004, on Alberti's approach towards antiquity; Cardini 2005, which tries to reconstruct the Alberti's library, and how he used texts in his antiquarian practice; Cardini, Regoliosi 2007; Grassi 2007, which deals with architecture); Canali 2011, that reconstructs the use of Pliny the Elder by Alberti, and its impact on subsequent scholarship on architecture; and Furlan 2020.

critical approach, which attempted to reconstruct and amend texts through a deep analysis of the linguistic and cultural contexts in which they were written. His work reached noteworthy outcomes, exemplified in his *Elegantiae*, which treated Latin language as a body in evolution through history – giving philological foundations to the debate started at the beginning of the fifteenth century by Biondo and Bruni, who attributed the decay of Latin and hence the origin of the vernaculars to the Barbaric invasions.<sup>47</sup>

Alongside, orthography acquired a stronger antiquarian print, as proved by Guarino Veronese's (1374-1460) studies, e.g. his *Vocabula*, and by the works of his contemporaries, like Vittorino da Feltre (ca. 1375-1446).<sup>48</sup> By attempting to restore the original and proper form of ancient words, these scholars sought to understand the usage of ancient writing, from which they intended to provide an explanation of the words themselves.<sup>49</sup> This attitude, which could be equalised to the collecting of archaeological finds and the attempt to explain their form and meaning through observation and comparison, led the way to the more sophisticated and all-encompassing *Orthographia* by Giovanni Tortelli (ca. 1406-1466) and to the *Cornucopia* by Niccolò Perotti (1430-1480).<sup>50</sup>

This interest in pursuing lexicography, which spread throughout the fifteenth century, may have been rooted in the practice of schedography, a method of teaching grammar derived from Byzantine scholars. This practice involved concise commentaries on a short text

49 The method adopted by the first humanists to restore the classical shape of Latin orthography is analysed in Dionisotti 1968. Comparisons between medieval Latin and classical Latin, as well as comparisons between Latin and Greek, and Latin and vernaculars constituted its foundations, see Tomè 2012, 19 where a reference also to analogies established between Greek and the vernaculars is indicated.

50 On Tortelli's life, see Cortesi 2019. On his scholarship in general, see Manfredi, Marsico, Regoliosi 2016; on the genesis, methodology and fortune of his *Orthographia*, see the fundamental doctoral dissertation Tomè 2012. On Perotti's scholarship, see the many studies of Jean Louis Charlet, especially Charlet 2001; see also Kristeller 1981; Furno 1995; Stok 2002.

and Marsico 2013 (especially on book five). Valla's philological method is very well expressed in his *Antidotum ad Facium*, see Regoliosi 1981.

<sup>47</sup> The question of the nature of Latin language is very well discussed in Fubini 1961, 505-50; Rizzo 2005, 51-95; Tateo 2006; Marcellino, Ammannati 2015; Nauta 2018.

<sup>48</sup> For a general bibliography on Guarino Veronese, see Pistilli 2003. The major contributions on Guarino have been given by Remigio Sabbadini, who has worked on his manuscripts (Sabbadini 1887), on his school and education (Sabbadini 1896), on his epistolary (Sabbadini 1915-19). Significant are also his translations from Greek to Latin – e.g. Herodotus (see Truffi 1902), Basil of Caesarea, Lucian, and most of all Strabo's *Geographia* started in 1454 (see Sabbadini 1909; Sbordone 1961, 11-32; Diller 1975, 126-9; Aujac 1993, 154-9). On Vittorino da Feltre orthographic studies, see Casacci 1926-27, 911-45; Sabbadini 1928, 209-21; on his library, see Cortesi 1997, 429-51; 2000, 401-16; Bandini 2008, 83-109; Cortesi 2010, 607-35.

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **29** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 17-52

(Lt. *scheda*, Gr. σχέδη), consisting of lexicographic, orthographic, and etymological notes.51 If combined with a multiplicity of analogous textual analyses, it is possible to see from where the accumulation process typical of antiquarianism derived. This practice was imported in Italy from Constantinople during the thirteenth century and was handed down in the following decades exclusively in Greek circles until Leontius Pilatus (d. 1366) moved to Florence in 1360. Here, schedography started its diffusion in pre-humanistic environments, which understood how Greek language was unavoidable to comprehend the lost classical world: it is not by chance that Giovanni Boccaccio (1313- 1375), who attended Leontius's Greek courses, mutated aspects of schedography to compile his erudite treatises (*Genealogia Deorum Gentilium* and *De montibus*).

From these early efforts of reconciling Greek and Latin classical studies under the flag of Humanism, a larger interest in ancient Greek culture, literature and though bloomed in the following decades, thanks to the teachings of Manuel Chrysolaras (ca. 1355-1415), which irradiated the region of Veneto via Guarino, fostered the rediscovery of ancient manuscripts thanks to figures like Giovanni Aurispa (1376- 1459) and cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472), and triggered the already mentioned interest in Greek archaeology by Cyriacus d'Ancona.<sup>52</sup>

From the mid-fifteenth century onwards, the driving force behind this evolution of thought was embodied by Angelo Poliziano (1454- 1494). Building in fact on the former traditions, he mastered a critical method that was so valuable in terms of textual criticism that it became the benchmark for the antiquarian scholars who followed.<sup>53</sup> The publication of his first *Miscellanea* (1489) represents a synthesis of all his intuitions in the field of classical philology, which were

<sup>51</sup> For the diffusion of Greek philology in the late Middle Ages and during the early Renaissance in general, see Pertusi 1964; 1980; Weiss 1977; Cortesi, Maltese 1992; Cortesi 1995a; 1995b; 2007; and the classic Sabbadini 1914. On schedography, see Mercati 1970, 379-84; Browning 1976; Cortesi 1979, 449-83.

<sup>52</sup> The role of Aurispa in the circulation of Greek manuscripts is treated in Wilson 1996; Staikos 1998; Wilson 2017. For his library, see Franceschini 1976; for his epistolary, see Sabbadini 1931. The most recent works on Bessarion's scholarship are the collection of essays Mariev 2021 and the monograph Cattaneo 2020, both attempting to reconstruct the philological method of this scholar. On his collection, see Antetomaso 2017, 351-83. See also Monfasani 1995; Bianca 1999; Zorzi 2002; 2003; Märtl, Kaiser, Ricklin 2013. Bessarion's library, with its 548 Greek codices, 337 Latin codices, and 27 incunabula, was donated by Bessarion himself to the Marciana Library in Venice. These books formed the so-called 'Bibliotheca Nicena', from which Renaissance scholars drew many editions of Greek classics.

<sup>53</sup> It would be too long and dispersive to put together a bibliography related to Poliziano's antiquarian scholarship; for a general overview, see Fera, Martelli 1998; Perosa 2000; Viti 2016. On his *Miscellanea*, see Branca, Pastore Stocchi 1972 and Branca 1983. On the ramifications of Poliziano's method, see Pyle 1996; Celenza 2010; Dyck, Cottrel 2020. About his collection of manuscripts, see Maïer 1965.

based on manuscript witnesses, the identification of linguistic usages through the history of language, the constitution of cultural models, the comparative technique, and a rudimentary palaeography. He brought to light what was later referred to as 'the history of tradition'.

Poliziano approached the text as an ancient finding, from which tangible data could be drawn. He used to measure the lacunas of ancient codices to formulate more reliable emendations. It is astounding to notice that a few years later, Raphael (1483-1520) and Baldassarre Castiglione (1478-1529), in the famous letter to pope Leo X of 1519, determined that the only way to understand antiquity was to measure the ruins to preserve them and formulate assumptions on their original shape.<sup>54</sup>

The purpose of Poliziano's method was to reconstruct the original shape of ancient textual and cultural inheritance through emendation. However, it was not always sufficient to fill the gaps in the tradition and restore a coherent image of antiquity. In response, the humanists compiled a diverse range of interpretative systems to tackle the weaknesses. One example is the *Castigationes Plinianae* by Ermolao Barbaro (1454-1493), who drew analogies with the world around him, especially when explaining naturalistic items, to compensate for the general lack of knowledge of these matters at the time.<sup>55</sup> As was the case with language, analogies with the natural world became in many fields a necessary means to comprehend the ancient universe through known and controllable parameters.

In parallel, new encyclopaedic collections started to flourish. Even if Biondo's works, Valla's *Elegantiae*, and Tortelli's *Orthographia* could be recognised as a significant prefiguration of what encyclopaedias would look like if arranged in an antiquarian perspective; a mature expression of Renaissance antiquarian encyclopedism can be found only later, in Giorgio Valla's (1447-1500) *De expetendis et fugiendis rebus opus*, Raffaele Maffei's (1451-1522) *Commentaria rerum Urbanarum*, Alessandro d'Alessandro's (1461-1523) *Dies geniales*, and Celio Rodigino's (1469-1525) *Antiquae lectiones*. These treatises attempted to confer to the ancient world from a universal perspective, by cross-referencing different literary and material sources, trying to provide a more stratified idea of history.<sup>56</sup>

The idea that history resided in ancient findings and that, through these ancient findings, history still maintained its vitality in the pre-

<sup>54</sup> On the letter, see Di Teodoro 2021.

<sup>55</sup> On the differences between Poliziano's and Barbaro's methods, see Fera 1996, 193-4; Griggio 2014. On Barbaro's geographic approach, see Pastore Stocchi 1996. The edition of Barbaro's *Castigationes* is carried out in Pozzi 1973. On his library, see Diller 1963, 254-62. On his role Venetian humanism, see Branca 1963, 193-212.

<sup>56</sup> For a theory of Renaissance encyclopedism, see Blanchard, Severi 2018. See also Valla 1500; Maffei 1506; Ricchieri 1516; d'Alessandro 1522.

sent sparked the research of material evidence to the indiscriminate action of counterfeiters. Forgeries were created for the purpose of supporting positions that lacked reliable data; and the frequent attempts to unmask their mendacious nature, at times in vain, represented one of the crucial aspects of the antiquarian investigation.<sup>57</sup> By rejecting the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine, Lorenzo Valla gave impetus to revealing falsifications. Having rejected a testimony which had been blindly trusted during the Middle Ages, he demonstrated that the new vision of sources in their material consistency marked a change in thinking.<sup>58</sup>

Among the most famous antiquarian counterfeiters were Annius of Viterbo (1432-1502) and Alfonso Ceccarelli (1532-1583).<sup>59</sup> The works of Annius became very popular: he produced literary and epigraphic apocryphal texts (such as Berosus, Fabius Pictor, Cato, the *Decretum Desiderii*) to offer a new pseudo-cabalistic reading of the history of civilisation handed down directly from Hebrew and Etruscan sources. The extensive work of Ceccarelli, which remained predominantly in manuscript form, was put to use in genealogical and historiographical studies.

Antiquarian studies were conducted in humanistic circles, the most famous of which was the Academia Romana founded by Giulio Pomponio Leto (1428-1498). Figures as Bartolomeo Platina (1421- 1481), Sebastiano Manilio (fifteenth century), Manilius Rhallus (1447- 1522), Niccolò Perotti and others, frequently participated in its sessions. The humanist inclination of this circle and its desire to 'revive' antiquity triggered an interest in ancient sources, the rediscovery and publication of manuscripts (one of the most important cases being the unearthing the *Codex Farnesianus* that transmitted Festus's *De verborum significatione*), the study of material findings (inscriptions, coins, statues, etc.), the research into institutional and social history, and the customs of ancient Rome.<sup>60</sup>

57 For a theory of forgery during the Renaissance, see Grafton 1990.

<sup>58</sup> For a history of the attacks against the Donation, see Levine 1973. Its authenticity was taken for granted during the Middle Ages, in fact, Dante contested it only on a juridical ground, see e.g. his *Monarchia* 3.11-13. On Valla's polemic against the *Donation*, see Antonazzi 1985; Fubini 1991; Regoliosi 1995; Miglio 2001; Watts 2004. For the edition of Valla's work, see Pugliese 1985.

<sup>59</sup> On the fortune of Annius's forgery, see Collins 2000; Stephens 2013; and Rothstein 2018. On the Hebrew inspiration of his scholarship, see Grafton 2018. See also Weiss 1962; Parente 1994; Fubini 1989. On Ceccarelli, see Fumi 1902 and Sivieri 2017.

<sup>60</sup> For a complete and constantly updated bibliography on Pomponio Leto, see https://www.repertoriumpomponianum.it/index.html. As already determined by Zabughin 1906, 223-5 and more recently in the life of Pomponio for the *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Accame Lanzillotta 2015), Pomponio's antiquarian scholarship developed mostly in the years 1484-98 with his works on ancient Roman magis-

One of the heirs to this cultural experience was Angelo Colocci (1474- 1549), who first acquired Pomponio Leto's house in year 1500, where he continued his Accademia, before moving it at the Horti Sallustiani after 1513. Here antiquarian interests flourished: the location was itself an archaeological site, with more than three hundred statues exhibited. This represented the antiquarian context of the meetings, in which poetry was declaimed, orations were recited, debates on antiquity held.<sup>61</sup> Among the participants, Baldassarre Castiglione, Giovanni Pierio Valeriano (1477-1558), Paolo Giovio (1483-1552), and Pietro Bembo (1470-1547), in particular, are worthy of mention.<sup>62</sup>

The presence of the three humanists, Bembo, Valeriano, and Colocci confirms once again that the antiquarian perspective was carried out in parallel with the historical-linguistic theories debated at the time, not only in relation to ancient languages, but also to modern vernaculars, which were put in a historical perspective by actual antiquarian scholars. The impact of the antiquarian vision could tangibly be perceived also in the later works of Theodore Bibliander's (1506-1564) *De ratione communi omnium linguarum et litterarum* and Joachim Périon's (1498-1559) *Dialogorum de linguae Gallicae origine, eiusque cum Graeca cognatione*, and many other.<sup>63</sup>

A new turn in understanding the classical past through a growth of the antiquarian method is due to the immense work of Desiderius

trates, which re-writes Andrea Fiocchi's (pseudo-Fenestella) treatise, his history of late Roman emperors, his epigraphic collections and his *Excerpta*, descriptions of ancient Roman ruins. On Pomponio as a collector of antiquities, see Magister 2003. It is important to point out that these erudite works were rooted in his previous philological (1468-80) and lexicographic studies (1480-84), especially related to Varro's *De lingua Latina* (see Accame Lanzillotta 1990; 1998, 41-57) and the many editions of classical texts he carried out (among the others Claudian, Lucretius, Ovid, Quintilian, Virgil). See also Zabughin 1909-12; Piacentini 2007; Accame Lanzillotta 2008; Marcotte 2012. On the activities of the Accademia Romana, see Cassini, Chiabò 2007; Bianca 2008; Marcotte 2011. On the role of Platina in the culture of late-fifteenth century, see Bauer 2006. On the role of Sebastiano Manilio and Manilius Rhallus for the rediscovery of Festus's *Codex Farnesianus*, see Lamers 2013.

<sup>61</sup> On Colocci's archaeological inclinations, see Vittorio Fanelli's collection of essays edited by Ruysschaert 1979, especially 111-34, and the classical Lanciani 1902. It is impossible to separate Colocci's antiquarian scholarship from his immense library and the marginal annotations on its many volumes; see Lattes 1972; Bianchi 1990, 271-82; Bologna, Bernardi 2008. About Colocci collector of epigrams, see Wellington Gahtan 2018.

<sup>62</sup> In a letter to Colocci dated 1529, Jacopo Sadoleto describes the sessions taking place in this Accademia, the topics discussed, and the people who joined the meetings; see Sadoleto 1550, 243-51; Lacelotti 1772, 119; and Fanelli 1959, 67-75 where the life of Colocci by Federico Ubaldini is published with an extensive commentary.

<sup>63</sup> See Bibliander 1548 and recent edition Amirav, Kirn 2011. See Périon 1555 and its recent edition Demerson, Jacquetin 2003. On the history of antiquarian polemics on language, see the still fundamental Simoncelli 1984, where a deep analysis of the socalled phenomenon of the 'Aramei' is carried out. On Renaissance lexicography and its interplay with antiquarianism, see Considine 2008.

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **33** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 17-52

Erasmus (1466-1536), especially in the field of classical philology. His textual criticism involved both Greek and Latin literature, not only profane but also sacred. It would be impossible to retrace the entire pattern of his works, but worthy of mention is at least his thorough explanation of ancient proverbs, *Adagia*, which grew and developed in each edition, representing an actual sum of antiquarian knowledge applied to Greek and Roman culture. Different in shape but similar in spirit is his edition, translation, and commentary of the New Testament, which followed the premises earlier established by Lorenzo Valla.<sup>64</sup>

Almost simultaneously, antiquarian erudition grew in other parts of Europe, also building on juridical studies on ancient law. It is not by chance that scholars who dedicated their lives at studying Roman Law, commenting on the *Pandects*, like Guillaume Budé (1467-1540) and Andrea Alciati (1492-1550), were extremely skilled in other branches of antiquarianism. Budé was an ambassador to Rome for the French crown, a disciple of Fra' Giovanni Giocondo (1433-1515) and Janus Lascaris (1445-1535). Even if his initial commitment was to law, Budé was an excellent interpreter of Greek and Latin texts. From this starting point, he arranged his commentaries on Greek language, his theoretical dissertation on philology, and his metrological studies. Alciati worked on the *Pandects* as well, from which he developed a juridical lexicon founded in the interpretation of ancient terms, a metrological booklet, and his memorable book of emblems.<sup>65</sup>

These were the years in which also epigraphy rose to a new level. From the late fourteenth century onwards, scholars gathered inscriptions in manuscript sylloges, which circulated throughout the erudite environments, spreading the knowledge of this branch of antiquarian studies. One of the most famous among these collections was the one arranged by Fra' Giocondo during his journey in Southern Italy at the end of the fifteenth century. Even if a first significant attempt of publishing epigraphic collections was made with Konrad Peutinger's (1465-1547) *Inscriptiones Romanae* (1520), however, the maturity of this research was reached shortly thereafter,

<sup>64</sup> For a basic bibliography to grasp Erasmus's approach to classical texts, see Rummel 1985; Reynolds, Wilson 1988; Simeone 2014. On his philological work on the New Testament, see Rummel 1986; Delgado Jara, Pena Gonzalez 2016.

<sup>65</sup> On Budé's philological works, see Sanchi 2006 and Morantin 2017. On his erudition, see Sanchi 2009. On Budé as a multifarious figure, see the collections of essays André, Dangel, Demont 1996; Boehm, Ferrary, Franchet d'Esperey 2016. For his works, see at least Budé 1508 (notes on the Pandects); 1514 (on metrology); 1529 (his commentaries on Greek language); 1532 (on philology). There are no specific studies dedicated to Alciati's antiquarian approach; however, it may be interesting to check at least Barni 1958, 25-35. For a first glance at his works, see Alciati 1529-32 (his edition of the Pandects); Alciati 1530a (his lexicon); Alciati 1530b (his book on Roman magistrates); Alciati 1530c (his metrological work); Alciati 1531 (his book of emblems).

when two major epigraphic books were sent to press. The former was the *Epigrammatae antiquae Urbis* (1521), edited by Colocci and published by Jacopo Mazocchi (late fifteenth century-1527 ca.), which accumulated inscriptions from the city of Rome. The latter was the *Inscriptiones sacrosanctae antiquitatis* (1534) by the German antiquarian and astronomer Petrus Apianus (1495-1552), which put together texts of inscriptions from all over Europe.<sup>66</sup>

After these works, new exploits in epigraphy were achieved, which culminated in the rediscovery of the *Fasti Consulares* in the Roman Forum (1546), a pivotal moment in the growth of the entire antiquarian movement.<sup>67</sup> This epigraphic finding was soon transferred to the Capitolium under the supervision of Michelangelo. The edition of the text transmitted in these inscriptions triggered a debate among the experts of epigraphy and chronology, in particular Bartolomeo Marliani (1487-1566), Francesco Robortello (1516-1577), Carlo Sigonio (1520-1584), Onofrio Panvinio (1530-1568), Martin Smetius (1525-1578), and Stephen Winand Pigge (1520-1604), who all published it within a few years. The major contribution to antiquarian scholarship provided by this finding was that it represented a new source for ancient Roman chronology, which until then had been known only through literary histories, and represented an official document directly connected to Roman imperial institutions. Previously, Roman chronology had often been reconstructed by comparing Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (whose accounts often contradicted each other), as demonstrated by the Roman seriations of Gregorius Haloander (1501-1531), Johannes Cuspinianus (1473-1529), and Heinrich Glareanus (1488-1563).<sup>68</sup>

Numismatic studies blossomed in parallel with the great season of epigraphy, following analogous dynamics.<sup>69</sup> These were the years when ancient coins began fascinating collectors and scholars, as dem-

<sup>66</sup> On Giocondo's scholarship, see Koortbojian 2002; Gros, Pagliara 2014; De Divitiis 2016. On Mazocchi's edition, see Carbonell, González Germain 2020, a collection of essays that attempts to measure the impact of this work on European antiquarianism. A systematic investigation of Apianus's epigraphic scholarship is still missing; for some specific case studies related to his collection, see Conley 2010, 55-79; but especially Stenhouse 2005; see also Williams 1941.

<sup>67</sup> For a general overview on the history of this archaeological discovery, see Henzen 1863; Degrassi 1947, 1-12; McCuaig 1989, 141-59; Stenhouse 2005, 103-12; Mayer 2010, 29.

<sup>68</sup> On this issue, see Glareanus 1531; Haloander 1530; Cuspinianus 1553; McCuaig 1989, 141-9; Ferrary 1996, 116-17; Grafton, Neu 2013.

<sup>69</sup> On the fifteenth-century numismatic collections, see Weiss 1968 and Missere Fontana 1995a, especially on the Bolognese environment. Two publications are specifically dedicated to Andrea Fulvio, i.e. Weiss 1959 and Cristofari 1997. On the diffusion, approach, and variety of numismatic publications during the sixteenth century, see Dekesel 1997.

onstrated by Hans Memling's (1463-1494) iconic portrait of a *Man with a Roman Medal* (1480 ca.). The first actual numismatic book published during the Renaissance was the *Illustrium imagines* (1517) by the Roman antiquarian Andrea Fulvio (ca. 1470-ca. 1527), which had not yet established a systematic cataloguing method, like the following publications, especially those of the second half of the century.<sup>70</sup> From Fulvio onwards, the interest in ancient coins became one of the pillars of Renaissance antiquarian erudition thanks to the many branches of antiquarian knowledge they could support: this included historical, since coins were sources through which it was possible to cross-reference data depending on literary sources; iconographic since the images on the reverse of the coins represented a symbolic language that had to be decoded to be re-utilised; and metrological since each coin possessed a monetary value that needed to be understood in the more complex economic issue of coinage and minting.

The historical approach was carried out systematically by scholars such as Sigonio, who often referred to numismatic specimens in his edition and commentary on Livy, or in his many works *de iure*; the Flemish numismatist Hubert Goltzius (1526-1583), who wrote a Roman history of Julius Caesar's (1563) and Augustus's (1564) times based on ancient Roman coins – he also combined the coins to the *Fasti Consulares* (1574) to link all the names listed in the consular seriation to other material sources; and Fulvio Orsini (1529-1600), who wrote a history of Roman families (1577) based on the coins mentioning their names.<sup>71</sup>

The figures who better embodied the iconographic approach were the engraver Enea Vico (1523-1567), who published several books of coins with their explanation, among the others a monograph on the coins minted for Roman empresses; the Venetian humanist Sebastiano Erizzo (1525-1585), who considered ancient coins only as commemorative medals without actual monetary value; and the Spanish bishop Antonio Agustín (1517-1586), who put together a complex dialogue on ancient coins, after more than thirty years of numismatic studies attested in his epistolary.<sup>72</sup>

72 On Vico's work as a numismatist in general, see Missere Fontana 1995b; Bodon 1997; 2005; Davis 2013; 2014; 2021. See also Vico 1548; 1558; 1560. His work on Roman empresses is Vico 1557, on which see Flaten 2017, 121-32. On Erizzo's collection, see Palumbo Fossati Casa 1984; see also Erizzo 1559. On Agustín's antiquarian scholarship, see Carbonell 1991, especially on the fortune of his numismatic and ep-

<sup>70</sup> See Fulvio 1517. On Andrea Fulvio see the still valid Weiss 1959 and the more recent Cristofari 1997. Fulvio was also the author of a book of Roman antiquities; see Fulvio 1527 and Raffarin 2019.

<sup>71</sup> For Livy, see Sigonio 1555a; 1556a; for the juridical works, see Sigonio 1563. For an intellectual biography of Sigonio, see McCuaig 1989. For Goltzius's works on Caesar and Augustus, see respectively Goltzius 1563 and 1564; on his *Fasti*, see Goltzius 1566. On Orsini's Roman families, see Orsini 1577. One must note that the issue of Roman families became a main branch of Renaissance antiquarian scholarship.

As already mentioned briefly, antiquarian metrology was elevated to actual science by Guillaume Budé, when he first published his famous *De asse et partibus eius* (1514). This work inaugurated a plethora of epigone treatises, such as Andrea Alciati's and Georg Agricola's (1494-1555) *De ponderibus et mensuris*, which not only discussed the value of ancient currency, but also the units of measurement of length, weight, and capacity, and many others.<sup>73</sup>

Moreover, the fundamental role played by architecture underwent a revival in the development of the Renaissance antiquarian spirit. The evocations inspired by classical buildings, which started between the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth century and mastered by figures such as Brunelleschi and Alberti, increased their presence and consistency during the sixteenth century, gaining additional theoretical support: in fact, several treatises attempted to provide a more precise and complex codification of classical architecture both through the observation of ancient ruins and the study of classical texts, such as Vitruvius and Pliny.74 The figures who better interpreted this trend were Fra' Giocondo, who edited Vitruvius in 1511, Cesare Cesariano, who gave the first Italian translation of this work, Sebastiano Serlio (1475-1554), with his books on architecture and his descriptions of ancient buildings, Guillaume

igraphic studies. His numismatic work is Agustín 1587a (Spanish edition). The Italian editions are Agustín 1592a (by Ottaviano Sada) and Agustín 1592b (probably translated by Alfonso Chacón, Missere Fontana 2009, 61-72).

<sup>73</sup> On Budé's work as a numismatist (Budé 1514), see Michel 1978 and Crawford, Ligota, Trapp 1990. See also Alciati 1530c. On Agricola, bibliography focused on his metallurgical treatise (Agricola 1555) rather than on his metrological (Agricola 1533; 1550). However, the relevance of his contribution in the latter field is also proven by the diffusion of this work and by the many manuscript notes usually found in the margins of his copies – the most significant cases are BUB A.M.I.5.7, with Ulisse Aldrovandi's notes, and BNCR 71.3.F.20, with Juan Baptista Villalpando's notes. Among the others works on the value of ancient coins, see Hotman 1585 and Scaliger 1616.

<sup>74</sup> On Pliny, see Maraglino 2012; Fane-Saunders 2016; Ghidini 2019. On Vitruvius, see Kanerva 2006; various essays in the collection Folin, Spesso 2003; Pagliara 1986. On Giocondo's edition of Vitruvius, see Salatin 2017 and Mattei, Salatin 2014, the latter discussing the marginal notes on this publication carried out by Budé and Lascaris; Gros 2015; Gros, Pagliara 2014; on Barbaro's commentary on Vitruvius (Barbaro 1556; 1567), see Cellauro 2004. On Philandrier 1544, see Lemerle 2000. On Serlio in general, see Beltramini 2018 and bibliography; Vène 2007, on the editions of his works; Deswarte-Rosa 2004, *passim*; and Hart 1998, 170-85. For his works, see Serlio 1537 and Serlio 1544. This information is mentioned in Atanagi 1565, 2b-3a ; on the effective function an aim of this Accademia, see Moroncini 2016 and Moroncini 2017. An attempt to systematise the work on ancient architecture around Claudio Tolomei is currently carried out by the database http://accademia-vitruviana.net/ edited by Bernd Kulawik. See also Kulawik 2018. On the influence of ancient architecture on Vignola, see Fiorani 2003; on Palladio, see Burlington 1730; Zorzi 1958; Gioseffi 1973; Ackerman 1994; Gros 2006; Beltramini 2014. On the resurgence of classical architecture during the Renaissance, see Frommel, Ray, Tafuri 1984; Günther 1988; Nasselrath 1993; Fiore 2005; Tafuri 2005.

Philandrier (1505-1563) and Daniele Barbaro (1514-1570), who both commented upon Vitruvius's work. Which was the role of Claudio Tolomei's (1492-1556) project in disseminating the interest towards ancient architecture during the Renaissance it still needs clarification, especially about if existence of an academy "de lo Studio de l'Architettura" in which Tolomei himself may have coordinated an extensive cataloguing work of ancient buildings is confirmed. The theoretical works of these figures undoubtedly influenced the practical output in architecture, especially in Jacopo Barozzi da Vignola (1507- 1573) and Andrea Palladio (1508-1580), who were able to combine the study of Vitruvius with practical knowledge, paving the way for a time of deeply rooted classicism, with incredible results.

Between the end of the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth century, antiquarian studies gradually became inextricably linked with collections of antiquities. In fact, the main collections of antiquities built up during the Renaissance were owned by the political and ecclesiastical aristocracy and were often connected to the royal courts. This created a close bond, often of subordination, between antiquarian erudition and power, putting the first at the service of the second. Beyond the political interference that may have taken place, the most important antiquarian works of the sixteenth century emanated from the richest and most heterogeneous collections, such as those which belonged to the Farnese family in Rome, to the Medici in Florence, to the Este in Ferrara, to the Grimani in Venice, or like the Palatine collection in Vienna and the royal collection in Madrid.<sup>75</sup>

Many scholars liven up these environments and many antiquarian works flourished thereto. Among those who benefited from the vitality of the Roman environment, a major role was covered by Antonio Agustín,<sup>76</sup>

<sup>75</sup> On antiquarian scholarship and collecting, see Goeing, Grafton, Michel 2013; see also Stenhouse 2014, 131-44; 2017a; 2017b. On Roman collections between Quattrocento and Cinquecento, see Antetomaso 2007. The collection of Carlo Emanuele I of Savoy is also extremely interesting, see Bava, Pagella 2016. On the Farnese collection, see Falguières 1988; Ajello, Haskell, Gasparri 1988; Bile 1995; Coraggio 1999; Capaldi 2012; Extermann 2019, 59-61. On the role of cardinal Alessandro Farnese in sixteenth-century antiquarian culture, see Robertson 1992. On the Chigi collection, see Barbieri 2014. On the Medici collection in Florence the material is practically boundless; a good tool to browse the primary sources of this field of Renaissance antiquarianism is represented by the database https://www.memofonte.it/ricerche/collezionismo-mediceo/; see also Barocchi, Gaeta Bertelà 1993. On the collections of the Este and Gonzaga, see Braglia 2014. On the collections in Venice, see Hochman, Lauber, Mason 2008 and especially Favaretto 2002, 63-128.

<sup>76</sup> On his library, see Alcina Franch, Salvadó Recasens 2007; on his erudite works carried out during Counter-Reformation, see Crawford 1993; on his epistolary exchanges with Lelio Torelli and Jean Matal, see Ferrary 1992. His epistolary was published by Flores Selles 1980.

Fulvio Orsini,<sup>77</sup> and Onofrio Panvinio.<sup>78</sup> It is not by chance that both Agustín and Orsini shared philological, epigraphic, and numismatic investigations: these are witnessed in their massive epistolary exchange, in their editions of Festus (respectively 1559 and 1581), and in their erudite publications dealing with laws, banquets, etc. Similarly, Panvinio was supported by Alessandro Farnese in his ecclesiastical enquiries, in a sort of prefiguration on the ecclesiastical antiquarianism that would take place in the last three decades of the sixteenth century.

The philological studies on classical texts conducted by Piero Vettori (1499-1585), the edition of the *Pandects* based on the ancient manuscript from Pisa directed by Lelio Torelli (1489-1576), and the linguistic and antiquarian studies carried out by Vincenzio Borghini (1515-1580) were deeply rooted in the Florentine context, profiting of the invaluable manuscripts housed in the libraries of the city and by the patronage of the grand duke Cosimo I.<sup>79</sup>

The mythographic studies of Lilio Gregorio Giraldi (1479-1552), the linguistic and numismatic of Celio Calcagnini (1479-1541) and Agostino Mosti (1505-1584) were firmly based in the culture of the Ferrarese court, under the shadow of cardinal Ippolito II d'Este

<sup>77</sup> Fulvio Orsini is one of the most relevant antiquarians of the sixteenth century. His contribution in antiquarian studies, both Greek and Latin is immense, as witnessed by his archaeological collection and by his library. The primary work on Orsini's scholarship is the old but still unsurpassed intellectual biography by Nolhac 1887. More recently, Cellini 2004 has published a monograph on his antiquarian research and his Imagines. Cellini 2001 also described the history of the so-called 'tabula Bembina' in Orsini's collection. Ruysschaert 1985 discussed about Orsini's notes on Latin elegiac poetry. On Orsini's books today housed at BNCR, see Veneziani 1984.

<sup>78</sup> On Panvinio's antiquarian scholarship, see the recent Bauer 2020 and Ferrary 1996. While the latter focuses mainly on the studies on classical antiquity, the former shows very well how his method, initially developed on the classics, was subsequently applied in ecclesiastical archaeology and history. Pivotal contributions are Gersbach 1997 on Panvinio's correspondence with Vincenzio Borghini; Gersbach 1993 on the role of Panvinio's brother Paolo in the posthumous publication of *De primate Petri*; Gersbach 1992 on the manuscript of Panvinio's *Antiquitatum Veronensium libri VIII*; Gersbach 1991 on Panvinio's relations with the Cybo family.

<sup>79</sup> Vettori is one the greatest philologists of his time; yet a recent monograph on his work is missing. For his scholarship. For his life, see Mouren 2014. His epistolary has been published in different collections throughout the centuries, see Bramanti 2009 (letters by Ugolino Martelli); Ghinassi 1968 (various letters by Vettori); Nolhac 1887 (correspondence with Fulvio Orsini); Bandini 1758-60 (Latin letters to Italian and Germans addressees); Vettori 1586 (various Latin letters). On Vettori's role in the culture of sixteenth-century Florence, see Drusi 2012a, 15-38; and Lo Re 2008. On the edition of the Pandects (Torelli 1553), see Baldi 2010. On Borghini's erudition, see the fundamental Belloni, Drusi 2002 and Bertoli, Drusi 2005, and bibliography. See also Carrara, Ginzburg 2008. On the relationship between Vettori and Borghini, see Carrara 1999 and Carrara 1998. On Borghini's antiquarian scholarship, see Carrara 2001 and more specifically Carrara 2012, about the information of ancient statues in Florence, and Carrara 2005 about Borghini's own drawings of antiquity. On Borghini's library, see Carrara 2018, 1-11 and Testaverde Matteini 1983, 133-56.

(1509-1572),80 as well as Pirro Ligorio's (1513-1583)81 immense manuscript encyclopaedia of antiquity, partially bought by the Farnese family and partially by the House of Savoy. Austria and Spain were also fertile grounds for the works of Wolfgang Lazius (1514-1565)<sup>82</sup> and Jerónimo Zurita (1512-1580),<sup>83</sup> respectively.

In addition, an interesting case of Renaissance antiquarianism is that of the Venice and the Veneto region. Here antiquarian scholarship was tied to several cultural specificities that the environment offered. The philological approach followed the guidelines imposed by Guarino, Bessarion, Ermolao Barbaro. At the same time, a new and unique antiquarian language for figurative art was created and developed by Jacopo Bellini (1400-1470) and Andrea Mantegna (1431- 1506).<sup>84</sup> Thanks to Aldo Manuzio's (ca. 1450-1515) contribution to the growth of the press, the antiquarian enterprises in editing and commenting ancient texts – not only Latin, but also Greek – were strongly encouraged. This boosted the number of scholars working on these

82 On Lazius's scholarship in general, see Donecker, Svatek, Klecker 2021. On his collection of epigraphs and epigraphic forgeries, see Weber 2020.

83 On Zurita's scholarship, see Solano Costa 1986. On Zurita as an historian, see Redondo Veintemillas 2013 and Sarasa Sánchez 2013 – both contributions on his work on the crown of Aragon; Fatás 2013 on his notes on Julius Caesar's *Commentaries*.

<sup>80</sup> On the Ferrarese environment in general, see Castelli 1998; On Giraldi's scholarship, see Montalto 2011. On his alchemical interests and his exchanges with Gianfrancesco Pico della Mirandola, see Secret 1976. On his philological work on Greek tragedies, see Mund-Dophcie 1985. On his mythological scholarship, see Seznec 1953 and Giraldi 1548. On his antiquarian approach, see Alhaique Pettinelli 1991, 9-62 and Alhaique Pettinelli 1972 (especially on his relationship with Calcagnini). On Giraldi's life and works, see Foà 2001. On Calcagnini's work as an antiquarian, see Missere, Missere Fontana 1993 (especially on his numismatic scholarship) and Lazzari 1936 (on his encyclopedism). On his Latin prose, see Curti 2018. On Agostino Mosti, see the biographical entry Russo 2012 and his own autobiography Solerti 1892. Mosti's relations with Pirro Ligorio are witnessed by a manuscript note BCA *S. Maria in Aquiro* XXXIIII, in which he acknowledged the reception of a copy of Ligorio's book of coins – furthermore, Ligorio dedicated to Mosti his work on ancient banquets (see BCA II 384 *Compilatione dell'antichi convivii detti symposii*). On Ippolito d'Este and his patronage, see Cogotti, Fiore 2013.

<sup>81</sup> On Ligorio's work as an artist and an antiquarian, see Loffredo, Vagenheim 2019; Occhipinti 2011; Gaston 1988. Ligorio's works are being published by De Luca Editore within the *Edizione nazionale delle opere di Pirro Ligorio*. For the codices housed in Naples, see Balistreri 2020 (on ancient clothing); Rausa 2019 (on ancient burials); Gaston 2015 (on ancient water springs, rivers, and lakes); Pafumi 2011 (on ancient measures); Orlandi 2009 (on ancient sepulchral inscriptions); 2008 (on ancient Greek and Latin inscriptions); 2003 (on ancient Greek and Latin inscriptions). For the codices housed in Turin, Serafin Petrillo 2013 (on ancient Greek and Roman coins); Palma Venetucci 2005 (on ancient illustrious persons); Ten 2005 (on the city of Tivoli and some ancient villas); Guidoboni 2005 (on earthquakes). For the codices housed in Oxford, see Campbell 2016 (on Roman antiquities in general).

<sup>84</sup> On Mantegna, see Favaretto 2010 and Bodon 2010. On Bellini, see Fortini Brown 1992.

subjects and the circulation of books related thereto. Aldo's work on antiquarian publications was followed and further developed by his son Paolo (1512-1574) and his grandson Aldo the Younger (1547-1597).<sup>85</sup> Moreover, the literary works of figures like Pietro Bembo, Sebastiano Erizzo, Giovanni Battista Ramusio (1485-1557), and Daniele Barbaro were often backed by sharply cultivated collections, which helped increasing the exchanges between word and object, consolidating further the antiquarian method.<sup>86</sup>

Antiquarian circles flourished in Padua as well, within the broader context of the university, throughout the entire sixteenth century and onwards. Among the others, worthy of mention are figures such as Gian Vincenzo Pinelli (1535-1601), whose library today still represents an incredible resource for understanding Renaissance antiquarian tradition, and Lorenzo Pignoria (1571-1631), who devoted much of his work to ancient mythology.<sup>87</sup>

The connection with the political power of the time allowed the antiquarian investigation to break free from the closed circles of collections and libraries and to be disseminated into the collective imagination, thereby developing into one of the columns of the triumphant Renaissance. When planning their works, it was common practice for artists and architects to receive support from antiquarian scholars, who took on the role of iconographic advisors and enhanced the conceptual coherence of the patron's projects.<sup>88</sup> For example, Giorgio

88 One of the clearest examples of relations expressing the interaction among artists, iconographers and patron is described is wonderfully described in Pinelli 2007, for the *Mascherata degli dei gentili* held in Florence in 1565, and in Robertson

<sup>85</sup> On the Manuzio papers, see Pastorello 1957; 1960. On the contribution of Aldo Manuzio to Renaissance antiquarian scholarship, see the recent Comiati 2019 and bibliography; see also Balsamo 2002 on the diffusion of Greek classics in the Renaissance; Balsamo 1981 on his relations with Alberto Pio from Carpi; Kretzulesco Quaranta 1967; Dionisotti 1960 on his humanistic activity. On Paolo Manuzio, see the Barberi 1985 on his activity as a printer; Pastorello 1962 on his activity as a numismatist; Nolhac 1883 collects some letters dealing with antiquarian topics. On the library of Aldo Manuzio the Younger, see Serrai 2007; see also Koortbojian 2001.

<sup>86</sup> On the link between Bembo's antiquarian activity and his works as a humanist, see the exhibition catalogue Beltramini, Gasparotto, Tura 2013; on the origin and implementation of his collection, see Nalezyty 2017; on his relationship with figurative art, see Beltramini, Burns, Gasparotto 2013. Giovanni Battista Ramusio gathered an extensive number of texts related to travel literature, which included also reports from the Middle Ages, such as Marco Polo and Geoffroy de Villeharduin. The encyclopaedic approach relies on an antiquarian vision of the matter. In a letter to Fracastoro, he declared openly that through his collection ancient geographic knowledge would be challenged; see Donattini 2016.

<sup>87</sup> The antiquarian tradition in Padua was deeply rooted. On Pinelli's library, see Raugei 2018 and Nuovo 2007. For Pinelli's approach, see Raugei 2001, which collects the epistolary exchange with Claude Dupuy. His activity as an antiquarian is described in Nolhac 1887. On Pignoria, see Maffei 2020; part of his correspondence with Paolo Gualdo, which has many antiquarian references, features in Paitoni 1744.

Vasari (1511-1574) was supported by Borghini when decorating the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, Federico Zuccari by Orsini or Panvinio for the Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola, and Rosso Fiorentino (1495- 1540) by a figure who remains anonymous for the Gallery of Francis I in Fontainebleau – probably Lazare de Baïf (1496-1547); more rarely, the same artist took on the role of iconographer, and this was perhaps the case with Jacopo Zucchi (1542-1596).

In artistic contexts, it was possible for a stylistic feature of antiquarian origin to enter standard decorative schemes. It was often difficult to distinguish between the reuse of classical elements and a voluntary or unconscious citation. This was especially the case with grotesques, which became commonplace after their rediscovery in the Domus Aurea (ca. 1479) and provoked a debate on their legitimacy and whether they should be subject to censorship. Ligorio, Vasari, and many other artists and scholars took part in this century-long debate: Anton Francesco Doni (1513-1574), Francisco de Hollanda (1517- 1585), and Gabriele Paleotti (1522-1597), among others, attempted to define meaning and function of an artistic feature deemed as extremely controversial.<sup>89</sup>

Between image and word, another form of antiquarianism in Renaissance cultural life can be seen in emblems and *imprese*. This genre, which was inspired by emblems, combined images and a short text (respectively a poem and a motto), often reutilising erudite elements of the antiquarian investigation and related them to the addressee.<sup>90</sup> Starting with Andrea Alciati, who was the first to codify

90 Two databases currently provide a wide access to emblems and *imprese*; for Alciati's work, see https://www.emblems.arts.gla.ac.uk/alciato/; for emblems in

<sup>1988,</sup> for the decorations of Palazzo Farnese in Rome. On the collaboration between Borghini and Vasari, see Carrara 2008; Borghini 2007, on the dispute with Girolamo Mei about the origins of Florence; Carrara 2000 about some notes on Pliny in the ms. signed K. 783.16; Carrara, Ferretti 2016. On Vasari's own vision of the antique, especially in his *Vite*, see Barocchi 1958; on Vasari and antiquities in general, see also Cristofani 1983-84. For the fresco paintings in Fontainebleau, see Panofsky, Panofsky 1958, 113-90. Decoration apparently completed without the advice of an iconographer are those by Jacopo Zucchi in Rome and Florence; see D'Amelio, Morel, Rigon 2013.

<sup>89</sup> The bibliography on Renaissance grotesques it is extensive and in constant growth. It is enough to mention Dacos 1969 on the rediscovery of Nero's Domus Aurea; Ossola 1971 on the role of grotesques in Counter-Reformation art; Chastel 1988 on the Renaissance conception of grotesque art; Morel 1997 that formulates a theory of grotesques in Renaissance art; Scholl 2004 that provides a theory of grotesques in Renaissance literature; Zamperini 2007 that writes a history of grotesque painting from antiquity to modern times; Connelly 2012 on the idea of grotesque an its philosophical implications; Morgan 2016 on the interplay between grotesques and gardens; Hansen 2018 that provides a new theory of grotesques as an art of transformation; Conticelli 2018 that decodes the iconographic programme of the Uffizi grotesques; Acciarino 2018 that publishes new literary sources on the matter; 2019 that offers new paradigms of Renaissance grotesques.

this 'figurative literature', a widespread editorial phenomenon took place involving scholars from all over Europe, including Girolamo Ruscelli (1518-1566), Johannes Sambucus (1531-1584), and Jean Jacques Boissard (1528-1602). One of the most famous mottos of the Renaissance was *festina lente*, mostly presented as an anchor and a dolphin. Originally, this figuration was minted on the reverse side of a coin of the Roman imperial series of Augustus and Titus [*RIC* I Titus 110]. The image was represented and cited in the *Hypnerotomachia Poliphili* (1499), adopted by Aldo Manuzio (1449-1515) as the symbol for his publishing house, explained in its original sense by Erasmus in his *Adagia*, and reinvented by Cosimo I de' Medici, the Grand Duke of Tuscany in his *impresa*.

The number of findings from classical antiquity was greater in Italy than the rest of Europe. Although many humanists of other nations travelled to and resided for long periods in Italy, it was not possible for everyone to directly access a wide range of ancient findings. Nonetheless, antiquarian understanding had developed in the rest of Europe by the mid-fifteenth century and gradually strengthened to the point where Italy's leading position in this area of knowledge was challenged. The main means through which antiquarianism became a continental phenomenon was the circulation of published books. The philological editions of ancient authors and historiographical texts, especially if they included images, had a significant positive effect on the understanding of indirect records. In this way, the knowledge acquired in Italy was made available to the rest of the European antiquarian community, allowing research to be undertaken where findings were missing.<sup>91</sup>

One of the earliest examples of this circulation of ideas is represented by the arrival in Germany of a partial copy of the *Commentaria* of Cyriacus of Ancona, brought by Hartmann Schedel (1440-1514), which, for example, had a significant influence on the compilation of Apianus's epigraphic collection and some of the later works of Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528). Furthermore, Jacopo Strada's (1507- 1588) arrangement of his own *Magnum ac Novum Opus* for the Fugger bankers exhibited another way through which antiquarian culture could travel across the Alps. The studies on Roman antiquity conducted by Joannes Rosinus (1550-1626) also clearly revealed the impact of this tradition on learned German milieus.<sup>92</sup>

general, see http://emblematica.grainger.illinois.edu/. For Ruscelli's *imprese*, see also Gizzi 2016; Marini, Procaccioli 2012.

<sup>91</sup> The works of Antoine Lafréry (1512-1577) and Giovanni Battista de' Cavalieri (1525- 1601) are worthy of mention in this context.

<sup>92</sup> On the fortune of Cyriacus of Ancona's in Germany, see Kutsogiannēs 2020. On the sources of Schedel's collection see Kikuchi 2010. On Dürer and his relationship with antiquity, see the collection Ebert-Schifferer, Hartmann Fiore 2007, espe-

In France, the growth of antiquarian scholarship was encouraged by King Francis I and by the circle of humanists who gravitated around him.<sup>93</sup> The already mentioned studies of Guillaume Budé were followed by his disciple Lazare de Baïf, who was an ambassador to Venice, from where he sent several antiquities to his homeland, and arranged for innovative antiquarian investigations to be carried out on clothing, vases, and vessels. Guillaume Du Choul (1496-1560) investigated several aspects of Roman religion by cross-referencing material and literary sources. Marc-Antoine Muret (1526-1585), a disciple of Giulio Cesare Scaligero (1484-1558), carried out the largest part of his activity in Italy, publishing editions of Terence, Horace, and the elegiac poets. Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609), son of Scaligero himself, demonstrated his antiquarian scholarship in editing ancient authors and in his grand work on historical chronology. Just as well, Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614) devoted his life to antiquarian philology, publishing and commenting many ancient authors, among the others Athenaeus's *Deipnosophistae*.

Antiquarian erudition was also practiced at the highest level in the Low Countries.94 Hubert Goltzius, one of the most famous numismatists of the second half of the sixteenth century, developed his scholarship while travelling from the Netherlands to Italy: the purpose of his publications was to reconstruct the history of the Roman Empire by drawing links between ancient coins and inscriptions and their related narrative sources. Similar experience, even

cially 140-85 (a contribution by Lucia Faedo on his work on ancient mythology), 80-7 (a contribution of Marzia Faietti on his emulation of Mantegna), and 32-43 (a contribution by Antonio Giuliano on his work as an antiquarian); see also the famous essay Warburg 1999, 553-9 and the exhibition catalogue Buck, Hurttig, Stolzenburg 2013. On Strada's work at the imperial court in Vienna, see Jansen 2019 and the *DFG-Projekt Jacopo Strada's Magnun ac Novum Opus*, a sixteenth-century numismatic corpus at the Gotha Research Center of the University of Erfurt, by Martin Mulsow, Volker Heenes and Dirk Jacob Jansen, https://www.uni-erfurt.de/forschung/forschen/forschungsprojekte/jacopo-stradas-magnum-ac-novum-opus. Studies on Rosinus's scholarship are still missing (see Rosinus 1583).

<sup>93</sup> On antiquarianism in France, see McGowan 2000 and Cooper 2013. Very little studies have been conducted on Lazare de Baïf; see his intellectual biography Pinvert 1900, on his work as a jurist and as a translator, see Sanchi 2013, as well as Fassina 2014. An interesting case is also about Antoine Morillon; see Crawford 1998. On Du Choul's life, work, and collection, see Guillemain 2002; Cooper 2003; and Guillemain 2008. On Muret, see the recent intellectual biography Bernard-Pradelle 2020. On Scaliger's antiquarian work, see Grafton 1983 and 1991; for his correspondence, see the 8 volumes Botley, van Miert 2012. For Casaubon's scholarship, see the old monograph Pattison 1875 and the publication of his correspondence in England Botley, Vince 2018.

<sup>94</sup> On Goltzius's travels, see Napolitano 2010 and 2011. It is possible to find only occasional references to van Giffens's scholarship, see e.g. Demetriou 2015 (on Homer) or Butterfield 2015, 46-68 (on Lucretius). The scholarship on Lispius is extensive. For his antiquarian approach, see Papy 2001; 2004; 2012; Hendrickson 2017. On the antiquarianism of the Rubens, see van der Meulen 1994.

though mainly oriented towards philology and bibliophilia, was for Huber van Giffen (1534-1604), commentator of the Homeric poems and editor of Lucretius, among his other works. Justus Lipsius (1547- 1606), who spent part of his life in Rome, investigated many aspects of classical and biblical antiquity, including banqueting, poliorcetica, the real nature of the Christian cross, and more complex analyses of Roman civilisation. Even though his focus was mainly philological in nature, Lipsius often used material findings to carry out his emendations and corrections of ancient texts; his *Antiquae lectiones* provide a clear example of this methodological approach. The long journey through Italy completed by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) also contributed significantly to antiquarian scholarship: he was a learned painter, and it has been proved that his drawings of statues and ruins increased the knowledge on the material bequest of antiquity, thanks also to the help of his brother Philip (1574-1611) and his son Albert (1614-1657).

Through these paths, it is also clear how antiquarian surveys ended up including national investigations, the purpose of which was to reconstruct a reliable history for a specific territory, following the model of the studies undertaken on Roman antiquity. In fact, the method transitioned from classical and universal dimension to a local and particular. Therefore, by comparing local literary sources with local ruins, it was possible to give a new shape to the origins:<sup>95</sup> [I] France, described, for example, in the works of Jean Lemaire de Belges (1473-1525), and Pierre Pithou (1539-1596); [II] England, investigated by William Camden's (1551-1623); [III] Germany, studied in Johan Månsson's (1488-1544) and Philipp Clüver's (1580-1622); [IV] Spain, researched by Zurita's and Francisco Padilla's (1527-1607); [V] Low Countries, with the studies by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and Johannes Isacius Pontanus (1571-1639); [VI] Scandinavia Pontanus himself and Ole Worm (1588-1634). In the same period, the Polish scholar Jan Łasicki (1534-1602) attempted to complete the first erudite history of Russia, while histories of the Turkish Empire, China, and the New World, contaminating travel literature with antiquarian accounts, also flourished.

<sup>95</sup> On the local approach often adopted by antiquarians, see the collection of essays Christian, De Divitiis 2018, which covers a wide range of local antiquarian investigations. The chapter by William Stenhouse (121-41) touches upon the reuse of antiquity in France; the one by Fernando Marías and Katrina Olds discuss case studies related to Spain; João Figueiredo (190-208) talks about Portugal; Edward Wouk (209-36), Krista de Jonge (237-60), and Konrad Ottenheym (261-85) discuss cases from the Low Countries; Barbara Arciszewska (286-304) analyses a case from Poland; Jeanna Schultz (305-26) treats some aspects of English antiquarianism. On Jean Lemaire de Belges's scholarship, see Eichberger 2018 and Stecher 1891-92. On Camden's antiquarian method, see Vine 2014. On Månsson and Clüver's treatises, see Jannsen 2017. On Ole Worm, see Tarp 2013 and Andersen Funder 2020, 103-19.

The hypothesis that there was a relationship between the triumph of antiquarian culture and the explosion of religious controversies in Northern Europe is very interesting, especially given the impact of the Reformed approach to Sacred Scriptures on spiritual life. For example, the New Testamentary Commentary of Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus took advantage of the experience acquired in their philological and antiquarian surveys. As one would expect, humanists and theologians (Catholic and Protestant alike) used antiquarianism to support their own positions and contest opposing views.<sup>96</sup> The *Magdeburg Centuries*, overseen by Mathias Flacius (1520-1575), represented the high point for Protestant antiquarian writings and breathed life into a constellation of analogous works by authors such as Matthew Parker (1504- 1575), Johann Jakob Gryner (1540-1617) and Johann Wilhelm Stucki (1542-1607). On the Catholic side, the most complete and organised response is represented by the *Annales* of Cesare Baronio (1538-1607), the purpose of which was not only to rehabilitate the Roman vision of Christianity from a historiographic perspective but also to utilise a more precise and systematic antiquarian approach. These patterns remained popular for most of the seventeenth century, as demonstrated by the monumental *Roma Sotterranea* written by Antonio Bosio (1575- 1629), and *Italia Sacra* written by Ferdinando Ughelli (1595-1670).

Although the antiquarian tradition continued to generate very important successors during the centuries that followed, the turning point for Renaissance antiquarianism can be narrowed down to the early seventeenth century, when its unsuitability for dealing with new scientific enquiries started to become obvious. Hybrid figures who continued to tread the traditional path began to emerge, but they were unable to remain indifferent to the impending new developments: their investigations, initiated in the knowledge of ancient sources, started drifting away authority and gaining unprecedented results thanks to comparison with data acquired through an embryonic empirical investigation and analogy.<sup>97</sup>

This was especially the case with the zoological and botanical studies carried out by Conrad Gesner (1516-1565) and Ulisse Aldrovandi

97 On antiquarianism and science, see Feola 2014.

<sup>96</sup> On the relations between antiquarian method and the exegesis of the Sacred Scriptures during the Reformation, see Dost 2001; Backus 2003; Rummel 2008; and van Liere, Ditchfield, Louthan 2012. For an overview on ecclesiastical antiquarianism from the Catholic side, see Bauer 2006; 2020; 2021. On the *Magdeburg Centuries*, see Mentzel-Reuters, Hartmann 2008. On Baronio's historiographic approach, see respectively Zen 1994 and Guazzelli, Michetti, Scorza Barcellona 2012; and on his sources, see Gulia 2009 and Jacks 1985. On the circle of Matthew Parker, see Graham, Watson 1998; on his library and method, see Page 1993. His correspondence is edited in Bruce 1853. On Ughelli's Italia Sacra, see Caliò, Duranti, Michetti 2013. On Bosio's ecclesiastical archaeology, see Cecalupo 2020 on the first collections of ecclesiastical antiquity; Guazzelli 2019 and Herklotz 2017a, 49-70. See also Ditchfield 2005.

(1522-1605), who accumulated information on plants and animals not only from ancient authors, but also from personal observation.<sup>98</sup> Girolamo Mercuriale (1530-1606), a physician and antiquarian, not only worked on medical issues, but he dedicated an extensive part of his studies to ancient banquets and sports, conjugating different branches of his scholarly inclinations.<sup>99</sup> Similarly, the physician Georg Agricola pursued studies on the subterranean world, by focusing on metallurgy, on underground animals, and on fossils.<sup>100</sup> The same also happened with the astronomical and scientific investigations of Nicolas Fabri de Peiresc (1580-1637) and Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655).<sup>101</sup>

These were also the years when the collections of antiquities started including taxidermy of animals, fossils, rocks, and other objects that bore special or prodigious qualities. Collections acquired the shape of actual museums or *Wunderkammeren*, like in the case of Aldrovandi himself, or the most famous *Museo Cartaceo* by Cassiano dal Pozzo (1588-1657).<sup>102</sup>

There are, however, two dates in particular which encapsulate this moment of transition: 1620, the year in which Francis Bacon (1561-1626) published his *Novum Organum*, and 1637, the year René Descartes' (1596-1650) *Discours de la méthode* was published. The emerging empiricism of evidence-based enquiry and philosophical scepticism started undermining the reliability of the antiquarian investigation, questioning the nature of the source and hence the value of the method, and this, in turn, opened the way to a new phase in the development of knowledge on the path to modernity.

102 See the classic Schlosser 1908. On Cassiano's *Museum*, see also De Lachenal 2018 on seventeenth-century collections of antiquity; Haskell, Montagu, MacGregor 1996-2018 on the antiquities in his museum; Rolfe 2012, 137-56 on medical items present in his museum; Solinas 2001 on his collection in general; Herklotz 1999 on his archaeological method.

<sup>98</sup> On the intersections between zoology and the antiquarian method, see Enenkel, Smith 2014. One example of antiquarian approach in botany is given by Pietro Andrea Mattioli's *Discorsi* on Dioscorides books on plants, with an extensive commentary and images; see Mattioli 1544 and Ferri 1997. On Aldrovandi's antiquarian approach to science, see Olmi 1992 and Olmi, Simoni 2018; on his approach to the study of the Bible, see Berns 2015.

<sup>99</sup> On medical antiquarianism, see Siraisi 2003; 2007; 2013. See also Hirai 2011. On Mercuriale, see Agasse 2008; 2016; and Arcangeli, Nutton 2008.

<sup>100</sup> On Agricola's life and works, see Wilsdorf 1956. On his subterranean interests, see Hartmann 1953. On his experience as a humanist, see Prescher 1994, 85-98; Varani 1994; and Hannaway 1992. On the fortune on Agricola's *De re metallica* in China, see Pan 1991.

<sup>101</sup> On Peiresc's intellectual legacy, see Miller 2012; 2015; see also Reinbold 1990. On his library, see Bayle 1990 and Cheny 2015. On his correspondence with Lelio Pasqualini, see Carpita, Vaiani 2012. On his history of Provence, see Miller 2011b. On his antiquarian method, see Miller 1997; 2001; Federici 2010. On his activity as an epigraphist, see Sensi 2005. On Gessendi's empirical approach, see Seidl 2019. On his philosophy, Lolordo 2007. On his approach to the natural world, see Olser 1994; Hirai 2005; Fisher 2005. An intellectual biography is Jones 1981.

### 1.3 Methodology

From an historical point of view, it is clear now that in antiquarian studies, the source began to take on a central role in the entire intellectual system and became the key aspect to consider when searching for knowledge about the past, thereby exerting an influence on the hermeneutical approach. During the Renaissance, many scholars debated the practical applications of the antiquarian methodology. Beyond specific objects of study, antiquarian techniques generally converged on a dual scheme which included a cataloguing phase and an interpretative phase. A large number of records had to be compiled (both directly and indirectly) to create a solid foundation; the records were then divided into different categories where the formal, geographical, political, and typological parameters were considered. After this descriptive stage, a process of amalgamation occurred, which involved the cross-referencing of the data according to its common or distinctive elements, thereby establishing links with its cultural context in the process. The aim was for the interpretation of each finding to be grounded in the comprehension of its morphology, and these records were mainly used to fill gaps in knowledge, providing a plausible reconstruction through analogy.

Personal observation (*autopsia*) became essential to ascertain the reliability of the antiquarian method and allowed other scholars to verify evidence or findings. It was no longer deemed sufficient to rely on texts that simply referred to an issue – it became necessary to elicit primary information and examine the works and pieces that developed around it. It was therefore important to study both primary and secondary sources, such as analogous treatises or commentaries, from a unitary perspective because they could provide further lost information.

Collections permitted antiquarian practice to be carried out widely. Thanks to the collections of ancient findings available, it was possible to carry out multidisciplinary excursions aimed at establishing the links between the different findings and the texts, transforming a general humanist interest in antiquity into a systematic approach to the subject. Although these collections cannot be identified with antiquarianism in and of themselves, they are related to its basic premises. The purpose of antiquarianism instead lays in its capacity to make the data react with the cultural context from which it derived, utilising new instruments to understand the stratification of meanings, where the links between witnesses and time could be found.

The antiquarian approach during the Renaissance enabled the past to acquire a tangible and measurable connotation which was identified through its remains. The 'materialisation' of the object of study transformed each finding into a 'semiotic' vehicle of unexpected meanings. This progress is particularly meaningful in that it moved away from the literary world: the written form lost its oracular connotation thanks to the objectivation of the support (codex/ finding) and medium (the language). This represented a fundamental breakthrough in Renaissance antiquarian erudition: awareness of the equivalence of sources. This equivalence was based on general categories which were subordinated to specific approaches. It was possible to obtain meaningful data from manuscripts, inscriptions, coins, statues, and the like due to the advances made in each specific discipline: philology, epigraphy, numismatics, archaeology, iconography, etc. For each field, the findings were ranked according to their reliability (the most consistent manuscripts, the most relevant inscriptions, the best-preserved coins, etc.).

It was from this awareness that efforts were made, commencing with the collation of manuscripts, then linking different pieces of material evidence to confirm the existence of a historical fact, and finally evaluating data from different and ostensibly incompatible cultural areas. This also resulted in parallels being drawn between the past and present. For example, by using descriptions from ancient sources, it was possible to compare geographical places with their modern circumstances and characteristics. Different linguistic domains (ancient languages vs. current vernaculars) could also be compared to explain the lost meanings of words and expressions. It is therefore clear that the convergence of disciplines in the antiquarian method derived from the interaction of specific and coherent methodologies, which ultimately modified the conformation of the entire system. The advances of one method derived from the advances of others, but only progressively, and it was understood that all were part of the same whole.

The reconstruction of the past (or the idea of the past) depended on the relationship between the plethora of aspects linked to a source and to the phenomena that occurred within the history of tradition. Through conjecture, hypotheses were formulated on the basis of the remains for the purpose of restoring their original status, which required a theoretical cognition of their essence. This was founded on the philological principle of respecting the 'text/object' as handed down, which was the precondition for any amendment or modification. This meant that the criteria of emendation (*emendatio*) had to be applied to the explanation (*explicatio*): clarifying the nature of a source through its tradition, i.e., the recovery of a reliable lesson (*accuratam lectionem*), also became essential for its interpretation (*lectionem utilem*).

The relationship between documentary voids and hypotheses of reconstruction emerged: all the lacunas could potentially be filled because they were part of a cultural grammar, the rules of which were deduced through antiquarian investigation. The illusion of a coherent reconstruction of the heritage of the ancients became the foundation for the construction of a culture of the present in a universal perspective, rooted in the remains of a past perceived as incomplete but also solid in its material substance. Scholars were encouraged to draw a distinction between their conjectures and hypothetic reconstructions, on the one hand, and the data transmitted, on the other. Only in this way was it possible to preserve the integrity of the tradition without contaminating the evidence and to allow future scholars to solve the problems which they faced.

Ignoring the origins of remains often not only opened the door to a new layer of corruption of tradition but also represented the limits beyond which it was not possible to push forward conjecture in all of its forms: the void of knowledge was considered somehow to be a starting point for the research to be undertaken. This focus on rejecting or accepting conjectures reinforced respect for tradition: the preferred solution was to adopt the 'principle of authority', defending the stability of tradition rather than accepting positions that could have potentially undermined the legacy of knowledge. At the same time, there were also scholars who claimed that real progress could only be achieved in antiquarian studies if new discoveries were made, pointing to the limits of the *auctoritas* and the lack of canonical sources. This also implied the possibility of a credible reconstruction of the matter using external instruments (*argumenta*). To obtain a thorough comprehension of remains without omitting the complex weave of meanings involved, it was necessary to examine their connection to their historical background. Although these endeavours occasionally did not reap any rewards, they remained a mandatory stage of the investigation in that they examined a context from which it was possible to glean parallel or additional information.

Contradictory data emerged from this process, a problem that encouraged the development of alternative solutions to preserve the coherence of the entire system. In this phase, the concept of error (or the nature of errors) became a further instrument to be used in understanding sources more fully. It was hypothesised that the persistence of errors in the tradition was due to those who physically assembled the object analysed. This permitted a distinction to be made between the identity of the author (the creator) and the maker (a scribe, an engraver, a sculptor – but sometimes also the author), admitting the possibility of an unintentional fallacy despite the authority and antiquity being known.

This distinction opened new perspectives: the admission that the error was potentially common to any type of writing, and hence to any type of communication, went straight to the core of the problem, i.e., the hand of the writer, as opposed to the surface on which the wording was written. This represented the first emergence of the awareness that all the data deriving from sources could be influenced by several variables, which had to be understood to fully grasp the subject matter being studied. The source was considered to be influenced by contingencies (e.g., the social or economic status of the executor), implying that quantitative differences did not necessarily correspond to qualitative dynamics (e.g., if the errors were more frequently found in manuscripts or epigraphs).

This suggested that all types of writing were governed by similar mechanisms, fostering the understanding of the two laws that influenced its morphology: norm and usage. All the potential fluctuations within these factors should be considered, with each specific occurrence assessed in accordance with diatopic (based on geographical place) diachronic (based on time), and diastratic (based on social, cultural, and educational factors) parameters.

#### 1.4 Definition

The intellectual phenomenon of Renaissance antiquarianism developed throughout Europe, manifesting itself in a plurality of works influenced by the origin, the environment and the personal approach of each author, the language adopted, the publishing house involved, and the commissioner. These works were related to a multitude of disciplines, which can be broadly identified by following the encyclopaedic setup of Poliziano's *Panespistemon* (1491). The production of antiquarian works reached its peak during and after the mid-sixteenth century, a period when antiquarianism transitioned from a phase of growth and consolidation to maturity, and the advancements made in previous centuries were systemically classified and widely utilised.

Antiquarian interests can be divided into two key areas, both of which connect all derivative disciplines: the first could be defined as 'logographic', in which the material finding transmitted a written witness, in any form, and in a variety of languages, and the second as 'iconographic', in which the investigation was based exclusively on the morphological aspect, beyond the linguistic factor. It was inevitable that these two contexts would be complementary and that they went hand in hand, mutually benefiting from their respective development. From here, different disciplines emerged, each with its own peculiarities, passing from the literary to the artistic to the scientific and many other areas of enquiry, and each with clearly defined cultural horizons.

The antiquarian writings of the Renaissance were generally categorised according to four models: miscellanies of scattered records, organic works which often contained an encyclopaedic in compass, monographs on specific subjects, and actual narrative histories. In the first case, these works contained explanations of a plurality of misinterpreted or misunderstood passages referring to the antiquarian corpus in the broadest sense, frequently with the title of *Variae* or *Antiquae lectiones*. The works in the second case, on the other hand, were comprised of systematic expositions of antiquarian themes or topics that also took related contexts into consideration, thereby significantly widening the possible implications of a single study. The third case included surveys on specific topics where the antiquarian approach served as a tool to approach the matter. In the fourth case, the antiquarian practice, as see in the previous examples, was translated to narrative histories, usually appearing in the form of aetiologic digressions relying on derivative and multifarious antiquarian information.

Therefore, Renaissance antiquarianism can be defined as a cultural phenomenon that aims to interpret the past by cross-referencing heterogeneous sources accumulated and collected over time. This entailed the use of new investigative techniques which involved combining literary sources and material findings to provide a reliable foundation for the idea of history. However, Renaissance antiquarianism must not be reduced to mere collecting, nor can it be condensed to an intellectual interest or a general fascination with antiquity. It is reasonable to assume that Renaissance antiquarianism first emerged from the study of the classical world, but it eventually evolved beyond these boundaries to become a method for approaching an object of study rather than simply a discipline in itself. Since the universality of the method became potentially applicable to all fields and times, its essence was manifested in the methodological pathway and perspective to which it was applied. In fact, the broadening of possible historical data sources triggered the development of competencies and interpretative instruments which allowed evidence to be identified from an array of objects of study. From this, it can be seen that Renaissance antiquarianism represented a methodological perspective, the purpose of which was to rethink the way the past was viewed through a critical analysis of sources. This produced a renewed approach toward history, which stimulated the interaction of disciplines and influenced the intellectual life of the time.

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# 2 Philology **The Editions of Festus**

**Summary** 2.1 Introduction. – 2.2 Fulvio Orsini and the Codex Farnesianus. – 2.3 Editorial Evolution of Orsini's Text. – 2.4 The Literary Fortune of Orsini's Festus. – 2.5 The Last Renaissance Editions of Festus. – 2.6 Conclusion. – Appendix 1. – Appendix 2.

# 2.1 Introduction

*De verborum significatione*, which was compiled, edited, and annotated by the Latin grammarian Sextus Pompeius Festus, was considered by Renaissance scholars to be among the most important classical sources. An epitome assembled from Verrius Flaccus's *De verborum significatu*, it was essential to understand the essence of antiquity and antiquarian learning.<sup>1</sup> This work had been known only through an abridged eighth century version written by the Lombard monk Paulus Diaconus,<sup>2</sup> and was considered a reference for scholars from

2 Claudia Villa proposed that Paul the Deacon was the author of the glosses to Isidore of Seville's *Etymologiae* (housed at the Biblioteca Vallicelliana in Rome, codex Vall. A 18), today known as *Scholia Vallicellianae*. Festus featured among the authors used to explain Isidore's text. See Villa 1984; Lanciotti 2000; Lendinara 2000. Other glossaries that transmit Festus's excerpts appear in four manuscripts: two housed in the Biblioteca Monastica of Montecassino (Casin. 439, and Casin. 90), and two housed in the Vatican (BAV Vat. Lat. 1469, eleventh century, and BAV Vatl. Lat. 3321, ninth century). This latter codex belonged to Panoramita and was later acquired by Fulvio Orsini. See Cavallo 1975; Bassetti 2003, 470; Ammirati 2007, 19-21.

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Acta Classica* 59 (2016), 11-22.

<sup>1</sup> Even the titles *De verborum significatione* and *De verborum significatu* appear to be controversial, not only in contemporary scholarship, but also during the Renaissance (see "Appendix 1").

early medieval times<sup>3</sup> until the rediscovery during the mid-fifteenth century of the *Codex Farnesianus* (Neap. IV.A.3), a badly damaged and mutilated manuscript that transmitted Festus's original.<sup>4</sup> This finding set in motion a renewed interest in this ancient author<sup>5</sup> that led to the reconstruction of a full-length version of *De verborum significatione* to restore its spirit, at least in part. This in turn prompted an extraordinarily complex philological effort to collate the material required to re-establish its original form and content.<sup>6</sup>

Significant differences between these two redactions were noticed immediately: in Paul the Deacon's epitome, for example, the original lemmas were reduced and simplified. This was for the purpose of creating a vocabulary of sorts, whereas the *Farnesianus* demonstrated Festus's intention to establish a historical perspective on Latin language and culture.<sup>7</sup> Although Renaissance scholars soon realised that Paul the Deacon's epitome was poorly equipped to provide even a rough outline of the original,<sup>8</sup> the two works were mutually supportive and complementary; with the *Farnesianus* damaged and incomplete, Paul the Deacon's epitome offered, if not a faithful reproduction, at least a stratigraphy of what could have been present in the original. This dual tradition therefore strongly influenced the

3 Munk Olsen 2009, 237-8.

4 The rediscovery of this manuscript should be dated to between 1444 and 1457 if it is proven that Lorenzo Valla used it to compose some of his marginal notes on Quintilian's *Institutio Oratoria*; see Cesarini Martinelli, Perosa 1996, LXVII; Rizzo 1997; Moscadi 2001, XIV-XVI; Ammirati 2007, 23; La Regina 2010, 216; Di Marco 2015, 35-6. Given the rediscovery of a letter by Francesco Barbaro addressed to Bartolomeo Baldana on 16 August 1448, additional assumptions could be made. This short text, which was published recently (Drusi 2016, 34-5), attests the Latin expression *si te censore lustrum (con)deretur*, where the combination of the censor's office and the ritual of *lustrum condere* echoes passages widely seen in Latin literature (Ogivile 1961), including Festus as transmitted in the *Farnesianus* (Lindsay 1913, 144: *Minuitur populo luctus aedis dedicatione, cum Censores lustrum condiderunt, cum votum publice susceptum solvitur*). The letter was written in Gemona del Friuli, north-eastern Italy, which could be one of the areas in which the *Codex Farnesianus* passed through during its trip from Dalmatia to Rome.

5 Many were the copies redacted by humanists of the Roman circle: see Bracke 1995, 190-5; Mancini 2007; Ammirati 2007, 22-7; La Regina 2010, 216. Currently, the clearest and most significant contribution to Festus's humanist tradition can be attributed to Alessia Di Marco, who worked on the *stemma codicum* of the apographs of the *Farnesianus* in the late fifteenth century. Since these copies are widely used by scholars to arrange, improve and complete the text transmitted by the antigraph, it is vital that they are studied (Di Marco 2015).

6 Lindsay 1913, *praef.*; Grafton 1983, 134-6; Glinister 2007.

7 Cervani 1978; Grafton 1983, 141-2; Ammirati 2007, 16-18.

8 Paul was often considered to be responsible for the poor treatment of Festus's text (see "Appendix 2").

creation of the Renaissance editions of Festus, which was primarily achieved by merging the two versions.<sup>9</sup>

Some humanistic copies of the *Farnesianus* transmit only the text of Festus's work, e.g. the copy arranged by Angelo Poliziano (BAV Vat. Lat. 3368) and another arranged by Giuliano Ceci,<sup>10</sup> a disciple of Pomponio Leto (BAV Vat. Lat. 1549). However, an early combination of the works of Festus and Paul the Deacon also occurred in the manuscript tradition. For example, the late fifteenth century codex (BAV Vat. Lat. 3369), partially copied by Iohannes Nydenna da Coblenza<sup>11</sup> and later included in Fulvio Orsini's library,12 features Paul the Deacon's epitome (ff. 1*r*-97*v*), followed by Festus's *De verborum significatione* (ff. 99*r*-157*r*). The two works are divided by one blank page (ff. 98*r*-98*v*), preserving their autonomy and authorial independence, and offer an extremely faithful witness of Festus's work.13 Nonetheless, this manuscript begins with an index (ff. 1*r*-24*v*) by Francesco Buzzacarini,14 which collects all the items attested in Paul the Deacon's abridgment and Festus's work, along with their page numbers, providing a double numbering system where the lemma was attested in both works. This approach reveals one of the trends that pervaded the entire editorial history of Festus's work: the need to examine both works to understand the nature of their traditions.

This merging process was often carried out indiscriminately, as demonstrated in the manuscript, which is also known as *Liber Achillis Mafaei*<sup>15</sup> (BAV Vat. Lat. 5958). There, the scribe, once again Giuliano Ceci,16 blended the works of Paul the Deacon and Festus, but preferred to include only the lemmas featured in the *Farnesianus* and its apographs when they also occurred in the epitome.<sup>17</sup> Likewise, an analogous approach can be seen not only in the *princeps* arranged

11 Active in northern Italy between 1460 and 1484.


16 In this case, the epigram to the reader (f. 1*v*) explicitly mentions the name of the scribe who arranged the copy and dedicated it to Agostino Maffei: "Ad Lectorem C. IV-LIANVS Caecius".

17 Mancini 2007, 147.

<sup>9</sup> Sections of the *Codex Farnesianus* were included in some of the early incunabula of the sole abridgement of Paul carried out in the second half of the fifteenth century; there has still been no systematic research conducted on these editions (1471, 1472, 1474, 1475, 1477, 1478).

<sup>10</sup> Mancini 2007, 147 especially fn. 40, where reference is made to Pellegrin 1991 and Bertola 1942.

<sup>12</sup> At f. 1*r* a note reads: "Festus Pompeius epitoman et | il fragmento non epitomato | Ful. Urs".

by Giovanni Battista Pio and Conagus (1500, and reissued in 1502 and 1510), but also in other editions that followed. This was especially the case for those carried out by Aldo Manuzio (1513) and Jean Petit (1519), in which the contamination of the two authors' works generated a series of particularly compromising interpolations and omissions.<sup>18</sup>

It was only later, around the mid-sixteenth century, that a renewed philological approach was taken to tackling Festus's work, with Antonio Agustín (1559) taking up the challenge.<sup>19</sup> The need to distinguish between the entries, which had overlapped during years of sedimentation, prompted Agustín to find a page layout that would highlight the contribution of each author separately (Verrius, Festus, and Paul the Deacon). This also encouraged him to rethink the order of the work, striking a balance between Paul the Deacon's epitome and the ancient manuscript by adopting the practical solution of setting the lemmas in alphabetical order.20 This arrangement did not fully respect the disposition of the ancient codex: once again, the original was blended with Paul the Deacon's work. However, this time the definitions were clearly marked with the name of each author in capital letters in the margins **[fig. 1]**.

The impact of Agustín's text was so remarkable that he influenced the entire subsequent editorial tradition. Even his first and most celebrated successor, the French philologist Joseph Justus Scaliger (1575), accepted these editorial criteria without modification, proposing only new *ope ingenii* conjectures in his annotations.<sup>21</sup>

<sup>18</sup> Pio 1500 (which was reprinted in Venice in 1502 and in Milan in 1510); Manuzio 1513; Petit 1519. Antonio Agustín was aware that the first editions of Festus were arranged with the same scheme of BAV Vat. Lat. 5958; see Agustín 1559, *praef*.: "Pervenerunt ipsae reliquiae libelli ad Aldum Manutium, qui conatus est cum Pauli epitome eas coniungere, et unum corpus ex duplicibus membris conficere. Sed tam multa omissa sunt, tam multa aliter edita, ut alios emendatores desiderarit. Simili ratione ex utroque libro confectus alter liber extat apud Achillem Mafaeum Bernardini Cardinalis fratrem, qui Aldino locupletior est". See also Grafton 1983, 137.

<sup>19</sup> Agustín 1559 and 1560; see also Ceretti 1952-53; Bracke 1995, 201-3.

<sup>20</sup> Grafton 1983, 143. The intention to arrange Festus's entries in alphabetical order was declared in the title of the French edition (Petit 1519: *Sexti Po[m]pei Festi Fragmenta per Ordinem Alphabeti*) and reaffirmed in the colophon (xl: "Ad Festum alliciat qua te ratione Conagus | Lector adinvenit consilium ipse probes. | Fragmenta apposuit, quae nunc super addita cernes. | Canit et ut coheant, ordine quaeque suo. | Si qua Latina parum fuerint, seu dura fatetur, | Ne depravaret se variasse nihil"), even if it was often neglected.

<sup>21</sup> Scaliger 1575; 1576; see also Grafton 1983, 134-59.


**Figure 1** Antonio Agustín, *M. Verrii Flacci Quae extant et Sex. Pompei Festi De verborum significatione, lib. XX. In eundem Festum annotationes. Index rerum obiter dictarum*, Venetiis, apud Ioannem Mariam Bonellum, 1559, p. 201



**Figure 2** Piero Vettori, *Petri Victorii Variarum lectionum XIII. noui libri*, Florentiæ, excudebant filii Laurentii Torrentini, & Carolus Pettinarius ipsorum socius, 1568, p. 448

**Figure 3** Fulvio Orsini, *Sex. Pompei Festi De verborum significatione fragmentum ex vetustissimo exemplari Bibliothecae Farnesianae descriptum*, Florentiae, apud Iunctas, 1582, p. 14

### 2.2 Fulvio Orsini and the Codex Farnesianus

The situation changed only in around 1580 when Fulvio Orsini decided to offer a new edition of Festus's work based exclusively on the *Codex Farnesianus*. Orsini changed the general exegetic perspective, proposing a new analytical method that recovered the centrality of the ancient manuscript conceived as the sole element worthy of attention.<sup>22</sup> He was the first and only editor in the Renaissance that felt the need for an 'autarchic' approach to Festus's work: he considered the *Farnesianus* to be capable of standing alone, without any apparent additions from the medieval tradition. He believed Paul the Deacon's epitome to be not only distant from the spirit of Festus's work, but also superfluous and unable to provide the elements required to understand the textual voids in the *Farnesianus*; and this was because the two versions handed down were incompatible.<sup>23</sup>

Orsini also possessed two apographs of the *Codex Farnesianus*. The first was a copy transcribed by Poliziano (BAV Vat. Lat. 3368),<sup>24</sup> and the second was annotated by Buzzacarini (BAV Vat. Lat. 3369), which also transmitted a fragment of the *Farnesianus* known as the *Schedae laetianae*. <sup>25</sup> He received the former at the end of the 1570s from Piero Vettori.26 It emerges from a letter sent from Vettori to Orsini dated 15 January 1580 that Orsini had studied this manuscript and found it to be very reliable, even though he was able to use it on-

25 Fulvio Orsini had access to the *pagellae* or *schedae laetianae*, a part of the *Farnesianus* disassembled at the end of the fifteenth century, probably by Pomponio Leto, and later lost; see Poliziano 1489, LXXIII; Bracke 1995, 190-7; Moscadi 2001, XVI-XVII; Orsini was not in possession of the originals, but held a written copy produced by a *doctus chirographus* (learned scribe); see Lindsay 1913, 14; Bracke 1995, 191-3.

26 Nolhac 1889, 34 [XXIV]: "Se V.S. havesse notitia alcuna di certi fogli che hebbe oltre questi Pomponio Leto, dai quali credo haver letto nelle Varie di V.S. che 'l Politiano trasse copia, mi verrebbe a proposito haverne copia, non dico della colonna integra, che questa fu stampata da Aldo insieme con la epitome di Paolo, ma dico della colonna fragmentata, però ne ho voluto fare avvisata la S.V. accioche sapendo dove fosse tal cosa, o havendo in questo proposito cosa alcuna, si contenti di mandarmelo che io la riconoscerò da lei, come da affettionato, et da persona bene merita gia di questo grammatico" (1 December 1579); 35 [XXV]: "Hebbi l'altro giorni li quinterni del Festo, che cominciano dalla lettera P, siche ci mancano l'M, N, O, che mi sarriano cari, sebene di esse non è copiata se non la colonna integra, et io harrei voluto la colonna fragmentata, per rispetto delle tre ultime carte, che mancano in nostro libro, che credo sieno quelle che hebbe Pomponio Leto" (15 January 1580).

<sup>22</sup> Nolhac 1887, 44-5; La Regina 2010, 218.

<sup>23</sup> This was only the case in theory. All Renaissance editors of Festus relied on Paul the Deacon's epitome to fulfil the lacunas of the text and to imagine the order of the glosses for the missing part of the fragment.

<sup>24</sup> BAV Vat. Lat. 3368, f. 1*r*: "Festo Pompeio scritto di mano | del Politiano, in papiro in 4° | Ful. Urs"; upon Orsini's acquisition of Poliziano's books, see Nolhac 1886, 145-8 (republished with some additions in Nolhac 1887, 213-16); Moscadi 1987; Di Marco 2015, 46.

ly on limited occasions.27 It is also likely that the page layout of Poliziano's copy inspired Fulvio Orsini's idea of textual arrangement. Poliziano had, in fact, prepared this manuscript by maintaining the same page composition as the *Farnesianus*, repeating the same order and scheme, page by page, file by file, and starting with the word (or part thereof) that corresponded to the antigraph.28 Moreover, Poliziano was the only scholar to register the gaps by extension and not abstractly, matching a measurement in points, since he realised that there was an indivisible link between the text and its support. In line with Poliziano's structure, Orsini faithfully reproduced the *Codex Farnesianus* as the central part of his philological work. Orsini positioned the text of the *Schedae laetianae* separately at the end: he was well aware that, although these pages derived from the lost part of the manuscript, he could not contaminate the original with them.<sup>29</sup>

Having first considered the *Farnesianus* manuscript in its physical layout, Orsini was able to see the full extent of the mutilations, thereby filling the gaps with greater awareness. The results were remarkable. All of the proposals, which had previously only been applied abstractly, sometimes very close to the textual reality, found their precise collocation in the defined space of the new page layout.

27 In the introduction to his critical edition, Lindsay affirmed that Fulvio Orsini made limited use of Poliziano's apograph due to the difficulty deciphering it (Lindsay 1913, 14: "Ursinus, in cuius bibliothecam eae schedae venerunt, usus est iis, id quod infra demostrabitur, sed paulo remissus, deterritus, credo, obscuritate scripturae, neque eas nominatim memorat"). Even Piero Vettori, in his *Variae Lectiones*, documented the difficulties he experienced reading Poliziano's calligraphy (Vettori 1568, XVII 2: "manu Politiani cognita. Tanta tamen ille celeritate in scribendo usus fuerat, litterisque adeo minutis, ac saepe etiam per notas totis vocibus indicatis, quod suum propriumque hominis erat, cum huiuscemodi aliquid, quod ipsius tantum usibus serviret, in commentariis adnotaret, ut vix intelligi possint"). However, at least in one case Orsini relied on this codex to arrange his text of Festus; see Nolhac 1889, 35 [XXV]: "Tuttavia ci sarà qualche guadagno, et ho tanto caro haver veduto nel *Tutulum* che 'l Politiano copiasse *forma metali*; nell'antico è *forma etali*, et monsignor. Ant°. Augustino stampò *forma e tali*, et così ritenne il Scaligero. Ma si vede che fu errore et deve leggersi *metali* per il luogo di Varrone, nel vj: *tutulati dicti hi qui in capitb. habere solent ut metali, id tutulus appellatur*. Appresso Tertulliano nel libro de Pallio, dove dice *superque omnes apices ac titulos*, questi fogli, che m'ha mandati, li quali sono della medesima lettera et forma di certi altri quinterni che io ho dove sono notate varie cose del Politiano" (15 January 1580).

28 Nolhac 1887, 213-16; Moscadi 1987, 261-4.

<sup>29</sup> Orsini 1581: *praef*.: "Ab eo autem paravimus schedas illas, quas a Marullo habuisse dicitur Pomponius Laetus, quod earum archetypum exemplar non extet, et pars altera paginarum, quae margini proximior ab igne mutilate fuit, neglecta ab ijs, qui tunc fragmentum descripserunt, in praesentia desideretur. Quas autem nos edidimus, sunt illae quidem e doctissimi viri exscriptae chirographo, alijs editionibus non modo emendatiores, verum etiam aliquot locis auctiores; ut si qua praeter haec in vulgatis sint, ea plane non esse Festi credendum sit, sed e Pauli epitoma, aut aliunde petita. His omnibus ultimo loco addidimus perbreve quasdam notas earum tantum rerum, quae visae sunt ab aliis praetermissae".

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **61** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

In this light, the textual gaps became opportunities and no longer just empty sections:<sup>30</sup>

curavimus paginas ipsas, eo quo Festus scripsit ordine, numero versuum in singulis pagellis, et litterarum in uno quoque versu, nec aucto, nec diminuto, ita ut sunt in exemplari, qua potuimus diligentia, describendas. Hoc amplius, partem paginarum mutilam, habita spatij, quod supplendum fuit, ratione, infinitis locis refarcimus.

The effectiveness of the method was manifested in the page layout, which was arranged according to: (i) the order in which Festus wrote the text; (ii) the number of lines present in each page; and (iii) the number of letters in each line, neither increasing nor reducing them, keeping them just as they appeared in the manuscript. Thanks to the creation of a measurable spatial reference that could be completed, Orsini was able to amend the corrupted parts of the text and fill in the lacunas. This can be seen from a synoptic comparison of the editions. When comparing the same passages of *De veborum significatione* found in Antonio Agustín's editions against Piero Vettori's philological conjectures and Fulvio Orsini's print **[figs 1-3]**, the evolution of the concept of the lacuna is clearly noticeable in Festus's work. While Agustín and Vettori left gaps in their texts, Orsini's new editorial grid meant he was able to include the supplements almost perfectly. His focus on the page layout allowed him to make philological and ecdotic advancements of great interest. In fact, by identifying the precise length of the lacuna, he formulated his amendments more confidently. This method was anticipated in his introduction, where he declared his intent to facilitate antiquarian scholars' understanding and to offer new textual hypotheses which would allow the lacunas to be interpreted more easily and with greater confidence: "omnes antiquitatis studiosi facilius ea, certiusque essent divinaturi".<sup>31</sup>

This new approach prevailed over all the previous philological experiences on Festus's work: the faithfulness to the structure of the archetype ("eadem ratione servata") was precisely what had been missing in its precursors. Moreover, Orsini respected the ancient text by graphically differentiating between what was already contained in the manuscript and what was included in italics by the editor as a distinctive trait ("varijsque characteribus distinctum").<sup>32</sup>


<sup>30</sup> Orsini 1581, *praef*.

# 2.3 Editorial Evolution of Orsini's text

Orsini's edition, entitled *Sex. Pompei Festi De verborum significatione fragmentum*, was published three times. Each was issued in consecutive years by three different printers in three different cities: the first in Rome by Giorgio Ferrario in 1581; the second in 1582 by the Giunti in Florence; and the third in Paris in 1583 by Pierre de Saint André. However, the epistolary exchanges between Orsini and Piero Vettori immediately before and after the first print (1579-82) reveal that these publications did not take a linear course. These exchanges bring to light the complexity of the entire dynamic, highlighting how the editorial layout of Orsini's edition of Festus had to be constructed directly in line with his ideas.<sup>33</sup> In fact, in a letter to Vettori dated 1 December 1579, Fulvio Orsini provided the editorial criteria for his edition, which Cardinal Alessandro Farnese wanted published that month.<sup>34</sup> He made particular reference to the method he intended to follow, providing evidence for his choices on the layout of the text on the page, which should have been presented in two columns according to the appearance of the manuscript; and the gaps, which were eliminated to obtain more efficient assumptions.

Shortly afterwards, on 15 January 1580, having received Poliziano's material, Orsini asked Vettori if he could assist him with printing his version of Festus in Florence and act as his intermediary with Giunti's publishing house.<sup>35</sup> In his letter of 3 February 1580, he asked Vettori to supervise the publication directly owing to the difficulty of the text and the complexity of its outcomes. Orsini provided not only written guidelines, but also the sample copies to offer visual parameters on the orthography and page layout.<sup>36</sup>

33 See the letters in Nolhac 1889, XXIV-XXXVI; XXXIX-XL; XLII-XLIII.

34 Nolhac 1889, 34 [XXIV]: "Per ordine del signor Cardinale si stamparà qui fatto Natale, se a Dio piacerà, il fragmento del Festo Pompeio, che altre volte diede fuori Monsignor Ant° Augustino, nel quale libro sarà quello di più, che si stamparà secondo l'ordine che Festo le fece, con spatij giusti di quello che manca a la colonna bruciata, et con havere li principij di molte parole, che Monsignor Ant° Augustino non intese, et potrà ognuno più sicuramente con questa nuova stampatura supplire li mancamenti, essendo in essa il giusto spatio che manca, il che non essendo nel libro del Monsignor Ant° Augustino ha causato che il Scaligero habbia fatto molti errori, siccome V.S. vedrà benissimo, perché insieme con questo libro, si darà fuori quel supplemento che ho fatto io, che credo haverne suppliti molti et con guadagno notabile, per quello che a me pare" (1 December 1579).

35 Nolhac 1889, 36 [XXV]: "Dovendosi ristampare il fragmento che ha il signor Cardinale mio di Festo, che comincia dalla lettera M per quasi tutto il T, col quale si vedono infiniti errori di monsignor Ant° Augustino et infinitissime temerarietà del Scaligero, dicami V.S. se fosse commodità di stamparlo in Firenze. Sono da dieci fogli in ottavo, cioè 8 pagine, et vi sarà guadagno di più di mille luoghi tutti bellissimi; et il signor Cardinale desidera che si stampi come cosa della sua bibliotheca" (15 January 1580).

36 Nolhac 1889, 36-7 [XXVI]: "Io ringratio V.S. dell'officio fatto con questi stampatori per conto del Festo, et riconosco tutto questo favore da lei; l'ho detto al signor Car-

Over the following months, the Roman scholar added further details on his Florentine edition and on the delivery of the copies.<sup>37</sup> However, it appears from his letter of 5 July 1580 that an agreement with the Giunti had not yet been reached and that the editorial outcome of the work was still uncertain. Nevertheless Orsini continued to send very precise directives and examples regarding the form of the text, reaffirming his intention to draw a distinction between the original and the philological additions.38 In the postscript of this letter, Orsini added a further interesting detail: the manuscript he forwarded was written in black and red lettering – black for Festus's text, red for Orsini's supplements.39 It is unclear if Orsini also intended to apply this same distinction in the print version; it is however likely that the choice to create a two-colour text, with the philological reconstructions in red, could be why he had opted for the Giunti

dinale mio et di più come V.S., per favorirmi maggiormente, pigliarà un poco di briga ancor lei, accioché venga il libro più corretto, del che S.Signoria Illustrissima n'ha sentito piacere et credo che sarà bene, per sodisfattione del signor Cardinale, si metta nella fronte del libro la clausula *ex bibliotheca Farnesiani Alexandri Cardinalis*, o come parrà a V.S. Io ci farò innanzi una epistola latina diretta a V.S., nella quale le darò conto di questo fatto, et come sia stato necessario stampare questo fragmento come lo sta, et lei lo potrà poi consignare alla stampa. Mandarò fra pochi giorni la copia fatta da giovine assai accurato, nella quale sarà osservata la orthographia del libro, eccetto che dove sono errori manifesti, et prima che io mandi la copia integra, ne mandarò dui o tre fogli, accioché da essi possa far risolutione della forma del libro, et della lettera. Et io per me sono di parere, che si stampi in due colonne per facciata, come sta l'antico, et a questo modo non saranno più di 40 carte in quarto foglio, onde potrà V.S. assicurare li stampatori, che non sieno per perderci secondo me, sendo l'impresa molto nobile" (3 February 1580).

37 Nolhac 1889, 37-8 [XXVII]: "Come io habbia in ordine la copia di questo libro, nel modo che io me ne soddisfaccia, subito la inviarò a V.S. per riceverne il favore che ne ha promesso di fare in essa" (27 February 1580); 38-9 [XXVIII]: "Io sono intorno a far copiare questo fragmento di Festo in forma che me ne sodisfaccia, et non potrà tardare molti giorni, che io spero di poterglelo mandare; et fra tanto la ringratio della cura che le piace tenere di me et delle cose mie" (16 March 1580).

38 Nolhac 1889, 39-40 [XXIX]: "Il Cardinale mio è partito questa notte per Caprarola, dove starà questi tre mesi; io sono partito in Roma per le occupationi, et di settimana in settimana mandarò a S.V. li fogli del Festo, quali mi sarria carissimo che si stampassero dalli Giunti, se serà possibile, et se non faccia lei; ben desidero che così metta mano subito, per che io ho promesso al signor Cardinale che glieli mandarò de mano in mano a Caprarola, dove S. Eccellenza Illustrissima desidera di leggerli con otio; et però V.S., per favorirmi maggiormente, li farà cominciare subito, perché io non mancarò per ogni corriere mandargliene otto carte, le quali, se si stamparanno con le due colonne secondo che sta l'antico, saranno 41 carte, et se si stamparà con una colonna per carta, seranno 82. Sarà sopra tutto d'avvertire, che si riconosca l'antico dal supplemento, sì come si manda nella copia, et in fine si mandarà l'epistola per il principio, et le annotationj brevissime per porle nel fine del libro, nelle quale annotazioni si renderà conto de supplementi" (5 July 1580).

39 Nolhac 1889, 40 [XXIX]: "Mando il principio del Festo, come sta nell'antico a due colonne, nelle quale tutto è supplemento quello che è scritto di lettere roscie, così sarà necessario che nella stampa si distingua l'antico dal moderno; però starò aspettandone qualche mostra, così intorno al figlio come alla lettera" (5 July 1580).


publishing house, which had specialised in this type of printing (consisting of two passages under the press) since the mid-sixteenth century.<sup>40</sup> Moreover, the black and red coloured text provided evidence of his model of reference: considering the antiquarian publications of the Renaissance, only the *Fasti Consulares* appears to have an analogous layout – both in Carlo Sigonio's edition of 1550, and in the pirated version of Onofrio Panvinio published by Jacopo Strada in 1557.<sup>41</sup> In their editions, Sigonio and Strada adopted a letter-colouring system that used red for the original text of the *Fasti* and black for its reconstructions, which was the opposite of Orsini's arrangement. In the later Renaissance editions of the *Fasti*, this two-colour printing approach was never repeated and was instead replaced by an easier roman-italic letter-type distinction **[figs 4-5]**. 42

Orsini not only dictated the publishing criteria, he also sought to verify first-hand how they were applied. However, the distance between Rome and Florence complicated matters. The dialogue between the two cities continued for many months until Orsini became impatient that his orders had not been followed through. On 5 August 1580, he wrote to Vettori protesting about the inadequate graphical outcomes and philological reconstructions of the work.43 Nonetheless, Orsini continued to send drafts of his work on Festus to Vettori and Giunti throughout 1580,<sup>44</sup> even though his concerns regarding the quality of the publication had grown, mainly owing to the multiplication of errors on the proofs, as evidenced in his letter dated 2 September 1580.45 His irritation, which manifested itself in sever-


43 Nolhac 1889, 40-1 [XXX]: "Questi portalettere ci la fanno troppo spesso, et non prima di due giorni fa ho hauto le lettere della settimana passata, et questa fin qui restò senza per diligenza che io habbia usata. Mando quattro fogli del Festo inchiusi in questa lettera, et rimando alli Giunti la mostra della stampa, dalli quali la S.V. si degnerà intendere quanto occorre. Solamente mi resta dirle che, se in qualche modo si può migliorare il riconoscimento dell'antico dal moderno, che si faccia, perché in vero malamente si conosce con queste forme di lettera. Credo che stampare di roscio il supplemento, non convenga nella correttione della stampa; prego V.S. per amor mio voglia fare che si stia avvertito. Il stampare le righe come le stanno, è necessariissimo et bisognarà haver pazienza che si può, dico però l'antico buono" (5 August 1580).

44 Nolhac 1889, 41 [XXXI]: "Mando a V.S. sei fogli del Festo, et restano cinque solamente, che saranno il fine del libro, non so se li potrò mandare quest'altra settimana, perché il mio scrittore sta male, et io poco bene di questa malattia universale. V.S. fra tanto mi favorisca rivedere li fogli con suo commodo, et emendare tutto quello che le dispiaccia, perché questo è il maggior favore che sia per farmi. Li giunti mi scrissero che non ostante le difficultà, volevano fra due mesi darmi stampato questo fragmento. Penso che non mancaranno, massime sollecitati da V.S." (16 August 1580).

45 Nolhac 1889, 41-2 [XXXII]: "Ho veduti correndo questi due fogli, nelli quali sono molti errori, et non hanno osservato li stampatori quello che io scrissi nella mia a loal other letters – especially one dated 17 September 1580, in which Orsini adopted a very harsh tone when asking Vettori to put pressure on the Giunti<sup>46</sup> – was to be the prelude to the inevitable dissolution of his editorial relationship with this printing house, but this would happen only several months later.<sup>47</sup> In fact, at the beginning of 1581, after a period of approximately two years, he decided to break ties with the Giunti and move everything to Rome, where he could supervise the work directly.<sup>48</sup>

ro, che ogni principio di voce si dovesse notare con qualche segno, come dire con la ¶ *Metonymia*, etc. Oltre di questo, quelle conjetture che sono notate con la lettera *f*, hora è maiuscula *F* et hora minuscula *f*, et non so perché questa differenza, et quel che più importa, non rispondono; et fanno confusione tutta volta che la parola di dentro non è segnata con la linea sotto, overo con un asterisco in fine, come dire *speciosiora*\* *atque*, etc. nella prima carta. Doveva ancora la prima facciata lasciarsi bianca con lettere solamente SEX. POMPEI. FESTI. DE. VERBORVM. SIGNIFICATIONE. FRAG-MENTVM, et così cominciandosi poi dalla facciata seguente, veniva ad apparire come sta l'antico, cioè le due colonne a una veduta. In somma, ci sono molte cose che io mandarò col primo. Fra tanto V.S. sia contenta di far fermare che la stampa non vada più innanzi, che se bisognerà mi consentarò io in questi secondi fogli che se ritiraranno contribuire qualche cosa, perché vadino fuori, come si richiede all'honore di V.S. et mio" (2 September 1580).

46 Nolhac 1889, 42-3 [XXXIII]: "Questa settimana non ho lettere di V.S. et intorno al Festo le replico il medesimo, cioè che questo terzo foglio si può comportare, quelli due parmi sono pieni d'errori, sì come V.S. vederà. Io conosco che l'opra è fatigosa et che lei per amor mio ne piglia più briga di quello che doveria, ma l'honor suo et mio richiede che quelli fogli si emendino. Se a lei pare che si seguiti et parte dell'errori si corregghino in fine, parte nelle annotationi, così farò; se anco pare a V.S. che si ristampino quei primi dui fogli, mi rimetto medesimamente a lei. Il più dell'errori è nelle margine, dove per non essere segnate le parole di dentro, sopra le quali se fanno le conietture, con la nota f, fanno una confusione et obscurità grande, oltre che anco in queste sono de mancamenti non pochi. De gratia V.S., poi che ha fatto tanto per me, pigli questo restante di cura, accioché le resti maggiormente obligato, et si degni darmi avviso di quello che sarrà consertato con questi signori Giunti" (17 September 1580).

47 Orsini continued working on the edition of Festus with Vettori during the fall of 1580 and the winter of 1581, as evidenced by at least two letters; see Nolhac 1889, 43 [XXXIV]: "Ho veduto per la sua come fra sei giorni erano gli Giunti per repigliare l'opera del Festo, et come V.S. per favorirmi maggiormente la rivedeva, del che la ringratio come devo cordialmente, et piacemi che si levi la conjettura *servus*, per che 'l *cervus* è la vera lettione, della quale farò mentione delle annotationi, trovandosi questa scrittura in un Martiale che io ho antichissimo di più de mille anni" (25 November 1580); 44-5 [XXXVI]: "Ho ricevuto due lettere di V.S. con li tre quinternetti del Festo, nel quale riconosco la diligenza et amorevolezza sua, et insieme ancora la fatiga che dura nel rivedere et emendare l'originale. Il *vi depugnare* mi piace assai et più che il *valde pugnare*. A 138 starà bene *hostijs furulis*, et così a 139 *ariete nonu*; a 151 doverà scriversi *stillar*, et 153 *in morem*; a 159 *logaturum*, et nel verso seguente *praetextatam*, quali sono errori del scrittore" (16 February 1581).

48 Nolhac 1889, 44 [XXXV]: "Alle due lettere de V.S. che mi sono tate date, l'una da messer Bernardino de Medici, l'altra da messer Jacopo Gherardini, rispondo hora con questa, et le dico come io non saprei mai a bastanza ringratiarla del favore che mi fa in materia del Festo, il quale s'ella vede che non si possa finire, da Giunti, alla fine lasci starlo, che lo farò stampare qua in qualche modo, et se pure ella vede che costà si possa condurre, degnisi di mandarmi quanto prima li fogli stampati oltre li primi tre, acciocché io possa seguitare l'annotationi" (13 January 1581).



**Figure 4** Carlo Sigonio, *Regum, consulum, dictatorum, ac censorum Romanorum Fasti, vna cum actis triumphorum. A Romulo rege vsque ad Tiberium Caesarem. Carolo Sigonio auctore. Eiusdem In fastos, et acta triumphorum explicationes propediem edentur. Qui liber erit tanquam totius Romanae historiae commentarius*, Mutinae, excudebat Antonius Gadaldinus, 1550


**Figure 5** Carlo Sigonio, *Regum, consulum, dictatorum, ac censorum Romanorum Fasti, vna cum Triumphis actis, a Romulo rege, vsque ad Ti. Caesarem, Carolo Sigonio auctore. Eiusdem De nominibus Romanorum liber. Kalendarium uetus Romanum, è marmore descriptum: & Pauli Manutij De ueterum dierum ordine opinio, eiusdemque interpretatio literarum, quae in kalendario non ita faciles ad intelligendum uidebantur*, Venetiis, apud Paulum Manutium Aldi f., 1555

The decision was made and Fulvio Orsini's first edition of Festus's work was published in Rome in 1581 by Giorgio Ferrario. The key difference was that, instead of creating a red and black coloured text, as initially planned, he used roman-italic lettering to distinguish the original from its reconstructions; furthermore, each page featured one column of the manuscript (and not two as he had originally intended). Orsini also decided to allow the Giunti to publish his work on the proviso that it would be exactly the same as that printed by Ferrario, creating a very curious aspect in the editorial history of Festus's work. Four letters attest to this handover and show the path taken to achieve this result,<sup>49</sup> which included the delivery of a copy of his version of Festus, printed in Rome, as a template for them to use to arrange their own issue.<sup>50</sup>

The outcome of the Florentine edition of 1582 was positive because the text apparently adhered with its Roman counterpart.51 This is evident from the preface written by the printers, in which the Giunti stated that they had received the fragment of *De verborum significatione* written by the ancient grammarian Pompeius Festus that had recently been printed in Rome: "Pervenit autem in manus nostras nuper Fragmentum Festi Pompei, veteris grammatici, de verborum

51 In practice, there are many variants if compared with the Roman print.

<sup>49</sup> Nolhac 1889, 48 [XXXVIII]: "Quando la S.V. ha a ordine le sue osservationi sopra il Festo, le mandi che si metterà le mani subito, et questi Giunti l'aspettano con desiderio" (22 April 1581); 48 [XXXIX]: "Circa 'l Festo, io non ho ancor fatto le osservationi, essendo nella purgatione mia ordinaria, nella quale m'è prohibito da medici scrivere o studiare. Disegno intanto farlo stampare qui, perché in quel modo che è stampato costì, non è possibile che s'intenda, et lei lo vederà in faccia, et di mano in mano che si stamparà, mandarò li foglio, accioché li Giunti possano emendare il suo, et mandarò anco a V.S. le osservationi, in modo che in un medesimo il libro eschi fuori qua et costà, non volendo che in questa parte li Giunti si …. come nell'altra. So che harrano piacere che per honor mio il libro venghi fuori tale quale deve" (9 May 1581); 48-9 [XL]: "Ho veduto per la di V.S. delli 17 la resolutione de Giunti et piacemi che loro si sieno consentati, perché sarà meglio così. Ho parlato al libraio che vuole stampare qua il Festo, et ha me ne promesso che ci metterà mano quanto prima, et ne darò avviso a V.S. di quello sarà sequito. Circa le annotationi, accetto la commodità che mi offerisce massime in questi caldi et col detto ciò, se io haverò sanità, non mancarò, secondo si stamparanno li fogli, fare le annotationi" (27 June 1581).

<sup>50</sup> Nolhac 1889, 50 [XLII]: "Mando a V.S. questi fogli che io me ritrovo del Festo ristampato, quali come che sono fatti per mostra, così sono in cattiva carta, et serviranno alli Junti per finire et correggere il loro in questo, mentre che qua si finisce quest'altro che manca, che doverà essere in questo mese et prima, non mancandovi altro che un foglio. Come sia finito del tutto ne mandarò a V.S. in buona carta, et di mano in mano questo poco restante secondo che si stamparà" (4 January 1582); 51 [XLIII]: "Circa il Festo, li Junti potranno nelle prime due carte del libro stampare la inscrittione o titulo del fragmento, et poi mettere quella prefatione che s'è fatta per avvertimento de lettori, et la potranno mettere come la sta a punto, senz'altro nome; il resto potranno seguire fino al fine come sta, avvertendo di emendare l'errori, coll'aviso di huomo diligente, et porne nel fine un foglio, sicome si farà in questo di qua, che ne anco esso è passato senza errori, con tutta la mia diligenza" (13 January 1582).

significatione Romae impressum".52 However, no evidence was provided of the continuous exchange of information, the long struggles involved, and the great efforts that led to its publication.

Even the Paris edition of 1583 was presented in accordance with the Roman layout.<sup>53</sup> Finally, a new concept for Festus's work began to circulate throughout Europe.

#### 2.4 The Literary Fortune of Orsini's Festus

The uniqueness of the edition proposed by Fulvio Orsini meant that it could not escape comment from his contemporary scholars and the public. Above all, it was unlikely to pass unscathed by the two most important former editors, Agustín and Scaliger, who were severe in their criticism of Orsini's work. In order to better understand the nature of this dispute, it is important firstly to see what Fulvio Orsini wrote in his preface about his predecessors.

The intention behind Orsini's preface can be understood from two letters sent to Piero Vettori.<sup>54</sup> In the first letter, he stated that he wanted to mention the two former illustrious philologists only once and draw attention to their merits, but also to their mistaken textual vision. Regarding Agustín, he said that his duties as archbishop had influenced the quality and result of his work, which in turn also affected the accuracy of Scaliger's amendments. In the second letter, following Vettori's advice, Orsini instead decided to avoid any misunderstanding by not mentioning Scaliger at all.

As already indicated by Pierre de Nolhac, Orsini made no direct reference to Scaliger in his preface, preferring an elegant circumlo-

52 Orsini 1582, *ad lect*.

53 Orsini 1583.

54 Nolhac 1889, 37-8 [XXVII]: "Circa lo Scaligero, io non lo nominarò se non una volta nella prefatione, et all'hora con honore et laude, et così monsignor Antonio Augustino, dicendo in essa prefatione come monsignor Antonio Augustino, come huomo occupato all'hora in altre cose, non diede fuori quel Festo, con tutta quella diligenza che si poteva, et che il Scaligero havendo seguitato quella editione così poco fidele, et nella quale era condiso l'ordine di Festo et non era notato il spatio del mancamento, ha fatto miracoli a supplire così bene molti luoghi, et che si vede chiaramente quanto egli harria fatto meglio, se havesse hauto questa editione che noi hora damo fuori, nella quale però quello che harremo supplito noi nel copiare questo fragmento, non lo diamo fuori perché pensiamo che sieno cose vere et che Festo habbia scritto così, ma per esercitare l'ingegni d'altri, accioché faccino meglio, sì come son certo che faranno. Ecco, signor mio, quale io dirò di questi dui huomini; nelle annotationi io non li nominarò mai, ma renderò conto del fatto mio. Quelli che poi, conferiranno il Festo di monsignor Antonio Augustino et del Scaligero con questo nostro fragmento, conosceranno essi la differenza, et questo bastami" (27 February 1580); 45-6 [XXXVII]: "Circa poi quello che V.S. desidera, per rispetto del Scaligero, cioè de non essere nominato, si farà; ne anco io voglio nominare quell'huomo se non in bene, che non ho mai fatto professio di dire mala" (3 March 1581).

cution that would leave him anonymous ("doctissimi viri").<sup>55</sup> In this way, Orsini ended up blaming only Agustín for having created an erroneous tradition. In fact, the Spanish archbishop was pointedly referred to negatively in Orsini's publication. The reasoning was that his other commitments meant that he had neglected many aspects of the *Codex Farnesianus* which were worthy of additional investigation.<sup>56</sup> This carelessness was more precisely attributed to the fact that his duties had detracted from the reliability of his entire work, from conception to publication, which inevitably caused a negative reaction on his part.

Therefore, in a letter dated 8 March 1582, Antonio Agustín wrote to Fulvio Orsini in very harsh tones, criticising every aspect of his work:57 he attacked him for his innovations, from the textual arrange-

56 Orsini 1581, *praef.*: "Vigesimus agitur annus, ex quo Antonius Augustinus Archiepiscopus Tarraconensis, Festi fragmentum, quod maiorum memoria ex Illyrico advectum in bibliotheca Farnesiana servatur, multo quam alij diligentius cum vulgatis contulit, et primus partem alteram eius libri mutilam exscripsit, commentarijsque a se illustratam edidit Venetiis opera Caroli Sigonij. Sed ut tunc erat Romae stilibus iudicandis XIIVIR, alijsque gravioribus curis impeditus, nonnulla clarissimo ciro, deque litteris optime merito, in eis schedis describendis exciderunt".

57 Carbonell 1991, 630-1: "Colla lettera delli XXVII di Genaro et con il fragmento di Festo (et perché non li fragmenti?) mi sono rallegrato multo ricordandomi di quel bel tempo quando si fece quel libro che V.S. chiama mio per darmi le sferzate colli vostri schogli o schedie, et pur il libro fu sempre vostro, et sarà al vostro dispeto. Et tanto più hora che lo tratate così come cosa vostra, non come fa il Turnebo, et il Scaligero, il quale Scaligero anchora nella seconda editione muta più cose dette male nella prima che non fa contra il nostro Festo. Et così vedo che V.S. anchora ha fatto stampando in Firenze altrimenti che in Roma. Et per dirvi il vero carissimo M. Fulvio parmi un chaos antiquo al quale riducete questo nostro Festo come fanno i philosophi que cercando le prime cause et origine di tutte le cose vengono alla materia prima et al nulla, et alli atomi et altre baie et a cognoscere *nihil se scire*. Che volete far di lambicarvi il cervello sopra le lettere che manchano in Festo? Che se indovinate quatro, ditte cento false? Meglio fece quel Paulo abbreviatore che copiò quelle che intese solamente, et alcuna che intese alla roversa, et pur il suo libro è più bello, più intero, più utile del vostro. Che capriccio fu il vostro a nominarmi parlando della parola *suppernatus* dicendo che non sapete per che io dissi che il Politiano scrisse *expernata*, et così fu ripreso dal Marullo. Non posso darvi altra ragione se non la stampa del Gryphio delle opere del Politiano che così sta due volte et le parolle del Mureto sopra Catullo dove recita li versi del Marullo, benché esso Mureto dubita se Politiano scrisse *expernata* overo *suppernata*. Se havete il originale della centuria del Politiano potreste allegarla nella terza editione del vostro Festo et non parlar delli amici a quel modo" (8 March 1582). Beyond the general concerns regarding Orsini's work on Festus, Agustín appears to be disappointed by the way Orsini treated him, commenting the issue of the word *suppernati* (Lindsay 1913, 396-7) and to a related emendation on Catullus. Orsini, in his edition, disclaimed Agustín's critique of Poliziano's conjecture on the Catullian verse (Catull. *carm*. 17.14: in fossa Liguri iacet suppernata securi); see Agustín 1559, *Annotationes*: "*Suppernati*) Praeter Pauli epitomen referebat Festus Catulli versum ad Coloniam, ut Politianus olim animadvertit. Sed in duobus verbis ut arbitror, aliter scripsit Festus, atque hodie librarij edere soliti sunt. In fossa Ligari iacet suppernata secure. Politianus expernata

<sup>55</sup> Orsini 1581, *praef.*: "Quam quidem editionem doctissimi viri postea secuti, tam multa in ea restituerunt; ut ex ijs, quae Lutetiae vulgarunt, intelligi facile possit, quid facturi fuissent, si emendatiorem codicem nacti essent".

ment to the printing layout, and for having relieved himself of responsibility for his conjectures. Agustín then attempted to free himself from the charge of having deceived Scaliger, affirming that Scaliger himself had been responsible for the errors he had identified. Finally, the Spanish bishop, demonstrating that he had not understood the spirit inspired Orsini's philological choices, questioned the appropriateness of his work, which was considered inferior even to that of Paulus Diaconus. By using the words 'complete' (intero) and 'useful' (utile), Agustín expertly explained the general perspective held by Renaissance antiquarian scholars on the role of Festus's work, where the quality of an edition of the Latin grammarian was measured on the basis of its 'usability' for potential readers.

Scaliger expressed his reactions in two letters dated 21 June 1582: the first was addressed to Pierre Pithou,<sup>58</sup> in which he stated that Orsini's version of Festus had not brought any new corrections to his previous version; in the second, which was addressed to Claude Dupuy, he affirmed that many of the corrections proposed as new had

maluit, quod Marullus irrisit: alij separata scripserunt. Pro Ligari autem Liguri, et Ligeris alij immutarunt. Nos quid opinamur Festum scripsisse tradere contenti sumus. Contentiones grammaticis relinquamus. Est etiam adamas supernas scriptum in Augusti ad Maecenatem epistula apud Macrob. Lib. II Saturn". Orsini formulated his critique in Orsini 1581, *Notae*: "*Suppernata*] Politianus in Miscellaneis cap. LXXIII Festi scripturam agnoscit, et suppernata excripsit, ut mirer Antonium Augustinus scripsisse, Politianum a Marullo irrisum, quod expernata, pro suppernata apud Catullum reponevit". In fact, the position held by Poliziano in the first edition of his *Miscellany* coincides with Orsini's annotations, Poliziano 1489, LXXIII: "Vocabulum quod est expernata Catullianis videri exemplaribus reponendum. […] Ex lectione igitur ea suspicatus utique sum: verbum me Catullianus: quasi postliminio in suas sedes revocaturum: Siquidem ubi exponitur in hoc compediario vocabulum suppernati […] In fossa Liguri iacet separata securi. Nam ut de carminis residuo nihil mihi arroget temere: videbar sane tum syllabatim quaeque olfactans: et pro explorato afferre posse, suppernata legendum in eo non separata". However, according to the letter, it's clear that Agustín was not citing directly from this edition, but from the later one published in Lyon, where Poliziano's reading overlapped with the one he gave in his Festus; see Poliziano 1533, LXXIII: "Nam ut de carminis residuo nihil mihi arroget temere: videbar sane tum syllabatim quaeque olfactans: et pro explorato afferre posse, expernata legendum in eo non separata". The reference to Marullus appeared in the edition of Catullus carried out by Muret, which Agustín mentioned in the letter, but not in his edition of Festus, creating the misunderstanding; see Muret 1558, 28: "*Separata*) Excisa. Politianus legebat expernata, aut, quod magis suspicor, suppernata, ut esset metaphora ducta ab ijs, quibus, in morem pernarum suillarum, femina excise sunt. Marullus autem, qui quasi dedita opera, omnes Politiani emendationes irridebat, hanc exagitavit hoc epigrammate: Quid separatam, insane, supernas, roge, | Alnum Catulli nobilem? | Plebi ociose scilicet risum parans | oblitus, ut soles, pedis [Marullus 1497, III 89 (*De Ecnomum*)]. Non putavit igitur Marullus, in hoc versu, quarto loco spondaeum recepi posse, in quo falsus est, ut infra docebimus. Usitata tamen lectionem sequendam puto".

<sup>58</sup> Botley, Van Miert 2012, 1.336-7: "Je pense qu'aies veu le Festus de Fulvius Ursinus qui n'est pas fort different du nostre quant aux corrections" (21 June 1582).

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **72** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

been fully drawn from his edition, even though they had not been attributed to him.<sup>59</sup>

These reactions reveal a peculiar perspective on the debate over this edition of Festus's work, even beyond the rhetoric of invective; it is clear that the innovations carried out by Orsini in his work were not really accepted. Agustín and Scaliger, in fact, remained tied to their specific points of view: the Spaniard had focused on organising a text he perceived to be chaotic; the Frenchman, instead, had been attracted mainly by the nature of the textual emendations, of which he partially claimed paternity. Nevertheless, both scholars were unable to see that the layout of the text could provide a new antiquarian perspective on it and, at the same time, breathe new life into a philological work which had until then been relegated to the endnotes.

#### 2.5 The Last Renaissance Editions of Festus

Upon the publication of Orsini's Paris edition in 1583, an interesting phenomenon occurred regarding the literary fortune of the text and its analysis: a new crop of publications on Festus's work flourished. In fact, the new editions of Festus's work combined the contributions of all three humanists (Agustín, Scaliger, and Orsini), since they had been considered almost immediately part of the same editorial history.

In 1584, Festus was reissued by two editors, Jerome de Marnef and Arnault Sittart, in Paris.<sup>60</sup> In his preface, Sittart outlined the need to assemble all of the philological experiences that had occurred until that time regarding the text itself and the comments of the three exegetes (Agustín, Scaliger, and Orsini). This was done in order to give the readers a comprehensive overview of the studies undertaken. This procedure was justified by the fact that all three editions had their merits and had perhaps only developed through their synthesis. The structure of Agustín's work rendered the text legible, and the works of Festus and Paul could be identified and coexist easily; a positive aspect to the work carried out by Scaliger was that he made various qualitative philological castigations; Orsini, on the other hand, ensured that the various conjectures found a real collocation in the body of the text.<sup>61</sup>

<sup>59</sup> Botley, Van Miert 2012, 1.338-40: "C'est toujours le mien, sauf quelque peu de ses devinations, lesquelles il a entremeslé parmi les miennes, pour deguiser mon labeur et se l'attribuer. Aux annotations, il y a faict de mesmes" (21 June 1582).

<sup>60</sup> Sittart 1584; Marnef 1584; Sittart's editorial layout was used and re-proposed in Festus's last edition of the sixteenth century; Saint André 1593.

<sup>61</sup> Sittart 1584, *praef*.: "Antonius Augustinus Hispani generis doctissimus, qui tum litibus iudicandis Romae dabat operam, post Episcopus Allifanus, deinde Hilerdensis,


**Figure 6** Arnault Sittart, *M. Verrii Flacci Quæ extant. Et Sex. Pompei Festi De verborum significatione, libri XX. Cum vetusto Bibliothece Farnesianæ exemplari Romæ nuper edito, collati: ex quo lacunæ pene omnes sunt suppletæ. In eos libros Ant. Augustini annotationes, ex editione Veneta, Ios. Scaligeri Castigationes recognitæ, ex Parisiensi, Ful. Vrsini notæ, ex Romana. Accesserunt nunc denique doctissimorum virorum notæ ex eorum scriptis hinc inde collectæ*, Parisiis, apud Arnoldum Sittart, sub scuto Coloniensis monte diui Hilarij, 1584, p. 121

**Figure 7** Denis Godefroy, *Auctores Latinae linguae in vnum redacti corpus. M. Terentius Varro De lingua Latina. M. Verrii Flacci fragmenta. Festi fragmenta a Fuluio Vrsino edita. Schedae Festi a Pomp. Laeto relictae. Sext. Pomp. Festus, Paulo diacono coniunctus. Nonius Marcellus. Fulgentiuis Plantiades. Isidori Originum libri XX. Notae Dionysii Gothofredi J.C. ad Varronem, Festum & Nonium. Variae lectiones in Fulgentium et Isidorum. Index generalis in omnes superiores authores*, Geneva, apud Guillielmum Leimarium, 1585, coll. 127-128

The most striking innovation is that Sittart's edition of Festus's work incorporated the conjectures proposed in Orsini's text with Agustín's page layout ("et ex Fulvij libro lacunas suppleri curavimus"),<sup>62</sup> filling the gaps, but losing the overall causes that had determined Orisini's original formulation. The roman-italics format utilised to draw a distinction between the ancient and modern texts was also taken from Orsini's edition. Therefore, it is clear that his choices had been followed, but simplified, readapted, and applied to a system that was not particularly suitable **[fig. 6]**.

The last version of Festus to be defined as a 'Renaissance edition' was edited by the French jurist Denis Godefroy and published in Geneva in 1585 in a compilation of Latin grammarians entitled *Auctores Latinae Linguae in unum redacti corpus*. <sup>63</sup> Godefroy chose to republish Orsini's edition with a two-column layout divided by graphical signs. In order to maintain the structure of the *Farnesianus*, as handed down in the prints of the 1580s, he adopted the expediency

62 Sittart 1584, *praef*.: "Igitur Venetam Augustini editionem cum fide repraesentavimus, neque Antonij annotationes praetermisimus. Quin et Scaligeri castigationes ijs adiunximus, et ex Fulvij libro lacunas suppleri curavimus, illiusque notas alijs appendimus. Ne vero, nihil a nobis praecipuum (lector) haberes: eas, de quibus modo dixi, doctorum virorum coniecturas e libris illorum transcripsimus, et separatim in unum quasi fascem coniecimus ut uno intuitu quid unusquisque huic auctori contulerit facile sit volenti existimare, et tu, lector, hoc uno in libro habeas quod in infinitis diversorum librorum voluminibus sparsim necesse alioqui erat quaerere".

63 Godefroy 1585, 127-8.

nunc summis suis in orbem terrarium meritis Tarraconensis pontifex fragmentum Festi, quod mutilum et sine capite ex Illyrico in bibliothecam Farnesianam apportatum fuerat, cum raris suis notis publicasset. Ex quo tempore viri docti per Italiam et Gallias fragmentum coniecturis et opinionibus, quando veribus libris deficiebantur, passim adiuvare et illud melius, quod in ijs erat, conari reddere non destiterunt, easque coniecturas. Varijs, Novis et Antiquis lectionibus, Adversarijs, Miscellaneis, aliisque id genus libris passim inserverunt, donec superioribus annis doctissimus Ios. Scaliger, Augustini vestigijs inhaerens, eundem scriptorem sibi edendum eruditisque castigationibus et annotationibus illustrandum esse existimavit: et defectus plurimos divini ingenij adminiculo féliciter supplere tentavit. Quo certes magno magni viri labore non parum sese adiutos esse, qui eidem post scriptori manus admoverunt, illi ipsi non inviti fatebuntur. Postremo Fulvius Ursinus, qui eruditione an humanitate et promta rem litterariam iuvandi voluntate maior sit incertum est, cum Augustinum, vel operarum negligentia vel prae negotiorum multitudine, Farnesiani notas et apices codicis, non satis exacte videret expressisse, idem negotium denuo voluit agere librumque diligenter cum autographo collatum variisque et eruditis notis exornatum non ita pridem Romae in vulgus emisit". The role of each editor is also expressed in the dedicatory poem; see Sittart 1584, *Epigramma*: "Augustinus erat Neptunus, namque tabellas | Naufragio eripuit, quas superasse vides | Squallentes mendis, multoque errore scatentes | Seminecesque, deus ni ferat alter opem. | Scaliger ille deus, qui multa emendat et auget, | qui postliminij repetens redivivus honores | Urbis et antiquae pristina iura suae, | vindicias cuncti potius tribuere Minervae | Scaligeri, ut nomen debeat ille dare. | Romanus quamvis donarit Fulvius urbe | Orbeque Romano, municipiumque loco. | Cernere si quis avet, iam iam quid quisque laboris | Praestiterit, vel qua symbola cuique data est | Ut videat quisnam melius mereatur, et a quo | Impositum potius nomen et omen eat, | Tres simul atque semel codex hic continet unus, | Et facta haec ratis est, pluribus e tabulis".

of ending each page with a line **[fig. 7]**. It is worth noting that Godefroy was the only editor of Festus's work after the sixteenth century to faithfully propose Orsini's original structure. However, a diacritic mark (¶) was added beside each entry to highlight each word for easier consultation, mirroring Orsini's original intention.64 It would appear that, immediately after Orsini, the *Farnesianus* was perceived to be somewhat inadequate: in fact, Godefroy even accepted Agustín's and Scaliger's versions of Festus in his collection to give a complete overview of his work, but in a separate section.<sup>65</sup>

### 2.6 Conclusion

It is now clear that Fulvio Orsini's version of Festus's *De verborum significatione* was a revolutionary philological development. Orsini's main innovation was to consider the *Codex Farnesinus* to be the central ecdotic element. It is likely that he came to this conclusion thanks to the previous work carried out by Angelo Poliziano, the only scholar during the Renaissance to deal with the *Farnesianus* independently from the medieval tradition. Based on this example, Orsini first approached Festus's text from its codicological state, attempting to reproduce the actual conditions of the manuscript, its mutilations and lacunas; then, within a specific and measurable textual framework, he applied all of the conjectures that he and his predecessors had previously formulated. However, these innovations were not accepted in their original form, igniting controversy. In fact, the subsequent publications of Festus's work, starting from Sittart's edition of 1584, included all the amendments arranged by Orsini in accordance with his new page layout, but they were positioned in the editorial grid proposed by Antonio Agustín.

This new editorial situation reveals how Festus's work was understood and perceived during the Renaissance; although Orsini shifted the attention from the text to its support and back to the text itself at an early stage, providing substantial ecdotic progress, antiquarian scholars generally consulted Festus's work for the vital details it provided about classical antiquity. This implied that *De verborum significatione* was essentially conceived to be utilised as a whole, which still entailed the union of the works of Festus and Paul the Deacon. In this light, Orsini's layout did not fulfil this task. The editorial choices of Godefroy in 1585 appear to confirm this spirit: in fact, by marking the words within Orsini's format and then adding the versions creat-

<sup>64</sup> Nolhac 1889, 41-2 [XXXII]: "che ogni principio di voce si dovesse notare con qualche segno, come dire con la ¶" (2 September 1580).

<sup>65</sup> Godefroy 1585, 141-480.

ed by the other editors, he actually admitted the essential shortcomings of this structure. Thus, with Fulvio Orsini's edition, the bases for a new approach were set, even though they failed to create a faithful tradition, because they did not fully respond to the needs of scholars.<sup>66</sup>

<sup>66</sup> After the last Renaissance publication, almost a century passed before a new edition was proposed with Sittart's structure (see Dacer 1681). The humanists of the late sixteenth century contributed to a full investigation of the matter, even to the point of exhaustion; only a new philological direction and method could have pushed forward the results acquired until that point.

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **78** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

#### **Appendix 1**

#### **Notes on the Title**

No full title for the historical-linguistic compendium of Sextus Pompeius Festus can be found in his manuscript tradition. This is because the first half of the *Codex Farnesianus*, the only organic witness of this work, has remained missing since its discovery. Festus's text was an abridged version of *De verborum significatu*, the extensive treatise of Verrius Flaccus, and was subsequently abridged during the early Middle Ages by Paul the Deacon in an epitome known as *De verborum significatione*. These two titles and the lack of a reliable formulation for Festus's work brought about variations in the head titles used throughout its entire editorial history. This phenomenon began to emerge during the Renaissance, when some scholars appear not only to have perceived semantic differences between Paul the Deacon's epitome and the *Farnesianus*, but also attempted to represent these in the title. The purpose of this study is to investigate the reasons behind the different Renaissance titles for Festus's work, which could offer an interesting overview on how this author was perceived in the history of the Classical tradition.

The most recent critical editions adopted different solutions when naming this work: *De verborum significatione* by Karl Otfried Müller (1839) followed the model put forward in Paul the Deacon's epitome;<sup>67</sup> Emil Thewrewk (1889) and Wallace Martin Lindsay (1913) used *De verborum significatu* as the basis, evoking Verrius Flaccus.68 This discordance received fresh attention years later (1979-2001), stimulating debate on the original title of Festus's work. Although this question remains open, some fascinating theories have been proposed thus far.

Since several different titles have been proposed throughout the editorial history of Festus's work, but were not in agreement with the nature of the *Farnesianus*, Alessandro Moscadi began raising questions about its title.69 He argued that there were two different traditions regarding the title in Latin literature, both of which had been transmitted indirectly: the first, via Macrobius' *Saturnalia*, was *De verborum significationibus*, which represented the earliest reference to Festus's title in Latin literature;<sup>70</sup> the second, on the basis of Paul

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Acta Classica* 60 (2017), 162-72.


<sup>67</sup> Müller 1839.

<sup>70</sup> Macr. *Sat.* 3.8.9: "Iulius Festus de verborum significationibus libro tertio decimo"; in the Oxford Classical Texts, the editor, Kaster, defines the nomenclature 'Iulius' Festus as *lapsu nostri* (see Kaster 2011, 184).

the Deacon's abridgement, was *Excerpta Pauli ex libris Festi Pompeii de significatione verborum*. <sup>71</sup> Moscadi hypothesised that a metaplasm had occurred in the title *significationibus* → *significatione*, offering an intriguing interpretation of the spirit in which Paul the Deacon had dealt with the text of the Roman grammarian. He assumed that all of the changes carried out by Paul in Festus's original had been intentional, calculated and were intended to simplify the work to make it structured like an encyclopaedic dictionary. It is likely that the title also received the same treatment. In fact, a comparison between Paul the Deacon's epitome and the *Codex Farnesianus* clearly demonstrates how Festus had sought to offer an overview that ranged from the study of language to the history of culture, whereas Paul the Deacon limited his exposition merely to a lexical level. When taken from this perspective, the singular form of the title (*significatione*) provided by Paul the Deacon would explain the one-to-one interaction he had sought to establish between the lemma and its definition; the intention behind the plural form (*significationibus*) found in Macrobius, however, was for each term to act as a doorway to an understanding of the plurality of meanings they had gained over time.

Upon their publication, Moscadi's views were immediately and widely criticised. Giuseppe Morelli<sup>72</sup> led the way by attempting to diminish the relevance of Macrobius's authority in the debate on Festus's title, using as his philological basis the fluctuation of the singular and plural forms in the title of an analogous work, *De significatione verborum quae ad ius civile pertinent*, which was written by another Roman grammarian, Gaius Aelius Gallus. Morelli proposed that a similar variation of the title could also have been possible for the citations of Festus's work in other ancient sources (including Macrobius's). In this way, he defended the singular form, as transmitted by the epitome of Paul the Deacon, who is highly likely to have had the opportunity to access a full and entire version of Festus's work.

Mario De Nonno<sup>73</sup> then added further palaeographical arguments, making reference to the *explicit/incipit* between Books 18 and 19 of the *Farnesianus*, the only part in which a script in red lettering refers to the abbreviation of the title: SEX POMPEI FES/TI DE VERBOR(*um*) SIGNIFICAT · LIB XVI/II · INCIPIT LIB · XVIIII. According to De Nonno, the abbreviation SIGNIFICAT must not be read as *significatu*, since there is little sense in abbreviating only one letter – V; it should instead be read as *significatione*, given the fact that Festus himself used the word in this text: in the *Farnesianus*, the term *significatio* 


appears eleven times, but *significatus* only once – and this increases the credibility of the formulation *De verborum significatione* handed down by Paul the Deacon. Moreover, De Nonno assumes that the title *De verborum significatu* adopted by Thewrewk and Lindsay was not directly inspired by Verrius Flaccus's work, but that it derived from an incorrect reading of the word SIGNIFICAT. On the mutilated manuscript, this may have appeared as SIGNIFICATV to the two editors in question, as well as others who worked exclusively on photographic reproductions.

• • •

A similar level of attention to Festus's title also occurred during the Renaissance, but with different dynamics, which could be perceived as a forerunner to more modern ideas. It is now clear that the *Codex Farnesianus* had circulated for at least 20 years prior to the publication of Festus's first incunabula between 1471 and 1478 (approximately 14 editions). However, these works reproduced only the abridged version of Paul the Deacon's text; and only two, which were edited by scholars who were part of the Academia Romana and certainly had access to the *Codex Farnesianus*, bear a title other than the general eponymous attribution. The first, *De interpretatione Linguae Latinae*, which was edited in 1471 by Giulio Pomponio Leto, had perhaps been inspired by Varro's *De lingua Latina*. <sup>74</sup> The second, *Collectanea priscorum verborum*, which was published in 1475 by Manilius Romanus, apparently referred to a passage from the *Codex Farnesianus*  that reports the same syntagma ("priscorum verborum cum exemplis"), even though no influence from this manuscript can be identified in the text.<sup>75</sup>

Just over ten years later, a new and original title for Festus's fragment can be recorded, evoking this later occurrence: at the very beginning of the apograph of the *Farnesianus* arranged by Angelo Poliziano (BAV Vat. Lat. 3368), Festus's work is entitled *priscorum verborum cum exemplis* in a marginal gloss on the lower-left side of the page.<sup>76</sup> This gloss should be attributed to Poliziano, and it must

74 Pomponio Leto 1471; Accame Lanzillotta 1980; 1998.

76 The marginal gloss reads: "Ϲη(μεῖον) | de his libris | qui inscribuntur | priscorum verborum | cum exemplis"; just above, the same hand of the heading writes: "Festi li(bri) de p(ri)scis v(er)bis cum ex(em)|plis".

<sup>75</sup> Manilius 1475; Bracke 1995, 196. This formulation derived from Fest. 242.15: "cuius opinionem, neque in hoc, neque in aliis compluribus refutare minime necesse est, cum propositum habeam ex tanto librorum eius numero intermortua iam et sepulta verba atque ipso saepe confitente nullius usus aut auctoritatis praeterire, et reliqua quam brevissime redigere in libros admodum paucos. Ea autem, de quibus dissentio, et aperte et breviter, ut sciero, scribta in [h]is libris meis invenientur, <qui> inscribuntur 'priscorum verborum cum exemplis'".

have influenced the denomination "Ex Fragmento Festi Pompei | de p(ri)scis v(er)bis cu(m) exe(m)plis" located at the top margin of the page.<sup>77</sup> This script cannot be entirely ascribed to the same hand, and it was very likely written during two different periods: its first segment (*Ex Fragmento Festi Pompei*) is by Poliziano, and displays a stronger intensity of ink, apparently closer to the main body of the text; the second segment, which is also preceded by a vertical dash, ostensibly separating it from the first, is by Pietro Crinito, and presents different abbreviations, a lighter tone of ink and a faster cursive style.<sup>78</sup>

Poliziano arranged his apograph in 1485.<sup>79</sup> However, in 1489, in a famous passage of his *Miscellanea*, he argued that the antigraph from which he had transcribed his copy (the *Codex Farnesianus*) bore no title and was simply referred to by the name of its author ("fragmentum quoddam Sexti Pompej Festi – nam ita erat in titulo").<sup>80</sup> Even if Poliziano's statement could be interpreted in various ways,<sup>81</sup> it shows that up to 1489 he still had considered the fragment of Festus's work to be untitled. In this light, it is reasonable to assume that Poliziano reverted to the problem of Festus's title after the publication of his *Miscellanea*, i.e. in 1489. This means that Pietro Crinito had added the second part of the heading even later, when he acquired the manuscript.82 This new caption (*De priscis verbis cum exemplis*) had per-

79 According to the annotation made by Poliziano himself (f. 7*r*): "Ex vetustissimo fragmento Sexti Po(m)pei Festi: que(m) Rom(ae) descripsi | Kal(endis) Jan(uariis) 1485".

80 Poliziano 1489, LXXIII: "Ostendit mihi Romae abhinc quadriennium Manilius Rallus, graecus homo sed latinis litteris adprime excultus, fragmentum quoddam Sexti Pompej Festi (nam ita erat in titulo) sane quam vetustum, sed pleraque mutilatum, praerosusque a muribus".

81 Alessandro Moscadi suggested that Poliziano may not be referring to the *Farnesianus*, which was burnt and not gnawed by mice ("praerosusque a muribus"), but instead to the so called *Schedae Parisienses* (BNF Rés. X 96); see Moscadi 2001, XVI; Di Marco differs from this opinion, and places the copy arranged by Poliziano (BAV Vat. Lat. 3368) in a different branch of the *stemma codicum*, directly depending from the *Farnesianus*; see Di Marco 2015, 39-40.

82 As of today, there are four known owners of BAV Vat. Lat 3368: Poliziano himself; Crinito, who probably received it from Poliziano; Vettori, who rescued it over fifty years after Poliziano's death (Vettori 1553, 253 [XVII, ii *Restituitur locus Sex. Pompeij Festi, ubi qui vocavit fuerint ludi priscatorij docet, in excusis libris mancus et maculosus*]: "Cum vero supra ipse affirmarim me librum habere Sex. Pompeii, ex scriptum de antiquissimo exemplari, totam rem accuratius ut fides eius auctoritasque augeatur, commemorare volo. Angelus Politianus in LXXIII capite Miscellaneorum narrat se Romae accepisse a Manilio Rallo fragmentum quoddam Sex. Pompeii, sane quam vetustum, nonnullasque itidem pagellas eiusdem exemplaris a Pomponio Laeto, quae omnia ut ostendit illic, com descripsisset, paucis ab hinc annis ego incidi in adversaria quaedam ipsius in taberna libraria, quibus continebantur etiam hae reliquiae Festi, atque emi, manu Politiani cognita. Tanta tamen ille celeritate in scribendo usus fue-

<sup>77</sup> In this regard, see also Ammirati 2007, 24 fn. 58.

<sup>78</sup> For Crinito's work on this manuscript, see Marchiaro 2013, 158-9.

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **82** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

haps been included because it was rooted in the humanistic tradition of Festus's work. This also found parallel occurrences in the two apographs arranged by Giuliano Ceci (BAV Vat. Lat. 1549 and BAV Vat. Lat. 5958), both adopting the formulation *Priscorum verborum cum exemplis*, 83 and was judged, at least in the early 1500s, to be very reliable. Crinito himself reused it many times in his *De honesta disciplina*. He also occasionally adopted *collectanea* and, in one case, *de verborum significationibus*. 84

Beyond the accuracy aspect, these attempts to establish a new title for Festus's work apply to the nature and tradition of the text itself, and this phenomenon represents a noteworthy shift in the perspective towards Festus's work, where the philological approach to his title demonstrates how scholars sought to cast the work in a different light after the rediscovery of the *Farnesianus*. In fact, the *editio princeps* that combined the works of Paul the Deacon and Festus, which was published in 1500 by Giovanni Battista Pio and Conagus, featured no title; there was simply a note to the reader at the end stating that the text included fragments of Festus's work (*Fragmenta Sexti Pompei Festi*), alluding somehow to the discovery of the *Farnesianus*.

The first title that intentionally revealed the combination of the *Codex Farnesianus* and Paul the Deacon's epitome was published in

rat, literisque adeo minutis, ac saepe etiam per notas totis vocibus indicatis, quod suum propriumque hominis erat, cum huiuscemodi aliquid, quod tantum usibus serviret, in commentariis adnotaret, ut vix intelligi possint"); and Fulvio Orsini, who received it from Vettori (Nolhac 1889, 34-5).

<sup>83</sup> According to recent studies, codices BAV Vat. Lat. 1549 and BAV Vat. Lat. 5958 belong to branch **d** of the stemma, which derived from a sub-archetype **b** of the *Farnesianus*; see Di Marco 2015, 39-40. The title in the former reads (f. 58*r*) SEXTI POM-PEI FESTi | PRISCORVM VOCABV | LORVM LIB XVIII and (f. 76*v*) SEXTI POMPEI FESTI | PRISCORVM VERBORV(m) | CVM EXEMPLIS LIBER | XIX – moreover, a marginal gloss (f. 32*r*) reports: "Inscriptio huius | Libri", which is attested beside the passage "inscri|buntur autem prisco(rum) vocabulo(rum) cu(m) exemplis". The latter (f. 2*r*) SEXTI POMPEI FESTI PRI | SCORVM VERBORVM CVM | EXEMPLIS LIBER PRIMVS, which opened instead Paul the Deacon's abridgement – a marginal gloss (f. 108*r*) also reports "Inscriptio huius librj" whereas Festus reads "inscribuntur enim priscoru(m) verborum(m) cu(m) exemplis".

<sup>84</sup> Crinito *Hon*. VIII xiii [Angeleri 1955, 209]: *de hac lege annaria, et in collectaneis Sexti Pompeii mention habetur*; IX xiii [225]: *Quod Sextus Pompeius in libro de priscis verbis undivigesimus insinuate*; XI x [254-5]: *ut Pompeius Sextus in libro de verbis priscis XVII tradit*; XV ix [311]: *Nam et locum unc Sex. Pompeius signavit in libro de priscis verbis XVI; tum prolatis veterum exemplis exponit*; XIX viii [381]: *docet etiam Sextus Pompeius, cuius verba ex libro verborum significationibus XIX subiecimus*; XX vii [397-8]: *ac penitus diversa a Pompeio Sexto referuntur libro XVI de verbis priscis*; XXIII xiii [445]: *sicut ex Fest. Collectaneis ab Hermolao etiam notatum est*; XXIV ix [458]: *Quod abunde pratur, cum ex antiquis auctoribus, tum ex collectaneis Sexti Pompeii*. This relationship between the annotations present in Poliziano's apograph and Crinito's *De honesta disciplina* can be further enriched with IX xii [223]: *Sex. autem Pompeius leges recuperatoriam ab Aelio Gallo sic accepta tradit* [Fest. 342.9]. This passage corresponds with a manuscript gloss written in the lower margin of the first page of BAV Vat. Lat. 3368 (f. 1*r*): "Gallus Aelius l(ibr)os significationu(m) q(uae) ad ius pertinent".

1513 by Aldo Manuzio.<sup>85</sup> This is the only printed edition that divided Festus's work into books (*libri*), with each corresponding to an alphabetical entry (19 letters in all). The general title given to the book was *Sexti Pompeij Festi undeviginti librorum fragmenta*, while each book had the same subtitle, *Sexti Pompeii Festi De verborum veterum significatione*; however, this did not apply to Books 4 and 6, which were referred to as *Antiquitatum Romanarum libri*. As was the case in the previous edition, this text was an indiscriminate blend of Paul the Deacon's epitome and the *Codex Farnesianus*, with the double title indicative of how the work was conceived: the word *Fragmenta* implied the existence of the *Farnesianus* and expressed its difference to the abridgement; the second title, *de verborum (veterum) significatione*, evoked the work of Paul the Deacon, indicating that the two traditions coexisted according to a dual scheme. *Antiquitatum Romanarum libri*, on the other hand, which was probably an interpolation and could be interpreted as an alternative title, was almost certainly developed for the purpose of casting Festus's work in a new light, given the new information transmitted in the *Farnesianus*.

The repercussions of this formulation are also evident in a letter sent by Ottavio Pantagato to Onofrio Panvinio dated 28 May 1558. Pantagato supported *De verborum significatione* over Aldo Manuzio's *Antiquitatum Romanarum*, arguing that the former was more reliable while the latter was neither credible nor suitable:<sup>86</sup>

In Festo è più proprio il titolo e più vero *De verborum significatione* che *Antiquitatum Romanarum* il quale non è né vero né proprio. Vi ho ditto in altre mie per che non ci ho pensato che fu perché è incerto qual sia suo e qual di quel Paolo et io non vorrei granchi in libri.

Pantagato believed the first formulation to be more compatible with tradition than *Antiquitatum Romanarum* (hence the adjective 'vero') and therefore more suitable for this type of work (hence 'proprio'), highlighting that it was uncertain what should be attributed to Festus and what to Paul the Deacon. This epistolary exchange was probably related to the editorial work on Festus's text that had been carried out in the last part of the 1550s by Antonio Agustín, and brings to light the vitality of the debate on the title and its potential solutions.<sup>87</sup>

Agustín entitled his edition *Sex. Pompei Festi De Verborum Significatione, lib. XX*, not drifting away from tradition; however, owing to

<sup>85</sup> Manuzio 1513; no title is reported in the French edition (Petit 1519).

<sup>86</sup> Soler i Nicolau 2000, 199-201.

<sup>87</sup> For the collaboration between Panvinio and Pantagato and the role of Gabriel Faerno in Agustín's edition of Festus see Ceretti 1952-53.

the nature of the *Farnesianus*, he also sought to propose an alternative formulation that would reveal the clear discrepancies between the ancient manuscript and the epitome. As demonstrated by Pantagato's concerns, Agustín may have perceived that his edition of Festus's work required a new title, which drew attention to the cultural content the work may have included. It displayed a polysemy which was so distinctive that it modified the perception of the work itself and represented a break point with tradition. In fact, at the very beginning of the introduction of his edition, he gave credence to a reliable second possibility, taken directly from the *Farnesianus*, stating that Festus had written a book entitled *De verborum significatione sive Priscorum verborum cum exemplis*. <sup>88</sup> By using the conjunction *sive*, he observed a mutual link between the two titles, suggesting that they could be interchangeable. *Priscorum verborum cum exemplis* was therefore considered to be an appropriate replacement for *De verborum significatione*, with Agustín perhaps alluding to the spirit perceived by Aldo Manuzio in his *Antiquitatum Romanarum*: the examples accompanying the entries could have offered an opportunity for antiquarian digressions and cultural analyses to be made. This editorial possibility was also supported by the title featured in a manuscript possessed by Agustín that he considered extremely reliable, the so-called *Liber Achillis Mafaei* copied by Giuliano Ceci (BAV Vat. Lat. 5958). As mentioned earlier, this codex was actually entitled *Priscorum verborum cum exemplis liber* and represented a key factor in the textual transmission. Although Agustín did not use *Priscorum verborum cum exemplis* as a title, it may have struck him as being worthy of consideration, at least from a methodological perspective, since it derived directly from the *Codex Farnesianus* and had further attestations in the manuscript tradition.

However, Agustín did not realise that these two titles referred to two different works, of which the only survivor was *De verborum significatione*; this only became known a few years later thanks to the critical analysis carried out on Festus's work by Joseph Scaliger.<sup>89</sup> Scaliger rejected Agustín's opinion on different grounds, arguing

88 Agustín 1559, *praef*.

<sup>89</sup> Scaliger 1575, cxxxv: "In fine ita lego: ea autem, de quibus dissentio, et aperte, et breviter, ut sciero, scripta in his libris meis invenientur, qui inscribuntur: PRISCORVM VERBORVM CVM EXEMPLIS. Neque dubium est, quin ita scripserit Festud. Sed libri ii interciderunt. Nam quod doctu viri Festum de his, quos in manu habemus, luqui, et peccant ipsi, et alios in errorem inducunt. Nam neque Festus hos libros, qui extant, vocasset suos, cum sint Verrij, neque in istis libris instituit reprehensionem Verrij, praeter quam in locis admodum paucis, idque obiter, neque haec est horum librorum inscriptio, cum a Macrobio vetere auctore, de verborum significatione citentur. His, et pluribus rationibus, atque adeo tenore verborum Festi inductus quilibet potest advertere libros PRISCORVM VERBORVM CVM EXEMPLIS non esse eosdem cum his nostris de verborvm significatione".

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **85** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

that there was insufficient evidence to link *Priscorum verborum cum exemplis* with the version transmitted to his times, which probably carried the original title of Verrius Flaccus's work that had been abridged by Festus. As part of the philological analysis undertaken, the Frenchman also alluded to the passage by Macrobius which clearly referenced Festus's work as *de verborum significatione*, presenting this reference as evidence for his position.<sup>90</sup>

Almost a decade later, in 1584, the philologist and editor Arnault Sittart raised the matter again,91 and agreed with Scaliger in arguing that the title *De verborum significatione* had derived directly from Verrius Flaccus's work, as confirmed by many ancient authors. However, Sittart appears to have also revived and accepted Agustín's hypothesis for the alternative title *Priscorum verborum cum exemplis*, affirming that Festus collected not only the words in use, but also several archaic and obsolete words, from Verrius that were explained through literary examples, following the method adopted by grammarians. This implied that Sittart did not take Scaliger's rejection of this title into account. In fact, Sittart considered the version *Priscorum verborum cum exemplis*, taken directly from the *Codex Farnesianus*, to be a credible alternative to *De verborum significatione*. To support this position, he added that an analogous title, *Expositio sermonum antiquorum cum testimoniis*, found in a short glossary compiled by Fabius Planciades Fulgentius in the fifth to sixth centuries,<sup>92</sup> used Festus's example as a basis. In this light, *Priscorum* 

92 Pizzani 1968, 18-19; Lersch 1844.

<sup>90</sup> However, it is worthy of note that he cited Festus's title taken from Macrobius in singular form, in contrast to what is actually attested in Renaissance and modern editions of this author. It is difficult to say whether Scaliger referred to a variant in the manuscript tradition or if he deliberately amended Macrobius' plural tense, converting it into the better-known singular form; this led to him adopting the same title used in Paul the Deacon's epitome, *De verborum significatione*, which also appeared in his second edition (Scaliger 1576). An analogous formulation, *Sex Pompei Festi De verborum significatione fragmentum*, was applied in each of the three editions published by Fulvio Orsini (see Orsini 1581; 1582; 1583).

<sup>91</sup> Sittart 1584: *praef*.: "Inter varia M. Verri Flacci ingenij monumenta, quae insignis ille Grammaticus sub Augusti obitum non posteriora consecravit, libri DE VERBORVM SIGNIFICATIONE, habentur non incelebres, quippe quo siam olim Gellius, Carisius, Diomedes, Velius Longus, Plinius, Priscianus, alijque veteres in testimonium advocarunt. Libri erant, testante Pompeio, valde multi. In ijs non tantum ea quae notionis erant vulgariae explicabat, sed alia etiam intermortua et sepulta, adeoque nullius, ut ipse quidem existimabat, usus verba, scriptorum antiquorum adductis exemplis, quod Grammatici erat, interpretari conabatur. Accessit Sex. Pompeius Festus, de cuius quidem aetate certi quod dicam non habeo. Ei visus est Verrius aequo prolixior, ideoque libros illius, intermortuos ommissis, in epitomen contraxit, et censoris critici munus arrogans, nonnulla iure, plura tamen iniuria reprehendit, suosque libros Priscorum verborum cum exemplis inscripsit. Quo sane exempli Fabius Planciades Fulgentius, Expositionem sermonum antiquorum cum testimoniis, librum suum ad Chalcidium Grammaticum vocavit".

*verborum* and *Sermonum antiquorum* were considered correspondent forms in the same way that *cum exemplis* matched *cum testimoniis*, inferring that the definitions of the words had all been acquired from literary sources and that a parallel method could have generated a parallel title.

However, the titles of Fulgentius's work, which was published during the Renaissance did not correspond to what was reported by Sittart; nevertheless, there are at least two versions which may have inspired it, both edited by Giovanni Battista Pio:<sup>93</sup> *Voces antiquae cum testimonio* (1498) and *Expositio sermonum antiquorum* (1513). It is therefore likely that Sittart blended these two titles to draw a direct link to *Priscorum verborum cum exemplis*, thereby strengthening support for an alternative title to Festus's work.<sup>94</sup>

• • •

All of these titles pave the way for further considerations to be made. In the antiquarian culture of the late-sixteenth century, there seems

93 Pio 1498; 1513; Vitali 1505; Herwagen 1535; Plantin 1565; and Godefroy 1586.

94 The same denomination of Fulgentius's work was taken from Dacer, whose views were more in line with Scaliger than Sittart; in this regard, see Dacer 1681: *praef*.: "Hic Verii de verborum significatione libros breviavit, ibique intermortua et sepulta verba praeteriit. Cave tamen istos de verborum significatione libros eosdem esse credas ac eos qui discuntur priscorum verborum cum exemplis. Viros doctos qui ita existimarunt in errorem induxit hic Festi locus male intellectus in voce profanum: cuius *(Verrii)*  opinionem, neque in hoc, neque in aliis compluribus refutare minime necesse est, cum propositum habeam ex tanto librorum eius numero intermortua iam et sepulta verba atque ipso saepe confitente nullius usus aut auctoritatis praeterire, et reliqua quam brevissime redigere in libros admodum paucos. Ea autem, de quibus dissentio, et aperte et breviter, ut sciero, scribta in his libris meis invenientur, qui inscribuntur priscorum verborum cum exemplis. Sed haec tantum innuunt Festi consilium fuisse in hisce libris de verborum signification, Verrii Flaccii ejusdem argumenti libros in epitomen redigere, praeteritis tantum verbis intermortuis, et sepultis. Tum et alterum volumen conficere priscorum verborum cum exemplis, ubi ea tantum referre cogitabat quae in prioribus hisce de verborum significatione praeteriisset, et breviter ea de quibus dissentire exponere. Et haec aliter intelligi non posse fatebuntur qui attendent Festum in hisce de verborum significatione libris, neque Verrii reprehensionem instituere praeter quam in locis admodum paucis, neque multa verba intermortua aut sepulta referre, quae scilicet in alium locum reservabat, quod et ipse testatur alicubui. Audi illum in voce Tatium [Fest. 496.8-12]: Tatium occisum ait Lavinii ab amicis eorum legatorum, quos interfecerant Tatiani latrones, sed sepultum in Aventino Laureto. Quod ad significationem verborum non magis pertinet, quam multa alia et praeterita iam et deinceps quae referentur. Ubi cum dicat Festus se jam multa praeteriisse quae deinceps relaturus esset, aperte significat se ea omnia in libros priscorum verborum reservasse. Neque enim multa adhuc in libros de verborum significatione, relaturus erat cum jam ad eorum metam pervenisset. Necesse est igitur scripsisse de verborum significatione, et de verbis priscis. Posteriores eius lucubrationes plane interciderunt, nescio etiam an umquam in publico visae sunt. Dubitari certe potest an eas autor absolverit, vel e minibus suis emiserit, quamquam ad earum exemplum Fulgentius Placiades librum unum inscripsisse videtur: Expositio sermonum antiquorum cum testimoniis". See also Lindemann 1832, 285-6.

to have been an awareness that the title transmitted in Paul the Deacon's epitome (*De verborum significatione*) did not fully represent the spirit of Festus's work. Therefore attempts were made to follow other pathways in order to restore the essence of the original. In the apographs of the *Farnesianus*, scholars actually felt free to propose alternative solutions – basically rearranging the formulation *priscorum verborum cum exemplis* (in the manuscripts copied by Poliziano and by Giuliano Ceci). However, since there was no textual evidence to support possible alternatives, no further emendations were made to the printed editions. It is possible that the citation made by Sittart to Fulgentius represented an important confirmation in favour of *Priscorum verborum cum exemplis*, even if it was not taken into consideration in the editions that followed. However, given that it was applied at least once in Paul the Deacon's abridgment of Festus, the *Collectanea priscorum verborum* by Manilius (1475), this formulation has proven to be a credible alternative to *De verborum significatione*. This demonstrates how the title of *Codex Farnesianus* had been debated since its very discovery. Regarding the title *Collectanea priscorum verborum*, it would actually be more difficult to explain Manilius's formulation if the role of the *Farnesianus* had been excluded from consideration (*Priscorum verborum cum exemplis* → *Collectanea priscorum verborum*). This was not only because he had read the *Farnesianus* manuscript himself (the only incunabula that added an original title were those of Manilius and Pomponio Leto, both of whom could access the *Farnesianus*), but also because the genitive form (*priscorum verborum*) of the syntagma *prisca verba* | *verba prisca* rarely features in Latin literature,95 and one of these occurrences is found referring directly to a title in the *Farnesianus*.

95 Suet. *Gramm*. 14.3: "de eodem Asinius Pollio, in libro quo Sallustii scripta reprehendit ut nimia priscorum verborum adfectatione oblita, ita tradit".

#### **Appendix 2**

### **Identifying** *Paulus Diaconus*

It is commonly accepted that the epitome of *De verborum significatione* written by Sextus Pompeius Festus, which was in circulation in medieval times, was an abridged and re-invented version written by *Paulus Warnefridus*, generally known as Paul the Deacon. A Benedictine monk of Lombard origins, he not only lived under the reign of Charlemagne (between the eighth and ninth centuries), but also played an active role in the Carolingian Renaissance and was the author of *Historia Romana*, *Gesta Episcoporum Mettensium*, *Vita Gregorii Magni* and *Historia Langobardorum*. <sup>96</sup> However, it proved to be a protracted and challenging process to discover who this figure was, and to attribute his historical and lexicographic works to him. In fact, the manuscript tradition of Paul the Deacon's *De verborum significatione* provides no direct proof of his authorship, nor in the dedicatory letter addressed to Charlemagne is it possible to find explicit data which helps the author to be identified – here the epitomist referred to himself as *Paulus ultimus servulus*, without specifying his full name, place of origin or profession.<sup>97</sup>

Final confirmation of Paul the Deacon's paternity of the epitome of Festus emerged only centuries later, precisely when Festus's medieval work was discovered to have strong textual links with the works of a Lombard monk and historian named *Paulus*. During the nineteen century, scholars such as Karl Otfried Müller (1839) and Ludwig Bethmann (1851) had vigorously rejected this identification – founding their primary argument on the fact that *Paulus* was never mentioned as a *diaconus* in the manuscript tradition of *De verborum significatione*, and only sporadically as a *pontifex* or *sacerdos*. They believed that this eliminated any possible association between the Lombard monk Paul and the historian.<sup>98</sup> It was the studies of Georg

98 In his edition of Festus, Müller focused on the manuscript tradition of Paul the Deacon's epitome to disclaim his authorship; see Müller 1839, 32: "Iam veniendum ad Paulum, qui eius culpae, quam Festus in Verrio mutilando meruerat, amplas ab eo repetiit poenas. Qui ille homo fuerit, non quaerimus: nisi quod id certum et testatum habemus, fuisse eum Christianae ecclesiae sacerdotum non infimi gradus, nam in epistola ad Carolum Regem pontificem se dicit, Caroloque Magno fuisse aequalem. Hic Paulus quod dicit non solum superflua se praetergressum esse, sed etiam penitus abstrusa stilo proprio enucleasse, in eo vanus deprehenditur nugator, cum difficilioribus ex-

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology* 3 (2016), 26-30.

<sup>96</sup> Cervani 1978; Villa 1984; Dionisotti 1996; Zecchini 2011.

<sup>97</sup> Müller 1839, 1: "EPISTOLA PAULI PONTIFICI AD CAROLUM REGEM. Divinae largitatis munere sapientia potentiaque praefulgido Domino Regi Carolo regum sublimissimo Paulus ultimus servulus".

Waitz (1878) and Karl Neff (1891) which established beyond reasonable doubt that *Paulus* the epitomist was also *Paulus* the historian (known as *Paulus Diaconus*).

Waitz was the first scholar to attempt to frame Paul the Deacon's literary and philological work within the cultural context of the late eighth century, establishing bonds between his biography and the imperial Court.99 He suggested that the label *ultimus servulus*, adopted in the dedication of his *De verborum significatione*, echoed a letter addressed to Paul the Deacon by Charlemagne himself, in which

99 Waitz affirmed that Paul composed the abridgement of Festus after the year 783, when Charlemagne's wife Hildegard died; see Waitz 1878, 10-11: "Tunc etiam excerpta ex libris Pompei Festi facta crediderim, quae Karolo transmissa; sine causa alteri cuidam Paulo recentiores tribuere voluerunt: noster certe in Historia Langobardorum iis usus est. Sed etiam majus opus 'Paulo diacono familiari clientulo nostro' rex injunxit, 'quo tractatus', ut ait epistola ipsius nomene scripta, 'atque sermones diversorum catholicorum partum perlegens et optima quaeque decerpens, in duobus voluminibus per totius anni congruentes cuique festivitati distinctae et absque vitiis obtulit lectiones'". Waitz identifies some parallel occurrences featuring in Paul the Deacon's dedication of his Festus (10 fn. 5): "'Urbs Romulea' etiam Hist Lang. II. 23 et G. Mett. P. 265 dicitur; extremus b. Benedicti servulus scribit Paulus in Homilia, Migne XCV p. 1577".

pediendis ita esset impar, ut etiam vitia librariorum pleraque aut improvidus describeret, aut male callidus omittendis verbis evitaret. Quod autem in iis articulis, quos recipere non dedignatus est, plerunque ipsa Festi verba in brevius redacta reddidit, ei sincero affect plaudimus. Paucissima addidit, ut semel Pauli apostoli mentionem, et in universum antiqui grammatici sententias non aliter suis temporibus accommodavit, nisi ut praesentis temporis significatus in praeterita convertet, ac de multis rebus dicebatur poneret pro dicitur. Integros articulos nunquam addidisse videtur: quae enim vocabulorum interpretationes in eius libris reperiuntur, quibus locus in Festo deest: eae aliunde videntur esse transvectae. Nam quamquam in universum Paulus eundem quem Festus verborum ordinem sequitur, interdum tamen eam legem violavit, ita maxime, ut vocabula, quae in excerpendo iam praterierat, mutato consilio ex superioribus repeteret. Müller's edition accepted the denomination Paulus Pontifex". Theodore Mommsen also challenged the attribution of this work to Paul, but with more caution; see Mommsen 1864, 57: "Sex. Pompeii Festi de verborum signification libri XX integri extiterunt non solum saeculo post Christum nono, quo Paulus, sive diaconus is fuit sive alius quispiam, eorum epitome a se confectam dedicavit Carolo regi, sed etiam saeculo undecimo, quo scriptum esse codicem, cuius pars hodie adsevatur Neapoli in bibliotheca publica" and Mommsen 1880, 55. However, the manuscript tradition acknowledged *Paulus*, the abridger of Festus, as *Diaconus*, on at least one occasion; see Neff 1891, 33-4: "Ac Bethmann quidem sententiam suam confirmat his argumentis: primum quod inscriptio epistolae, quam Paulus illis excerptis praeposuit, in nonnullis codicibus haec est: Epistola Pauli pontifices ad Carolum regem, in alio codice Pauli Atheniensis, in nullo Pauli Diaconi; deinde quod numo illius aetatis scriptor Paulo Diacono hanc epitomam addicit; […] Is [Waitz] demonstravit in vetustioribus codicibus, ut in illo Monacensi, nomina pontifex sive sacerdos deesse et Bethmannum errare, quod putaret nullo testimonio antiquorum temporum illud Paulo Diacono addici, nam in antique catalogo bibliothecae Laureshamensis glossas Pauli Diaconi commemorari". Furthermore, Bethmann added that Paul the Deacon's Festus was too poor stylistically when compared to his other works. Bethmann 1849, 276: "Seine Sprache ist im ganzen richtig und rein von Barbarismen, die wenigen ausgenommen, welche dadurch, dass die lateinische Sprache im Mittelalter keineswegs eine tote war, sondern als eine wirklich lebende eine eigentümliche, nicht zu hindernde Entwicklung hatte, gewissermassen unvermeidlich und zur Regel geworden waren".

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **90** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

Paul was defined "diacono familiari clientulo nostro".<sup>100</sup> In this light, *servulus* and *clientulus*, two hypocorisms expressing endearment, represented two different views of the same dynamic: the close relationship between the two.<sup>101</sup> Moreover, Waitz pointed out that in the same letter Charlemagne talked about Paul the Deacon's work as an abridger, mostly of sacred texts ("sermones diversorum catholicorum Patrum perlegens, et optima quaeque decerpens"): this inclination was perfectly compatible with what Paul the Deacon declared regarding Festus's text and what he actually did with it.<sup>102</sup>

Neff acknowledged the fundamental role of Waitz in the progress of the debate on the authorship of the epitome of Festus. This was despite believing that his forerunner had not solved the question, merely reopening it, paving the way for more thorough investigations to be conducted.103 Thus, Neff devoted special attention to Paul the Deacon's works (historical, religious, poetic and epistolographic), analysing their grammar, syntax and phrase structure in order to understand his *usus scribendi*. <sup>104</sup> Afterwards, having delineated exact

101 Waitz 1878, 11 fn. 2: "Extrema epistolae verba, haec in primordiis initae cum Karolo familiaritatis ponenda esse, ostendunt".

102 Lindsay 1913, 1: "Sextus denique Pompeius Romanis studiis affatim eruditus, tam sermonum abditorum, quam etiam quarundam causarum origines aperiens, opus suum ad viginti usque prolixa volumina extendit. Ex qua ego prolixitate superflua quaeque et minus necessaria praetergrediens et quaedam abstrusa penitus stilo proprio enucleans, nonnulla ita, ut erant posita, relinquens, hoc vestrae celsitudini legendum conpendium optuli".

103 Neff 1891, 3 fn. 2: "Paulus Diaconus, quem Festi librum in epitomen contraxisse ut olim plurimi putaverunt ita post O. Muller, Bethmanni, Mommsenii dubitationes Georgius Waitz optime demonstravit [Goetz 1887, 7]. Equidem Waitz nihil demonstrasse, sed viam ad solvendam quaestionem monstrasse; see also Neff 1891, 34: Sed Waitz non solum Bethmanni sententiam refutavit, sed viam nobis monstrare conabatur, qua controversia in perpetuum tolli posset".

104 This analysis was extremely detailed and complex, involving a plethora of aspects of Paul the Deacon's work (see Neff 1891, 4-33), including the disposition of words featured in the phrase (*de verborum collocatione* [4-5]), the disposition of pronouns (*de pronominum collocatione* [5]), the disposition of adverbs (*adverbia* [5-6]), some rhetorical aspects, such as chiasm and parallels (*chiasmus et parallelismus* [6]), the use of locutions, idioms and metrics within the phrase (*ad verborum ambitus* [6-9]), the use of

<sup>100</sup> *PL* 98 0896C [Carolus Magnus, *Epistola IV, De Homiliario Pauli Diaconi, monachi Casinesi* (*anno* 788)]: "Denique qui ad nocturnale officium copulatas quorumdam casso labore, licet recto intuitu, minus tamen idoneo, reperimus lectiones, quippe quae et sine auctorum suorum vocabulis essent positae, et infinitis vitiorum anfractibus scaterent, non sumus passi nostris in diebus, in divinis lectionibus, inter sacra officia, inconsonantes perstrepere soloecismos, atque earumdem lectionum in melius reformare tramitem, mentem intendimus, idque opus Paulo Diacono familiari clientulo nostro elimandum injunximus: scilicet, ut studiose catholicorum Patrum dicta percurrens, veluti e latissimis eorum pratis certos quosque flosculos legeret, et in unum, quaeque essent utilia, quasi sertum aptaret. Qui nostrae celsitudini devote parere desiderans, tractatus atque sermones diversorum catholicorum Patrum perlegens, et optima quaeque decerpens, in duobus voluminibus, per totius anni circulum, congruentes cuique festivitati, distincte et absque vitiis, nobis obtulit lectiones".

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **91** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

parameters in terms of style and methodology, Neff cross-referenced the results of his survey with *De verborum significatione* and noticed, thanks to a granular comparison, that many phenomena occurring in the works universally attributed to Paul the Deacon very often resurfaced in his abridgement of Festus, sometimes in the form of literal quotations, and vice versa.<sup>105</sup> This confirmed beyond doubt his authorship of Festus's epitome.

The nineteen-century debate on the attribution of Festus's medieval epitome to Paul the Deacon appears to find its prefiguration in the Renaissance. In fact, it was only after the rediscovery of the *Codex Farnesianus* around the mid-fifteenth century that some scholars began to cast doubts on which *Paulus* had abridged Festus's original, having noticed substantial differences between the medieval text and the surviving *Codex*. In French erudite circles around the 1570s, the epitomist was first believed to be Paul the Deacon. It is likely that the antiquarian studies conducted on Charlemagne and the origin of the French monarchy in late-sixteenth century France made this connection possible.<sup>106</sup> The purpose of this appendix is to understand the dynamics and reasons behind the Renaissance identification of Paul the Deacon as the author of the abridgement of Festus's *De verborum significatione*. In this way, the cultural path carried out by the antiquarians and philologists who were able to make this important discovery *ante litteram* will be followed.

• • •

106 Regarding the French erudite environments and their antiquarian investigations, see Cooper 2013.

synonyms and repetitions (*abuntantia sermonis* [9-11]), the variations (*varietas dicendi*  [11-14]), the nature of the syntax (*de syntactica ratione* [14-19]), the disposition of complements and their function within the phrase – such as interrogative clauses (*de enuntiatis interrogativis* [19-20]), relative clauses (*de enuntiatis relativis* [20]), conditional clauses (*de enuntiatis conditionalibus* [20-1]), temporal clauses (*de enuntiatis temporalibus* [21]), concessive clauses (*de enuntiatis concessivis* [21]), casual clauses (*de enuntiatis causalis* [21]), comparative clauses (*de enuntiatis comparativis* [21]) – prepositions (*de praepositionibus* [21-3]), other language particles (*de particulis* [23-5]), negative forms (*de negationibus* [25]), numeral adjectives (*de numeralibus* [26]), pronouns (*de pronominibus* [26-8]), nouns (*de substantivis* [28-9]), adjectives in general (*de adiectivis* [29-30]), and verbs (*de verbis* [30-1]).

<sup>105</sup> Neff 1891, 35-7: "Haec de quaestione universa locutus primum omnes illos locos colligam, unde cognoscitur Paulum Diaconum haud ignarum fuisse Festi excerptorum. […] His locis satis demonstrator Paulum penitus pernovisse Festi epitomam. Praeterea autem illius opera referta sunt locis, unde elucet, quando fuerit studio etymologiam significationemque verborum interpretandi. Atque raro invenitur vocabulum minus notum, quod non interpretetur. Quo fit, ut collectis illis glossarium ante oculos habeamus. Unde sumpserit illas interpretationes non semper constat, pleraque sunt ex Isidoro sumptae. […] Hoc quasi parvulo glossario satis demonstravisse mihi vereor, quam penitus pernovit Paulus Diaconus Festi epitomam, quantopere delectatus sit vocabulorum interpretatione".

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **92** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

In all the early incunabula of the epitome of *De verborum significatione*, Paul was never acknowledged as the author of this work. He was systematically replaced by Festus, even when the text of the *Codex Farnesianus* was not included in the publications.<sup>107</sup> The first to give an articulated opinion on the still unidentified epitomist was Manilius Romanus.<sup>108</sup> In his prefatory letter dedicated to Pomponio Leto, which was found in his edition of *De verborum significatione* (1475), Manilius did not refer to the author's name, instead alluding to him only as the person responsible for irreparably damaging the original. Here, he described Paul as a figure of no value, with no name or culture, who had transformed the extensive and rich volume of Festus into a sterile compendium. He added that the discovery of the *Farnesianus* had made it possible to understand several aspects which had been rendered unclear for the abridgement of the text. In his view, these were fundamental to understanding antiquity, and Renaissance scholars somehow had to manage the disparities with the original created by this epitome.<sup>109</sup>

A similar position was also taken by Angelo Poliziano, who declared in the first book of his *Miscellanea* (1489) that Festus's work had been abridged and damaged by a despicable and ignorant interpreter whose name was not worthy of mention.110 Furthermore, neither the *editio princeps* of Festus published by Giovan Battista Pio (1500) nor the subsequent editions carried out by Aldo Manuzio (1513) and Jean Petit (1519) made any direct or indirect reference to Paul the

107 This happened in all the early incunabula.

110 Poliziano 1489, LXXIII: "Ostendit mihi Romae abhinc quadriennium Manilius Rallus, Graecus homo, sed Latinis litteris adprime excultus, fragmentum quoddam Sexti Pompeij Festi (nam ita erat in titulo) sanequam uetustum, sed pleraque mutilatum praerosumque a muribus. Quod me magnopere tenuit, siquidem reliquiae illae qualescunque ex integro ipso uolumine superabant, quod autor Festus composuerat, non ex hoc autem compendiario, quod nunc in manibus coactum uiolenter et decurtatum, scilicet ab ignobili et indocto quodam, nec isto quoque nomine satis bene de litteris merito. Nonnullas quoque ex eodem fragmento Pomponius Laetus, uir antiquitatis et litterarum bonarum consultissimus, sibi pagellas retinuerat, quas itidem legendas mihi describendasque dedit".

<sup>108</sup> Sometimes identified as the Greek scholar Manilius Cabacius Rhallus, but more likely Sebastiano Manilio; see Lamers 2013, 144 and fn 62.

<sup>109</sup> Lindsay 1913, 11; Manilius 1475, *praef*.: "Manilius Romanus Pomponio Leto salutem. Nuper cum legissem Pompei Festi mutilatos libros qui priscorum uerborum inscribuntur, uehementer dolui quod tantum opus integrum non remanserit. Scripsit ille quidem ad totius antiquitatis cognitionem et posteritatis utilitatem, sed puto inscitia superioris etatis tam preclarum munus nobis eripuit. Nam quidem nullius momenti sine nomine sine litteris ad Carolum Regem uolumen diffusum et copiosum in sterile compendium redegit et credibile est reliquisse que magis necessaria erant, ut sepenumero tu mecum questus es. Quod superest imprimendum curaui, ne alius forte audax et temerarius in peius reddat, et pro uirili parte emendari castigarique euigilaui, ut saltem si non integer fidelis tamen legatur. Vale. De Romaulis".

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **93** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

Deacon.111 In these cases, the work appears to have been again attributed entirely to Festus (even the parts belonging to the epitome). This was perhaps because the philologists of the time had sought to diminish the value of the medieval tradition and to increase the importance of the ancient manuscript. Ostensibly this was to strengthen the link between *De verborum significatione* and the ancient world.

In the preface to his editions, the Spanish archbishop and scholar Antonio Agustín was the first to make direct reference to Paul the Deacon's name, but still referred to him generically as an unspecified figure ("Paulus nescio quis"), perhaps somewhat reproachfully.<sup>112</sup> As declared in a letter to Fulvio Orsini dated 24 January 1559, Agustín was unable to uncover the identity of Paul the epitomist, especially after his studies on the manuscript tradition of the abridgement, in which Paul was generally addressed with no title, or only sometimes referred to as *pontifex*. 113 However, Agustín was the first to consider this epitome from a historical perspective. In fact, he stated that Paul the Deacon's intention when abridging Festus's work was to create a more successful epitome of the original. He then added that the general success of the abridgement had led to Festus's work gradually being replaced by a more simplified version, since the public was no longer able to accept or even understand the original form.<sup>114</sup> Therefore, the transformation and consequent deterioration of Festus's original was not only caused by the actions of one person, but instead converged with the cultural spirit of the period, generating unexpected consequences as a result.

This situation changed only with the 1575 edition of the French philologist, Joseph Juste Scaliger. In his preface, he referred to Paul as a deacon and a Lombard for the first time ("Paulum Diaconum Longobardum"), broadening the historical context in which he lived.

111 Pio 1500; Manuzio 1513; Petit 1519.

112 Agustín 1559, *praef*.: "Cumque liber ipse totus extare Caroli Regis tempore, Paulus nescio quis operaepretium fore ratus est, si epitomen quandam efficeret eorum, quae ipsi magis placuerunt".

113 This approach anticipated the critique that Waitz and Neff moved to Müller's edition. Soon after, Agustín rejected the identification of Paulus the Pontiff with Pope Paul II, denying any possible identification between the epitomist of Festus and the Roman Pope; see Carbonell 1991, 301: "Del Festo sono senza pensiero, pure vederò volentieri la stampa et vorrei che fossi finito, non che cominziato. Avisate il Sigonio che stampando la lettera di Paolo abbreviatore di Festo, come credo li avisai che la stampassi aventi le parolle sue di Paolo et Festo, non bisogna chiamarlo Pontefice perché non si trova in molti libri scritti, quel titolo et in vero penso che più presto sia detto così, volendo dir altro cognome, overo nome di patria, perché non so qual vescovo christiano si chiama pontefice, se non il Romano, et Paolo II fu posteriore assai, et non badava a questo" (24 January 1559). Indeed, Paul is not referred to as a *pontifex* in Agustín 1559: EPIS-TOLA PAVLI AD CAROLVM REGEM.

114 Agustín 1559, *praef*.: "Is liber indoctis viris adeo placuit, ut pro Festo in omnibus bibliothecis substitueretur".

Scaliger set Paul the epitomist in the reign of Charlemagne and stated that, after the fall of Desiderius – the last of the Lombard kings – he attempted to win the approval of the new king by offering him an abridged version of Festus's text, which resulted in irreparable damage being caused to posterity.<sup>115</sup>

It remains unclear how Scaliger identified Paul the Deacon as the author of Festus's epitome. The first known Renaissance allusion to Paul as an epitomist can be found in Marco Antonio Sabellico's *Enneades sive Rhapsodia Historiarum*, <sup>116</sup> in which he briefly described Paul as a historian who also composed a number of works that were similar to the originals ("Traduntur et alia in simili figura ab eo edita").<sup>117</sup> This last statement perhaps referred to his abridgements and commentaries, and probably relied on the abovementioned letter in which Charlemagne referred to Paul the Deacon's homilies ("optima quaeque decerpens").118 However, Scaliger could not have uti-

116 Sabellico 1498, cxcviii: "Viri ingenio clari, ea tempestate fuerunt. Paulus Aquileiensis ecclesiae Diaconus qui Langobardorum scripsit Historia. Hunc Carolus everso Desyderii regno in Galliam duxit: fuitque regi ab initio charus donatusque est ab eo libertate, compertus inde novarum rerum, et quia de Desyderii regis fuga consilia agitaret, in Diomedis insulam relegatus post aliquos annos ad Arachim se contulit, ubi Adelpergae, eius coniugis, rogatu (fuerat haec Desyderii filia) Eutropii historiae duos adiecit libros; historiae filo a Iuliano Principe ad primi Iustiniani tempora extenso. Caeterum Arachi defuncto in Cassinensi Coenobio reliquum vitae egit, unde saepe ad Carolum dedit litteras et accepit. Huius illud est in divinis. Ut queant laxis resonare fibris, tradunt et in alia simul figura ab eo edita".

117 The same formulation was also reused by Josse Bade in the introduction of the *De origine et gestis Regum Langobardorum*; see Petit 1514, *praef*.: "Qualis autem Paulus ipse vir fuerit cum alii tum M. Antonius Sabellicus Rhapsodiae historiarum enneadis IX lib. IX ita nobis praescribit"; Sabellico's description of Paul the Deacon's life was also the source of Maffei 1506, ccl: "Paulus Diaconus Aquileiensis patria genere longobardus. Desideio regi ob ingenium ac doctrinam admodum carus a Carolo magno captus unacum vita libertate est donatus ac in honore apud eum habitus est, verum cum postea Carolus illum comperiisset Desideri libertatem quaerere, in Diomedis insulam relegavit, unde post aliquot annos aufugiens et ad Arachim perveniens, rogatu Adilperge Desideri filae et Arachis uxoris, historiae Eutropi duos addidit libros a Iuliano principe usque ad primi Iustiniani tempora perscribens. Defuncta deinde Arachi, Casinense Coenobio reliqum vitae tempus monachum egit, litterasque ad Carolum regem plenas humanitatis scripsit gratias agens quod ab eo a quo prius fuerat conservatus rursus vitam accepit"; however, Maffei omits the reference to the abbreviations.

118 *PL* 98 0896C [Carolus Magnus, *Epistola IV, De Homiliario Pauli Diaconi, monachi Casinesi* (*anno* 788)]. Moreover, Sabellico affirmed that Paul the Deacon was a close friend of Charlemagne ("fuitque regi ab initio charus"); this statement derived from this letter as well, in consideration of Charlemagne's words ("Paulo Diacono familiari clientulo nostro").

<sup>115</sup> Scaliger 1574, *praef*.: "De veteribus enim epitomarum concinnatoribus loquor, quos ut ego valde improbo, ita etiam ut omnibus modis improbandum inter eos pono Paulum Diaconum Longobardum, hominem, meo iudicio, confidentissimum, ac, viti res ipsa docet, ineptissimum. Is victo ac profligate Desiderio, qui ultimus Longobardorum Rex fuit, captus a Carolo Magno Imperatore, magnam et a victore, et a posteritate se initurum gratiam putavit, si Sex. Pomp. Festum, quo scriptorem utiliorem lingua Latina non habet, mutilaret, et tanto posteritatis damno se a victore redimeret".

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **95** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 53-98

lised the information contained in Sabellico's short biography with any confidence in his introduction since it does not provide sufficient data or any explicit connection between Paul the Deacon's works and *De verborum significatione*.

One hypothesis could be that Scaliger obtained this information from his friend, Pierre Pithou, who in his *Adversariorum subsecivorum libri* referred to a *Paulus monachus* as the author of both the *De gestis Langobardorum* and the *De verborum significatione*. Regarding the latter, Pithou did not directly refer to the title as proof of this identification, but instead alluded to the word *burrum* (red vest), which among all of Paul the Deacon's works can be found only in the abridgement of Festus's work.<sup>119</sup> In 1569 Pithou edited and published

<sup>119</sup> Pithou 1565, *Index*: *Pauli Diaconi lib. I cap. 1, 14, 16*; 2 [I, 1 *Filius per arma, per capillos, per sacras preces*]: "Paulus Monachus lib. VI de gestis Langobardorum; 23 [I, 14 Clusurae, Burgiae, Lusoriae]: Dicuntur et Burgi, a quibus olim Burgundiones Paulus monachus, Liutprandus diaconus, et Isidorus episcopus tradiderunt"; 68 [II, 20 *Bantum, Heribannum, Bandum, Rerum prolatio*]: "Paul. Monachus lib. I Histor. Longobard. cap. XIII"; 26 [I, 16 *Burra, Beri, Bera, Colobum, Campagus regius, calcei aurati et sericei*]: "Paulus monachus, Cyprianum byrro indutum fuisse refert cum ad supplicium duceretur". It is unclear why Pithou mentions *Paulus monachus* as the source for the episode of Cyprian's life; in fact, the passage of Cyprian comes from Pontius the Deacon of Carthage's *Vita Cypriani*, attested in *PL* 3 1503B [*Acta Proconsularia Sancti Cypriani Episcopi et Martyris* (C,S) V. *Coram magna populi turba decollatur. Ejus corpus a fidelibus noctu sublatum sepelitur*], and reads: "Et ita idem Cyprianus in agrum Sexti productus est, et ibi se lacerna byrro expoliavit". This version, which is accepted for example in Desiderius Erasmus's edition published by Froben (Erasmus 1521), does not correspond to the gloss from *De verborum significatione* [Paul. Fest. 28.5-7: "Ballenae nomen a Graeco descendit. Hanc illi φάλαιναν dicunt antiqua consuetudine, qua πυ᾿ρ῾ρόν burrum, πύξον buxum dicebant. Burrum dicebant antiqui, quod nunc dicimus rufum; unde rustici burram appelant buculam, quae rostrum habet rufum"]. It rather echoes Pontius the Deacon's edition arranged by Paolo Manuzio and published shortly before Pithou's *Adversariorum Libri*; see Manuzio 1563, *Actus passionis*: "Perductus autem gloriosus martyr, exuit se lacernum birrum, quem indutus erat: complicans, et posuit ad genua sua". This may imply that Pithou attributed the quotation of Pontius the Deacon to Paul the Deacon (*Paulus monachus*), which was sometimes repeated by scholars during the seventeen century (Hofman 1698, 538b ); a more precise interpretation was given by Fell 1700, 14-15 and Du Cange 1883-87, 1:664a . In his work, Pithou also refers generally to a *Paulus* when citing the epitome of Festus, creating a bond between this *Paulus* and the *Paulus monachus*; see Pithou 1565, 5b [I, 6 *Ver sacrum*]: "Ver sacrum quid si Paulus ex Festo sic explicat [Paul. Fest. 519.31-2]. Ver sacrum vovendi mos fuit Italis. Magnis enim periculis adducti vovebant quaecunque vere proximo nata essent apud se animalia immolaturos. Sed cum crudele videretur pueros ac puellas innocentes interficere, perductos in adultam aetatem velebant, atque ita extra fines suos exigebant. Idem Sex. Pompeius in Mamertin. [Fest. 150.13] ut si vellent (inquit) eo malo liberari ver sacrum voverent, id est, quaecunque vere proximo nata essent immolaturos. Quem locum librariorum incuria in Augustiniana editione corruptum arbitror"; 15 [I, 8: *Baro, dux*]: "Ut autem Barones sive Varones, ita et Ambactos apud Ennium lingua Gallica servos dictos ex Sex. Pompeio, Paulus scripsit [Paul. Fest. 4.20]"; and 17-18 [I, 10 *Spinturnicia, Resecro, apud Plautum et Marcellinum*]: "Resecrare ex Festo, Paulus sic exponit. Resecrare solvere religione, utique cum reus populum comitiis oraverat per deos, ut eo periculo liberaretur, iubebat magistratus eum resecrare [Paul. Fest. 353.9-11] id est, populum religione absolvere: scilicet, ut ita demum populus religione teneretur, si is qui per Deos oraverat insons innocensque esset. Ita Festum sensisse Farnesiani li-

the *Historiae miscellae*, a historiographic dissertation begun by Paul the Deacon ("a Paulo Aquilegensi diacono primum collectae") and completed by Landulfus Sagax;120 he also worked on French medieval history, focusing on the reign of Charlemagne and on legislation (the works he published included the volumes of *Annales et historiae Francorum* in 1588 and *Historiae Francorum* in 1596, in which he collected primary sources on the matter). This implies that he was well acquainted with many of Paul the Deacon's works, and that he may have been aware of all the complex parallel occurrences within the epitome of Festus's work, and consequently verified their common authorship. It is therefore likely that the cultural environment shared by Pithou and Paul the Deacon, with the information passed from the former to the latter, triggered the realisation that Festus's epitome should be attributed to Paul the Deacon.

Unfortunately, this hypothesis is not yet supported by tangible evidence. However, after Scaliger's edition, Renaissance scholars ascribed the authorship of *De verborum significatione* to the Lombard monk. For example, in 1576, only one year after the publication of Scaliger's edition of Festus (1576), the Flemish philologist, Louis Carrion assigned the extended name of Paul the Deacon to the epitomist of Festus in his *Antiquarum Lectionum commentarii III*. <sup>121</sup> This acknowledgement was also accepted by the French printer, Arnault Sittart, in his 1584 edition of Festus's work. Paul was identified as the historian of the Goths and Lombards and as a scholar who had commented on many ancient authors, aiding comprehension of their works but at the same time creating a series of interpolations.<sup>122</sup>

bri vestigia indicant [Fest. 352.31] […] Plautus in Aulularia, Nunc te obsecro | Fac mentionem cum avunculo mater mea | Resero que mater quod dudum obsecraveram [Plaut. *Aul*. 681-3]. Sic vulgo legitur in libris a doctissimo Camerario editis, sed resecro omnino legendum Pauli locus indicat, hoc sensu".

<sup>120</sup> Pithou 1569, *praef.*: "Paulus Longobardus (quem Eghinardus Pisanum Diaconem, plures Aquilegensem vocant)"; see also Pithou 1609, 700: *Praefatio in Paulum Diaconum*; 1588; 1596.

<sup>121</sup> Carrion 1576, 16 [I, 6 *Libertatem perdimus*]: "neque ea quam vel Festus habet, vel eius depravator Diaconus"; 16-17 [I, 7 *Exilia et ilis unde dicta ina. Festus castigatus*]: "Scribit Festus ex Verrio seu potius ex Festo Paulus Diaconus, homo, quod cum bona istorum pace dicere liceat, bonis libris corrumpendis natus"; 103 [III, 1 *Ius trium librorum in V.V. capiunda legis Papiae verba correcta*]: "Festus, seu potius, Diaconus".

<sup>122</sup> Sittart 1584, *ad lect*.: "Et haec quidem Verrij epitome a Festo concinnata passim omnibus tantisper in usu fuit, dum Paulus Diaconus Longobardus, quem praeclari facinoris huius auctorem esse viri docti iamdudum sunt subodorati, Desiderio Longobardorum rege victo in Caroli magni potestatem redactus captivitate, ad novum Dominum beneficio demereret, historias antiquiores rerum Gothicarum et Longobardicarum narrationis accessione augeret, et scriptores alios partim interpolaret, partim pro suo suique seculi captu tamquam meliores et ad intelligendum faciliores faceret, inepto nescio quo compedij genere depravaret".

• • •

The rediscovery of the *Codex Farnesianus* changed the perception of the authorship of the *De verborum significatione* among the Renaissance antiquarian scholarship. The editions of this work were initially ascribed to Festus, marginalising the Lombard monk and his impact on the tradition. It is in fact evident from the first opinions on *Paulus* that his role, which was strongly criticised, diminished the interest of scholars in discovering his real identity. This was the case not only for the editions that included the *Farnesianus*, but also for those which reproduced only the epitome. It is likely that this situation began to change when Antonio Agustín combined the works of Festus and Paul the Deacon in his innovative editorial layout, clearly marking each definition with the name of each author in the margins. The Spaniard was the first scholar to raise doubts over the identity of the epitomist of Festus but was unable to find a conclusive answer. Nevertheless, along with the studies carried out on the historical works of the Lombard monk, this new perception may have led Pierre Pithou to believe that the epitomist of Festus was in fact Paul the Deacon. This is probably how Joseph Scaliger connected *Paulus*  to Festus from the information passed on to him from Pithou, which was then repeated in later editions.123 This perception of the authorship that had developed during the Renaissance eventually influenced and prefigured the debate over the authorship which reopened during the nineteenth century.

<sup>123</sup> Dacer 1681, *praef*.: "Libri de verborum significatione integri extitere usque ad tempora Caroli Magni, queis Paulus Diaconus Longobardus, homo confidentissimus et ineptissimus eos mutilavit, corrupuit. Victo enim ac profligate Desiderio qui ultimus Longobardorum rex fuit, captus a Carolo Magno Imperatore, magnam et a victore et a posteritate se initurum gratiam putavit, si Sexto Pompeio Festo faceret quod ipse Verrio Fecisset. Sed homo barbarus hunc scriptorem quo utiliorem lingua Latina non habet, ita accepit, foede laniavit, et inhonestis volneribus confecit, ut cadaver pro homine, truncum pro corpore, semianimem pro vivo nobis reliquerit".

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# 3 Iconology **Imagining Lucina**

**Summary** 3.1 Introduction. – 3.2 Lucina and the Key. – 3.3 Lucina and the Open Hand. – 3.4 Janus and Lucina. – 3.5 Conclusions.

### 3.1 Introduction

The material findings and literary bequest that derived from the growth of antiquarian knowledge during the Renaissance heightened the understanding of the classical world, causing a renewed sensitivity to emerge in the intellectual life of the time. Among the many forms of erudition that developed from this relationship with antiquity, the study of ancient mythology appears to be one of the most fruitful areas for the interpretations of the past to be investigated in their many manifestations.<sup>1</sup> This subject also became a common thematic pattern adopted in the decoration of complex pictorial cycles,<sup>2</sup> and artists utilised the antiquarian evidence at their disposal to not only produce more faithful representations, but also offer details which were, at times, unconventional and original. In order to fully grasp the complexity of the multiple mythological iconogra-

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Nascere, Rinascere, Ricominciare. Immagini del nuovo inizio nella cultura italiana*. Ed. by L. Benedetti and G. Simonetti. L'Aquila: Edizioni L'Una, 2017, 77-92.

<sup>1</sup> Since Warburg's studies carried out at the beginning of the twentieth century (Warburg 1999), a totally new field of study emerged, and an innovative method of analysis was developed still flourishing today; see e.g., Reinach 1915; Seznec 1953; Wind 1957; Lapp 1977; Guthmuller 1986; Bull 2005; Zappella 2014, 165-7; Waghall 2015.

<sup>2</sup> Cieri Via 1996; 2003.

phies that appeared within this vast artistic production, a plurality of elements must be considered, including textual, literary and figurative sources, general symbolic codes, attributes, original intents, final purposes and technical processes.<sup>3</sup> Only in this way, can the real influence of iconology on iconographic output be fully understood, which often implied a three-way relationship between patron, iconographer, and artist.<sup>4</sup>

Among the various deities portrayed in the figurative pantheon of the sixteenth century, the goddess Lucina is a particularly interesting case. The imagery of Lucina during the Renaissance appears to be a result of the synthesis and stratification of various elements emerging from the figurative culture of the time.

It was generally recognised that in antiquity, Lucina was the goddess of childbirth and considered to be the protector of pregnant women and newborns. She was usually associated with the Moon<sup>5</sup> and identified equally with Juno<sup>6</sup> and Diana (through the Greek goddess


5 Interesting in this sense the description given by Pirro Ligorio in his letter known as *Lettera delli XII dei consenti* [Arch. Borr. Isola Bella, Autografi Antichi 2]; see Vagenheim 1996; Volpi 2006, 265: "Luna consentia, anchor lei sculpivano con la luna crescente su la testa e nel mezzo d'essa luna le spiche d'ora; da una mano ha la facella, e dall'altra la placenta, cioè una pizza o fogaccia con questo segno nel mezzo (ΣΧ) che significa (ΣΧΙΣΤΟΣ), cioè la placenta, perché gli Aegyptii così significavano la loro Iside per la luna inventrice dell'agricoltura, e prima mostratrice di far pane; i Sabini chiamarono essa luna Olatre e i Toscani Arduinna, gli Aegyptii Iside, gli Argivi Inachides, i Latini Luna lucifera, i Greci (ΣΕΛΕΝΗ) e (ΕΧΤΗΑ), presidente de tutti li partorienti, come chiamarono Junone, così detta a Lucidando o vero come alcuni dicono Lunam quasi lucem alienam, perché da per sé non luce, ma mediante un altro lume che è quello del sole, e fu detta Diana e Iana e fu proposta anchora essa sopra delle cose della villa perché essa temperando col moto e movimento dell'aere, col sole le piogge, fa venire alluce le piante e refrigera la notte a lei dedicata, come il giorno al Sole, e perché dicono che secondo il moto della Luna mese per mese i pastori providevano i loro gregi, tanto nelle cose del nodrimento, come nel medicamento, purgando gli animali de' suoi morbi".

6 See Giovanni Boccaccio's *Genealogiae Deorum*, 4.16 and 9.9. The most extensive discussion on Juno Lucina features in Giraldi 1548, 159-60 that refers also to ancient coins: "Lucina Iuno fingebatur, si antiquis nomismatibus credendum, hoc modo, u test in Faustina Aug. Pii Aug. Fil. in cuius tergo matronae stolatae imago stans cernitur, quae dextera pateram, sinistra hastam tenet, his literis ascritis IVNONI LVCINAE [*RIC* III Antoninus Pius 505B]". See also Biondo 1559, 12: "Tandem Lucina quam parturiens invocaverat"; D'Alessandro 1522, 327a : "Eius variae potestates et nomina fuere: nam et Curetis, Lucina, Matrona, Regina, et Opigena, quod parturientibus opem fert"; see also the commentary on D'Alessandro's work by Tiraqueau 1586, 848: "*Lucina*] Terentius in Andria, actus 3. Scena 1: Juno Lucina fer opem, servame obsecro [Ter. *Andr*. 473]. Ubi Donatus, Latine, inquit, Iuno a iuvando dicta, Lucina, ab eo quod in lucem producit [Donat. *Comm. Ter. Andria* 3.473.2]. Et eius loci Terentiani authoritate, Servius ubi nuper citavimus, post ea, quae ibi ex eo diximus, subiunxit, de eadem Iunone loquens, dicit eam praeesse parturientibus [Serv. *Comm. Verg. Aen.* 3.73]. Varro autem lib. 4 de lingua Latina: a Latinis, ait, Iuno Lucina dicta, vel quod terra, ut Physici dicunt, iuvat et lucet, vel quod ab luce eius, qua quis conceptus est, una iuvat, donec mensibus ac-

#### Eileithyia),<sup>7</sup> who were both related to the Moon and to birth in general.

tis produxit in lucem. Facta igitur a iuvando et luce Iuno Lucina, a quo parientes eam invocant [Varro *ling.* 5.10 69]. Plinius lib. 16 cap. 44: Iunonem ita dictam putat a luco, ubi et eius aedes condita fuit, et lotos mirae vetustatis [Plin. *nat.* 16.235]. Cui adstipulatur illud Ovidij lib. 2 Fastorum: Gratia Lucinae dedit haec tibi nomina lucus | Aut quia principium tu dea lucis habes | Parce precor gravidis facilis Lucina puellis | maturumque utero molliter aufer onus [Ov. *fast*. 2.449-52]"; Tiraqueau must have partially relied on the information provided by Rosinus 1583, 53: "Iuno Lucina inde nomen habet, quod lucem nascentibus dare crederetur, unde etiam Lucetia. Varro de Lingua Latina lib. 4: Ideo videtur a Latinis Iuno Lucina dicta, vel quod terra, ut Physici dicunt iuvat, et lucet, vel quod ab luce eius, qua quis conceptus est, una vivat, donec mensibus actis produxit in lucem [Varro *ling.* 5.10 69]. Facta igitur a iuvando et luce, Iuno Lucina, a quo parientes eam invocant, unde illud Glycerij apud Terentium: Iuno Lucina fer opem, serva me, obsecro [Ter. *Andr*. 473; Ter. *Adel*. 487]. Plinius vero eam sic dictam, ait, a luco, ubi eius aedes condita fuerit, ubi lotos fuerit mirae vetustatis [Plin. *nat.* 16.235], quam opinionem etiam Ovidius in Fastis recitat [Ov. *fast*. 2.449-52]. Huius templum in V regione Urbe a P. Victore recensetur, ubi et lucus ei dicatus fuit: Aedicula ipsi in V regione extructa et dedicata fuit, teste eidem [P. Victor 1503 (*Regio V Exquilina. Templum Iunonis Lucinae*)]. Scribit Dionysius, Servium Tullium regem aerarium Iunoni Lucinae instituisse, in quod pro singulis nascentibus parentes, sive cognati certi precij nummum inferrent [Dionys. Alicar. *Ant. Rom.* 4.15 (Ἥραν Φωσφόρον)]"; Stucki 1598, 23b: "lucorum [dea] […] et Iuno (unde Lucina cognominata)" and 30a : "Quantum igitur ad primam partem sive actum, principium nimirum sive exordium vitae humanae attinet, quod est CONCEPTIO et NATIVITAS seu hominis in hanc lucem editio, Junonem primo ethnici finxerunt Fluoniam, quam mulieres colebant, quod eam sanguinis flumen in conceptu retinere putabant. Deinde et partus et parturienteium eadem fuit dea, Juno quidem dicta a juvenescendo, et Lucina quasi lucida, quam mulieres, ut sibi adesset in partubus invocabant, sicut et Lunam [Plut. *quaest. Rom.* 282 C 6], unde Glycerium apud Terentium, cum partus dolores experiretur, exclamans ait: Juno Lucina fer opem, servame obsecro [Ter. *Andr*. 473; Ter. *Adel*. 487]. Et hoc: Per caeruleum astrorum polum | partus celerantemque Lunam [Plut. *quaest. Rom.* 282 C 6]. (Facilius enim mulieres sub plenilunium videm prolem eniti [Plut. *quaest. Rom.* 282.27; Xylander 1570, 245]). Cicero: Apud nostros Iunonem Lucinam in pariendo vocant [Cic. *nat. deor.* 2.68.76]. Et quod ferre eam opem in partu laborantibus credebant Opigenam matronae colebant, inquit Festus [Paul. Fest. 221.6]. Atque haec praecipua fuit Dea Nativitatis". The reference to Plutarch, on which the entire passage is built, is cited almost literally from the Latin version provided by Xylander 1570, 245.

7 Giraldi 1548, 159: "Lucina igitur Iuno dicebatur, quanquam et Diana, ut dicemus, quod lucem nascentibus dare crederetur, unde etiam Lucetia" and 500-1: "Lucina Diana, quae parientibus favere credebatur. Vergilius: Casta fave Lucina, tuus, iam regnat Apollo [Verg. *ecl*. 4.8]. Varia tamen apud auctores sententia. Quidam enim Iunonem, ut est in Iunone dictum, quidam Dianam. Catullus in seculari carmine ad Dianam, si ista ingit: Tu Lucina dolentibus | Iuno dicta puerperis [Catull. *Carm*. 34.9-16]. Et similiter M. Cic. lib. secundo de Nat. Deorum cuius verba placet subsignare, ne ea sepius citare oportet: Luna, inquit, a lucendo nominata sit, eade enim est Lucina: itaque ut apud Graecos Diana. Eamque luciferam, sic apud nostros Iunonem Lucinam in pariendo invocant [Cic. *nat. deor.* 2.68]. […] Lucina a parturientibus invocatur, quia propriu eius munus est, distendere rimas corporis, et meatibus viam dare, quod accelerando partui salutare est; et hoc est quod eleganter poeta Timotheus expressit διὰ λαμπρὸν πόλον ἄστρων διὰ τ᾽ὠκυτόκοιο σελάνας [Macr. *Sat.* 7.16.30; Plut. *quaest. conv.* 3.10.659b], hoc est Per splendidum polum astros, perque accelerantem partum Lunae. […] Ilithyia Diana a plerisque existimata, ut scribit Phurnutus [Cornut. *nat. deor.* 73.8]. […] Unde Aristys puella apud Theocrit. in Daphnide, χαλεπὸν βέλος Εἰλειθυίαις [Theocr. *Idyll*. 27.28] difficile telum Ilithyiae. Quare μογοστόκος etiam dicta est, ut notat Hesychius [Hesyc. *Lex*. μ 1535], utitur item Theocritus [Theocr. *Idyll*. 27.28]. Haec et βολωσία dicebatur, ut graeci gramatici observant [*Etym. Magn.* 205.25]. Huic deae dictamus seu dictamnus (utro-

Although she was linked to other minor goddesses and nymphs (like Egeria),<sup>8</sup> she was even more closely associated with Janus, the god of beginnings, transitions, gates, and doors, in overseeing and assisting women during childbirth.<sup>9</sup> The etymology of her name derived from the Latin word *lucem* (light) and meant 'herald of light', which added even more value to her mission: just as the moon lit up the night sky, she was thought to bring light and bring new life from the darkness; and since Lucina started the mechanism of life that the three goddesses of the Parcae developed and ended, she was also considered to be the fourth sister.<sup>10</sup>

Renaissance scholars and artists also referred to the *Description of Greece* by Pausanias in order to better define the attributes and features of Lucina: a full portrayal of the goddess is provided, in which she appeared with a veil from the top of her head down to her feet.<sup>11</sup>

que enim modo appellatur haec herba) fuit dicata, quod valde sit odorata, et propterea ad facilem partum valere traditur. Quinea Ilithyia ideo coronabatur, ut apud Theonem in Arati commentariis legimus [*Schol. Vet. Arat.* 30-3bis], et Phornutum. Idem et Zenodotus Mallotes [*Schol. Vet. Arat.* 34], et suo carmine innuit Euphorion [fr. 111 P]". On the issue of the *dictamnus* see Broggiato 2014, 137-8. On the differences between Diana and Lucina, see Giraldi 1548, 502: "Diodorus Siculus, quo loco Cretensium res tractat, diversam Dianam et Lucinam facit. Lucinae, inquit, data est parturientium cura, officiumque eorum euae parturientes perferunt, unde et in partus discrimine et difficultate mulieres janc praecipue deam invocant [Diod. Sic. *Bibl. Hist.* 5.72.5]. Ad Dianam vero tradunt infantium ac ciborum curam pertinere, et reliqua quae idem scriptor executos est [Diod. Sic. *Bibl. Hist.* 5.73.4-5]. Homerus etiam diversam a Diana facit, et a Iunone, cum Latonae partum in hymno Apollinis describit [*Hymn. Homer. In Apoll.* 97-115]. Pindarus quidem in Pythicis et ipse distinguere videtur, cum Aesculapii matrem aureis sagittis Dianae perdomitam canit, antequam cum Ilithyia opus perficeret [Pind. *Pyth*. 3.1-15]".


10 Giraldi 1548, 502: "Idem in Nemeis Ilithyiam invocate, in Sosigenis peuri Aeginetae hymno, eamque Parcarum ait assistricem, filiamque Iunonis [Pind. *Nem*. 7.1-3]. […] Idem Pindarus in Olymo. Ἐλευθω Ilithyiam vocavit, cum eam et Parcas Apollo iubet assistere Evadnae parturienti [Pind. *Ol*. 6.41-2]". See also Conti 1567, 91a : "Credita est autem fuisse a Parcis parturientibus praefecta, quoniam neque cum illam mater gestaret in utero, neque cum pareret, ullos dolores sensit, ut in his ait Callimachus: ᾗσί με Μοῖραι | γεινομένην τὸ πρῶτον ἐπεκλήρωσαν ἀρήγειν, | ὅττι με καὶ τίκτουσα καὶ οὐκ ἤλγησε φέρουσα | μήτηρ, ἀλλ' ἀμογητὶ φίλων ἀπεθήκατο κόλπων [Callim. *Hymn*. 3.22- 5]. Hisce levare | vix bene me natam Parcae statuere dolores. | Quod me cum pareret, vel cum gestaret in alvo | mater non unquam doluit, sine laeta dolore | deposuit quod onus". The final syntagma of v. 25 reported by Conti is ἀπεθήκατο κόλπων which instead derives from another work of Callimachus [Callim. *Hymn*. 1.15], the correct form is instead ἀπεθήκατο γυίων.

11 Pausan. 1.18.5: μόνοις δὲ Ἀθηναίοις τῆς Εἰλειθυίας κεκάλυπται τὰ ξόανα ἐς ἄκρους τοὺς πόδας, and Pausan. 7.23.5-6: Αἰγιεῦσι δὲ Εἰλειθυίας ἱερόν ἐστιν ἀρχαῖον, καὶ ἡ Εἰλείθυια ἐς ἄκρους ἐκ κεφαλῆς τοὺς πόδας ὑφάσματι κεκάλυπται λεπτῷ, ξόανον πλὴν προσώπου τε καὶ χειρῶν ἄκρων καὶ ποδῶν, ταῦτα δὲ τοῦ Πεντελησίου λίθου πεποίηται· καὶ ταῖς χερσὶ τῇ μὲν ἐς εὐθὺ ἐκτέταται, τῇ δὲ ἀνέχει δᾷδα. Εἰλειθυίᾳ δὲ εἰκάσαι τις ἂν εἶναι δᾷδας, ὅτι γυναιξὶν ἐν ἴσῳ καὶ πῦρ εἰσιν αἱ ὠδῖνες· ἔχοιεν δ' ἂν λόγον καὶ ἐπὶ τοιῷδε αἱ δᾷδες, ὅτι Εἰλείθυιά ἐστιν ἡ ἐς φῶς ἄγουσα τοὺς παῖδας. The most famous Latin transAnother commonly used source was Ovid's *Metamorphoses,* especially the episodes of the *Birth of Hercules*<sup>12</sup> and the *History of Adonis and Myrrha*. <sup>13</sup> On the basis of the information reported by these classical authors, Renaissance representations of Lucina were generally carried out in birth allegories and mythological episodes linked directly thereto, as can be seen in the many illustrations accompanying the sixteenth and seventeenth-century editions of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*, or various artworks (including enamels) with these mythological subjects, such as Titian's (1506-1508) and Girolamo Sermoneta's (1560 ca.) *Birth of Adonis*, or the *Birth of the Princess* (1622 ca.) part of the Marie de' Medici cycle painted by Peter Paul Rubens.<sup>14</sup>

lation of Pausanias carried out during the sixteenth century is the one by Romolo Amaseo, from which the Renaissance scholars who refer to these passages directly cite; see Amaseo 1547, 2.176: "Habent Aegienses vetustum Lucinae fanum, deae ligneum signum a vertice ad calcem tenui varbaso velatum, praeter os tamen, summas manus, et pedes. Sunt vero quae non teguntur partes e marmore Pentelico. Alteram manum porrigit, altera facem praefert. Attributas ei faces ex eo suspicari possis, quod parturientes dolores urer videantur, vel quod ipsa in lucem fœtus profert". Different instead is the version given by former translators; see e.g. Loescher 1541, 284a : "Aegienses vetustum templum Lucinae habent. Ipsa Lucina a capite ad pedes usque tenui panno est tecta. Simulacrum ligneum est, excepta facie, summis item manibus ac pedibus, quae ex Pentelicis lapidibus sint confecta. Alteram manum in directum extendit, altera facem attollit. Quia enim mulierum in partu dolores igni sunt similes, ideo facem a Lucina teneri fortasse quis coniecerit". A later Italian translation, however, seems to follow more closely the outcome of the earlier version, rather than the later; see Bonacciuoli 1594, 292: "Hanno gli Egiesi un tempio antico di Lucina, la cui statua, dalla testa sin alle punte de' piedi è coperta d'una sottilissima tela, et dalla faccia, i piedi et le mani in fuori è tutta di legno. Sono queste parti di marmo pentelesio. Delle mani l'una stende per diritto, con l'altra tiene una facella. Che le facelle siano date a Lucina si può pensare che sia o perché i dolori del parto sono alle donne cocenti come il fuoco, o pur per quest'altra ragione, che Lucina è quella che fa uscire in luce i figliuoli". See also in this chapter fn. 36.

12 Ov. *met*. 9.295-316: "illa quidem venit, sed praecorrupta, meumque | quae donare caput Iunoni vellet iniquae. | Utque meos audit gemitus, subsedit in illa | ante fores ara, dextroque a poplite laevum | pressa genu et digitis inter se pectine iunctis | sustinuit partus. Tacita quoque carmina voce | dixit, et inceptos tenuerunt carmina partus. | Nitor, et ingrato facio convicia demens | vana Iovi, cupioque mori, moturaque duros | verba queror silices. Matres Cadmeides adsunt, | votaque suscipiunt, exhortanturque dolentem. | Una ministrarum, media de plebe, Galanthis, | flava comas, aderat, faciendis strenua iussis, | officiis dilecta suis. Ea sensit iniqua | nescio quid Iunone geri, dumque exit et intrat | saepe fores, divam residentem vidit in ara. | Bracchiaque in genibus digitis conexa tenentem, | et "quaecumque es", ait "dominae gratare. Levata est | Argolis Alcmene, potiturque puerpera voto". | Exsiluit, iunctasque manus pavefacta remisit | diva potens uteri: vinclis levor ipsa remissis. | Numine decepto risisse Galanthida fama est".

13 Ov. *met*. 10.503-14: "At male conceptus sub robore creverat infans | quaerebatque viam, qua se genetrice relicta | exsereret; media gravidus tumet arbore venter. | Tendit onus matrem; neque habent sua verba dolores, | nec Lucina potest parientis voce vocari. | Nitenti tamen est similis curvataque crebros | dat gemitus arbor lacrimisque cadentibus umet. | Constitit ad ramos mitis Lucina dolentes | admovitque manus et verba puerpera dixit: | arbor agit rimas et fissa cortice vivum | reddit onus, vagitque puer; quem mollibus herbis | naides inpositum lacrimis unxere parentis".

14 Cieri Via 2003, 133 and 241.

Besides the many declinations of these erudite sources in scholarly dissertations and art, further developments in Lucina's imagery emerged only thanks to additional investigations in ancient literature and antiquarian bases. Of them all, perhaps the most significant is the one deriving from new interpretations of Festus's *De verborum significatione*, which brought about a completely original feature – the key – and opened up some unexpected figurative solutions of symbolic significance.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the complex development of this unusual attribute of Lucina in Renaissance iconography, which appears to have been influenced by several semantic fields and emerged as a visible phenomenon of a deeper cultural dynamic. The works of artists such as Jacopo Zucchi, Lorenzo Lotto, and Raphael, together with the mythographic treatises of antiquarian scholars such as Lilio Gregorio Giraldi, Giovanni Pierio Valeriano, Vincenzo Cartari and Baccio Baldini, will be examined for the purpose of retracing all aspects of this evolutionary path. What emerges is new material concerning the different perspectives on Lucina during the sixteenth century, including new symbolic readings derived from the philological and textual interpretations that influenced the iconographic building method of that time.

### 3.2 Lucina and the Key

Around 1591 the Florentine artist Jacopo Zucchi decorated the Galleria of the Palazzo Rucellai in Rome,<sup>15</sup> a residence which belonged to the nobleman Orazio Rucellai (1530/40-1605). Zucchi developed a rich iconographic programme that included various deities from ancient mythology.<sup>16</sup> Among the gods and goddesses portrayed in his

<sup>15</sup> One must notice that Zucchi's image of Diana, which carries also the attributes of Lucina, is depicted in a preeminent position on the short side of the Hall, facing the South. The windows of the wall on which Lucina features overlook the church of San Lorenzo in Lucina, originally built on the ruins of the pagan temple of Juno Lucina – this connection was renowned at least since the fifteenth century, see Biondo 1559, 23: "Templum fuit ante urbem conditam Iunonis Lucinae a luco dictum in quo erat […] non si dubitandum id Iunonis Lucinae templum fuisse, ubi nunc est sacti Laurentij in Lucina ecclesia. Refert Ovidius ei templo sacerdotem ex Lupercalibus praefuisse, ad quem quum irent mulieres concipere nequeuntes, is ante se denudatas prostratasque flagella verberans hircinis confecto pellibus ut conciperent efficiebat. Monte sub exquilio multis in ciduus annis lumonis magnae nomine Lucus erat, et infra [Ov. *fast*. 434-5]. Gratia Lucinae, dedit haec tibi nomina lucus | aut quia principum tu dea lucis habes […]". An assumption could be made that the reference to Lucina in the fresco may be somehow related with the presence of the temple located just besides, establishing in this way a direct connection between the temple and the Gallery of Palazzo Rucellai through the figure and the attributes of Lucina herself.

<sup>16</sup> A full bibliographic overview of the Galleria Rucellai is provided in D'Amelio, Morel, Rigon 2013, 47 fn. 3, in which mention is made of Lohaus 2008 and Pfisterer 2003.

frescos, Diana **[fig. 8a]** deserves particular attention because she is represented with the attribute of the key, which constitutes a departure from previous depictions **[fig. 8b]**.

The artist himself discussed this choice of iconography in his *Discorso sopra li Dei de' Gentili*, published in 1602, in which he described and provided explanations for several of his paintings.17 Here, he stated that the presence of the key in Diana's left hand recalled the imagery of the Roman goddess Lucina, who was considered to be one of Diana's personifications; according to unspecified ancient sources, her distinctive characteristics included a key symbolising safe childbirth.<sup>18</sup>

This attribute was not entirely new to Zucchi since he had previously depicted the goddess Diana with a key in the Hall of the Muses (*Camera delle Muse*) at the Villa Medici in Rome, which was decorated between 1584-86 and commissioned by the Florentine cardinal Ferdinando de' Medici.<sup>19</sup> The coffered ceiling of the Hall was made up of seven panels with mythological representations of the Muses carrying specific features of ancient deities. In the panel entitled Melpomene-Sun and Thalia-Moon (*Melpomene-Sole e Thalia-Luna*), the muse-goddess is depicted with all of Diana's attributes, which includes a key lying beside her foot **[figs 9a-b]**. 20

18 Zucchi 1602, 1602, 38: "O santa dea, che dalli antichi nostri | debitamenta sei detta triforme [Ariosto *OF* XVIII. 184.1-2]. Leggiadramente la dipinse l'Ariosto, in questa ottava, confermando l'opinione di Seneca, che di tal nome adorna la fece, credendola che in Cielo, in Terra et parimente all'Inferno si estendesse il suo valore [Sen. *Med*. 1-12]; come che ancora gl'Antichi volessero accennare, nelle tre teste di animali a lei dedicati, cioè Cavallo, di Cignale et la terza di Cane, sì come ancora più apertamente la dichiarorno con li tre nomi, co' quali da loro era ne' sacrifici invocata, cioè Luna in Cielo, Diana in Terra, Hecate nell'Inferno. Vogliono che sopra il partorire fosse dalle donne sotto il nome di Lucina chiamata, et creduta che facilitasse molto la strada a' già maturi parti; et a questo effetto la facessero gl'Antichi con una chiave in mano, sì come in questo quadro dipinto si vede, la quale tiene dall'altra mano l'arco et le saette, i quali finsero, che gli aspri dolori del partorire dinotassero; indi le orna il capo una cornuta Luna; ma la femina che se gli vede appresso è presa per la rugiada, tenuta di essa figliuola"; see also D'Amelio, Morel, Rigon 2013, 125-6. The fact the Diana held a key "recalling the functions of Lucina" was already pointed out in Seznec 1953, 299- 300 however without a critical analysis of this attribute.

19 Morel 1991, 24-33; Cecchi 1999a; 1999b; for a biographical overview of this figure, Bietti, Giusti 2009.

20 All symbols related to Diana: a moon-shaped crown, a sceptre with the bull, a statue of Diana Ephesia in her right hand and a tambourine; the reason for the blending of the muse and Diana lies in the statement made by Marsilio Ficino, who established the equivalence between the nine muses and the planets: Thalia corresponded to the Moon; see Lomazzo 1591, 26-7: "Or secondo il Ficino Calliope è voce risultante da tutte le voci delle sfere, Urania del cielo stellato, così detta per dignità, Polinnia di Saturno, di complessione fredda e secca, Tersicore di Giove salutifero al coito delli huomini, Clio di Marte per la cupidigia di Gloria, Melpomene del Sole, come tem-

<sup>17</sup> A full bibliographic overview on Zucchi's *Discorso* could be found in D'Amelio, Morel, Rigon 2013, 47 fn. 2; Saxl 1985; Aurigemma 2000.

**Figure 8a** Jacopo Zucchi, *Diana*. Palazzo Ruspoli Memmo (Gallery), Rome. Fresco painting. 1592

**Figure 8b**

Jacopo Zucchi, *Diana*, detail. Palazzo Ruspoli Memmo (Gallery), Rome. Fresco painting. 1592

#### **Acciarino 3 • Iconology**

#### **Figure 9a**

Jacopo Zucchi, *Melpomene-Sun Thalia-Moon*. Villa Medici (Hall of Muses), Rome. Hardboard. 1584-86

#### **Figure 9b**

Jacopo Zucchi, *Melpomene-Sun Thalia-Moon*, detail. Villa Medici (Hall of Muses), Rome. Hardboard. 1584-86

Another work carried out in around 1572, which was again painted by Zucchi and commissioned by Ferdinando, on the *Salone di Diana*  at the Palazzo Firenze in Rome21 is closely linked to the two previous cases in terms of substance and in all likelihood represents the archetype for these images. The hardboard entitled *Diana e le sue Ninfe*, which is now exhibited at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence,22 portrays the various personifications of Diana **[fig. 10a]**, 23 including a figure holding a key in her left hand **[fig. 10b]** that can be quite clearly

23 Morel 1991*,* 13-16.

peramento ch'egli è di tutto il mondo, Erato di Venere per l'amore, Euterpe di Mercurio, per l'honesta dilettatione nelle cose gravi, Thalia della Luna per la viridità data alle cose con l'humor suo. […] Ma più commune opinione è che sian le Muse l'anime delle sfere: Urania del Cielo stellifero chiamato aplane et della stessa sfera; Polinnia di Saturno; Tersicore di Giove; Clio di Marte; Melpomene del Sole; Erato di Venere; Euterpe di Mercurio; Thalia della Luna", and Ficino 1493 [XII. *Similitudo Solis ad Trinitatem divinam et novem ordines angelorum. Item de novem numinibus in Sole et novem Musis circa Solem*]: "Deinde de Musis novem veteres in Sole numina collocarent. Nam aut substantia, eius contemplamur, aut vires. […] Quid igitur novem circa Phoebum Musae, nisi Apollineorum genera numinum per sphaeras mundi novem distributorum? […] Sed qui inter eos ubique praecipue sunt solares antiquiores appellavere Musas scientiis quidem omnibus praesidentes, maxime vero Poesi, Musicae, Medicinae, expiationibus et oraculis, atque vaticiniis".

<sup>21</sup> Morel 1991, 115-25.

<sup>22</sup> It decorates the ceiling of the Sala delle Carte Geografiche.

identified as Lucina, which confirms Zucchi's explanatory text on the frescos in Palazzo Rucellai.<sup>24</sup>

The recurrence of this detail in Jacopo Zucchi's imagery of Diana Lucina reveals that the key had become a constant feature in his iconographic choices for this goddess. As previously stated, Zucchi attributed this feature in his representation of Lucina to the influence of ancient sources ("la facessero gl'Antichi").25 An analysis of the flourishing antiquarian culture of the period, however, points to a more complex web of references **[figs 11a-b-c]**. 26

24 Aurigemma 2007, 183-4 recognised the goddess Lucina in the figure holding the key, but without giving a substantial explanation; she simply connected this feature to a general birth of knowledge ("parto della conoscenza") or to the hypothetic pregnancy of Clelia Farnese Cesarini in 1572; see Morel 1991*,* 15. Morel is not sure about the identification of the images of Diana in this artwork. He instead states that Zucchi blends different attributes of Lucina, Isis and the Moon. It is uncertain whether Zucchi received iconological supervision in the setup of these decorative programmes. Morel affirms that Duke Francesco I Medici sent the humanist Pietro Angelio da Barga (1517- 1596) to support the painter. Today it is not possible to reconstruct the influence of this scholar on Zucchi's mythological figures and, more specifically, his Diana Lucina; see Morel 1991*,* 115 and Ould 2007.

25 Zucchi 1602, 38.

26 Parallel occurrences of female figures depicted holding a key can be found during the Renaissance period, but not in relation to Lucina. One case, which was documented for the first time by Albricus Philosophus in his mythographic collection *De deorum imaginibus libellus* (late fourteenth century), concerns Cybele, goddess of the earth and mother of the gods, who is depicted with a key, which was used to change the seasons, closing Winter and opening Spring; see Albricus 1520, 4b [I. iii. *De Opis et Vestae configurationis significatione*]: "Ait enim alma parens deorum dicitur tellus. Alma ab eo quo nos alat: abusive tum et aliis inquit numinibus, hoc epitheton damus: terram autem constat matrem esse deorum, umquam simulachrum eius; cum clave pingit, nam terra tempore verno aperitur, claudit hyemali". This interpretation of Cybele's key was given in many other mythographic treatises: see e.g., D'Alessandro 1522, 213a : "Et Iupiter Labradaeus cum securi, sicut Terrae Simulacrum cum clavi", and Cartari 1571, 201: "Scrive Isidoro [*PL* 82 0321A (Isid. *etym*. 8.11. *De diis gentium* 61-2)] che fu data altre volte alla imagine della gran Madre una chiave, per mostrare che la terra al tempo dell'inverno si serra, et in sé nasconde il seme sopra lei sparso, qual germogliando vien fuori poi il tempo della primavera, et allhora è detta la terra aprirsi, sì come riferisce anco Alessandro Napolitano"; Cybele holding keys can be found also in fifteenth century frescos of Palazzo Schifanoia in Ferrara: see Settis, Cupperi 2007. A second case can be identified in the *Emblemata* of the Flemish scholar Adrianus Iunius (1511-1575). The illustration, entitled *Vxoriae virtutes*, represents a female figure standing on a turtle, Angerona, with her left hand covering her mouth, signifying silence, and with a key in her right hand, representing the security of the home; see Iunius 1565, 56: "clavem dextra retentat" and 141: "Pingantur itaque recto corporis statu mulier, dextra clavium fascem prae se tenens"; Drusi 2012b. A third case is the one of the goddesses Hekate, personification of Diana herself, who was depicted by the ancients with the attribute of the key. This feature was not known to sixteenth-century scholars (see e.g., Giraldi 1548, 495-8; Giraldi defines Hekate protector of doors, hence somehow related to the attribute of the key, 501: "Sane et hymno qui κοινός inscriptus est, Protyrea Hecate cognominatur, χαίρ' Εκάτη προθυραία, μέγα σθενὰς [Procl. Hymn. 6.2 and 6.14], hoc est, Salve Hecate Prothyreaea valde potens"). The key was recognised as an attribute of Hekate only from the seventeenth century onwards; see Zorn 1724-25, 1061-2: "Clavis Hecatae tum in monumentis quibusdam antiquis […] optime convenit, quai phylax et custos vocata apud inferos cum Plutone regnare credebatur. Quamvis enim Seguinus et

#### **Figure 10a**

Jacopo Zucchi, *Diana and her Nymphs*. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence. Hardboard. Palazzo Firenze, Rome, 1572

#### **Figure 10b**

Jacopo Zucchi, *Diana and her Nymphs*, detail. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence. Hardboard. Palazzo Firenze, Rome, 1572

#### **Figure 11a**

Michel Ange de la Chausse, *Hekate Triformis,* in *Romanum museum sive Thesaurus eruditae antiquitatis: in quo gemmae, idola, insignia sacerdotalia, ... centum & septuaginta tabulis aeneis incisa referuntur, ac dilucidantur: cura, studio, & sumptibus Michaelis Angeli Causei de La Chausse*, Romae, ex typographia Joannis Jacobi Komarek Boëmi, 1690, pl. 13

#### **Figure 11b**

Michel Ange de la Chausse, *Hekate Triformis,* in *Romanum museum sive Thesaurus eruditae antiquitatis: in quo gemmae, idola, insignia sacerdotalia, ... centum & septuaginta tabulis aeneis incisa referuntur, ac dilucidantur: cura, studio, & sumptibus Michaelis Angeli Causei de La Chausse*, Romae, ex typographia Joannis Jacobi Komarek Boëmi, 1690, pl. 14

#### **Figure 11c**

Michel Ange de la Chausse, *Hekate Triformis,* in *Romanum museum sive Thesaurus eruditae antiquitatis: in quo gemmae, idola, insignia sacerdotalia, ... centum & septuaginta tabulis aeneis incisa referuntur, ac dilucidantur: cura, studio, & sumptibus Michaelis Angeli Causei de La Chausse*, Romae, ex typographia Joannis Jacobi Komarek Boëmi, 1690, pl. 15

It is likely that Zucchi's iconography of the key developed during his apprenticeship under Giorgio Vasari in Florence around 1560-70,<sup>27</sup> but not from his master's repertoire: in fact, the four images of Diana painted by Vasari – one in Casa Vasari in Arezzo, 1548 (*Diana Ephesia*), one in Casa Vasari in Florence, 1560 (*Diana Ephesia*), and two in Palazzo Vecchio (*The Chariot of the Moon* in the *Sala degli Elementi,*  1555; and the *Allegory of Fiesole*, 1563-65) – neither match Zucchi's creations nor feature a key.<sup>28</sup> Instead, this idea probably stemmed from a series of notions that he acquired in erudite environments in 1565 while working with Vasari to organise the celebration of the marriage of Francesco de' Medici, son of Grand Duke Cosimo I, with Joanna of Austria, daughter of Emperor Ferdinand I.<sup>29</sup>

On this occasion, the scholars and artists worked together to prepare a parade of chariots representing gods and goddesses from ancient mythology to celebrate the event.<sup>30</sup> In the *Discorso sopra la* 

27 Cecchi 1999b.

28 Vasari 1588, 12: "P. Ditemi ora in questo quadro della Luna molto ci havete fatto il Carro d'Argento? G. L'ho fatto perché il corpo della Luna è bianchissimo, e li poeti lo figurano così, e questo è tirato da due cavalli l'uno di color bianco per il giorno, et l'altro per la notte, caminando la Luna et di giorno et di notte; e quell'aria carica di freddo mostra che dove la passa fa la rugiada, e però ho dipinto quella femmina che le va innanzi, che è la rugiada partorita dalla Luna", and 169: "Quest'è Fiesole ritratta al naturale, con il suo Mugnione fiume a piedi, che il suo corno pieno di frutti, et ho fatto una Diana cacciatrice, che tiene lo stendardo entrovi una luna di color celeste, insegna antica di quella città". My gratitude goes to Liana De Girolami Cheny for helping to find all Vasari's Dianas.

29 Cecchi 1999b, 106.

30 The case of Vincenzio Borghini and Giovanni Battista Cini are very significant; see Belloni, Drusi 2002, 371 [ASFi *Carte Strozziane* I. 133.63*r*-*v*]; Lorenzoni 1912, 67- 9 and 154-9; Bottari 1754, 90-147.

Spanhemius nummus, in quibus Hecate cum clave apparet, de Furiis exponat, rectius tamen Hecate intelligitur, sive Diana triformis"; the numismatic reference [*RPC* VII.2 (ID 3054); *SNC* 513] is to Séguin 1684, 180-1: "At in nummo nostro terribilius quiddam baculis gerunt, nempe serpentes, taedas, flagella, stimulos, quibus plenae Poetarum, cum de Furiis loquuntur, paginae. De clavi, quam gestat earum una, vix habeo quid dicam, nusu significari forte inferorum fores ab ea pro arbitro claudi et reserari", and Spanheim 1683, 54: "Au reste, voicy de quelle manière ces Furies se trovent dépeintes en des anciennes médailles Grecques, comme dans la suivante du Cabinet du Roy, frapée sous le jeune Gordien par ceux de Lyrba, ville de l'Asie Mineure; et dans une autre de Mastaura, ville de la Lycies, avec des serpens, de clefs, des torches allumées et poignards dans les mains". The reference to the statues (*monumenta*) is drawn from Montfaucon 1719, 153: "La derniere figure d'Hecaté, publiée par M. de la Chausse, est tirée du cabinet Chiggi. Elle est sans doute la plus belle et la plus chargée de symboles. Les trois figures adossées sont assez differentes entre-elles. […] La troisiéme est couronnée de laurier, et rient de la main droite une clef, et de la gauche des cordes. La clef convient fort bien à Hecaté, nommée ci-dessus Phylax, ou la gardienne. Elle étoit en effet la gardienne de l'enfer, où elle regnoit avec Pluton"; an engraving of this statue is provided by De la Chausse 1690, pls 13-14 [II. *Deorum simulachra*]. Although none of these three examples appear to have inspired Zucchi's Lucina – and the explanation given by Iunius himself excludes any possible connection – these figures may have represented parallel occurrences of a general pattern that gradually influenced this imagery.

*Mascherata della Genealogia degl'Iddei de' Gentili* (1565), the humanist Baccio Baldini made particular note of the imagery used for the celebration,31 describing for the first time the detail of the key in relation to Egeria, a minor deity associated with birth. When describing the Chariot of the Moon, Baldini referred to this nymph holding a key, adding that she was invoked by pregnant women, who usually held a key in their hand to propitiate childbirth, as reported by the Latin grammarian Festus **[fig. 12]**. 32

Baldini referred specifically to Festus's *De verborum significatione*  as the source of his iconography. However, the use of a key in reference to Egeria as the protector of childbirth did not only derive from the etymology of her name. Reference to the key can be found under the word *clavim* (key), which is related to birth in general, with Festus stating that a key was donated to pregnant women to ensure a safe birth. From this, it is possible to infer that there is a strong likelihood that Baccio Baldini amalgamated the two passages, thereby creating a new source which offered original solutions.<sup>33</sup>

31 Pierguidi 2007, 347-64 and Mini 1593, 65.

32 Baldini 1566, 63: "appresso a questi venne Egeria la quale invocavan le donne antiche quando eran gravide, percioché con l'aiuto suo credevon partorir più agevolmente, et di questa Dea fa mentione Festo Pompeio, perché l'authore la finse una giovane vestita di una veste di varij colori che risplendesse et gli dette in mano una chiave et una pietra pregna, percioché l'apriva la via al parto accioché ei venisse a luce"; see also Giraldi 1548, 160: "Egeria quoque a mulieribus colebatur, quod eam partui egerendo opitulari credebant: auctor Festus" and Stucki 1598, 30a . In the preparatory drawing of this chariot (BNCF, ms. Pal. C.B. III. 53/1, c. 93) made by Alessandro Allori, who was one of the artists involved in setting up the parade, no key is attributed to Egeria. This situation, however, changes in the second series of drawings housed in the Gabinetto dei disegni e delle stampe of the Galleria degli Uffizi (GDS 2795F), where a key features in the hand of the nymph; see Pierguidi 2007, 349 and Degl'Innocenti, Martini, Riccò 2013 [http://mascherata-firb.ctl.sns.it]: "ma avrà trovato posto sicuramente nella mano destra". For the relationship between Zucchi and Baldini's text see D'Amelio, Morel, Rigon 2013, 53.

33 Paul. Fest. 67: "Egeriae nymphae sacrificabant praegnantes, quod eam putabant facile conceptum alvo egerere", and 49: "Clavim consuetudo erat muliebris donare ob significandam partus facilitatem". It was recently and convincigly argued (Lentano 2018) that a third source contributed to influence the iconography of Egeria in Baldini's parade, still coming from Festus, Paul. Fest. 48: "Claudere et clavis ex Graeco descendit, cuius rei tutelam penes Portunum esse putabant, qui clavim manu tenere fingebatur et deus putabatur esse portarum". The entry for *claudere*, which came right before the entry for *clavim*, mentioned also the Roman god Portunus, who bore a key, providing a practical example of a deity carrying this feature, which could be applied also to other figures. Renaissance scholars interpreted also this passage of Festus, see Agustín 1559: "*Claudere*] Portunum portubus praesse notat Servius lib. V Aeneid. [Serv. *Comm. Verg. Aen.* 5.241] ex Virgilii versibus: Et pater ipse manu magna Portunus euntem | impulit, illa Noto citius volucrique sagitta. | Ad terram fugit, et portu se condidit alto [Verg. *Aen*. 3.623-5]. Et Varro lib. V: Portumnalia, inquit, a Portumno, cui eo die aedes in portu Tiberino facta et feriae institutae [Varr. *ling.* 6.3.19]. In aereis nummis Neronis Ostiensis agnoscitur, cum huius Dei imagine [RIC I² Nero 83]. Vide Ovid. lib. VI Fastor. [Ov. *fast*. 6.544]".

**Figure 12** Anonymous, *Egeria with Key*, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe 2795F, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence. Ink on paper. c. 1565

This framework does not yet provide a full explanation of Zucchi's iconography of Diana Lucina, but this is the first occurrence of a key being connected to a deity of birth.

The development of this imagery also derived from other iconological interpretations in contemporary antiquarian treatises. In 1571 the Italian mythographer Vincenzo Cartari published a revision of his *Imagini de gli dei de gli antichi*, an inventory of the mythological attributes of ancient gods that were usually adopted by artists in their works. Far from being a mere revision of previous editions, this volume for the first time included a description of Lucina that could have inspired Zucchi's representations. In discussing the various personifications of Diana, Cartari affirmed that when the goddess was identified with the Moon, she had positive effects on childbirth and was therefore acknowledged as Lucina. He then described the attributes of the goddess with an open, empty, and outstretched hand. A key could very well have been placed here as a good luck token for pregnant women, as described by Festus. Cartari concludes his discussion by theorising that the open hand could have had the same symbolic meaning as the key.34 Cartari, therefore, gives a correct reading of Festus's text – i.e. the key symbolised a safe birth, and for this reason could be combined with Lucina, who was the protector of childbirth – and one can assume that he attempted to amend Baldini's previous misinterpretation of the key linked to Egeria. However, when reading Cartari's passage, Zucchi may have considered the key to be a real attribute of the goddess and not simply an iconographic option.

### 3.3 Lucina and the Open Hand

The detail of the key was not included in previous editions of Cartari's work, which only mentioned Lucina's outstretched hand;<sup>35</sup> this

35 For example Cartari 1556, 23-4: "Et per questo la chiamavano allhora e divotamente la pregavano nominandola Lucina, che tosto, e senza pericolo della madre facesse che venisse il parto già maturo in luce. Onde Pausania scrive che in Egina, città della Grecia, era in un antico tempio consecrato a lei una statoa di Lucina fatta tut-

<sup>34</sup> Cartari 1571, 106-11, especially 108-9: "perché dicono che la luna per la humidità sua ha forza di fare il ventre della donna molle in modo che facilmente si apre nel partorire […] nominandola Lucina […] l'una delle mani era distesa, senza alcuna cosa et vi havrebbono ben potuto mettere una chiave perché Festo scrive che la solevano donare gli antichi alle donne, mostrando con questa che è stromento da aprire, che desideravano loro un parto facile e piacevole, perché aprendosi bene la via al bambino, quando ha da nascere, egli se ne esce senza dare tormento alla madre; ma forse, che vollero mostrare il medesimo con quella mano di Lucina distesa, et aperta". The former editions of this work are Cartari 1556, 1566 and 1567. The 1571 edition was the first to include new antiquarian material and to be provided with an iconographic apparatus; for Cartari as one of the sources of Zucchi, see D'Amelio, Morel, Rigon 2013, 87.

reference is likely to have derived from other sources such as the *De deis gentium* by Lilio Gregorio Giraldi, and later replicated by Natale Conti in his *Mythologia*, in which the goddess was portrayed with an empty outstretched hand, according to Pausanias's description.<sup>36</sup> Therefore, the association of the open hand with Lucina is fundamental to understanding the presence of the key, because it emerged as an alternative figurative possibility.

The first literary example of this figuration can be identified in a humanistic poem in octave rhyme, *Silve* (1521 ca.), which was written by the Italian poet Antonio Fileremo Fregoso.<sup>37</sup> In the section entitled *De i tre preregrini* (The Three Pilgrims), three characters travelled in a sacred oneiric dimension and the goddess Lucina was represented as their guide in the chapter entitled *Del chiostro di Lucina* (The Cloister of Lucina). Fregoso described Lucina holding a torch in her right hand and assisting the birth process with her left hand.<sup>38</sup>

Renaissance artworks can offer visual evidence of what was being expressed in erudite and literary writings of the time. In one of the engravings of the *History of Juno* (1560) by Giulio Bonasone (ca. 1498- 1574), an Italian painter from Bologna, Juno is represented as Lucina assisting childbirth **[fig. 13a]** with an open and empty hand **[fig. 13b]**. Together with the drawing, Bonasone's verses evoke a direct relation-

37 Special thanks to Stefano Pezzè for his advice.

ta di legno fuori che la faccia, le mani, et i piedi, che erano di marmo, e la copriva tutta un sottilissimo velo da quelle pari in fuori ch'erano di marmo; stendeva l'una mano, e con l'altra portava una face accesa. La quale o mostrava che le donne al partorire sentono gravissimi dolori, che le distruggono quasi, come il fuoco strugge e consuma tutto quello in che si accende, overo che questa dea era apportatrice della luce a' nascenti fanciulli, perché porgeva loro aiuto ad uscire del ventre della madre".

<sup>36</sup> See also in this chapter fn. 11. Giraldi 1548, 502: "Idem Pausanias auctor est apud Athenienses institutum fuisse, ut Ilithyae simulachra ad imos usque tegerentur pedes. Fuit et Ilithyae apud Aegienses templum pervetustum, cuius simulachrum ita fuit effictum, ut a capite ad pedes tenuissimo esset panno contectum, et manum alterum porrigeret, altera facem teneret accensam" and Conti 1567, 91b: "Effigebantur imago Lucinae, cuiusmodi fui tilla apud Aegienses, quae alterm manum vacuam porrigebat, altera gerebat facem, ita enim et infantem susceptura videbatur, in lucem eductura, et dolores, quos inflammatio totius corporis consequitur, significare".

<sup>38</sup> Fregoso 1528, 50a [22-4]: "Giongendo al liminar del loco puro, | l'ample valve col corno percotea | e una portinara, anze una diva, | la fatal porta subito li apriva. || De veli candidissimi vestita, | una facella in la man destra tene, | con qual accende de l'umana vita | la lucerna a ciascun ch'al mondo vene; | con l'altra poi ogni mortale aita | entrar per quella via ch'al mal e al bene | conduce sempre ognun che peregrina | pel l'uman stato, e chiamasi Lucina. || Con voce e con la mano al magno ospizio | adimandolli […]". It is unclear from the text whether her left hand was open and empty; it is only stated that she used it during childbirth. However, in the following verse, Lucina calls the pilgrims with her voice and beckons to them with her hand ("Con la voce e con la mano"); this implies that she was using her left hand and not her right hand, which was holding the torch.

#### **Figure 13a**

Giulio Bonasone, *Giunone Lucina*. In *Amori sdegni et gelosie di Giunone. Iulio Bonasone InVentore*, after 1560

#### **Figure 13b**

Giulio Bonasone, *Giunone Lucina*, detail. In *Amori sdegni et gelosie di Giunone. Iulio Bonasone InVentore*, after 1560, pl. 3

**Figure 14** Giovanni Antonio Rusconi, *Birth of Hercules*. In *Le trasformationi di M. Lodouico Dolce*, In Venetia, appresso Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari e fratel., 1553

ship between Juno and the Moon, the "celestial goddess of birth, holy Lucina", which recalls the basic iconographic traits of the goddess.<sup>39</sup>

This feature also recurs in an engraving of Giovanni Antonio Rusconi in the *Trasformationi* of Lodovico Dolce, a poetic translation of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*. In chapter XIX, where the birth of Hercules is narrated, Lucina appears in the form of Juno. Juno was also Jupiter's wife, and Hercules was Jupiter and Alcmena's love child. For this reason, Lucina (as an emanation of Juno) became hostile to Hercules's mother, using her influence on the birth process to increase the pain of labour, obstructing the delivery of the child. Ovid describes the episode in detail (*met*. 9.280-316): as Lucina attended on a stool while Alcmena was giving birth to her son, she linked the fingers of her hands together and placed them between her legs in order to impede the birth process. Only a servant, who was aware of the goddess's plan to inhibit the positive influence of her open hands on pregnant women, found a way to make her open them; at that moment, the spell was broken, and Alcmena was finally able to give birth.<sup>40</sup>

<sup>39</sup> Bonasone 1560, 3: "Celeste dea del parto, alma Lucina, | principio e causa de ogni ben fecondo | che informi e serbi e che perpetui 'l mondo | sia a noi propitia tua bontà divina".

<sup>40</sup> Ov. *met*. 9.295-9: "dextroque a poplite laevum | pressa genu digitis inter se pectine iunctis | sustinuit partus; 308-9: divam residentem vidit in ara | bracchiaque in geni-

This passage was translated by Dolce and served as the model for Rusconi's representation.41 In fact, Rusconi's engraving depicts Lucina with her hands clamped between her legs in order to prevent Alcmena from giving birth to her child. Only when the goddess finally opened her hands did Hercules come to light.<sup>42</sup> Therefore, it is clear that Rusconi used these literary sources to represent Lucina's hands: she can be easily identified in the scene **[fig. 14]**, confirming the fundamental relevance of this iconographic trait in her imagery.<sup>43</sup>

Even the iconography of Juno in one of the frescos of the *Loggia di Amore e Psiche* at the Villa Farnesina in Rome, which Giovanni da Udine and Giulio Romano rendered from a drawing by Raphael,<sup>44</sup> appears to have been designed with the traits of Lucina in mind **[fig. 15a]**. In the rib vault representing the three goddesses, Venus, the goddess of beauty, is depicted nude; Ceres, the goddess of crops, is presented with grain spikes on her head; and Juno is displayed with a peacock by her feet. Thus far, the position of Juno's hands has been interpreted as a theatrical gesture in an attempt to placate a furious Venus, directly citing Apuleius's *Metamorphoses*. <sup>45</sup> However, this

43 For a general picture on the iconography of Lucina in the Renaissance editions of Ovid, see Zappella 2014, 157-8.

44 Varoli-Piazza 2002, 57-69, especially 61-2. Regarding these paintings, see also Caneva 1992 and Mols, Moormann 2008.

bus digitis conexa tenentem; and 315-16 exsiluit iunctasque manus pavefacta remisit | diva potens uteri, vinclis levor ipsa remissis".

<sup>41</sup> See Capriotti 2013; Guthmuller 1983, 771-9.

<sup>42</sup> Dolce 1553, 197: "Per sette giorni e sette notti (essendo | maturo il parto) fuor d'ogni misura | fui tormentata, e tal cordoglio io prendo | che quasi al gran dolor cesse natura. | Al fin le braccia humilemente stendo, | e Lucina pregai, c'havesse cura | di levarmi dal duolo: e ben venn'ella, | ma tutta guasta, e al mio desio rubella. || Venne ma da Giunon tutta corrotta, | e sol con disiderio di finire | mia vita: e ben temei di questo allhotta, | sentendo raddoppiarsi il mio martire. | S'hebbe ne la mia camera condotta | nascostamente, e udendomi languire | presso l'uscio in un canto si ripose | e stretta l'una man nell'altra pose. || Mise il destro ginocchio sopra il manco, | e, come io dico, strinse ambo le mani; | (così impediva il parto) e aggiunsevi anco | parole, onde i rimedi erano vani. | Ond'io con viso impallidito e bianco | formo lamenti da far gli orsi umani. | Molte donne mi son sparse d'intorno, | e in voto consumar tutto quel giorno. || Avvenne ch'una ancella, andando spesso | per casa a far diversi uffici volta, l'inganno di Giunon conobbe espresso, | ch'ebbe Lucina d'improviso colta: | e senza con lei far lungo progresso, | "rallegrati" le dice "ch'è disciolta | la donna nostra dal suo parto grave | et un vago bambin partorito have." || La dea, credendo le parole vere, | levata da seder le mani aperse. Alhora io partori' con dispiacere di lei, quando l'astutia discoperse: | prese l'ancella insolito piacere, | e questo suo piacer non ricoperse, | ma rise de la fraude bene andata, | e sì perché Lucina havea beffata".

<sup>45</sup> Apul. *met.* 5.31: "Sic effata foras sese proripit infesta et stomachata biles Venerias. sed eam protinus Ceres et Iuno continuantur uisam que vultu tumido quaesiere, cur truci supercilio tantam uenustatem micantium oculorum coerceret". The identification of this source is in Frommel 2003, 171.

passage does not provide a full description of Ceres and Juno's poses, nor does it give specific details regarding their hands. Instead, a subsequent passage never included among the sources for this figuration describes Psyche imploring both Ceres and Juno to protect her from Venus's wrath, praying to the former for her "fertile" hand and evoking the latter as "Lucina" protector of childbirth.<sup>46</sup> Since the hand of Ceres is in full accordance with these words, it could be hypothesised when observing the fresco that Juno's pose could also have been influenced by this same invocation, applying the iconographic characteristic of Lucina to her figure (i.e. the open hand) **[fig. 15b]**. Furthermore, since the hands of the goddess were always described in the plural form in the verses of Ovid referring to the birth of Hercules (*iunctas manus | ambo le mani*), the fact that Lucina was depicted with both hands open does not create a conflict with her general imagery, which allowed iconographic variations to manifest. Therefore, the representation of Juno as Lucina in this fresco may acquire an iconographic meaning that strengthens the links to her mythological tradition.

<sup>46</sup> Apul. *met.* 6.2: "per ego te frugiferam tuam dexteram istam deprecor, and 6.4: et omnis occidens Lucinam appellat [...] Quod sciam, soles praegnatibus periclitantibus ultro subuenire". An extensive explanation of the figure of Lucina within this passage of Apuleius is given in Beroaldo 1501, 95b: "Lucina appellant] Iunonem Lucinam a parturientibus invocari nemo est qui nesciat. Lucinam autem ideo nuncupant, quod lucem nascentibus tribuat; a luce quoque lucecia nominatur, sicut et Iupiter lucetius dictus et quod lucis causa sit, quodque nos luce quasi vita ipsa afficiat et iuvet. Marcianus, Gellius, Festus auctores [Martian. Cap. *Nupt*. 2.149; Fest. 396.17]. Plinius autumat Lucinam a loco nominari, in quo Romae condita est aedes Lucinae [Plin. *nat.* 16.235]; Ovidius utrumque etymon complexus est his versibus: gratia Lucinae dedit haec tibi nomina lucus, vel quia principium tu dea lucis habes [Ov. *fast*. 2.449-52]. Supercilia in Iunonis tutela esse prodiderunt, quod his protegantur oculi, per quos luce fruimur; quam lucem tribuere putabant Iunonem Lucinam. Quidam tradunt, Lucinam Iunonis esse filiam. Graeci mystico nomine Ilithyam vocant, qua dictione usi sunt et nostri. Ovidius: Praepositam timidis parientibus Ilithyan [Ov. *met*. 9.273], Horatius in carmine seculari: Levis Ilithyia fuere matres | Sive tu Lucina probas vocari | Seu genitalis [Hor. *carm. Sec.* 12-14]. M. Varro sentit Iunonem Lucinam esse Luna, eandem et Proserpinam, Dianamque, quae ideo videtur Lucina dicta, vel quod lucet, vel quod lucem nascentibus praebet. Luna enim nascentium dux, a quo parientes eam invocant [Varro *ling.* 5.10 69]". This could be very well a collateral source for scholars and iconographers of the time; albeit no reference to Pausanias and to the open hand is made, which could directly reinforce the abovementioned assumption, just only the fact the figure of Lucina is extensively discussed within this passage allows to consider that it was recognised by those who dealt with this text and hence it could have been a concrete reference also within the fresco.

#### **Figure 15a**

Giulio Romano and Giovanni da Udine (after Raphael), *Venus, Ceres and Juno*. Fresco painting. Loggia di Amore e Psiche, Villa Farnesina, Rome. c. 1518

#### **Figure 15b**

Giulio Romano and Giovanni da Udine (after Raphael), *Venus, Ceres and Juno*, detail. Fresco painting. Loggia di Amore e Psiche, Villa Farnesina, Rome. c. 1518

#### **Acciarino 3 • Iconology**

**Figure 16b** Lorenzo Lotto, *Portrait of Lucina Brembati*, detail. Oil on panel. Accademia Carrara, Bergamo. c. 1518

The feature of the open hand as one of the distinctive traits in the iconography of Lucina can be found in other representations directly related to the semantic field of the goddess and the Moon.<sup>47</sup> An interesting example can also be seen in the portrait of Lucina Brembati **[fig. 16a]** by the Italian artist Lorenzo Lotto, which was painted between 1518 and 1523, and in which the noblewoman featured appears to have her left hand open **[fig. 16b]**, perhaps intentionally evoking the attribute of the goddess Lucina as the protector of birth.

<sup>47</sup> Even in Renaissance paintings depicting pregnant women or themes related to childbirth, iconographic features recalling this imagery can be found. For example, in the portrait of the Arnolfini carried out by the Flemish artist Jan van Eyck (1434), or in Botticelli's *Primavera* (ca. 1480), a pregnant veiled woman with an open hand is represented: it is likely that no direct relation with Lucina can be established, but it would be interesting to see if this gesture passed into these works through the Middle Ages via the iconography of Saint Margaret of Antioch, the protector of pregnant women and childbirth; see e.g. Saint Margaret of Andrea del Sarto (ca. 1510) and Guercino (1622), where the left hand is open and extended in both cases.

**Figure 17** Vincenzo Cartari, *Diana*. Engraving. In *Le imagini de i dei de gli antichi nelle quali si contengono gl'idoli, riti, ceremonie, & altre cose appartenenti alla religione de gli antichi, raccolte dal sig. Vincenzo Cartari con la loro espositione, & con bellissime & accomodate figure nuouamente stampate*. In Venetia, appresso Vincentio Valgrisi, 1571

#### **Acciarino 3 • Iconology**

#### **Figure 18**

*RIC* III Marcus Aurelius 779. Aureus. Rome. A.D. 164 - A.D. 180. L1: LVCILLA AVGVSTA: bust of Lucilla, bare-headed, hair waved and fastened in a bun on back of head, draped, r. L2: PVDICITIA: Pudicitia, with the features of Lucilla, veiled, draped, standing l.

#### **Figure 19**

*Pudor*. Engraving. In *Hieroglyphica siue de sacris Aegyptiorum literis commentarii, Ioannis Pie rii Valeriani Bolzanii ... Habes in hisce commentariis non solum variarum historiarum, numismatum, veterumque inscriptionum explicationem, verumetiam praeter Aegyptiaca et alia pleraque mystica, tum locorum communium ingentem magna cum oblectatione syluam*. Basel, Michael Isengrin, 1556, 360ᵇ

The relationship between Lucina Brembati and this goddess had already been established in previous studies that demonstrated the mythological allusions of the portrait.<sup>48</sup> However, no reference was ever made to the left hand being a canonical feature of Lucina. Usually, the right hand of the noblewoman was interpreted as a feature of childbirth because it was pressed down on her womb, representing the position of a pregnant woman. However, if this new interpretation of her left hand is accepted, the entire portrait could acquire a new meaning, reinforcing its allegorical nature: Lucina Brembati could, therefore, be fully identified as a personification of the goddess Lucina.

48 Dezuanni 2011; Humfrey 1997, 66-70; Gentili 1989; Berenson 2008, 50, 72 and 108.

### 3.4 Janus and Lucina

In order to consider the appropriateness of the new iconographic element of the key within the more general imagery of Lucina, it is necessary to consider other functions that this goddess covered and how they were understood in Renaissance erudition. Lucina was in fact also considered the guardian of doors; this may have in some way evoked the attribute of the key, further favouring its applicability. Lilio Gregorio Giraldi and Natale Conti recalled that in antiquity she was labelled as *Prothyrea* (προθύραια), which means literally 'standing in front of a door',49 and Fregoso described her as a doorkeeper, confirming the early diffusion of this epithet during the Renaissance.<sup>50</sup> Moreover, in ancient symbols, the door was an element related to birth, almost as 'a door to life'.

According to Giovanni Pierio Valeriano, the goddess Lucina could also be identified with the personification of *Pudicitia*. In his *Hyerogliphica* (1556)*,* the largest dictionary of symbols published during the Renaissance, he stated that *Pudicitia* was connected to the Moon, which represented Lucina both in the forms of Diana and Juno **[figs 17-18]**. <sup>51</sup> Furthermore, Valeriano, relying on Fabius Pictor, added

50 Fregoso 1528, 50a [22]: "e una portinara, anze una diva, | la fatal porta subito li apriva".

<sup>49</sup> Giraldi 1548, 501: "Orpheus in primo hymno, quo loco et Προθυραία, quasi ianuae praepositam, et vitae initricem invocat, eique deae de styrace suffimentum adolet. At quod Diana Ilithya et Prothyraea eadem sit, ille idem Orpheus, in eodem hymno ita cecinit: Ἄρτεμις Εἰλείθυια, καὶ ἡ σεμνή, Προθυραία [Orph. *H*. 2.12], hoc est: Ilithyia Diana et casta Prothyraea"; Conti 1567, 91a : "Tanta fuit Lucinae reverentia apud antiquos, ut non solum praeesse parturientibus credita sit, cum invocaretur, illisque opem ferre; verum etiam tanquam custodis, cui ortus et vitae salutisque humanae initia deberentur, illius imago ante fores domorum ponebatur, quare ita hymnum scripsit Orpheaus ieius laudem, quam Prothyraeam nominavit: Ἠέλιον δὲ μάλ' αἰδέομαι καὶ δαίμονας ἄλλους, | καὶ σὲ φιλῶ καὶ τοῦτον ὀπίζομαι· οἶσθα καὶ αὐτὸς | ὡς οὐκ αἴτιός εἰμι· μέγαν δ'ἐπιδαίομαι ὅρκον· | οὐ μὰ τάδ' ἀθανάτων εὐκόσμητα προθύραια [Orph. *H*. 2.1-4]. Audi me veneranda Dea, cui nomina multa | praegnatum adiutrix, parientum dulce levamen | sola puellarum servatrix, solaque prudens | auxilium velox teneris Prothyraea puellis. Atque paulo post eandem esse et Dianam, et Ilithyiam et Prothyraeam aperte demonstrat: μούνην γὰρ σὲ καλοῦσι λεχοὶ ψυχῆς ἀνάπαυμα· | ἐν γὰρ σοὶ τοκετῶν λυσιπήμονές εἰσιν ἀνῖαι, | Ἄρτεμις Εἰλείθυια, καὶ ἡ σεμνή, Προθυραία [Orph. *H*. 2.10- 12]. Solam animi requiem te clamant parturientes | sola potes diros partus placare dolores | Diana Ilithyia gravis simul et Prothyraea".

<sup>51</sup> This while discussing about the eternity of life symbolised by cycles of the Sun and the Moon; see Valeriano 1556, 328b: "Denique humore unius [*Lunae*] et alterius [*Solis*] calore sustentatae rerum species prorogantur aeternaeque fiunt. Ad hoc faciunt plerique Corneliae Saloninae Augustae nummi [*RIC* V Salonina 7], cuius caput ex nova Luna prodire videtur, a quorum tergo modo FOECVNDITAS, ob id quod modo dicebamus, modo IVNO, quod eadem Lucina est, modo PVDICITIA, quod Iuno, Luna, Diana, et idem Proserpina numen. Horum omnium summam Catullus ita breviter colligit: Tu Lucina dolentibus | Iuno dicta puerperis | Tu potens Trivia et notho | Dicta lumine Luna | Tu cursu dea menstruo | metiens iter annum | Rustica agricolae bonis | tecta frugibus expels [Catull. *Carm*. 34.9-16]". The identification of Lucina with Pudicitia, which

that *Pudor*, the male counterpart of *Pudicitia*, could have been represented with a key when personifying the god Janus, the protector of beginnings, ends, and doors.52 Valeriano linked this key to women in labour and to childbirth, reporting that the custom of giving a key to pregnant women was to assist the opening of the womb. Valeriano also stated that, when Janus was depicted with a key in his hand **[fig. 19]**, he was identified with the ancient Roman god Portunus because he was considered to be the protector of doors. This strong bond between Lucina and Janus, established thanks to their personifications, may have fostered potential iconographic exchanges due to the semantic field they shared.<sup>53</sup>


was possible also because Pudicitia was represented with a veil just like the Lucina described by Pausanias, paved the way to the use of new iconographic sources, such as numismatic specimens, epigraphic inscriptions and statues; see Valeriano 1556, 161b: "Alibi diximus pudicitiam a Romanis velata facie pingi sculpisque solitam", and 296b: "Quod vero in nummis [*RIC* III Marcus Aurelius 779] et monumentis alijs antiquis velatae nonnumquam facies observantur cum inscriptione PVDICITIAE". The reference to this last coin is extremely appropriate because in it features on the obverse the legend LVCILLA AVGVSTA and the bust of Lucilla, while on the reverse appears the legend PVDICITIA surrounding the image of *Pudicitia*, with the features of Lucilla, veiled, draped, standing left. The point is that some catalogues (e.g., Guischardt 1784, 117) report that the same series of Lucilla's coins featured also the legend (*r*) LVCINA AV-GUSTA and (*v*) IVNO LVCINA [*RIC* III Marcus Aurelius 1752 – which instead reads respectively LVCILLAE AVGVSTAE and IVNO REGINA]. These specimens are not attested in modern repertoires; however, if Valeriano happened to see them, this may have favoured the shift from *Pudicitia* to Lucina within the discussion.

<sup>52</sup> Valeriano 1556, 360b : "DE CLAVI. Praestat utrunque clavis, quod et cuneus et clavus, eadem enim aperit et claudit, hoc est ligat et solvit, et in manu Iani praecipue statuebatur. De qua quidem multa poetae nostri. Sed ut figmenta, ubi agitur serio, praetereamus, Fabii Pictoris, si modo legitimum est id opusculi, interpretationem afferemus, qui Ianum dicit ad pudorem et sanctimoniam domorum primum valuas, seras et claves excogitasse, ab eoque ianus appelatas, unde claves in simulacris, in beneficii huius memoriam gestet. SECVRITAS. Alij dicunt securitatis eius signum esse, quae passim eo regnante fuit : domos enim omnium religione ac sanctitate munitas fuisse praedicant. Alij cludendi aperiendique anni officio, quod munus eius esse Dei putabant, claves additas arbitrantur, eaque de causa Clusium et Patultium appellatum. Ad huius instar Apollo cognomento θύραις colebatur apud Graecos, quod in cunctis et exeuntis anni arbiter haberetur. Ianum vero eundem esse ac Solem a multis ubique disputatum. PORTVNVS. Neque tamen Ianus tantum cum clavibus, verum et Portunus cum clavi figurabatur in manu, nam et portarum Deus esse putabatur. PARTVS. Erat etiam olim ritus, ut nuptialibus inter alis clavis quoque mulieribus traderetur. Id aiunt boni ominis causa fieri salitum, ad partum scilicet facilitatem illis comprecandam. Et hoc significato in sacris literis saepe invenies, vulvam aperire". Talking about the keys, Valeriano refers to Fabius Pictor as featuring in the collection of texts edited by Annius 1498, 34b : "Duodecim vero aras tenet sub pedibus ob plures causas. Primum, quia.xii. pomoeria prima, sive.xii. olympos, primis.xii. populis Etruriae statuit, qui suberant Iano Larthi et urbi eius Etruriae, ut Fabius Pictor et Cato in.ii. fragmento referunt. Secunda causa est quam Macrobius in primo Saturnalium refert [Macr. *Sat.* 1.9.7], et Varro in.v. librum divinarum rerum scribit, Iano.xii. aras dictas pro totidem mensibus. Similiter (ut aiunt) tenet claves, quia ad pudicitiam et castimoniam ac religionem tutandam ostiis patentibus apposuit valvas et seras ac claves".

<sup>53</sup> A Janus *claviger*, protector of doors had already appeared in the parade of chariots for the wedding of Francesco Medici of 1565; see Baldini 1566, 124: "Et in sul carro

It is very likely that all the above figurative prototypes contributed towards influencing Zucchi's imagery of Lucina, further justifying her association with a key. In fact, even when decorating the Hall of Palazzo Rucellai in 1591, it is interesting to note that Zucchi portrayed Janus holding a key in his hand on the opposite side of his Diana Lucina **[fig. 20]**. 54 No mention is made in his *Discorsi* as to its symbolic meaning:<sup>55</sup> Zucchi simply described Janus as Saturn's brother and that he carried a key in his hand. Nevertheless, given the significant level of iconological interference that occurred between the attributes of Janus and those of Lucina, it is possible to conclude that these two representations not only have precise correlations in their

di sopra detto messe Iano che haveva due facce, una dinanzi che era d'un vecchio, et una di dietro, et questa era d'un giovane, et in una mano gli dette una chiave et nell'altra una bachetta, percioché egli è descritto così da Macrobio nel lib. allegato di sopra, come guardiano di tutte le porte, et guida, et rettore delle vie [Macr. *Sat.* 1.9.7]", depicted by the artist Alessandro Allori and similarly represented by Cartari 1571, 46-9: "Le porte del cielo sono due, l'una dell'Oriente, per la quale entra il Sole quando viene a dare la luce al mondo, l'altra dell'Occidente, e per questa egli esce Giano fu creduto un medesimo nume con Portuno, il quale era stimato un dio guardiano, e custode delle porte, e perciò così mettevano gli antichi in mano a costui una chiave, come a Giano. […] Ora ritorno a Giano che è il Sole, il quale non solamente apre la mattina, e chude la sera il dì, come dissi, ma fa il medesimo di tutto l'anno anchora, perché l'apre quando di primavera da che la terra comincia a produrre herbe e fiori, e tutta allegra dilata l'ampio seno, e serralo poi d'inverno allhora che ella privata di ogni suo ornamento in sé stessa si ristringe, e stassene coperta di neve e di ghiaccio. […] Plinio scrive che Numa re dei romani fece una statoa di Giano con le dita delle mani acconcie in modo che mostravano 365 [Plin. *nat.* 34.33], accioché si conoscesse percioché egli era il Dio dell'anno, perché l'anno ha tanti dì, quanti ei ne mostrava con le mani, conciosiaché gli antichi piegando le dita o stendendole in diversi modi mostrassero tutti i numeri che volevano, come si pò vedere appresso del beato Beda, che ne fa un libretto [*PL* 90 0295 (*De ratione temporum*. 1. *De computo vel loquela digitorum*)]. E Suida parimente riferisce che per mostrare giano essere il medesimo che l'anno, gli posero alcuni nella destra mano 300 e 65 nella sinistra, e che altri gli diedero la chiave nella destra per farlo conoscere principio del tempo, e portinaio dell'anno [Suid. *Lex*. ι 39]". The source of Cartari's description is Giraldi 1548, 209.

54 The relationship between Chronos-Saturn and Diana-Moon (to which Lucina and Janus are associated) are fully explained in D'Amelio, Morel, Rigon 2013, 58 and 138-9.

55 Zucchi 1602, 15: "a canto dico a la man dritta di Saturno si vede il bifronte Giano, il quale havendo ricevuto e fatto loco commune il regno, edificrono di commun concordia Saturnia et Gianicolo; tiene il detto Giano da una mano una chiave e dall'altra sostiene, secondo Plutarco, un tempio con un tritone in cima, il quale fu da esso in honor di Saturno edificato, e appresso lo scettro". The reference to Plutarch is unclear. Plutarch mentions Janus several times [e.g., Plut. *Num*. 19.7.6 or Plut. *quaest. Rom*. 22]. The source reporting that the temple of Saturn had a Triton on the roof is Macrobius [Macr. *Sat.* 1.8.4], which was reused in many Renaissaice mythological compilations, i.e. Cartari 1571, 38: "E solevano gli antichi porre in la cima del tempio di Saturno un Tritone con la buccina alla bocca, volendo in quel modo mostrare, come dice Macrobio, che da Saturno cominciò la historia di havere voce e di essere conoscitiva". And this description matches perfectly the iconography of Zucchi's fresco. Janus is often associated to temples and to their construction, for example in Giraldi 1548, 650: "Sunt tamen qui in Italia Ianum patrem primum templa struxisse tradiderunt"; but the god was never figured holding a temple himself.

external features but may even lead to uncovering additional hidden meanings in the iconographic programme.<sup>56</sup>

#### 3.5 Conclusions

What has emerged thus far is founded on the methodological processes applied by Zucchi in developing the iconography of the key in relation to Lucina during the Renaissance. Reference has been made to various ancient and modern sources, taking figurative prototypes and archetypes, parallel and divergent imageries into consideration. In this light, the association of the key with the goddess during the Renaissance appears to be a result of the synthesis and stratification of various elements from the same semantic field, which found tangible representation in the figurative culture of the time but which, as of today, can be found only in Zucchi's mythological paintings **[fig. 21]**. 57

It is now clear that this attribute stems from the evolution of the canonical iconography of Lucina's open hand, which represented the most recognizable feature in her imagery for the protection of women in labour and of childbirth. In fact, the key as described by Festus became a parallel occurrence which was perfectly compatible with this feature and its many meanings.

If the representation of Janus in direct relation to Lucina is also considered, the tie between the goddess and the key appears even stronger, especially since Lucina was described as the protector of doors, directly recalling the imagery of Janus, linking the attribute of *Prothyrea* with that of *Portunus* and fostering an iconographic exchange. It remains unclear whether the archetype of this figuration developed by Baccio Baldini was created while he worked on the Florentine parade for the wedding ceremony of Francesco de' Medici in 1565 or when he came across Cartari's description of Lucina in 1571. Regardless of its origin, the key, which Zucchi depicted three times in thirty years, certainly benefited from his personal experience and readings.

<sup>56</sup> If in this case the two gods embodied the Moon and the Sun respectively, this may be indicative of the alternation between day and night. And if one adds to this interpretation the chromatic differences between the two keys, one silver and one gold, further conceptual correlations could be hypothesised, embracing hidden meanings beyond textual and visual sources, taking on even esoteric implications, such as the disclosure of knowledge, the entrance to the door of mysteries, the symbolic access to alchemy, and the sublimation of metals. For a methodological overview on the relationship between iconology and alchemy during the Renaissance, see Caron 2001; Pereira 2001; Linden 2007; Gabriele 2008.

<sup>57</sup> In one of the decorations of the *Camerino* at the Palazzo Farnese in Rome, which was carried out by Annibale Carracci around 1599, a female figure depicted in a monochrome tympanum sitting on the side of the south-eastern door is holding two keys in her right hand. It vaguely recalls the imagery of Zucchi's Lucina. Carracci's iconography was realised slightly afterwards Zucchi's Lucina in Palazzo Rucellai (1599) and may have been inspired by it.

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# 4 Numismatics **Colonial Coins**

**Summary** 4.1 Introduction. – 4.2 Colonies as Institutions. – 4.3 Colonies and Coins. – 4.4 Colonial Coins in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century. – 4.5 Colonial Coins in Florence. – 4.6 Colonial Coins from Spain to Bologna. – 4.7 Conclusions.

### 4.1 Introduction

Ancient Roman colonial coins<sup>1</sup> emerged as one of the most interesting antiquarian topics debated by scholars during the Renaissance. The understanding of this numismatic type developed only after years of confrontation, meditation, and sedimentation of thought. It evolved from a complex cultural system and the conjunction of several different areas of study, which ultimately generated a chain of repercussions for sixteenth-century intellectual life. Initially, scholars took up a renewed interest in the Roman colony only as an institution, but, soon after, evidence was found that pointed to the existence of local public treasuries ordering specific monetary policies. This important discovery established the first connection with the numismatic findings circulating among collectors and scholars. But the real

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *American Journal of Numismatics* 28 (2016), 231-57.

<sup>1</sup> During the Renaissance, ancient coins were classified according to their territory of origin and of circulation, which permitted sixteenth-century humanists to comprehend the function of their local economic and coinage policy and to identify new iconographic types representing the institutions themselves; see Greco 1957-61, 2: 374, 109-11; see also Davis 2012. Today, colonial coins are known as provincial coins: see Woytek 2012, 329-30; Ripolles 2012, 362-6; *RPC* I, 14-17 and 36-7; Wallace-Hadrill 1986.

link between colonial institutions and money gradually came about throughout the years, growing hand in hand with the advancements of antiquarian studies that opened new doors to an understanding of ancient history. Thanks to this collaboration, a new awareness slowly rose over the decades, and, within the extensive, confused, and incomplete numismatic corpora of the time a new numismatic type was identified: the colonial coin.

Many scholars from Italy, Spain, Germany, France, and the Netherlands contributed to the general cultural progress from which numismatics often benefited, influencing the advancement of the debate on colonial coinage, assembling multidisciplinary data and information and cross-referencing sources from various fields. In this context, which covered over one century, the theoretical formulation of antiquarian erudition emerged, placing empirical evidence at the centre of research. The antiquarian method attempted to associate every single statement to a corresponding source as a witness of time and real proof of past life. Its application was different for each humanist according to his personal vision; but, from this multiform picture, it is possible to grasp a common spirit of investigation, the sum of all experiences through which Renaissance culture as a whole flourished in sixteenth-century Europe.

# 4.2 Colonies as Institutions2

After a brief reference to the magistrates deputised to founding colonies ("Triumviri coloniae deducendarum") in Domenico Fiocchi's (†1452), also know as pseud-Fenestella, *De potestatibus Romanorum*, which included these figures among a more detailed explanation of offices within the ancient Roman state,<sup>3</sup> the first Renaissance humanist to deal extensively with Roman colonies was Flavio Biondo. His *Roma Triumphans* attempted to reconstruct the administrative apparatus of ancient Rome. Here, Biondo dedicated several pages to the

<sup>2</sup> In a recent study (Stenhouse 2021) the surveys on ancient Roman colonies carried out before 1560 have been clearly outlined, putting together an extremely rich and complex picture where the works of the antiquaries on the issue are seen in dialogue also with the sixteenth-century political situation. This section relies in part on Stenhouse's work, which will be cited contextually. See more generally Pelgrom, Weststeijn 2021.

<sup>3</sup> Fenestella 1561, 43b: "Triumviros igitur deducendæ coloniae creant: Agrippam Menenium, T. Cloelium Siculum, et M. Ebutium Helvam: nec abnuerim, hunc Magistratum alias a maioribus Romanorum creari potuisse. Cæterum ab insigniori ratione, et ingenti Pop. Rom. honestate exordiri non piguit. Pertinebat vero ad huius magistratus officium, ut et agros nouis deductis colonis dividerent, urbes designarent, ædificare volentibus areas, partirentur, commodis regionibus ciuitatem distinguerent, legibus magistratibusque sisterent, et ad speciem optimi gubernaculi Rempub. effingerent". The passage was founded on Liv. 3.71-2 and 4.12; see Stenhouse 2021, 28.

*coloniae*, particularly to the *origo deducendarum coloniarum* and to the *colonorum praemia iugerum*, where general aspects tied to the structure and functioning of this institution were described. Biondo indicated the strategic role of colonies in the foreign policy of Republican Rome, relying on Cicero and Tacitus,<sup>4</sup> and illustrating how colonies founded by Roman citizens acted as a defensive instrument for the mother-city and, at the same time, served as an outpost for territorial expansion. Biondo seised on one of the most important points, i.e. the rite of allotting land: the ridge-and-furrow that the colonist was able to trace with two yoked oxen and a plough during the course of one day's work corresponded to the boundary of their landholding.<sup>5</sup>

In illustrating how laws (*iura*) and institutions (*instituta*) were established, the humanist also identified the cultural interdependence between the mother-city and the colonies, which included the transmission of customs and traditions to recreate political and social entities in its image ("effigies populi Romani"). Biondo's scholarship influenced subsequent antiquarians who gradually added new information to the topic, for example Niccolò Perotti, who dedicated in his *Cornucopia* a long entry to the term *colonia*. 6

4 Cic. *leg. agr*. 2.73: "quo in genere sicut in ceteris rei publicae partibus est operae pretium diligentiam maiorum recordari, qui colonias sic idoneis in locis contra suspicionem periculi collocarunt, ut esse non oppida Italiae sed propugnacula imperii viderentur". Stenhouse 2021, 29-30 and fn. 14 notices that Biondo refers also to Tac. *ann*. 11.24.3: "tunc solida domi quies; et adversus externa floruimus, cum Transpadani in civitatem recepti, cum specie deductarum per orbem terrae legionum additis provincialium validissimis fesso imperio subventum est", not citing from the reading generally acknowledged by modern scholars, but from a variant attested in the manuscript tradition "per orbem terrarum coloniarum". This error however allowed Biondo to better define the role of colonies in Roman foreign policy.

5 Biondo 1503, 38a -39b: "Sed prius de colonijs dicendum est: quarum deducendarum causam et utilitatem Cicero in oratione in legem Agrariam Rulli prima sic ostendit [Cic. *Leg. Agr*. 2.73]. Et operae precium diligentiam maiorum recordari, qui colonias sic in locis idoneis contra suspicionem periculi collocarunt, ut esse non oppida Italiae, sed propugnacula Imperij viderentur […] Ex civitate enim propagabantur coloniae, et iura habebant institutaque populi Romani, ut essent quasi effigies populi Romani […] Accipiebant vero coloni cum deducerentur pro varia temporum reipublicae conditione: varia quoque praemia, quibus duo, quandoque quattuor, sex aut semptem iugera agri assignabantur. Iugerumque constat fuisse, et nunc etiam haberi: quantum unius diei labore duo boves arare possent". This last statement is the first time that oxen and plow are mentioned in relation to colonies, but only as a rural element. In the following decades, however, the pair oxen-plow will represent the crucial knot for the advancement of the entire colonial debate tied to urban founding.

6 Perotti 1501, 30a : "Coloniae dicunt quae non veniunt extrinsecus in civitatem, nec propriis radicibus nituntur, sed quasi ex civitate propagatae. Iura institutaque Populi Romani non propri arbitrii habent, ut Bononia, Fesulae, coloniae sunt, quae conditio licet magis obnoxia et nimis libera videatur, quam caeterorum oppidorum, potior tamen ac praestabilior existimatur propter amplitudinem maiestatemque Populi Romani, cuius eiusmodi Coloniae quasi effigies parvae, et veluti quaedam simulacra esse videntur; unde a colendo Colonia vocitare, quod Populum romanum colerent, vel quod ad eas colendas Romam proficiscerentur".

A sharper juridical print is given to the commentary on the *Pandects* written by Guillaume Budé and published in 1508. The great French antiquarian discussed the regulations pertaining to the Roman institutions of the *colonia* while analysing a section entitled *Error eius, qui se municipem aut colonum existimans munera civilia suscepturum promisit, defensionem iuris non excludit* (50.1.17.10). Budé started by disclaiming the equivalence of *colonia* with *villa* (farm) previously established by Accursius during the Middle Ages. He referred to an extensive corpus of sources ranging from texts on land surveys to ancient historians, from patristic texts to Latin and Greek translations of the Bible.<sup>7</sup>

As recently pointed out, a case must receive more attention by contemporary scholarship, that is the one found in Niccolò Machiavelli's (1469-1527) works, especially his *Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius*, wrote around 1517 and published for the first time only in 1531. Here, in commenting upon a passage of Livy related to the war strategies and military tactics pursued by ancient Romans (2.6 *Come i Romani procedevano nel fare la guerra*), Machiavelli talks about the role of colonies,<sup>8</sup> their function in controlling newly conquered terri-

8 Machiavelli *Disc*. 2.6-7: "l'uso loro era questo: subito che era scoperta la guerra, egli uscivano fuora con gli eserciti allo incontro del nimico, e subito facevano la giornata. La quale vinta, i nimici, perché non fosse guasto loro il contado affatto venivano alle condizioni ed i Romani gli condannavano in terreni: i quali terreni gli convertivano in privati commodi o gli consegnavano ad una colonia; la quale posta in su le frontiere di coloro veniva ad essere guardia de' confini romani, con utile di essi coloni, che

<sup>7</sup> Budé 1535, 95-6: "In cap. Eius, eodem sub titulo, Ad municipalem. Si quis negocia sua non in colonia sed in municipio semper agit. Colonia hic non villam significat, ut Accursius existimavit, sed pro oppido quo coloniae iure utitur. Colonia interdum agricolationis locum, aratorisque officinam et domicilium significant. Paulus in tract. Locati, Servuus quo coloniae ascriptus est, ad periculum coloni pertinebit. Sic Cicero in Frumentaria, Siculos colonos et aratores pop. Romani vocavit γεωργούς [Cic. *Verr*. 2.3.228]. Inde leges colonicae Varroni lib. pri. De re rustica, Atque etiam leges colonicas tollis, in quibus scribimus, Colonis in agro surculario ne capras compascat [Varr. *Rust*. 1.2.17]. Columella lib. pri. Comiter agat dominus cum colonis, facilemque se praebeat, avarius opus exigat quam pensiones [Colum. *Rust*. 1.7]. Colonia etiam civitas est a matrice civitati deducta, id est metropoli, quomodo Athenis Ionicae civitates deductae erant et propagatae, ut ex Herodoto novimus libro septimo [Hdt. 7.95]. Colonia in hoc significatu Graece ἀποικία dicitur, et coloni ἄποικοι. Thucydides ἀποικία εὖ μὲν πάσχουσα τιμᾷ τὴν μητρόπολιν, ἀδικουμένη δὲ ἀλλοτριοῦται [Thuc. 1.34.1]. Terra Sancta colonia vocatur cap. duodecimo libri Sapentiae. Sed cum totus ille liber iscitie et absurde e Greco versus est ab homine quodam lingae Graecae Latinaeque imperito, tum vero caput illud absurdissime. Nam ubi nunc legitur, ut dignam perciperent peregrinationem puerorum dei, quae tibi omnium chaior est terrra [Hier. *Vulg. Sap.* 12:8], ita Graece legitur, ἵνα ἀξίαν ἀποικίαν δέξηται θεοῦ παίδων ἡ παρὰ σοὶ πασῶν τιμιωτάτη γῆ [Sept. *Sap*. 12:7]. Colonia igitur interdum ab incolentibus terram inhabitantibusque dicitur, interdum a cultoribus terrae". The jurist Andrea Alciati discussed the same passage, see Alciati 1529-32, 1: 247: "Coloniae erant, in quas cives Romani habitatum deducti erant, agerque eis assignatus: solebant autem deduci veterani, et pro diutinorum laborum mercede, unde senectutem tolerarent, iugera bina accipiebant. Causa deductionis erat, vel infrequentia urbium, vel poena, qua veteres Coloni male de Republica meriti, mulctabantur". On the issue see again Stenhouse 2021, 35 and fnn. 30 and 31.

tories, the utility in terms of cultural and political expansion, and the actual amount of land allotted to colonists (2.7 *Quanto terreno i Romani davano per colono*). It is credibly stated that this approach must have paid a tribute to Biondo's *Roma Triumphans*, which Machiavelli may have owned and actually used in compiling his commentary.<sup>9</sup>

Other authors who developed Biondo's statements, adding (sometimes original and sometimes not) details to the issue are the following. The Neapolitan scholar Alessandro d'Alessandro, in his *Genialium dierum libri* (1522), attempted to distinguish between Roman institutions – mainly *colonia* and *municipia* – and identify the various types of colonies (*coloniarum genera*).10 The Austrian humanist Wolfgang Lazius, in his twelve *Commentarii reipublicae Romanae in exteris provinciis* (1551), dedicated a few pages to the colonies to help distinguish them from other urban structures of Roman society and to put some order to the differing terminology used by the ancient sources.11 Alessandro Sardi (1520-1588) from Ferrara, in his *De moribus et ritibus gentium libri III* (1557), described the ritual of Roman colonial foundation involving the demarcation of the sacred boundary (*pomerium*) by a priest ploughing with a yoked ox and cow (*tauro dextra, vacca sinistra iunctis*).12 Sardi's discussion of colonies blend-

9 Stenhouse 2021, 33 fn. 22 refers to Pedullà 2003 and Pedullà 2018, which was in turn inspired by Momigliano 1942.

10 D'Alessandro 1522, 202a-b: "Et tametsi ius coloniae quam municipii semper maius et auctius fuerit, quod coloni iura institutaque populi Romani, nihil sui arbitrii habent; municipes vero suis utuntur moribus et institutis sine imperio populi Romani; tamen in coloniam semel auspicato deductam, illa incolumi, nova colonia deduci nequit, licet illa existente novi coloni deduci valeant. Differt tamen colonia a municipio, quia ex civitate colonia alia traducitur, municipes vero aliunde in civitatem veniunt. In quo animadvertendum, plura fuisse coloniarum genera, namque aliae Latinae, aliae civium Romanorum dictae sunt, aliae ex utrisque, nonnullae ex peditibus vel equitibus, quum in agrum bello captum stirpis augendae causa mittebatur".

11 Lazius 1551, 1050-4 [XII.2 *De coloniis Romanis et municipiis, eorumque discrimine*] especially the sections *Coloniae quae fuerint Romanis*, *Coloniarum genera et discrimina*, *Coloniae Romanae triplices*, *Coloniae Latinae et Romanae*, *Duplices coloniae Romanae*, *Tertium genus coloniarum Romanarum*, *Coloniarum Illyrici tractus catalogus*, *Coloniae deductae et cognominatae ab Augustis*, *Quartum genus coloniarum veteranorum*, *Coloni apud iureconsultos*, *Consuetudo et modi deducendarum coloniarum*, *Quando Romanae esse coloniae defierint*; and Cuspinianus 1553, 128: "Creati autem sunt deducendae coloniae Triumviri, magistratus novus, quorum erat officium, ut agros novis coloniis dividerent, urbes designarent [...] Quem autem fuerit deducendarum coloniarum causa et utilitas, Cicero in oratione in Legem agrariam Rulli prima sic ostendit".

12 It should be pointed out that the Latin words *bos* (ox) and *taurus* (bull) were used indiscriminately to indicate the male bovine in the ancient sources for colonial

avevano quegli campi, e con utile del publico di Roma, che sanza spesa teneva quella guardia. Né poteva questo modo essere più sicuro, o più forte, o più utile". Machiavelli referred to Roman colonial policy also in his essay of 1503 entitled *Del modo di trattare i popoli della Valdichiana ribellati* (1.22-6), in the *Prince* of 1513 (3: "Da ogni parte dunque questa guardia è inutile, come quella delle colonie è utile") and in his *Florentine Histories* (1526); see Stenhouse 2021, 31-3.

ed and contaminated various unspecified sources traceable to Plutarch, Macrobius, Servius, Festus, and Varro. It was Varro's *De lingua latina*, however, that played a key role in the development of Sardi's thought, because this was the only text that explicitly connected the foundation ritual to colonies.<sup>13</sup>

# 4.3 Colonies and Coins

The construction of a complex antiquarian system on colonial rituals – including the rapidly ensuing use of both archaeological and literary evidence – led to a new focus on coins and colonies. During the second half of the sixteenth century, humanists began to systematically analyse the Roman state in relation to its laws. The first significant monographs written on Roman civilisation in this period displayed a substantial growth and a new maturity in erudite scholarship. The work that marked a clear change was the *Reipublicae Romanae commentariorum libri* (1558) by Onofrio Panvinio. An entire section, entitled *De iure coloniarum*, was dedicated to the juridical mechanisms of the colonies. Among the various aspects examined, a list of judiciary powers and roles were explicitly compared for the first time.<sup>14</sup> Panvinio established that the colonies were structured as city-states reflecting Roman institutions, customs, and its judiciary system ("populi Romani imaginem referebant"). There were magistrates who were responsible for the safety and security of the city, the infrastructure and census, and the public treasury ("aerarij publici curam"). This last aspect represented a major innovation: the institutional layout of the colony included the administration of money.

foundation. This ambivalence was received and continued by Renaissance scholars.

<sup>13</sup> Sardi 1557, 75-6: "Qui condunt urbes, deducuntve Colonias, erecto vexillo, aeneo vomere, Thusco, ut ait Carminius, more, sulco, qui dicitur primigenius, moeniorum loca designant, tauro dextra, vacca sinistra iunctis, stiva incurva, ut intra caderent glebae, incinctu ipsi Sabino, togae scilicet parte caput velati, parte succincta: ubi portae futurae suspendunt aratrum, et intus aris constructis". This passage is a combination of a number of different anticent sources, such as Macr. *Sat.* 5.19.13; Serv. *Aen*. 5.755.3; Plut. *Rom*. 10-11; Fest. 270-2; Varr. *ling.* 5.143-6; see also Forcellini 1805, 538: "Primigenius sulcus". However, as in the case of his predecessors, Sardi was not yet able to discern the link between colonial rituals and numismatic iconography, even though his antiquarian interests went beyond the study of texts; see his *Liber de nummis*, a booklet on the weights and names of ancient coins, Sardi 1579.

<sup>14</sup> Panvinio 1558a, 683: "Nam ut Romae erat populus et senatus, sic hi novos colonos in decuriones et plebem dividebant; decuriones senatus, plebs populi Romani imaginem referebant: ex decurionibus singulis annis duo vel quattuor viri creabantur iuxta coloniae magnitudinem vel parvitatem qui II viri, vel IIII I.D. idest iuredicundo vocabantur. Hi consulum Romanorum speciem representabant. Creabantur insuper Aedilis, qui viarum, aedificorum publicorum, annonae, et locandorum redditum publicorum, item questor qui aerarij publici curam habebat".

Panvinio did not offer any evidence or explanation on how the treasury was organised, but by assigning this function to the colonial administration, he suggested that the colonies had their own identities and their own monetary systems. As a consequence, a link was made between Roman colonies and coins.

The studies of numismatists and ancient coin collectors, who identified different varieties of coin types and questioned their meaning, confirmed Panvinio's views. In his *Discorso sopra le medaglie degli antichi* (1558), Enea Vico noticed the stylistic variety of coins, suggesting the activity of more than one authorised mint.<sup>15</sup> The use of *De asse et partibus eius* (1514) by the French scholar Guillaue Budé shows that Vico considered metrological aspects in his numismatic studies, allowing him to examine in detail and from a different perspective the iconographic aspects of coins. Only through this crossing over of spheres was it possible to understand how ancient Roman coin production, metrology, and iconography were all part of a whole. Budé was the first to identify the factors that led to the comprehension of a specific colonial coinage policy, including the decentralisation of mints that marked their own coins independently from the central authority. This insight may have triggered an awareness in careful scholars, such as Vico, that coin minting (and therefore its iconography) was subject to geographical, cultural, and historical variables.

Between 1554 and 1560, ancient geographical texts were used extensively in the study of Roman colonies. Of them all, the *Itinerarium Antonini*<sup>16</sup> was particularly significant. This was a register that mapped cities located near the Roman imperial road network, and the *Liber Coloniarum,* attributed to Frontinus, and described the subdivision of Italian territory under the Julio-Claudian emperors.<sup>17</sup> Both

16 During the sixteenth century, the *Itinerarium* was printed in four editions: see *Itinerariu*m 1512; *Itinerarium* 1518; *Itinerarium* 1550; *Itinerarium* 1600.

<sup>15</sup> Vico 1558, 50: "Le medaglie dagli antichi sotto l'imperio Romano furono segnate in diversi luoghi, oltre la città di Roma, e fuor d'Italia ancora. […] Scrive parimenti Budeo nel quarto libro *De asse*, che i Romani havevano una zecca in Lione di Francia. E Plutarco, che a Lucullo fu data la cura, et il negozio del segnare la pecunia nel Peloponneso [Plut. *Luc*. 38-9]. Il perché non è meraviglia, se si trova tanta diversità di cogni nelle medaglie loro, conciosiaché essendo da quasi tutto il mondo (in tempi specialmente de' primi Cesari) usato il segno romano, cioè la effigie d'essi imperadori, al bisogno di tanta gran moltitudine d'huomini, conveniva indubitamente, che in più d'una zecca, oltre quella di Roma, si stampassero". The reference is to Budé 1514, 84b: "Ad ea autem quae de Gallia diximus, illud etiam addemus, Lugduni Argyrocopium fuisse Romani imperij, id quod Strabo lib. IV his verbis perhibuit: Lugdunum in colle conditum, ubi Arar amnis Rhodano immiscetur, Romano tenetur imperio, ampliori quoque dignitate virorum secundum Narbonem florens, quibus usui magno est emporium: ibi quoque Romani duces aureum numisma argentumque signant [Str. *Geogr*. 4.3.2]".

<sup>17</sup> There were two sixteenth-century editions of the *Liber Coloniarum*: a French one by Adrien Turnèbe [...], and [...] another anonymous Roman version (1560); see Turnèbe 1554 and Frontinus 1560.

texts provided a rich source of data for ancient geographical locations and toponyms. The epistolary exchanges of the sixteenth century illustrate the wide interest of these two works.<sup>18</sup>

The Spanish humanist and Catholic bishop Antonio Agustín used these texts to identify city names that could be connected to the various legends found on ancient coins (mostly naming places of origin or dedication) and thence decode the coin legends. It was a natural consequence that, among the toponyms present on the coins, the names of colonies were to be discovered. The observation of coins bearing names associated with the ancient geographical texts and linked to data on institutional mechanisms assisted in their identification. This process may have benefitted also by the increasing capacity of decoding the coin legends – which usually featured the abbreviation COL. – thanks to the practical handbook, *De notis antiquarum litterarum*, arranged by the grammarian from late antiquity Valerius Probus. Probus gathered a list of abbreviation coming from coins and inscriptions, associating to each one its meaning. This compilation was usually published before the epigraphic collections, such as the one of Mazocchi or Apianus,19 and hence became a tool for all the scholars who were acquainted with this material and used to cross-reference it with other branches of the antiquarian investigation.

Thus, in a letter to the Spanish scholar and historian Jerónimo Zurita dated April 1557, Agustín specifically defined the colonial coin type and its iconography, starting from considerations and interpre-

19 Mazocchi 1521; Apianus 1534.

<sup>18</sup> See, for example, the letters of Antonio Agustín, Carlo Sigonio, and Girolamo Mei: Carbonell 1991, 118 (Antonio Agustín to Jerónimo Zurita, April 1557): "Libros de los que se deven tener en algo de mano siempre e se descubren algunos y por muy grande ventura e abido un Vitruvio y otro libro que es el mismo que vuestra merced me mostro y si no me acuerdo mal dixo que era del Cardenal Maffeo, en que esta el Itinerario de Antonino y las devisas de las provincias con todos aquellos signos y figuras de las cohorts antiguas de la misma suerte sino el libro es mayor y a lo que pienso mas antiguo y muy bien tratado", and 175 (Antonio Agustín to Onofrio Panvinio, 7 August 1557): "Le colonie del libro di Mafeo non son più che nel stampato"; Sigonio 1737, 1013 (Carlo Sigonio to Onofrio Panvinio, 10 May 1560): "Se potessi haver una copia del p… del libro di Frontino de Coloniis, l'havrei caro, perciò che non è possibile che non cavassi qualche cosa di più che non cavo da quelle vostre citationi, che sono di poco momento al mio disegno"; Carrara 2008, 366-7 (Girolamo Mei to Vincenzio Borghini, 12 October 1566): "Velleio Paterculo fece mentione di tutte le colonie romane, cioè di quelle che veramente eran tali, tra le quali non si trova la *Florentina* [Vell. 1.14-15]. Delle militari, come egli manifestamente dice, non ne volle parlare, onde si può per ventura assai sicuramente credere che tenesse la *Florentina* tra le militari, poi che egli non ne disse cosa del mondo"; Dati 1743, 4: 4.140 (Vincenzio Borghini to Silvano Razzi): "egli [Sigonio] ha messo fra le colonie *Foedatura*; questo non è in verità colpa sua, ma pur tuttavia lo credo errore, e che sia nato da un cattivo testo di quel libretto di Fronto, o Frontino, o Nypso, o chiunque e' si fusse, ché dove in alcuni è *Fida Tuder*, avesse confusamente *Foedatura*" and 164 (Vincenzio Borghini to Jacopo Giunta, 4 January 1569): "Frontino delle colonie (dico delle colonie, non degli acquedotti, intendete bene) non so dove sia stampato, né se solo o accompagnato".

tations tied to the names of locations.<sup>20</sup> Agustín's words are the first evidence that he recognised the existence of a specific colonial coin type. He stated that the typical imagery of colonial coins involved a pair of oxen pulling a plow, representing the ritual tracing of the sacred boundary of a new city, as reported by Varro. Agustín anticipated the conclusions that other scholars, like Sigonio, reached later.

After a long cultural process that lasted decades and reached maturity only at the end of the 1550s, the colonial coin type was also defined by Carlo Sigonio in his work *De antiquo iure Italiae*, printed in Venice in 1560. In this antiquarian juridical treatise, he dedicated a large section to colonies.21 He declared that the explicit symbols representing colonies were oxen/cows, the plow, and military standards. To support his statement Sigonio employed numismatic evidence. It is unclear if this development evolved from exposure to the views of Agustín, or if they were reached in parallel and independently.<sup>22</sup>

20 Carbonell 1991, 116: "En las mas de las Colonias de la una parte de la medalla esta la cabeça del emperador con su titulo y de la otra dos bueyes unzidos arando con el que lleva el aradro, cino sono toro y vaca come dize Varron, el qual a mi ver declara esto y se entiende bien por el que estos bueyes para denotar que eran Colonias, pues se guardava en su primera fundacion la orden que se tuvo en lo de Roma, como parece por el libro IIII De lingua Latina: quare et oppida quae prius erant circumducta aratro ab orbe et uruo urb[s]es[t]; ideo coloniae nostrae omnes in litteris antiquis scribuntur urbis, quod item conditae ut Roma [Varr. *ling.* 5.32.143]". It is necessary to mention also Jean Poldo d'Albenas, author of a history of Nîmes (1559). Within the dissertation on the first origins of the city, which was considered to be a Roman colony, Poldo made a digression on Roman colonies in southern France, relying on the various ramifications of previous scholarship; see Poldo 1559, 7: "Et Narbone fut ainsi dicte, apres que C. Cesar le Dictateur y admena nouveaux, et estrangers habitans, ce que les Latins appellent Colonies, et les Iureconsultes Meteoques au XII livre du Code, par lex empereurs Diocletian et Maximian, à la loy *Certa de iure fiscale* [*Dig*. 49.14.1- 3]. Et comme aussi y fuerent admenees des colonies à Narbone l'an de l'edification de Rome 633. Eutropius livr. V. Cha. IIII [Eutr. 4.23]. Cicero Tesmoigne en l'oraison pour Fonteius, que Fonteius avoi testé governeur, et la vente il aussi d'estre la centinele des Romains, defense, et forteresse opposée à ces mesme regions [Cic. *leg. agr*. 2.73]", and 31-3 on the law adopted by the city of Nîmes. He also mentioned a colonial coin with legend COL. NEM. featuring a crocodile chained to a palm tree [*RPC* I, 522], however not specifying the connections between colonial law, founding rituals and its iconography; see Poldo 1559, 99: "En ceste numisme estoit faict mention de la Colonie de Nismes, qui estoit honneur tres-grand aux habitans, ce que nous ne pouvons bonnement passer par silence, ayant desir d'escrire un peu des Colonies, et choses y appertenans". See Stenhouse 2021, 38-40.

21 Sigonio 1560, 63b-64a : "Signa autem cohortium in antiquis nummis, quibus coloniae alicuius deduction significator, impressa ad huc etiam cernere possumus. Ubi vero colonos in agris, quo deducendi erant, collocarant, tum aratro urbem et agrum circumscribebant. […] Ut autem signis militaribus, sic etiam aratro coloniae deductionem in nummis veteribus demonstrari, ita notum est, ut testimonium res non desideret".

22 It would be interesting to explore the unpublished letters of Carlo Sigonio and Antonio Agustín from 1556 to 1557. In these letters there may be evidence of this circulation of ideas. A certain cultural affinity may have derived from Sigonio's collaboration with Agustín on the edition of Festus, completed during those years and published in 1559. The

The effects of this progress were soon to appear. During the same year, Enea Vico, in his *Ex libris XXIII commentariorum in vetera Imperatorum Romanorum numismata*, openly recalled what Sigonio had brought to light and considered this new perception from a purely numismatic viewpoint.<sup>23</sup> Vico, for his part, gave a central role to ancient coins, as they represented a *monumentum*, witnessing concrete historical dynamics, in which the coin was the leading element.24 The method pursued by Vico in analysing sources and his strong antiquarian interests, in this case, were most likely influenced by Sigonio's work. In fact, he declared that he used Sigonio as a model and Vico identified him as the author of the perspective that he adopted **[figs 22, 23]**. 25

In order to gain an overall picture of the entire colonial discussion and to understand the series of factors that contributed to the growth of the antiquarian perspective in Renaissance scholarship, it is useful to consider the works of other scholars who did not or could not take account of the advancements in understanding colonial coinage up to this point.

The *Commentariorum vetustorum numismatum specimen exile*  (1558) by Wolfgang Lazius described and explained a selection of coins belonging to the imperial collection in Vienna. In interpreting coins of Augustus depicting a single bull [*RIC* I² (Augustus) 167a],<sup>26</sup>

24 Vico 1548, 1-2: *Augustus* 3-4; 3.: *Tiberius* 1.

26 The numismatic iconography of the single bull has a complex sedimentation that can be somehow related to the debate on colonial coins. Given its constant presence in erudite dissertations (see Alessandri 1522, 218; Valeriano 1556, 27a-b where it is considered the type *BMC* 17; Vico 1558, 44; and Host 1580 I. II. 1-2, 58; I. III. 32, 112; III. III. 1, 443-9), it was stated that the bull alone on coins symbolised the Roman *municipium* in contrast with the two oxen of the colonies; see Serafin Petrillo 2013, 124: "Il tauro mostra cose di municipio, con ciò sia cosa che nelle municipali attioni si sacri-

synergy between the two scholars is well known. Sigonio and Agustín wrote to the same addressees and belonged to the same circle as they shared similar antiquarian interests.

<sup>23</sup> Vico 1560, 108-10: "Caeterum de signis duobus militaribus, quae infra sunt, videlicet vexillo et aquila, et de aratro, hoc moris fuit apud veteres pro symbolo coloniarum ductarum in oppida, militaria signa, vel iuvencos duos cum viro aratrum sustinere, vel utrunque simul in nummis exculpere, unde antiqua inscriptio est Terracinae coloniae in templo: IVSSVM IMPERATORIS CAESARIS QVA ARATRVM DVCTVM EST [*CIL* X. 3825]. Eo quod monumenta testatur Caesarem complurimas duxisse colonias".

<sup>25</sup> Vico 1560, 112: "De quibus omnibus latissime apud Sigonium in suis de iure Latii libris et de coloniis, propediem in lucem prodituris". Totally different was the experience of another epigone of Sigonio, Giovanni Andrea Gilio, in the appendix of his *Due dialogi*, entitled *Discorso sopra la Citta, l'Urbe, Colonia, Municipio etc.* where the section dedicated to *Colonia* omitted all the numismatic references; see Gilio 1564, 133a - 134a . This lack of information was brought to light by Carlo Sigonio himself, in a letter of September 1564 addressed to Onofrio Panvinio, in which he seemed willing to amend Gilio's errors in a specific publication; see Sigonio 1737, 6.1020: "Delle colonie et delle tribù non mi risolvo ad altro per ora, per haver da rispondere a questo animale, il libro del quale uscì alli 20 di agosto". The harshness of Sigonio is probably due to Gilio's statement that Bologna was a *Colonia Latina* rather than a *Colonia Romana*.

he referred to the sacrificial symbolism of the auspices, which may be also related to the founding of colonies,<sup>27</sup> but made no concrete connections between the numismatic evidence and ancient colonial institutions. From this it emerges that the awareness of the foundation ritual was still not sufficient to understand the entire cultural mechanism behind the ritual itself because it was not contextualised in its original institutional framework. Likewise, without the support of a wide range of numismatic examples, it was impossible to reconstruct the iconographic type of an ancient institution.<sup>28</sup>

Different and significant is the case of Sebastiano Erizzo, the Venetian humanist and rival of Enea Vico in numismatic theories.<sup>29</sup> In his *Discorsi sopra le medaglie antiche* (1559), he identified the colonial coin type [*BMC* 53], but was unable to offer a detailed interpretation of it **[figs 24a-b]**. 30 He gave the iconography only a general rural meaning, affirming that the ox symbolised cultivation.<sup>31</sup> Considering the methodological

27 Lazius 1558, 27.

28 Nevertheless, in the introduction to this small treatise, he boasts that he studied a corpus of 700,000 ancient coins in composing his greatest numismatic work never published, and claims to have studied the entire Palatine collection; see Lazius 1558, *praef.*: "Quocirca ut derogare aliis non volo, ita mihi conscious sum, quantum sudoris temporis, lectionis etque adeo iudicii in illo pistrino ponendum fuerit, ut ne noctibus quidem pepercerim, nolo de immensitate voluminis totius loqui, quod pene DCC millia nummorum eorum in quem, qui inscriptionibus ac symbolis discrepant, complectitur".

29 See Palumbo Fossati 1984 and Bodon 1997.

30 Erizzo 1559, 126-7: "La Medaglia di Ottaviano in rame di mezana grandezza, ma in matura età con lettere tali...... AVG. GERM. IMP. Ha per riverso due tori, cacciati da una figura, che segue dietro a loro, con lettere tali COL. IVL. AVG. Questa medaglia fu battuta da qualche colonia, significata in tutte quasi le medaglie, per questi due tori. Percioché il bove, animale nato al provento delle biade, et al commodo dell'agricoltura, ci dichiara lo studio dell'arare, et i commodi de i frumenti procacciati dalle colonie nel coltivare i loro terreni. Con ciò sia cosa che il bove ancora sia segno della terra".

31 The tie between the plow and agriculture lies in the erudite studies of the sixteenth century. An ideal archetype of this interpretation can be identified in the *De rerum inventoribus* by Polidoro Virgili (1470-1555); see Virgili 1499, [III 2]: "Plinius vero lib. VII tradit quod bovem et aratrum Briges Atheniensis invenit [Plin. *nat.* 7.198]; (ut alii) Triptolemus, de quo poeta in primo Geo[r]g. intellexit, quum dixit: uncique monstrator aratri [Verg. *Georg*. 1.19]. Super quem locum, Servius: alii, inquit, Triptolemum, alii Osirim, quod verius est [Serv. *Georg*. 1.19]. Nam Triptolemus frumenta divisit. Tacuit autem de nomine, quia non unus in orbe aratri monstrator fuit, sed diversi in diversis locis. Unde Trogus prodidit Habidem Hispaniae regem barbarum populum primitus docuisse boves aratro domare, frumentaque sulco serere [Iunian. Iustin. *Epit. Hist. Trogi* 44.4.11]".

ficava il tauro" and the already mentioned 1557 letter of Antonio Agustín addressed to Jerónimo Zurita in Carbonell 1991, 116: "En mucha que tienen estos nombres de lugares que son todas de bronzo ay solo un buey, que por ventura significa ser municipio por differenciarlo de la Colonia". A different opinion was expressed years later in Agustín 1587a, 250: "A. El toro se halla en muchas medallas y algunas vezes dos toros o bueyes, pero por diversas causas. El que esta solo muestra en estas de España que a quella ciudad o lugar hizo matar victimas mayores por honra de aquel dios o emperador en honra del qual se hizo la medalla".

framework already provided by Agustín, Sigonio, and Vico, it could be said that Erizzo underestimated the question of interpretation. Nevertheless, he managed to decode the legend COL. as an abbreviation of *colonia* but was incapable of reconstructing an historical and cultural context.

A similar approach can be found in the *Hieroglyphica* (1556) written by Giovanni Pierio Valeriano. This work represented the broadest ancient iconographic collection accessible to scholars and artists in the mid-sixteenth century. In his inventory, Valeriano included ancient coins with oxen and plow types.32 He underlined the agricultural symbolism noted by various scholars, but never connected this to colonies or colonial institutions. This reading reflects the vision of an entire antiquarian season.33 Two reverses [*RRC* 378/1c; *RIC* I² (Vespasianus) 944] mentioned by Valeriano feature all the characteristics that were identified a few years later by those scholars that connected their sources to the function of ancient institutions **[figs 25, 26]**. He had the literary sources available to reach the same conclusions that were reached by a later group of antiquarians. In fact, in describing the plow, Valeriano indicated the path toward a contextualised iconographic interpretation. He attributed to this instrument sacred allusions ascribed to rituals of power and religion, capturing a symbolic importance that was not only agricultural but also connected to rituals used to found (*in condendis*) as well as destroy (*delendisque*) cities.<sup>34</sup> This awareness of the function of the plow in founding might have permitted him to discover the missing link between the ongoing colonial discussion and the coins.

33 The passage appears to be the main source of the interpretation given by Sebastiano Erizzo on the same iconography: the meaningful link becomes clear especially in the lexical calque, "ci dichiara […] i comodi dei frumenti" / *et rei frumentariae commoda declarant*.

<sup>32</sup> Valeriano 1556, 26b-27a : "FRVGVM OPVLENTIA. Qui vero boves iuncti in nummo Vespasiani iam imperatoris et cos. V habentur, atque alii similiter iugati in C. Marii C. T. nummo, nimirum arationis partes procuratas et rei frumentariae commode declarant, nam et apud coniectores, uti sperius dictum, arantes boves imaginary laetissimam praenunciant frugem, et opulentam rerum felicitatem. Quin et nomen bovi a nutrient factum, βῶ quippe nutria, labore enim suo in exercenda terra continuo nos pascit. Hinc Graeci βούφαρον [Hesyc. *Lex*. β 1002] felicem agriculturam vocant, quibus φάρος agricultura est, et bovis etiam epitheton"; see also 27a-b were an extensive series of coins featuring oxen in general is listed.

<sup>34</sup> Valeriano 1556, 354b-355a : "DEMOLITIO. Circumcidendi vero aratri observatio non in condendis tantum urbibus reperitur, verum etiam in evertendis delendisque […] AGRICVLTVRA. Nimirum etiam est aratrum agriculturae frumentariique proventus signum, ut in nummo argenteo cernere est, cuius inscription est ab occipitio, SCIPIO IMP. cuius caput elephantino est insigne capite, quod dubio procul Africanum signat, inferne aratrum pulcherrime factum. Ante faciem spica, inde literae Q. METELLVS. Ab altera facie sigillum nudum, cuius dextera innititur femori, laeva supra magnam spicam toto branchio exporrigitur, literae hinc, REG. F. C. inde EPIVS [*CRR* 461/1]". The interpretation of the plow as an instrument of foundation could be found in Ricchieri 1516, 721 [14.5: *Urbibus aratrum circumducere quid sit*].

**Figure 23** Enea Vico, *Colonial coin*. Engraving. In *Ex libris XXIII. commentariorum in vetera Imperatorum Romanorum numismata Aeneae Vici Liber primus*. Venetiis, 1560 [Venezia, Paolo Manuzio], pl. 7

**Figure 22** Enea Vico, *Colonial coin*. Engraving. In *Le imagini con tutti i riuersi trouati et le vite de gli imperatori tratte dalle medaglie et dalle historie de gli antichi*. Libro primo. Venetia, Enea Vico, 1548, 34

**Figure 26** *RIC* I² Vespasian 944. Denarius. Rome. A.D. 77-A.D. 78. L2: COS VIII: pair of oxen under yoke, l.

**Figure 25** *RRC* 378/1c. Denarius Serratus. Rome. 81 B.C. L1: C·MARI·C·F·CAPIT VI: bust of Ceres r., draped; around, inscription and control mark. Border of dots. L2: VI: ploughman with yoke of oxen l.; above, control mark. Border of dots

**Figure 24b** *BMC* 53. c. 100 A.D.-150 A.D. L2: Founder plowing r.; COL. IVL. [AVG. FEL.] BER

**Figure 27** Hubert Goltzius, *Colonial Coins*. Engraving. In *Caesar Augustus siue Historiae imperatorum Caesarumque Romanorum ex antiquis numismatibus restitutae liber secundus. Accessit Caesaris Augusti vita et res gestae. Huberto Goltzio Herbipolita Venloniano ciue Romano auctore et sculptore*. Brugis Flandrorum, excudebat Hubertus Goltzius, 1574, pl. XLIX

**Figure 28** *Colonial coin*. Engraving. In *Familiae Romanae quae reperiuntur in antiquis numismatibus ab Vrbe condita ad tempora diui Augusti ex bibliotheca Fului Vrsini. Adiunctis familiis 30 ex libro Antoni Augustini ep. Ilerdensis*. Romae, impensis haeredum Francisci Tramezini, apud Iosephum de Angelis, 1577, 67

**Figure 29** Hubert Goltzius, *Colonial Coins*. Engraving. In *Fastos magistratuum et triumphorum Romanorum ab vrbe condita ad Augusti obitum ex antiquis tam numismatum quam marmorum monumentis restitutos S.P.Q.R. Hubertus Goltzius Herbipolita Venlonianus dedicauit*. Brugis Flandorum, excudebat Hubertus Goltzius, 1566. Mense Martio, 194

## 4.4 Colonial Coins in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century

From the 1560s and with the advancements achieved by earlier antiquarian experience, Renaissance scholars openly considered colonial coins as an autonomous numismatic type, easily recognised and originating from defined cultural dynamics interdependent on the functioning of ancient institutions. In these decades, throughout all of Europe, many numismatic works dedicated specific sections to colonial coinage. The Flemish antiquarian Hubert Goltzius (1526-1583) included colonial coins in several treatises, starting with his collection of coins from the Roman empire, *C. Iulius Caesar siue Historiae imperatorum Caesarumque Romanorum ex antiquis numismatibus restitutae*, first issued in 1563 and then in 1571, and the *Fastos magistratuum et triumphorum Romanorum ab vrbe condita ad Augusti obitum ex antiquis tam numismatum quam marmorum monumentis restitutos*, published in 1566. Both works illustrated this coinage, even if no clear definition was yet formulated.<sup>35</sup> A detailed analysis of the type was carried out in Goltzius's subsequent work on the coins of the emperor Augustus (1574), where many specimens featuring the typical colonial iconography were represented **[fig. 27]**, and from which Goltzius was also able to reconstruct the foundation of many Roman colonies under Augustus himself.<sup>36</sup> Goltzius's overview on colonies and coins continued in his subsequent work, *Historia urbium et populorum Graecae ex antiquis numismatibus restitutae* (1576), which included coins from Sicily and Magna Graecia. Here he explained listed the six primary causes that determined the foundation of a colony, also basing his assumptions on numismatic data (both legends and iconography). At the end of this treatise, he made a brief exposition on the function of ancient institutions in relation to the coin types. Under the influence of Sigonio, he repeated that the Roman colony was always founded with oxen and plow under a military banner. He further added the innovation that colonies were founded with the same rite both under the Roman Republic and the Empire. This assertion was based on his observation of the numismatic material.<sup>37</sup>


37 Goltzius 1576, 204-5: "Colonias vocabant Romani oppida, in quae populus Romanus cives suos ad incolendum deduxisset, idque sex potissimum de causis observatum suisse priscorum auctoritate traditur. Unam, ad vicinos populos coercendos; alteram, ad hostium incursiones reprimendas; tertiam, stirpis augendae; quartam, plebis urbanae exhauriendae ; quinctam seditionis sedandae caussa; sextam, ut praemiis veteranos afficerent. Quacunque autem de caussa deducendae erant Coloniae lege agraria opus erat, et coloniae curatoribus, qui vel triumviri aut plures (nam lego agris dividendis, aut coloniae deducendae etiam XX viros simul datos fuisse) deductis sub vexillo in agros colonis, aratro urbem et agrum tauro et vacca iunctis. Auspicio primum Goltzius's work also brought developments in colonial nomenclature. In the *Thesaurus rei antiquariae huberrimus* (1579), he dedicated two entire sections to the naming of colonies in light of numismatic types and inscriptions. The first of these was entitled, *Coloniarum municipiorumque romanorum nomina et epitheta* and the second, *Nomina propria eorum qui in magistratu aliquo fuerunt, quae in numismatibus romanorum et coloniarum spectantur et leguntur*. 38

It is clear that by the end of the 1570s, Roman colonial coins had become easily recognizable and widely known among Renaissance scholars. In 1577, Fulvio Orsini, a famous scholar living in Rome in the service of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, published his *Familiae Romanae quae reperiuntur in antiquis numismatibus*. In this antiquarian work that retraced the history of Roman families through coins, he did not offer a special section on colonial coins.39 Orsini did, however, include three colonial pieces from his own collection and briefly discussed their iconography **[fig. 28]**. 40

In the *Discours sur les medalles* (1579), a treatise by the French humanist Antoine Le Pois (1525-1578), there is an entire section specifically dedicated to colonial coins.41 The description of the iconography follows the usual pattern: a plow pulled by oxen and driven by

facto, circumarabant, ac designabant, quod uti etiam in numismatibus tam consularibus quam imperatoriis olim a nobis in lucem datis frequenter videre licet, ita Ciceronis, quoque Frontini, Varronis et Graecorum auctoritate confirmatum est".

<sup>38</sup> Goltzius 1579, 148-52 and 155-62.

<sup>39</sup> However, in a letter dated 20 August 1573 (BAM 271 inf. ff. 34*r*-35*v*), Antonio Agustín sent Orsini a list of illustrations of colonial coins (f. 35*r*): "Con un'altra ho mandato una lista di medaglie di colonie et d'imagini – ho ricevuto con questa occasione i duoi libri del Voltzio, et vedo infiniti errori per non intender li nomi delle colonie, overo municipij – et in tutte fanomi II VIRI li nomi delle terre". The coins illustrated by Orsini may have been taken from this list.

<sup>40</sup> Orsini 1577, 56: "Secundus denarius potest ad legem Cassiam frumentariam pertinere, latam in ipso consulatu a C. Cassio Varo Cos. cum M. Terentio Varrione Lucullo anno DCLXXX cuius facit mentionem Asconius in III Verrina. Eius fortasse filius L. Cassius a Caeicio, cuius lib. IX ad Atticum meminit Cicero, adoptatus, et Caeicianus dictus, in patris memoriam denarium cum Cereris imagine, quae re frumentariae praeest, signavit; nisi forte coloniam aliquam earum, quae a Caesare, aut Augusto deductae sunt, indicare Cassius voluit; nece enim placet ut ad Cereris signum referatur cum inscriptione EX FAMILIA CASSIA, cuius in lib. VIII Dionysius meminit: propterea quod damnato Sp. Cassio, eiusque diruta domo dedicatum id signum fuit, nec verisimile est tantum familiae dedecus voluisse Cassium cusis ea nota denariis vulgare".

<sup>41</sup> Le Pois 1579, 18b: "En plusieur autres consulaires est remarqué au revers une colonie nouvellement conduite, mise sus et establie. C'est un nombre de peuple enuoyé en quelque lieu pour y habiter, que l'Espagnol appelle proprement *Poblacion d'algunos estrangeros*. Or si tel lieu n'estoit prescript et designé par le trait d'une charruë trainee par deux bœufs, au derrier des quels estoit le sacerdote, faisant la limitation de la place, suyvant l'ordonnance des Duumvirs ou Triumvirs, c'est-à-dire, deux ou trois hommes à ce commis et establis par les romains. Voyla que signifient ces bœufs laboureus que vous voyez en tels revers, comme en la medalle d'argent de Munatius Plancus, qui dressa et fit la colonie et ville de Lyon".

**Figure 30** *RRC* 525/3. Denarius. Rome. 40 B.C. L1: laureate head of Julius Caesar r. Border of dots. L2: TI·SEMPRONIVS GRACCVS Q·DESIG S·C: vexillum, aquila, plough and decempeda; in field, inscripiton. Border of dots

**Figure 31a** *Colonial coin*. Engraving. *Romanarum antiquitatum libri decem ex variis scriptoribus summa fide singularìque diligentia collecti à Ioanne Rosino Bartholomaei F. Isennacensi Thuringo. Cum indicibus locupletissimis*. Basileae, ex officina haeredum Petri Pernae, 1583, 312

**Figure 31b** *Colonial coin*. Engraving. *Romanarum antiquitatum libri decem ex variis scriptoribus summa fide singularìque diligentia collecti à Ioanne Rosino Bartholomaei F. Isennacensi Thuringo. Cum indicibus locupletissimis*. Basileae, ex officina haeredum Petri Pernae, 1583, 312

a priest who traces the furrow of the new city under the supervision of the magistrates. Le Pois refers to a colonial type of L. Munatius Plancus from Lyon (ancient *Lugdunum*) which has not yet surfaced in the numismatic corpus available today, but traces of it are found in Hubert Goltzius's works **[fig. 29]**. <sup>42</sup> He chose this colonial coin instead of others, perhaps because Le Pois had an interest in connecting a French city to an ancient Roman foundation. Similar expedients were later utilised in other antiquarian treatises in a more structured way.

Adolph Occo's (1524-1606), an important German physician, numismatist, and antiquarian renowned throughout Europe for his trips to Italy and his contacts with scholars and prestigious collectors of antiquities,<sup>43</sup> mentioned in his numismatic catalogue two coins as examples of the *coloniae deductae*. <sup>44</sup> Due to the brevity of this work, explanations were reduced, and no comparisons of sources and iconographic analyses were extremely synthetic. He just mentioned briefly the typical colonial element, covering the usual aspects of colonial numismatic iconography: the first representing the banner, the plow, the *pertica*, the eagle, the second reporting the iconography of the two yoked oxen carrying a plow and tracing the furrow **[fig. 30]**.

Research concerning colonial coins continued, showing developments and reinterpretations of studies and sources already utilised. This was the case of the *Antiquitatum Romanarum libri* by the German scholar Joannes Rosinus, published for the first time in 1583 and subsequently expanded in 1613 by the Scottish scholar Thomas Dempster. In his *edition princeps*, Rosinus broadly described the colonial type and reconnected it to the rite of foundation. He described the usual imagery of colonial coins and named the works of Goltzius as his main sources. He also mentioned those typical objects of colonial founding that Goltzius and Occo depicted **[figs 31a-b]**. 45

42 Le Pois 1579, 2-4 lists among his forerunners Andrea Fulvio, Enea Vico, Sebastiano Erizzo, Costanzo Landi, Jacopo Strada, Gabriel Symeoni, Johannes Sambucus, Hubert Goltzius, Guillaume Du Choul, and Wolfgang Lazius. The connection to Goltzius encourages to suspect that the Lyon's coin was one of the forgeries for which the Flemish scholar was famous; see Goltzius 1566, 194.

43 It is very likely that Occo was directly in contact with Fulvio Orsini and that he could access the numismatic collection of the Farnese and of Antonio Agustín. Missere Fontana 2009, 305 describes the work of Occo as the greatest attempt to write a numismatic corpus ever carried out during the sixteenth century.

44 Occo 1579, 10: "Arg. S.C. Caesaris laureati effigies. | TI. SEMPRONIVS GRACCVS Q. DESIG. Signum cohortis sive vexillum, aquila legionaria, aratrum, decempeda [*RRC* 525/3]", and 70: "C. CAESAR AVG. GERMANICVS IMP. PATER PATRIAE | TITVLLO ET MONTANO IIVIR CCA. Colonia deducta typus. Colonus cum bove et vacca [*RPC* I, 382]".

45 Rosinus 1583, 311-12: "Signa cohortium, in antiquis nummis, quibus Coloniae alicuius deduction significator, impressa adhuc etiam cernere possumus. Ubi vero colonos in agris, quo deducendi erant, collocaverant, tum aratro urbe, et agrum circumscribebant, testibus Varrone, Dionysio, Plutarcho et Cicerone, ac alijs nummis etiam antiquis, in quibus aratro deduction coloniae demostrabatur, quales in Fastis, Iulio et Augusto

**Figure 32a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 95ʳ ᵇ

**Figure 33a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 337ʳ ᵉ

**Figure 32b** *RPC* I, 371. Caesaraugusta. 37 A.D.-41 A.D. L2: C C A LICINIANO ET GERMANO II VIR; priest ploughing with yoke of oxen, r.

**Figure 33b** *RIC* III Commodus 560. Sestertius. Rome. A.D. 190. L2: COL L AN COM P M TR P XV IMP VIII COS VI S C: Commodus, veiled, togate, ploughing r. with two oxen

Further details were included in the addenda to Dempster's edition. In contrast with Rosinus, who mentioned only Goltzius, the Scottish scholar looked further back to the work of Sigonio, declaring that it was necessary to offer a more extended description of the function of colonies, without which the numismatic aspects would have not been altogether clear.<sup>46</sup>

The *Libri delle Medaglie* of the Neapolitan scholar Pirro Ligorio, part of the thirty-volume *Libri dell'Antichità* written between 1550 and 1583, encapsulate the history of colonial coinage during the Renaissance.47 This numismatic treatise, compared to other contemporary works, had the greatest number of colonial coin illustrations in terms of iconographic variety. Thus, it would be interesting to know what other contemporary numismatic works Ligorio might have had access to for enriching his knowledge and to what extent his acquaintance with contemporary antiquarians influenced the composition of his work.<sup>48</sup> The fact that the *Libri delle Medaglie* only circulated as a manuscript may have reduced its impact on the numismatic culture of the time. It nevertheless reflects the sedimentation of views developed over the course of a decade and, therefore, is deserving of great attention in the context of Renaissance scholarship.

His first description of colonial coins relates to the iconographic representation of the equipment involved in founding a colony. This is founded directly upon Sigonio's antiquarian scholarship and to Goltzius's numismatic texts, in which these coin types are broadly represented.<sup>49</sup> This is followed by the description of coin series depicting

47 Serafin Petrillo 2013, "Introduction". The *Libri delle Medaglie* remained unpublished, even though the manuscript was ready for printing from 1567, but there is evidence that the author was still working on it in 1581.

48 Serafin Petrillo 2013, X–XI. In addition to his own collection (also sold to the Farnese family), he consulted the Estense collection in Ferrara and the texts of Enea Vico.

Huberti Goltzij multi cernuntur, in quibus etiam hi, quorum primus repraesentat nobis vexillum, aquilam et signum cohortis, secundus item vexillum, aquilam, aratrum, decempedam, sive perticam agri mensoriam, tertius sacerdotem agentem iugum boum et sulcum aratro ducentem, urbe agroque, quomodo dixi, circumscripto, tum vero agri divisionem, ac suae cuique partis assignationem sunt aggressi, unde agros coloniarum divisos, et assignatos dici notavit Frontinus. Quod munus difficillimum, ac molestiae saepe plenissimum videtur fuisse, propter odium colonorum, in quod illi facile poterant assignationis eius causa incurrere. Atque haec omnia fiebant auspicato, qua de causa curatoribus illis pullarius dabatur, qui cum ipsis proficisceretur".

<sup>46</sup> Dempster 1613, 775-6: "[X. 22 *De ratione deducendarum coloniarum*] Quid vero impedit, ea hoc loco iisdem pene verbis, quae ex Caroli Sigonii doctissimis Commentariis tum descripsimus, repetere, quaedam etiam, quae omissa ibi sunt, addere".

<sup>49</sup> Serafin Petrillo 2013, 16: "Il rovescio con lo aratro posto infra le insegni legionarie et militari [*RRC* 525/4a], ci dimostra la divisione de' terreni divisi ai soldati coloni, secondo la legge Gracca, la quale comandava che fusse tanto al popolo come all'altri coloni i terreni et assignati per limiti, acciò che ogniuno participasse delli beni che

yoked oxen during the foundation ritual. The coins were initially attributed to different colonies without explanation, but later Ligorio discussed the reverse side of the coins following the paradigm of his sources.<sup>50</sup> Ligorio also used a new method to interpret the colonial coin: beyond the representation of the ox/cow, he proposed the reading of the acronym C·C·A on issues now known to have come from Caesaraugusta as a colonial inscription (*Colonia Cercanita Augusta*). He deduced that the first C stood for *colonia* on the basis of the colonial iconography and the legend naming the *duumviri* **[figs 32a-b]**.

Other interesting contributions by Ligorio emerged when he identified additional types employed by colonies **[figs 33a-b]**. 51 He interpret-

50 Serafin Petrillo 2013, 134: "Presso di questa Medaglia veggiamo la colonia dedutta in Hispagna da Caio Caligola imperadore [*RPC* I, 371], per ciò che come si vede nel rovescio della sua testa, egli si tira il solco con lo bove maschio et femina, secondo si designava quella città colonia, secondo scrive Marco Varrone [Varr. *ling.* 5.143-6] et le lettere abbreviate C·C·A dicono Colonia Cercanita Augusta, in cui furono duoviri Liciniano e Germano". The term *Cercanita* doesn't make sense. If the ms. [ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21)] actually reads *Cercanita* [f. 95*r*<sup>b</sup> ], this term may be amended with *Cesarea*, in order to re-establish the name of the city *Cesarea Augusta*.

51 Serafin Petrillo 2013, 227: "COLONIA FLAVIA NORA AVGVSTA [*RPC* I, 5412/3] è dell'isola di Sardegna; secondo scrive Stephano ΝΩΡΑ ΠΟΛΙΣ ΕΝ ΣΑΡΔΟΙ ΤΗ ΝΗΣΩ [Steph. *Ethnic*. 13.88] ciò è Nora de' Sardi isola, da cui il cittadino si dice ΝΩΡΑΝΟΣ, come da ΝΩΛΑ, ΝΩΛΑΝΟΣ, et, d'indi, noi dicemo norano et norani, come nel plurale greco ΝΩΡΑΝΩΝ. Ora, questa città si vede che fu habitata da' coloni che vi posero i Flavii Imperadori, che fu d'una legione, secondo dimostrano le insegne che vi sono piantate sopra degli animali, che è la insegna legionaria dell'aquila colli manipuli delle cohorti. Fu l'isola occupata da diverse nationi et, perché gli Africani non se la usurpassero, i Romani più volte vi passarono"; and 435: "COLONIA TROADEA [*RIC* III (Commodus) 560], nel rovescio dell'effigie di Commodo, ci mostra alcuna rinovatione fatta de nuovi coloni dedutti in Troia Ilia, ove si vede il sito et forma della città di nuove mura rifatta, col tempio di Minerva exastylo, con le due porte, che anticamente furono chiamate SCAEAE, sotto delle quali fu strascinato Ectore da Achille, ligato per li piedi al carro. La cui città fu dedutta colonia anchora da Augusto et, come si vede per le medaglie, dall'altri Imperatori fu rinovata mancando delle mura et dell'habitatori [Liv. 35.42]. COLONIA AVGVSTA FELIX TROADEA [*RPC* I, 5412], con lo Imperatore che

s'acquistavano, per ciò che li tribù che militavano havessero, come i veterani, le parti de' terreni dati ai coloni, come si ritrahe da Marco Iunio Nypsa et da Marco Iulio Frontone nelli buoni testi scritti a penna". Ligorio affirms he drew the information on the symbols signifying the division of lands directly from the manuscripts of Iunius Nipsus and Fronto, i.e., Frontinus. However, in his works (*Fluminis variatio*, *Limitis repositio* and *Podismus*) Nipsus does not talk explicitly about these aspects (see e.g., Blume, Lachman, Rudorff 1848, 285-301 even if he hints at them at 289: "In agris diuisis solent lapides in centuriis non parere. sed sunt termini qui inter lineas consortales finem faciunt"), as well as Frontinus in his *De agrorum qualitate et controversiis limitum* (Blume, Lachman, Rudorff 1848, 1-9 and 26-58). The misunderstanding may have risen because of the manuscript tradition of Frontinus's works, which sometimes were attributed to other authors, including Fronto and Nipsus (Gandini 1855, 44). Frontinus's works, part of the *Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum*, were published for the first time by Turnèbe 1554, 33-52, and touched upon the ways the land was delimitated in antiquity. As pointed out by the editor of Ligorio's numismatic manuscript the reference may have been drawn by Boethius's *Nomina lapidum finalium et archarum* (Blume, Lachman, Rudorff 1848, 404-6), where an extensive series of different types of *termini* is listed.

ed, for example, a colonial coin minted by the city of Troas as honoring the Trojan origins of Rome. The legend COL permitted him first to identify the coin as a colonial issue since this was already recognised by Sebastiano Erizzo as the abbreviation for *colonia*. Ligorio then recognised the reverse type of the wolf and twins as a tribute to the birth of Rome and a celebration of the mythological origin of its people in Troy. The colony thus represented a concrete extension of Rome, and the coin clearly presented the relationship between the founding city and colony.

Two other colonial medallions of Troas connected to Rome's Trojan origins show on the reverse side a hexastyle temple and an eagle with an ox between its claws **[figs 34a-b, 35a-b]**. These coins were struck under Marcus Aurelius and Commodus in the second century ad, but before Ligorio, no Renaissance scholar had connected their types to colonies. He furthermore distinguished the hexastyle temple as a specifically colonial element but did not offer evidence to support this view. One may hypothesise that it had to do with those temples that were built in the first circle of the city where sacrifices took place.<sup>52</sup>

The most curious of his colonial examples is represented in a drawing of a coin that is not documented in modern catalogues. It depicts

52 Plut. *Rom.* 11.1-3: ὁ δὲ ῾Ρωμύλος ἐν τῇ ῾Ρεμωρίᾳ θάψας τὸν ῾Ρέμον ὁμοῦ καὶ τοὺς τροφεῖς, ᾤκιζε τὴν πόλιν, ἐκ Τυρρηνίας μεταπεμψάμενος ἄνδρας ἱεροῖς τισι θεσμοῖς καὶ γράμμασιν ὑφηγουμένους ἕκαστα καὶ διδάσκοντας ὥσπερ ἐν τελετῇ. βόθρος γὰρ ὠρύγη περὶ τὸ νῦν Κομίτιον κυκλοτερής, ἀπαρχαί τε πάντων, ὅσοις νόμῳ μὲν ὡς καλοῖς ἐχρῶντο, φύσει δ᾽ ὡς ἀναγκαίοις, ἀπετέθησαν ἐνταῦθα. καὶ τέλος ἐξ ἧς ἀφῖκτο γῆς ἕκαστος ὀλίγην κομίζων μοῖραν ἔβαλλον εἰς ταὐτὸ καὶ συνεμείγνυον. καλοῦσι δὲ τὸν βόθρον τοῦτον ᾧ καὶ τὸν ὄλυμπον ὀνόματι μοῦνδον. εἶθ᾽ ὥσπερ κύκλον κέντρῳ περιέγραψαν τὴν πόλιν. ὁ δ᾽ οἰκιστὴς ἐμβαλὼν ἀρότρῳ χαλκῆν ὕνιν, ὑποζεύξας δὲ βοῦν ἄρρενα καὶ θήλειαν, αὐτὸς μὲν ἐπάγει περιελαύνων αὔλακα βαθεῖαν τοῖς τέρμασι, τῶν δ᾽ ἑπομένων ἔργον ἐστίν, ἃς ἀνίστησι βώλους τὸ ἄροτρον, καταστρέφειν εἴσω καὶ μηδεμίαν ἔξω περιορᾶν ἐκτρεπομένην. τῇ μὲν οὖν γραμμῇ τὸ τεῖχος ἀφορίζουσι, καὶ καλεῖται κατὰ συγκοπὴν πωμήριον, οἷον ὄπισθεν τείχους ἢ μετὰ τεῖχος: ὅπου δὲ πύλην ἐμβαλεῖν διανοοῦνται, τὴν ὕνιν ἐξελόντες καὶ τὸ ἄροτρον ὑπερθέντες διάλειμμα ποιοῦσιν. ὅθεν ἅπαν τὸ τεῖχος ἱερὸν πλὴν τῶν πυλῶν νομίζουσι· τὰς δὲ πύλας ἱερὰς νομίζοντας οὐκ ἦν ἄνευ δεισιδαιμονίας τὰ μὲν δέχεσθαι, τὰ δ᾽ ἀποπέμπειν τῶν ἀναγκαίων καὶ μὴ καθαρῶν.

tira il solco con lo aratro, ce mostra la sopradetta città di Troia rifabricata et dedutta d'una legione, come ne significano la insegna dell'aquila legionaria et delli cavllieri et quadretto del Principe de' cavallieri romani. Nel dritto di quest'altra medaglia [*Collection Windisch-Grätz* 106 Nr. 1527], vi è due effigie, quella di Commodo et quella di Crispina, sua mogliera, Augusta et, per rovescio, è tempio exastylo di Pallade [*RPC* IV.2, 3172; *RPC* IX, 490], Dea de' Troiani troadei et perciò vi è scritto Colonia Augusta Troade, o Troadea, che allude alla gente Romana dedutta da Marco Aurelio et da Commodo in Troia, nella rinovatione fatta delle mura et delli nuovi habitatori. Similmente ce significa questo quarto rovescio [*RPC* IV.2, 165], dove è l'aquila dell'Imperio romano con una prota, o parte anteriore d'un tauro, che puotesignificare più cose: o il tauro sacrificato a Iove nel dedurre della colonia troadea, overo ci mostra la origine di Troia venire dalla progenie di Iove, a cui offerivano il tauro, o pure ce dà ad intendere la protettione di Iove et Pallade, Iddii delli Dardani Troadei, a' quali immolavano il bove, ma più drittamente è da credere che ne rappresenta il bove municipale offerto da i coloni a Iove".

a female figure riding a bull – a design found on the provincial coinage of Amphipolis in Thrace and representing the local goddess Artemis Tauropolos or Artemis Tauridea **[figs 36a-b]**. Perhaps Ligorio came across an example of the Amphipolis series when preparing the drawing.<sup>53</sup> If the Greek legends of the coin were worn, this might have encouraged him to invent a colonial legend (COL·IVL·CORINTHVS) based on the use of the bull/ox as the central iconographic element – as it will emerge soon after, this was a frequent practice even among the most rigorous antiquarians.

## 4.5 Colonial Coins in Florence

The Florentine scholar Vincenzio Borghini explored the matter of colonies in the first book of his *Discorsi sopra l'origine di Firenze*, published posthumously in 1584-85. In order to gain a greater understanding of the origins of Florence, and more precisely of its foundation as a Roman colony, Borghini opened a long discussion in which he carefully explained the political mechanisms behind the colonial institution. This was divided into three parts (4. *De' Municipi, e Colonie Romane*; 5. *Delle Colonie Latine*; 6. *Delle Colonie Militari*) and, for size and completeness, it is the richest treatise on colonies written in the sixteenth century.54 The second volume of the *Discorsi sopra l'origine di Firenze* included a section dedicated to the coinage of Florence (*Della moneta fiorentina*) that also dealt with colonial coins. Within this extensive section, Borghini considered monetary organisation a central issue, without which important turning points in the history of Florence could not be understood. He questioned the economic function that may have been connected to the colonial institution and addressed one of the original problems concerning colonial coins: whether or not they were tied to the treasury of the colony, which would imply an autonomous monetary policy. Borghini left the question unanswered, even though he considered that the coins could have been an effective colonial currency with a general circulation.<sup>55</sup>

<sup>53</sup> Serafin Petrillo 2013, 125: "Dela colonia Iulia Corinthus s'è detto in molti luoghi, ma qui non è altro da dire, se non sopra dela giovane, la quale è portata dal tauro [*RPC*  I, 1635 (Amphipolis)], la cui imagine indubitamente è Io, o vero Ione, figliuola di Inaco, re degli Argivi et fiume dell'Argolide. La quale fu di singulare bellezza et li poeti la fanno degna dell'amore di Iove, come dice Ovidio [Ov. *met*. 1.583]".

<sup>54</sup> Borghini 1584, 367-455.

<sup>55</sup> Borghini 1585, 146-7: "Or ne' tempi innanzi a questi, e quando ell'era nel suo primo vigore, in genere parlando, si può finalmente in molte dire quel che in una parola si è or detto, e ciascuno per se stesso può agevolmente conoscere, che come parte, seguitò la natura e la forma del tutto, e che la moneta della città di Roma fusse comune di tutto il corpo ed Imperio Romano. Ma se particularmente ella ebbe in questo stato moneta alcuna sua propria, anche questo si può malagevolmente affermare; e conviene in questo,

**Figure 34b** *RPC* IX, 490. Aerius. Troas. 251 A.D.-253 A.D. L2: COL AVG, TROAD (with L retrograde); temple with six columns enclosing statue of Apollo Smintheus standing on short column, l., with quiver on shoulder, holding patera over lighted tripod and bow

**Figure 35b** *RPC* IV.2, 165. Aerius. Troas. 180 A.D.-183 A.D. COL AVG TROA(D); eagle flying, r., holding bucranium in claws

**Figure 36b** *RPC* I, 1635. Aerius. Amphipolis. First century A.D. L2: ΑΜΦΙΠΟΛΙΤWΝ; Artemis Tauropolos on bull, r.

**Figure 34a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 337ʳ ᵉ

**Figure 35a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 337ʳ ᵉ

**Figure 36a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 87ʳ ᵉ

**Figure 37** RPC III, 3958. Aerius. Samaria. 117 A.D. -138 A.D. L1: IMP TRA HADRIANO CAES AVG; laureate and draped (seen from rear) bust of Hadrian, r. L2: COL I FL AVG CAESARENS; veiled figure ploughing r. with two oxen; above, small Victory, flying l.

**Figure 38** Vincenzio Borghini. *Colonial coin*. BMLF Antinori 143, f. 22ʳ

**Figure 39** *SNG* Copenhagen 729. Drachma. 300 B.C.-270 B.C. L2: MAΣΣA Lion

**Figure 40** *SNG* ASN 1367. Velia, Lucania. c. 300-280 B.C. L2: Lion walking r.; above, I-Φ flanking star; below, YEΛHTΩN

Borghini also mentioned a colonial coin apparently minted for the foundation of Florence with the legend COL. FLOR., reinforcing the identification of the city as an original Roman colony. Borghini had not actually seen this coin, but he learned of its existence from his friend Panvinio, whom he considered a reliable source that firstly established the Roman colonial origin of Florence.56 The information on the coin was obtained through an epistolary exchange between the two humanists about twenty years before the publication of the *Discorsi*. Today it is possible to read only Borghini's reply of 18 February 1566, in which he requested further information about the coin and noted that it depicted the image of Hercules, a supposed ancient symbol of the city.<sup>57</sup> The question of authenticity opened a debate between Florence and Rome in which other scholars participated. Borghini probably consulted his erudite friends for additional evidence to support Panvinio's report and to reinforce its credibility. A letter of Fulvio Orsini to the great Floren-

56 Borghini 1585, 147-8: "Or come questo si sia, che non fa forza a questo proposito, trovandosene di questa sorte dell'altre, non farebbe della nostra cosa nuova, né da far gridare alcuno. Io non ne ho vedute, ma quel tanto da bene e di queste antichità così gran ricercatore Onofrio Panvinio mi disse già averne vedute, una notata COL. FLOR. il che per l'autorità dell'uomo si debbe credere, né ci è cosa che impedisca che essere non potesse". See also Panvinio 1558, 741: "*Colonia Florentia*. Frontinus. Florentina colonia deducta a triumviris, adsignata lege Iulia centuriis Caesariana iugera CC per cardines et decumanos. Huius coloniae meminit Tacitus [Tac. *ann.* 1.79.1]".

57 See also Dati 1745, 68: "Ringraziovi degli avvisi datimi, e se quella medaglia, ove è fatta menzione della COL. FIOR. Si potesse ritrovare, e che ella fusse sincera, e non artifiziata (che questo pel buon giudizio e gusto che avete delle cose antiche lo saprete conoscere benissimo) sarebbe bella cosa e di grande piacere di questi qua, e confronterebbe in questo che ancor oggi il segno e sigillo pubblico della città è Ercole, ed è cosa tanto antica che non ne sappiamo origine alcuna, se non che così si è sempre usato" (Vincenzio Borghini to Onofrio Panvinio, 18 February 1566). Borghini says that the origin of Hercules as a symbol of Florence is unknown. This was openly in contrast with what stated by the so-called Aramei, who extensively narrated about the connection between the city and the ancient hero, however citing forged sources; see Giovanni Battista Gelli's *Trattatello sull'origine di Firenze* in D'Alessandro 1979, 121: "Venne, adunque, Hercole in Italia anni secentoquattro dopo il diluvio et in trenta anni che ci stette ne primi dieci spense I giganti et negli venti tagliò la Golfolina; dette il nome a Arno, edifice le prime nostre habitationi le quali furono il principio di Firenze, messeci habitatori et lasciò loro il lione insegna sua", and his Eclogue on the same theme in Gelli 1855, 462-8 especially 465 and 468: "Ercole libio e vendicar l'ingiuria | del caro padre allor d'Egitto venne, | e vide, e vinse, e re d'Italia fèssi. | Questi invaghito de' paesi nostri, | con alto senno e pronte forze insieme, | tagliò la Golfolina, e l'aer grosso | ne rendé puro e ne allegrò la terra; | il nome ad Arno pose e 'l suo leone | a quei pastor lasciò per loro insegna: | onde in memoria sua Flora oggi ancora | conoscendo da lui l'origin prima, | per segno il leon porta, e la sua immago | ne' suoi primi sigilli onora e cole". On the same issue, Barbi 1889, 8-9 fn. 1 and Simoncelli 1984, 6-22.

come nell'altre cose, valersi della regola generale della Colonie tutte, e trovandosi alcune cotali piccole medaglie d'argento, oltre alle maggiori, che si veggono di rame col nome particulare di essa colonia, le quali non vo' disputare ora a quello servissero (che molti ne contendono), ma ben dico di queste minori d'argento, che ben potevan servire per ispendere, così sono nella forma e nel peso e nella maniera tutta simili a quegli Bigati e Quadrigati e Vittoriati che senza dubbio in que' tempi correvano per moneta".

tine philologist Piero Vettori, dated 27 July 1574, expressed skepticism regarding the coin. Orsini further declared in the letter that no such Florentine colonial coin existed and impugned Panvinio's reliability.<sup>58</sup>

Although Borghini was not able to confirm the existence of the Florentine colonial coin, it is conceivable that a coin of Caesarea Maritima as a Roman colony under the emperor Hadrian (AD 117-113) could have been mistaken by Renaissance scholars as Florentine issues [*RPC* III, 3958].<sup>59</sup> The legend refers to the city as COL·FL·AVG (*Colonia Flavia Augusta*), but it is easy to see how a worn specimen could have led to the misreading of the inscription as COL FLO (*Colonia Florentia*). The presence of Hadrian's image could have increased the confusion, because he was portrayed wearing a beard and a laurel wreath to express his identity as a philosopher emperor **[fig. 37]**. These same iconographic features were also commonly associated with images of Hercules. The oxen and plow reverse added the final piece to make the coin perfect-

<sup>58</sup> Nolhac 1889, 29-30: "La moneta della colonia, che mi scrive, io non ho mai veduto, né credo si trovi tal moneta; quel buon padre, che V.S. nomina, soleva ben spesso dire belle bugie; però non mi pare se li debba credere così ogni cosa. Io so ben questo, che hora stampo un libro *de familijs Romanis, quae reperiuntur in antiquis numismatibus ab urbe condita ad tempora Augusti*, dove ho la varietà di DCCC medaglie ex aere, argento, auro et molte colonie anchora, però dopo Cesare, et non vi ha tal moneta in niuno metallo, siché V.S. si contenti per questa volta non credere all'amico, et non s'ingannerà". The "buon padre" mentioned by Orsini is not Ottavio Pantagato, as assumed by Nolhac (fn. 5), but Onofrio Panvinio, in light of the abovementioned epistolary exchange with Borghini. Panvinio's fame and authority were differently regarded: in fact, Fulvio Orsini, writing to Antonio Agustín on 12 October 1566, derogatorily refers to Panvinio as a "carrot planter" (Wickersham Crawford 1913, 583-4: "et il Frate Onofrio è un piantatore di carote, secondo dice il vulgo, sì che V.S.R. vede l'antichità come sono ridotte"). It was no coincidence that Vettori, among all the scholar friends of Borghini, asked Orsini for an explanation of this coin. Along with his other antiquarian and numismatic interests, Vettori dealt with colonial coinage especially in relation to Greek cities; see Vettori 1568, 174 [XXXV. 23 *Cur in Veliensium et Massiliensium nummis idem signum existat*]: "In argenteo nummo Veliensium imago leonis impressa est, infraque hae litterae VΕΛΗΤΩΝ [*SNG ANS* 1366 (Veleia)]. In aversa itidime parte nummorum, quos cudebant Massilienses, leonem sculptum vidi [*SNG Cop.* 729 (Massalia)]. Unde autem factum sit, ut his remotis longinquisque populis in hoc convenerit, arbitror me investigasse. Id autem est, quia et Velienses et Massilienses e Phocide oriundi erant, cuius, nobilis quondam Urbis, existimare possumus insigne leonem fuisse. Tuebantur igitur illi ptrium institutum, ut mos era omnium colonarum quae missa in alias terras forent. Nam Phocenses fuisse, qui condiderunt Veliam, memoriae quoque prodidit Strabo, qui in VI libro inquit: ἐν ᾧ πόλις, ἣν οἱ μὲν κτίσαντες Φωκαιεῖς Ὑέλην, οἱ δὲ Ἔλλην ἀπὸ κρήνης τινὸς, οἱ δὲ νῦν Βελίαν ὀνομάζουσιν [Str. *Geogr*. 6.1.1]. Nam de Massiliensibus, qui originem illinc duxerint, dubitari non potest; idem enim hoc quoque, ut alios taceam, testator est, qui in IIII libro inquit: Κτίσμα δ' ἐστὶ Φωκέων ἡ Μασσαλία [Str. *Geogr*. 4.1.4]". In recognising analogous iconographic elements and connecting them with the colonial origin of the two cities found in the literary sources, Vettori concluded that similar types corresponded to similar institutions, establishing that both the Greek cities had analogous colonial origins **[figs 39-40]**. This conclusion directly derived from the study of Roman colonial coins, which employed iconography related sources to specific rituals and institutions generally attributed to the mother-city. For Vettori's methodology see Drusi 2012a, 15-38.

<sup>59</sup> The types are as Sofaer, pl. 24, 26; Kadman (Caesarea) 27; Rosenberger 24.

ly compatible with Borghini's antiquarian needs. A prototype of a colonial coin with similar characteristics **[fig. 38]** can be found in a drawing of a manuscript coin-book put together by Borghini himself. This work included a wide range of colonial specimens, many with faithful illustrations, all drawn by Borghini himself.<sup>60</sup> Thus he may have had reason to put faith in the information given to him by Panvinio, in consideration of his personal experience.

Borghini's meditations became useful in a controversy with Girolamo Mei (1519-1594), a Florentine scholar living in Rome, that took place during the years 1566 and 1567. Mei disputed Borghini's idea that Florence had a Roman colonial origin.61 In the end Borghini prevailed in the debate probably relying also on the colonial coin (even if he did not explicitly mention it in the epistolary exchange). The whole issue of the founding of Florence probably grew out of the studies for the iconographic programme devised by Giorgio Vasari to decorate the vault of the Palazzo Vecchio in 1563-65. In both Vasari's preparatory cardboard sketch and in the painting **[figs 41a-b, 42a-b]**, 62 the figurative repertoire adopted (oxen with plow that trace the furrow delimiting the *pomerium*) is inextricably connected to the research on colonies. The years in which the debate on colonies reached a turning point (1557-60) represent a cultural *terminus post quem*, in which the role of numismatic studies emerged as an essential source. Vasari himself talked about this iconography in a letter to Cosimo I de' Medici dated 3 March 1563, and in his later treatise, *Ragionamento*, published posthumously in 1588, in which he explained the meaning of his work to Duke Francesco I, son of Cosimo.<sup>63</sup> In both texts, Vasari used

61 On this matter, see Carrara 2007.

62 The preparatory cardboard draft can be found at the Harvard Art Museum, placement no. 1932.157 B. I am grateful to Isabella Donadio for providing the image.

63 Frey 1934, 724: "Ne tre quadri grandi di mezzo farej: in un de dua dal lato la prima edificatione di Fiorenza col segnio de Romani". The images are described synthetically: it is possible to find a polysemic connotation in the word *segnio* that can refer either to the banner (*vexillum*) or to the boundary (*terminus*), as witnessed also by the Accademia della Crusca, and serving as a reliable parameter for the literary use of this word; see *VAC* 1612, 781: "Segno […] ¶ Per insegna. Dan. Par. 6. Perchè tu veggi, con quanta ragione, Si muove contra 'l sacrosanto segno. E di sotto. Ma ciò, che 'l segno, che parlar mi face, Fatto avea prima, e poi era fatturo [*Pd* 6.31-2 and 82-3]. […] ¶ Per termine. Lat. terminus. Bocc. Introd. no. 37. Senza trapassare in alcuno atto il segno della ragione [Bocc. *Dec*. 1.1. (*Intr*.)]. M. V. 9.87. E appresso cominciata hanno così aspra giustizia, che passano i segni, per troppa rigidezza [M. Villani *Cron.* 9.87]. Petr. cap. 10. Che in quella schiera andò più presso al segno, Al quale aggiunge, a chi dal Cielo è dato [Petr. *Triumph*. 3.3.5]". Vasari returns on the issue twenty five years later, in his description of the iconographic programme of Palazzo Vecchio; see Vasari 1588, 172-3: "Dico dunque che in questo quadro grande, ho fatta la edificatione et fondatione di Firenze sotto il segno dell'Ariete, e vi ho dipinti drento Ottaviano, Lepido e Marcantonio,

<sup>60</sup> BMLF Antonori 143, f. 22*r*. I am grateful to Rik Scorza for providing the image; see also Scorza 1987. The description of the manuscript is given by Eliana Carrara in Belloni-Drusi 2002, 89-91.

#### **Acciarino 4 • Numismatics**

the same terminology that derived from the colonial coinage debate (*segnio – insegna – primo cerchio*). What emerges is that the painted imagery was the product of a cultural sedimentation of the colonial discussion that intersected different disciplines and became an expression of the 'rebirth of antiquity' in modern times.

che danno l'insegna del giglio bianco a' Fiorentini loro Colonia, et ho ritratto la Città antica, come stava allora solamente nel primo cerchio, e similmente la città di Fiesole, e secondo si legge in alcuni, Firenze fu edificata anni 682, doppo la edificatione di Roma, et anni settanta innanzi la natività di Cristo [G. Villani *NC* 38], però considerata questa origine ho scritto sotto: *Florentia Romanorum Colonia lege Iulia a III viris deducitur*". However, Vasari is not in line with what Borghini earlier established in his *Discorsi*, placing the foundation of Florence about thirty years later; see Borghini 1584, 104: "Fu dunque la Colonia nostra nel Triumvirato, e per ordine del Triumvirato Condotta da Augusto, e da lui molto vezzeggiata; e si può sicuramente tenere la sua prima fondazione appresso la vittoria Filippense, quando non era seguita ancora la deposizione di M. Lepido, e la rottura con M. Antonio, convenendoci i nomi di tutti e tre parimente, e ciò fu l'anno di Roma DCCXII e innanzi alla natività di nostro Signore anni XL, ancorché generalmente questo computo degli anni non si possa sempre pigliare tanto per l'appunto, che, come già si è detto, non vi possa esser differenza d'un anno o due".

**Figure 42a** Giorgio Vasari, *The Foundation of Florence*. Oil on board. Salone dei Cinquencento. Palazzo Vecchio. Florence. c. 1563

> **Figure 42b** Giorgio Vasari, *The Foundation of Florence*, detail. Oil on board. Salone dei Cinquencento. Palazzo Vecchio. Florence. c. 1563

**Figure 43** *RPC* I, 261. Aerius. Lepida Celsa. 44-36 B.C. L1: C(OL) V(IC) I(VL) L(EP); head of Victory, r., palm over l. shoulder. L2: M FVL C OTAC PR QVIN; colonist ploughing with yoke of oxen, r.

# 4.6 Colonial Coins from Spain to Bologna

As a last step to reconstruct all facets of the colonial coinage discussion, the *Diálogos de medallas* of Antonio Agustín must be considered. Published for the first time in Spain in 1587 after 30 years of numismatic studies,<sup>64</sup> it is perhaps the most important and detailed work on the subject written in the sixteenth century.<sup>65</sup> Colonial coins were specifically treated in Book 6, starting with the interpretation of a piece thought to be from the African city Leptis Magna, but which is actually an issue of the Iberian city of Lepida-Celsa [*RPC* I, 261]. The Spanish humanist entered in the heart of the debate on this coin type, touching on both iconographic aspects and those tied to institutional mechanisms. This coin was recognised as colonial, first through the obverse legend COL·VIC·IVL·LEP· and then through its design representing a man driving two oxen with a plow **[fig. 43]**. From the legend, Agustín was able to resolve the acronym C·V·I. as an abbreviation of COL·VIC·IVL, just as Ligorio did with C·C·A. He also tried to interpret the bovine iconography, demonstrating great originality: when he specified the bovine gender during the colonial founding ritual, he enriched this notion with details, which were based on neither literary nor archeological evidence.<sup>66</sup> He claimed that the shape

64 Carbonell 1991, *passim*.

65 See Stenhouse 2009a.

66 Agustín 1587a, 226: "A. De la colonia Leptis se hallan medallas donde esta de la una parte una cabeça de donzella con una palma detras y una parte de una ala en las espaldas, que deve ser Vitoria, con estas letras COL. IVL. VIC. LEP. que quieren dezir *Colonia Victrix Iulia Leptis*; y de la otra M. FVL. C. OTAC. PR. QVIN. y hai dos bueys y un hombre detras. B. Que quieren dezir essas letras ? A. Marco Fulvio, Caio Otacilio of the horns of the ox/cow was linked to gender: inward for the female and outward for the male, adding that in the Flanders nobody bought an ox/cow without checking their horns first.67 An early visual counterpart of this proverb could be found in the painting by the Flemish artist Simon de Myle, *Noah's Ark on Mont Ararat* (ca. 1570), where a cow and a bull are differentiated one another thanks to the shape of the horns **[figs 44a-b]**.

The zoological distinction of ox from cow through horn shape may have derived from the antiquarian culture of the period but also from new scientific publications issued throughout the sixteenth century. On the one hand, Agustín could have been inspired by the Latin grammarian Festus. In his *De verborum significatione,* which Agustín edited himself in 1559, Festus reported that bovines had horns that extend in different directions.68 On the other hand, Renaissance zo-

67 Agustín 1587a, 273-4: "B. Los dos bueyes con el que los sigue porque estan en essas y en otras medallas ? A. Por señalar que es colonia, y Immune la llama Plinio [Plin. *nat.* 3.18.127], y hallanse ciertas palabras de un escritor antiguo [Plut. *Rom.* 11.1-3] que dizen como se ha de hazer la colonia, juntando un buey y una vaca, y poniendo la vaca hazia la parte de la colonia que se quiere hazer de nuevo, y el buey a la parte de fuera, y llevan un arado y rodean et termino de la colonia por donde ha de yr de ester la puerta. B. Porque ha de yr la vaca de la parte de la poblacion? A. Porque sean las mugeres en sus casas fertiles como la vaca. B. Y el buey de fuera por que causa? A. Porque los hombres sean fuera trabajadores y fuertes como el buey. B. Segun essa razon de los que estuvieren en la medalla el uno ha de ser buey y el otro vaca. A. Lo mismo digo yo, pero como se conoceran? B. Si se viessen las tetas de la vaca. A. En los cuernos he oido dezir que se conocen, y que en Flandes no compran cueros sin los cuernos, por los quales conoces si es cuero de buey o de vaca. C. Que differencia hai en los cuernos? A. Los de la vaca son como los cuernos de la luna, y no faltara alguna fabula a este proposito, y como le sacrificavan por esto vacas; los de los toros y bueyes salen mas a fuera, y assi hazen mas daño con las puntas hazia arriba, o a los lados".

68 Fest. 229.5-7: "Propatulum late patens atque apertum, et patuli boves, quorum cornua in diversum super modum patent". Slightly different is the reading given in Agustín 1559, 383: "Et patuli boves, quorum cornua in diversum supra † modum patent". On *propatuli boves*, see also Meursius 1599, 250-1: "Ut ego me ruri humaxari mavelim patalem bovem [Plaut. *Truc*. 277]. Haec lectio a Scaligero profecta, propter auctoritatem tanti viri in textum recepta est. Ego viri tanti, quem unice, ut debeo, colo, auctoritati detractum ire nolo, sed heic tamen eum sequi non possum, quum omnes veteres constanter habeant Patulum. Et sane meliores Festi editiones ita praeferunt, non Patalem. Deinde ex Iunio Philargyrio et Servio ad Georg. III scimus *patulos* boves adpellatos [Serv. *georg*. 1.375], qui cornua late distantia habeant, qui Graecis poetis εὐρυμέτωπος [Hom. *Il*. 10.292 and Hes. *Theog*. 291]. Iidem quoque *propatuli* dicti, teste hoc ipso Festo in *propatulum*. Sed, ut quod super hoc loco censeo semel dicam, scripsit Plautus *patulem* ἀρχαϊκῶς, nam veteres nomina secundae declinationis etiam tertia indifferenter efferebant. Hoc Festus antiquitatis diligentissium scientissimusque adnotaverat, sed locus postea corruptus, et *patulem* in *patalem* mutatum est. Confirmat et hoc coniec-

Pratorib. Quinquennalib. B. Porque no se llaman Duumviros? A. No lo sabre dezir, pero bien se que los de Capua se llamavan Pretores segun dize Ciceron en una de las oraciones contra Rullum de lege agraria [Cic. 2 *De Leg. Agr.* 34]. Hase de notar en esta medalla que lo que en otras medallas esta C.V.I. en esta con mas letras COL. VIC. IVL. B. Por que estan los dos bueyes y aquel hombre? A. Por señalar como era colonia, que como diremos otra vez, quando se hazia de nuevo la colonia, atavan una vaca y un buey y hazian un sulco por donde havian de yr los muros de la colonia, salvo a las puertas".

ological treatises also classified bovine gender according to horn shape. Many examples can be adduced, but the most relevant are the *De differentiis animalium* (1551) of the English scholar Edward Wotton (1492-1555), where the question of classification is discussed in detail, and the four-volume *Historia animalium* (1551) written by the Swiss humanist Conrad Gesner. Both works treated the shape of the horns as a trait related to gender, but only Gesner seems to provide a potential parallel occurrence for Agustín interpretation, mentioning a German proverb ("Got gibt einem wol ein ochsen | aber nit bey den hörnen").<sup>69</sup> Gesner's treatise is notable for its many illustrations. Curiously enough, in the pictures of the ox and cow **[figs 45a-b]**, the horns could fit the description given in Agustín's *Diálogos*: <sup>70</sup> the horns of the male curve outward while those of the female curve slightly inward. However, there is no proof that Agustín's statement was derived from this illustration, even though it seems to be the only iconographic model to support his view.

There are no signs of this particular iconography in the numismatic treatises of the time, not even in the *Diálogos*, since the illustrations end at Book 4. However, in the translation made by Dionigi Ottaviano Sada in 1592, this detail of horn shape was faithfully included in the drawing of a coin of Caesaraugusta following the description in the text, even though it is not present on the original

70 Gesner 1551, 24-5.

turam meam, quod si *patulum* Plautus dixisset, iam hoc non novum nec adnotatione dignum sit". While talking about previous readings on this passage, Meursius mentions Scaliger 1575, 117 [*Comm*.]: "*Patalem*] Locus Plauti est in Truculento, quam Comoediam nos maiore ex parte a mendis vindicavimus: ut ego me ruri hamakari mavelim patalem bovem | cunque eo ita noctem in stramentis pernoctare perpetem | quam tuas centum cenatas noctes mihi dono dari [Plaut. *Truc*. 277-9]".

<sup>69</sup> Wotton 1551, 73b: "Haec maris forma spectanda est: neque enim alio distat bonus taurus a castrato, nisi quod tauris in aspectu generositas, tarva fronte, auribus setosis, torosiore cervice, ventra paulo substrictiore, cornibus brevioribus et in procinctu dimicationem poscentibus, sed tota comminatio prioribus inpedibus stat, ira gliscente alternos replicans, spargensque in altum arenam, et solus animalium eo stimulo ardescens. Vaccae probantur altissimae formae longaeque, maximus uteris, frontibus latissimis, oculis nigris et patentibus, cornibus venustis, et levibus et nigricantibus, pilosis auribus, compressis malis, palearibus et caudis amplissimis, ungulis modidis et cruribus"; Gesner 1551, 27: "Cornua tauris robustiora quam vaccis, Aristot. circa finem libri 4 de histor. animalium [Arist. *Hist. An.* 538b]; quo in loco Albertus Magnus contrarium habet, his verbis: Cornua vaccarum fortiora et maiora et longiora sunt cornibus taurorum [Alb. Magn. *Animal*. 4.2.4], deceptus forte Plinij verbis, qui tauris minora quam bubus tenuioraque esse cornua scribit [Plin. *nat.* 8.179], cum Plinius boum nomine non vaccas, sed doves exectos intelligat. Similiter et Rasis errat cornu robustius vaccis attribuens. Gerunt autem boves ectomiae, id est castrati, cornua maiora, eadem ratione qua spadones calvis efficti nequeunt"; the proverb is mentioned at page 103: "Germani, Got gibt einem wol ein ochsen | aber nit bey den hörnen, Deus bovem aliqundo donat, sed non cornibus apprehendendum".

coin [*RPC* I, 305] **[fig. 46a]**. <sup>71</sup> In two other translations of the same work<sup>72</sup> – an anonymous Italian version dated 1592 and a Latin one by Agustín's secretary, Andreas Schott (1552-1629), dated 1617 – this treatment of the horns was not carried through in the accompanying drawings. The illustrations in Agustín's original work were placed at the end of every section, while those of all three translations were created *ex novo*. 73 In the anonymous Italian and Schott's Latin versions, the illustrations were placed at the beginning or at the end of the treatises, and the relation between image and description was not immediately clear. On the contrary, the images in Sada's translation followed one by one the corresponding text descriptions for ease of reference. Probably, the omission of the iconographic detail of the horns in the other two editions was due to the disposition of the images in the text: when it was necessary to create a link between word and image, the collaboration between translator and illustrator was better controlled, as emerges from **[fig. 46b]**. <sup>74</sup> Not all colonial coins with oxen and plow illustrated in the Italian translation of Sada distinguished two different horn types, reinforcing the hypothesis that the iconography of this work was extremely faithful to Agustín's description in the text, and the adoption of different horns for the colonial coins was not a free choice of the illustrator but the consequence of a specific textual situation.<sup>75</sup>

71 Agustín 1592a, 208: "B. I due buoi con quello, che lor va dietro, che si veggono in coteste, et in altre medaglie, che significan eglino? A. Sono per dimostrare che è colonia, et Plinio la chiama immune [Plin. *nat.* 3.18.127], et si truovano certe parole d'uno scrittore antico [Plut. *Rom.* 11.1-3], che mostrano il modo come s'habbia da far la Colonia, congiungendo insieme un bue et una vacca, et mettendo la vacca verso la colonia che si vuol far di nuovo, et il bue dalla banda di fuori, et tirando un aratro et circondando il territorio della colonia, dove s'ha da far muraglia, alzando l'aratro nel luogo, dove ha da esser la porta di essa. B. Perché la vacca ha da ire dalla banda dell'habitatione? A. Accioché le donne habbiano da essere nelle case loro così feconde come le vacche. B. Il bue perché si mette dalla banda di fuori? A. Perché gli huomini siano fuori lavoratori et forti come il bue. B. Secondo cotesta ragione, nella medaglia uno animale ha da esser bue et l'altro vacca. A. Il medesimo dico io, come si conosceranno? B. Vedendosi le poppe della vacca. A. Ho inteso dire che si conoscono ancora alle corna, et che in Fiandra non si comprano le pelli senza le corna, per conoscere se sia pelle di bue o di vacca. C. Che differenza è fra le corna loro? Quelle della vacca sono a guisa delle corna della luna, et non ci mancherà qualche favola in questo proposito che dimostri etiandio che perciò le sacrificassero le vacche; quelle de' tori et de' buoi escono assai più in fuori, et perciò, havendo le punte all'insu o dalle bande, urtando fanno maggior male".


<sup>72</sup> The translator is thought to be thought to have been Alfonso Chacón; see Missere Fontana 2009, 61-72.

**Figure 44a**

Simon de Myle, *Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat*. Oil on panel. Private collection. 1570

#### **Figure 44b**

Simon de Myle, *Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat*, detail. Oil on panel. Private collection. 1570

**Figure 45a** *Ox*. Engraving. In *Conradi Gesneri medici Tiguri Historiae animalium. Lib. 1. de quadrupedibus uiuiparis. Opus philosophis, medicis, grammaticis, philologis ... utilissimum simul iucundissimumque futurum*. Tuguri, apud Christ. Froschouerum, 1551, 24

**Figure 45b** *Cow*. Engraving. In *Conradi Gesneri medici Tiguri Historiae animalium. Lib. 1. de quadrupedibus uiuiparis. Opus philosophis, medicis, grammaticis, philologis ... utilissimum simul iucundissimumque futurum*. Tuguri, apud Christ. Froschouerum, 1551, 25

**Figure 46a** *Vives* 162-4. Aerius. Caesaragusta. After 19 B.C. L2: CAESAR – AVGVSTA Sacerdos, holding whip, ploughing with yoke of oxen to r.; in exergue, II VIR / Q LVTATIO M FABIO

**Figure 46b** *Colonial coin*. Engraving. In *Dialoghi di don Antonio Agostini arciuescouo di Tarracona intorno alle medaglie inscrittioni et altre antichita tradotti di lingua spagnuola in italiana da Dionigi Ottauiano Sada & dal medesimo accresciuti con diuerse annotationi, & illustrati con disegni di molte medaglie & d'altre figure*. In Roma, appresso Guglielmo Faciotto, 1592, 208

#### **Acciarino 4 • Numismatics**

**Figure 47a** Annibale Carracci, *Foundation of Rome*. Fresco painting. Palazzo Magnani, Bologna. c. 1589-92

**Figure 47b** Annibale Carracci, *Foundation of Rome*, detail. Fresco painting. Palazzo Magnani, Bologna. c. 1589-92

This treatment of horns deriving from the study of colonial coins evolved into a tradition of its own in contemporary figurative art, as indicated by the frescos of the Founding of Rome cycle at Palazzo Magnani in Bologna painted by the Carracci brothers from ca. 1589 to 1592. In the scene with the motto *In urbe robur et labor*, where Romulus uses the plow to trace the furrow delimiting the *pomerium*, 76 the two oxen are depicted with two different types of horns – one with an inward-curving shape in the foreground, representing the female, the other in the background with an outward-curving shape,

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **168** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 131-172

<sup>76</sup> On the fresco in general see Vitali 2011; Bettini 2009; Emiliani 2000; Stanzani 2000; Rubinstein 1979.

representing the male **[figs 47a-b]**. The archetype could have been taken directly from the Spanish *Diálogos* of 1587. However, considering the low circulation of this work (only 60 copies were published in Tarragona),77 it is possible that the fresco found its model in Sada's version, where the differences in the bovine gender are also indicated by horn shape.

One must also consider that the coins used as examples for this Italian edition belonged to the collection of the Bolognese antiquarian Lelio Pasqualini (1549-1606), who moved to Rome as canon of Santa Maria Maggiore. He retained close relations with his city of origin and with its artistic environment, including the Carracci brothers, whom he included among his closest friends.78 Notes in the manuscript BAV Barb. Lat. 2113 prove that Pasqualini knew very well the original work of Agustín, as he was also author of the appendix of Sada's translation.<sup>79</sup> In light of this, he may have contributed to the Carracci brothers' conceptions of the iconographic programme of the Palazzo Magnani, where the influence of a numismatist appears almost certain to justify the imagery.<sup>80</sup>

It was confirmed that the main source for the Carracci brothers was the Italian version of the *Vitae Parallelae* of Plutarch translated by Battista Alessandro Jaconello in 1492,<sup>81</sup> in which Romulus traced the furrow of the city of Rome with a plow pulled by two oxen whose horn shapes are not specified.<sup>82</sup> The classical source does not fully

79 Missere Fontana 2009, 72.

80 However, Giovanni Pietro Bellori and Carlo Cesare Malvasia, do not mention a possible relation between Pasqualini and the Carracci brothers. Even the most recent studies do not mention consultants called to contribute ideas for the decorations, following the order of Lorenzo Magnani. Nevertheless, if the detail of the horns does carry a humanist thought, it would be necessary to identify its palingenesis in the discussion of Roman colonies and colonial coins. See Bellori 1672; Malvasia 1678; Rubinstein 1979. Samuel Vitali, who recently completed a detailed analysis of the frescos in Palazzo Magnani, does not recognise a precise model for the painting, connecting it only with an image of Neptune leading a plow in Vincenzo Cartari's iconographic repertoire. He defines it only as a "figurative option" and not as a "programmatic choice" (Vitali 2011, 140-3).

81 Stanzani 2000.

82 Jaconello 1537, 27-8: "Dapoi in figura di uno circulo signò la città, et lui como principale ad far quella da novo uno vomere de rame mise in lo aratro, et gionse insieme un bove et una vacca, lui guidandoli fermò li termini et fece a torno uno solcho assai profondo. Quelli che seguitavano, havevano tal caricho che le toppe mosse dall'aratro le rebuttavano nella parte dentro. Né nulla permettevano cascasse fuora, terminando il loco per le mura con una linea; et quello spatio che dentro se lassa è chiamato Pomerio, levando de mezzo per sincope le lettere, che vol significare quasi post murum, cioè deretro a muro; et dove volevano ordinare le porte, lì levando il vomere ne alzando l'aratro, lassarono uno certo spatio di terreno non toccato dal vomere. Onde tutto il muro eccetto le porte è riputato sacro".

<sup>77</sup> Missere Fontana 2009, 61; see also Stenhouse 2009a, 50-1.

<sup>78</sup> Missere Fontana 2009, 72.

explain the imagery, which, at this point, could have derived from the development of the debate between institutions and numismatics, in particular colonial studies.

As already seen in the case of Florence, the theme of this fresco could also find an ideal correspondence in the *Historia Bononiensis* of Sigonio, published for the first time between 1571 and 1574, in which it was stated that Bologna was a Roman colony.83 Thus the depiction of the founding rite of Rome becomes a concrete reference to the shared identity of colony and mother-city. The fact that Bologna had Roman origins also justified the use of this iconographic theme that, echoing Biondo, made the colony in the image and a likeness of Rome.<sup>84</sup>

The detail regarding the shape of the horns took on a life of its own, in a fresco depicting an episode of the *Storia di Coriolano* (sixteenth–seventeenth century) painted by an apprentice of the Carracci brothers, Lucio Massari (1569-1633), in the Palazzo Bonfiglioli Rossi in Bologna. In the scene with the motto *Vincuntur praelio Volsci*, two bovines with horns of different shapes (curving inward on the left and outward on the right) are depicted from behind.<sup>85</sup> This feature could be identified as the sex-linked trait used to distinguish the ox from the cow. The fact that here it is represented outside a colonial context, may show the freestanding life of this iconographic element.

Lastly, one could see further repercussions of this cultural dynamic in Bologna, but in a different context. In 1621, when the extensive zoological treatise, *De quadrupedibus bisulcis*, was published by the naturalist and scholar Ulisse Aldrovandi, the horns as a trait for distinguishing gender returned in a very curious way. Aldrovandi, in describing the differences of the horns between male and female bovines, affirmed that the horns of cows can be recognised by their inward curve, recalling a rising moon ("et uno flexu conspicua,

<sup>83</sup> Sigonio 1571, 6-7: "Victis inde pulsisque Gallis reliquis totam regionem in provinciae formulam redegere, atque ad eam regendam quotannis praetorem cum imperio misere, qui ius diceret et conconventus haberet. Conventui vero agendo ipsa est destinata Ravenna, eodemque tempore Bononia colonia deducta. Quae res est, ut inquit Livius, in hunc modum administrata: C. Laelius consul, anno Urbis DLCIII, cum ex Gallia Cisalpina Romam redisset, ut novae coloniae duae in agrum, qui Boiorum fuisset, deducerentur, et rettulit, et auctore eo partes censuerunt, Itaque postero anno ante diem tertium Kal. Ianuarias Bononiam Latinam coloniam ex S. C. L. Valerius Flaccus, M. Atilius Serranus, L. Valerius Tappus triumviri deduxerunt. Tria millia hominum sunt deducta, equitibus septuaginta iugera, ceteris colonis quinquagena sunt data. Ager captus de Boijs fuerat, Galli Tuscos expulerant [Liv. 37.57.8]". The editorial history of the work, and the controversies with the local inquisition, are narrated in Bastia 1993; Manfrè 1993; 1994.

<sup>84</sup> Stanzani 2000, 21.

<sup>85</sup> Negro, Pirondini 1995, 1: 236.

cuiusmodi fere sunt novae lunae cornua").<sup>86</sup> This expression, as seen before, apparently does not derive from previous zoological publications, but evokes the words Agustín used to distinguish the gender of cows in his numismatic work ("Los de la vaca son como los cuernos de la luna"). This situation shows how this detail continued its history beyond numismatics into other disciplines; and probably it could indicate the vitality of a cultural environment that shared information and readings, constructing the antiquarian narrative through a strong multidisciplinary approach.

### 4.7 Conclusions

In conclusion, it is possible to say that Roman colonial coins during the Renaissance period were identified according to two criteria: their legends and their iconography. The legend had to have the inscription COL or at least the abbreviation C – sometimes an acronym as in the case of C·V·I (*Colonia Victrix Iulia*) or C·C·A (*Colonia Caesarea Augusta*) – and the name of the magistrates; during the Roman Empire, the names of the emperors and the names of their families were also engraved.

With regard to the imagery, the first element that acted as a distinguishing element was the oxen with plow and the priest delimiting the *pomerium*. The second element was the depiction of military banners, the eagle of the legion, the plow and the agrimensorian *pertica*. Further unconventional imagery was also identified by Pirro Ligorio. Without the reconstruction of the relation between colonies and public treasury established by Onofrio Panvinio, it probably would have been more difficult to connect colonial institutions to coins. However, the revolutionary turning point for the study of colonies that opened the doors to the numismatic world was the critical analysis of the passage on urban founding of Varro's *De lingua latina*. Those who gave impulse to the new interpretation of this work were Antonio Agustín, Carlo Sigonio, and Enea Vico, who, most probably, were in contact with one another. Sigonio offered a more structured contribution in juridical antiquarian studies, consolidating the connection between coinage and institutions; Vico provided a broad representation of coins confident in the views of Sigonio, who saw the colony as an independent entity, but submitted to specific mechanisms; Agustín found confirmation of these phenomena starting from the geographical sphere.

All of this pushed forward research and a renewed understanding of the sources, which also created an intersection of viewpoints,

<sup>86</sup> Aldrovandi 1621, 36-7: "Horum vero cornua a vaccinis sic distinguuntur, quippe quod illorum et maiora et tortuosiora sint, harum minora et uno flexu conspicua, cuiusmodi fere sunt novae lunae cornua".

emerging remarkably from the use of geographical texts, like the *Liber Coloniarum* attributed to Frontinus and the anonymous *Itinerarium Antonini*. Once the relation between oxen, plow, and colonies was established the entire iconographic system that had developed previously around these elements had to be reconsidered. The new antiquarian knowledge modified the earlier accepted views of scholars like Valeriano and Erizzo.

In the cases of Vasari and the Carracci brothers it is clear that their projects would have not been possible without decades of sedimentation of scholarly and antiquarian views on the subject. For the decoration of Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, it emerges that the entire figurative arrangement derived from the studies on colonies – especially the detail of the plow delimiting the territory of the first city. In fact, it did not have to do with just an ordinary city, but with a colony regulated by its own mechanisms with its own specific characteristics. All of this is well outlined in the experience of Vincenzio Borghini. An inverse path is made for the Palazzo Magnani in Bologna, where it was the theme (*The Founding of Rome*) that evoked a colonial context, in virtue of the fact that the colony wanted to reproduce the layout and image of the mother-city. Thus Bologna, identified as a Roman colony by Sigonio, became a tacit reference point for the entire cycle.

Lastly, that the iconography of colonial coins, particularly the ones with oxen, could have been influenced by zoological reasoning is an appealing assumption. From an anatomical detail (the shape of the horns), unexpected pathways of circulation of culture (theoretical and figurative) could have perhaps been opened, starting from the Spanish work of Antonio Agustín and its Latin and Italian translations (especially that of Sada and Pasqualini), to the frescos in the Palazzo Bonfiglioli in Bologna and the work of Ulisse Aldrovandi.

From this cultural journey of European numismatics during the Renaissance, it emerges that a series of dynamics were activated thanks to the progressive growth of antiquarian studies, modifying throughout the decades the perspectives of humanists on the subject; even underground flows can be denoted, which sometimes contributed, only dimly, to broaden the possibilities of a critical interpretation of the past.

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# 5 Epigraphy **Nomenclature of the** *Fasti Consulares*

**Summary** 5.1 Introduction. – 5.2 *Fasti* before the *Fasti*. – 5.3 *Fasti* and Names. – 5.4 Shaping the *Fasti*. – 5.5 Conclusions.

### 5.1 Introduction

In 1547 one of the most important archaeological discoveries of the Renaissance took place in the heart of the Roman Forum.<sup>1</sup> Between the Temple of the Dioscuri and the Church of Santa Maria Liberatrice, a group of scattered marble panels was unearthed, upon which were engraved the succession of Roman magistrates and triumphs from

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology* 5 (2018), 28-36.

1 Degrassi 1947, 1-12; Henzen 1863, 415-25; McCuaig 1989, 141-59; Mayer 2010, 29; Stenhouse 2005, 103-12. See also the contemporary account in Ligorio 1553, 31b: "*De l'arco dove erano scritti i magistrati et i triomphi*. Et da che altro crederem noi, che sia nato, se non da questo, che quasi ogn'un crede, che le inscrittioni de Magistrati nuovamente trovate, et poste in Campidoglio nel chiostro del palazzo de' Conservatori, siano state cavate nel mezzo del Foro? il che è bugia espresissima, perché sono state trovate dirimpetto al Tempio di Faustina vicino all'angolo del Palatino in un luogo, dove facevan capo più strade si come mostravano le ruine stesse de gli edificij cavate, che quivi erano, guaste poi da i moderni: le quali erano d'un Iano (o vogliam dire Aeano) di quattro fronti, ne i confini di tre Regioni, ciò è del Foro Romano, del Palatino, et della Via sacra. La qual Via sacra divideva la quarta Regione del Tempio della pace dall'ottava, che era quella del Foro Romano, il che manifestissimamente si mostrava per la sua pianta e per le vie lastricate che vi passavano per mezzo d'esso Iano".

> **Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3

the foundation of the city to the first century CE. The importance of this relic was immediately understood and triggered a profound interest among the erudite environments of the time. The humanist Gentile Delfini rearranged the panels according to their assumed original order; under Michelangelo's supervision they were put on display in the Palazzo dei Conservatori. Shortly thereafter, antiquarian scholars from all over Europe began working on the epigraph thoroughly in an attempt to decode its inscriptions, determine its authorship and dating, verify its reliability, and compare it with the other historical sources available at the time. In this vivid intellectual context, the finding acquired the denomination of *Fasti Capitolini* or more generally *Fasti Consulares*. This was not a passive choice. It reflected instead a cultural dynamic displaying how it was understood by the scholarly community, and what its reception would be given the growing sensitivity to artefacts from antiquity. However, two questions still remain unanswered: 1) Why was this list of names, ordered in yearly progression, given the label of *fasti*? 2) How did this word end up corresponding with its meaning in the vocabulary of the sixteenth century? In fact, the equation of this word and this object did not happen automatically, in that until then *fasti* was almost exclusively taken as a synonym of *calendarius*. 2

Paul the Deacon's abridgment of Festus' *De verborum significatione* explains why this word was used in relation to calendars. This semantic shift was traced to a pre-republican age: to be precise, the days when kings held public speeches and performed sacrifices were labelled as *fasti* and recorded in books designated for this function. The *fasti* here mentioned were essentially almanacs, contributing to creating a full 'description of the year', i.e., establishing the fixed dates regulating moments of public life.<sup>3</sup>

<sup>2</sup> The term *fasti* descends from the Latin *fas*, which signifies "that which is divinely sanctioned"; the opposite of the term *nefas*. Its origin is uncertain: it either derives from \**fēs*-/ \**fas*<\**dh(e)h1 s* (as do *festus*, *feriae*, and *fanum*) or from \**fā*<\**bheh2* (as do *fari*, *fama*, *fabula*, and *fatum)*. These two possibilities had already been established in antiquity, from the etymology given by Varr. *ling.* 6.29: "Dies fasti per quos praetoribus omnia verba sine piaculo licet fari", and the meaning attributed to the term by Verg. *Aen*. 1.205-6: "tendimus in Latium sedes ubi fata quietas | ostendunt: illic fas regna resurgere Troiae". However, we do not have any records (at least for the classical period) of the divergence between *fas*, intended as "law of the gods", and *ius*, intended as "law of humans", as established by Serv. *Georg*. 1.269: "fas et iura sinunt: i.e. divina humanaque iura permittunt, nam ad religionem fas, ad homines iura pertinent"; see Ernout-Meillet 1951, 217-19; Prescendi 2007; Rüpke 2007.

<sup>3</sup> Fest. 311.1: "Quando rex comitiavit fas, in fastis notari solet, et hoc videtur significare, quando rex sacrificulus divinis rebus perfectis in comitium venit"; 78.4: "Fastorum libri appellantur, in quibus totius anni fit descriptio"; 83.6: "Fastis diebus iocunda fari licebat; nefastis quaedam non licebat fari".

Within the *corpus* of Latin literature, a vast array of occurrences of this word explicitly signifying 'list of magistrates' can be found.<sup>4</sup> It is clear then that the term *fasti* passed from a context tied to the calculation of time (as in calendars) to history (as in the lists of magistrates). This subtle but essential turning point had already been discussed and resolved in 1859 by Theodor Mommsen, in his *Römische Chronologie bis auf Caesar*. 5 In the chapter entitled *Die älteste Fastenredaction*, Mommsen affirmed that these lists (which he defined as *Eponymenliste*) were specifically related to the composition of calendars, in terms of both substance ("in der Sache") and form ("in der Sprache"). In the first case, the consuls who gave the name to the year created a link between human chronology and divine time. In the second, the meaning of the word was expanded from one object to another (i.e., from the calendars to the lists of magistrates). This was a natural progression since, during that period, these lists of magistrates most likely appeared as an attachment or appendix to the calendars themselves ("ein Anhang des Kalenders war"), and so became two parts of the same whole.<sup>6</sup> Therefore, in calendars and in magistrates' lists, the 'natural year' and the 'civil year' coexisted and contributed to the development of the conception of time in the classical age.<sup>7</sup>

4 Rüpke 2007, 361-5; Mommsen 1859, 208 fn. 394. See also Cic. *Att*. 4.8b. 2: "in codicillorum fastis futurorum consulum"; and *Att*. 5.12.5: "nos retinet quasi enumeratione fastorum", Liv. 9.18: "paginas in annalium magistratuumque fastis percurrere licet consulum dictatorumque", Lucan. 5.396-7: "tantum caret ne nomine tempus | menstruus in fastos dispinguit saecula consul", Suet. *Aug*. 10.3: "Augustum appellaretur et ita fastos referetur", Tac. *ann*. 3.18.1: "ne nomen Pisonis fastis eximeretur", Trebellius Pollio in *Hist. Aug.* 23.14.10: "scriptum invenimus in fastis: 'Valeriano imperatore consule'" and many other writers of the *Historia Augusta*, Lact. *Div. In.* 6.4.21: "ii sunt qui ad gerendos magistratus omnem vitae suae operam curamque "convertunt, ut fastos signent et annis nomen inponant", and Isid. *orig*. 6.8: "Fastorum libri sunt, in quibus reges vel consules scribuntur a fastibus dicti, i. potestatibus". But the most relevant sources in this regard are represented by Auson. *Fast.* 1.1: "digessi fastos et nomina praepetis aevi" and Cassiod. *var.* 2.1: "dare fastis nomen […] terrenam curiae claritatem, ut per annorum numerum decurrat gratia dignitatum et beneficiis principum sacretur memoria saeculorum", who suggested some kind of connection among the word *fasti*, chronology and the lists of magistrates.

5 Mommsen 1859, 208-10; see also Matzat 1883; Holzapfel 1885; Soltau 1889.

7 Mazzarino 1966, 2.2: 415 fn. 555.

<sup>6</sup> Mommsen 1859, 208-9: "Ueber Abfassungszeit und Urheber der römischen Eponymenliste läfst sich natürlicher Weise höchstens vermuthen. In der Sache wie in der Sprache liegt es, dass sie die Schicksale des römischen Kalender getheilt hat. In der Sache: den wo, wie in der römischen Geminde, das einzelne Jahr nicht durch eine Ziffer, sondern durch Beamtennamen bezeichnet ward, war es eine praktische Nothwendigkeit dem Juristen und dem Geschäftsmann überhaupt neben dem Verzeichniss der Tage des Jahres in die Hände ze geben. In der Scprache: den der Name fasti, das haisst ursprünglich Spruch – oder Gerichtstage, bezeichnet bekanntlich nicht bloss den Kalendar, sondern zugleich die Eponymenliste, welche etymologisch nicht gerechtfertige Bedeutung nut dadurch entstanden sein kann, dass die letztere von Haus au sein Anhang des Kalenders war".

Although this awareness was reached only in the nineteenth century, the debate on how these series of magistrates should be termed and what their relationship with the ancient calendar was had already taken place during the Renaissance. More significantly, the fact that in this period the word *fasti* was intended to mean the lists of consuls along with the calendar implies that Renaissance scholars had already somehow reached Mommsen's conclusions. The distinctive factor in this process lies in the re-discovery of the epigraph of the Roman Forum, which led early modern scholars to recognise what the literary sources already described, but that until then had no material counterpart. The purpose of this study is to reconstruct the phases that brought these lists to acquire the denomination of *fasti* as soon as in early modern times, and to discover what precisely contributed to the development of this cultural pathway.

# 5.2 *Fasti* before the *Fasti*

Before 1546, there were other catalogues of Roman magistrates circulating among humanists and erudite environments.<sup>8</sup> Some of these catalogues actually derived from the same group of epigraphs as the *Fasti consulares*, as already determined during the fifteenth century (*ante* 1471) by Andrea Santacroce ("lapis de ruinis Capitolii habitus").<sup>9</sup> Nevertheless, a precise and coherent denomination was still far from being reached.

The most credible *terminus ante quem* for the first identification of these lists is 1488, when Giulio Pomponio Leto and Angelo Poliziano entertained an epistolary correspondence in which they discussed this type of epigraph, it being a prominent finding at the time.<sup>10</sup> In these letters, they refer to those ancient inscriptions also known as *Fasti Venusini*, composed by a Roman calendar (with only the months of May and June surviving) along with a list of consuls and censors dating back to the Social War of the first century BC. These two engraved marble panels were exhibited at Castel Capuano in Naples during the fifteenth century. The originals have unfortunately now been lost; only a transcription remains in an epigraphic book compiled by the humanist and artist Fra' Giovanni Giocondo, made after a journey in southern Italy. Several copies of this collection have been published, the best exemplar of which is stored at the Biblioteca Capitolare in Verona (ms. CCLXX, 245).<sup>11</sup> Before reproducing the


text of the *Fasti Venusini*, Giocondo noted their provenance and typology: "Apud eundem est haec pars Kalendarii, quae reperta fuit in agro Venusino".12 The caption *pars Kalendarii* underlines the fragmentary nature of the finding. However, the same entry also included the list of magistrates. This was preceded by a short gloss, reporting TABELLA FACTA A BELLO MARSICO.<sup>13</sup> This means that this *tabella* was recognised as a different part (although still as *a* part) of the calendar itself.

During Giocondo's stay in Rome, this manuscript passed into Pomponio Leto's hands. As soon as Pomponio learned of the newly discovered *Fasti Venusini*, he transcribed the pages with their text and immediately informed Poliziano:<sup>14</sup>

A Venusia Apulorum allata sunt marmorea in tabula: obscuro loco ibi latebant fragmenta aliarum tabularum, ubi annus integer erat; […] Mitto et quaedam monimenta rerum, eodem in loco reperta […] Romae fere idem, sed multo ante, verum fine caret.

Pomponio talks about an archaeological excavation from which various epigraphic fragments emerged. Among those worthy of attention, he mentions a calendar (*annus*), and some historical documents (*monimenta rerum*), which resembled a similar fragment discovered in Rome years before (*Romae fere idem, sed multo ante*). Poliziano responded substantively:<sup>15</sup>

Sed et semestre calendarium mire fuit gratum et quam ais tabulam bello Marsico factam; quae si eadem est, quam Romae obiter legerim, vereor ex fide sit exscripta.

He approached the finding as if it comprised two pieces, a *calendarium* and a *tabula*, each having a different purpose – a different interpretation of the finding to the one given by Pomponio. In the first part, Poliziano used a more accurate word (*calendarium* pro *annus*); in the second, a less accurate one (*tabulam* pro *monimenta rerum*). As to whether this choice was provoked by the absence of a common technical term, it is difficult to say; however, one could infer that this lack of vocabulary encouraged scholars to be vague when applying a definition to the finding, so as to not compromise the understanding of its real nature. Furthermore, Poliziano, just like Pomponio, demonstrates a full grasp of the knowledge available at his time on the


subject, comparing the transcription he received with that which was obtained from the list previously found in Rome.

This Roman epigraph was also known elsewhere. For example, Ermolao Barbaro in his *Castigationes Plinianae* of 1493 described it with the same words used by his fellow scholars Pomponio and Poliziano:<sup>16</sup>

In tabula antiquissima hodie ostenditur Romae his verbis […]

In eadem tabella nominantur et alii plerique

From these two occurrences, the diffusion of the lists of Roman magistrates emerges in the scholarly investigations of the Renaissance. Above all, the role of Pomponio Leto was crucial: he was responsible for circulating this information throughout the scholarly community. Just as he had done earlier with Poliziano, he passed the transcripts of these findings on to Barbaro ("indicavit hoc ante omnes mihi Pomponius Laetus"). In consideration of this, a hypothesis could be made that the words *tabula* and *tabella* reached Barbaro through Pomponio, originating denominations which echoed those formulated by Poliziano and Fra' Giocondo respectively.

Pomponio's impact on the question of these Roman epigraphs is also attested to in other sources. For example, in Francesco Albertini's *De Roma prisca*, published in 1515, he was identified as one of the witnesses to their rediscovery.17 From this information, it is also possible to infer that Pomponio Leto was aware of the real function of the lists of magistrates, even if he did not call them *fasti*. In fact, in his *De magistratibus* of ca. 1474, he affirmed that the years in ancient Roman society were named after the consuls in charge.<sup>18</sup>

The two marble panels mentioned above were published for the first time in 1521 by Jacopo Mazocchi in an epigraphic collection entitled *Epigrammata antiquae Urbis*. Nonetheless, the terminology adopted here adheres to that which was in use among scholars of the period (*fragmentum in tabula marmorea*), with no further details added.<sup>19</sup>

At approximately the same time, many pieces of Roman calendars emerged from archaeological digs. A collection of these works, pub-

18 Leto 1515, [n.d.]: "ab eorum magistratu numerus annorum signabatur".

19 Mazocchi 1521, 121b-122a : "Ibidem ante fores Sanctae Mariae in Publicolis statim a sinistris quodam pariete fragmentum in tabula marmorea ubi talem decretum".

<sup>16</sup> De Rossi 1853, 19; Barbaro 1493, VII 9, XIII 13.

<sup>17</sup> Albertini 1515, 48a : "Templum Castoris et Polluci in via Sacra in foro Romano sub palatio ubi nunc est tabernaculum Virginis ad ponticulum, in quo loco effossa fuere vestigia cum duabus tabulis marmoreis dedicatione ipsius teste Pomponio Laeto, qui eas vidisse affirmat".

lished in 1509 by Jacopo Mazocchi, included the *Fasti Vallensi*, the *Fasti Iuliani* and the *Fasti Venusini* disseminated by Fra' Giocondo.<sup>20</sup> The latter featured only its calendar, without the succession of magistrates with which it had been originally associated. The reason for this editorial choice can be understood by examining the denomination of these lists given by Mazocchi in his *Epigrammata* of 1521. Here they were denoted with the generic *tabula marmorea*, implying that they were perceived as something unrelated to the calendar. Following the same interpretation, Aldo Manuzio placed only the calendar of the *Fasti Venusini* as a preface to his edition of Ovid's *Fasti*  published in 1516, which he drew from an apograph of Fra' Giocondo's manuscript.<sup>21</sup>

What emerges is that both humanists and scholars of antiquity felt that calendars and lists of consuls belonged to different categories of epigraphic findings. The calendars had already been defined by the word *fasti* since Mazocchi's edition of 1509. This converged with the use of the term by Ovid, who arranged a calendar in verses in his poem entitled *Fasti*. Hence, Manuzio's choice to combine them with the fragment of the calendar from the *Fasti Venusini*. This happened despite Fra' Giocondo providing a manuscript witness that actually tied the two objects together, even if they were presented as sub-units of the same whole. Therefore, the division of this whole into two separate parts (calendar and lists) may be attributed to the very first reception of Fra' Giocondo's account by Pomponio Leto and Poliziano.

This distinction endured in the decades that followed and became even stronger. In his *Inscriptiones sacrosanctae vetustatis* of 1534, Petrus Apianus once again published the consular list of the *Fasti Venusini*, <sup>22</sup> referring to it simply as a fragment reporting the names of magistrates. A few years later, in 1541, Lilio Gregorio Giraldi issued his *De annis et mensibus*, explicitly establishing the equivalence between *fasti* and calendars.<sup>23</sup>

<sup>20</sup> Mazocchi 1509; Mommsen 1863, 293-412; Degrassi 1947, 27.

<sup>21</sup> Manuzio 1516, 11b: *XII Romanorum menses in veteribus monimentis Romae reperti*; and 15a : *Menses quidam ex antiquorum fastis variis in locis reperti*.

<sup>22</sup> Apianus 1534, 315: "Fragmentum superiorum magistratuum in nonnullis bellis Romanis".

<sup>23</sup> Giraldi 1541, 154: "Fasti sunt quibus praetori licet sine piaculo fari, quae tria verba modo dicebam, Do, dico, addico. Illud par est hoc loco admonere, et fastos etiam dici libros in quibus festa et profesta et nefasta continetur, qualia sunt hodie usitata voce calendaria vocamus, quomodo Ovidius fastos suos appellavit".

### 5.3 *Fasti* and Names

However, as previously stated, the word *fasti* signified, in the view of many ancient authors, a list of magistrates, transcending the sphere of calendar studies and entering that of historiography. At least one Renaissance publication appears to confirm the existence of this awareness: Alessandro Alessandri's *Dies geniales*, issued in 1522. In the section where he attempted to explain the function of ancient Roman pontiffs, he reported that these ministers were assigned to record and transmit the *res gestae* in books called *fasti* and *commentarii*, also known as *annales maximi*. 24

Although this reading does not offer a full definition of *fasti* as the succession of magistrates in a yearly progression, but only as a genre of historical writing ("custodiam rerum gestarum"), it opens up our understanding of their second nature to unforeseen interpretations. However, during the first half of the sixteenth century, this meaning was completely overlooked, neglected or misunderstood because Renaissance scholars could not connect this signifier (*fasti*) with an intelligible object. They could not picture what these *fasti* looked like.

The most glaring example of this situation is represented by Joannes Alexander Brassicanus (1500-1539). In his *Proverbia symmicta*, which was published in 1529, he failed to explain Cicero's expression *ex fastis evellendis*. <sup>25</sup> Brassicanus realised that this idiom was related to the erasure of a magistrate's name from the public memory due to poor conduct while holding office, in particular the consulship. However, he appears to ignore the fact that these names had to be cancelled from somewhere concrete, as in a physical list. In fact, to explain this expression he did not recall the lists of magistrates – which would have been natural. Instead he cited a supposed parallel occurrence in Gellius' *Noctes Atticae*, where it was stated that the city of Athens ratified a decree which compelled the people to not record the names of two tyrannicides, Harmodius and Aristogeiton:<sup>26</sup>

25 Cic. *Sest*. 33.20.23: "Eidemque consules, si appellandi sunt consules quos nemo est quin non modo ex memoria sed etiam ex fastis evellendos putet".

26 Brassicanus 1529, 45-6.

<sup>24</sup> D'Alessandro 1522, 65a : "Nam scribae pontificum, qui fastos et commentarios habebant, fidelem custodiam rerum gestarum, qui annales maximi dicebantur, quique illis ministris aderant, quod omnis aevi gesta mandabant literis, minores pontifices dicti sunt […] Ad quorum collegium etiam interpretandi iuris, et ans posset lege agi, quaeque competeret actio in iudicis, declarandi ius spectavit et pertinuit". In order to make this passage more intellegible, Tiraqueau 1586, 152 refers to Macr. *Sat.* 3.2.17: "pontificibus enim permissa est potestas memoriam rerum gestarum in tabulas conferendi, et hos annales appellant et quidem maximos quasi a pontificibus maximis factos" and to Paul. Fest. 113.27: "Maximi annales appellabantur, non magnitudine, sed quod eos pontifex maximus confecisset".

Cicero pro Publio Sestio proverbio utitur, nimirum improbos et contaminatae vitae homines quos monstra verius et pecudes dixeris ex fastis esse evellendos: hoc est memoriam eorum esse penitus abolendam, et nullo unquam tempore mentionem eorum esse faciendam. Quemadmodum Athenienses publico decreto sanxerunt, ne unquam nomina fortissimorum juvenum Harmodii et Aristogitonis, qui libertatis recuperandae gratia Hippiam tyrannum interfecere adorsi erant ferris, indere liceret, authore Gellio lib. 9 cap. 2.

The syntagma *nefas ducerent nomina* did the rest, creating an alleged relationship with Cicero's *ex fastis*. However, a comparison with Gellius's original can shed more light on the genesis of this gloss:<sup>27</sup>

Maiores autem mei Athenienses nomina iuvenum fortissimorum Harmodii et Aristogitonis, qui libertatis recuperandae gratia Hippiam tyrannum interficere adorsi erant, ne unquam servis indere liceret, decreto publico sanxerunt, quoniam nefas ducerent nomina libertati partriae devota servili contagio pollui.

This passage talks about a city law which prohibited the people of Athens from giving the name of these two tyrannicides to their slaves. This was to prevent these names, which were consecrated to freedom, being polluted by the social status of those to whom they were assigned ("ne unquam servis indere liceret"). The purpose of this prohibition was to glorify the names, rather than remove them from the memory of the city for misconduct. It is therefore clear why Brassicanus excluded the word *servis* when he cited this passage: it would have contradicted the fact that this erasure was only intended for public figures who were seen in a negative light.<sup>28</sup>

The word *fasti* still had a double meaning in the ancient literary idiom. However, the meaning of the word needed to be refined in order to generate a more substantial awareness of the nature of these ancient sources. Only new concrete evidence could overturn a situation that at the beginning of 1540s appeared impossible to subvert.

27 Gell. 9.2.10.

<sup>28</sup> Renaissance scholars were perfectly aware of the real meaning of Gellius' passage; see e.g., Mosellanus 1557, 314: "Nomina fortium servis non danda". The most extensive compilation of sources regarding this episode is put together in Meursius 1623, 87-99.

## 5.4 Shaping the *Fasti*

A drastic change occurred with the rediscovery of the missing part of the Roman panels listing the consular succession in 1546. This event represented an effective watershed-moment, not only in Renaissance epigraphy but also in the general development of a full antiquarian awareness. In fact, this discovery fostered methodological meditations which resulted in the growth of the entire discipline.<sup>29</sup>

If the sixteenth century editions of this inscription are examined closely, a lack of uniformity in the titles is immediately evident. However, compared to the former generations of scholars, the precision of its definition has visibly increased. The denomination *tabula* or *fragmentum*, which focused the attention on the object, were replaced by new formulations attempting to better outline its form and content. The terms utilised to name this finding demonstrate the new attitude towards it: the first was *series*, the second *fasti*, the third *annales*.

The word *series* occurred three times. Bartolomeo Marliani utilised it twice,<sup>30</sup> in 1549, the year of the first edition of this epigraph, and in 1555, when a reprint of the former was provided with a preface written by Francesco Robortello. The third occurrence was in Martin Smetius's epigraphic collection, which was printed posthumously in 1588 but dated back to *ante* 1551.<sup>31</sup> These works published the text from the ancient inscription, without further additions, respecting the disposition and dimension of each piece, and also maintaining the lacunae within the texts. While Marliani reported only the letters, limiting his survey to the textual sphere, Smetius also reproduced the drawings from each stone on which the texts were engraved, for the purpose of providing a more complete context.

*Fasti* was the most common word recurring in the following years. Carlo Sigonio32 adopted it first in 1550, reiterating it in all his subsequent editions (in 1555, 1556 and 1559). The same pattern was followed by Onofrio Panvinio33 in 1557 (in the pirated edition of the epigraph published by Jacopo Strada) and in 1558 (the official edition), and by Hubert Goltzius34 in 1566. All these works reported the succession of magistrates in yearly progression based on the Roman inscription, completed (and amended) thanks to comparisons with liter-


ary sources, narrative histories, and numismatic evidence. The word *annales* appeared only once, in 1560, featuring in the title of the last edition of the inscription conducted by Bartolomeo Marliani.<sup>35</sup> With this formulation, he outlined the complete series of Roman magistrates with a commentary placed in the lower part of the page.

If arranged in chronological order, however, these different denominations acquire further meaning, and could tell more about the history of the relic to which they were assigned.


From this alternation of the terms it is evident that, in the years following the discovery of these Roman inscriptions, scholars were still attempting to understand what kind of object they were dealing with, and that its nomenclature was still far from being firmly established.

Given the above, it is possible to push the discussion even further by determining why these three terms entered into competition with each other.

The word *series* was probably a result of an observation on the part of scholars and expressed a factual denomination (the names on the relic were, in fact, a list or a catalogue). Very likely, it was sustained by parallel occurrences in the titles of other publications regarding chronology in circulation at the time – for example, the *Series et digestio temporum* published in 1548 by Heinrich Bullinger.<sup>36</sup>

This relationship between the seriation of public figures (*series*) and the classification of time (*digestio temporum*) had been a common feature in historiography since antiquity, even if during the Renaissance it was renewed according to the historical sensitivity of Humanism. In 1498 Annius of Viterbo's *Antiquitates Variae* described the nature of these sources in theoretical terms, stating that the succession in the yearly progression of individuals holding political offices was a fundamental tool in establishing a reliable chronology.

<sup>35</sup> Marliani 1560.

<sup>36</sup> Bullinger 1548.

The redaction of public and official documents contributed to calculating time and preserving the memory of historical facts.<sup>37</sup>

Thus, the choice of *series* in the first studies on the Fasti Capitolini was probably made to connect a newly discovered ancient relic with an already renowned tradition. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that it also demonstrated how a deeper meditation on and comprehension of the finding itself – which put material evidence of an official and public list of Roman magistrates arranged in chronological order in the hands of Renaissance scholars – could modify its previous definition in scholarly terms.

The term *fasti*, on the other hand, followed a different path. The choice of this word implied a further semantic shift. In the preface of his 1550 edition, Carlo Sigonio affirmed that this new discovery helped solve contradictions and inconsistencies in narrative histories and filled in the gaps in Roman chronology.38 This means that Sigonio did not have mere descriptive purposes for his study of the relics, as instead did Marliani ("a Bartholomeo Marliano descriptum") and Smetius. He focused instead on its historiographic utility, wanting to supplement and improve the data on the chronology of magistrates ("magistratuum ratio") which until then had been uncertain, at best.

Very likely, Sigonio alluded to those series of Roman consuls based on information found in Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and published throughout the first half of sixteenth century.<sup>39</sup> The first was *Annorum ab eiectis regibus digestio*, composed by Gregor Haloander, published as an appendix of the *Codex iuris civilis* edition of 1531; the second was Heinrich Glareanus's *Chronologia sive temporum supputatio in omnem Romanam historia* attached to his commentaries to Livy; and the third was the posthumous *De consolibus Romanorum commentarius*, which was written by Johannes Cuspinianus in 1529, which only came to light in 1553.

Despite the novelty of his approach, Sigonio did not explain why he utilised *fasti* to define the epigraphic findings unearthed in the Roman Forum in any of his editions. However, considering his classical background, he could have easily linked this ancient finding of the

<sup>37</sup> Annius 1498, 91: "Eam partem Graeci vocant Chronographiam id est temporum digestionem, cuius probandi duo principia sunt. Primum ut ostendamus tempora, quae afferunt, non discrepare a publica et probata fide […] Alterum ut reges et viri digerantur, qui his temporibus floruerunt, et quorum memoriam teneant authores vel loca, sive utrumque. Quod profecto nos facimus in hac secunda parte, quae est de temporibus, in qua primum extendimus viros et tempora ab Iano et origine Italia usque ad Othonem Caesarem. Inde retrocedendo, tempora et viros praescriptos per publicam fidem probamus".

<sup>38</sup> Sigonio 1550, I-III: "totam magistratumm Romanorum descriptionem annuam labantem, et incostantem, eademque imperfectam apud omnes scriptores".

<sup>39</sup> Haloander 1530; Glareanus 1531; Cuspinianus 1553; McCuaig 1989, 141-9; Ferrary 1996, 116-17.

succession of Roman consuls to Cicero's syntagma *evellere ex fastis*, of which the epigraph represented concrete and tangible proof – especially because some names appeared to have been erased. There was widespread awareness of the ancient custom of erasing names from these lists in the mid-sixteenth century. For example, in a letter dated 5 June 1557, Antonio Agustín explained to Onofrio Panvinio that he could identify the effacement of the name of Marc Anthony on the epigraph, perfectly matching what Cicero referred to in *damantio memoriae*: 40

Il rader il nome di M. Antonio fu fatto a posta come nelli libri di fasti facevano, et Cicerone voleva persuader si facesse contra Gabinio et Pisone se M. Catone non havesse contradetto*.* 

Furthermore, Sigonio had a profound knowledge of Livy's historical work, which he published in 1555 with a commentary appearing in 1556.<sup>41</sup> This ancient author led him to establish another parallel with those books that recorded Roman magistrates referred to in the *Ab urbe condita* (9.18: "paginas in annalium magistratuumque fastis percurrere licet consulum dictatorumque").

At this point, the semantic range of the word *fasti* again covered both the series of political officers and the calendar. For this reason, in the second edition of Sigonio's *Fasti consulares*, published in 1555, an appendix entitled *Kalendarium vetus Romanum e marmore descripto* was attached.<sup>42</sup> This additional section featured a Roman calendar transmitted by the epigraph known as *Fasti Maffeiani*, and was edited by Paolo Manuzio, son of Aldo the Elder. In his preface, Paolo claims he was the first to establish a link between the list of Roman magistrates and the calendar, affirming the originality of his

<sup>40</sup> Carbonell 1991, 141; the reference is to Cic. *Sext*. 32-3. It is not by chance that after the rediscovery of the Fasti Capitolini, this passage was understood in a different light, see e.g., Manuzio 1579, 19: "*Ex fastis*] libris, in quibus consulum nomina scribebantur, ad Atticum lib. IV". The reference is to Cic. *Att*. 4.8a. 2.10: "si vero id est, quod nescio an sit, ut non minus longas iam in codicillorum fastis futurorum consulum paginulas habeant quam factorum, quid illo miserius nisi res publica, in qua ne speratur quidem melius quicquam?". See also Mayer 1997, 264. Antonio Agustín himself seems to have kept memory of this epistolary exchange when arranging the definition of Fasti in his commentary on Festus; see Agustín 1559: "*Fastorum*] Festi enim dies festi sunt. Hoc falsum est, sunt enim fasti dies, quibus fari licet praetori iudicia verba. Varro, Ovidius, Macrobius ab his diebus Fastorum libri appellantur, quibus eos dies cognoscimus, et translaticiae fastos consulum appellamus, quibus consules singulorum annorum continentur".

<sup>41</sup> Sigonio 1555a; 1556a.

<sup>42</sup> Sigonio 1555b.

choice.43 In his opinion, this combination generated a clearer understanding of the institutional mechanisms of ancient Rome. Furthermore, Paolo declares that he followed the example of his father Aldo. The only ancient Roman calendar published by Aldo was the one attached to his 1516 edition of Ovid's *Fasti*, those same *Fasti Venusini*  which he could find in an apograph of Fra' Giocondo's first transcription. As seen before, the link between the calendar and Ovid's *Fasti*  was natural, considering their thematic proximity. In this work, Aldo published only the calendar of the *Fasti Venusini*, excluding the series of magistrates. Therefore, it can be assumed that Paolo saw Giocondo's manuscript as transmitting the calendar and the lists of magistrates as one single item. It appears that he wanted to replicate this pattern by combining the analogous parts (calendar plus list) in his own publication, where more complete and better-preserved pieces feature (*Fasti Maffeiani* and *Fasti Capitolini*).

In his edition of 1558, Onofrio Panvinio explained for the first time the tie between the ancient calendars and the lists of magistrates in the word *fasti*, justifying Sigonio's denomination. Panvinio felt that a full lexicographic analysis of the word was required in order to clarify its meaning and uses in ancient Roman times. The purpose of the first chapter of his commentary was to achieve this.<sup>44</sup> His dissertation focused on the different names given by scholars to this genre (the seriation of magistrates) in the previous decades, referring to several appellations, which included *chronologia, series, syllabus, elenchus, annales* and *fasti,* in order to refute those which had been used inappropriately.45 Panvinio rejected *chronologia* be-

44 Panvinio 1558b, 113-18: *Cur hi libri Fastorum nomine appellati sunt, et quid inter Historiam, Annales, Diarium et Fastos intersit*.

45 Panvinio 1558b, 113: "Maximam inter eruditos viros, hoc tempore tabularum Capitolinarum quarum exemplo hoc opus edendi, vera germanaque inscriptio in Urbe controversiam excitavit. Alii enim erant, qui chronologiam, alii qui seriem, vel syllabum, sive elenchum, alii qui annales, alii denique qui fastos appellandos existimarent. Quibus omnibus tamquam supervacaneis omissis, hunc qui mihi verior visus est, et huic labori convenientior, indicem accepi, fastosque nuncupavi. Chronologiae enim vel chronici vocabulum, perinde ac nimis amplum, et plura quam quae hic explicentur complectens, reieci; etenim omnis annorum et magistratuum omnium, sive regnorum series, quae Romanam, vel Graecam, vel Barbaram historiam contineat, chronologia vel chronicum dici potest. Fasti vero, ut infra aperiam, praeter cetera quae significant, ii

<sup>43</sup> Sigonio 1555b, *lect*.: "Factum est a me sane libenter, ut, com edendi essent Romani fasti, e lapidibus capitolinis descripti, adiungere ad eos calendarium, ex quo ratio dierum, pro ea, quae olim Romae fuit, consuetudine, tota patet, atque in hanc me voluntatem, vel cupiditatem potius, primum ea, quam et mea sponte, et patris exemplo semper spectavi, publica literarum utilitas, deinde etiam Caroli Sigonii, viri optimi, et ab omni prorsus iniqui animi labe puri, singularis doctrina deduxit. Putavi enim, id quod res est, futurum, ut ad calendarium ex fastorum societate commendationis tantum accederet, quantum ad Ipsos fastos e Sigonii studio ingenioque esse adinctum, qui diligenter additamentua ipsius, et in ea commentarium, qui propediem edetur, plenissimum legerit, facile cognoscet".

cause it was too vague and undetermined, as well as *annales*, because in his opinion it could not consist of a mere list of names, but needed a commentary or a supportive text, according to Cicero's *De oratore*. He accepted the terms *series*, *elenchus* and *syllabus*, in that they could be intended as simple lists of magistrates, without further implications.

However, the core of his discussion depended on how the word *fasti*, which, coming from the semantic field of calendars, later passed in an historical context. Relying on the definition given by Varro of the syntagma *dies fasti* (the propitious days within the calendar), Panvinio established that *fasti* extended its meaning to the entire calendar through a metonymical process. In fact, the calendar itself offered an exact connotation to each day of the year, specifying its particular value and purpose.46 From this, Panvinio identified the semantic shift of the word and from this shift drew its definition as a list of magistrates ordered in yearly progression. In fact, just as calendars noted the function of each day of the year, the lists of magistrates acquired the function of an ideal calendar of history, because the consuls named each year in their yearly progression:<sup>47</sup>

Fasti enim dicti sunt etiam hi libri, in quibus nomina magistratuum continebantur, qui singulis annis fuere, et praesertim consulum. Nam sicut in superioris generis Fastis, unicuique diei sua solemnia, sive ludi, sive feriae, vel fasti, nefasti, comitialesque dies assignabantur, sic in his, singulis quibusque annis sui adscrivebantur magistratus, sive Consules, vel Censores, aut Dictatores fuerint.

47 Panvinio 1558b, 115.

quoque libri appellantur, quibus praecipue populi Romani magistratuum nomina comprehenduntur. Quidem idem etiam de seriei, elenchi et syllabi nominibus iudicandum est. Annalium autem appellationem tanquam minus huic operi cinvenientem improbavi, quod annales non nuda magistratuum nomina ut fasti, sed et res ab ipsis in singulos annos gestas, breviterque descripts, complectentur; idemque ferme sint cum historia, ut libro de Oratore docet Cicero: erat (inquit) historia nihil aliud nisi annalium confectio [Cic. *de orat.* 2.52]. Quibus verbis manifeste constat nuda magistratuum nomina nulla ratione annales dici posse, ut quidam existimarunt".

<sup>46</sup> Panvinio 1558b, 114: "Postea collectionem eorum dierum, quibus fari ac non fari liceret Fastos appellatam constat, appellatione ducta ab eo quod contentum est, id quod continet; additique his fuere dies comitiales et festi, solemnia deorum sacra, ludique et feriae in eorundem honorem constitutae, aliquot victoriae, resque insignes, item atri aliquot vitiosique dies. Quae omnia uno corpore clausa fasti appellati sunt, quae nos modo calendaria vocamus. […] Horum fastorum exempla aliquot, lapides tabulis incisa adhuc Romae supersunt, quorum unum extat in aedibus viri optimi antiquitatisque studiosissimi Achillis Maffeii accuratissime elegantissimesque marmoreis tabulis scalptum. Fastorum eiusmodi, quos nos calendaria appellamus".

To defend his position, Panvinio referred to a plethora of occurrences found in ancient literary sources.<sup>48</sup> However, although the textual evidence was solid and convincing, it was not enough. Its reliability could be proven only by cross-referencing it with material findings. And this was possible only after the discovery of the *Fasti Capitolini*  in 1546. The fundamental role of this relic was underlined by Panvinio. And even more, this finding could also help identify other analogous works circulating at the time, but not yet acknowledged as such. This includes the *Fasti Venusini*, previously published by Mazocchi and Apianus.<sup>49</sup>

Beside this general picture buttressed by an array of examples, Panvinio's discussion appears to be directed against a specific group of scholars who did rejected the word *fasti* as suitable for describing the list of consuls transmitted in the Roman epigraph. His critique appears to prefigure what Bartolomeo Marliani did a few years later in his last edition of this work published in 1560, which was actually entitled *Annales*. Marliani attempted to overturn the theses expressed by Panvinio, stating that the *annales* combined with *consulum* was more appropriate given the real nature of the ancient findings, especially since it found its literary counterpart in Livy. In fact, Marliani connected a passage of this ancient historian, in which *annalibus priscis* are mentioned, to the series of magistrates rediscovered in 1546 in the Roman Forum; thus the names of the consuls listed in yearly progression should be termed *annales* because this word better represented the source from which the annalistic histories drew information themselves.<sup>50</sup>

Marliani then attempted to contest the dichotomy *fasti* / *annales*, accusing his opponents of having misunderstood the passage of Cicero's *Pro Sestio*, in which the practice of the erasure from the pub-

<sup>48</sup> Panvinio 1558b, 116: "Quod si quis nec his contentus esset, ab eo qaererem, quonam demum indice nuda magistratuum nomina apud veteres insignita fuerint? Quae quidem non nisi fastorum nomine appellata fuisse crediderim. Sexcenta enim praeterea auctorum loca citari possent, in quibus Fastorum consularium mentio est".

<sup>49</sup> Panvinio 1558b, 115: "perinde ac sunt ij qui in tabulis Capitolinis incisi fuerunt, et ii qui ex hortulis Colotianis in aream domus Gentilis Delphinii transportati sunt, item ij Fasti municipales, qui a Petro Appiano referentur"

<sup>50</sup> Marliani 1560, *Lect*.: "Romanorum magistratuum hanc seriem nonnulli Fastos, alii Annales Consulum appellant: qua ratione sane non video. Nam cum singuli magistratus suos haberent annales, aut fastos, aut commentarios, in quibus quicquid gerebatur tam foris, quam in Urbe monumenti mandabant, non ego haec nuda nomina annales, aut fostos appellarim. At ne longo verborum ambitu tituloum exprimere cogar, Annalium vocabulo nunc utar, idque duabus literis A. C., hoc est Annales Consulum, significabo. Cur autem potius hoc, quam fastorum nomine appellaverim, ratio est, propius ad argumentum rei accedit, preasertim cum addiderim Consulum, quasi singulorum annorum consulum narratio sit, quorum nomina in Annalibus scripta ostendit Livius quarto, his verbis: Idque momenti est, Consules illo anno fuisse, qui neque in annalibus priscis, neque in libri magistratuum inveniuntur [Liv. 4.7.10]".

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **188** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 173-192

lic records for those political figures who did not fulfil the duties of their office honestly was determined: "non modo ex memoria, sed etiam ex fastis, evellendos". He stated that the opposition *ex memoria* / *ex fastis* must have carried an actual significance, implying that such erasure took place in two different type of documents: while *ex memoria* concerned the lists of magistrates, *ex fastis* referred to the narrative histories reporting the facts and the acts of the magistrates in charge. The reason for this distinction relied on the etymology of *fasti* as transmitted by Varro – from *fando*, that is, speaking – which implied (in Marliani's opinion) that they consisted of something more extensive than a synthetic sequence of names.<sup>51</sup>

Given these facts, Marliani opted for the term *annales* to provide to Panvinio's *fasti* an alternative sense of belonging to a specific category of historical writing. However, Marliani appears less adamant in the pursuit of his position than his rival; he preferred to leave final judgement to the reader, given the uncertainty of the meaning of both the terms in antiquity. He therefore includes a third possibility: returning to either *series* or *catalogus*, because these two words reflected a neutral aspect of the relic (the fact that it was a list), rather than going into detail on the peculiarities of the genre.<sup>52</sup> As we have seen before, *series* recalled his first title for the edition of 1549; *catalogus* instead was a brand new solution, because it evoked the appendix usually enclosed at the end of the Renaissance editions of the *Codex iuris civilis*. This bore a list of consuls and was aimed at better understanding Roman history and the subdivision of historical periods.<sup>53</sup>

<sup>51</sup> Marliani 1560, *Lect*.: "Potitumque varie in annalibus cognomen consulis se invenire. Quibus exemplis (ut alia plurima omittam) cum loquatur de consolibus, cur non dixit aliquando in fastis? Ut quidam appellandos esse putant, ad idque probandum citant inter alia hoc Cic. exemplum: Iidemque consules, si appellandi sunt consules quos nemo est quin non modo ex memoria sed etiam ex fastis evellendos putet [Cic. *Sext*. 33.20.23]. Quod videtur reciprocum. Nam ubi dicit ex memoria, innuit illorum nomen ex serie consulum esse tollendum, et ex mamoribus abradendum, item ex fastis ut cum nomine rerum gestarum pereat memoria. Praeterea cum fasti a fando sint dicti, nullam prorsus cum nominibus consulum affinitatem habere videntur, cum titulus ea potissimum ratione operibus praeponi debeat, ut indicet, quid in illis contineatur. Ideo annales consulum, potius quam, ut diximus, fastos appellandos esse censemus".

<sup>52</sup> Marliani 1560, *Lect*.: "Ideo hos magistraus, seriem aut graeco vocabulo catalogum, forsan rectius vocaremus. Sed haec lectoris iudicio relinquimus ".

<sup>53</sup> *Codex* 1535: *Catalogus consulum, tum ad discernenda Constitutionum tempora perutile, tum ad totius Romanae historiae cognitionem maxime necessarium.*

### 5.5 Conclusions

From this survey on the different occurrences of the word *fasti* in early modern times in epigraphic and philological publications, some general conclusions can be drawn affecting both the history of the classical tradition and the perception of antiquity during the Renaissance. Together with a renewed interest towards ancient findings and antiquity in general, a specific vocabulary was developed to identify, define, and circumscribe those findings, consolidating the bond between denomination and the acquisition of knowledge. This was a language of unremitting progress gathered from many literary sources, which was applied to and sometimes manipulated to coincide with the newly discovered relics.

In fact, if the term *fasti* could easily be understood to mean calendar (because of its etymology), it was much harder to explain its historical context, and to clarify why calendars and lists of magistrates were combined. For this reason, after Fra' Giocondo had depicted them together, the two parts of the same unit were irreparably separated in the first half of the sixteenth century, under the influence of Pomponio Leto and Angelo Poliziano. The cases of Aldo Manuzio, Francesco Albertini, Jacopo Mazocchi and Peter Apianus demonstrate this fracture.

Only a compelling event, such as the unearthing of the epigraph in the Roman Forum, could change the *status quo*. This discovery forced scholars to rethink the entire question and to develop a systematic reappraisal of the lists of magistrates, which were known in scholarly environments but were never properly investigated.

The nomenclature adopted after 1546 delineates this cultural pattern well. Marliani, Sigonio, and Panvinio raised a hermeneutical debate illuminating the interactions between the ancient texts and the archaeological findings. Their different choices (*series, fasti, annales*), and their attempts to explain them in relation to both the *corpus* of literary sources and the material findings, reflect the evolution of scholarly sensitivity towards the classical tradition. The fact that after this date the word *fasti* was generally acknowledged to mean a 'list of magistrates' directly correlates the growth of knowledge to an increase in material evidence.

The Renaissance scholars of the second half of the sixteenth century reached full awareness of the affinity between calendars (*fasti*) and the successions of magistrates (*fasti*) and were perfectly aware that the word had shifted from one semantic sphere to another. The combination of the *Fasti Capitoloni* and the *Fasti Maffeiani* made by Paolo Manuzio in Sigonio's second edition (1555) was the turningpoint in shaping this new dimension.

The question as to which genre the lists of magistrates belonged to was a fundamental phase in the process of their denomination. Since the very beginning, scholars perceived they had a link (of sorts) with the transmission of history. The words of Annius of Viterbo actually placed these seriations in a precise theoretical frame, i.e. a reliable chronology. In this light, Dionysus of Halicarnassus' *De praecipuis linguae Graecae auctoribus elogia*, edited by Robert Estienne and published in 1556, helps to provide further clarification on how the name and nature of these lists were conceived by scholars. Specifically, in the appendix written by the Polish humanist Stanislaw Ilowski, entitled *De historica facultate*, he infers that the actions of mankind create a parameter which contributes to establishing historical order between natural and civil time:<sup>54</sup>

Historiam ratione temporum distinguendam esse, et civilis et naturalis ratio docet. […] ut actiones hominum, quae motus expertes sunt, tempore notentur atque describantur.

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# 6 Chronology **Ecclesiastical Chronotaxes**

**Summary** 6.1 Introduction. – 6.2 Lists of Popes and Bishops. – 6.3 Conclusions.

### 6.1 Introduction

Since the dawn of the Protestant Reformation, rethinking the past has been one of the fundamental aspects of spiritual renovation; history has become a tool used not only to affirm the providential role of each confessional identity, but also to debate controversial doctrinal issues.<sup>1</sup> In their transmission of church history, Protestants and Catholics began to use sacred scriptures (or the *Divina historia*) 2 as the primary basis for their own legitimacy to exist and to defend the status quo: on the Catholic side, a church with a strong vertical structure headed by the Roman pope; on the Protestant side, removal of secular hierarchy and the return to an evangelical church. Here, ecclesiastical history was used not only to justify doctrinal positions and support spiritual inclinations, but also to sustain political beliefs, all for the purpose of consolidating temporal power within the folds of the pastoral mission.

2 Historical analysis during the Reformation concerned especially the early Christian Church; see Jedin 1976, 661 ff.

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Renaissance and Reformation* 40 (2017), 131-54.

<sup>1</sup> Backus 2015; see also Bauer 2013, 133; Krumenacker 2006, 263-4 and Backus 2003, in which it is demonstrated that the omnipresence of a historiographic layout in the theological reflections of the Renaissance allowed the affirmation of one's own confessional identity.

In 1593, Italian scholar and Jesuit Antonio Possevino (1533-1611) defined the concept of *theologia positiva*, in opposition to *theologia scholastica*, as a method by which sacred scripture may be interpreted through the use of empirical data, demonstrating how the antiquarian perspective had influenced ecclesiastical studies by the end of the sixteenth century.<sup>3</sup> In fact, the hermeneutical process developed by humanists throughout the decades was openly accepted as being essential for dealing with theological issues: this method of research, which had previously only been used to investigate classical antiquity, was applied with ease to church history.

During the sixteenth century, this approach spread among and came to be followed by the scholars who dealt with sacred scriptures – before developing into an instrument of debate and discussion in order to re-elaborate upon the traditional narratives for every confessional purpose, and introducing a new ecclesiastical history, based on empirical data, that would be difficult to contest.<sup>4</sup>

The genre of 'chronotaxes', in particular, represents one of the most interesting cases of the Christian past being used to construct and defend specific confessional positions.<sup>5</sup> This practice – an arrangement in chronological order (*chrono*, from the Greek χρόνος = time; and *taxis*, from the Greek τάσσειν = to arrange) – was a technique of time computation that linked cosmological movements with the actions of human beings in history and was used to calculate universal time and establish its relationship with events.<sup>6</sup> These works recon-

5 Anthony Grafton documented five different genres of chronology, including the lists treated here; see Johnson 1962; Grafton 1993, 60-75.

<sup>3</sup> Possevino 1593, 151-2: "THEOLOGIA POSITIVA. In Divinis enim litteris materia et ratio est, qua theologi possimus effici. Theologia enim (si pressius atque ex veterum Graecorum usu accipiatur) is est, in quo divinatis cognitio sit, quemadmodum docet Gregorius Nazianzenus. Sin fusiore significatu, ac qualem nostrae usurpant scholae, is est Theologus, cui non solum possit edocere, verum etiam qui ea cognoscit, quae de Divinitate sunt, vel ad Divinitatem spectant, quoniam a Deo revelata sunt, ac nobis absque illius revelatione nequent innotescere, ad Divinitatem autem, quatenus superni est ordinis, referuntur. Qua de re aliquid adhuc, ubi de Scholastica Theologia dicetur. POSI-TIVA quod legibus ratiocinationum, definitionum, ac divisionum haud coarctetur, nec in eam tradendam cadat omnino ea disceptandi ratio, quae Scholastica penitior adhibetur. Ac quidem, quae Graecis est thesis, haec Latinis positio est, quae cum sententiam ratam, stabilem, firmam designet, in Divina Scriptura praecipuum habet locum, quae est universae Theologiae Scholasticae basis et fundamentum".

<sup>4</sup> On the encounter of humanism and ecclesiastical studies during the sixteenth century, see Grafton 2012, in which is also stated the fundamental distinction between secular and religious antiquarian research: the former sought through different disciplines an unknown past, the latter instead wanted to prove preset statements (5). See also Dost 2001; Mouren 2004; Steinmetz 2017.

<sup>6</sup> The famous Italian humanist Annius of Viterbo stated that chronology could benefit from the successions of public officers – such as kings and magistrates – because the generations marked their time through the preservation of their memory; see Annius 1498, 91: "Eam partem Graeci vocant Chronographiam id est temporum diges-

structed seriations of the names of public figures and their office in yearly progression, thereby determining their overall succession.<sup>7</sup>

Although unconventional lists can be found,<sup>8</sup> chronotaxes were usually prepared for political and ecclesiastical institutions as soon as they were established.<sup>9</sup> Political successions were devoted to kings, emperors, dukes, and other authorities, while their ecclesiastical counterparts focused on popes and bishops.

Ecclesiastical chronotaxes have been arranged since the origins of Christianity and are based on "pontifical books" (*Libri Pontificales*) and "acts of pontiffs" (*Gesta Pontificum*).<sup>10</sup> Initially, their structure was schematic in nature, with only names and corresponding dates provided; however, in the centuries that followed, the chronotaxes acquired more complexity as they started to include biographical information. However, the references for the data collected were often unreliable

tionem, cuius probandi duo principia sunt. Primum ut ostendamus tempora, quae afferunt, non discrepare a publica et probata fide […] Alterum ut reges et viri digerantur, qui his temporibus floruerunt, et quorum memoriam teneant authores vel loca, sive utrumque. Quod profecto nos facimus in hac secunda parte, quae est de temporibus, in qua primum extendimus viros et tempora ab Iano et origine Italia usque ad Othonem Caesarem. Inde retrocedendo, tempora et viros praescriptos per publicam fidem probamus". Decades later, in 1556, the French philologist Robert Estienne published in Paris the ancient work of Dionysus of Halicarnassus, *De praecipuis linguae Graecae auctoribus elogia*, translated from Greek to Latin by the Polish scholar Stanisław Iłowski (d. 1589). In one of the appendices – a commentary on the theory of history (*de historica facultate*), in the section *De distinctione historiae* – Iłowski affirmed that historical facts can be considered and described in relation to human time, becoming a fundamental parameter to calculate chronology. In this way, the successions of institutional figures became a trustworthy tool for computation; see Iłowski 1556, 36: "Historiam ratione temporum distinguendam esse, et civilis et naturalis ratio docet. […] ut actiones hominum, quae motus expertes sunt, tempore notentur atque describantur".

7 Chronotaxes are basically lists. In this light, according to Eco 2009, they attempt to give a tangible form, and hence order, to innumerable objects that may disorient the reader or the observer (16-18). Furthermore, lists could be included in the rhetoric figure of accumulation, which helps to increase the emphasis through *enumeratio* (133). In this way, chronotaxes appear to be even more rooted in tradition, not only in the field of chronology, more precisely acquiring a specific hermeneutical function in giving a solid and impressive idea, of their object of interest.

8 An interesting case is represented by the work of the German scholar Wolfgang Jobst (1521-75) who arranged a list of doctors from the beginning of medical science to his own time; see Jobst 1556, *Dedic*.: "Quare cum summa veneratione digni sint medicae artis scriptores et professores, rem sane gratam, me facturum medicinae alumnis persuasus sum, si compendiose eorum Chronologiam, successionem, aetates et professiones atque vitae cursum in lucem emitterem, quod tandem post longam deliberationem, me hoc utcunque praestuturum aggressus sum".

9 A significant example can be found in the relation established between the Roman Empire and the empire of Charles V, which retraced the path of all the predecessors who held the imperial crown, and which involved also the entire debate on the *Fasti Consulares*.

10 On Renaissance use of the *Liber Pontificalis* see Bauer 2019, with an extensive bibliography.

and frequently appeared contradictory, undermining the fidelity of the seriation. This situation gave great freedom to the compilers (most of whom were anonymous), allowing entire episcopal lineages to be fabricated in order to increase the prestige of the diocese concerned.<sup>11</sup>

A change occurred with the cultural revolution of humanism, which, through the diffusion of the antiquarian method, brought about a revised approach towards sources and the information they transmitted. Since the mid-fifteenth century, scholars have attempted to base their ecclesiastical seriations on tangible evidence in order to improve reliability.

This article represents the first time that the Renaissance ecclesiastical chronotaxes disseminated to Christian scholarly environments throughout Europe have been collated and studied. Several works (all printed editions), handing down at least one list of prelates, have been identified. On the basis of the data gathered thus far, it is reasonable to conclude that several other unknown or unpublished ecclesiastical chronotaxes have been written, perhaps including lower-level hierarchical posts.<sup>12</sup> An overview of the practice is provided here.

In order to understand what reawakened the interest of Renaissance scholars in the genre of ecclesiastical chronotaxis, it is necessary to bear in mind the historical context and cultural framework within which these works were disseminated. Generally, ecclesiastical chronotaxes were carried out to retrace the lineage of a specified religious institution, reconstruct its succession in order to reinforce its existence in the present, and confer further authority and legitimacy to the existing power structure. This was especially the case during the cultural expansion of the Reformation, when the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchies became one of the most controversial issues discussed by theologians during confessional debates, especially the primacy of Peter, on which the election of the first bishops depended.<sup>13</sup>

This historical event was tied to the different interpretations of the Gospels (especially the Gospel of Matthew) and ancient patristic sources, not least the *Constitutiones Apostolicae* of Pope Clement I (d. 100 CE) and the *Historia Ecclesiastica* of Eusebius (265-340). According to the Catholics, it was Peter himself who elected the first bishops after his appointment as head of the Apostles, subordinating this office directly to papal control; according to the Protestants, however, there was no evidence that Peter had received any

<sup>11</sup> Vasina 1990.

<sup>12</sup> See Kehr 1961. This fundamental work reconstructs the history of the Italian dioceses by collecting primary sources; some chronotaxes are also mentioned.

<sup>13</sup> On the dispute about the Primacy of Peter see the fundamental works by Javerre 1958; Grasso 1960; Prodi 1982. To understand the nature of this debate during the Renaissance, see the opposite arguments of Flacius 1559, 2: 524-30 [*Argumenta contra Primatu Petri*] and Panvinio 1589; about the latter see also Bauer 2020, 181-7.

primacy from Christ over the other Apostles, dissolving the first ring of the episcopal genealogy and abolishing the vertical structure of the Church's hierarchies in favour of the theory of the 'universal priesthood'.14 If the sacredness of the episcopal institution was indeed considered to have descended from the primacy of Peter and to have been tied to the sacredness of the holy city of Rome, the apostolic origin of the dioceses would have legitimised the dominant role of the pope, i.e., with the pope prevailing over the Apostles. While the Protestants cast doubts over the authority of popes to elect bishops, and hence the nature of the episcopacy itself, the Catholics attempted to bring the foundation of the dioceses back to the Apostles, thereby conferring on this institution a sacred connotation that had spread since the birth of Christianity. It is therefore clear that ecclesiastical chronotaxes were directly influenced by these debates and susceptible to the occurrence of these dynamics.

# 6.2 Lists of Popes and Bishops

In this context, the Renaissance ecclesiastical chronotaxes appear to follow specific evolutionary patterns; however, although their contents essentially match the biographical sequence of lives, their starting points appear to change in accordance with the period of their composition, thereby causing the Protestant Reformation (1517) to emerge as the fundamental breaking point for this entire historiographic and editorial tradition. The chronotaxes below, which are arranged in a single corpus for the first time, present the development of this tendency and offer a standard definition of the genre.

**1479** The first chronotaxis that can be defined as belonging to the Renaissance, mainly due to the humanistic education of its Italian author, Bartolomeo Platina, is *Vitae Pontificum*. <sup>15</sup> It is a chronological sequence of the lives of popes since the origins of Christianity (from Christ to Pope Sixtus IV), the purpose of

<sup>14</sup> This specific knot of the Renaissance culture between the Reformation and Counter-Reformation fits in a broader discussion on the relationship between spiritual and temporal power during the Tridentine age; see Jedin, Prodi 1979, 65-75. For an overall vision on the episcopal issue during the Renaissance, see Prosperi 1986; Barrie-Curien, Vernard 2001. Specific tractates on the ideal type of bishop were carried out in the late sixteenth century: see Jedin 1950, and Broutin 1953. For the "universal priesthood" see Luther 1520, *De ordine*: "Sic enim i. Pet. ii, dicitur, Vos estis genus electum, regale sacerdotium, et sacerdotale regnum. Quare, omnes sumus sacerdotes, quotquot Christiani sumus, Sacerdotes vero vocamus, ministri sunt ex nobis electi, qui nostro nomine omnia faciant. Et sacerdotium aliud nihil est, quam ministerium".

<sup>15</sup> See Platina 1479; for the controversial biographical relationship of Platina with the Papacy, see Bauer 2006.

which was to collect information on the history of the Church for the incumbent pontiff to follow as an example. In this work, Platina underlined the leading position taken by Peter over the other apostles in his description of the Pentecostal predications, where the Apostles travelled throughout the world to spread Christ's word. In terms of its structure and content, this work became an archetype of sorts, to be followed by future treatises on the same matter and was emulated and contrasted by Catholic and Protestant scholars alike owing to the sensitive information it contained (including the flaws and crimes of popes).


<sup>16</sup> Wimfeling 1508. For his life and works, see also Schmidt 1879, 1: 1-187; 2: 317-39; Geiger 1898; and Knepper 1902.

<sup>17</sup> Wimfeling 1508, *Prolog*.: "Petrus quoque Maternum cum Eucherio et Valerio in translapias Germaniae partes, praedicatoris gratia transmisit. Qui transmissis Albibus venerunt in hanc Alsatiam Germaniae provinciam, coeperuntque incolis praedicare verbum Dei. Qui videntes signa et virtutes quas faciebant conversi sunt ad Dominum".

<sup>18</sup> Käsenbrot 1511; Richter 1831.

<sup>19</sup> Käsenbrot 1511, 3b : "Dolebam enim eos per quos orthodoxae christianae religionis apud nos exordium coepit et tamquam per manus tradita ad haec usque tempora defluxit, aevi iniuria obsolescere nullisque annalibus seu litteraris monumentis commendatos caeca nocte ac oblivione involvi debere, quo nihil infoelicius in rebus humanis accidere reor".

tues of the bishop in office.<sup>20</sup> Käsenbrot set the origins of the Diocese of Olomouc at the election of its first bishop, Cyrillus, by Pope Nicholas I in the ninth century, giving official pontifical sanction to the institution.


21 Hedio 1546.

23 The archdiocese of Mainz was one of the Great Imperial Electors – as specified even in the title of the dedicatory to Bishop Sebastian von Heusenstein, *Archiepiscopo Moguntino, Sacr. Rom. imperij per Germanias Archicancellario et Electori*.

24 Campi 2008, 14.

25 Brusch 1549, 4: "Sanctus Crescens sive Crescentius, unus ex primis Germania Apostolis, divi Pauli auditor, comes, ac discipulus, Primus Moguntiam ad Christum convertit, et primus numeratur eius sedis antistes ac Episcopus".

<sup>20</sup> Käsenbrot 1511, 3a : "Nam dum clara legit praesul monumenta superstes | Nimirum virtus gratior inde sibi est".

<sup>22</sup> Brusch 1549. The German scholar worked also on ecclesiastical archaeology, studying monasteries and cloisters of Germany and publishing a tractate of antiquarian erudition on this matter; see Brusch 1551. On his life and work in general, see Ludwig 2002 and Kreuz 2008.


27 Lazius 1551, 133-57.

28 Lazius 1551, 142: "Nunc quomodo istud praetorium ecclesiasticam administrationem acceperit, simulatque ditiones illius salubri fuissent doctrina imbutae, docebo. Siquidem ut ab initio huius capitis de Sacris sedibus, sive primis a praetorio ad Ecclesiam Christi translatis dictum est, et quod Diocesis vocabulum Ciceroni etiam usurpatur, praefectorum iurisdictionem significarit; sic quoque praesulis vox, quae hodie episcopo tribuitur, olim praesidum erat propria".

29 Strada 1557b; Panvinio 1557; 1562; 1568a; 1568b.

30 This work had two simultaneous editions, both printed in Venice in 1557: the first was carried out by the printer Jacopo Strada, not licensed by the author. The second was carried out by Michele Tramezzino, with the supervision of the author himself, who tried to amend the preceding spurious version; see Panvinio, *Romanorum Pontifices et Cardinales*, ad lect. An opinion on this work is given in the epistolary exchange published by Soler i Nicolau 2000, 130: "Dicono che e' vostri Pontifici Romani co' Cardinali da Leon IX in poi son usciti, ne' quali tre cose mi son state improbate: l'una, che, poi haver ditta la creatione de' Cardinali, replicate anchor li superstiti a la morte di quel Papa, che longhezza e satietà; l'altra, che mutate e' numeri de' pontefici dal uso commune e de' scrittori e del populo; la terza, che vi fate arbitro de le attioni di essi pontefici con poco vantaggio loro. So così e non vi posso laudar in queste parti, benché io

<sup>26</sup> Tillet 1550, *Lect*.: "Soyez Lecteur adverty, que celuy qui a traduict ceste Chronique, ne scavoit point que l'Autheur mesme (qui vous est assez cognu encors qu'il n'ait iamais voulu y estre nomé et intitulé)".

chronotaxis that retraced the entire papal seriation from its origins up to the sixteenth century, including all the cardinals elected during each pontificate, and amended the errors made in previous series through the application of the antiquarian method.


sospenda il parere insin che oda voi. Siate accorto e diligente nel scrivere, *Nescit vox missa reverti* [Hor. *ars* 390]" (Ottavio Pantagato to Onofrio Panvinio, 28 August 1558). Bauer 2020, 46-8 considers Panvinio's *Romani pontifices* as a "byproduct or offshoot of his *Fasti*", rather than an independent genre of chronological writings establishes in the tradition of ecclesiastical history.

<sup>31</sup> Bale 1558, 1558.

<sup>32</sup> Witzel 1558. This theologian also worked on other lists related to the Holy Writ and to Patristic texts; see Witzel 1549.

<sup>33</sup> See also the earlier works on the institutional division of the French territory where the dioceses of France are indicated: Signot 1515.

<sup>34</sup> De Mouchy 1562.

in 316 CE, but De Mouchy set the effective origin of this office to the first century CE, which is when St. Sixtus, St. Sinisius, and St. Amasius were sent to Gaul by St. Peter to preach.


37 Parker 1572.

38 Parker 1572, 1: "non a Romana sede, ut Pontificii contendunt".

39 Parker 1572, 3-5: "Postquam ab ipsis Ecclesiae incunabulis hanc Insulam in fide Christiana fuisse instructam luculenter breviterque exposuimus, videamus a quo doctore primum instituta sit: tum quomodo una sempre crevit, nec avulsa penitus defecit unquam, etsi multis erroribus ab hostilibus incursionibus, Romanaque sede huc traductis, tardius saepe corrupta, sed divina veritate iterum recepta ocius recreata semper fuit. Ac primum Paulum ipsum gentium doctorem, cum aliis gentibus,

<sup>35</sup> Pithou 1569.

<sup>36</sup> Pithou 1600, 503-25; on the first bishop of Troyes, see Mathoud 1687, 32-3: "Nullus in Elencho Trevir. Antistitum occurrit Augustinus qui huic fabellae succurrere possit, quam aut nescivit Odorannus, aut sapienter suppressit. His pro tuenda Actorum fide nessario praemissis, ex illis contra doctissimum Dissertatorem Launoium arguimus certum esse quod sanctus Savinianus a B. Petro directus fuerit in Gallias fidei praedicator, quod iam sopitis ad tempus gentilium iris, nec saevientibus Caesarum edictis, Deo in eius et sociorum honorem constructae fuerint Ecclesiae".


41 Fezzi 1582, *Dedic*.: "Facile namque intelligebas, quid ponderis viva domesticaque maiorum nostrorum exempla, ad hominum animos commovendos, haberent, quantamque praeclara eorum facta, huic Ecclesiae dignitate afferent et gloriam".

42 Barland 1584, 1-31.

43 Pieters 1612.

tum nominatim Britannis Evangelium nunciasset post priorem suam Romae incarcerationem […] Philippus enim Apostolus, qui in Galliam venit, et Evangelii praedicatione plures ad fidem vertit abluitque baptismate, cum de Britannia modico freto separata insula accepisset, a qua Druidum superstitio manabat in Galliam, delegit ex suorum sociorum numero duodecim: quibus Josephum Arimathiensem, qui Dominum Christum sepulchro condidit, praefecit […] Alii Simonem Zelotem in Britanniam venisse, et Evangelium primum nunciasse referunt, quorum utrumque verum esse potest. Nam Josephi socii non nominantur, inter quos fuisse Simonem est verisimile"; see also Grafton 2012, 16.

<sup>40</sup> Bagatta 1576, *Lect*.: "Hinc est studium illud pium plurimorum Sanctorum hominum conscribendi proprium Martyrologium de omnibus, et solis Sanctis, qui in suis Episcopatibus quiescunt, aut conficiendi ex propriae Ecclesiae monumentis iustam aliquam historiam, per quam investigemur, et urgeamur ad ambulandam actam fidei, et bonorum operum viam quae ducit ad vitam".


46 In working on his chronotaxis, Borghini exchanged views on this matter with fellow scholars, as proved by the following letters; see Dati 1743, 4.4: 59: "e particolarmente non vi potrei dire quanto mi sarebbe caro, se nel rivedere, come so che fate spesso, le cose di costì, massimamente ecclesiastiche, e dandovi fra mano qualcuno de' nostri vescovi di Fiorenza, vi degnaste notargli, e farmene parte, perché già n'ho ritrovati XII de' quali non era memoria alcuna, e vorrei, se possibil fosse, ritrovare il resto" (Vincezio Borghini to Onofrio Panvinio 1566), and 186-7: "e potrà essere che io di essi vescovi alcuna cosa più, e meglio; e s'io fussi stato indovino di questo desiderio di V.S. Reverendissima, sarei anche per addietro statone sollecito, che stieno appreso di lei, non intendo ne sia escluso il nostro messer Niccolò del Nero, anzi molto desidero che le vegga, che ne potranno in molte parti di venir migliori. Potrebbe V.S. Reverendissima aiutare non poco questa impresa dalle bande di costà, ed io n'avea già scritto al P. F. Onofrio Panvinio amico mio di molti anni, ma fu tardi, perché già aveva trascorso tutti i Registri Pontificali, quando ebbe la mia, e non avea notato i nostri vescovi, che gli eran dati fra le mani; ben mi promise di fare in quello, che gli darebbe nelle mani per innanzi, ma non credo seguisse altro, perché non vi corse molto tempo dalla sua morte" (Vincezio Borghini to Alessandro de' Medici, 8 January 1574).

47 Borghini 1585, 357-8: "Però piglisi per ora il principio da costui, pur con questa condizione; e quando se ne troverrà alcuna più salda certezza, si potrà come cosa chiara affermare".

48 Sigonio 1586, 1-2: "Itaque prisci illi sanctae Ecclesiae proceres, viri longe omnium prudentissimi non sine ratione sanxerunt, ut eis maxime civitatibus episcopi tra-

<sup>44</sup> Borghini 1585, 337-595. Another chronotaxis on the dioceses of Tuscany concerned the bishops of Arezzo: see Burali 1638.

<sup>45</sup> To retrace Borghini's antiquarian studies see Belloni, Drusi 2002.


derentur, apud quas multitudo fidelium succrevisset, et quia continentem Catholicorum antistum seriem ad confutandos haereses in primis pertinere putarunt, non solum nomina singulorum in tabulas basilicarum referri, sed etiam imagines in suis effingi Episcopiis voluerunt".

<sup>49</sup> Mosca 1594, 8: "Id, quod suadet mirum in modum, ut existimem a primis fere nascentis Ecclesiae saeculis, proprios illam habuisse Episcopos: Decreverat enim B. Petrus, quod testatur S. Clemens, ut in praecipuis quibusque Civitatibus Episcopi constituerentur. Quod si verum est, ut certe arbitramus veri simillimum: multo plures fuisse in illa Episcopos necesse est, ac multorum nomina, et res gestae ad nos non pervenisse".

<sup>50</sup> Opmeer 1596.

<sup>51</sup> Spelta 1597, 1: "Erano già scorsi anni quarantacinque che Giesu Christo nostro Signore per salvar l'humana prole vestitosi di questa nostra fragile spoglia venne ad habitar con gli huomini, et dodici, ch'egli havendo compitamente ispedita l'opera della redentione, era asceso al Cielo, e nell'eterno seggio alla destra dell'Onnipotente padre assiso, quando sotto il pontificato di san Pietro, e l'imperio di Claudio, entrò in questa alma città l'angelico pastore, tromba dello Spirito Santo, maestro della verità, il glorioso nostro padre San Siro".

After these catalogues, he commenced work on a chronotaxis for all of the Hispanic dioceses, ordered alphabetically.52 Padilla took it for granted that the Church of Spain had been founded directly by St. James, the brother of St. Peter. In fact, all the episcopal lists included in Padilla's collection had their apostolic legitimacy assured by this provenance.<sup>53</sup>


53 This represents one of the most important peeks of Hispanic historiography during the Renaissance, as pointed out by van Liere 2012.


56 Bascapè 1612, 233-4: "Ita Mediolano Evangelicae veritatis nuncios cito Novariam advenisse credibile est, in urbem, neque longe positam […] atque moribus non dissimilem".

57 Chenu 1621, I-II: "ad impugnandum illius temporis haereticos".


# 6.3 Conclusions

In order to draw a clearer distinction between the cultural and editorial phenomena of the ecclesiastical chronotaxes written during the Renaissance, and to understand the authors' intentions, it is useful to observe the method applied. In fact, the methodological choices reflect the context in which they were prepared and the reasons for which they were used. What emerges is that the method applied by each author was described in detail only from the mid-sixteenth century onward. In his introductory poem, Kaspar Brusch was the first to outline the sources of his episcopal chronotaxis: ancient inscriptions, which implied that the author had epigraphic knowledge; ancient books, which demonstrated that the texts were understood in their original language; manuscripts, which attested to the philological and linguistic cognitions; the archaeological findings of monasteries, which were difficult to interpret, implying palaeographic


abilities; and sculptures of all kinds, which also required an understanding of art history.61 These are all typical elements of antiquarian investigation and were developed through the experience of humanists throughout Europe, who drew on their knowledge of ancient history and classical sources in an attempt to link historical events to the tangible reality of the findings handed down.

The antiquarian method was used by many authors. In the work of Jean du Tillet, for example, the seriations were taken from a consistent number of textual extracts, papers, monuments, and various authentic antiquities.62 Onofrio Panvinio attested to having found inspiration in the study of profane history when commencing his works on sacred history, which also appears to imply an assimilation of antiquarian techniques. Panvinio stated that he had utilised sepulchral eulogies, ancient inscriptions taken from the Roman basilicas, as well as chronicles and fragments of historiographic texts.63 Raffaello Bagatta also utilised ancient codices of various origin as well

61 Brusch 1549, *Epigr.*: "Plurima erunt veturum saxa et monumenta legenda, | Plura ex antiquis excipienda libris. | Nec tibi erunt paucae inquirendae Bybliothecae | Illic cum tineis bellum erit acre tibi. | Sic adeunda tibi sunt saepe Monastica templa | Multa legenda ubi erunt non satis apta legi. | […] | Omnia templa pio affectu studioque pererrans, | omnigenas statuas, omnia saxa legens".

62 Du Tillet 1550, *Lect.*: "d'un bon nombre d'extraictz, chartres, monumens, et ancinnetez authentiques".

63 Panvinio 1557, *Lect*.: "Perduxi, quod illius saeculi gesta tum in toto orbe, tum in Romanorum Pontificum successionibus, sive temporum iniuria, sive hominum, qui aetate illa vixerunt, negligentia, obscurissima sint, tenebrisque vetustatis adeo obsita, ut non sine maxima difficultate veritas eruis potuerit. In eis autem explicandis praecipue aliquot maximorum Pontificum, qui per ea tempora vixerunt, sepulchrorum elogiis, vetustisque inscriptionibus, quae adhuc per varias urbis basilicas extant, usus sum. Nonnihil et adiutus fui ex Liutprandi Ticinensis historia, Reginonis, Hermani Contracti, et Sigeberti Monachorum chronicis, et aliquot praeterea eius aetatis scriptorum concisis historiis. Quorum monumentorum uxilio, quod prima fronte fieri non posse ulla ratione videbatur, confeci. Hanc igitur ob caussam secundam illam partem esse volui, quae tempora, ob scriptorum inopiam obscurissima facta, contineret, a prima, quae clarior erat, et a tertia, de qua mox loquar, distincta". In addition to these sources, those used for the heraldic reconstruction were included in the seriation that was referenced by Jacopo Strada in the preface of his non-authorised edition, which included paintings in churches and palaces, sepulchral statues, decorative apparatus of altars, drapes and carpets, and ornaments of various kinds; see Strada 1557b, *Dedic*.: "In ipsorum insignium pictura fidelis ac poene religious fui, nihil detraxi, nihil adieci, nihil immutavi, qualia reperta sunt in Templis aut Palatiis picta, in sepulchris sculpta, in toto altarium apparatu, ac vestimentis, Aulaeis, ac tapetibus contexta, in argenteis ac aureis instrumentis, quae tum ad Templorum, tum etiam ad mensae usum adhiberi solent, caelata, reliquisque huiusmodi, talia a me fideliter sunt adnotata: nec ulla in re mihi adscribi potest aut temeritas, aut negligentia". To arrange his chronotaxis, Panvinio received the help of various scholars, such as the Italian humanist Ottavio Pantagato and the Spanish bishop Antonio Agustín. Agustìn, in particular, indicated many sources from which it was possible to obtain useful data to arrange the ecclesiastical catalogues; see Andrès 1804, 293-4, 294-7, 299-302, 305-6, 359-60; and Carbonell 1991, 195-200.

as local ecclesiastical writings and epigraphs.<sup>64</sup> Similarly, already in the title to his work, Fezzi specified he examined ancient texts which were difficult to read and had to be preserved in their original form since they resulted in more faithful and reliable interpretations.<sup>65</sup>

The particular attention devoted to ancient texts was also in line with Vincenzo Borghini's method. He indicated that the "origin of errors" derived from "retouching" sources. Usually, this practice was applied in order to render the texts more comprehensible to readers of different periods. However, the content was modified irreparably as a result: with the manipulation/simplification of texts, the original forms were contaminated and, consequently, the original thoughts were lost.<sup>66</sup> The instruments utilised to interpret these sources were various and depended on the quality of the finding under examination. It was only thanks to the crossing over of data of the original documents and other specific evidence – such as epigraphic, numismatic, and archaeological findings – that his chronotaxis acquired a certified reliability. In addition to reporting on the state of affairs, including documental vacuities, Borghini was also well aware that the

<sup>64</sup> Bagatta 1576, *Lect*.: "Quamobrem et nos huiusmodi sancto, ac pio studio adducti iam aliquot annos non absque magno labore, ac studio, cum ex tot incendiis, direptionibusque etiam domesticis, et populorum barbarorum devastationibus, plurima huius civitatis Veronensis iam deperierint, monumenta quaedam SS. Episcoporum Veronensium et aliorum SS. quorum corpora habentur Veronae, ac eriam nonnullorum, quorum Ecclesiae in eadem civitate habentur, quae quidem monumenta adhuc in urbe nostra reperiuntur, ex diversis locis, antiquis codicibus, scripturis nostrarum Ecclesiarum, et lapidibus collegimus, ne temporis iniuria, aut simili ratione haec etiam pauca deperirent. Collegimus etiam eorum fere omnium SS. historias ax antiquis propriis lectionibus, quae ad breviarium usque restitutum ducentos amplius annos diebus festis Sanctorum ipsorum Ecclesia Veronense perpetuo recitatae sunt, quarum aliquas etiam auximus nonnullarum rerum commemoratione, quae a bonis probatisque authoribus scriptae pietatem in Deum, et religionem maxime accendunt, et quae prolixiores videbantur, in compendium redegimus".

<sup>65</sup> Fezzi 1582: *Catalogus episcoporum Brixinensium, usque ad haec nostra tempora omnium, prout ex vetustissimis scriptis colligere licuit: quae etsi rudi admodum stilo constent, nihil tamen immutandum duximus quia simplex huiusmodi ordo, nonnunquam fidelius incorruptae antiquitatis veritatem exprimere videatur*.

<sup>66</sup> Borghini 1585, 340: "Ma tutto questo inganno, e questo errore, per mio avviso, nasce da una così fatta opinione, che già regnò un tempo, della quale io non so qual fusse più la sciocchezza, e il danno, che e' pareva loro una bella cosa come e' potevano ritoccare, e come e' si credevano, e liberamente e' dicevano, rimbellire, e migliorare gli scritti di alcuni Autori antichi (invero alcuna volta semplici, e puri, ma tuttavia gravi, e fedeli), ed in questo non è possibile dire quanto scioccamente si ingannassero, e come mentreché lisciandoli, ed azzimandoli […] e' si credeano farle parere più vaghe a' poco intendenti: […] se non ne fusse seguito talvolta un disordine, che questi così più presto contrafatti, che rifatti componimenti, hanno per la loro pensata spenti gli originali, de' quali si dovea tenere gran conto"; see also Belloni 1995.

lack of documentation, especially for the first few centuries, meant it would be impossible to make a list without omissions.<sup>67</sup>

Ughelli also devoted the same level of attention to the original language of ancient sources. In the preface to his work, he affirmed that the quotations from ancient tables, diaries, calendars, epigraphs, inscriptions, sepulchral eulogies, official documents, reports, etc., should always have been considered in their original form, drawing even greater attention to the importance of using the same words. This was for the same reasons as those explained extensively by Borghini, i.e., that the modification of any text leads automatically to its irreparable corruption.<sup>68</sup>

From these analyses on the genre of ecclesiastical chronotaxis, carried out during the Renaissance, and its method, it is possible to draw some general conclusions which may provide another perspective on the subject.

The first is that the number of publications of printed chronotaxes appears to have increased after the mid-sixteenth century, in conjunction with the consolidation of the Protestant Reformation. It is clear that the number of editions published after the 1540s is much higher than in the decades before. Of course, the catalogue presented above represents only a limited sample of the entire production of chronotaxes throughout Europe in the early modern period; however, it can be used to present a rough indication of some of the wider dynamics connected to the genre.

This leads to the second conclusion. Ecclesiastical chronotaxes appear to have a didactic function with a moral connotation. In most cases, the authors openly declare their intent to encourage the incumbent bishop or pope to follow the virtuous example of his predecessors. This inclination should be included among the reforming tendencies of the entire clergy that pervaded the Church after the

68 Ughelli 1644, *Praef*.: "Nulli labori pepercimus, publicas Ecclesiarum Tabulas scrutati sumus, privatorum diaria adivimus, Ephemeridas factorum inspeximus, consuluimus marmora, legimus inscriptiones, Sepulchralia Elogia non despeximus, rerum scriptores habuimus in consilio, Imperatorum, Regum, Pontificumque diplomata, ubi commode occurrerunt, quasi duces narrationis secuti sumus, ut incerta certius eliminare, jugulare absurda, vera cum laude, atque ab omni affectu liberi enarrare possemus [...] In recensendis autem instrumentis, privilegiis, donationibus, aliisque similibus antiquis monumentis, ipsissima verba, tametsi plerumque barbara, ac prope ridicula bona fide placuit referre, ne antiquitatis simplicissimum candorem elegantioribus verbis viderentur corrumpere".

<sup>67</sup> Borghini 1585, 342: "Io per me non mi recherò a vergogna, lasciandone indietro una buona parte; anzi crederrò, che sia bene, con l'esempio, e col fatto proprio, non solamente con le parole, cavare delle scritture, e dell'opinioni l'abuso di costoro, e che forse regna ancora in alcuni, di dirsi (come diciamo per via di motti) le bugie, e crederlesi […] e mi scuserà la poca notizia, che ci è in questa sorte di storia de' tempi antichi, perché generalmente di questi Vescovi, che hanno la cura sola della chiesa loro, e non alcuno imperio, o signoria nel temporale, o sopra alcun'altra Chiesa primato, non parlano ordinariamente gli Scrittori delle Cronache universali".

beginning of the fifteenth century.<sup>69</sup> Thus, in an attempt to respond to the new spiritual demands emerging from the disputes with Protestants, the genre of chronotaxis also appears to have had an anti-corruption function regarding the clergy within the hierarchies.

The third conclusion is that ecclesiastical chronotaxes had the function of legitimising the institution to which they referred: reconstructing the episcopal lineage from its origins meant reinforcing the ideal structure of the diocese by demonstrating its real continuity in time. Here came the 'right to exist' of each episcopate, since its foundation was rooted in a divine manifestation.

Given the data collected, it is possible to hypothesise that the breakout of the Protestant Reformation encouraged scholars to direct their efforts even more rapidly towards linking the dioceses with an apostolic foundation, for the purpose of reinforcing the link with the origins of the Church. This was in fact the most crucial aspect of the entire issue: the apostolic genesis conferred upon the episcopal office a 'divine right' (*ius divinum*), with its authority derived directly from Christ without any mediation, thereby further supporting its legitimacy. Nevertheless, this right could have been quite ambiguous, especially if interpreted by those who sought to reduce or even abolish the 'pontifical right' on the episcopacy (*ius pontificium*), to which all the dioceses were subjected owing to the dogma of the primacy of Peter. It was not only that Protestant scholars, who repudiated the ecclesiastical hierarchies, attempted to undermine the power of the Roman pontiff; they were also joined by Catholics who sought greater independence for their national church.<sup>70</sup>

The argument could be made that this conflict is reflected in the works of the Spanish scholars Francisco Padilla and Gil González de Ávila, who traced back the foundation of the Church of Spain to St. James, and of the English scholar Matthew Parker, who believed either St. Paul or St. Simon to be the founder of the Church of England.

These secessionist ideas began to be voiced by the Spanish prelates at the Council of Trent during the discussions of the 'episcopal issue' in 1563, with greater sovereignty demanded from the Church of Rome, and a demand to exclude pontifical interference from the divine right of the episcopacy.<sup>71</sup>

On the other hand, the episcopal chronotaxis, even if spreading from a reformed environment, was arranged for the purpose of confirming the ecclesiastical hierarchies inherited by the Anglican Church. In this way, Parker sought to support the original independence of the Church of England, openly legitimising the schism that


<sup>69</sup> Hay 1971.

had occurred thirty years before. Therefore, even on this occasion, the apostolic descent ended up reinforcing the existence of the institution but severing bonds with the Roman Catholics.

However, what emerges from the Italian, French, and German publications appear to be quite different. In the Italian context, it is clear that the scholars attempted to connect the dioceses directly to St. Peter and hence to a pontifical foundation, as demonstrated by the cases of Vincenzio Borghini, Gaspare Mosca, and Carlo Bascapè. The reason for this tendency remains uncertain, but the local episcopates may have attempted to increase their influence on the territory by strengthening their ties with the Roman Curia. This could also be supported by the work of Ughelli, which portrayed Italy as the most virtuous herald of the Christian religion in Europe – perhaps in an attempt to reinforce its role in competition with the other national churches.

A similar attitude can be observed in France and Germany. In the cases of Caspar Brusch, Antoine De Mouchy, Jean Chenu, and Claude Robert, the intention was to trace back the birth of their dioceses to the disciples of St. Peter, probably for the purpose of reinforcing the bond with the Roman Catholic Church in the period of spiritual and political crisis that led to the religious wars.<sup>72</sup> In fact, the declaration of direct descent from Rome, for instance, by the dioceses of Mainz and Reims (which elected the emperor and consecrated the kings of France, respectively) was intended to reaffirm the Church's power over these secular and political institutions.

Furthermore, given the political situation in France between the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the question arises as to the nature of the relationship between the chronotaxes promoted by these scholars (all Catholics) and the work carried out in 1594 by Pierre Pithou on the freedom of the French National Church, *Les libertez de l'eglise Gallicane*. <sup>73</sup> This intersection of contrasting cultural perspectives is likely to shed greater light on the complex weave of connections that various scholarly environments may have had with the political and ecclesiastical establishment.

72 Roelker 1996, 226-72.

73 However, these actions must be considered in relation to the research conducted on the independence of the Church of France, which is well expressed by the treatise of Pierre Pithou on the original freedom of the Church of Gaul; see Pithou 1594.

The ecclesiastical chronotaxes were used mainly in a Catholic environment for the purpose of enhancing the institution under examination, either by consolidating or dissolving the bond with Rome. When used by the Protestants, however, chronotaxes always had a polemical implication and were constantly related to the work of Bartolomeo Platina, who was generally considered close to Protestant authors. As can be seen in the opening poem of Bale's treatise *Onus seu prophetia Romae*, written by the English Puritan Lawrence Humphrey (1526-89), Platina ranked just behind Luther among the most important authors to criticise the Roman Papacy ("Plurima Lutherus patefecit, Platina multa | Quaedam Vergerius, cuncta Baleus habet"). In fact, the objective of the two chronotaxes created by the Protestant scholars Kaspar Hedio and John Bale was to demonstrate that the Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy had incorporated evil manifestations over the centuries.

In response to these aggressions aimed at overthrowing the secular structure of the Catholic Church, Catholic scholars began to put the explanation of the method applied before their chronotaxes. By describing the sources taken into consideration and the antiquarian approach towards them, the data collected were deemed to be more reliable and trustworthy, providing actual, tangible evidence in support of the examples of virtue bequeathed by each episcopal lineage. In this way, material evidence of sanctity, the purpose of which was to confirm the full legitimacy and the full right of the episcopal institution to exist, became an instrument in confessional disputes. The words of Gaspare Mosca on the true nature of chronotaxes and how were they perceived by the Catholic world offer a clear reading of this tendency, displaying the constitution of the City of God in the eternal and holy succession of bishops:<sup>74</sup>

Sicut contra, Dei Civitatem perpetua, sanctissimaque Episcoporum successione constitutam, nos Catholici ubique ostendimus, et exhibemus.

# **Appendix**

# **Confessional Translations of ἐπίσκοπος**

During the Renaissance, when Europe was undergoing a deep cultural and spiritual change owing to fragmentation in the unity of western Christianity, a complex process of 'self-definition' of 'confessional identity' took place. The history of the Church became the battleground for determining and shaping a reformed Christian religion, where Protestants and Catholics struggled to define their legitimacy. Antiquarian erudition played a key role in this process, acting according to diverse cultural systems. Consequently, the revision of ecclesiastical vocabulary became one of the primary methods to influence ideas, so that philology was one the most important tools to reach this objective. The understanding and interpretation of the words of sacred or venerable texts implied control over a traditional knowledge – a control which had tangible effects in the present. Translations of old church histories illustrate very well how literary outcomes were conditioned by the religious ideology of the editors and interpreters. One particular case regarded the Greek word ἐπίσκοπος, not frequently mentioned in the Sacred Scripture,<sup>75</sup> and which was translated in Latin with different terms, such as *episcopus*, *minister*, *sacerdos* or others.<sup>76</sup>

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Reformation & Renaissance Review* 19 (2017), 19-29.

75 The word ἐπίσκοπος does not occur very often in the Sacred Scripture, and not always with a same meaning. It appears five times in the New Testament, once in the Acts of the Apostles (*Act*. 20:28 προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου), three times in Paul's letters (*Philipp*. 1:1 Παῦλος καὶ Τιμόθεος δοῦλοι Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις; 1 *Timoth*. 3:2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον, σώφρονα, κόσμιον, φιλόξενον, διδακτικόν; and *Tit*. 1:7 δεῖ γὰρ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνέγκλητον εἶναι ὡς θεοῦ οἰκονόμον, μὴ αὐθάδη, μὴ ὀργίλον, μὴ πάροινον, μὴ πλήκτην, μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ), and once in Peter's letter (1 *Petr*. 2:25 ἦτε γὰρ ὡς πρόβατα πλανώμενοι, ἀλλὰ ἐπεστράφητε νῦν ἐπὶ τὸν ποιμένα καὶ ἐπίσκοπον τῶν ψυχῶν ὑμῶν). It occurs also several times in the Old Testament, in the Septuagint (*Num*. 4:16 ἐπίσκοπος Ελεαζαρ υἱὸς Ααρων τοῦ ἱερέως; *Num*. 31:14 ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐπισκόποις τῆς δυνάμεως; *Judic*. 9:28 καὶ Ζεβουλ ἐπίσκοπος; 4 *Reg*. 11:15 τοῖς ἐπισκόποις τῆς δυνάμεως; 4 *Reg*. 11:18 καὶ ἔθηκεν ὁ ἱερεὺς ἐπισκόπους εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου; 4 *Reg*. 12:12 τὰ ἔργα τῶν ἐπισκόπων οἴκου κυρίου; 2 *Paralip*. 34:12 καὶ ἐπ' αὐτῶν ἐπίσκοποι; 2 *Esdr*. 21:14 καὶ Ιωηλ υἱὸς Ζεχρι ἐπίσκοπος; 2 *Esdr*. 21:22 καὶ ἐπίσκοπος Λευιτῶν; 1 *Machab*. 1:51 ἐποίησεν ἐπισκόπους; *Job* 20:29 παρὰ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου; *Sap*. 1:6 καὶ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ ἐπίσκοπος ἀληθὴς; *Is*. 60:17 καὶ δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ).

76 In the corresponding passages of the Old Testament, Jerome's Vulgata opts for *sacerdos* (*Num*. 4:16; *Num*. 31:4; 4 *Reg*. 11:15; 4 *Reg*. 11:18), *servus* (*Judic*. 9:28), *praepositus* (2 *Paralip*. 34:12; *Is*. 60:17), *scrutator* (*Sap*. 1:6). In the New Testament, Jerome always choses *episcopus* (*Act*. 20:28; *Philipp*. 1:1; 1 *Timoth*. 3:2; *Tit*. 1:7; 1 *Petr*. 2:25).

This particular aspect, however, turned out to be problematic in how Renaissance scholars made use of it, especially when evoked in polemical contexts. In fact, the discourse around ἐπίσκοπος and its renditions in other languages, in a broader scale, also involved the issue of episcopacy that revolved around election and the role of the bishops in ecclesiastical hierarchies.<sup>77</sup>

Largely speaking, many Protestants wanted to abolish the office, while Catholics attempted to reinforce its authority. The controversy originates in 1520 with the publication of Luther's *De captivitate babylonica*. In the section *De ordine*, he denied the divine origin of the church hierarchy. Luther listed the different components of the ecclesiastical structure, priests, bishops, cardinals, popes etc. – the clerical or spiritual estate – identifying all the offices created by the Catholic Church, intending to downgrade their status and even abolish them in light of Scripture; from this it can be alleged that all Christians are priests in view of the doctrine of the universal priesthood of all believers.<sup>78</sup> This first formulation was followed by the more complex reflection of Jean Calvin (1509-1564). In 1543, he published a new edition of his *Institutio Christianae religionis*, where he includ-

77 This specific feature of Renaissance humanism in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation fits into a broader discussion on the relationship between spiritual and temporal power; see Jedin, Prodi 1979, 65-75; for discussions of the episcopacy topic in this era see, for example, Barrie-Curien, Vernard 2001, and Prosperi 1986. For early-modern Catholic writings on the ideal bishop, see Jedin 1950, and Broutin 1953.

78 Luther 1520, 74-82 [*De ordine*], especially 78: "Sic enim i. Pet. ii [9], dicitur, 'Vos estis genus electum, regale sacerdotium', et sacerdotale regnum. Quare, omnes sumus sacerdotes, quotquot Christiani sumus, Sacerdotes vero vocamus, ministri sunt ex nobis electi, qui nostro nomine omnia faciant. Et sacerdotium aliud nihil est, quam ministerium".

Considering this comparison, it appears that when he translated directly from the Hebrew Old Testament, Jerome never used the Latin *episcopus*; while translating from the Greek New Testament, he always adopted the transliteration of the Greek form ἐπίσκοπος. This may have confirmed to readers the actual establishment of a specific category of prelates, i.e., the bishops (*episcopus*/ἐπίσκοπος) during the Christian era, which ended up supporting or at least shaping the idea of a hierarchy within the Church. However, if one considers the several translations of polyglot Bibles carried out during the Renaissance, it is possible to notice a different situation. For example, in *Num*. 4:16 the Antwerp Polyglot Bible reports Jerome's version *sacerdos*, uses *episcopus* to render the Greek translation of the Septuaginta, and adopts again *sacerdos* (in line with Jerome) to translate the so-called Chaldean Paraphrase (see *Polyg*. 1569-73, 1: 456-7). While for the Old Testament the situation appears rather fixed, the Latin translations of the New Testament become more problematic. For example, Immanuel Tremellius, even when accepting the Latin transliteration *episcopus* in the five occurrences in which the Greek text of the New Testament reads ἐπίσκοπος, according to Jerome's Vulgata, when it came to the corresponding passages of the Latin translation carried out on the Chaldaic paraphrase (the Peshitta), he used *episcopus* only once (Tremellius 1569, 397b-398a [*Act*. 20:28]), opting in most of the cases for alternative forms: *senior* (Tremellius 1569, 560b-561a [*Phil*. 1:1]; 610b-611a [*Tit*. 1:7]), *presbyter* (Tremellius 1569, 594b-595a [1 *Timoth*. 3:2]), and *curator* (Tremellius 1569, 662b-663a [1 *Petr*. 2:25]).

ed a long excursus on the nature of ecclesiastical order. The elimination of the traditional offices of the church hierarchy also followed from a philological analysis of the biblical text that reinforced Protestant thought with a deep consciousness of the original source. In this light, Calvin affirmed that the existence of the hierarchical ministry derived from a linguistic misunderstanding.<sup>79</sup> He stated that all the words (bishop, priest, presbyter, pastor) identifying the different ecclesiastical offices in the Holy Writ were confusing and ambiguous, inferring that they were interchangeably used. From such a viewpoint, a quasi-equivalence in the role of bishops, presbyters and pastors resulted, thereby undermining the legitimacy of hierarchies and the effective power of bishops over the other ministers and priests.

To confirm the existence of the apostolic institution of the episcopacy in the beginning of the Church, Catholics generally referred to the *Constitutiones apostolicae*, a Greek patristic work of Clement I (100 CE) as a witness to the apostolic and papal ordination of bishops. It was held that the Clementine Constitutions represented an ancient text on how the bishop's mandate was included in the evangelical mission governed by the Holy Spirit. This work was published for the first time in 1563, edited by the Spanish scholar, Francisco Torres (1509-1586), even though it was previously known through a manuscript circulation.80 The first Latin version, titled *De constitutionibus apostolicis*, was issued in the same year, by Giovanni C. Bovio

79 Calvin 1543, 168-9 and 467-72, especially 170: "Caeterum quod Episcopos et presbyteros et pastores et ministros promiscue vocavi, qui Ecclesias regunt, id feci ex scripturae usu, quae vocabula ista confundit". It may be that Calvin was influenced also by the first meditations on the text carried out by Erasmus, who did not consider the acknowledged meaning of the word *episcopus* (bishop) as perfectly adherent with the meaning of the Greek text, in *Philip*. 1:1; see Erasmus 1516, 535: "*Cum episcopis*] Graecis unica dictio est coepiscopis συνεπισκόποις, quasi communicet suum officium, cum illorum presbyteris. Quanque hic graeca variant exemplaria, et in nonnullis scriptum erat σὺν ἐπισκόποις, idest una cum episcopis". It is very likely instead that Theodore Beza kept in mind both Erasmus and Calvin while writing his gloss at *Philip*. 1:1; see Beza 1559, 654-5: "Una cum episcopis, σὺν ἐπισκόποις. Qui uni vocabulo coniunctim legunt συνεπισκόποις, tollunt pulcherrimam Ecclesiae partium distributionem quae hic statuitur a Paulo. Primum enim nominat omnes sanctos, idest vel ipsum Ecclesiae corpus, ex quo postea sigillatim quosdam eximit, vel grege, universum seorsim ab iis quo praeerant. Deinde eos qui Ecclesiam regebant, duorum generumfacit, episcopos ac dioconos. Episcopos igitur intelligit quicunque verbo et gubernationi praeerant, puta pastores, doctores et presbyteros, παρὰ τῶν ἐπισκόπων, quod illos oporteat, quasi speculatores, in doctrinam et mores comissi gregis inquirere".

80 Torres 1563; the understanding of these texts occurred previously in two letters from the Spanish bishop, Antonio Agustín, in the attempt to help Onofrio Panvinio prepare his papal chronotaxes; see Carbonell 1991, 195-200: "Quanto alli Patriarchi mostrerò a M. Agnolo vostra lettera, ed esso vi risponderà: Io desidero che vedesti bene delli decretali, nel decreto, nel sesto, nelle clementine, et extravaganti, et nelli concilii la memoria di tutti questi cardinali, et vescovi, che cercate. Son certo che troverete più d'uno et vi confermarete in molti" (27 November 1557), and 373-5: "Dalle costituzioni apostoliche di Clemente si desumono le ordinazioni vescovili fatte dagli apostoli" (6 April 1559). See also Strada 1557b and Panvinio 1557, which acknwoledge a (1522-1570), bishop of Ostuni. The words of Clement I, a witness of episcopal elections, seemed to confirm the existence of episcopacy since the origins of Christianity.81 It was held that the Apostles appointed a number of bishops, and the use of a canonical handbook on the appointment of bishops underlined its institutional significance. Connecting the ordination of bishops directly to the Apostles meant affirming that the entire episcopal succession which followed had divine authority; this ended up reinforcing the legitimacy of the traditional church hierarchy and monarchical episcopacy, corroborated by textual evidence.

In direct opposition to the contents of the *Constitutiones* were some passages of the Magdeburg Centuries (1559-1574), written by a pool of Protestant historians led by the Croatian theologian, Matija Vlačić, also known as Mathias Flacius. In the section *De propagatione*, on the origin and diffusion of the primitive Church, the authors stated that the spread of the divine Word was accomplished by the Apostles and by some unspecified subordinate figures, omitting reference to the official investiture of bishops.82 The general vagueness of these words was explained by the Centuriators as being due to the general scarcity of primary sources for the period. As a result of this documentary deficit and vacuum,83 it was possible for Protestant writers to advance their own points of view.

The Centuriators did not cite the *Constitutiones*. Instead, they used a passage of the *Historia ecclesiastica* written by the Greek Church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260-340). Eusebius referred to a passage in Clement of Alexandria (ca. 145-220), in which the Apostle

82 Flacius 1559, 1: 2.2: "Postquam vero a mortuis resurrexit, delectis quibusdam personis, videlicet Apostolis, quibus tamen etiam alii nonnulli sunt adiuncti, verum inferiori gradu, expresse et publice demandavit, ut deinceps non tantum in finibus Iudaeae seu Palestine docerent, sed in totum mundum excurrerent, adnunciantes Evangelium, et imprimentes Sacramenta gratiae ab ipso Christo insistuta".

83 Flacius 1559, 2: 2.6: "Iam et hoc adiiciendum erat, quomodo ecclesia Christi in alia atque alia loca in hoc seculo propagata fuerit, sed tam pauca de ea re ad nostram usque memoriam pervenerunt, ut dolendum sit, tam praeclara beneficia Dei tanto silentio sepulta".

list of sources useful in the study of ecclesiastical chronology, including also Clement of Rome's *Constitutiones apostolicae*.

<sup>81</sup> Bovio 1564, 152b-153a : "*Qui missi ordinati sint ab Apostolis*. Haec de Catechumenis praecipienda duximus. De ordinatis autem a nobis Episcopis in vita nostra, significamus vobis quod ii sunt. […] Ii sunt, quibus nos in Domino commissimus. Quorum doctrinae memores, ex omni parte obtemperate nostris sermonibus"; 159b-160a : "*Invocatio ordinationis Episcoporum*. […] Da in nomine tuo scrutator cordium Deus huic servo tuo, quem eligisti Episcoporum, pascere sanctum gregem tuum, et fungi Pontificatu tibi"; 177a : "De ordinatione Presbyterorum ego dilectus a Domino dispono vobis Episcopis. Cum ordinas Presbyterum, o Episcope, manum super caput Presbyteri ipse impone assistentibus tibi Diaconis, et orando dic".

John among others appointed ministers (*ministros*).84 The word *ministros* was a translation of the Greek ἐπισκόπους; 85 it recalls the synonymic dittology, *sacerdotibus ac ministris*, found in the ancient Latin translation of Eusebius's work created by the monk, Rufinus of Aquileia (ca. 345-410), published in the *Autores historiae ecclesiasticae*, and edited by Beatus Rhenanus and others.<sup>86</sup> The version of the same passage of Eusebius presented in the *Annales ecclesiastici* (1583-1607) of Cesare Baronio (1538-1607) is radically different: the word ἐπισκόπους was transliterated with the Latin *episcopos*. 87 The contrast between the translations of the Magdeburg Centuries and the *Annales*, determined by confessional positions, demonstrated the will to confer a new meaning (and function) to the figure of the ἐπίσκοπος in early Christianity: in the case of the Catholics, a high office in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, while an officiating minister for most Protestant Reformers.

Such a range in meaning is even more evident if one considers that this same Eusebius's passage was translated in the same way in the Latin of the Magdeburg Centuries, but with a different sense. This was in its section, *De gubernatione Ecclesiae*, paragraph: *Argumenta contra primatum Petri*, where the word ἐπισκόπους was rendered as *episcopos*, as was indeed the case in Baronio, but with a substantially opposite intent.<sup>88</sup> In this case, the Centuriators seemed to have transformed the semantics of the word. That is to say: if John the Evangelist had gone to Asia to consecrate bishops (whose ordi-

86 *Rufin. Aquil. Hist. Eccl.* 3.23 (Rhenanus 1535, 81): "Cum post tyranni obitum de Pathmos insula Ephesum rediret. Rogabatur etiam vicinas lustrare provincias, quo vel ecclesias fundaret, in quibus non erant locis: vel in quibus erant, sacerdotibus ac ministris instrueret, secundum quod ei de uno quoque Spiritus Sanctus indicasset".

87 Baronio 1588, 700: "Ubi vero tyranno mortuo, ex insula Patmo erat Ephesum reversus, quorundam rogatu ad finitimas gentes proficiscitur, hic Episcopos constiturus, illic integras Ecclesias rite dispensaturus, alibi certos homines, sibi Spiritus Sancti instinctu demonstratos, in clerum delecturus".

88 Flacius 1559, 1: 2.528: "Refert Eusebius ex Clemente libro 3 cap. 23 Ioannem ab exilio revocatum, moderatum esse ecclesias Asiana, et constituisse, et ordinasse episcopos. Id vero omnino fuisset crimen laesae maiestatis, et in alienam messem mittere falcem, si Romanos episcopos solis ordinandi episcopos potestatem habuisset in Asia, in toto orbe terrarum".

<sup>84</sup> Flacius 1559, 2: 2.7: "Ac de Iohanne evangelista Clemens scriptum reliquit, (ut habet Eusebius libro 3 capite 22) eum post restitutionem suam sub Traiano factam, ad vicina quoque gentium loca exivisse, uti ibi Ecclesias et ministros constituerent".

<sup>85</sup> Euseb. *Chron. Eccl.* 3.23.5-7 ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τοῦ τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου τῆς νήσου μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἔφεσον, ἀπῄει παρακαλούμενος καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ πλησιόχωρα τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὅπου μὲν ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, ὅπου δὲ ὅλας ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων, ὅπου δὲ κλῆρον ἕνα γέ τινα κληρώσων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος σημαινομένων"; Clem. Alex. *Div. Salv.* 42.2 ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τοῦ τυράννου τελευτήσαντος ἀπὸ τῆς Πάτμου τῆς νήσου μετῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἔφεσον, ἀπῄει παρακαλούμενος καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ πλησιόχωρα τῶν ἐθνῶν, ὅπου μὲν ἐπισκόπους καταστήσων, ὅπου δὲ ὅλας ἐκκλησίας ἁρμόσων, ὅπου δὲ κλῆρον ἕνα γέ τινα κληρώσων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος σημαινομένων.

nations should only have been performed by the 'popes' or Roman bishops), then he would have committed the offence of lese-majesty. Nonetheless, considering that he had ordained some ἐπισκόπους, as written in the patristic text, the meaning of the word had to be different from the one generally acknowledged – and so *ministros* instead of *episcopos*, as in the other translation of the same passage.

This re-semanticization is pushed even further in the Magdeburg Centuries, where ἐπίσκοπος/*episcopus* substantially corresponded to πρεσβύτερος/*presbyter*, thereby downgrading the level of the figure of the bishop to an ordinary priest (*presbyter* or *minister*), close to the Reformed notion of ministerial parity. Among the many examples that can be found in this work,<sup>89</sup> it is interesting to underline a passage of the section *De politia seu gubernatione Ecclesiae*, paragraph *Discrimina personarum*, in which these two words are frankly defined as equivalent.<sup>90</sup> Accordingly, the renderings from Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History display a consistent philological awareness in the authors. The generic ministros appeared in the historical narratives, while *episcopos* was used in a polemical key in controversies, where the same meaning defended by the Catholics could be employed as antiphrasis.

In light of the above and to understand better the cultural dynamics set in motion, it is informative to see the definition of the word ἐπίσκοπος in other translations of Eusebius (both Latin and vernacular) made during the sixteenth century. If the translations into Italian, French and Spanish are considered – thus remaining in a Catholic context – an indifferent usage of the term emerges:<sup>91</sup>


<sup>89</sup> Flacius 1559, 1: 2, 400-13: *De ministerio Evangelico docendi et administrandi sacramenta*.

<sup>90</sup> Flacius 1559, 1: 2, 508: "Nam episcopi et presbyteri pro issdem accipiuntur" and 403: "Episcopus, Actor. 20, Phil. 1.1, Tim 3, Tit. 2, ubi episcopus et presbyter pro eodem accipiuntur".

<sup>91</sup> Seyssel 1532, 36a : "Apres la mort du Tyrant Romain, revenant icelluy Sainct Iehan de l'isle de Pathmos a Ephese estoit requis et presse d'aller visiter et illustrer les autres provinces voisines pour fonder des Eglises lo ou il nen y avoit point, et la ou il en y avoit pour instruire les prebstres et les ministres de toutes choses, seolon que le Sainct Esprit luy avoit revele"; Euseb. 1541, 20a : "Bolviendo el apostol de la isla de Pathmos rogaron le que visitasse las provincias comarcanas, o para fundar iglesias do no las avia, o para informa alos sacerdotes donde ya estavan edificadas, segun que en ambas cosas el Espiritu Sancto le inspirasse"; Tramezzino 1547, 68a : "Egli, dopo la morte del tiranno ritornato dall'isola di Patmo in Efeso, era pregato di visitare anchora le provincie vicine, si per fondare la Chiesa in que' luoghi dove non era, o dove erano ordinarle di sacerdoti et di ministri, secondo che dallo Spiritosanto gli fusse ordinato di ciascuno".

From the comparison of these extracts, all directly deriving from Rufinus's ancient Latin version of Eusebius, it emerges that the translations coincide with those of the Magdeburg Centuries. However, the fact that these vernaculars were translated from the Latin of Rufinus, probably without consulting the original Greek version, demonstrates that they did not feel the need to consider deeply the nature of the text they were working on.

Things changed considerably in the following decades. The two Latin translations of Eusebius, deriving directly from Greek without Rufinus's mediation demonstrate a more complex and stratified picture. The first was provided by the English Marian bishop, John Christopherson (d. 1558) and published posthumously in 1569. His Latin stated:<sup>92</sup>

hic episcopos constiturus

The second, from Swiss Protestant circles, was published in 1570 by Michael Rapenberger and Kaspar Herwagen (1528-1577), with some commentary by Johann J. Gryner. This version had:<sup>93</sup>

ut partim constitueret episcopos

In these two versions, surprisingly, the translations coincide. In the first case, what must be kept in mind is that the author was a Catholic bishop, who under the reign of Mary I (1553-58) helped restore Roman Catholicism in England. Therefore, the transliteration of ἐπίσκοπος to *episcopus* results naturally and provides a precedent for Baronio.

Much different was the second case, in which the translators could have used *sacerdotes*, *ministri* or *presbyteri* in line with the Magdeburg Centuries. However, this interpretation can be better understood if one considers one of Gryner's later works, *De episcopo Christiano* of 1586. At the beginning of this, the Swiss Reformed theologian was interested in establishing the semantic and lexical equivalence of the words bishop and shepherd (*episcopus* – *pastor*) through an etymological analysis. More than once, their synonymy was reiterated to the extent that the absolute hierarchical equivalence of the

<sup>92</sup> Christopherson 1569, 52a : "Ubi vero, Tyranno mortuo, ex insula Patmo erat Ephesum reversus, quorundam rogatu ad finitimas gentes proficiscitur. Hic Episcopos constiturus, illic integras Ecclesias rite dispensaturus, alibi certos homines sibi Spiritus Sancti instinctu demonstratos Clerum delecturus". This translation is mentioned by Vessey 1997, 809.

<sup>93</sup> Herwagen, Rapenberger 1570, 37: "Post mortem tyranni, quum ex insula Patmo Ephesium reversus esset, abiit etiam rogatus, ad vicina gentium loca, ut partim constiueret episcopos, partim totas ecclesias componeret, partim clerum ex his quos Spiritus Sanctus indicasset, sorte deligeret".

terminology was affirmed.<sup>94</sup> The authority of the role was led back to an original unity; and if someone would have denied it, it was due to ignorance. So considered, *episcopus* was the equivalent of *minister – pastor – sacerdos*: this encourages one to believe that a sophisticated debate existed in contemporary controversies, since Rapenberger and Herwagen would have considered fully legitimate the use of a Protestant interpretation of a term that was of historic Catholic usage.

This semantic variability can be also found in the English Reformed translation of the Bible, published in Geneva between 1557 and 1560 by a team of exilic English churchmen led by William Whittingham (1524-1579). Here, several occurrences of the word bishop appear in the marginal gloss to Paul's Letters to Philippians (1:1), where the Apostle mentioned bishops and deacons. In the marginal notes it was stated that (a) "By bishops here he meaneth them that had charge of the worde and governing, as pastors doctors, elders"; and (b), further on, in the gloss to the 1 Timothy (3:1), after defining "the office of a bishoppe", there was noted: "whether he be pastor or elder".<sup>95</sup> In light of this, it emerges how this English use of the word 'bishop' reflected an accommodation to minister or shepherd of the Greek ἐπίσκοπος, not considering it as implying vertical authority. Hence, equalising the function of bishops to the one of pastors and elders reflected Luther and Calvin's thought on the nature of the different roles within the Church and anticipated the concept of Gryner.

This textual situation is to be considered also in relation both to the later Church of England, which adhered to an episcopal polity that preserved the hierarchical structure inherited from the Roman Catholic Church, and to other Protestant options like presbyterianism, congregationalism and independency current in Britain at the time.<sup>96</sup> The popular circulation of the Geneva Bible could be seen as undermining the worship and government of the English Church by

<sup>94</sup> Gryner 1586, 3: "IV. Est autem episcopus, seu pastor, seu presbyter (qui, inquam, laborat in sermone et doctrina 1. Tim. 5, 17) persona, ad hoc rite vocata, ut Ecclesiae commissae caussa in precibus et administratione sermonis perduret, clavibusque coelorum regni recte utatur. […] V. Nuncupatur primum Episcopus ab adiuncto, quia debet προσέχειν attendere toti gregi, Act. 20, 28 deinde pastor, a fine Θεοῦ, quia eius est ποιμαίνειν, pascere gregem Domini. 1. Petr. 5, 2 postremo, et presbyter, senior, ad differentiam τοῦ νεοφύτου, novitii, hoc est, eius qui recens conversus et Ecclesia insitus est. 1. Tim. 3, 6 Tit. 1, 5 non autem simpliciter iuvenilis aut senilis aetatis ratione. Nam de Timotheo, qui aetate iuvenis, virtute autem, et scientia Scripturarum sanctaru senex erat, dicitur. Nemo tuam iuventutem despiciat, sed esto exemplar fidelium in sermone, in conversatione, in charitate, in spiritu, in fide, in puritate 1. Tim 4, 12. Ex hisce liquet gradibus eminentiae eiusmodi Presbyteros, Pastores et Episcopos, neutiquam differre: sed parem esse eorum omnium auctoritatem: ac inscitiam esse, si quis Pastori Episcopum anteponat".

<sup>95</sup> Whittingham 1560.

<sup>96</sup> Biasori 2015, 227-31.

puritans in the late-sixteenth century. Partly for this reason, King James VI and I (1566-1625) promoted a new English translation of the Bible, known as the King James or Authorised Version, published in 1611. This eliminated all glosses and notes, and furnished a text subject to the highest authority of the Church of England (as specified even in the title: by his Majesty's special command). In this Bible, the word 'bishop' appears seven times, but with no gloss alluding to its semantic mutability. What emerges is how the theological impulses which influenced these translations reverberated in the linguistic context.

Greek and Latin lexicons, ecclesiastical, theological and polyglot dictionaries offer a spectrum of the development of this issue: the sense of ἐπίσκοπος/*episcopus* appears to have varied according to the religious confession of the lexicographer. The entire issue of linguistic archaeology is well exemplified by the German Protestant theologian, Johann C. Dietrich (1612-1667). This was in his *Lexicon Novi Testamenti* published posthumously in 1680, about one century after the earlier debates, when a synthesis of the many opinions that had animated the councils and the synods of the sixteenth century became possible.97 Dietrich approached the issue from a philological point of view, just like the Centuriators and Gryner. He underlined the equivalence of meaning of the Greek words ἐπίσκοπον and πρεσβύτερον in the Early Church, and he added that the difference between the two words was only nominal. Subsequently, he recalled the associations which led to the later substantial distinction between the two forms namely, two modes of ordination implying at first different duties and then specific powers and privileges for one but not for the other. This referred to the power and the right on the part of the *episcopus* to ordain priests, a function denied to the presbyter. Therefore, owing to these differences, the prestige of one position started to exceed the other and to mark the difference. The sanction of tradition for the term *episcopus* is identified by Dietrich at precise historical moment, when Jerome (ca. 347-420) chose to ac-

<sup>97</sup> Dietrich 1680, 318-19: "Certe apostolicum aevum nullum agnoscit discrimen inter ἐπίσκοπον et πρεσβύτερον, inter quos discrimen deinde factum procedente aetate. Prima nova aetate Ecclesiae, quae erat temporibus Apostolicis, unum eundemque ordinem in ordine gradum constituebant Episcopi et Presbyteri, re iidem ipsi, appellationis tantum sono differentes. Postea factum, ut primum una res scilicet χειροτονία sive ordinatio distingueret; et differre faceret a Presbyteris Episcopos. Accedente tempore accesserunt et aliae res, quae differentiam ordinum constituerent. Ordinandi potestas et ius solis Episcopis concessa, negata Presbyteris. […] Honoratius tum nomen Episcopi heberi coepit, postquam in maiore quam Presbyter honori gradu collocatus fuit. Ecclesiae solius institutione et usu major Episcopatus factus Presbyterio. Olim antiqua non fuerat sic, uti Episcopi nulla erat auctoritas supra Presbyterem, nulla erat inter utrumque differentia […] Hieronymus vero, ejus tempore Episcopi majore Presbyteris, nihil movendum aut mutandum censuit de recepto tum in Ecclesia more. Non juris esse divini illam differentiam, sed Ecclesiastici usus ab Hieron. scriptum ingenue".

cept without restriction all that had evolved in the customs and usages of the Church up to his time. This situation was authoritative not so much by virtue of divine right (*iure divino*) as by church tradition (*ecclesiastici usus*). However, with the weakening of the direct and consequential relationship between developing episcopal office and the proclamation of the Word through the Apostles, the office was arguably illegitimate, since it was not grounded in a direct emanation of the Holy Spirit in time, as originally.

Therefore, it is in light of these passages that one can interpret the position of the Magdeburg Centuries in which the first consecration of bishops is dated back to Pope Evaristus (100-105); reference was made to the fifteenth-century treatise – later republished frequently – on the lives of the Roman popes by Bartolomeo Platina.<sup>98</sup> The original passage of Platina described the variable tradition in the ecclesiastical rankings at the base of the hierarchy, and in which one can clearly notice the effective bifurcation of the duties as described by Dietrich.<sup>99</sup> In this case, the Centuriators were interested in underlining that the episcopal appointments took place in Rome, carried out by its bishop and not directly by now defunct Apostles.

The entire philological discussion has to be considered in relation to its potential doctrinal and ecclesial objectives. Indeed, during the Council of Trent, episcopacy was broadly discussed. An extremely sensitive issue, it caused unexpected jitters among the prelates, destabilising the united front of council participants.100 The discussion gave rise to the definition of the nature of the power of bishops and the ecclesiastical hierarchies that aimed at refuting Protestant notions on the matter. But this also became a problem for the Catholic Church itself, since it generated in turn internal tensions. The question of whether bishops derived their power from divine right (*de iure divino*) or pontifical right (*de iure pontificio*) had potentially enormous repercussions – especially on the aspiration to autonomy from

<sup>98</sup> Flacius 1559, 2: 1, 7: "Recenset Platina, Romanos episcopos huius aetatis plures ad diversa loca episcopos ordinasse: verum cum loci non exprimantur, fides penes scriptorem esto".

<sup>99</sup> Panvinio 1562, 13b: "At Evaristus (ut Damasius ait) titulos in urbe Roma presbyteris divisit, […] Ordinationes ter habuit mense Decembri, ac presbyteros sex, diaconos duos, episcopos per diversa loca numero quinque creavit".

<sup>100</sup> A memorable picture of the tension generated by issue of episcopacy during the Council of Trent is reported in Sarpi 1619, 579-652, especially 579: "non si doveva intender d'una superiorità immaginaria [quella del vescovo sul sacerdote], et consistente in una preheminenza, o perfettione d'azioni; ma d'una superiorità di governo, sì che possi far leggi, et precetti, et giudicar cause, così nel foro della coscienza, come nell'esteriore" and 583: "del resto il Vescovato è ben de iure Divino, sì che manco il Papa può fare che non vi siano Vescovi nella Chiesa, ma ciascuno d'essi Vescovi sono de iure Pontificio; di onde viene, che egli può creargli, trasferirgli, restringergli, et ampliargli la Diocesi, dargli maggior o minor autorità, sospendergli anco, et privargli, che non può in quello, che è de iure Divino".

papal authority among various national churches that gathered at the Council – each with the intent of advancing their own interests.<sup>101</sup>

These discussions took place between 1 October 1562 and 10 November 1563 when the specific canons were approved. In *De ecclesiastica hierarchia et ordinatione*, the hierarchical ranking was reaffirmed within the Church, structured by the threefold distinction of bishops, priests and deacons.102 The Council declared the superiority of the *episcopus* over the *presbyter* [priest], restating the direct succession from the Apostles and eliminating any semantic ambiguity. The power of bishops derived from the Holy Spirit, which consolidated the hierarchy. The fact that only bishops could ordain other Church ministers indicates clearly the respective roles in the hierarchical order. Crucially, it eliminated any potential translation of the Greek word ἐπίσκοπος with the more generic Latin *minister*.

From these 'confessional translations', it emerges that the shifting semantics of the word ἐπίσκοπος with all its potential variations was tied to the doctrinal propensities of each interpreter and institution.<sup>103</sup> The different literary outcomes, in Latin and in vernacular, had concrete repercussions on church law and the political life of the time: the Protestant usage of *minister* instead of *episcopus* could have subverted the basis of the institutions of the entire Catholic hierarchy and church government. In this light, philological and text critical analysis became fundamental either to challenge or vindicate the legitimacy of the traditional ecclesiastical structure.

103 A modern study dealing with this linguistic issue is by Penna 2011, 134-6; there, the original semantics of the Greek word ἐπίσκοπος in Paul's epistles is discussed. It does emerge that in early Christianity it was anachronistic to translate *episcopus* as 'bishop'.

<sup>101</sup> Once again according to the narration of Sarpi 1619, 580: "[disse] che il Vescovado è de iure Divino instituito da Christo per regger la Chiesa; che la Maestà sua ha instituito Vescovi tutti gl'Apostoli, quando gl'ha detto: Io vi mando, sì come son io stato dal Padre mandato: ma quella institutione fu personale, et con ciascuno di loro si doveva finire, et uno ne constituì, che perpetuamente dovesse durare nella Chiesa, che fu Pietro, quando disse, non a lui solo, ma a tutta la sua successione: Pasci le mie agnelle; et così intese Sant'Agostino quando disse, che Pietro rapresentava tutta la Chiesa, il che de nissun de gl'Apostoli fu mai detto", and 597: "Et chi leggerà il celebrato, et famoso Canone: Ita Dominus: si certificherà che così debbe tener ogni huomo Catholico, et così li Vescovi, che sono successori degl'Apostoli la ricevono tutta [la podestà] dal successor di Pietro".

<sup>102</sup> Denzinger 2009, 732: "*Sessio XXIII. 15 Iul. 1563: Doctrina et canones de sacramento ordinis.* […] *Cap. 4. De ecclesiastica hierarchia et ordinatione* […] Proinde sancta Synodus declarant, praeter ceteros ecclesiasticos gradus episcopos, qui in Apostolorum locum successerunt, ad hunc hierarchicum ordinem praecipue pertinere, et positos (sicut idem Apostolus ait) a Spiritu Sancto "regere Ecclesiam Dei" [*Act*. 20:28], eosque presbyteris superiors esse, ac sacramentum confirmationis conferre, ministros Ecclesiae ordinare, atque alia pleraque peragere Ipsos posse, quarum functionum potestatem reliqui inferioris ordinis nullam habent [*Can*. 7]".

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# 7 Conviviality **Ancient Banqueting**

**Summary** 7.1 First Developments. – 7.2 A General Paradigm. – 7.3 Banqueting and the Sacred Scriptures. – 7.4 Stucki's *Antiquitates Conviviales*. – 7.5 Literary Fortune. – 7.6 Conclusions.

# 7.1 First Developments

Several Renaissance works specifically mention ancient banquets, giving a stratified overview of the genesis and development of this branch of antiquarian erudition within the complex system of the tradition and infusion of classical knowledge. The first author to tackle the subject of banqueting, with strong reference to the classics, was Petrarch, who dedicated two whole chapters of his *De remediis utriusque fortunae* to the matter: *De lauto victu* (1.18) and *De conviviis* (1.19). These passages cannot be properly deemed antiquarian, since Petrarch's intentions were to reveal moral issues to be unfolded contextually and to critique the excessive wealth of the bourgeois lifestyle.<sup>1</sup> Nevertheless, while uncovering these problems, he often recalled sentences written by ancient authors. In this way, he anticipated the antiquarian method, which comprised the accumulation of ancient sources on specific terms<sup>2</sup> or aspects of the theme of banquet-

2 A significant example can be found in the discussions on the *parasitus*, a figure who was widely investigated in Renaissance discussions on banqueting. Petrarch *Rem.* 1.19:

> **Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Reformation & Renaissance Review* 16 (2014), 101-20.

<sup>1</sup> Petrarch *Rem*. 1.18-19.

ing and conviviality. Petrarch also initiated the use of lexical analysis, which then became commonplace in the philological anthologies assembled by the Renaissance antiquaries that followed.

In this light, it is possible to acknowledge all the following antiquarian surveys on banqueting as a development of these former analyses. For example, in his first *Miscellanea*, Angelo Poliziano explained the meaning of the so-called *coena hecalia*, starting from Plutarch's passage of *The Life of Theseus*; 3 Ermolao Barbaro discussed issues surrounding the number of table guests in his *Castigationes plianianae*, especially in the passage related to how many people should sit down to take part in a banquet;<sup>4</sup> in his *Cornucopia linguae latinae*, Niccolò Perotti provided a detailed discussion on vocabulary related to the semantics of cuisine (*coquo*, *coquus*, *coquinaria*) and dining (*caenatoria*);<sup>5</sup> Giovanni Pontano (1429-1503), in one

4 Barbaro 1493, XXVIII, 2 [10]: "*Nondum enim plures quam convivae numerabantur*] Deest numerus; propterea legi potest aut: "nondum enim plureas tribus convivae numerabantur", a numero videlicet Musarum quas tres initio fuisse tradit Pausanias: Meleten, Mnemen, Aoedem, hoc est Meditationem, Memoriam, Cantilenam [Pausan. 9.29.2-3], post a Piero Macedone inventas novem, quibus nunc feruntur vocalibus (ibid.), aut, si non tribus, saltem quatuor vel quinque. Archestratus poeta: ἔστωσαν δ' ἢ τρεῖς ἢ τέσσαρες οἱ ξυνάπαντες | ἢ τῶν πέντε γε μὴ πλείους· ἤδη γὰρ ἂν εἴη | μισθοφόρων ἁρπαξιβίων σκηνὴ στρατιωτῶν, hoc est: convivae aut tres aut quatuor aut non plures quinque sunto, alias manipularium et rapto viventium conventus fuerit [Athen. 1.7.4e]. Iulius Capitolinus in Vero: Eius – inquit – convivium tale fertur in quo primum duodecim accubuere, cum sit notissimum dictum de numero convivarum: septem convivium, novem convitium [*Hist. Aug.* 5.5.1]; etiam si Platonis Sumposium octo et viginti celebraverunt [Athen. 1.7.4e], in Timaeo quatuor aut quinque requiruntur illis verbis Εἷς, δύο, τρεῖς· ὁ δὲ δὴ τέταρτος [Plat. *Symp*. 17a]; et Athenaeus auctor est olim non plures quinque in convivium adhiberi solitos [Athen. 15.10.671a]". See also Pozzi 1973, 3: 951-2.

5 For example, while talking in general about the word *toga* (an ancient Roman garment), Perotti expands on the topic by focusing on the *toga triclinaris*, often used during meals, and from there moves on to the meaning of the word *caenatoria*, which relates to the rooms where the meals (especially dinner) were held; see Perotti 1489, 77: "Suetonius de Augusto. Forensia et calceos nunquam non intra cubiculum habuit [Suet. *Aug*. 73.1]. Toga triclinaris, cum qua discumbere in conviviis solebant [Varr. *ling.* 9.33.47]; haec coenatoria dicebantur [*Hist. Aug.* 19. (*Maximin*.) 30.5]. Martialis. Coenatoria mittat advocato [Mart. *epigr*. 10.87.8]. Idem de coenatoriis. Nec fora sunt nobis sed nec vadimonia nota | his opus est pictis accubuisse thoris [Mart. *epigr*. 14.136.1-2]. Vocabantur etiam recidipna compositio ex utraque lingua vocabulo. Recinium enim apud nos est vestis antiquissima quadrata, ut Varro refert, cuius mediam partem retrorsum iacie-

<sup>&</sup>quot;De parasitis brevem accipe regulam: dum illos affatim paveris, rodent, arridebunt, plaudent manibus, laudabunt virum optimum, liberalem, denique patrie patrem dicent, nichil ad ultimum Graie adulationis omiserint, de qua satyricus loquens adulandi gentem prudentissimam et comedam nationem asseruit, et reliqua pueris quoque notissima. Sin aliquando cessaveris, si quidem sponte, avarum, sordidum, miserum diffamabunt; sin inopia, homunculum non malum certe sed stolidum et ineptum, teque tuamque domum fugient ut scopulum. Tunc intelliges illud Flacci: Diffugiunt cadis | cum fece siccatis amici [Hor. *carm*. 1.35.25]".

<sup>3</sup> Poliziano 1489, XXIV: "Quaedam super Hecale anu in memoriam data: deque poesi Callimachi: tum ex epigrammatis priapeis expositum locus: et ime alter apud Statium: quodque vitiose legitur de eo in Apuleianis codicibus [Apul. *met*. 1.23]".

of his treatises on humanistic virtues, *De conviventia* (1498), which dealt with banqueting in general, often referred to ancient Greek and Latin literary sources on banqueting to explain or support his arguments;<sup>6</sup> *De honesta disciplina* (1504) by Pietro Crinito (1465- 1507) contained five chapters on banqueting features from various perspectives;<sup>7</sup> two years later (1506), Raffaele Maffei also dedicated four chapters to banqueting in his monumental *Commentaria Urbis Romae*; 8 in the *Antiquarum lectionum libri*, Celio Rodigino wrote about several issues regarding the specific vocabulary used for the feasts, focusing on gluttony and moderation in eating, hospitality, and general banqueting vocabulary, sometimes also with curious ethnographic digressions;<sup>9</sup> the *Geniales dies* by Alessandro D'Alessandro also devoted space to the matter, elucidating many nouns related to

6 Pontano 1498, 211-32: *Diversa esse conviviorum genera*; *Non esse repugnandum consuetudini in conviviis*; *De conviviis splendoris gratia susceptis*; *De secunda mensa*; *De conviviis honoris gratia susceptis*; *Qui et quales ahibendi sint convive*.

7 Crinito 1504, 113-14 [III.10 *De populis qui humana carne vescantur, et quae Hieronymus de Scotis, gente Britannica, scripserit*]; 296-7 [XIV.6 *De centenariis coenis, ac verba Tertulliani exposita, tum de lege Fannia, et militariis apris et columnis*]; 301-2 [XIV.11 *Qua urbanitate Antonius Geta imperator per litterarum ordinem convivia strueret, quibusque notis fercula ipsa paenotaret*]; 383-4 [XIX.10 *Locus elegans Heliogabali Imperatoris de suis conviviis in discumbendo, ac de sigmate etiam mensa, et quid ea voce apud Martialem poetam significetur*]. See also Angeleri 1955.

8 Maffei 1506, 752-5 [XXXII *De mensis ac cibis deque his quae ad ea pertinent, ac primum quis priscorum cibus*; *De conviviis*; *Tempus edendi et apposita mensae*; *De mensarum sumptu ac polyphagia*].

9 Ricchieri 1516, 354-6 [VII.45 *Gualae detestatio. Epaminundae historia. Frugalitatis laus. De Spartanis, Aegyptiis, Magis, Gymnosophisis. De prophetis item in Creta, Diogene, Triptolemi praeceptis, et Prophyrii, Philoxeno, et Gnathone, necnon de Philosycis, Philobotryis, Philomelis, ac Melomachia*]; but especially 761-8 [XIV.53 *Ieiunii ratio ex medicorum scitis. Firma aetas quar intelligenda. Item quid Hieronymus de Ieiuno, et Porphyrius*; XIV.55 *In pisce communi spinam non esse, quid significet. Arithmeticane proportio in convivio probabilior, an geometrica. Cur coenam dicant* δαῖτα*. Camasenae apud Empedoclem quid*; XIV.56 *Candyli quid sint. Item Abyrtace. Abyrtacopoei, Candys, Caryceumata,* ϰαρυϰοποιεῖν*, Carycopoei Delphi, Caryca. Paropsis. Paropsimation. Onthyleuses. Carica. Mimarcis. Nogalismata. Mimata. Haematia, buli pro intesinis*; XIV.57 *Prandii, et Coenae vocabula tam Graece, quam Latine unde inflectantur. Acratisma, Ariston, Dipnon. Monophagi, an veteribus in usu fuerint Prandia. Ignis laus, et salis. Quae sint bellaria pergrata. Triclyniorum, et Conviviorum appelationes plusculae. De androne, ac thiaso. Symbolum quid, et symbole. Conviviorum species, Ilapine, Gamos, Eranos, Sportularum convivium*; XIV.58 *De scimpodio, et stibadiis, item anaclinteriis seu accubitus. Sederentne, an accubarent priores. Item vocabula plura ad convivii dominum, et servos spectantia. Copides coenae. Physicilli panes. Titthenidia. Corythallia Diana, Aeclon Coena. Copissare. Synaecliae. Epaecla bellaria. Cammatides. Cammata. Psaesta. Logodipnum. Dipnologia. Gastronomia. Gastronomi*; XIV.59 *Harmodii Melos in conviviis. Cantile-*

bant, unde reciniati mimi dicebantur [Varr. *ling.* 5.30.132]. δεῖπνος vero apud graecos coenam significat. Itaque recidipna dictae sunt vestes, quas vocant coenatoria. Iuvenalis. Rusticus ille tuus sumit recidipna Quirine [Iuv. 3.67]. Eadem etiam triclinaria dicuntur". See also Perotti 1489, 118 (where he discusses the word *coquus*), 161 (where he refers to the semantic field of the word *coquinaria*), and especially 323-4 (where the etymology and derivations of the verb *coquo* are listed).

*coena*, *convivium* and *mensa*; 10 in a digression concerning the institution of the triumvirate, Wolfgang Lazius, explained various aspects of the ancient banqueting system;<sup>11</sup> similarly, Jean Brodeau (1500- 1563) wrote about wine and the meaning of the word *mensa*; 12 Guillaume du Choul supplied information about the banquets held for Roman Priests;<sup>13</sup> Alessandro Sardi dedicated three whole sections to table etiquette;14 the Jesuit prelate Petrus Faber (1506-1546) offered an entire chapter on banquets in his encyclopaedic work on ancient culture;15 Aldo Manuzio the Younger wrote two letters on an-

10 For *coena* see d'Alessandro 1522, 132 [*coena exequialis*]; 138 [*coena platonica*]; 143 [*coenae ferales*]; 147 [*coenaculariam exercere quid; coenaculum quid sit*]; 163 [*coenae centenariae*]; 295 [*coenandi loca hyeme et aestate quam diversa*]; 296 [*coenis panes tantum adhibere soliti qui*], 299 [*coenandi tempus olim quod*]. For *convivium* see 132 [*Convivia cur post funus fieri solita*]; 138 [*Convivia a quo cibo auspicari solita*]; 253 [*Convivando qui de magnis rebus agere soleant*]; 295 [*Convivandi caremoniae seu mores gentibus diversis olim quales*]; 296 [*Convivarum unius menasae numerus apud diversos quis*]; 298 [*Convivia quorundam quam longa*]. For *mensa* see 295 [*Mensis secundis apud Graecos quid exhiberetur; Mensis argenteis quis primus Romae usus*]; 296 [*Mensis singulis seu lectis quot coenare soliti; Mensis unis quot convivas Graecis adhibere satis*]; 334 [*Mensis mille quis aliquando pransus*].

11 Lazius 1551, 362-79 (III.iii. *De triumviris et triumvirato omnis generis*). The banqueting issue emerges when the author touched upon the *Triumviri epulones, qui publici conviviis, deorumque et munerum epulis praesidebant*, see especially Lazius 1551, 371-9, where several issues emerged: *Discumbendi ratio et consuetudo apud Romanos; Romanorum mensae figurae; Sigilla plutealia; Lectus triclinaris; Servorum ministrarum genera; Puella vina ministrabant; Anacliteria lectorum; Foeminae mensis adsederunt; Discumbendi mos inclinante imperio; Prandium duplex fuit Romanis; Coena; Coenarum genera; Coena recta; Coena dapsilis; Coena acromatica; Coena pontificalis; Coena duodenaria; Coena adventitia; Coena novendialis; Coena philosophica; Coena repotia; Sportula; Collatio vetusta; Coena coloniaris; Commessatio; Symposium; Publica convivia; Natalicia; Convivia puerperalia; Funebria convivia; Convivia navalia; Convivia militaria; Epulum praetorium; Epulum senatorium; Epulum decurionale; Sacra convivia; Iovis epulum; Lecisternia; Lectisternia deorum.* 

12 Brodeau 1555, 139 [IV.10. *Columellae loca,* where the syntagma *vinum cibarium* is also discussed] and 210-11 [V.33. *Mensae Siculae, Italicae*].

13 du Choul 1556, 239-40 [*Des Sept-hommes Epulones*], 244-6 [*Consécration de pontifes*] and 301-3 [*Sacrifice*].

14 Sardi 1557, 43-8 [I.xx. *Quae ederuent antiqui, biberentve*], 49-53 [I.xxi. *Convivia, pocula, et vasa, coenae ordo apud Graecos, Ioci convivales, mulieres in convivio, balnearumque usus*], 54-9 [I. xxii. *Romanorum coena, vindemia, ebrij, coronae, fratres Arvales, discumbentes, ministri, et quae post convivium agantur*].

15 Faber 1570, 49-63 [VI. *Sportulae solemnes coenae, solemnes et festis dies populi vel singulorum civium. De nuptialibus funebribus natalitiis conviviis. Coenae ferales, ludus ad iudices. Convivia triumphalia, imperatoria, consularia, praetoria. Ludorum diebus epulum populo dari solitum. Bestiarij, Meridiani. De provincialibus magistratuum conviviis. Coena dialis. Senaturius prandendi mos. Coena popularis. Apicij, Plutarchi, Suetonij, et Senecae loci expositi*]. A section on banqueting also features in another work from Faber, entitled *Agonisticon*, which deals with ancient athletes and their lifestyles; here he discusses the types of dinner and meals that should be eaten by those engaged

*narum genera. Paecon quid, et Poenia manus. Praestentne ex floribus corollae, an arborum ramis. De unguentis paucula*].

cient banquets, one regarding their organisation and the other on the *convivium tempestivum*; <sup>16</sup> Piero Vettori clarified the significance of *coena sine sanguine*; <sup>17</sup> and Marc-Antoine Muret discussed how many times a day ancient Romans ate, taking into account all the Latin and Greek words for 'meal'.<sup>18</sup>

From all these examples, and several others, it is clear how banqueting semantics were a key point of interest to improve the comprehension of classical texts, rejuvenating words that had lost their meaning throughout the centuries. This philological enthusiasm emerged from the early humanists who, with a renewed perception of the ancient world provoked a critical revision of inherited knowledge through a belief that the understanding of words led to an understanding of culture.

Ancient banquets were frequently mentioned in medical treatises, especially when these books concerned nutrition and dietary therapies, and classical authorities confirmed their reliability.19 Consequently, sources such as Hippocrates, Galen, Celsus and Avicenna were associated with, for example, Athenaeus's *Deipnosophistae*, the emperors' biographies in the *Historia Augusta*, and many others ancient texts that provide a huge range of examples of relevance to medical discussions. At times even the Roman grammarians were mentioned to enrich these treatises, reaffirming how the practice of diagnosis was assisted by linguistic considerations. This is especially the case since the philological method employed during the Renaissance also played a cognitive role in reconstructing the still unclear empirical information transmitted through the classical tradition.<sup>20</sup>

17 Vettori 1582, 78 [I.vii.16. *Coena sine sanguine vocatam esse a Graeco poeta, quam Plautus terrestrem appellavit: ambo autem tenuem pauperemque mensam intellexerunt*].

18 Muret 1580, 90 [IV.xii. *Antiqui quotiens die cibum sumpserint*].

in public games and sports [*Coena exhiberi solita victoribus; Coena exhibita ob musicorum agonum victoriam; Coena viatica dari solita; Coena victorialis in aedibus Agathonis; Conviviis privatis excipi solita hieronicae*]; see Faber 1592, 164-6.

<sup>16</sup> Manuzio 1576, 59-66 [IV. *De accumbendi et comedendi ratione*] and 67-72 [V. *De convivio tempestivo seu intempestivo*].

<sup>19</sup> For a general overview on this mutual exchange occurring in Renaissance publications, see De Renzi 1845, 3: 385. The following are worthy of mention: *De optima victus ratione* and *De humano victu epistula* by Bishop Paolo Giovio, both in 1527 (Giovio 1808); *De prandio et coena liber* (Belo 1533 – for a bibliography on the authorship of this publication see Fantuzzi 1782, 2: 161-2); *Disceptatiuncula medica aduersus opinionem Matthæi Curtii de prandii et coenæ ratione* (Turini 1555); *De cibis boni et mali succi* (Balamio 1555); *Consultationes medicinales*, especially the chapter *De alimentiis differentiis* (Da Monte 1558); the very famous *De prandio ac caenae modo libellus* (Corti 1562 and 1568); *De bonitate et vitio alimentorum centuria* (Durante 1565), which establishes the positive and negative aspects of food; *De usu ciborum liber* (Cardano 1569); *De nutritivo cibo* (Bersanio 1576); *De victu Romanorum* (Petronio 1582); *Theonoston, seu de vita producenda atque incolumitate corporis conservanda* (Cardano 1617).

<sup>20</sup> Nardi 1954; Cotton 1957; Momigliano 1985, 11-13; Mugnai Carrara 1991; Siraisi 2003.

Moreover, the publications on contemporary banquets and gastronomy in general are also important. References to the contemporary world were not only an incidental detail to colour the discussion. They were also considered to be prompts that could provide equivalent and specific examples to assist with the reimagining of a lost reality, demonstrating how history acted over the passage of time. Indeed, banqueting was an important subject for sixteenth-century publishers who regularly printed works describing the most famous banquets of the period, etiquette, food, and dress codes for dinner guests;<sup>21</sup> there were also gastronomical textbooks,<sup>22</sup> made famous by two renowned Italian cooks: Cristoforo Messisbugo (d. 1548),<sup>23</sup> and Bartolomeo Scappi (1500-1577).24 These works influenced the development of studies on ancient banqueting, not only in terms of their layout but also their content, with descriptiveness being the common trait.25 Therefore, even gastronomy became a means of transmitting the tradition of classical knowledge during the Renaissance.

# 7.2 A General Paradigm

However, there was a paradigm of four works capable not only of influencing the antiquarian approach on banqueting between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries but also unveiling the universal traits of the research conducted on this matter.

21 For example: *Il famoso convito così delle giostre come del banchetto* (Pandola 1561) and *Descrizione delle felicissime nozze della cristianissima maestà di madama Maria Medici regina di Francia e di Navarra* (Buonarroti 1600). For a general overview, see Benporat 2007, 57-70. In this way, the straightforward description of banqueting developed into a description of official celebrations, as reflected in the treatises on ancient banqueting that expanded into this field; see Zimmermann 1978.

22 The following are notable examples: *Commentario delle cose più notabili* [Itinerario gastronomico per l'Italia] (Lando 1548); *La singolare dottrina* (Romoli 1560); *Il trinciante* (Cervio 1581); regarding these texts, see Faccioli 1960.

23 His well-known treatises are *Banchetti compositioni di vivande, et apparecchio generale* (Messisbugo 1549) and *Libro novo nel qual s'insegna a far d'ogni sorte di vivande secondo la diversità de i tempi cosi di carne come di pesce* (Messisbugo 1559).

25 See the edited volume Davidson, Lollini 2014 on this issue, especially the contribution regarding the representations of food in Bolognese humanistic circles (Cova, Severi 2014).

<sup>24</sup> Bartolomeo Scappi, secret chef for the austere Pope Pius V; see von Pastor 1942, 40 regarding this very curious figure of the Italian sixteenth century. However, Scappi was commissioned by other popes as well. His seminal textbook on gastronomy (Scappi 1570) was celebrated for centuries. Scappi also taught in Bologna. In 1536 he prepared a banquet in Rome to celebrate the sixth anniversary of the coronation of Charles V. For further details on Scappi and his legacy, see Di Schino, Luccichenti 2007. The sixth book in his *Opera de l'arte del cucinare* is entitled *De' convalescenti, et molte altre forti vivande per gli infermi*, which was a dietary manual for the sick.

Like most of the antiquarian topics discussed throughout the Renaissance, banqueting also paid a substantial debt to the scholarship of Flavio Biondo. It was in fact Biondo's *Roma triumphans*, written in the mid-fifteenth century, that served as the archetype for discussions on banquets from the perspective of antiquarian erudition, setting some of the guidelines that recur in later authors. The section on banquets, *De conviviis*, <sup>26</sup> is discussed in just a few pages at the end of book VIII. Therein, some aspects of the conduct of individuals in ancient Rome are described. For the first time, a substantial distinction in antiquarian learning was drawn between public and private life,<sup>27</sup> positioning the banquet issue firmly in the sphere of the latter.<sup>28</sup> Through a description of the various facets of rural life (hunting, fishing, and agriculture), this section highlights the fundamental transition in the humanist approach in understanding where banqueting derived: the analysis begins with establishing how nourishment was procured, passing gradually to culinary culture and meals, with cross-references to the vocabulary of everyday life. Biondo also devotes some pages to the effects of gluttony and drinking wine to excess, regarding the classical symposium as a special subset of banqueting. In this way, he shifted the study from didactic reportage to a moral discussion, commending moderation in eating and drinking:<sup>29</sup>

26 Biondo provides a description of the use of reclining on *triclinia* in a section preceding the funerary rituals in book II of this work (Biondo 1559, 42: "Epulum fuit estque quod et convivium, appellatus ciborum etiam variorum lautus decensque apparatus. Sed triclinium hic veteri latinoque more, aliter quam multis retro seculis, sicut et nostro per abusionem factum videmus, a Livio positum est. Non enim pars aliqua domus, sicut nunc utimur, triclinium fuit, sed coacta in locum unum parandae paucorum coenae suppellex necessaria. Et quidem trclinij verbum habuisse originem constat a tribus lectis, qui contigui sternerentur, super quibus convenientes ad convivium, sicut Turci nonc et Graeci faciunt accubarent. Hinc Horat.: Saepe tribus lectis videas coenare quaternos | et quibus unus avet, qua vis aspergere cunctos | praeter eum qui praebet aquam [Hor. *sat.* 1.4.86-8]. Et Iuvenalis: Ergo duos post | Si libuit menses, neglectum adhibere clientem, | Tertia ne vacuo cessaret culcitra lecto | una simus ait [Iuv. 5.14- 18]. Et Virgil.: Inde thoro pater Aeneas sic orsus ab alto [Verg. *Aen*. 2.269]. Sed postea sicut in multis factum esse videmus, triclinium mutatae rei formae, verbo remansit, et apparatus ad mensam factus, triclinium est dictus. Quod auleis tapetisque quosdam alios velis purpureis aut byssinis argenteis nonnullos eburneisve cratibus et laminibus obduxisse, infra in partibus morum, allatis singulorum qui usi sunt nominibus ostensuri sumus. Qua in clausura poculorum, patinarum, craterarum, vinariorum, aquariorum et vasorum ex argento aurove, et crystallinorum myrrhinorumque abacus omnis continebatur. Ubi igitur toto for strata erant triclinia, quae multa tanto in spacio esse oportuit, tempestas cum procellis coorta coegit plerosque tabernacula statuere"); see also Federici 2006, 221-37.


29 The discussion on banqueting is not approached immediately. Before reaching the section on banqueting *De conviviis* (Biondo 1559, 175-8), Biondo discussed many other related aspects of the issue, such as *Vita rustica urbana antiquior* and *Agricultura dignitas* (168-9), the discussion on the *Tres agriculturae partes*, the question *Quae prosint*  Agrorum cultura cum ijs, quae hominum sustentationi atque etiam delectationi sive gignuntur, in illis sive industria a patrefamilias diligentiore comparantur ostensis, traxit nos quorundam ex priscis ipsarum rerum, praesertim vini abusus ad ebrietatis eorum descriptionem: unde non indecens esse ducimus, conviviorum et coenarum, quae caste et sobrie fierent, et earum quae opipare ac laute pararentur, exinde maiorum antedictis ebrietatum et habitarum effusius comessationum immoderates consuetudines ostendere.

Another early effort, published in around 1473, is *De honesta voluptate et valetudine* by Bartolomeo Platina.<sup>30</sup> This represents the effective debut of banqueting monographs, with several philological passages dedicated to classical antiquity.<sup>31</sup> Since this work derives mainly from a recipe book by Maestro Martino de Rubeis, the personal chef for the patriarch of Aquileia around the mid-fifteenth century,<sup>32</sup> its structure is almost entirely formatted as a list of foods and dishes aiming at celebrating the balanced pleasures of the stomach with Epicurean relish.33 In this light, the relationship with classical sources could encounter some difficulties, challenging Christian morality; however, Platina insists that ancient authors cannot be blamed for excess and gluttony.<sup>34</sup> *De honesta voluptate* was likely born out


*agris* and *De magistro pecoris* (169-70). Biondo discusses birds, mentioning *Ornithones* and *Columbae* among others, the *Quam ob causam coturnices damnatae* (170) issue, and the *De apum pastione* (171). Afterwards he focuses on hunting, evoking the *Vivaria* and the *Priscorum delectatio ex venatione*; then on fishing, focusing on *De piscinis* (171-2); and then on agriculture, focusing on the *Lustratio agrorum*, the *Disciplina rustica* and the *Villici officium* (172-3). Regarding the latter, there is also a discussion on *Quando primum orti instituti*, the lexicographic survey on *Rei rusticae vocabula*, and the juridical reference to the *Lex Laurentiana* (173-4). Lastly, Biondo touches upon wine, considering several aspects related to the *Vini usus Romae* (174-5).

<sup>33</sup> This book is part of the humanist trend that was birthed at the start of the fourteenth century by Lorenzo Valla with his *De voluptate* and then some letters by Francesco Filelfo, given that Platina's aim is stated in 1.10: *Quid observandum in vita ad voluptatem*. According to Garin 1952, 62-9, Platina wrote this work to respond to accusations of Epicureanism. See also Benporat 1996, 46.

<sup>34</sup> Platina 1475, 1-2: "Errabunt et quidem vehementer, Amplissime Pater B. Roverella, qui hanc nostram susceptionem nequaquam dignam, quae tuo nomini ascriberetur, putarint, quod et voluptatis et valitudinis titulum prae se ferat. Verum cum mihi atque omnibus eruditis spectata sit ingenii tui vis, et acumen morum, et honestissimae vitae constantia, doctrinae ac eruditionis magnitudo, maluite vigilarum mearum patronum ac iudicem (si quid perverse scriptum inest) facere, quam alium quempiam. Instabunt acriter male. Voli (sat scio) de voluptate ad virum optimum ac continentissimum non fuisse scribendam. Sed decant quaeso hi stoicidae, qui elatis superciliis non de vi, sed de nominum vocibus tantummodo diiudicant, quid mali in se habeat considerata voluptas?

of the tradition of Roman scholarship carried out by Pomponio Leto, who also transcribed and amended Columella, Varro, Pliny and perhaps even the works of the famous Roman chef, Apicius.<sup>35</sup> The very essence of antiquity, as perceived in Rome in the late decades of the fifth century, took Platina along the path of antiquarian studies, associating his work with a revived idea of antiquity.

A significantly extensive (circa 50 pages) antiquarian discussion on ancient banqueting was written in 1546 by the German humanist and physician Johann Hagenbut, bettern known as Janus Cornarius, and published in 1548 in Basel.<sup>36</sup> A famous philologist and translator of ancient Greek medical texts, Cornarius centred his dis-

35 Milham 1998, 48-9.

36 Cornarius 1548, 3-47. The work is entitled *De conviviorum veterum Graecorum, et hoc tempore Germanorum ritibus, moribus ac sermonibus; item de Amoris praestantia, et de Platonis et Xenophontis dissension libellus*.

Est enim huius ut valitudinis vocabulum medium. De voluptate, quam intemperantes et libidinosi ex luxu et varietate ciborum, ex titillatione rerum venerearum percipiunt, absit ut Platyna ad virum sanctissimum scribat. De illa voluptate, quae ex continentia victus et earum rerum, quas humana natura appetit, loquor. Neminem enim adhuc vidi adeo libidinosum et incontinentem, qui non aliqua tangeretur voluptate, si quando a rebus plus quam satis est concupitis declinavisse. Valet apud vos (ut video) Ciceronis auctoritatis, qui quidem ut Aristoteles Platonem, Pythagoram, Zenonem, Democritum, Chrysippum, Parmenidem, Heraclitum, sic Epicurum segetem et materiam eruditionis a doctrina sua facit, quocum enim tutius congrederetur quam mortuo Epicuro habuit Cicero. Valebit et apud me Senece, Lucretii, Laertii auctoritas, qui Epicurum ut virum sanctissimum atque optimum miris laudibus extollunt. Dicere autem non decere sapientem merore confici, cum perturbationis dolorisque vacatio constantes efficiat voluptates, quid mali immo quid non boni in se habet? Ad foelicitatem enim voluptas illa quae ex honesta actione oritur, ut medicina ad sanitatem aegrotantem hominem perducit. Quis est praetera tam stupidus, tamque (ut isti volunt) a sensibus oob sanctitatem, et tetricam vitam alienus, qui non corpore et animo aliqua profundatur voluptate? Si et in victu mediocritatem, unde bona valitudo et in actione integritatem ac constantiam, unde foelicitas oritur retinuerit? Non improbatur hoc nomen a Platone, non ab Aristotele, qui signate admodum de rebus ipsis locuti sunt. Fecit Metrodori ac Hieronymi luxus et libido, ut Epicuri viri optimi schola et doctrina vicio daretur. Non ergo quid vir bonus, sed quid depravatores sectae adidere culpandum erat. Desinant praeterea hi rerum estimatores et quasi trutina quid in dies ab unoquoque fit librantes carpere, quod de valitudine aut ratione victus, quam Graeci dietam appellant, addendo quaedam ad curandas aegrotationes praecepta, de natura rerum et obsonii perscripserim. Tantum enim abest, ut hoc institutum a viro civili sit alienum, summorum etiam philosophorum auctoritate et praecepto, ut quemadmodum in praelio qui civem olim, sic qui in pace multos nunc cives rationem victus afferendo servaverit, plures civicas merere videatur. Obsonia mihi obiicient, ut guloso et edaci, utque instrumenta libidinum et quaedam quasi calcaria intemperantibus et flagitiosis addenti. Utinam ipsi aut natura aut instituto, ut Platyna mediogritate et parsimonia uterentur, non videremus hodie tot popinarios in urbe, tot ganeones, tot gnatones, tot scurras, tot adulatores libidinum, et obstrusarum diligentissimos ob edacitatem et avariciam conquisitores. Scripsi ego de obsoniis Catonem virum optimum, Varronem omnium doctissum, Columellam et Celium Apitium imitatus, non quo legentes ad luxum adhortarer, quos certes inter scribendum semper a vicio deterrui, sed quo et civili viro valitudinem, lauticiem victus potiusquam luxum quaerenti prodessem, et posteris ostenderem hanc nostram aetatem ingenia habuisse quae maiores si non aequare, imitari saltem in quovis genere dicendi auderent".

sertation on the specific aspects of ancient Greek banquets set out by Plato's and Xenophon's *Symposia*. In this work, written in epistolary form,<sup>37</sup> he discusses the ritual nature of banquets described by these two authors, focusing mainly on the ceremonies connected thereto. This involved dancing, singing, hospitality, and digressions on the supplies utilised, drinking habits, and the nature of the conversations held.<sup>38</sup> Many of these details were compared with the

37 Cornarius 1548, 47: "Atque haec sunt quae de Conviviorum veterum Graecorum, et hoc tempore Germanorum ritibus, moribus ac sermonibus, itemque de Amoris praestantia, et de Platonis ac Xenophontis dissensione, ad te optime Lasane, longiore commentatione scribere mihi visum est, quo non epistolam solum, sed iustum fere libellum, pro longi silentij usura, de me haberes".

38 The first philological case discussed is a solid representation of the method applied by Cornarius. It concerns an emendation to Plato's *Symposium* that was developed to facilitate a better understanding of a metaphor involving wine cups and water consumption; see Cornarius 1548, 6-7: "Εὖ ἂν ἔχοι, φάναι, ὦ Ἀγάθων, εἰ τοιοῦτον εἴη ἡ σοφία ὥστ' ἐκ τοῦ πληρεστέρου εἰς τὸ κενώτερον ῾ρεῖν ἡμῶν, ἐὰν ἁπτώμεθα ἀλλήλων, ὥσπερ τὸ ἐν ταῖς κύλιξιν ὕδωρ τὸ διὰ τοῦ ἐρίου ῾ρέον ἐκ τῆς πληρεστέρας εἰς τὴν κενωτέραν [Plat. *Symp*. 175d]. Hoc loco quomodo per lanam, id est, δι' ἐρίου, aqua ex pleniore calice in magis vacuum fluere possit, non video. Et si de calice ex quo potes accipias, et talem quempiam quale est ἀμφικύπελλον apud Homerum intelligas, satis sit impurus etiam purissimae lanae in poculis usus. At ego non de calice ex quo bibimus accipio, sed de magni illis puteis, in quos aqua per subterraneos cuniciulos ac canales, ex fontibus quibusdam emanans deferetur, et inde ubi pleni sunt et redundant, itidem per canales, in alios atque puteos elabitur. Horum autem puteorum magna est per omnes fere Germaniae urbes copia, et illa elabentes redundans aqua, ein uberfal appellatur. Nec mirum tales puteos, calices Platoni dici, quum Dipnosofistae Athenaei magna pocula recte argenteos puteos appellari posse asserant. Ex illis ergo puteis, calicibus hic appellatism aqua diffluit, ex pleniore in magis vacuum, non per lana, sed per canalis instrumentum: hoc est, non δι' ἐρίου, quod corrupte legitur, sed ex δι' ὀργάνου, quod pro illo legendum esse assero, non ex alicuius exemplaris praescripto, sed ex rerum ipsarum per coniectura expensione, quam tamen non diutius valere volo, quam donec quis meliorem lectionem ac sententiam produxerit"*.* Afterwards, Cornarius touches upon the exhibition of dancers and musicians during the banquet (14: "Primum igitur omnium Plato in Symposio suo, tibicinam recens ingressam eijcit; Xenophon autem et tibicinam et saltatricem per totum Symposium exhibit, et ipsarum productorem sive magistrum, non solum colloquentem inducit, sed etiam Socrati illudentem ac conviciantem"), the topic of conversation, which is love (15-16: "Multo vero minus proclive fuerit, tali loco, tales sermones producere, quales illi viri de proposito laudandi Amoris argumento habuerunt, maxime quum post omnes omnium orationes, a singulis pro suae professionis dignitate habitas […] Et ut sit convivator, et sint tales convivae, qui eiusmodi sermons habeant, tamen non facile fuerit reperire Platonem, qui singulorum orationes pro dignitate excipiat ac describat"). Another aspect discussed is the amount of drinking (28-9: "Est autem et haec una quaedam, quod apud Platonem etiamsi ex consilio Eryximachi Medici primum in hoc consentient, ut quisque quantum velit bibat, et hoc ad voluptatem, tamen tandem magna pocula poscunt, et allato vaso refrigeratorio, plures quam octo heminas capiente, […] At apud Xenophontem poculis bibunt parvis, et ut ita bibant"), from which a digression occurred on the Germans' approach to drinking (29- 37: *Germani circa pocula variante*), where the laws regarding drinking are explained. Other issues discussed concerned the events held during banquets, both in antiquity and during Cornarius's time (37-8: "At vero illi ludi quos Xenophon in suo Symposio exhibit, qui non ab ipsis convivis, sed a luditionibus et histrionibus, miraculorum specie quadam eduntur, et qui a saltatrice ac tibicina fiunt: sunt quoque nostro seculo frequentes, verum in Germanorum convivijs raro exhibentur"), the attitude of guests (40: banqueting habits adopted in sixteenth-century Germany. This process, even if narrowed down to a limited corpus of sources, shows the actual hermeneutic approach towards a reality which is often almost impossible to understand without comparison and analogy. Attention must also be devoted to Justus Lipsius's *Sermo convivialis, in quo conviviorum veterum ritus proponuntur, in eam rem varii scriptores emendantur, explicaretur*. 39 This work was a section of his fivebook commentary on ancient texts published in 1575. In line with Cornarius's work, the primary aim of his short treatise, which was built into the wider structure of the commentary and planned as a dialogue, was to expound on and interpret crucial passages and obscure elements of classical literature (especially Plautus's work) on ancient banqueting.40 In the fifty pages of the *Sermo convivialis*, Lipius includes interlocutory phrases, which were summarised well in the words of an author fifty years later who dealt with the same material: "Lipsius [de conviviis] polite ut omnia, sed multa levi manu, et

*Odiosum est enim, inter pocula sapientem ostentare conari*), and the number of commensals (41: *At vero de numero convivarum apud nos nihil certi habetur. Plato se habet, Xenophon octo, ut una cum convivatore illic septem, hic novem sint*).

39 Lipsius 1575, 77-128.

40 One particularly interesting example is the clarification of the ancient Roman idiom *hospites muscas*, meaning that some guests acted like actual parasites; see Lipsius 1575, 82-3: "Nihil vero necesse erat, inquit Carrio, nam ego muscam sum, ut antique loquebantur, invocatus advenio. Et admirante me insolentiam verbi, subiicit Carrio, Itane assiduous Lipsi in Plauto es, et fugit te hoc verbo? Nam veteres parasitos et eiusmodi nugas hominum, qui alienis conviviis non vocati superveniebant, facete muscas vocarunt. Ita interpretandi Plauti versus, qui plerisque aenigma videntur, Poenulo: Hispitium te aiunt queritare. CO. Querito. | LY. Ita illi dixerunt qui hinc abierunt modo | te quaeritare a muscis. CO. Minime gentium. | LY. Quid ita? CO. Quia a muscis si mihi hospitium quaererem, adveniens huc | irem in carcerem recta via. Quaerebat ille adolescens hispitium a muscis, id est, liberum ab arbitris et adventoribus [Plaut. *Poen*. 3.4.75-9]"*.* Other indications of Lipsius's studies on ancient banqueting are also contained in his *Epistolicarum quaestionum libri V*: for example, the letter I. 8 to Joseph Scaliger, where a fragment of Varro is amended, see Lipsius 1577, 17-18: "quaerebat a me nuper Scaliger, adolescens doctus litteras veteres, quid in Varronis fragmenta essent aquilinae paterae? Locum producebat ex lib. I De vita pop. Rom. [Non. *De gen. vas.*  545-6]*:* Item erant vasa vinaria, sini, cymbia, aquilinae paterae, gutti, sextarij, simpuvium. Non mentiar, conticui. Opinor, et Varro ipse, siquis rogasset. Abiit ille: ego consideravi intentius, et, nisi me fallit, repperi. Lego enim cymbia, culignae, paterae. Nugas agam, sit e nunc doceam caussam erroris, adhaesisse litteram a fine vocis factumque aculignae, inde vulgatum illud. Nugae, inquam, ista. Sicut culignam Festo vas esse potorium [Paul. Fest. 44.12-13]; or in the letter III.2 addressed to Pierre Pithou, where some passages of Petronius are explained, see Lipsius 1577, 90-2: "Meae sententiae testes has notas do, quae, cuicuimodi illae, non nisi ab eo, qui cum cura legerit, eruantur. In convivio Trimalcionis: Ceterum in promulsi dari asellus erat Corinthius cum bisaccio positus, qui habebat in altera parte olivas nigras, in altera albas [Petron. 37]. Alias*,* in promulside danda. Sed legendum in promulsidariis. Ulpianus De auro et arg. leg. promulsidaria vasa appellat [*Pandect*. 34.2.19.10 (Ulpian. *ad Sabin*. XX)]*.* Hic promulsidaria intelligit cibos qui in gustu".

cursim".<sup>41</sup> Therefore, although showing evident limitations, Lipius's work had the power to establish its own direct tradition.

Cornarius and Lipsius hailed from Northern Europe and were likely aware of all the theological and confessional debates entangled with the banquet issue, and especially the Last Supper, emerged during the sixteenth century. It is worth underlining that both Cornarius and Lipsius included some of the central aspects of these religious disputes in their philological analyses: the former discussed the issue of (Christian) love as the core of the Last Supper,<sup>42</sup> while the latter discussed the definition of the bloodless meal, which was presented along with the earthly meal and the question of the recumbent meal.<sup>43</sup>

#### 7.3 Banqueting and the Sacred Scriptures

These topics in fact were usually treated with greater emphasis and by directly applying ancient data to the confessional issue. In northern Europe, the religious banquet became a central issue in highly public doctrinal debates held in Protestant circles and Catholic-Protestant controversies. This can be seen especially in the eucharistic controversy which occurred from the late 1520s onwards, which discussed the effective nature of the Last Supper, the rituals of the Mass, its sacrificial significance, the essence of communion, the presence of Christ's body in the sacrament – real or figurative, and so on.<sup>44</sup> However, historical research conducted in northern Europe around the

41 Boulenger 1627, *ad lect*.

42 This was a digression concerning love as the topic of conversation in ancient banquets, showing that love was also the core of the Last Supper, as described in the Gospel of John; see Cornarius 1548, 20: "Et non alio iucundiore condimento instructa fuit illa ultima Christi coena, in qua Ioannes Apostulus hoc amoris nectare ebrius, in sinu Iesus exuperanti quadam amoris benignitate effusa [*Jn*. 21:20], discipulos suos, et nos quoque qui per sermonem eorum in ipsum credituri essemus, velut clare Ioannis XVII patrem pro nobis rogat, corporis ac sanguinis sui, atque sic omnium beneficiorum ac meritorum passionis ac mortis suae, participes fecit [*Jn*. 17:1-26]. Haec, inquem, producere qui posset, ad praesentis de Amore argumenti explicationem".

43 Lipsius 1575, 89: "Eiusmodi coenas, inquit Carrio, Plautus terrestres appellat, Horatius egregie, coenas sine sanguine, imitatione Graeca, ut opinior. Apud Diphilum Parasitus auguria captans ex fumo colinae, ἐάν δὲ πλάγιος καὶ λεπτός, εὐθέως νοῶ | ὅτι τοῦτό μοι τὸ δεῖπνον ἀλλ' οὐδ' αἷμ' ἔχει [Athen. 6.29]"; and 91: "Primum omnium scitis veteres Ro. uti et Graecos non sedisse ad mensam, ut nunc solitum est, sed accubuisse. Quem morem etiamnum plerusque Oriens usurpat. Hic Deinius, Ne gravare, inquit, in ipso aditu interpellandus es. Nam Homerus certes, aliter ac tu, heroäs illos suos sicut et procos Penelopes sedentes in convivio facit. Est in mente versus *Odyss.* δαιτυμόνες δ' ἀνὰ δώματ' ἀκουάζωνται ἀοιδοῦ | ἥμενοι ἑξείης [Hom. *Od*. 7.8-9]".

44 Examples of treatises in the second half of the sixteenth century are: Casal 1563 (*De coena, et calice Domini quo ad laicos, & clericos non celebrantes: libre tres*); Ochino 1556 (*Syncerae et verae doctrinae de coena Domini defensio*); Sainctes 1566 (*Examen doctrinae Caluinianae et Bezanae de coena Domini*); Selnecker 1568 (*Libellus bre-* mid-sixteenth century that was firmly based on documentary sources began to be increasingly applied to doctrinal contexts. Empirical evidence was preferred to questionable subjective claims, and became not only a crucial reference point in the argumentation of theologians, but also provided specific and verifiable data to reinforce the authority of their positions. One might affirm that these *realia* sometimes represented the very basis on which argumentation was built, becoming the foundation of 'positive' or 'historical' theology.

Issues related to banqueting within the Sacred Scripture arose at the very beginning of the fifteenth century, which is when Lorenzo Valla began conducting philological surveys on the New Testament. This resulted in his *In Novum Testamentum Annotationes*, which was completed in 1444 but edited and printed for the first time by Erasmus only in 1505. Valla did not go into any deep or systematic discussions on ancient banqueting, but arranges some quick digressions on food or conviviality regarding, for example, washing before a meal (specifically lunch) and the use of bread in commemorating the Last Supper.<sup>45</sup> In his *Adnotationes in Novum Testamentum* (1516), Erasmus himself dedicated several passages to explaining aspects of banqueting related to Easter rituals and the Last Supper.<sup>46</sup> It was

45 Valla 1505, 17b: [*Lc* 11:37] "*Pharisaeus autem coepit intra se reputans dicere quare non baptizatus esset ante prandium.* Quidam codices habent quare non lavatus esset. Graece est, Pharisaeus autem videns admiratus est quod non prius lotus est, sive esset, sive baptizatus est, ὁ δὲ Φαρισαῖος ἰδὼν ἐθαύμασεν ὅτι. Nec naturalis sermo est interrogantis sic, quare non baptizatus esset, sed quare non baptizatus est?"; regarding the bread and other occurrences, see 35a : [1 *Cor*. 11:23-4] "Accepit panem et gratias agens egisset: εὐχαριστήσας; neque est copula inter verba imperativa, sed tantum accipite, comedite: λάβετε, φάγετε; neque sequentium verborum idem ordo sed hic. Hoc meum est corpus τοῦτό μού ἐστι τὸ σῶμα. Verum quod maximum est non dicitur quod pro vobis tradetur, sed quod pro vobis frangitur τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν κλώμενον, quod congruit cum illo ex actibus apostolorum. Quotidie quoque errant unanimiter perseverantes in templo, et frangentes circa domos panes, pro eo quod est dante panem quem frangant, hoc facite in meam commemorationem, Plaerique accipiunt commemorationem, ut dicimus, commemorationem defuctorum, et ut omnes veretes accipiebant pro mentione, ut apud Terentium. *Nam istec commemoration* | *quasi exprobatio est immemoris beneficii* [Ter. *Andr*. 41]. At nunc significat recordationem sive in mei memoria εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. Quotienscumque biberitis in meam commemorationem, quidam hunc locum corrumpunt dicentes bibitis πίνητε, eodem modo corrumptunt sequentem".

46 Erasmus 1527, 134: "*Coenaculum*] ἀνώγεων, triclinium intellegit, sed lectis stratis, in quibus olim discumbebatur. Dictum est autem Graecis, ἀνώγεων, quod subductius sit a solo, quod veteres in superior aedium parte coenitarent"; 262: [*Act*. 1:13] "*In coenaculum*] εἰς τὸ ὑπεροων. Hic coenaculum non significat eum locum in quo coenatur, sed superiorem domus partem. Id quod Graeca vox indicat. *In coenaculum ascenderunt*] ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὑπεροων, idest, ascenderunt in coenaculum, hoc est, ingressi civitatem, conscenderunt coenaculum. Nostra lectio perinde sonat, quasi ingress coenaculum conscenderint eo ubi manebat Petrus. Lyranus putat esse πρωθύστερον. In Glossa Ordinaria nescio quis admonet, Graecae lectionis. Quamque nec in Latina lectione opus erat ulla figura. Siquidem hypostigme addita dictioni introissent, excludit

*vis, et utilis de coena Domini*); Bèze 1574 (*Aduersus sacramentariorum errorem pro vera Christi praesentia in coena Domini*).

just a matter of time that the philological and antiquarian investigations on the Bible, and on sacred texts in general, would influence the approach towards sacred history. In this sense, two of the clearest examples can be found in the thirteen volumes of the *Historia Ecclesiastica* (1560-74), which was assembled by the Lutheran Magdeburg Centuriators led by Matthias Flacius, and in Cesare Baronio's *Annales Ecclesiastici* (1588-1607), in which the antiquarian approach was increasingly applied to study the Church's past for the purpose of acquiring a new historical reliability. These works investigated the main ideas and developments in Christian history, carried out with synchronic and diachronic approaches, respectively. The banqueting debates recurred constantly throughout their entire development. One example of this was when some aspects of the Last Supper were discussed, utilising categories that could be found in writings on antiquarian erudition.<sup>47</sup>

amphibologiam. In aliquot vetustis nostrae linguae codicibus, habebatur, ascenderunt in superiora ubi manebat Petrus, et fieri potest, ut supra coenaculum fuerit locus altior, quod capite huius operis decimo vocat δῶμα, quo Petrus ascendit oraturus"; and 443: [1 *Cor*. 11:27] "*Panem etc.*] τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον, id est, panem hunc. Hic palam corpus consecratum panem vocat, non quod adhuc sit panis eo modo quo si panis vivus et vitam conferens veram*. De pane illo edat*] Illo, hoco loco non additur apud Graecos, sed interpres explicuit vim articuli, quod et alias saepenumero facit. Ambrosius legit, *De pane edat*. *Indigne*] ἀναξίως τοῦ Κυρίου, id est, indigne Domino. Ad eum modum legit et Chrysostomus [*PG* 61.233.44 (Joan. Chrys. *Homil. in epistulam I ad Corinthios*); *PG* 59.262.30 (Joan. Chrys. *Homil. in Joannem*)], utroque loco addens Domini nomen. Ambrosius item repetit Domini nomen: itaque quicunque ederit panem hunc aut biberit calicem Domini indigne Domino, iudicium sibi ipsi manducat [*PL* 17 0243 C (Ambrosiast. *Comm. in Epist. ad Corinth.*)]. Quanquam in nonnullis Graecorum codicibus legitur τοῦ Κυρίου ἀναξίως, ut Κυρίου utrolibet possit referri, panem Domini, aut panem indigne Domino".

<sup>47</sup> The issues on banqueting attested to in the first volume of the Magdeburg Centuries can be found, for example, in the chapters entitled *Ritus circa coenam* (Flacius 1559, 1:2.6, 499-500) and *Ritus circa ieiunia* (Flacius 1559, 1:2.6, 503), but also in the discussion on marriages (*De coniugio*), where it was affirmed that some rituals hailing from the Gentile culture such as the *convivia nuptialia* (Flacius 1559, 1:2.4, 452) were received and accepted by Christians. Many passages are devoted to the debate on the *Coena Domini* and its ramifications, including among the others the long chapter entitled *De coena domini* (Flacius 1559, 1:2.4, 360-3) or the paragraph on the *abusus Coenae Dominicae* in the chapter entitled *De scandalo dato* (Flacius 1559, 1:2.4, 449). In Baronio's first volume of the *Annales Ecclesiastici*, analogous digressions feature, such as those touching upon the banqueting uses of the ancient Romans, *Convivandi modus apud priscos Romanos* (34.XXXVI), or the similarities between the latter and those of the Hebrews *Convivandi modus Judaeorum Romanorum similis* (34.XXXVII) which were directly connected to the discussion on how the commensals acted (*coenantibus eis, idem quod, recumbentibus eis* 34.XLIV), what they ate (*manducare quid* 34.XLV) during the *Coenam Dominicam*, and at what time this ritual took place (*qua hora coepta* 34.LXI); see Baronio 1588, 157-8.

# 7.4 Stucki's *Antiquitates Conviviales*

A new methodological background and cultural development that also affected theological literature was the humanist context in which the most valuable and comprehensive antiquarian treatise on ancient banqueting published during the sixteenth century was composed. The author was Johann Wilhelm Stucki, a Swiss humanist and Protestant theologian. Stucki was born in 1542 in the Winterthur area, and died in Zurich in 1607. His higher education was cosmopolitan, attending colleges in Basel, Lausanne, Strasbourg, Paris, Tübingen, and Padua. As a young man he was appointed by the Zurich Council as an aide, secretary, and French interpreter for Peter Martyr Vermigli, the Italian professor of theology in Zurich, who had been appointed as a Zurich delegate at the interconfessional Colloquy of Poissy in France. Stucki then went to Padua, where he studied under the jurist and humanist scholar, Guido Panciroli, as well as learning Aramaic and Syriac under the tutelage of Rabbi Menachem. On returning to Zurich, Stucki lectured on Hebrew and the Old Testament, before becoming a professor at the 'Carolinum' in 1568, where he taught logic, rhetoric, and Old Testament theology. Within the Reformed doctrinal spectrum he leaned towards Calvinist predestinarian ideas; this made him the target of criticism at the religious colloquy of Berne in 1588, which he attended as a Zurich delegate. Stucki published a few Old Testament commentaries and was a biographer of Zurich literati such as Johannes Wolf, Josias Simler, Heinrich Bullinger, and Ludwig Lavater. He had a special interest in the cultural history of classical antiquity, which also touched upon mythology and pagan religion;48 it was in this domain that he comepleted his most impressive book, an encyclopaedic study of banqueting in antiquity.<sup>49</sup> His *Antiquitates conviviales*<sup>50</sup> was printed for the first time in Zurich in

<sup>48</sup> In fact, he published the *Sacrorum, sacrificiorumq. gentilium breuis et accurata descriptio* (Stucki 1598), which dealt with the religious ceremonies and rituals of pagans.

<sup>49</sup> Biographical information on Stucki is reported in the preface of Stucki 1582, but mainly in Waser 1608, and the funeral oration published on the year of his death entitled *De vita et obitu Ioh. Guilielmi Stuckii*; more recent surveys can be found in Koldewey 1875-1912; Moser 2012; Acciarino 2012, 21-2.

<sup>50</sup> Stucki 1582. The full title can give an idea of the breadth of content that this work involved: *Antiquitatum convivialium libri III in quibus Hebraeorum, Graecorum, Romanorum aliarumque nationum antiqua conviviorum genera, necnon mores, consuetudines, ritus ceremoniaeque conviviales, atque etiam aliae explicantur, et cum iis, quae hodie com apud Christianos, tum apud alias gentes a Christiano nomine alienas in usu sunt, conferuntur: multa Grammatica, Physica, Medica, Ethica, Oeconomica, Politica, Philosophica denique atque Historica cognitu iucunda simul et utilia tractantur: plurima sacrorum prophanorumque auctorum veterum loca obscura illustrantur, corrupta emendantur: denique desperatus deploratusque nostrorum temporum luxus atque luxuria gravi censura damnatur*.

1582 by Christopher Froschauer.<sup>51</sup> Then three more editions were published: the first by Johann Wolf in 1597; the second in Frankfurt by Andrea Cambierius in 1613: and the third in Amsterdam by Iacobus Hackius in 1695 as part of Stucki's *Opera omnia*. <sup>52</sup> In terms of its structure, method and abundance of featuring sources, this treatise (especially the first edition) should be considered the most relevant work on banqueting ever written, not least for its influence on European learning in the late Renaissance and its long-term repercussions on antiquarian scholarship.

The impact of the editions of *Antiquitatum convivialium libri* which followed its initial publication (1582) suggests that this work played a formative role in determining the study of banqueting through a new approach to the matter. Stucki could also be considered the first scholar to systematically avail himself of data on ancient banqueting for application in confessional disputes.<sup>53</sup>

As established previously, prior to Stucki's publication, monographs on ancient banqueting were quite rare. Banqueting was instead included in more general dissertations and considered more an accessory field of knowledge than the central theme of investigation. Therefore, given the expansion of works on the topic thereafter, one can infer that Stucki provided a new impetus to the subject throughout Europe, especially when compared to the scattered and fragmentary nature of previous efforts.

The book is *in folio* and amounts to 485a-b pages, of which 397a-b are paginated. The other pages include a frontispiece, a dedicatory letter (to Diethoegus Ringgius and Konrad Meyer, both Zurich senators), a letter to the readers, a summary, an index of names, a glossary, some epigrams in honour of the author, a conclusion, and an analytical index. The work is divided into three books, each representing three broad themes: the first focuses on onomasiology, the second on etiquette, and the third discusses the dining dynamics of ancient banquets. These topics also often overlap, and so each can be found in more than one part, but with different intentions. This results in a complex weave of allusions and cross-references typical of the encyclopaedic nature of the treaty.

52 Stucki 1597; 1613; 1695.

<sup>51</sup> Froschauer's business had religious and political connotations from the start, not least because it was Zwingli who encouraged him to open a publishing house; see Jedin 1976, 189.

<sup>53</sup> See Stucki 1587, in which the knowledge gathered in the *Antiquitates Conviviales* was converted substantially in the *de Coena Domini* dispute. The key role covered by banqueting in confessional debates was also noted by Orsini 1588, 2: "Romanam antiquitatem, atque adeo Graecam ipsam, a qua potissimum fluxit Romana, multis sane nominibus conferre ad intellegentiam cognitionemque complurium Sacrae Scripturae locorum, omnes ij norunt, qui in evolvendis antiquitatum monumentis, aliqua cum diligentia sunt versati".

Regarding the preceding literary output on ancient banqueting, the *Antiquitates Conviviales* deal with an evident need to unify information that until then had been scattered and confused. In his preface, Stucki underlines this need in view of the multifarious cultural stratifications on offer, the abundance of sources, and all those ancient and modern authors who "multa symposiaca passim in operibus suis sparsisse, atque adeo peculiares de symposiis libros conscribisse"; he also affirms, thanks to the broad range of the subject, that it is possible through ancient banqueting accounts to encounter a huge range of human issues, adding that "convivia universam fere vitam complectantur, fieri non potest, quin is qui conviviis scribit, simul de plurimis humanae vitae officiis scribat"; in other words, he claims that writing about banqueting means writing about life.<sup>54</sup>

In terms of the method used, Stucki does not shy away from the philological reconstruction of a text. In fact, his exegetical intentions emerge from his explanation of certain obsolete and obscure words.55 This key task is covered by his study of etymology and semantics, which are supported by systematic linguistic comparisons of specific nomenclatures, including contemporary terms, to reconstruct the signifier-meaning relationship lost over centuries of cultural change. This comparative urgency may have derived from the need to construct a thematic glossary linked to modern language to remove any possible interpretative errors of words that were not fully intelligible. Therefore, this criterion was a useful philological parameter to fill in the lexical gaps of modern languages by applying a transitive relationship between different linguistic elements, resulting in an interposed recovery of meanings. However, these parallel passages not only aim to ascribe a value in the current language to a corresponding ancient word or expression, but also to help identify, in the formation of language even beyond its literary use, those dynamics that might also have been active in classical languages. Hence, Greek, Latin, Hebrew are juxtaposed with modern vernaculars, such as French, Spanish, Italian and, in this case, mostly German, because of the origins of the author. This goal is established from the opening paragraphs of the first section, which deal with the

<sup>54</sup> Stucki 1582, *ad lect.*: "Multa itaque ad privatam publicamque vitam atque mores bene informandum regendumque per quam utilia documenta ethica, oeconomica, politica atque etiam militaria ex antiquis literarum monumentis deprompta in hoc volumine continentur. Multa praetera valetudinid tuendae atque conservandae medica ac salutaria praecepta in eodem reperies".

<sup>55</sup> Stucki 1582, *ad lect.*: "Habebunt adhaec linguarum atque grammaticae studiosi vocabulorum quorundam elegantium obsoletorum obscurorumque explicationem".

various names for banquets; Stucki states that he needed to explain the specific vocabulary at the outset for didactic reasons.<sup>56</sup>

Stucki openly demonstrates the usefulness of retracing linguistic history throughout different domains of study, and attempts to prove its efficacy in better shaping the semantic culture of the subject. He therefore attempted to trace back the wide variety of banqueting vocabulary to common roots, identifying the whole system of derived forms. His objective was to understand the basic mechanisms that reveal the constant dynamics despite the diachronic and diatopic variations common to all languages: the aim was to demonstrate how a naturally acquired idiom can have the same effects that govern ancient languages. In this sense, Stucki even found that national idioms demonstrated a clear, expressive source that could restore a new lymph to an otherwise silent world, comparing similar dynamics despite their distance in time.57 Here, a meaningful link could be identified with the comparative method masterfully accomplished by Piero Vettori – in which the three linguistic domains, Greek, Latin, and Vernacular, converge into one unitary reflection of singular coherence.<sup>58</sup> The philological analysis exceeds the specific culture of the text, receiving information directly from those elements which, from an anthropological view, recur without relevant variations in different cultures. This causes linguistic variety and chronological differences to lose their cultural overtones, instead becoming fortuitous, expressive vehicles of concepts unvaried in their own substance.<sup>59</sup>

The number of cited sources is enormous (564 ancient and modern authors) and has not been matched by later scholars on the same subject. In this boundless, exegetical scenario, some of the categories are particularly interesting if considered to be dependent on the comparative method. For example, the geographic and ethnograph-

<sup>56</sup> One of the most illustrative models of this approach can be found at the end of the discussion on ancient banqueting etymologies, where a parallel with Germanic languages is drawn, providing a clear practical application of the method; see Stucki 1582, 3: "Germanice convivium vulgo Maal, Gastmaal, Gasterey, Banquet, Weerdtschap a Belgis appellatur. Notabis praeterea omnia fere conviviorum nomina Germanica definire vel in Maal, ut Abendtmaal, id est, vesperna, Nachtmaal, id est, coena: vel in Suppen, quod pultem sive pulmentum significat, quo Germani maxime delectantur, ut Morgensuppen, id est, ientaculum: vel in Stuck, id est, frustum, ut Früstuck, id est ientaculum: vel in Trunck, id est, potum sive potationem, ut Abendtrunck, id est potatio vespertina, Schlaafftrunck, quasi dicas ὑπνοπόσιον, id est, comessatio: vel in ässen, id est, edere, ut morgen ässen, abendt ässen, zünacht ässen, Imbiß, id est, ientaculum, vesperna, coena, prandium: vel in Brot, id est, panem, ut Morgenbrot, id est, ientaculum, Abendbrot, id est, vesperna: vel denique in zächen et ürten (quae duo vocabula symbolam sive collectum significant) et Abendtzäch, Abendtürten, id est, vespertina compotatio".

<sup>57</sup> Drusi 2012a, 32-3.

<sup>58</sup> Drusi 2012a, 18.

<sup>59</sup> Drusi 2012a, 15-38. For linguistic comparison and the use of analogy in the antiquarian method, see also Grafton 2019.

ic quotations display exotic anecdotes originating from Africa, Asia, and South America. These are evaluated in careful comparisons with classical antiquity; from this, unexpected and meaningful resemblances emerge. When Stucki mentions *Aygnam*, the Brazilian necrophagous god (*Aygua* in his text),<sup>60</sup> he cites the contemporaneous *Histoire* by Jean de Léry (1536-1613), adding a sequence of cross references that touch on the Pre-Columbian populations, the Normans, the Israelites, and the Greeks in the verses of Pausanias.<sup>61</sup> From this

60 Stucki 1582, 79: "De Americensibus autem haec litteris memoriaeque recens prodidit Ioannes Leryensis testis αὐτόπτης, (de quo paulo ante dictum est). A prima statim nocte, postquam cadaver defuncti, eo quoquo dictum est, ritu terrae fuit mandatum, magnas patinas farinae, volucrum, piscium, aliorumque ciborum prius bene concoctum plenas una cum potu caovin dicto, defuncti sepulchro imponunt, idque more plane diabolico tandiu facere continuant, done[c] ipsum cadaver putrefactum esse exstimant. Id autem faciunt, quia huiusmodi menti errore sunt imbuti, ut existiment diabolum, (quem sua lingua Ayguam appellant) nisi alios cibos, quos devoret, ibi praefantes habeat, ipsum cadaver effossorum rursus, atque devoratum esse. Ab hoc errore, addit author, illos abducere eo nobis fuit difficilius, quod Normandi quidam interpretes, qui ante nos in regionibus illis versati sunt, sacerdotum Belis imitatione, cibos illos sepulchris impositos, noctu clam surripuerunt, quos miseri illi homines a diabolo illo suo devoratos fuisse crediderunt. Haec itaque Normandorum fraus illos in suo illo errore obstinatos reddidit, ut quantumvis vel ipsa experientia summo studio illis demonstrare simus conati cibos illos, quos vesperi in sepulchro collocaverant, crastino die illibatos adhuc reperiri, vix tamen paucis quibusdam id persuadere potuerimus. Atque hic quidem agrestium illorum hominum error parum admodum a Rabbinorum, hoc est, Doctorum Iudaicorum, necnon Pausaniae delirijs videtur differre. Rabbini enim, quorum multa alia sunt errorum opionumque falsarum monstra atque prodigia, defunctorum corpora credunt diabolici cuismodi potestati esse permissa, quem illi Zazelum aut Azazelum appellant. Atque ad hanc quidem impiam absurdamque suam opinionem confirmandam, quaedam sacrarum litterarum loca, ut Lev. 16. Isa. 65. et in primis illa Dei verba ad serpentem Gen. 3. (vesceris pulvere toto vitae tuae tempore) impie impudenterque detorquent. Quoniam enim, inquiunt illi, corpus humanum ex terrae pulveribus atque luto (qui quidem diaboli est cibus illi a Deo assignatus) est conflatum, idcirco illud eius potestati esse subiectum, donec in spiritualem naturam fuerit conversum. Pausania similiter daemonis cuiusdam mentionem facit, cui nomen Eurinomus, a quo oraculorum Delphinorum interpretes mortuorum carnes omnino devorari, nec quicquam ab illo praeter ossa reliquum fieri constanter affirmarunt". See also Bry 1590, 223-4 (in which an engraving of this god is provided); Cholières 1600, 92; Câmara Cascudo 2002.

61 de Léry 1578: "Toutefois pour retourner à nos *Tououpinambaults*, depuis que le François ont hanté parmi eux ils n'enterrent pas si coustumierement les chose de valeur avec leurs morts, qu'ils souloyent faire auparavant: mais, ce qui est beaucoup pire, oyez la plus grande superstition qui se pourroit imaginer, en laquel ces pauvres gens sont detenus. Des la premiere nuict d'apres qu'un corps, à la façon que vous avez entendu, a esté enterré, eux croyans fermamente que si *Aygnan*, c'est à dire le diable, en leur langage, ne trouvoit d'autres viandes toute prestes aupres, qu'il le deterreroit et mangeroit: non seulement ils mettent de grands plats de terre plein de farine, volailles, poissons et autres viandes bien cuicts, avec de leur bruvage dit *Caovin*, sus la fosse du defunct, mais aussi iusqu'à ce qu'il pensent que le corps soit entièrement pourri, ils continuent à faire tels serservices, vrayment diaboliques: duquel erreur il nous estoit tant plus mal aisé de les divertir, quel les truchemens de Normandie qui nous avoyent precedez en ce pays-la, à l'imitation des prestres de Bel, desquels il est fait mention en l'Escrtiture, prenans de nuict ces bonnes viandes pour les manger, les y avoyent tellement entretenus, voire confirmez, que quoy que par l'experience nous leur mostrissions que brief overview, it is possible to see that his *Antiquitates Conviviales* is structured as a thematic encyclopaedia, where the antiquarian data assumes a universal character because of its precise existence in history. In essence, this means that the presentation of the matter influenced the content itself, demonstrating how Stucki's methodology became paramount in subsequent scholarship.

# 7.5 Literary Fortune

However, immediately after the publication of this treatise, a peculiar phenomenon occurred: scholars who wrote on ancient banqueting after 1582 mentioned neither Stucki's name nor his treatise for over thirty years, determining its actual *damnatio memoriae* immediately after the first edition. In order to understand this dynamic, it is important to remember that the confessional positions of the author and the period in which his work was written represented two critical elements within its reception in scholarly and erudite environments. A sophisticated humanist study emanating from a Protestant land, and which handled a topic largely neglected by Roman Catholic scholars (bearing in mind its inherently probable inter-confessional and doctrinal consequences), would hardly have been greeted with open arms by the Catholic world during the last decades of the sixteenth century.

It is therefore no surprise that Stucki's name was included in the first class of the 1596 edition of the *Index librorum prohibitorum*. 62 There is persuasive evidence that this interdiction had been established previously, perhaps around the year that Stucki's book was published, and perhaps through circulation of a manuscript (common

62 *Index* 1596, 12: "In prima [classe] non tam libri, quam librorum scriptores, continentur, qui aut haeretici, aut nota haeresis suspecti fuerunt: horum enim Catalogum fieri oportuit, ut omnes intelligant, eorum scripta, non edita solum, sed edenda etiam, prohibita esse"; and 43: *Auctorum Primae Classis* […] *Ioannes Stuchk*. Before its official inclusion in the Roman Index, Stucki's work had already been condemned in the *Index Hispanus*; see 5 ASU, Series XI, vol. 1, f. 21-vol. 2, f. 784. See also Bujanda 1990, 597.

ce qu'ils y mettoyent le soir s'y retrouvoit lendemain, à peine peusmes nous persuader le contraire à quelque uns. Tellement qu'on peut dire que ceste resuerie des sauvages n'est pas fort different de celle des Rabins doctoeurs Iudaiques: ne de celle de Pausanias. Car les Rabins tiennent que le corps mort est laissé en la puissance d'un diable qu'ils nomment *Zazel* ou *Azazel*, lequel ils dissent estre appelé prince du desert, au Levitique: et mesme pour confirmer leur erreur, ils destournent ces passages de l'Escriture où il est dit au serpent, Tu mangeras la terre tout le temps de ta vie: car, dissentils, puis que nostre corps est creé du limon et de la poudre de la terre, qui est la viande du serpent, il luy est suiect iusques à ce qu'il soit transmué en nature spirituelle. Pausanias semblablement raconte d'un autre diable nommé Eurinomus, duquel les interpreteurs des Delphiens ont dit qu'il devoroit la chair des morts, et n'y laissoit rien que les os, qui est en somme, ainsi que I'ay dit, le mesme erreur de nos Ameriquains". See also Acciarino 2012, 22-4.

practice for the sanctioning of texts, integrated only later in the printed editions of the indexes of forbidden books). In fact, in the manuscript censorship protocol ratified by the Holy Office,63 the passages of the *Antiquitates Conviviales* that had to be modified or deleted<sup>64</sup> were listed in detail. A good example can be found in the censured volume stored at the Panizzi library in Reggio Emilia.<sup>65</sup>

It is plausible that the prohibition of a work treating a matter that the Catholic Church still wished to control provoked an editorial bounce-effect. By 1588, the *De triclinio Romano* of Fulvio Orsini and Pedro Chacón (1526-1581) had already been published in Rome;<sup>66</sup> in

#### 63 ASU, Prot. CC (25), 431*rv*-448*rv*.

64 The censorship of books during the Counter-Reformation prescribed certain limits on the editorial tendencies of the time to determine whether a text was acceptable or 'pernicious'. The counter measures were forms of prohibition that banned texts condemned by all Catholic countries, with revisions of their work provided instead; see Rotondò 1963, 146-7; Rozzo 1997, 219-20; Frajese 2008, 276-80.

65 Catalogue Panizzi 16 A 527. This book was originally stored in the library of the convent of Santo Spirito dei Minori Osservanti, near Reggio Emilia, and merged in the Biblioteca Panizzi after the suppression of the convents proclaimed by Napoleon in 1796. Many of the volumes from this convent were censored according to the *Index Librorum Prohibitorum* of 1619, including among others Conrad Gesner's *Epitome Bibliothecae* (Gesner 1555 – catalogue Panizzi 17 B 81). The same happened with Stucki's volume. However, *Index* 1619, 522-6 refers to the pagination of the revised version of the *Antiquitates Conviviales* (Stucki 1597), while the volume censored was the *princeps* (Stucki 1582). Since the two editions had different page numbers, the censor had to deal with a discrepancy in the layout of the contents, and probably ended up deleting only corresponding passages that could be easily identified. The Panizzi volume of Stucki featured in an exhibition held in Reggio Emilia; see Festanti 2009. One of the other reasons that could have occasioned or expedited the censorship is that, when writing his book, Stucki took inspiration from his master, a Zurich theologian and sonin-law of Heirich Bullinger. This was Ludwig Lavater (1537-1586). A banned author for Catholics and writer of the influential *Historiae de origine et progressu controversiae sacramentariae de Coena Domini*, a very controverted issue in the post-Tridentine era; see Lavater 1572. In the prefatory letter to the reader, Stucki evokes his masters by praising and celebrating Lavater among others, stating that he had directed him to the studies on banqueting; see Stucki 1582, *ad lect.*: "Nam primo in ipsa patria mea charis., quoad longissime potest mens mea respicere spatium praeteriti temporis, et pueritiae memoriam recordari ultimam inde usque repetens Lud. Lavaterum, acerrimi ingenii iudiciique virum, omnique doctrinarum genere politissimum, quemadmodum praeclara illius literarum monumenta testantur, video mihi principem ad suscipiendam et ingrediendam hanc studiorum rationem extitisse". Stucki devotes some space to the topic previously treated by his master at the beginning of his work: Stucki 1582, 5-9: DE CONVIVIORVM ORIGINE, FINE VSV ET ABVSV: *Epulum Paschale. Convivia Christianorum Ecclesiae primitivae* […] *Coenae Dominicae finis* […] *Cur Coena Dominica dicta* […] *S. Augustini testimonia de fine Coenae Dominicae* […] *Coena Dominica pax dicta* […] *Foedera Eucharistiae communione sancita* […] *Dolendum Coena Dominicam fieri rixarum seminarium* […] *Conviviorum abusus luxuriosus apud Christianos*. See also Jedin 1976, 295-300, 425-30 and 455-62.

66 Orsini 1588. Pedro Chacón's work survived the rigours of Spanish censorship without addressing any of the difficulties to be found the banqueting side. The protocol is recorded in Madrid, BNE ms. 9089, cc. 141*r*-142*r*: "Censura sobre los Discursos de Pedro Chacon. He recevido los discursos de Pedro Chacon de Buena memoria y me pa1592 the *Reliquiae convivii prisci* of Hendrik van de Putte (1574-1646), also known as Henricus Puteanus, was published in Milan;<sup>67</sup> in 1596, the *Historia vinorum, de vinis Italiae et de conviviis antiquorum* of Andrea Bacci (1524-1600) appeared in Rome;<sup>68</sup> and in 1615, *Il Convito* by Ottaviano Rabasco was published in Florence.<sup>69</sup> One can include in this list the manuscripts of Ulisse Aldrovandi's *De modo accumbendi in mensa apud antiquos et de tricliniis antiquorum dissertatio*, housed in Bologna,<sup>70</sup> Pirro Ligorio's *Compilatione dell'antichi convivii*, arranged in Ferrara,<sup>71</sup> and *De' Conviti degli Antichi*, assembled in Florence perhaps by the physician Paolo Mini (1526-1599) – all likely written around or soon after the *Antiquitates Conviviales*. None of these works ever mention Stucki, but they sometimes acknowledge his text tacitly or cryptically. Indeed, the Florentine manuscript has been proven to be a vernacular translation, abridged and modified, of the first book of Stucki's compilation.72 Given all the statistical evidence available, the remarkable growth of studies on ancient ban-


70 Aldrovandi's work is located at the Bologna University Library (BUB Aldrov. 71, cc. 257-304). It is dedicated to cardinal Gabriele Paleotti, and its *terminus post quem* is certainly June 1577. This was the year Aldrovandi travelled to Rome, stopping at the Medici court in Florence on the way. During his stay, he had the opportunity to attend to an oration on ancient banquets held by Piero Vettori, as stated at the very beginning of the treatise (c. 257*r*: "Ill.mo et R.mo Cardinali Paleoto | Ulysses Aldrovandus S.P.D. | Cum mente Junio elapso Roma redirem Bononiam, Florentiae inter prandendum apud R.m Nuntium ad magnum Ducem, habitus esset sermo ab ecc.mo Petro Victorio quomodo mensa esset, de modo accumbendi in mensa apud antiquos, et cum multa hinc inde a nobis dicta essent de modo accumbendi in lectis stratis"). It is not currently possible to establish the exact date of composition of the work; however, given the general raising of treatises *de conviviis* since Stucki and the attention to confessional issues displayed by Aldrovandi's patron, it is reasonable to assume that this work was also assembled in around 1582.

71 Ligorio's work, which is located at the Biblioteca Ariostea (BCA II 384), should be dated to the twilight years of his life spent in Ferrara 1580-84, probably 1583. The presence of two different works by Aldrovandi and Ligorio on ancient banqueting could represent a specific cultural dynamic. During that time (1580-81), both scholars were consulted by Paleotti on another delicate issue related to visual art (see Acciarino 2018). This could point to a dialogue on delicate religious issues conducted through antiquarian erudition and fostered by a very active and learned patron, which in fact Paleotti was.

72 The Florentine manuscript (BNCF Magliab. XXVIII 52) was certainly written after Stucki's work; for more details see Acciarino 2012, 19-52. Given the interpretations of the translator/manipulator when faced with the original author's text, *De' Conviti degli Antichi* cannot be included in the canon of the forced author corrections; however, at the same time, the activity carried out by its author in general shares some of these principles, thereby cancelling the original intention to subordinate it to legislation and cultural preponderance; Firpo 1961.

rean muy bien trabajados y que se deven publicar por honrra de qui en los hizo y provecho de los amigos de las antigallas de Roma".

queting must be considered important, since it shows a tendency that made the *Antiquitates Conviviales* a constant, albeit implicit, point of reference and comparison throughout the entire period when the subject became fashionable.<sup>73</sup>

The difficulties surrounding the matter were well understood by all authors, even to the extent that sometimes one senses a cautious attitude right from the beginning of their writings. One such case is the Dutch scholar, Henricus Puteanus (a pupil of Joseph Scaliger, Adrien Turnèbe, and Lipsius), who lived in Milan where he attended the court and was a professor of Latin for some years. In the dedicatory letter of his *Reliquiae convivii*, the topic already appears controversial, especially since it could have been unwelcomed or neglected by a constituency of potential readers ("Librum, quem de ritibus convivialibus Romanorum invisis aliis aut neglectis in hac mea peregrinatione perscripsi, tibi dare dedicare visum").<sup>74</sup> Moreover, after having attacked the uncontrolled use of censorship (often indiscriminate and influenced by defamatory voices),<sup>75</sup> Puteanus defends the choice of the subject of banqueting matter in his letter to the reader (while avoiding any "intemperantiae notam"); he attempts to associate his work with a prior tradition formed by prudent and learned men, who in the abundance of their works had omitted some points (hence the title).<sup>76</sup> It is clear that his work is structured like Lipsius's

76 Puteanus 1592, *praef.*: "De Convivio scripserunt nonnulli; sed ita screrunt, ut post uberem messem, quam collegerunt, spicas aliquot relinquerint mihi alijsque tollendas. […] Non enim Convivium, ne falso accusent, sed Reliquias convivi scripsi, easque (di-

<sup>73</sup> This is not the case for Joannes Rosinus, another author who took the opportunity to digress on the subject of banqueting in his antiquarian miscellany, *Antiquitatum Romanarum Libri*. This section, entitled *De mensis et convivis antiquorum*, is just a few pages long and deals with the topic only very superficially; see Rosinus 1583, 209- 14. His digression on banqueting has no bearing on Stucki's work – probably because the author had not seen the work of his predecessor before its publication. Of greater interest, however, is that Stucki is never mentioned in the Scottish scholar Thomas Dempster's seventeenth-century commentary of Roszfed's work. In the *Paralipomena* to the chapters on banqueting, Dempster provides clarity on the issues explained by Rosinus, relying on several ancient and modern sources, which indicate that he probably deliberately avoided mentioning the Swiss theologian; see Dempster 1613, 358-90.

<sup>74</sup> Puteanus 1592, *dedic*.

<sup>75</sup> Puteanus 1592, *praef.*: "Multi equidem priusquam gustum aliquem suorum studiorum fructumque percipiant, mora deterriti; plures pernitiosissimis calumniantium telis petiti in medio itinere subsistunt, aut gressum referunt. Nam sicuti omni semper aevo fuerunt, qui roderent alienam famam et extinctum vellent nomen litterarum, ita nunc quoque nonnulli inveniuntur, qui, quod ipsi assequi non possunt, in alijs invident, et obtrectatione alienae scientiae nomen aucupantur, qui eo dementiae simul et arrogantiae prorumpunt, ut si binas voces aut formulas male vinctas effutire, aut tardo stylo effodere incipient, censuram rei litterariae sine suffragio gerant. In qua duorum alterum perpetuo faciunt, ut aut carpantur, aut carpant. Non equaliter tamen et pari mensura dant convitia, et accipiunt, indigne enim dant, digne vero accipiunt; et ut semper improbitas virtutem superare conatur, laeduntur minus, quam laedunt. Hosce homines cognoscendos tibi, qui litteras tractas esse censeo, ut caveas, cavendos tamen, ne offendas".

*Sermo convivialis*, suggesting that this was the model to emulate.<sup>77</sup> Judging by Puteanus's passages on censorship and the nature of the topic, he was probably aware of the risks, seeking to protect himself under the shadow of his eminent forerunners, avoiding any possible association with Stucki and the risk of being subjected to the same treatment. From this perspective, the *Reliquiae convivii* could represent a missing link between the Catholic-Italian and Protestantnorthern European perceptions of the matter. Indeed, the absence of any explicit reference to Stucki (this would have been the first time that anyone in Italy had referred to the Swiss theologian even indirectly, perhaps encouraged by Puteanus's geographical proximity to Dutch and Swiss Reformed territories) prefigures those mentions to be made by authors writing in countries where editorial control was less strict.

In fact, Stucki did enjoy considerable literary impact and acclaim. The first author to openly recognise his central role in the antiquarian erudition on banqueting was the German Calvinist theologian and scholar in Transylvania, Johann H. Alsted (1588-1638), in his *Systema mnemonicum*. He draws up an epitome of the *Antiquitates conviviales*, starting from a discussion on the virtue of temperance in eating and drinking,78 and from a paragraph in the section *De conviviis*. 79 He briefly recapitulates Stucki's model, borrowing his interpretative categories and declaring the model to be the richest source he had come across.<sup>80</sup> The same phenomenon occurs in *Apparatus convivialis*, which was written by the German humanist Caspar Ens (b. 1570), where he confers on Stucki the prestige of having written

78 Alsted 1610, 508-10: "Temperantia, quae dicitur frugalitas, est custos vitae; noverca vero vitae est intemperantia; praesertim studiosis, quibus convenit victus frugalis, uti Danielis exemplum confirmat, qui una cum sociis in Babyloniam deportatis, repudiavit regium cibum et potum, leguminibus et aqua sibi postulatis. […] Sed temperantia illa non solum consistit in victus qualitate simplici, sed etiamquantitate et perceptione".

79 Alsted 1610, 511-21.

cam quod sentio) non ita curiose collegisse me adfirmo, quin, si quis volet, etiam post me Reliquias Reliquiarum invenire possit".

<sup>77</sup> Puteanus 1592, *praef.*: "Circumfer mentem paullulum, eosque omnes considera, qui hoc munus laudabiliter execute sunt, Philologiae peritissimos viros, et facile erit, ut spretis novis illis ptribus, in sententiam meam pedibus eas. Reperias non ignotos aliquos et proletarios homines, sed Lipsios, Scaligeros, Turnebos, similiaque tot lumina Doctrinae, quae non admirari solum aut venerari, verum etiam imitari nobis contigit". In 1609, Lipsius published another tract entitled *Tractatus ad historiam Romanam cognoscendam*, the fifth book of which is dedicated to ancient banqueting, *De ritu conviviorum apud Romanos* (Lipsius 1609, V). This section is a sort of epitome of his former *Sermo convivialis* (Lipsius 1575, 77-128).

<sup>80</sup> Alsted 1610, 511: "Ex his videre est, quomodo studiosis etiam liceat agitare convivia: in quibus spectari volumus, locum, tempus, convivii genus, convivae, colloquia, edendi bibendique modus, hilaritatis moderatio et morandi tempus, de quibus omnibus cospiose Guil. Stuckius in Antiquitatibus Convivialibus".

such a monumental work that rendered all other studies on the subject almost superfluous.<sup>81</sup> Moreover, *Disputatio historica de conviviis* by the jurist, Gregor Biccius (d. 1657), originally presented and then published by the Strasbourg Academy defined Stucki as the highest authority (endorsed by Alsted) on the subject, both in terms of his text and rhetorical layout. Stucki also appears at the end of a list of sources in a pre-eminent position.<sup>82</sup>

The example set by the French Jesuit, Jules-César Boulenger (1558- 1628), in his *De conviviis libri quattuor* is somewhat different. In his letter to the reader, he acknowledged Stucki as the principal authority on ancient banqueting, but also accused him of over-elaborating his methodology; he also referred to some of Stucki's predecessors, like Lipsius and Chacón.<sup>83</sup> His orthodox Catholic background meant that Boulenger could have opted for silence, like the scholars writing immediately after Stucki's publication. Instead, his reference to Stucki in 1627 possibly demonstrated liberalisation of the debate on banqueting, or at least recognition among non-Italian Catholic circles of Stucki's academic relevance in the humanist sphere.

# 7.6 Conclusions

This survey reveals that the growth of antiquarian studies on banqueting was engendered by a combination of various trends and evolved in different directions, in accordance with contrasting religious and cultural environments. New polarities bloomed from the seeds of the Protestant Reformation and the Council of Trent, affecting the mental predisposition of many scholars; this helped prepare

<sup>81</sup> Ens 1615, 1-2: "Quamvis Apparatus noster Convivialis non culinarijs, sed litterarijs constet ferculis, ac post Gulielmum Stuckium (qui integrum volumen De Convivialibus Antiquitatibus edidit) quidquam ea de re scribere supervacaneum sit, pauca tamen a doctissimo viro in compendium veluti contracta, praemittere visum est, eam in primis ob caussam, ut non ritus modo veteres, verum etiam frugalitas antiquorum appareant".

<sup>82</sup> Biccius 1622, *praef*.: "Idque eo confidentius, cum videbam ante me viros in republica literaria principes, in scriptis suis passim symposiaca sparsisse, adeoque peculiares etiam de cinviviis libellos conscripsisse; in quibus familiam dicere videntur Plato, Xenophon, Aristoteles, Plutarchus, Athenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Marsilius Ficinus, Caelius Rhodiginus, Alexander ab Alexandro, Pontanus, Janus Cornarius, Lipsius, Petrus Faber, et quem prae ceteris studiose sequar, Johannes Gulielmus Stuckius, in tribus suis Antiquitatum Convivialium libris, quo omni genera eruditione refertos esse, graviter censet Alstedius".

<sup>83</sup> Boulenger 1627, *ad lect*.: "Scripsere multi olim, hodieque non pauci, de conviviis: Stuckius libros aliquot eruditos, sed multa parerga miscet, Lipsius polite ut omnia, sed multa levi manu et cursim, Ciacconius de triclinio belle, se plaeraque parum explicate. Tot tantisque viris succedaneus tres tibi libellos, benevole lector, do, dico, quos si triclinio tuo exceperis, ut Iupiter Homericus, escae nidore contenti erunt, tu alios succo pasce".

the groundwork for Stucki's work, determine its programme, and open up the subsequent growth of publications on ancient banquets.

Still, in view of the information brought to light, the *Antiquitates Conviviales* represents an effective breakthrough for historical studies on banqueting and elevates the subject to a higher level of research from empirical, historical, linguistic, and cultural perspectives. Moreover, Stucki was the first writer to understand that banqueting, feasting, and its associated social and cultural exchanges could be seen to have universal, human significance. His systematic dissertation influenced all those who later wrote on the topic of banqueting and sacred feasts. Indeed, Stucki's work is generally acknowledged to have preceded a uniform framework of discussion, but this is almost always downplayed when considering the Zurich theologian's magisterial effort: the works of his epigones should be considered critical approaches to his *magnum opus*.

The impact that Stucki had on his contemporaries and posterity emerges surprisingly in the literary evidence, which is evident from the uptick in the number of publications on the issue after his work. In the various cultural and religious domains cited above, one consequence of Stucki's book was that multifarious kinds of antiquarian scholarship from previous decades became more coherent, which resulted in an increase in work and discussions on ancient banqueting. The book's *Wirkungsgeschichte* and the long trail he left in the learned culture of the late Renaissance and post-Reformation era meant it is possible to identify in the first edition of 1582 the catalyst for the further development of antiquarian learning and for the creation of a formative pattern for the entire subsequent tradition.

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# 8 Fashion **Ancient Clothing**

**Summary** 8.1 Introduction. – 8.2 Renaissance Works *De Re Vestiaria*. – 8.3 Dressing the Ancients (i): Theatrical Costumes. – 8.3.1 Rome 1513. – 8.3.2 Vicenza 1585. – 8.3.3 A Comparison. – 8.4 Dressing the Ancients (ii): The Gallery of Francis I at Fontainebleau.

> Vestis virum facit. εἴματα ἀνήρ, id est, vestis vir.<sup>1</sup>

### 8.1 Introduction

During the Renaissance many catalogues of clothes and fashion were published throughout whole Europe,<sup>2</sup> some of which featured ele-

1 Erasmus 1528a, 638: "Id hodie quoque vulgo tristissimum est. Aiunt enim ad hunc modum: vestitus virum reddit, qui habet, induat [Walther 1963-69, 33268b ]. Idem affirmat Quintilianus lib. Instit. 8. Et cultus, inquiens, concessus atque magnificus, addit hominibus, ut Graeco versu testatum est, auctoritatem [Quint. 8 *Proem*. 20]. Hunc autem versum, quem citat Fabius, opinor esse illum apud Homerum Odysseae Ζ. Ἐκ γάρ τοι τούτων φάτις ἀνθρώπους ἀναβαίνει | Ἐσθλή [Hom. *Od*. 6.29-30]. Id est Quippe homini ex istis surgit bona fama decus que. Paulo inferius in eodem libro, quantum momenti cultus vestium adferat, ad conciliandam homini formam dignitatem que, satis indicat, cum Nausicam puellam ita de Ulysse loquentem facit: Πρόσθεν μὲν γὰρ δή μοι ἀεικέλιος δόατ' εἷναι, | Νῦν δὲ θεοῖσιν ἔοικε, τοὶ οὐρανὸν εὐρὺν ἔχουσιν [Hom. *Od*. 6.242-3], id est Ante videbatur specie foedissimus esse, | Nunc divis similis, magnus quos pascit olympus. Nam ante nudus, jam vestes nitidas induerat Ulysses, ac protinus alius esse visus est: Ἕζετ' ἔπειτ' ἀπάνευθε κιὼν ἐπὶ θῖνα θαλάσσης, | Κάλλει καὶ χάρισι στίλβων [Hom. *Od*. 6.236-7]. Id est Deinde procul, veniens ad littora pontica sedit | Fulgescens forma, atque leporibus".

2 For a general bibliography on Renaissance clothing and fashion in its most heterogenous ramifiations see McCall 2017. In the major works of the field, the antiquarian aspects of fashion are generally neglected; some studies manifest interest in this pecu-

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *La rivista di Engramma* 154 (2018), 111-40.

ments deriving from antiquity. However, this interest in ancient garments, which stemmed from the wider spectrum of antiquarian erudition, can be dated to a precise timeframe when some of the most important scholars and artists of the period produced significant treatises that gave rise to the rich genre *de re vestiaria*. Works focusing specifically on clothing began to appear in the mid-fifteenth century and blossomed during the decades that followed, reaching their zenith in the mid-seventeenth century. During this time, a gradual evolution in the construction of various contents occurred alongside advancements made in archaeological and philological investigative methods. The early modern scholars who studied ancient clothing approached the question from two different starting points: the first was a focus on literary sources, which involved identifying any written references to a specific garment from which its form or function could be understood; the second was a focus on material sources, which were composed mainly of ancient archaeological findings such as statues, bas-reliefs, gems, cameos, fresco paintings, and coins, all of which often featured clothed figures. By merging these two areas of research, they were able to assign names to the garments mentioned or represented and give them shape according to their written description or appearance on an artefact. As could be expected, the rapid change in customs caused the names or functions of many garments to also change over time. The often-unclear representations in ancient findings did not help in this regard. Initially, significant difficulties were encountered even when simply attempting to identify a *toga*, *trabea* or *tunica* or imagine what they looked like.

The purpose of this chapter is to retrace the history of the treatises on ancient clothing written during the Renaissance, to identify as many works as possible and describe their different approaches so as to include them in the broader context of the history of ideas. Two case studies will also be presented in order to demonstrate the influence this knowledge had on the cultural life of the time: the first illustrates its impact on ancient theatrical costumes, specifically in Rome and Vicenza at the beginning and end of the sixteenth century; the second focuses on the pictorial decorations of the Gallery of Francis I at Fontainebleau between 1534 and 1538. These investigations, which attempt to describe the vitality of the overall phenomenon, represent just two samples of a plurality of options from which new studies and analyses on the topic may emerge in the future.

liar aspect of classical tradition, never approaching it in a systematic way; see e.g. Tuffal 1955; Nevinson 1955; Blanc 1995; Davanzo Poli 2001, 65-6; Guérin Dalle Mese 2002; Davanzo Poli 2004; Jones, Stallybrass 2000; Rosenthal, Jones 2010, 15-20; Reolon 2013, 60. Worthy of mention are also the recent works by Riello 2019 and Balistreri 2020.

**Figure 48** *Woman with stola*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium, 1537

**Figure 49** *Man with toga*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium, 1537

## 8.2 Renaissance Works *De Re Vestiaria*

Towards the end of the fifteenth century, Angelo Poliziano attempted to embrace the sum of human thought conceived by the ancients. In his *Panepistemon*, one of his most important academic lectures, he tried to classify clothing into a specific group referred to as ἀποχειροβίωτοι, that is to say, those who work with learned hands or, in other words, the artisans. Here, he listed a series of professions (35 in all) related either directly or indirectly to clothing, including those who worked the raw materials, those who tailored the garments, those who were responsible for dying the cloth, and many others.<sup>3</sup> Since clothing was gradually becoming an area worthy of research in its own right, with specific characteristics that required separate handling and the use of specialised methodological instruments, this sequence served as the basis for all subsequent works on the topic. Poliziano did not spark a real discussion on clothes in the ancient world, but instead introduced specific categories within which these aspects of cultural heritage could be classified for further investigation.

This structure seems to appear ante litteram in the first discussion on this subject, the mid-fifteenth century treatise *Roma triumphans* composed by Flavio Biondo. Biondo dedicated just a few pages to ancient Roman clothing – book IX in a section titled *De vestibus*. 4

<sup>3</sup> Poliziano 1491, 23: "In tertio quasi genere numerentur ἀποχειροβίωτοι illi quales fabri sunt omnes […] His adice lanarios, sericarios, linteones, bracarios, fullones, textores, infectores, lanificas, lanipendias, carminatores, pannicularios, sagarios, palliones, interpolatores, sarcinatores, patagarios, flamearios, violarios, manulearios, molochinarios, semisonarios, limbularios, plumarios, polymitarios, phrygiones, et qui netum aurum intextunt et netrices, et item funicularios, reticularios, caligarios, cerdones, sutoresque omnes. Celceolarios, crepidarios, solearios, veteramentarios, et item zonarios".

<sup>4</sup> Here Biondo provides a first catalogue of clothes worn in antiquity based on literary sources, mostly founded in Nonius; see Biondo 1559, 194-5: "Toga communis habitus fuit et marium et foeminarum, sed praetexts honestorum, toga viliorum, quod etiam in mulieribus servatur. Nonius [Non. 14.540-1]. Tunica vestimentum sine manicis, ideo Virgilius exprobrans: et tunicae manicas [Verg. *Aen*. 9.614] […] Penula vestis, quam supra tunicam accipimus [Paul. Fest. 506.8]. Stola quae omne corpus tegeret [Non. 14.537]. Palla honestae mulieris indumentum, hoc est, tunicae pallium [Non. 14.537]. Paludamentum vestis, quae postea dicta est chlamys [Non. 14.537]. Praetexta insigne Romanum, quod supra tunicis honorati quique sumunt [Non. 14.541]. Calanticae tegmen capitis muliebre [Non. 14.537]. Aulea genus vestis peregrinum [Non. 14.537], plagae grande linteum tegmen [Non. 14.537], quod postea dictum est; fascia brevis, virginalem horrorem cohibens papillarum [Non. 14.538]. Abolla, vestis militaris [Non. 14.538]. Sagum, militare vestimentum [Non. 14.538]. Regilla, diminutiva vestis [Non. 14.539]. Ralla, dicta a raritate [Non. 14.539]. Rica, quae et sudarium [Non. 14.539]. Caesitium, linteolum purum et candidum [Non. 14.539]. Indusium, quod corpori magis adhaeret vestimentum [Non. 14.539]. Patagium, aureus ornatus vesti additus [Non. 14.540]. Supparum, linteum femorale usque ad talos pendens [Non. 14.540]. Exoticum peregrinum [Non. 14.540]. Mollicina vestis, a mollities dicta [Non. 14.540]. Amphitapae, vestes villos utrinque habentes [Non. 14.540]. Laena, vestimentum militare,

His study began with the origin of clothing followed by a list of ancient names related to ancient garments. Then Biondo tried to reconstruct the fabrics used and moved on to the occasions for which the clothes were worn, and identified the different styles based on gender distinctions (*virilia*, *muliebrilia*), chromatic variations (*vestium colores*) and other characteristics. All these aspects, however, were dealt with very rapidly.

A few decades later, in 1499, Polydor Vergil, an Italian scholar based in Britain, published his *De rerum inventoribus* in which he sought to reconstruct the real or mythical origins of ancient art and knowledge. Among the many aspects he discussed, he also included a section on clothes (III, VI). Polydor adopted a holistic approach similar to that of his predecessors. His investigation started with the raw materials and then went on to examine the art of weaving, the art of fabric dyeing, and the soap used to wash clothes.<sup>5</sup> Polidoro was the first to define the art of weaving as a cultural development that replaced the previous practise of wearing animal hides.

A similar point of view was adopted by Raffaele Maffei in his *Commentariorum rerum urbanarum libri*, published in 1506. Maffei discusses clothing in the third book of his work, which deals with philology and the basic principles of the arts. In particular, he includes a section about clothes, treated according to types and users. Here the names of the ancient garments are all listed mostly without an explanation and with only a literary source provided as a reference. Preceding this series of words there is a description of various fabrics that is in line with the usual scheme adopted in previous treatises. Maffei concludes with a list of footwear and costumes used for ancient tragedies, comedies, and satires.<sup>6</sup>

Even the *Antiquae Lectiones* published by Celio Rodigino in 1516 and the *Geniales dies* published by Alessandro Alessandri in 1522

quod super omnia vestimenta sumitur [Non. 14.541]. Carbasus, pallium quod amiciuntur, aut sericeum, aut lino tenui [Non. 14.541]. Limbus muliebre vestimentum, quod purpuram in imo habet [Non. 14.541]. Flammeum, tegmen quo capita matronae tegunt [Non. 14.541]. Recinium, palliolum foemineum breve, quo mulieres in adversis ac luctibus sumunt [Non. 14.542]. Tapete et culcitra sunt notissima [Non. 14.542]. Subucula, vestis intermedia [Non. 14.542]. Capitia, capitis tegmen [Non. 14.542]. Encimbomata et parnacides, genera vestium puellarium [Non. 14.542]. Barnacidae, quas nunc guarnacias dicunt [Non. 14.542]".

<sup>5</sup> Virgili 1499; 1568, 242-53: *Quis primus invenerit linum, retia nendi texendique modum, vel Artem fulloniam et saponem; aut qui lanas infecerint, aut repererint lanificii, vestiumque, ac pallium ususm, fusos, aulaea, sutoriam Artem, sericum, et quando eius copia per Europam fieri coeperit, ac bombycinam vestem atque purpuram et quid ipsa sit purpura, ac quanto in honore olim et pretio fuerit*.

<sup>6</sup> Maffei 1506, 659-64: *De serico, purpura, cocco, bombicino, bysso, setabo, xylino, linisque aliis*; *Quasquisque populus vestes reperit, et de privatis quorundam; De calciamentis ac tunicis, et vestibus tragicis, comicis ac satyricis*; *De varietate stragulorum et pellium usu*.

Lexis Supplementi | Supplements 6 **256** Studi di Letteratura Greca e Latina | Lexis Studies in Greek and Latin Literature 3 Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism, 251-296

dedicate some pages to ancient clothing. In chapter X of book IX, titled *Vestimenta genera plura*, Ricchieri lists a series of clothes mentioned by classical authors and proposes an etymology and explanation for their specific use.<sup>7</sup> Alessandri, instead, adopts a different approach: in chapter XVIII of book V, in which he discusses the social disparities in Ancient Rome, with particular focus on the distinctions between patricians and plebeians, there is a section titled *Discrimen in vestibus apud diversas gentes* which includes a detailed list of the various clothes worn by the Ancient Romans and those inhabiting their subjugated provinces, with a final discussion on hairstyle.<sup>8</sup>

In spite of these scholars' writings, ancient clothing became widely known in Renaissance erudite studies only in 1526 when Lazare de Baïf, a French antiquary and ambassador to Venice and Germany, published his *De re vestiaria*. This work,<sup>9</sup> which represents the first mon-

8 Alessandri begins his digression on clothing and dress codes when he reported that in ancient Rome Patricians and Plebleians wore garments displaying their social conditions – the formers attached a metal pin on their dress (*bulla*) and a small moon on their shoes (*lunula*); see Alessandri 1522, 284a -292a : *Patriciorum a plebeis distinctio, lunula. Arcades proselenis. Bulla. Bullam Laribus suspendebant. Vestibus barbarorum. Romuli et Camilli statuae tunicatae. Interula. Subucula. Indusia. Praetexta. Purpura. Tribunorum et plebeios vestes. Purpura plebeia. Endromis. Toga qua aetate sumebatur. Toga vestis promiscua ad utraque sexum. Bacchanalibus toga virilis sumebatur. Toga arcta. Vela protogis. Toga cum purpura. Pallium. Toga rasa. Lacerna. Togae amphitheatrales, Coccineae, Boeticae. Mecoenas Malacinus appellatus. Holoserica vestis. Praetexta qui induebantur. Dibapha. Distinctio vestitus inter patricios et senatores. Toga praetexta, consularis et praetoria. Vestis papaverata. Palmata vestis. Vestes triumphales. Abolla. Trabea. Philosophorum vestis. Trabea triplicis generis. Sagum. Sexticula vestes ex provinciis nominata. Discrimen vestitus in mulieribus. Stola. Cyclas, Palla, Ricinus. Crocoton. Syrma. Vergines. Vittarum duo genera. Strophium. Ancillae. Fasciola crurules. Calcei muliebres. Calceorum species. Mullei. Crepidae. Soleae. Mitra. Mitella. Calantica. Una tantum vestes qui utebantur. Anaxyrides. Bracha. Endromis. Cuculli. Vectones. Monilia ferrea. Corona aurea. Antiquorum vestitus ex animalium pellibus. Paludamentum. Chlamys. Saga. Lacerna. Laena. Comam qui nutriebant. Rodenda barba consuetudo quando introducta. Ramenta aurea in capillis. Qui caput tondebant. Comae cura apud quos. Flava come apud Aegyptios contempta. Atheniensium cicadae in comis. Barbam autem capillum inficere imbelle. Capillorum luxus. Synthesis. Lacernae abae quando sumebantur. In veste pulla ludis interesse non licebat. In calamitate publica luctus iudicia*.

9 Baïf 1526. A general overview of his life is given by Sanchi 2013, 203-22 and by Pinvert 1900. Sanchi remarks that Baïf always moved from the juridical aspects of the issues he after developed in monograph treatises – e.g. *de re vestiaria* dealt with *Dig*. 34.2. [*De auro argento mundo ornamentis unguentis veste vel vestimentis et statuis legatis*] 23: "Ulpianus libro 44 ad Sabinum pr. Vestis an vestimenta legentur, nihil refert. 1. Vestimentorum sunt omnia lanea lineaque vel serica vel bombycina, quae induendi praecingendi amiciendi insternendi iniciendi incubandive causa parata sunt et quae his acces-

<sup>7</sup> Ricchieri 1516, 430-6: IX. *Vestitus quam esse addeceat rationem. Veris, aut pavonis cognomina quibus adhaereant. Vestimenta initiatorum quae dicantur per paroemiam. Item de Atheniensium mysteriis. Quid mysteria, et quid mystae, item mystile et thronon. Vestium repositoria. Rhiscus quid*. X. *Vestium genera plura, quae variis de causis sortita appellationem sunt. Batrachium color. Oranus illustratur.* XI. *Lacides vestes quae sint, ac item Pilares et Spira et quae dicerentur Pilae. Cur Tauri Phoeniceis irritentur, contra Domitium et quae sit eius rei ratio. Problematum genera.* […] *Thyfani, Crossi, Tapetes, Strotae*.

ographic treatise on the matter, met with immediate favour and was quickly reprinted by the most prestigious editors in Europe (the first complete with images was issued by Froben in Basel in 1537) **[figs 48- 49]**. This work eventually became the benchmark for all the treatises on the subject that followed. Even Erasmus of Rotterdam paid extensive attention to this work,<sup>10</sup> as is evident from some of his letters and the reference he made to the French scholar in his *Adagia*. <sup>11</sup> Baïf continued to adhere to the ordinary paradigms previously applied to this subject but was able to extend each topic and build a complex and more reliable argument from both a philological and an archaeological perspective. His considerations sprung from the explanation of book XXXVIII of the *Pandects* written by Ulpian, which discussed some restrictive provisions in Roman law regarding clothing. Baïf divides the subject into 21 untitled chapters that deal with the vocabulary of ancient clothing, fabrics, the different types of male and female clothing, and questions about their functions, headdresses, and footwear. The most significant improvement on all previous works was Baïf's cross-examination of various literary sources, both Latin and Greek and from different periods, which at times he matched with ancient findings. This broadening of references allowed him to construct a completely new treatise within the framework of the sixteenth-century editorial scene.

The success of this work can also be measured by the many reprints, revisions and imitations published thereafter. A significant case is Junien Rabier's *De generibus vestium libellus* of 1534, which was openly inspired to Baïf's treatise. Rabier organised the matter differently, from the colours of the clothes to their types and uses, and added to each Latin lemma a French translation, in order to explain the lost meaning of each garment.<sup>12</sup> Similarly, the French botanist

sionis vice cedunt, quae sunt insitae picturae clavique qui vestibus insuuntur. 2. Vestimenta omnia aut virilia sunt aut puerilia aut muliebria aut communia aut familiarica. Virilia sunt, quae ipsius patris familiae causa parata sunt, veluti togae tunicae palliola vestimenta stragula amfitapa et saga reliquaque similia. Puerilia sunt, quae ad nullum alium usum pertinent nisi puerilem, veluti togae praetextae aliculae chlamydes pallia quae filiis nostris comparamus. Muliebria sunt, quae matris familiae causa sunt comparata, quibus vir non facile uti potest sine vituperatione, veluti stolae pallia tunicae capitia zonae mitrae, quae magis capitis tegendi quam ornandi causa sunt comparata, plagulae penulae. Communia sunt, quibus promiscui utitur mulier cum viro, veluti si eiusmodi penula palliumve est et reliqua huiusmodi, quibus sine reprehensione vel vir vel uxor utatur. Familiarica sunt, quae ad familiam vestiendam parata sunt, sicuti saga tunicae penulae lintea vestimenta stragula et consimilia".

<sup>10</sup> Erasmus' praise of Baïf was formulated in his *Ciceronianus* (Erasmus 1528b, 241) and later placed in the frontpage of Baïf 1530: "D. ERAS. ROT. IN CICERONIANO. Superest Lazarus Bayfius, qui unico libello de vestibus eoque non magno, magnam laudem meruit, summamque spem de se praebuit".

<sup>11</sup> De la Garanderie 1985.

<sup>12</sup> Rebier 1534, 6a : "Nihil enim minus experienti erit, partim quod incertum quae veterum nomina, quibus nunc respondeant, partim quod pleraque iam recepta pe-

and physician Charles Estienne,<sup>13</sup> a member of the family of printers and a pupil of Baïf himself, published his *De re vestiaria libellus, ex Bayfio excerptus* in 1535. Estienne produced an original and particularly interesting version of Baïf's work by taking the original and restructuring it so as to make it easier to read: he reordered the text into ten different interpretative categories based on parts of the human body, something that until then had never been done for this subject. He structured his treatise to run from the top of the body to the bottom, i.e. from hats and headdresses to shoes and footwear, and provided the French equivalent for all the Latin and Greek terms for fabrics and clothing, again in order to make it easier to read especially for young students.<sup>14</sup> Moreover, he enriched the treatise by adding, in square brackets, details omitted by Baïf, thereby broadening its interpretative perspectives. It is reasonable to assume that this attitude was influenced by Rebier's booklet.

After the publication of Baïf's *De re vestiaria*, all subsequent treatises on ancient clothing fell under its influence, either adhering to or deviating from it. For example, when Wolfgang Lazius published *Commentaria Reipublicae Romanae illius, in exteris provinciis* in 1551, an important dissertation on the structure of the Roman state in provinces outside of Italy, he dedicated the whole of book VIII to Roman civil and military clothing.15 His discussions amounted to nineteen chapters that subdi-

13 Estienne 1535a; Armstrong 1954.

14 This concept was expressed already in the title with the addition of note *addita vulgaris linguae interpretatione, in adulescentorum gratiam atque utilitatem*, and later reestablished in the letter to the reader; see Estienne 1535a, *lect*.: "id certe cum diligentius perspiceremus, atque audiremus quotidie nonnullos conquerentes, quod Lazarus Bayfius, vir alioqui gravis, non aeque pueris atque eruditioribus consuluisse; ne quid posthac eorum utilitati detractum esse quisquam amplius iudicaret, visum est nobis operaeprecium, summam eorum quae in libello de re vestiaria continentur, brevibus perstringere, atque in ordinem disponere, ex ipsius authoris voluntate; praemissa interim vulgari vestium ac colorum interpretatione, ut vel etiam in hac parte adolescentoli bonarum literarum cupidiores sibi quoque satisfactum putent, nulla tamen authoris gravitate imminuta, sed tantum ex ispius opusulo selectis iis quae ad puerorum utilitatem facere videbantur".

15 Lazius 1551, 695-745: I. *De romanis vestimentis in genere*. II. *De praetexta, et eius generibus.* III. *De toga, et eius generibus.* IV. *De lato clavo, et eius discrimine.* V. *De trabea, et eius discrimine.* VI. *De dalmatica, et eius generibus, et palmata tunica.* VII. *De purpura, et illius generibus ac discrimine.* VIII. *De sago militari, et eius discrimine.* IX. *De chlamyde, et eius generibus.* X. *De paludamento, et eius divisione.* XI. *De lacerna, et eius speciebus.* XII. *De penula, et eius generibus.* XIII. *De campestri subarmalibus, et aliis quibusdam vestimentis.* XIV. *De caligis, ocreis, ac calciamentis.* XV. *De pileorum discrimine, atque cingulorum.* XVI. *De armaturis Romanae Reipublicae in genere.* XVII. *De armis quae corpora tegebant, et ab aliorum iniuriis muniebant.* XVIII. *De armis Romanis quae manu gestabantur.* XIX. *De minoribus armis, quae corpore gestabantur*.

regrina ac barbara. Quare Latinorum et Graecorum veterum monumentis adiutus, et maxime nostri Lazari Bayfii, qui in hoc argumenti genere veteres omnes stadiis multis post se reliquit, qua appellatione Latina Gallicanae vestes venire possint, pro ingenii mei infirmitate scribo".

vided Roman clothing into the following categories: daily life; peace and war; religious functions; and social categories, which in turn were embraced, such as patricians and plebeians, or politicians, as senators and equites. A discussion on each specific garment then followed (*toga*, *trabea*, *praetexta*), thereby adhering more directly to Baïf's model.

In his *Discours sur la religion des Romains* (1556) Guillaume du Choul limits his discussions to a monographic investigation of ancient religious clothing, drawing attention to the different types of priest and minister (flamines, augures, pontifices, vestales) and linking different sources and ancient objects to his discourse.16 He also includes images taken from numismatic and archaeological findings, thereby offering a visual counterpart to the theory presented **[figs 50a-b]**.

In the same year, *Hieroglyphica* was published, the most important collection of ancient symbols ever produced by Renaissance antiquarian erudition. Its author, Giovanni Pierio Valeriano, discussed the symbolic interpretation of clothing in two books, XL and XLI, dedicated respectively to garments and jewellery.<sup>17</sup> Almost overlapping Estienne's rewriting of Baïf's *De re vestiaria*, which described clothes from the top to the bottom of human body, Valeriano began his dissertation from the most famous headgear of antiquity, the *pileus*, and all its related sym-

16 Du Choul 1556, 216-17: "L'entreée du temple de Vesta estoit defendue aux hommes, comme celle des monasteres de noz Religieuses, qui font reformees. Et pour le service de la Deesse furent au commencement ordonneées quatre vierges, depuis six, et dura ce nombre asses longuement, comme la figure des medaillons de Faustine [Johnson/ Martin 1729] et de Lucille [Gnecchi 13] le représentent, qui nous font congnoistre la manière de leurs sacrifices, pour estre representées vestutes de leurs robes blanches (nommées des Latins *Suffibulae*) longuettes, et quarrées. Et de telle longueur, quelles auoyent le moyen de les mettres sus la teste pour se voiler"; 273: "Le Flamine ou le prebstre qui faisoit le sacrifice, estoit vestu d'une robe de toile de lin pure et blanche, que les latins ont nommé Alba vestis, et le vulgaire une aulbe, pource que la couleur blanche est gratieuse a Dieu, et se disoit pure et religieuse la robe, celle qui estoit sans macule et sans figure, et de la quelle ceux qui debuoyent faire le divin service, usoyent aux iours des festes solennelles, pource que le lin sor de la terre, et toutes choses que la terre porte sont estimées pures et mundes. Encores auiourdhuy noz prebstres à la pompe de leurs sacrifices sont vestuz de ligne blanc. Telle coustume lon diroit avoir esté translatét des Aegyptiens sacerdotes, qui auoyent leurs habits de lin tresaggreables, et de l'espece du lin qui est appellé xylon, et de là fut nommée la robe xyline, comme Pline le monstre au dixneufuiéme livre de l'histoire naturelle. Et Cicero dit en ses loix, que la couleur blanche est principalement entre les autres agréable à Dieux, et que les teinctres ne debuoyent point estre recevues sinon aux accoustrements militaires, qui servuoyent pour le gens de guerre. Et tel habit estoit commun aux prebstres des autres temples, qui estoit si large et si long, que sans estre troussé il treinoit iusques à terre, si bien nois regardons l'antique sacrifice cy dessoubs mis".

17 Valeriano 1556, 293-300 [XL. *De iis quae per vestes aliquot significantur, ex sacris Aegyptiorum literis*] and 301-7 [XLI. *De iis quae per bullam, anulum, insigniores aliquot gemmas, et gestamina quaedam significantur ex sacris Aegyoptorum literis*]

bolic meanings.<sup>18</sup> Then, he paused on garments in general, stressing particularly on the occasions in which and on the categories that wore e.g. the *toga*, the *sagum*, the *tunica*, the *suffibulum*, the *stola*, the *alba* or *nigra vestis*, the *paludamentum*, the *zona*, the *cingulum*, the *praetexta*. 19 From this, Valeriano could digress on the different symbolic meaning of each item. He acted analogously when discussing about jewels.<sup>20</sup>

Also Alessandro Sardi from Ferrara in his *De moribus et ritibus gentium* of 1557 dealt with ancient clothing, though adopting a different approach compared to his predecessors: in chapter XIX of book I, he focused on the issue of clothing from a geographical perspective, describing the attire of various populations: Asian, European, African, Barbarian and, to conclude, Greek and Roman.<sup>21</sup> This was the first time this subject matter had been classified according to this criterion, pace Alessandro Alessandri whose study on the clothing of populations conquered by the Romans could be seen as a precursor. What emerges in Sardi's work is not only this author's originality and innovation, but also an increase in the amount of investigative material available after the mid-sixteenth century.

Another particularly relevant case is the treatise of Pirro Ligorio on clothing in the ancient world. His *Di alcune varietà di vestimenti di re e di magistrati romani, di privati e dell'altre usanze di diversi popoli*, is included in his antiquarian encyclopaedia, *Libri di Antichità* (BNN ms. XI-II B 3), which remained in manuscript form. The work is normally dated between 1550 and 1567, maybe before 1561.<sup>22</sup> In several chapters, Ligorio uses Italian vernacular to retrace a series of features of Roman clothing, taking literary sources and various archaeological findings into account within a project of a broader encyclopaedia of antiquity.<sup>23</sup> The

22 Balistreri 2020, XIV.

<sup>18</sup> Valeriano 1556, 293-4: "Quemadmodum in unaquaque re nihil est capite prius, ita vestium aliquot significationes dicturi, a pileo, quod praecipuum est capitis integumentum, convenienter incipiemus", devoting specific chapters to its forms and meanings: *Nobilitas*; *Libertas*; *Liberatores Patriae*; *Servilis improbitas*; three chapters based on readings from the *Codex Theodosianus*; *Triplex libertas*; a description of the *Flamines* who wore the *pileus*; the iconography of *Hippocrates* wearing a *pileus*; and the Forma pilei.

<sup>19</sup> Valeriano 1556, 295-300: "Quantum vero ad reliqua pertinet indumenta, cum multi materiam eam pertractarint, nobis non est consilium singula recensere, sed pauca admodum quae vel remotiora, vel ab aliis diversa videbuntur, et aliquid sapient hieroglyphicum".

<sup>20</sup> Valeriano 1556, 301-7: *De bulla*, *De anulo*, *De diademate*, *De titulo*, *De sceptro*, *De torquibus et phaleris*, *Armillae*, *De adamante*, *Sapphirus*, *Smaragdus*, *Uniones*, *Amethystus*. The last part of the chapter collects symbolic meanings of makeup objects: *De pectine* and *De speculo*.

<sup>21</sup> Sardi 1557, 37-43: XIX. *Nudi qui sint, aliorum vestes, et Romanorum annulos qui ferrent*.

<sup>23</sup> Balistreri 2020, 1: "Havendo negli altri libri trattato dei costumi et origini delle cose antiche di Roma et dell'altre nationi, come delle cose sacre et delle profane, et degli edificii et imagini di templi, degli altari, di derchi, di theatri et dell'amphitheatri, delle therme et dell'altri edificii publici et privati, et trattato anchora dell'altre mate-

manuscript is autograph and illustrated by Ligorio himself, at times with very detailed drawings, and at other times with only rough sketches **[fig. 51]**. When observing the layout of the text on the page, it is clear from the abundance of empty spaces that Ligorio's intention was to augment the work with further illustrations.

One should also note that the subject of ancient clothing had garnered significant interest in the erudite circles around 1567. For example, evidence is found in an epistolary exchange between Paolo Manuzio and Fulvio Orsini, where the former requested the latter's opinion on a chapter dedicated to the *trabea*. 24 In the same year, Onofrio Panvinio and Carlo Sigonio had analogous interactions. It appears that Sigonio had sought to write a treatise on ancient clothing in response to Baïf, which he considered unsatisfactory; for this reason, he asked Panvinio for some clarifications on the subject. Panvinio, who probably discussed this topic in his unpublished treatises, responded by sending him some sketches of ancient clothes.<sup>25</sup>

rie et ornamenti fatti da' Romani et dai Greci, et delle misure et pesi et loro monete, hora pare convenevole di demostrare l'usanze del vestire di tutte le più illustre nationi et principalmente dell'uso di Romani, sotto di quali tutte le gente, per dottrina et per nobiltà conosciute et osservate, dopo le prime usanze, che per necessità furono trovate le difese contro la vergogna et contro al freddo, d'indi poi dall'ingegno e dall'arte humana nobilitate et fatte degne con qualche ornamento et della regale maiestà et dell'altra nobiltà di quei che volleno comparire con magnificenza nelli magistrati et nelle piazze della città, per honorar le loro ricchezze con la reputatione delle loro patrie".

24 Nolhac 1883, 284-6: "Magnifico Signor mio, desidero che V.S. mi faccia saper, come l'ha nel suo libro scritto a mano quel luogho di Servio sopra il verso di Virgilio: Ille Quirinali lituo parvaque sedebat | humilis trabea [Verg. *Aen*. 7.187]; perché mi occorre a ragional della trabea nel mio commento. E vedo ch'il Baifio del suo libretto de re vestiaria dice che Servio testifica come Svetonio in un libro che scrisse de restibus su tre sorte di trabea, una de i Dei, l'altra de i Re, la terza de i Auguri; e la prima fu di porpora sola, la seconda de porpora mista di bianco, la terza di porpora e cocco. Queste parole di Svetonio non le trovo in Servio, ciò è nel luogo sopradetto, parendomi che altrove non habbi occasione di parlarne. Se V.S. ha il Servio di Parigi, vega la tavola in trabea o in restis, perché non voglio credere ch'il Baifio habbi recitato le parole di Svetonio senza vederle. E forse sopra il luogo di Virgilio predetto il luogo di Servio e defettuoso, perché parla solamente d'una sorta di trabea. E potrebbe il Baifio haver havuto qualche miglior testo. Oltre ciò sarà contento di vedere se è mutatione nel suo Porfirione a penna [BAV Vat. Lat. 3314] sopra quel luogo d'Horatio Cinctus non exaudita Cethegis [Hor. *ars* 50]. Non so se sopra quel cinctus facesse mentione della toga cinta in battaglia come scrive Plutarco in Coriolano" (Paolo Manuzio to Fulvio Orsini, Rome 6 July 1567); 286-7: "Molto Magnifico Signor mio, ringratiovi del luogo di Servio, benché ci sia poca mutatione. Aspetto il luogo di Porphirione, secondo il vostro testo. Mandovi quel che ho scritto della Trabea, sopra qual luogo della ep. 21 del IX libro: Nihil tibi opus est illud a trabea [Cic. *fam*. 9.21]. Sarete contento di aggiugnervi qualche cosa della vostra dottrina; e rimandatemi poi l'istesso foglio. Ho fornita la toga, la quale vederete e correggerete" (Paolo Manuzio to Fulvio Orsini, Rome 21 July 1567).

25 Sigonio 1737, 6: 1023-4: "pregola a scrivermi l'opinion sua circa la forma, et portamento della toga romana, percioché m'è venuto un nuovo capriccio introno all'habito romano" (Carlo Sigonio to Onofrio Panvinio, Bologna 21 February 1567); 1024: "Mi è intrato capriccio di scriver a un certo proposito della maniera del vestito romano; né in ciò mi sodisfa punto il Baifio. So che voi mi potete aiutare molto, vi prego a farlo, è

**Figure 50a** *Faustina Lucilla*. Engraving. In *Discours de la religion des anciens Romains, escript par noble seigneur Guillaume du Choul ... et illustré d'un grand nombre de medailles & de plusieurs belles figures retirées des marbres antiques, qui se treuuent à Rome et par nostre Gaule*. A Lyon, de l'imprimerie de Guillaume Rouille, 1556, 217

**Figure 50b** Johnson/Martin 1729. Italy. Medal (Gold, 34.5mm, 36.73 g 7), in honor of Faustina II, an original struck example, by Giovanni da Cavino (1500-1570), Padua, c. mid 1550s. L1: FAVSTINA.AVG.ANTONINI.AVG.PII.FIL. Draped bust of the youthful Faustina II to r., her hair bound with pearls and rolled up into a bun at the top of her head. L2: six Vestal Virgins, draped and standing three to either side of a round temple of Vesta with a statue visible within, sacrificing over a burning altar; to the r., togate child standing l., next to one of the Virgins; in exergue, S C

**Figure 51** Pirro Ligorio. *Man with Laticlavium*. Drawing. In BNN ms. XIII B 3 [*Di alcune varietà di vestimenti di re e di magistrati romani, di privati e dell'altre usanze di diversi popoli*], f. 6

This circulation of letters may have influenced subsequent publications. On one hand, the material send by Panvinio may have contributed to enrich Sigonio's chapters on ancient clothing attached at the end of book three of his *De iudiciis*, published in 1574 together with *De antiquo iure ciuium Romanorum*, *De antiquo iure Italiae*, and *De antiquo iure prouinciarum*. This digression on garments appears as a supplement to the previous and more juridical discussions, aiming at giving a full picture of form, use and typologies of the ancient Roman *toga*, *tunica*, and footwear.<sup>26</sup>

On the other hand, in 1576, it was the turn of Aldo Manuzio the Younger, son of Paolo and nephew of Aldo the Elder, to contribute to the discussion on ancient clothing. In a miscellaneous collection, *De quaesitis per espistolam libri III*, he dedicated three lengthy chapters to Roman clothing, which together form a monograph within the macro-structure of his work.<sup>27</sup> There are reasons to believe that part of this material was taken from the unpublished papers of his father, Paolo Manuzio, who died in 1571. From this, it is possible to infer that Paolo, whose papers were used by his son Aldo to arrange his own work, spent several years preparing a treatise on ancient clothing that it had already been at an advanced stage.

cosa da spedirmene presto, et perciò v'entro volentieri" (Carlo Sigonio to Onofrio Panvinio, Bologna Lent 1567); 1024: "Ho ricevuto l'immagine del vostro Romano, il quale se è console, non ha la toga pura in dosso, ma la pretesta, et questa sotto il braccio destro, et credo che detta pretesta non coprisse il braccio destro, et che le statue, che si veggono in questo modo infinite, siano de' magistrati. Però scrivetemi se n'havete viste alcune, le quali habbiano tutte due braccia coperte, come credo, che portassero tutti li privati" (Carlo Sigonio to Onofrio Panvinio, Bologna 7 March 1567); 1024-5: "Le pitture delle toghe mandatemi mi sono piacciute, benché più tosto mi inviluppano il cervello che altramente, vedendo tanta diversità di portatura. Non so che cosa sia quella fascia, se non è la porpora, di che era orlata la pretesta. Ma mi meraviglio che non si veffa quella fascia in tutti li magistrati, essendo tutti pretestati. Ogni cosa però che mi manderete in questo genere, mi farà casa, né io vi mancherò di contracambio dove possa et sappia" (Carlo Sigonio to Onofrio Panvinio, Bologna 9 June 1567). From these letters, it appears that Panvinio sent to Sigonio a number of drawings or paintings exampled on statues or other relics, which featured ancient Roman garments. One can assume that part of these images could be the same collected in BAV *Vat. Lat.* 3439, the socalled *Codex Ursinianus*, partly put together by Panvinio himself. For example, f. 151*r* fn. 4 shows the drawing of an ancient figure, which garments present a caption with each name noted beside (*tunica*, *sagus*). Panvinio also dedicated a few pages to the clothes worn by ecclesiastical prelates, in his *Liber Ritualis* housed in Munich, BSB Clm. 133, ff. 95*r*-96*r*: *De coloribus quibus sancta R. E. in sacris vestibus solet uti veterum. Albo, rebro, viridi, violaceo, et nigro quidem tamen hos ultimo pro uno repraesentant*.

26 Sigonio 1574, 569-78; especially 569: "Ac de iudiciis quidem Romanorum hace hactenus. Nunc, quoniam dum superiora iura tractavimus, vestitus saepe, cultusque Romani meminimus, neque satis in nobis locus praesrtim alio properantibus est purgatus, pauca hoc loca de toga, tunicaque Romanorum subiicere placet. Quae adeo variatae sunt, ut cives a peregrinis, viros a pueris, equites a senatoribus, privatos a magistratibus, ab imperatoribus separarint".

<sup>27</sup> Manuzio 1576, 1-38: I. *De Toga Romanorum*; 39-57: II. *De Tunica Romanorum*; 58-62: III. *De Trabea*.

**Figure 52** Cesare Vecellio, *Ancient Roman soldier*. Engraving. In *De gli habiti antichi, et moderni di diuerse parti del mondo libri due, fatti da Cesare Vecellio, & con discorsi da lui dichiarati*. In Venetia, presso Damian Zenaro, 1590

A few years later, the German scholar Joannes Rosinus focused on this issue, including an overview on Roman clothing titled *De vestimentis* in book V of his *Romanarum antiquitatum libri*, which was published in 1583. In that work, Rosinus devoted six chapters to various considerations on Roman clothing in general and specific garments (the *toga*, *tunica* and *trabea*), including women's clothing and footwear.<sup>28</sup>

A work on clothing that features a wide-ranging discussion on ancient clothing is *Degli habiti antichi et moderni* (1590), by the Italian painter Cesare Vecellio.29 The purpose of this work was to gather an extensive compendium of all the clothes known in the history of civilisation. An anthropological consideration on the development of clothing throughout the centuries and according to the customs of various peoples opens this treatise, followed by the engravings and descriptions of each garment by geographical area (Europe, Asia, Africa) and by social level (noblemen, plebeians, artisans, priests). The work begins with a general overview of ancient clothing, where Vecellio discusses the various materials used, the Roman laws that limited the ownership of luxurious clothing, and the names of each garment.30 As a result, his work went on to become the largest fig-

<sup>28</sup> Rosinus 1583, 215-26: XXXI. *De vestibus Romanorum in genere*; XXXII. *De Toga et eius multiplici differentia*; XXXIII. *De Tunica*; XXXIV. *De trabea*; XXXV. *De foeminarum vestibus*; XXXVI. *De calceis*. The four images enclosed in the text were directly derived from the illustrations published in Baïf 1541. A significant addition to Rosinus's chapters is represented by the paralipomena added in Dempster 1613, 425-33: *Ad caput XXXI paralipomena. Primae vested diversarum gentium, e pellibus iis tentoria tecta, lacerna, fibula, byrrus, vestes sericae, holobericae, pellucidae, herbidae*; 437-41: *Ad caput XXXII paralipomena. Toga meretricum gestamen, et Byzantinorum*, τήβεννος*, forensis, virilis, libera, militaris, lugubris, tirones in forum deducti, cadaveribus superimposita, domestica, cinctus eius*; 445-53: *Ad caput XXXV paralipomena. Muliebres vestes, et ornamenta, acus ornatrix, et textrix, calamistrum, crinium flexura, vittae, institae, fascia, aegis, monile, tunica, palla, mitra*; 454-60: *Ad caput XXXVI paralipomena. Calceati dentes, mundi, sordidi, eos purgare, ut et ungues, excalceati antiqui, seu nudipedes, calcei sacerdotorum, principum, tzacae, senatorum, matronarum, meretricum, militum, servorum, variae deinde species, lignei, ferrei, herbidi, papiracei*.

<sup>29</sup> Vecellio 1590; 1598; Reolon 2013.

<sup>30</sup> Vecellio 1590, 1a -5a : I. *Delle mutationi et varietà de' paesi et città che poi hanno portato seco le mutationi et diversità de gli habiti*; II. *Divisione della terra*; III. *Di quali habiti de' paesi di ragioni nella presente opera*; IV. *Della varietà de' panni et delle materie con le quali si facevano gli habiti ai tempi antichi*; V. *De' colori diversi che sono stati trovati di tempo in tempo per tigner le materie, con le quali si formano i vestimenti*; 7a -12a : VIII. *Di Roma capo del mondo*; IX. *Delle magnificenze et superbe spese intorno a gli ornamenti sontuosi de' senatori, e delle donne romane antiche*; X. *Dell'ordine della repubblica romana circa i reggimenti et habiti suoi*; XI. *Ordine della militia romana*; XII. *Nomi de gli habiti, et principalmente di quelli de' Romani*; XIII. *Delle coperte della testa*. After this introduction, Vecellio begins the first book of his treatise, entitled: *De gli habiti, costume et usanze di tutta l'Europa, et particolarmente dell'Italia, cominciando da' Romani così antichi come moderni*. His dissertation begins with a series of synthetic references also to ancient garments, both Greek and Roman, accompanied by its visual representation; see Vecellio 1590, 13b-27a : *Habito patritio antico romano*;

urative repertoire of ancient clothing available during the Renaissance **[fig. 52]**. Fifty years would pass before another work on ancient clothing was written.

A unique case of antiquarian dissertations on garments during the Renaissance is the one carried out by the French scholar Benoît Bauduyn, who published in 1615 the first monograph ever written on ancient footwear, entitled *Calceus antiquus et mysticus*. <sup>31</sup> The book is divided in 35 chapters, gathered in three macro-areas of interest: the first regarding origins, materials, and typologies of ancient shoes;<sup>32</sup> the second regarding the occasion in which each model was worn;33 the third regarding the symbolic meaning of shoes in the Sa-

31 Bauduyn in fact focused on this specific aspect of clothing as a result of his early apprenticeship in the workshop of his father, who was an actual shoemaker; see Bauduyn 1615, 45: "memini me iamdudum, cum iunior in patris sutrina conficiendis calceis operam darem – et hinc mihi nata de calceis scribendi occasio". Against this opinion Moréri 1749, 2.185: "Il n'est pas sûr […] qu'il fût fils d'un cordonnier, encore moins qu'il ait été cordonnier lui-même, et qu'il ait fait honeur à son premier métier. Les prouves que l'on prétend tirer de cet ouvrage pour appuyer cette opinion, ne la prouvent nullement; et tout ce qu'on en peut conclure, c'est que Baudouin qui avoit fait beaucoup de collections qui étoient le fruit de ses lectures, en avoit tiré tout ce qui regardoit la matiere singulier de la chaussure des anciens, et qu'il se plaît à badiner sur le rapport éloigné qu'il avoit avec le métier exercé par les cordonniers". See Acciarino 2021, 175-95.

32 Bauduyn 1615, 3-9: [I] *Calceorum origo. Adamus primus sutor, imo ispe Deus*; 9-14: [II] *Calceorum materia multiplex, et primum pellicea, eiusdemque concinnatores urbibus olim exclusi*; 14-20: [III] *Calcei papyracei, spartei, iuncei*; 21-4: [IV] *Celcei lintei, serici seu velutei*; 25-31: [V] *Calcei lignei, ferrei, aerei*; 31-8: [VI] *Calcei argentei aurei, gemmati*; 38-43: [VII] *Calceorum forma suae materiae addita, species variae strictim editae, opifices suo domicilio addicti*; 43-51: [VIII] *Calcei Romani vetus forma expressa, color varius pro vario temporum et personarum discrimine*; 51-8: [IX] *Calcei patriciorum lunati, cur, quomodo et ubi*; 58-65: [X] *Mullei unde dicti. Quales regibus, patriciis, imperatoribus et mulieribus usurpati*; 65-73: [XI] *Soleae quid. Earum a crepidis leve discrimen, usus quibus quando, et ubi familiaris*; 73-80: [XII] *De sandaliis*; 80-7: [XIII] *Caligae militum, clavatae, speculatoriae, unde dictae, et qui a Gallicis distinctae*; 87-93: [XIV] *Accurata gallicarum et crepidarum cum veterum, tum recentium descriptio*; 93-103: [XV] *Cothurnorum structura, usus, color, figura, et figurata significatio*; 103-9: [XVI] *De soccis. Quis eorum usus, color, et quae forma*; 109-16: [XVII] *De peronibus, qui rusticis, militibus, praefectis vigilium, plebijs, peregrinis et mulieribus olim usurpati*; 116-23: [XVIII] *De campagis et tzangis, quae propria fuerunt imperatorum calceamenta*; 123-31: [XIX] *De phaecasiis et sicyoniis, quorum alia philosophis et sacerdotibus, alia mulieribus usurpata fuerunt*; 131-6: [XX] *Reliquae calecorum species simul congestae*.

33 Bauduyn 1615, 136-43: [XXI] *Calceandi modus, et ad eum singularia quaedam veteribus observata*; 143-50: [XXII] *In calceatu vana et varia veterum religio*; 150-9: [XX-III] *Nudipedalium varius et multiplex usus*; 159-66: [XXIV] *Ignominiosa calceorum solutio, eademque cessionis, alias fidei firmive propositi signum*.

*Habito antichissimo de' romani, che anco usato prima da' troiani*; *De i consoli et tribuni romani armati in guerra*; *Del soldato armato*; *Dell'huomo d'armi a cavallo*; *Del soldato armato alla leggiera a cavallo al modo romano antico*; *Degli alfieri romani*; *Dei soldati romani a piedi detti veliti*; *De' frombolatori romani*; *Delle donne romane illustri dette stolate antiche*; *Di un habito antico di Roma da donna, il quale era portato per tutta Italia*; *Habito di Gentildonna romana da dugento anni adietro*.

cred Scripture, especially in the New Testament.34 After this first version, the work came out in three posthumous issues in 1667, 1711 and 1733, to which it was added a number of images engraved by Hendrik Bray **[fig. 54]**, an unpublished dissertation *De caliga veterum* by Giulio Negroni, the commentary on Tertullian's *De pallio* carried out by Claude Saumaise, and five chapters *De calceo senatorio* featuring in Albert Rubens' *De re vestiaria* (see below).<sup>35</sup>

Investigation on clothing crossed over also in the territories of ecclesiastical antiquarianism, especially in Antonio Bosio's *Roma Sotterranea*, published posthumously in 1632. In fact, from his exploration in Rome's underground cemeteries and catacombs, Bosio found rather extensive representations of clothed figures in the parietal paintings and in the statues. In this light he devoted four chapters to the issue, focusing on the clothes in general, starting from those wore on the head to reach the footwear, with a final digression on the various meanings of the letters stitched on the dresses.<sup>36</sup>

Ottavio Ferrari, an academic at the University of Padua, published a treatise entitled *De re vestiaria*, in which all the previous positions on ancient garments are revised and corrected. The first edition of his work was printed in 1642 in the form of three books that described the *toga*, the *praetexta* and the *tunica* through a multiplicity of philological references.<sup>37</sup> The second edition, which comprised four additional books, each of which discussed *De lacernis*, *De paenulis*, *De veste militari* and *De pallio*, was published in 1654.<sup>38</sup> This work is accompanied by a figurative apparatus **[fig. 53]**, which, although meagre, was effective at synthesising general iconographic sources (especially coins and statues).

35 Bauduyn 1667; 1711; 1733. See also the latter dissertations openly inspired to Bauduyn's works, *De calceis Hebraeorum libri duo*, Bynaeus 1682, and *Dissertatio philologica de calceis Hebraeorum*, Esselgren 1781.

36 Bosio 1632, 635-8: [XXXV] *Degli habiti che si vedono nelle figure cimiteriali*; [XXXVI] *Delle bracce e saraballe, e della mitra delle donne*; [XXXVII] *Delli sandali degli Apostoli*; [XXXVIII] *Delle lettere nelle vesti*.


<sup>34</sup> Bauduyn 1615, 166-9: [XXV] *Prolegomenon ad mysticam calceorum interpretationem*; 169-77: [XXVI] *Utrum Christus Dominus pro more calceatus incesserit*; 177-84: [XX-VII] *Romani Pontificis calceamenta quae, quo potissimum insignita ornatu, eiusdemque rationes variae*; 184-91: [XXVIII] *Allegorice significata per calceamentum Christi Domini incarnatio*; 191-7: [XXIX] *Tropologice significata per calceamentum Evangelij praedicatio*; 197-203: [XXX] *Tropologice significata per calceamenta sanctorum Patrum exempla*; 203-8: [XXXI] *Tropologice significata per calceamentum mortis meditatio*; 208-15: [XXXII] *Tropologice significata per calceamenta peccatorum sordes*; 215-22: [XXXIII] *Tropologice significata per calceamentum corpus mortale*; 222-6: [XXXIV] *Tropologice significata per calceamentum veniae peccatorum Spes*; 226-33: [XXXV] *Anagogice significata per calceamentum aeternae beatitudinis Spes*. An analogous approach regarding footwear in Sacred Scripture was adopted in Flacius 1567, 1.123-4.

#### **Figure 53**

*Fides*. Engravins. In *Octauij Ferrarij De re vestiaria libri tres*. Patauij, typis Pauli Frambotti bibl., 1642, 5

#### **Figure 54**

Hendrik Bary, *Solae*. Engraving. In *B. Balduini Calceus antiquus et mysticus, et Jul. Nigronus de Caliga veterum. Accesserunt ex. Cl. Salmasii notis ad librum Tertulliani de Pallio & Alb. Rubenii libris de re vestiaria excerpta ejusdem argumenti. Omnia figuris aucta & illustrata obseruationibus Joh. Frederici Nilant*. Lugduni Batavorum, apud Theodorum Haak, 1711, 86

Lastly, in 1665 Albert Rubens published his treatise *De re vestiaria*. This work is divided into two books, the first of which is dedicated to clothing and the second to accessories, from headdresses to footwear.39 The genesis of this treatise is clearly rooted in the humanistic culture of his family. In fact, it was inspired both by the experience of Peter Paul Rubens, the famous painter and the father of the author, and by the studies of Philip Rubens, antiquarian scholar at the time who was also Paul's brother and Albert's uncle.<sup>40</sup> It is well known that the education of Peter Paul Rubens as a cultured painter also included an antiquarian apprenticeship that involved imitating ancient models of every type, including clothing. Among the drawings completed by this great Flemish artist, many feature figures wearing ancient garments, which in part reappeared in his pictorial works. Peter Paul Rubens arranged the iconographic tables for his brother's work **[fig. 55]**, a miscellany of antiquarian erudite works entitled *Electorum libri duo*, the purpose of which was to discuss a variety of controversial philological cases. Seven chapters were dedicated to clothing – especially the *toga* (I, 17), the flag at the circus (I, 30), clothes with images or inscriptions (II 1), military outfits (II, 2), women's footwear (II, 14), the tunic (II, 20) and headdresses (II, 25).<sup>41</sup> The most interesting aspect to note is that all the images in this collection refer exclusively to these chapters, which demonstrates a special convergence of the two brothers' interests on this topic. In this framework, it can be seen how Albert Rubens took inspiration from his family experiences – several drawings by his father were in fact included in his work, and some of the philological readings of his uncle are referred to and discussed in his treatise.<sup>42</sup> This demonstrates, almost in perfect synthesis, the spirit that guided this research and the pathways that had to be followed in order to make progress in the study of this matter.

In light of the above, it would appear that the discourse for Renaissance works on ancient clothing may have passed through three different phases, according to the periods in which these texts were written.

39 Rubens 1665.

40 van der Meulen 1994, 69-128.

41 Rubens 1608, 20-2: *Quid sinus togae. Quinctilianus illustratus*; 32-3: *De circo et mappae missione*; 45-7: *Vestibus olim versus et tituli inscripti, sed et imaginaes intextae*; 47-8: *Mendum e Propertio extritum. Sententia melior et argutior reposita*; 59-61: *Soleis feminarum inserti clavi, gemmae. Calcei purpurei, interpuncti auratis praelati. Crepidae aeratae. Calcei pedum quasi vincla*; 65-7: *De tunica interiore disceptatum. Ovidius, Plutarchus, Agellius explicati*; 71-4: *De sacris apicibus, eorumque materia et forma. Galerus, Albogalerus, Apiculum. Varronis lectio defensa*.

42 Rubens 1665, 176: "Sed optime patruus meus Philippus Rubenius l. I Elect. c. XVII per imagines interpretes nos docuit quid sinus esset".

The first phase includes the treatises written before the publication of *De re vestiaria* by Lazare de Baïf. These often deal with this topic in a superficial manner and always in general terms. This group includes the works of Flavio Biondo, Polydor Vergil, Raffaele Maffei, Celio Rodigino, Alessandro Alessandri and the general theory advanced by Poliziano. The guiding principle appears to be a need to define the subject properly before understanding the nature of specific objects, and to identify a general nomenclature. This may have been directly attributable to the fact that this discipline was new and required greater precision in order to better define the object of study and develop new categories for its investigation.

The second group concerns the works published between Baïf's treatise and Cesare Vecellio's illustrated collection. Here the subject acquires greater autonomy and breadth as research into the topic is conducted in detail and with greater awareness of related factors. Aside from Lazare de Baïf's *De re vestiaria*, this group includes the works by Charles Estienne, Wolfgang Lazius, Guillaume du Choul, Alessandro Sardi, Pirro Ligorio, Aldo Manuzio the Younger, Joannes Rosinus and Cesare Vecellio. These scholars sought to broaden and explain clothing nomenclature and to provide reliable descriptions based on ancient literary sources and findings, often employing an iconographic apparatus to provide accompanying images for the explanations.

The third and last group relates to the publication of two wideranging and complex treatises in the mid-seventeenth century, which brought the matter to its final peak, thereby concluding the Renaissance approach to the scholarly debate on the issue. Before describing and defining ancient garments, the works of Ottavio Ferrari and Albert Rubens rectify, correct, adjust, or reject the opinions expressed in previous writings, thereby applying a rear-guard approach of sorts. These texts are the richest in terms of sources and references but are tied to a tradition that had exhausted its momentum and required new methodological elements in order to preserve its relevance.

From this general overview, it is clear that the texts in the first group are based exclusively on literary sources, while material sources begin to be used starting only with Baïf. As will be seen from the case studies below, it is very likely that the evolution in the methodology used to develop studies on ancient clothing also fostered a change in the sensitivity of scholars and artists of the period on this subject in other areas.

#### 8.3 Dressing the Ancients (i): Theatrical Costumes

The performance of classical plays in Renaissance theatres represented a cultural point in time when even studies on ancient clothing contributed significantly to the development of antiquarian imagery. Today, there is a lack of data on the construction of these mise-en-scène and costumes, the accuracy of erudite details and the relationship with the original models during the sixteenth century.43 Even the spectator's ability to receive and understand the cultural weight of these choices is not sufficiently documented to allow for the formulation of a coherent theory. However, it is clear from the information currently available that the success of a play from ancient drama was not always dependent on its adherence to primary sources, especially when it involved clothing. Actually, excessive philological accuracy could sometime be disorienting for the public, so it was usually replaced by fictional solutions inspired by the international Gothic style.<sup>44</sup>

Plays with ancient themes, such as those performed in the Academia Romana under the supervision of Pomponio Leto, were staged in Italy since the end of the fifteenth century.<sup>45</sup> Even though no specific account survives, some data on the costumes worn can be gleaned from a report published on the carnival of 1513 under Pope Julius II, in which a group of knights is described as being dressed in the ancient fashion: curiously enough, their connotation as ancients consisted merely in a label inscribed with the name of the Roman family to which they belonged and not of a specific dress code.<sup>46</sup>

Nonetheless, in early modern times, there have been at least two cases that demonstrate the increase in awareness of ancient dress codes in theatrical performances, with solutions coming from a variety of erudite environments. These occurred quite far apart in terms of time, but this is what makes them even more significant: they both offer different perspectives on the same issue when considered as part of the same cultural dynamic.

46 Luzi 1887, 581: "vestiti all'antiqua".

<sup>43</sup> Zorzi 1971, 22-9; Jones, Stallybrass 2000, 175-206; Bastianello, Santorio, Torello Hill 2010. However, one must mention a reference to ancient clothing in the prologue of a comedy by Ludovico Dolce, *Fabritia*, in which the author affirmed that to different periods in history corresponded different uses, also in relation to garments, see Dolce 1550, 4.3-4: "Gentilissimi riguardanti, chi sic rede che a diverse età non convengano diversi costume, di gran lunga s'inganna, percioché quell oche fu già prezzato in una, è tenuto a vile in un'altra. Et per incominciare dal vestire, i Romani antichi non usavano né calcie né berretta, et portavano alcuni panni lunghi, che toniche, toghe, preteste et laticlavi addimandavano".

<sup>44</sup> Newton 1975, 60-94.

<sup>45</sup> Cruciani 1968.

# **8.3.1 Rome 1513**

The first case occurred in Rome in 1513 during the pontificate of Pope Leo X and concerns the performance of Plautus's comedy *Poenulus* to celebrate the concession of Roman citizenship to Giuliano and Lorenzo de' Medici.<sup>47</sup> The organiser and director of the event was Tomaso Inghirami, a scholar from Volterra, disciple of Pomponio Leto.48 Inghirami also completed some erudite and philological studies on Roman dramatists, such as Plautus and Terence, and was also a very close friend of Raffaele Maffei, the only scholar to write about ancient theatrical costumes during that period.49 Under Leto's supervision,Inghirami also participated in some of the performances staged in the Academia Romana, where he was given the nickname 'Phedra' after having acted as this female character in Euripides's *Hyppolitus*. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that not only did Inghirami possess vast knowledge of ancient clothing, but that he also had the ability to process it in an antiquarian rebirth of sorts.

Regarding the mise-en-scène of *Poenulus*, none of the information that came directly from Inghirami survived; nevertheless, the scenic design and costumes are described in a very detailed report written in Italian by Paolo Palliolo entitled *La narratione delli spetacoli celebrati in Campidoglio da' Romani nel ricevere lo Magnifico Juliano et Laurentio di Medicii per suoi Patritii*. An abridged version of this text was also translated into Latin by the author himself: *Omnium actorum recitatorumque in Capitolio quum Magnificus Julianus Medices Romana civitate donatus fuit descriptio*. <sup>50</sup> In the former, a specific chapter is devoted to costumes: here Palliolo gives an account of actors who wore flesh-coloured tights in order to imitate the ancients, who were bare legged.<sup>51</sup> The same paradigm can be deduced also from later documents describing the purchase of the costumes for the French version of the *Sophonisba*, staged in Blois during 1556. This implies it was quite a common expedient in theatre to express nudity by wearing flesh-coloured stockings or tight-fitting garments.<sup>52</sup>


51 Cruciani 1968, 61-5: "*Qualitati et habiti dei recitatori*. […] Portavano tutti calze di colore incarnato per parere che mostrassero la gamba nuda ad imitatione delli antiqui, quali non soleano portarle".

52 Leblanc 1972, 178: "Neuf livres quinze solz. Pour six aulnes taffetas blanc incarnal et bleu quatre filz par tiers a XXXII s. VI d. l'aulne pour faire bottines". See also Zilli 1991; Scott, Sturm Maddox 2007, 170-3.

Palliolo also reported that the performers tied their garments with a knot on their shoulder in keeping with ancient Roman fashion.<sup>53</sup> This specific assertion could imply that the costumes used in this play were in fact intended to be tunics because the word 'tunic' is the only occurrence of a technical term referring to antiquarian vocabulary on clothing in Palliolo's text.<sup>54</sup> He frequently refers to a vague ancient style, probably implying that it was generally to be considered Roman; in fact, when the actors dressed in a different way, this was always specified, for example, when they followed the Greek style,55 even if no explanation was provided for the differences. On another occasion, a group of soldiers on a chariot are described as being dressed and equipped in ancient Roman style, but no other details are provided.<sup>56</sup>

Palliolo also mentioned that the characters wore ancient footwear that were decorated with jewellery.57 This specific aspect can add further details about the concept behind the entire play since it shows which elements were necessary and which were not in terms of reconstructing an antique fiction. In fact, the purpose of these shoes appears to have been to capture the attention of the public, demonstrating that the public and the scenographer himself conferred a particular meaning to this aspect beyond its mere antiquarian evocation. Therefore, in the eyes of a cultured spectator like Palliolo, only a few superficial dress code elements were sufficient to evoke and display a tangible but indistinct Ancient Roman atmosphere.

55 Cruciani 1968, 63-4: "Duo servi lo seguivano, l'uno vestito al modo Greco et portavali dietro uno bellissimo scudo tondo lavorato in oro alla damaschina, l'altro moro con una gran simitarra, tutta fornita di argento et oro, et una celata coperta de oro lavorata a la damaschina, opera bellissima".

56 Cruciani 1968, 50: "Roma, Justitia, Fortezza sopra un carro. Finita la musica, intrò nel proscenio un carro accompagnato et menato da VIII militi armati alla usanza antiqua de' Romani et alquante nimphe".

57 Cruciani 1968, LXXVI-LXXVII and 61: "Sopra esse haveano certi stivaletti chiamati socci, di somacco azurro, aggroppati dinanzi con bindelle di seta. Questi socci tutti erano coperti di pietre pretiose di varie sorti, cosa stupenda a vedere imperoché in gli ornamenti delle gambe de uno solo delli recitatori era una gran ricchezza".

<sup>53</sup> Cruciani 1968, 62: "Uscì poi fora lo recitatore del prologo, vestito de simile camiscia et socci, con manto di damasco bianco foderato di panno de oro, annodato sopra la spalla secondo lo antiquo costume; al capo havea involto un gran velo di seta de varii colori, in modo di turbante".

<sup>54</sup> Cruciani 1968, 65: "Hanno Carthaginese, il quale al fine ritrovò le figliuole et il nepote, havea la barba bianca. Portava in capo un certo capelletto coperto di perle; la sua camiscia era di orteghino al modo de l'altre, il suo habito era una tonica longa di broccato d'oro, coperta di ormesino verde con molti tagli onde lo ora transpareva; non havea altra cintura che quella della simitarra che era di ora et portavala ad armacollo; el fodero di detta simitarra tutto era coperto d'oro".

**Figure 55** Peter Paul Rubens, *Mappa*. Engraving. In *Philippi RubenI Electorum libri 2. In quibus antiqui ritus, emendationes, censurae. Eiusdem ad Iustum Lipsium poëmatia*. Antuerpiae, ex Officina Plantiniana, apud Ioannem Moretum, 1608, 46

**Figure 56** Giovanni Battista Maganza, *Edipo Tyrranno*. Fresco painting. Teatro Olimpico. Vicenza. 1585

### **8.3.2 Vicenza 1585**

The second case concerns the staging of Sophocles's tragedy *Edipo Tiranno* at the Olimpic Theatre of Vicenza in 1585. The cultural relevance of this event is well known:58 the work for this mise-enscène began in 1579 and was promoted by the members of the Academia Olimpica; the project for the construction of the theatre was assigned to the renowned architect Andrea Palladio; the text of the tragedy was translated by the Venetian scholar Orsatto Giustiniani; the music for the chorus was composed by Andrea Gabrieli; the costumes were sketched by Giovanni Battista Maganza;59 and responsibility for the direction and scenography were assumed by Angelo Ingegneri.

The evolution of these works was thoroughly documented in various reports and printed works, some of which were written directly by the organisers themselves. There are two key sources for all the information available on the actors' costumes and dress codes: the treatise by Ingegneri published in 1598, *Della poesia rappresentativa et del modo di rappresentare le favole sceniche*, wherein he describes the work carried out in organising this performance;<sup>60</sup> and the manuscript at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan (BAM ms. 123 sup. ff. 282-328), in which several autograph documents refer to the various organisational phases preceding the play (there is a lengthy text by Ingegneri himself, with significant attention devoted to costumes and clothes) and to the opinions of many prominent figures after the staging, including the philosopher Sperone Speroni (1500-1588), the scholar Antonio Riccoboni (1541-1599), the Spanish ambassador Filippo Pigafetta (1533-1604), and the antiquarian Gian Vincenzo Pinelli.<sup>61</sup>

In order to make the scenes more believable **[fig. 56]**, Ingegneri decided to ascribe a specific connotation to the ancient garments according to their geographical origin. Since the drama was set in Greece, the actors were required to wear a *pallium*, a typical Hel-

<sup>58</sup> Schrade 1960; Gallo 1973; Schiavo 1977, 1-45; Puppi 1987; Mazzoni 2010; 2013.

<sup>59</sup> Puppi 1987, 199; Mason Rinaldi 1981.

<sup>60</sup> Ingegneri 1598, 70-4: "Dintorno a i vestimenti l'uso de gli antichi, secondo Giulio Polluce, era assai stretto, consiosia che essi havevano a ciscun personaggio non pur l'habito, ma il colore determinato, e davano all'innamorato il suo, il suo al trasone, et al parasito. Ma noi, usando in ciò maggior libertà, et pigliando le cose più in universale per meglio conformarci al moderno costume, ch'è ito molto avanzando di larghezza, et di pompa, saremo contenti di considerare che come le persone si distinguono fra di esse mediante il sesso, l'età, la conditione, et la professione, così anco i vestimenti in generale si fanno tra dilloro differente".

<sup>61</sup> Gallo 1973.

lenic garment, instead of a *toga*, typically Italic.<sup>62</sup> He believed it to be necessary to opt for the Ancient Greek dress code in the mise-enscène, avoiding the Roman dress code or any other dress code that could be ascribed to other cultures: Ingegneri was however aware that he could not accomplish a full reconstruction of the clothing worn at the time; therefore, he settled for features that would be easily understood, even if this meant reducing the precision of antiquarian references.<sup>63</sup> For example, the king's archers were dressed according to the Turkish style and the king's crown did not adhere to the ancient diadem form.<sup>64</sup>

In spite of Ingegneri's directions, the accuracy of the antiquarian model for the mise-en-scène of *Edipo Tyranno* was lacking from the very first performance. This is clear when reading the proposals for the costumes suggested by Speroni, who pressed for higher philological accuracy:65 for example, he discouraged the use of ex-

63 Gallo 1973, 13: "Intorno ai vestimenti delle soprascritte persone non si può veramente dare alcun certo ammaestramento e questo perché, essendo l'istoria tanto vecchia quanto ognun sa, non ha memoria alcuna fra gli scrittori dell'usanza d'allora, senzaché, quando ben se ne potesse aver sicurissima notizia, io temerei per la rozzezza di quei tempi che malamente se ne potesse servire. Però quel che in generale mi par in tal luogo di dever ricordare si è che si fugga più che sia possibile l'imitazione del vestir romano e di qual altro si sia abito conosciuto, eccetto il greco; il se ben lodarò che si faccia più dell'antica che si potrà, non mi dispiacerà però ancora che egli sia alquanto mescolato con la moderna usanza, pur che ciò venga fatto con giudizio e riesca con leggiadria".

64 Gallo 1973, 56: "Gli recitanti sono rarissimi e ornati politamente e con pompa secondo la condizione di ciascheduno. Il re con la guardia di 24 arcieri vestiti al costume dei colachi del Gran Turco, con paggi e persone di conto" (Filippo Pigafetta 4 March 1585).

65 Gallo 1973, 54: "Edippo era nuovo re di Tebe. Il suo abito mi par che debba accommodarsi alla tragedia più che alla regal maestà. La tragedia è di favola mista, perché la peste era in Tebe e si trattava d'intender perché vi fusse, per liberarla; onde il re e tutto il popolo era in stato di supplicare e non di pompeggiare. Il segno regale nelli re barbari era la benda bianca avvolta alla testa; nelli greci non ho veduto che cosa fusse se non lo scettro, e ciò si vede in Omero [Hom. *Il*. 1.430-1]. La guardia di Edippo può esser di armati, ma modestamente e lontana da lui; coloro che l'accompagnano come

<sup>62</sup> Gallo 1973, 8: "Circa i vestimenti è da avvertire che come le persone si distinguono fra di esse per il sesso, l'età, la condizione e la professione, così anch'essi in generale si fanno fra di loro differenti, ma in particolare si variano secondo il costume d'una nazione o d'una provincia, come a dire la toga in Italia, il pallio in Grecia e simili"; Ingegneri 1598, 71: "Più particolarmente etiandio si variano gli habiti secondo 'l portamento della natione, o della provincia, come a dire, parlando all'antica, la toga s'usava in Italia, e 'l pallio in Grecia. […] Sarà per tanto da vedere in qual paese si finga la favola che si rappresenta, et secondo l'usanza di quella natione si devranno vestire i recitanti: et se l'attione sia tragica, riccamente et superbamente; se comica, civilmente, ma pulitamente; alla fine, se pastorale, humilmente, ma con garbo, e delicatezza, che vaglia quanto la pompa. […] E io non gli biasimo per la bellezza della vista, et per la ragione detta nella prima parte, ch'è la medesima, onde si conducono nelle tragedie in palco i re con manto, et corona, et scettro, et con compagnia numerosa, et vestita nobilmente, et di vari colori: sì come fu fatto in Vicenza l'anno 1584 alla rappresentatione dell'Edipo Tiranno, tradotto dal Sig. Orsatto Giustiniani, clarissimo per la nobiltà venetiana, et chiarissimo per la lirica poesia, et fatto con insuperabile grandezza recitare de i sudetti signori Academici Olimpici nel sopradetto loro superbissimo Theatro".

cessively luxurious costumes because the tragedy was set during a period of mourning. In another passage, Speroni suggested that missing details in the scenography be reconstructed through the juxtaposition of parallel occurrences: for example, the clothes of Giocasta, the mother (and wife) of Oedipus, could have been aligned with those worn by Penelope, the wife of Ulysses, as described in the Odyssey, who wore a long white dress and a sash on her forehead; or the fortune-teller Tiresias could have been made to conform to a biblical prophet.

During the performance, the actors' clothes were very much admired not for their antiquarian accuracy, but for their splendour. Several of the reactions to the play bear testament to this general feeling, although some scholars still disapproved of the unfaithfulness to the original spirit. For example, Riccoboni criticised the character of Tiresias because it contradicted the ancient Greek source, Julius Pollux, who described him as being dressed in rags;<sup>66</sup> Riccoboni was echoed by Pinelli, who confirmed that this figure was wearing a silk dress, again contrary to the literary source.<sup>67</sup>

### **8.3.3 A Comparison**

By comparing these two cases, it is possible to see that theatrical requirements prevailed over antiquarian details, both in terms of the nature of the play and the audience itself.68 However, a substantial difference seems to appear: in the Roman performance, it was possible to deviate from the historical truth to less annoyance from the spectators; in Vicenza, instead, any variation on a theme was perceived as a negative element, both by the scenographer and by the public.

This shift in perspective is likely to have derived from the evolution of the issue *de re vestiaria* in antiquarian scholarship. In the first decades of sixteenth century, when Inghirami was preparing the mise-en-scène of *Poenulus*, studies on ancient clothing were still

67 Gallo 1973, 59: "Tiresia, contro Polluce, con una sopraveste di seta".

consiglieri, dui. L'abito loro lungo e così del re; il capo coperto alla greca e forse senza chioma o con poca. Il re comato fino alle spalle. Giocasta madre e moglie di Edippo, donna attempata, vestita di bianco, la benda avvolta al capo, con due compagne. Così fa Omero Penelope [Hom. *Od*. 1.334]. Tornando allo scettro insegna regale, non staria male se ne la cima fusse alquanto rivolto, quasi pastorale; quale Plutarco dice esser stato il scettro di Romolo [Plut. *Rom*. 22.6]. Tiresia vestasi quasi alla forma di Aaron nella Bibbia" [*Ex*. 29:5-9].

<sup>66</sup> Gallo 1973, 49: "Nel medesimo episodio apparve Tiresia diversamente vestito da quello che scrive Giulio Polluce: τὸ ἀγρηνόν ἦν πλέγμα ἐξ ἐρίων δικτυῶδες περὶ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα, ὃ Τειρεσίας ἐπεβάλλετο ἤ τι ἄλλο μαντικòν [Poll. *Onom*. 4.116.4-5]" (Antonio Riccoboni to Gian Vincenzo Pinelli, Ash Wednesday 1585).

<sup>68</sup> Newton 1975, 19-35.

too limited to offer a full overview on the matter. By the time Ingegneri prepared his *Edipo tyranno*, not only from a philological perspective, but also from an iconographic point of view, this topic had been thoroughly investigated and a broader and more complex picture of ancient garments was available to the erudite public.

For example, since Turkish archers were described and depicted in many contemporary publications, including the ones by Abraham Bruyn in 1581 and Cesare Vecellio in 1590, they could not be accepted as alternates for the ancients **[fig. 57]**. 69

Conversely, the hypothesis could be advanced that the growth in early modern theatre also influenced the progress of studies on ancient clothing. In this light, each time an edition or a vernacular translation of theatrical texts was published it would have entailed considerations on its ideal performance and, consequently, on the costumes used. On the one hand, it would be interesting to note whether Lazare de Baïf, the father of Renaissance studies on ancient clothing and the translator of Euripides's *Electra* (1537) and *Hecuba* (1544) into French,<sup>70</sup> had imagined how they would be presented on stage, including the actors' costumes, given his experience in this area. On the other hand, it would be interesting to understand if the Peacham drawing (1594), an ink sketch at the top of the page of the Longleat manuscript transmitting Shakespeare's *Titus Andronicus* **[fig. 58]**, represents a reliable theatrical scene performed with some kind of erudite inspiration, or just an outline of the clothing totally unrelated to any antiquarian invention.<sup>71</sup>

<sup>69</sup> Vecellio 1590, 387b-388a : "L'habito de' quali è lungo di dietro et alzato davanti, et cinto di una cinta larga, et ricca alla moresca d'oro, e di seta. Portano anchora in testa un cappello alto di feltro bianco, et un pennacchione di molto prezzo. L'armi lor sono queste: una scimitarra, et in mano un arco teso dorato, e la saetta, come all'hora volesse scoccare; e dietro le spalle poi la faretra".

<sup>70</sup> Baïf 1537b; Baïf 1544.

<sup>71</sup> Berry 1999; Levin 2002.

Cesare Vecellio, *Turkish Archer*. Engraving. In *De gli habiti antichi, et moderni di diuerse parti del mondo libri due, fatti da Cesare Vecellio, & con discorsi da lui dichiarati*. In Venetia, presso Damian Zenaro, 1590

#### **Figure 58**

*Titus Andronicus* (?). Peacham Drawing or Longleat Manuscript. Library of the Marquess of Bath. Longleat. c. 1595

#### **Figure 59a**

Rosso Fiorentino, *The Unity of the State*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

#### **Figure 59b**

Rosso Fiorentino, *The Unity of the State*, detail. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 60** *Roman soldier*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium, 1537

### 8.4 Dressing the Ancients (ii): The Gallery of Francis I at Fontainebleau

Studies on Roman clothing also had a considerable influence on iconography. A particularly interesting case was the preparation of the pictorial decorations of the Gallery of Francis I in Fontainebleau,<sup>72</sup> the new residence of the king of France, by the Italian painters Rosso Fiorentino and Primaticcio between 1534 and 1538. An exhaustive iconographic reading was carried out in 1958 by Dora and Erwin Panofsky, who proved that the entire cycle of fresco paintings formed a complex encomiastic structure, where each panel presented a precise allegory of episodes from the political and personal life of the king.<sup>73</sup> In recent years, other proposals were added to this opinion:<sup>74</sup> Marc Fumaroli, for example, recognised the influence of Luigi Alamanni's *Inni pindarici* within the overall structure of the decorations and assumed that the concept behind the entire iconographic programme may have benefitted from the erudite guidance of Lazare de Baïf, conjecturing also that Baïf himself had interceded in bringing Rosso to France.<sup>75</sup>

From this hypothesis, further assumptions can be made. The classical culture of Lazare de Baïf is generally recognised: not only did he study in Italy with Janus Lascaris, enter into correspondence with Pietro Bembo and Erasmus, and collect ancient artworks and findings while he was ambassador to Venice (sent directly by Francis I), but he also brought together a circle of artists and scholars, including the humanist Pietro Aretino, through which he encouraged the circulation and dissemination of ideas.<sup>76</sup> However, his cultural background cannot be isolated from his antiquarian studies and publications, for which he garnered great fame during the years in which the Fontainebleau frescoes were being completed. In addition to his *De re vestiaria* of 1526, of which there were at least twelve editions, Baïf published a work entitled *De vasculis* in 1531, which discussed the receptacles and vases of the ancient world,<sup>77</sup> and *De re navali*, published for the first time in 1536, which dealt with the naval principles known in the ancient world.<sup>78</sup> The edition of this last work was dedicated


<sup>72</sup> McAllister Johnson 1972; Beguin 1989; Condellier 2005; Capodieci 2013.

to King Francis I and contained the two previous books in the same volume, creating a practical manual that included all of his antiquarian studies, enriched by an iconographic apparatus perhaps arranged with the drawings of Sebastiano Serlio.<sup>79</sup> As it was the case with ancient clothing, even *De vasculis* and *De re navali* were immediately revised by Charles Estienne in 1535 and 1537 respectively.<sup>80</sup>

Therefore, if we assume that Baïf participated in the iconographic programme of Fontainebleau, we should focus on finding any influences, coincidences, or real citations of his works in the complex weave of references in the Gallery. On an analysis, no evidence has yet been found to confirm his personal involvement, but his antiquarian knowledge may very well have inspired the development of the programme, even via the medium of Charles Estienne's revised versions, which would allow for some new general statements to be made, such as the following.

In the panel entitled *The Unity of the State* **[fig. 59a]**, some relevant links with both Baïf's and Estienne's *De re vestiaria* treatises can be identified through the central figure, King Francis I, whose clothing recalls antiquarian details, such as the cape over his shoulder (*sagum*),<sup>81</sup> his leather or linen chest armour (*lorica* or *thorax*),<sup>82</sup> his long-sleeved tunic (*tunica manicata*),<sup>83</sup> the belt for his sword

80 Estienne 1536b; 1537.

81 Baïf 1526, 48: "Ait Ulpianus, *et saga*]. Sagum militum erat, quod et inter familiaria adcribitur ab Ulpiano. Tullius: itur ad saga [Cic. *Phil*. 6.9; 14.1-3]. Nostri milites g litera sublata vocabuli Latini vestigia retinent, Saum vel Sayon appellantes id genus vestis, quod armis superinduitur, alii acoustramentum, ut praetoriani"; Estienne 1535a, 25: "Sagum, ung sayon, genus tunicae militaris quae armis superinduebatur; alii accoustramentum vocant, ut praetoriani. Militare erat indumentum, unde Tullius: itur ad saga, hoc est, ad arma. Et saga parare apud eundem pro bellum instruere [Cic. *Phil*. 6.9]".

82 Baïf 1526, 23: "De armis quae tegendi causa oarari solent, dubium videri potest. Movet quaestionem, primum, quod loricam antiqui lineam gestabant, ac ipse Magnus Alexander, qui Asiae imperium obtinuit, lorica linea usus dicitur, ut memini melegisse apud Plutarchum in Alexandro [Plut. *Alex*. 32.5]. Et thoracibus lineis antiquos pugnasse testis est Homerus [Hom. *Il*. 2.529 and 830]"; Estienne 1535a, 12-13: "Thoracem appellarunt veteres une piece qui couvre le stomach, a denominatione pectoris, quod pectus et thoracem tegat, unde thoracibus lineis antiquos pugnasse testis est Homerus".

83 Baïf 1526, 40: "Manicatis tunicis indui non sine probro solebant, ut autor est Gellius, qui eas graeco vocabulo χειριδωτάς appellat [Gell. 6.17]. Politianus in Herodiano, manuleatas vertere, Plautum imitatus [Plaut. *Pseud*. 738], maluit, quam cum Cicerone dicere manicatas. Qui cum in grege Catilinae invehit, sic ait: Quos pexo capillo nitidos, aut imberbes, aut barbatos videtis, manicatis et talaribus, ac strictis tunicis amictos, non togis [Cic. *Cat*. 2.22]. Vergilius quoque videtur non sine probro dixisse: Et tunicae manicas, et habent redimicula mitrae [Verg. *Aen*. 9.614]" the reference to Herodianus' translation is in Poliziano 1513, 54a : "Huic igitur deo sacer erat Bassianus, quippe natu maior, ipse potissimum sacerdotio fungebatur, incedens barbarico cultu, tunicas in-

<sup>79</sup> Baïf 1537a; Sambin De Norcen 1997.

(*baltheus*),<sup>84</sup> his woollen belt (*fascia*) and his sandals (*caligae*) adorned with the head of a lion on their upper part **[fig. 59b]**.

However, the last two features coincide only with Estienne's version: the *fascia*, in fact, was added in his section on belts,<sup>85</sup> and the *caligae* were described in a chapter devoted to footwear, which was completely ignored in Baïf's original,<sup>86</sup> even though this last feature appears in one of his illustrations in the 1536 edition that was printed under the supervision of Charles Estienne himself **[fig. 60]**. <sup>87</sup> Of course, since this last detail features in many ancient statues, as also specified in the caption of the illustration, it could easily have been present in the imagery of the Renaissance artists of the time; however, within this cultural context the strong similarities between the text and the pictorial output cannot be deemed mere coincidence.

Another consideration must also be made. In their essay, the Panofskys identified an alternative image to that realised by Rosso Fiorentino in an engraving by Antonio Fantuzzi:<sup>88</sup> it was a prototype of the figure of a king with a crown and a pomegranate in his hand, just like the figure featured in the fresco, but in this case credibly recalling Vercingetorix, leader of the Gauls against the Romans. This identification was also supported by elements deriving from the clothes worn: in fact, the character wore trousers, a typical Gaulish garment, instead of the Roman tunica or toga. Panofsky attributed this iconography to the famous adage *Gallia bracata*, reported by Pliny and other ancient sources. There is no intention of questioning the trustworthiness of this identification, but the distinction between *Gallia bracata* and *Gallia togata* also appears in Ba-

85 Estienne 1535a, 54: "Fasciam autem vulgus vocat, une bande, latum aliquod vinculum, seu laneum, seu lineum fuerit, quo partes aliquae corporis revinciebantur".

86 Estienne 1535a, 15: "Quinetiam militaris caligae forma ex antiquis marmoribus deprehenditur, tantum enim attingebat mediam tibiam, atque in extrema parte superiori, cuiusdam animalis ceu leonis caput prae se ferebat".

87 Baïf 1536, 64.

88 Panofsky, Panofsky 1958, 128-30.

dutus, intextas auro, ac manuleatas, et ad pedes usque demissas, cruraque tota convelans ab abunguibus ad femora, vestis similiter auro, purpuraque variis, capite coronam gestans preciosorum lapidibus coloribus florentem"; Estienne 1535a, 21-2: "Tunica manicata, ung saye a manches".

<sup>84</sup> Baïf 1526, 57: "De baltheo dubitari potest, an vestimentorum appellatione veniat. Et magis est, ut armorum nomine comprehendatur, quandoquidem baltheum Varro inter arma adscripsit, dictum quasi bullatum cingulum [Varr. *ling.* 5.24.116]. Tacitus quoque XVII recenset inter armorum ornamenta, in haec verba: Manipuli quoque et gregarius miles viatica sua et baltheos phalerasque insignia armorum argento decora, loco pacuniae tradebant [Tac. *hist*. 1.57.2]. Graeci ζωστῆρα appellant. Plutarchus in Camillo: ἀπολυσάμενος τὴν μάχαιραν ἅμα καὶ τὸν ζωστῆρα προσέστηκε τοῖς σταθμοῖς [Plut. *Cam*. 28.6.3], hoc est: Gladium una cum baltheo exutum lancibus apposuit"; Estienne 1535a, 53: "Baltheus sive balteum une ceincture a espee".

ïf's and Estienne's treatises,<sup>89</sup> which opens to the possibility that these were taken into consideration during the preparation of the apparatus.

Moreover, always in *The Unity of the State*, while on the right side of the fresco figures with caped and hooded togas appear, perhaps identifiable with the *lacerna*, <sup>90</sup> several characters dressed in Roman

89 Baïf 1526, 27: "A tofa quoque dictae comoediae togatae, quae Romanorum, palliatae vero quae Graecorum" and 62-3: "Erant autem brachae Gallorum transalpinorum, Britonumque. Martialis: Quod veteres brachae Britonis pauperis [Mart. *epigr*. 11.21.9]. Quibus pudenda tegebantur. Iuvenalis: Mittentur brachae, cultelli, frena, flagellum [Iuv. 2.169]. Tacitus XVII: Ornatum ipsius municipia et colonaie in superbiam trahebant, quod versicolore sagulo brachas, tegmen barbarum indutus, togatos alloqueretur [Tac. *hist*. 2.20.1]. Plutarchus in Othone: ἐκείνων δὲ Κεκίνας μὲν οὔτε φωνὴν οὔτε σχῆμα δημοτικός, ἀλλ' ἐπαχθὴς καὶ ἀλλόκοτος, σώματος μεγάλου, Γαλατικῶς ἀναξυρίσι καὶ χειρῖσι ἐνεσκευασμένος [Plut. *Oth*. 6.3.5]. Quibus verbis eadem fere quae apud Tacitum retulisse videtur Plutarchus. Unde brachati dicti Narboneneses, ut ait Plinius [Plin. *nat.* 3.31]. Iuvenalis in octava: Ut brachatorum pueri, Senonumque minores [Iuv. 8.232]. Nunc vero etiam brachatis et transalpinis nationibus. Scitum est illud Tranquilli: Gallos Caesar in triumphum ducit. Idem: In cura Galli brachas deposuerunt, latum clavuum sumpserunt [Suet. *Iul*. 80.2]. De brachis, etiam ut opinor, dictum preverbialiter, ut de re insolita, Ἀμαθὴς ἀναξυρίδα περιθέμενος πᾶσι ταύτην ἐδείκνυ [Mich. Apostoli. *Collect. Paroemiarum* 2.75.1] hoc est: imperitus bracham indutus, omnibus eam ostentat". The proverb to wich Baif refers is discussed in detail by Erasmus 1559, 719: "IMPERI-TVS ANAXYRIDE INDVTVS OMNIBVS ID OSTENTAT. Ἀμαθὴς ἀναξυρίδα περιθέμενος πᾶσι ταύτην ἐδείκνυ, id est *Imperitus subligaculum siue brachas indutus passim eas ostendit*. In eum congruit, qui propter insolentiam etiam ineptissimis rebus effertur. Nam rerum imperitis, quicquid peregrinum ac nouum est, videtur elegans. Eruditi quidam putant anaxyridem Graecis dici, quas Latini vocant brachas siue foeminalia, quae tegebant mediam corporis partem vna cum foeminibus. Brachae igitur barbaricae vestis genus erat, sed praecipue Gallorum quorundam. Vnde et Gallia Brachata dicta est. Anaxyridem vero et Persis in vsu fuisse declarat Strabo [Str. *Geogr*. 15.19] Vidimus et Venetiae patritios iuuenes, si quando peregrinantur, gaudere Gallicis subuculis absque veste superiore, quod idem domi non faciunt. Quadrabit et in eos, qui sibi videntur aliquid, quod Gallice loquantur inter Germanos, aut qui vocibus obsoletis, obscuris aut peregrinis venditant sese. Subolet hoc ab Apostolio additum ex huius aetatis adagiis". See also Estienne 1535a, 14: "Feminalia et brachae, hault de chausses. Unde Gallia brachata et brachati Galli dicti, quod feminalus uterentur (quae femoralia appellare videtur Tranquillus in August. Vulgus Italorum coxalia hodie vocat). Suidas, Hisychius, et Eustathius in Homerum, vocant ἀναξυρίδες [Suid. *Lex*. ε 2838; Hesyc. *Lex*. β 1043], quas nos brachas dicimus, quod facile coniicitur ex loco Diodori in quinto: καὶ ἀναξυρίσιν, inquit, ἃς ἐκεῖνοι βράκας προσαγορεύουσιν. Hoc est, et anaxirides, quas illi brachas appellant [Diod. *Bibl*. 5.30.1]" and 28: "Caeterum etiam a togae frequenti usu Gallia togata dicta est, quae est nunc Italiae pars intra Padum, Rubiconumque et Appenninum montem. Dicti quoque Hispani togati et stolati".

90 Baïf 1526, 51: "Lacerna, quasi lacera, quod capite minus sit Sexto Pompeio [Paul. Fest. 105.4]. Quam militum quod fuisse constat. Propertio in quarto: Textitur in castris quarta lacerna tuis [Prop. 4.3.17]. Ovidius Fastorum secundo: Mittenda est domino, nunc nunc properate puellae | Quamprimum nostra facta lacerna manu [Ov. *fast*. 2.742-3]. Erant et lacernae, quibus uterentur Romani cum spectaculis operam sedentariam praestarent, et togae superinduebantur as arcenda frigora". An interesting explanation of Festus' passage metioned by Baïf is given in Scaliger 1575, 71: "*Lacerna*] Verba sunt Pauli, Lacerna, quod minor capitio sit. Ultimis temporibus Capitium significabat capitis tegmentum. Antiquitus autem mamillare feminarum. Neque unquem boni auctores pro cucullione acceperunt, ut posterior aetas Barbara, quae epomidas monarchorum capitia vocat. Nos olim adolescentes docuimus in Coniectaneis Nonium errare, qui putarit a veteribus in eum significatum accipi, in quem accipiebat sua aetas [Non. 14.542.23-5]. Quin locus Varronis, clothes can be seen on the left side, including a soldier wearing metal chest armour (*thorax plumbeus*),<sup>91</sup> in contrast to the leather armour donned by the king, and a short-sleeved tunic. Such a type of tunic takes on greater significance if the presence of sleeveless tunics is observed, suggesting that this was ascribed meaning by the painters, as can be seen on the right part of the panel titled *The Elephant* **[fig. 61]**.

On the left side of the same painting, there is also a figure descending the stairs, wearing clothes similar to those worn by the king in the aforementioned fresco (*tunica manicata*, *sagus*, *thorax*, *fascia*), but with some differences: for example, the caligae, which are made of intertwined lace, seem very similar to Estienne's description.<sup>92</sup> Furthermore, one should note that the tunic is always the garment worn 'closest to the body' by all male figures and serves almost as an equivalent to a modern vest. This peculiarity is also reported in the work of the two French antiquarians (*tunica ima*),93 strengthening the link between the information provided in *De re vestiaria* and the arrangement of this artwork.

92 Estienne 1535a, 15: "Caeterum a latere ipsius tibiae fascicola quadam revinciebant atque claudebatur, quam vulgus lassetum appellat: nos etiam corrigiam appellare possumus, nisi mavis dicere clavis potius a dextra parte suffigi solere, qui interdum aurei erant, cum clavi caligares dicti".

93 Baïf 1526, 40: "Mulieres tunicis utebantur longe, lateque diffusis ad ulnas cruraque adversus oculos protegenda, quorum ima erat carni proxima, unde iocus Martialis in

qui ab eo producitur, manifesto contra eum facit [Varr. *ling.* 5.30.131]. At Hieronymus antiquitatis et linguae Romanae peritus scriptor Capitium non aliter accipit, quam Varro et veteres, in Epistola de veste sacerdotali [*PL* 22.0615 (Hier. *epist*. 64.54.14)]". Scaliger argued that *lacerna* and *capitium* were synonyms, against Nonius, in his emendations on Varro; see Scaliger 1565, 63-4: "191. *Capitium, quod capiat pectus*] Idem de vita popili Ro. Lib. IIII. Neque id ab orbita matrum familias institute, quod eae pectore, ac lacertis erant apertis, ne capitia habebant. Plane hic capitia pectori tegendo non capiti, ut voluit Nonius [Non. 14.542.23-5]. Videtur esse, quem Graeci μασχαλιστῆρα vocabant. Erant et ad vinciendum pectus strophia et fasciae, de quibus Terentius intellexit, de puellis loquens: quas matres student esse | demissis humeris, vincto pectore, et graciles fient, | si qua est habitior paulo, pugile esse aiunt, deducunt cibum [Ter. *Eun*. 312-14]. Nam fasciis illis ὁμαλοῖς et aequos humeros reddebant, cum contra in pugilibus sint torosi. Xenophon, ὥσπερ οἱ πύκται τοὺς μὲν ὤμοις παχύνονται, τὰ δὲ σκέλη λεπτύνονται [Xenoph. *Symp*. 2.17.7]. Ergo strophio tumorem papillarum cohibebant: fasciis illis humerorum castigabant superfluum, et quasi luxuriantem, καὶ σφριγῶντα habitum. Itaque apud Ovidium: Conveniunt humeris tenues ameletides altis [Ov. *ars* 3.271]. Ego lego omaletides. ὁμαλὴτιδες enim videntur vocatae esse, quod iis aequabantur himeri, et complanabantur". See also Estienne 1535a, 39-40: "Dicta lacerna quasi lacera, quod capite minus sit. Et autem non utebantur illustriores, nisi pluvio tempore, quas autem in spectaculis deferebant, albas fuisse coniicimus ex Martiale [Mart. *epigr*. 14.135.1-2], qui in Horatium ludit, quod nigra lacerna opertus spectaculis adfuisset [Hor. *sat.* 2.7.53]".

<sup>91</sup> Estienne 1535a, 13: "Thorax plumbeus, Plin. libr. VII cap. XX. Nos quoque vidimus Athanatum, nomine prodigiosae ostentationis quinquagenario thorace plumbeo indutum, cothurnisque ducentorum pondo calciatum per scenam ingredi [Plin. *nat.* 7.83]. Neque vero fortassis omnino ineptum fuerit, si quemadmodum iureconsulti stragula bubalina dicunt: ita quoque nos thoracem bubalinu, appellemus eum, qui vulgo a militibus gestari solet. Ung colet de cuir de buffle. Bubalum enim vocabant antiqui bovem sylvestrum quem hodie adhuc Itali bufalum, ung buffle".

**Figure 61** Rosso Fiorentino, *The Elephant*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 62** Rosso Fiorentino, *Bath of Pallas*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 63** Rosso Fiorentino, *Cleobis and Biton*, detail. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 64** Rosso Fiorentino, *The loss of eternal Youth*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 66** *Roman vases*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium. 1537

**Figure 67** Rosso Fiorentino, *Nauplius's Revenge*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 68** *Roman ship*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium. 1537

Another garment that reveals this type of erudition is the headdress of women. For example the two female characters in the *Bath of Pallas* **[fig. 62]** have their hair gathered in a bonnet similar to a *restis* or *reticulum*; <sup>94</sup> moreover, the old mother in the panel *Cleobis and Biton* **[fig. 63]** is perhaps wearing a *rica* because of the sacrificial setting of the scene,95 just like the female figure with a white headdress is perhaps wearing a *vitta*, <sup>96</sup> in *The loss of eternal Youth* **[fig. 64]**.

In addition to these hypotheses on clothing, other elements stemming from the other treatises by Baïf and Estienne on ancient vases and vessels can be found. In the panel of the *Sacrifice* **[fig. 65]** the vases brought towards the altar could be identified with the various sacrificial ornaments of different forms and materials used also for transporting water (*aquaria*), wine (*vinaria*), oil, and various ointments (*unguentaria*).97 The poor state of conservation of the paintings and the heavy re-touching carried out in later periods do not aid this analysis to advance any further, however, it is possible to imagine from the few traces of colour left that the first was a crystal vase, the second a golden *urceus*98 and the third a silver or lead amphora. The images here do not match perfectly those found in Baïf's

95 Baïf 1526, 57: "Sic rica a Romano ritu, quod, ut inquit Varro, Romano ritu sacrificium foeminae cum faciunt, capita velant [Varr. *ling.* 5.29 130]"; Estienne 1535a, 10.

96 Baïf 1526, 60: "Vitta tegimen capitis matronarum"; Estienne 1535a, 9: "Tegimen capitis matronarum, quo capillos coercebant, et costringebant ac colligebant".

97 Estienne 1535b, 8-23, 33-46.

Lesbiam: De cathedra quotiens surgis, iam saepe notavi, | Praedicant miseram, Lesbia te tunicae [Mart. *epigr*. 11.99.1-2]"; Estienne 1535a, 11: "Camisiam quam vulgus appellat chemise, nos recte et latine imam sive intimam tunicam dicere possumus. Quidam interulam vacant. Est quando tunica absolute idem significet, ut apud Ovidium multis in locis, et Ciceronem act. VII in Verrem [Cic. *Verr*. 2.5.21]. Unde tunicatus a Martiale, pro eo qui barbare dicitur in camisia. Et tunicata quies ab eodem dicta [Mart. *epigr*. 10.51.5], hoc est, libera ad opera togata. Athenaeus χιτώνιον ἐχέσαρκον appellat tuniculam carni proximam [Athen. 13.59.17]".

<sup>94</sup> Baïf 1526, 57: "Utebantur et reste, hoc est fasciola, qua capillum in capite colligaretur. Erat autem reticum, quod capillum contineret, nos cophiam vocamus"; Estienne 1535a, 9: "Reticulum, une coeffe, tam virorum quam mulierum fuit, quod capillum contineret. Ita dictum fortassis a forma retis, vel piscatorii, vel venatorii. Iuvenalis: Reticulumque comis aratum ingentibus implet [Iuv. 2.93]. Restis, ung ruband. Fasciola, qua mulieres capillos involvebant. Retiolum Servius appellare videtur, super illud Virgilii IIII Aeneid.: Crines nodatur in aurum [Serv. *Comm. Aen.* 1.4.138]. Erat enim retiolum, instrumentum suve fascia quaedam qua comas colligebant matronae. Italicae virgines cordellam vocant. Cicero redimiculum appellare videtur act. V. in Verrem: Haec civitas mulieri redimiculum praebeat, haec in collum, hoc in crines [Cic. *Verr*. 2.3.76]".

<sup>98</sup> Baïf 1531, 47: "Urceoli. Urceus cuius diminutivum urceoli vas aquarium, ut tamen urceus esset vas ad frigidam, urceoli ad caldam. Inde urceoli ministratorii apud Martialem: Frigida non desit, non deerit calda petenti | Sed tu morosa ludere parce siti [Mart. *epigr*. 14.105.1-2]. Urcei meminit Iureconsul. in l. cum de lanionis, saepe citata, his verbis: urcei quoque, quibus aqua in aeneum infunditur, in idem genus rediguntur [*Dig. Iust.* 33.7.18]"; Estienne 1535b, 40.

illustrated publications; however, at least general archetypes **[fig. 66]** that could link these vases to this work can be found in the pages of Baïf's 1541 edition of *De vasculis*.

To conclude, a marginal consideration must be made regarding the panel with *Nauplius's Revenge* **[fig. 67]**. In this fresco depicting an ancient naval battle, a series of vessels appear in a chaotic composition. Even in this case it is possible to find a general link with Baïf's and Estienne's *De re navali*, and some paradigmatic referrals to the nautical universe:<sup>99</sup> in fact, visual referrals to each part of the ancient ship can be identified in the final tables of these treatises, which could have been easily used in order to increase the philological reliability of the ancient naval imagery **[fig. 68]**. 100

Given these assumptions, it could be argued that Lazare de Baïf exerted an influence on the development of the iconographic programme of the Gallery of Francis I at Fontainebleau and could even have been directly involved. If it is taken as a given that this French scholar was one of the court iconographers, then his antiquarian works must be considered to be intrinsically linked to the images depicted, which would include not only his most famous work *De re vestiaria*, but also his other works on ancient vessels and vases. It would be more difficult to explain the iconography of the palace if Baïf's role were excluded from consideration.

Some of the links that emerge from this antiquarian knowledge and these paintings lead to the formulation of a further proposal: the data recorded on ancient clothing, vases, and vessel could well have derived from the works of Charles Estienne rather than dir ectly from those of Baïf. And there are at least two reasons to believe this. First, in addition to all the other coincidences involved, the *caligae* (both with lions and laces) can be found only in Estienne's treatise, since Baïf never dealt with the subject of Roman footwear. Second, Estienne's works were handbooks and therefore easier to consult. They could have been used by the reader to a greater extent than those of Baïf, mainly because of the new structure.

Moreover, the presence of a French translation for each Latin term could have aided a more rapid comprehension of the object not only by the young students to whom these treatises were originally addressed, but also by painters and artists. The assumption could therefore be made that Baïf's knowledge may have contributed to the development of this iconographic programme, but through the revisions carried out by Estienne between 1535 and 1537 when the Gallery at Fontainebleau was being decorated.

99 Concina 1990.

100 Baïf 1537, 145-8; Estienne 1537, 77-90.

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# 9 Art **Grotesques in the Counter-Reformation**

**Summary** 9.1 Introduction. – 9.2 Reformation and Images. – 9.3 Counter-Reformation and Images.– 9.4 The Counter-Reformation and Grotesques. – 9.5 Symbols and Grotesques.

#### 9.1 Introduction

Gots hewser seind hewser daryn Got allein gecheret, angeruffen und angebet soll werden. Als Christus spricht: Mein haus ist ein haus des gebets unr ir macht ein gruben der morder daraus [Mt 21:13]. Betrügliche bilder ermorden alle yre anbeter und brenser als geschrien steht. […] Drumb mogen unsere tempell biillich morders gruben genenth warden, das unser genst in yenen ertodt und erschlagen wirt.

This is the opening of a short treatise on the removal of images, *Von Abtuhung der Bylder*, 1 written and published in 1522 by Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486-1541),<sup>2</sup> one of Luther's fellow theologians in Wittenberg. His work expressed iconoclastic views and

An earlier version of this chapter was published in *Paradigms of Renaissance Grotesques*, edited by Damiano Acciarino, Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2019, 29-54.

<sup>1</sup> Karlstadt 1522, 1-2.

<sup>2</sup> On his thought in general, see Sider 1974.

formally gave birth to the controversy over figurative art during the Reformation.<sup>3</sup> Karlstadt's statement is extremely effective:

God's houses are buildings in which God alone should be glorified, invoked, and adored. As Christ says: My house is a house of prayer, and you make it a murderer's cave. Deceitful images bring death to those who worship them […] Therefore, our temples might be rightly called murderer's caves, because in them our spirit is stricken and slain.<sup>4</sup>

Owing to the presence of deceitful images ("betrügliche bilder") that lead to the death of the spirit, churches can be compared to murderers' caves ("gruben der morder"). This concept is drawn from the gospel of Matthew, even if the biblical text does not directly refer to images but more generally to corruption in the episode of the *Cleansing of the Temple*. With the German word *grube* (cave), Karlstadt translated the Greek σπήλαιον (cave), from which the Latin term *speluncam* (cave) is derived. During the sixteenth century, *grube* and *spēlaion* had a strong semantic relationship with the Italian *grotta* (cave), from which the word *grottesche* was coined.<sup>5</sup> This lexical con-

3 Scavizzi 1981, 51-63.

4 Mangrum, Scavizzi 1991, 19-20.

5 The etymology of the word *grottesca* was widely investigated during the Renaissance, at the point that it became a sort of hermeneutical device used by scholars to first understand, and later criticise, role and function of grotesques within art. Since the first attempts to identify its origins, scholars tended to link the signifier of the Italian word *grottesca*, which meant a specific type of paintings, with *grotta*, which was the environment in which these paintings were originally found. Albeit the first occurrence of the word, today dated back to year 1500 and found in the *Antiquarie prospettiche romane*, apparently demonstrates some kind of etymological awareness, alluding to a link between the paintings and the place in which they were rediscovered (v. 373: "Hor son spelonch'e ruinate grotte" and 380: "per essere più bizzarri alle grottesche"), its first explicit etymology is found in Philandrier 1544, 228 ("Picture genus Italis dictas grottescas, credo quod in terra obrutis veterum ædificiorum fornicibus, quas Grottas, quasi Cryptas appellant, primum invenerint"), where *grotta* and *grottesca* where connected to the Latin term *crypta*. This pattern was expanded in following years, for example by Pirro Ligorio, who connected these forms to the Greek κρυπτή (hidden) and γρώνη (cavernous), see Acciarino 2018, 108: "Grotta, dunque, viene dal nome greco per voce corrotta da' vulgari usata, perché in due modi l'usano scrivere, ΚΡΥΠΤΗ, onde i latini *crypta*, che deriva dalla voce ΚΡΥΠΤΑΛΙΟΣ o vero ΚΡΥΠΤΑΔΙΟΣ, che suona a noi occulto o riposto luogo o segreto, donde il verbo ΚΡΥΠΤΩ o ΚΡΥΠΤΥΨΩ, che suona nel latino ABSCONDO, *locus secretum*, o vero *habeo arcanum teneo*, là onde nella nostra ci significa ascondo et nascoso et nascondo, per cosa segreta o ascosa e occulta. Altri la fanno venire dalla voce ΓΡΩΝΗ, ch'è foramine, luogo scavato et speco, come in tal parola detta fu da Nicandro, dicendo egli ἐνιγρώνην ἄν ἔαυσαν μυόδοϰοις [Nicand. *Theriac*. 795], che non è altro a dire che forame et speco et grotta et spelunca. ὀ σπήλαιον ϰοίλη πέτρα, ὀπη τῆς πέτρας διῆς τὰ σχοινία πρὸς τήν τῶν νεῶν στάσιν ἠφαλίζοντο [Aelian. *VH* 13.1.30; Hesych. γ 965], in maniera, dunque, grotta non è altro che luogo segreto et sicuro, o di fabrica o di pietra scavata, perforata et posta in qualche uso et fatta per addito, et luogo fatto nella parte bassa della casa et per ripostorio vergence creates a perfect (and unexpected) bond between the two movements developing simultaneously during the Renaissance: grotesques in ornamental art and iconoclasm in worship.

Since its origins, Christianity has had a controversial and unstable relationship with imagery.<sup>6</sup> This is in part due to two contrasting tendencies in its ideology: one deriving from its Jewish roots that forbade any kind of representation of the divine; the other deriving from its Gentile legacy which instead made ample use of images of the gods for its cults. This inherited tension produced an extensive and abundant literature on the matter throughout the centuries. This often engendered reformations of style and iconography based on a changing ideal of appropriateness; at times it resulted in the destruction of statues and other types of figurative representation. Tertullian, Lactantius, and Bernard of Clairvaux are just some of the most eminent authorities involved in this long-lasting debate. They greatly influenced the nature of sacred art and inspired later religious re-

et per tempio, o per luogo e fondo di una nave, et fatto sotto delli alberghi per commodità". Ulisse Aldrovandi noticed affinity between the Italian noun *grotta* and the Dutch verb *crupen* (to creep), also drawing connections with Hebrew and Aramaic; see Acciarino 2018, 94-5: "la grotta è una caverna, o vero una volta sotto terra in qualche monte escavata detta dalli greci κρυπτή, dal verbo κρύπτειν che significa occultare, quasi che dicessi occulta o vero loco occulto. Dal qual verbo greco gli Barbanti dicono crupen, che vuol dire andare carponi, rampare per terra, imperoché quelli che cercono di occultarsi pare che vogliano andare in groppone, et spesse volte, quando voglino nascondersi nelle spelonche et caverne, sono sforzati andare con le mani et piedi per terra, et così andare (come si dice) in gattone, il che fa argumento che le grotte sono basse. Questo nome grotta è formato da κρυπτή cangiando il cappa nella sua media gamma et mutando l'ypsilon (che secondo i più dotti si deve pronunciare non come *i*, ma come la *u* appresso francesi) in *o*, il π in *t*, sì come in tutte le voci volgari si vede farsi, come da *scriptum* latino 'scritto', et βαπτισμὸς 'battesimo', et così formaremo da κρυπτὴ \*γροττα 'grotta'. […] Da gli Hebrei è detta la grotta ה ַרׇעְמ) meharah), il qual nome vogliono alcuni che deriva dal verbo infinito תֺרוַע) haroth), che significa dinudare, perché la spelonca over grotta sia in luoco denudato et voto; il che mostra che sia inetta alla pittura essendo priva della luce, non potendo vedere gli colori se non per mezzo del lume del sole o del fuoco. 'Haroth' non solamente è verbo, come habbiamo detto, ma nome del numero del più de ה ַרׇע) harah), che significa loco pieno di verdura et gramigne, da' latini chiamato *graminetum*, di modo che 'haroth' dinotarà *gramineta*, cioè luochi di gramigna et herbe verdeggianti adorni. Però alcuni per questo vocabulo vogliono che si intenda le rive de' fiumi, per causa della nudità et cavità che per l'onde sono di sotto escavate, ma di sopra con bellissime herbe vestite, sì come veggiamo alcune volte le fontane ave, che mostrano una bellissima verdura". Aldrovandi also proposed to rename grotesques with a different term coming from Greek language, τερατογραφία to focus on their monstrous essence, even if it was not compatible with their meaning, because monsters existed in nature, but grotesques did not; see Acciarino 2018, 93: "Aristofane chiama la pittura mostruosa τερατογραφία, dal verbo Greco τερατογραφέω, che significa dipingere mostri over cose mostruose. Questo vocabolo τερατογραφία converrebbe giustamente alle pitture stravaganti, che hoggi con usato cioè moderno nome sono chiamate grotesche, percioché sono pitture veramente mostruose, anzi più che mostruose non havendo correspondenza con le cose istesse, come di sopra habbiamo accennato, ma le mostruose hanno per correspondenza i mostri istessi, da' quali sono state ritratte".

<sup>6</sup> Bettetini 2006; Lingua 2006, 27-80.

formers such as John Wycliff, the Lollards, Jan Huss, Bernardino da Siena, and Girolamo Savonarola.<sup>7</sup>

In the early modern period visual art became not only a fundamental tool to investigate and understand creation, but also an instrument to help idealise and imagine the spiritual universe. It was just a matter of time before this influenced the Reformation. Protestant ideas in this regard combined the traditional critique against figurative art (drawn by Sacred Scripture and patristic texts) with the abuses denounced in Luther's 95 theses. As a result, throughout the entire sixteenth century the removal of images and the issue of idolatry became battlefields where Catholics and Protestants engaged each other in an effort to promote and re-establish doctrine and a liturgy of the Primitive Church.<sup>8</sup>

Grotesques were never explicitly mentioned by Protestants or Catholics in any of these polemics, at least until the end of the sixteenth century. As far as written sources are concerned, it appears that Protestants did not take this ornamental style into consideration at all in their attacks against imagery. However, grotesques ended up entering into Protestant polemics against images 'naturally'. This was because of their widespread presence in almost all decorated buildings of the time, including churches. It is thus reasonable to assume that, even if Protestants did not directly address their critique against decorations of this type, their rhetoric could also be construed by Catholics as an attack on grotesques, which were present and visible in Catholic imagery (especially in Italy).<sup>9</sup>


9 Some convergences among the iconoclastic tendencies of the Reformation and the polemics against the grotesques, which contributed to anger the reaction against the Renaissance rebirth of Pagan art (Saxl 1939, 346-67; Wind 1957; Gombrich 1975, Monfasani 1992, 45-61; Warburg 1999; Godwin 2002; Bull 2005), could be found in several literary sources of the first half of the sixteenth century; see e.g. Catharinus 1542, 61- 73 especially 64, or the letter of Olaus Magnus bishop of Uppsala dated 8 June 1552 on the decorations of cardinal Marcello Crescenzi's palace in Rome (Hipler-Zakrzewski 1886, 211: "Doleo super certis abusibus illius cardinalis, quos admisit fieri Romae. Vidi enim in palatio eius, dum floreret, super ianuas eius spectra, faunos, satyras et nudarum imagines mulierum […] sed forsan haec sunt gentilium antiquitatum, ut habetur in bella videre Belvedere, in quo nullus securior est quam caecus", also in Roggero 1969, 153 fn. 18), as well as the interesting analysis of the vocabulary related to images and their doctrinal meaning in Protestant contexts given by Flacius 1567, 543-4, where images and likenesses were deemed as unfaithful dreams and groundless projections of imagination ("Longe alia igitur significatio est, cum imago pro rebus imaginaries, aut evanidis crebro usurpantur, cuius significationis exempla adscribi non est opus. Ab hac vero significatione venit, quod saepe res existentes ob suam levitatem imago dicuntur, sicut Latini somnium hominis, pro nihil homine dicere solent"). Also interesting in this regard are the two dedicatory letters by Giovanni Francesco Pico della Mirandola for the two editions of his poem *De Venere et Cupidine expellendis*, addressed respectively to Lilio Gregorio Giraldi and to Konrad Peutinger. These letters

In humanistic circles, grotesques stimulated a heated debate among those who sought to understand their nature and function within art, whether their figurations carried any symbolic, hidden, or arcane meanings, or whether they could be dismissed simply as deceitful images, as maintained by classical sources such as Vitruvius and Horace. In this regard, some of the positions advanced on the Reformation side of the debate on images aligned with those used in the debate on grotesques, creating unexpected reactions against this artistic category on the Catholic side. Curiously enough, this outburst of Protestant polemics against images coincided with the universal diffusion of grotesques in Renaissance art. In fact, just a few years before Karlstadt's book, Raphael completed the decorations of the Vatican Loggias (1516-19) with a series of grotesques. This would go on to become one of the most famous and renowned examples of this style during the Renaissance.<sup>10</sup>

10 For a general overview on Raphael's Loggias, see Edwards 1989; Nasselrath 1984; Dacos 1986; 1988; Torriti 2014; Lapraik Guest 2015, 536-51; Karafel 2016; Zamperini 2019.

described the ancient statues placed in the Belvedere Garden as Pagan abnormalities not acceptable anymore in Christian times, the imagery of which evoked that of the grotesques (see Pico 1513a, vv. 187-96: "Linquite fallacem Babylona, relinquite molles | Illius illecebres permistaque mella veneno. | Huc etenim nimium nimiumque nocentia monstra | Migravere truces Scyllaeque et Gorgones, atque | Harpyiae in mediis posuere sedilia templis. | Nec non quae Atlantem olim, et quae Titana parentem | Agnorunt, arteis nec dedidicere vetustas, | Semiferaeque etiam caprearum rupe recentis | Mutavere domos Babylonis, et aurea tecta | atque super sacra sidunt Acheloides aede"). According to recent studies (Piana 2020), the letter to Giraldi pointed out that this imagery had a negative influence on the spectators, who were deceived by their imagination and transformed into animals (Pico 1513a, *Ep*.: "Nam bruta esse iis in locis non parum multa dicuntur ac bellvas cum notas tum ignotas per hosce colles expatiantur, Ianiculum aliquas, aliquanto plures colles, caeteros: at Vaticanum et plurimas alere et ingenteis, | quarum id insitutum, | ut nisi flante Zephyro mansuescant. Cunque habentur veluti cicures ipsis esse omnino ferociores. Quod genus bruti nec Aristoteli nec Aeliano nec Cnidio Ctesiae copertum: Novisse id aliqua ex parte Magnum Albertum: sed non prodidisse nondum eius satis explorata natura: Nec enim ferae illius tempestatis tam noxi[e] tamque efferate degebant vitam"), establishing a parallel with the enchantress Circe and her cave in which Ulysses' crew was transformed into pigs (Pico 1513a, *Ep*.: "Nec te admiratio nedum stupor teneat tot in bellvas homines trasformatos: quando iis in oris non unica solum est Circe ternaque Siren sed sirenum solisque filiarum Myriaden numerares bene plane integram"); in the letter to Peutinger, he underlined the fragmentary aspect of these artworks, which signified the victory of the light emanated by true religion against the darkness of the false gods (Pico 1513b, *Ep*.: "Sed sane eo in simulacro simul et artificiis ingenium licebat suspicere: et simul admirari vanae superstitionis tenebras verae luce religionis ita fugatas, ut nec ipsorum Deorum imagines nisi truncae, fractae et pene prorsus evanidae spectarentur").

#### 9.2 Reformation and Images

The entire debate on the use of images in religious contexts during the Renaissance and the Reformation began with Karlstadt's treatise.<sup>11</sup> His polemic tract was based on the Mosaic precepts against images (*Ex*. 20:4-5; *Lv*. 26:1; *Nm*. 33:52; *Dt*. 5:8-9) and especially on the commandment of "non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem quæ est in caelo desuper, et quæ in terra deorsum, nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra", which essentially excluded all creatures of the world from sacred figurations.12 Karlstadt's intention was to remove any potential medium between God and man (i.e. nature) because this could become an obstacle in the relationship with divinity and misdirect veneration, eventually deceiving the believer.

11 Stirm 1977; Siggio 1980; Scavizzi 1981, 48-82.

12 Scavizzi 1981, 240-2; Lingua 2006, 19. To better shape Renaissance understanding of this passage, see Pagnini 1529, 1189: "וןּמ Inde ה֔ ָ֡ ונּמְּת quod est figura, similitudo, imago, fantasma, idea, species intellegibilis. Dicitur enim de rebus tam corporalibus quam spiritualibus, tam de his quae per sensus percipiunt, quam de his quae per sensus non intelliguntur. Sed per intellectum ut quum dicitur de Deo. Exo. 20. v. 4: Non facies tibi sculptile, et omnem ה֔ ָ֡ ונּמְּת i. similitudinem (imaginem) quae in coelo superne etc". Renaissance reception of *Ex*. 20:4 varied according to the confessional belonging of those who cited it in controversies. Protestants focused on the banishment of all images drawn from the natural world (e.g. Pellikan 1532, 215: "Cave tibi a periculosa perniciosaque humano generi imaginum sculptura rerum omnium. Ne quid aliud unquam admireris, praeter me authorem omnium naturarum ac atrium, de quibus alias multa passim solicite Moses admonet, quasi exosissum Deo sculptilium opus et execrabile"), while Catholics concentrated more on the second part of the commandment ([*Ex*. 20:5] "non adorabis ea neque coles ego sum Dominus Deus tuus fortis zelotes visitans iniquitatem patrum in filiis in tertiam et quartam generationem eorum qui oderunt me"), which instead was interpreted as an explicit warning not regarding images in general, but only those treated as idols (e.g. Broickwy 1537, 112a -113b, Lippomanno 1550, 169b ). This passage was considered one of the crucial arguments against the presence and the veneration of images in Christian religion; see Sanders 1569, 89a -101b [I.X. *Eos qui maxime oppugnarunt sacras imagines fuisse Manichaeos, Apostatas, haereticos, aut mogos et superstitiosos*], Molanus 1570, 158b-160b [LXXXVII. *Quod sacrae statuae nec sculptilia appellandae sint, nec simulacra*], from which Paleotti 1582, 44b: "Ora vogliamo avertire i lettori dello inganno fallacissimo degli eretici nemici della catolica pieta, i quali, vedendo che la scrittura sacra per lo più piglia il nome d'idolo et simulacro, et altri detti di sopra, in mala parte, essi, per levare l'uso delle sacre imagini dal popolo Christiano, hanno cercato, ovunque gli è accaduto fare menzione d'imagine, di riporvi la parola d'idolo, o d'altre delle sopranominate, affinché, essendo la voce d'idolo per sé stessa odiosa, essi col suono di questo nome mettessero in orrore al popolo ogni imagine, chiamandola con vocabolo abominevole alle leggi. Il che hanno machinato ancora nelle traslazioni di greco in latino: dove, in luogo della parola greca εἰκών, che doveano trasferire *imago*, hanno convertito *simulacrum*, per fare la cosa più odiosa. Et però nel Concilio Niceno ragionevolmente furono anatematizzati questi tali, che con sì empie cautele vogliono confondere questi nomi, dicendo il Concilio: *Qui sacras imagines idola vocant, anathema; qui ex Scriptura sententias contra idola dictas in sanctas imagines torquent, anathema; qui dicere audent sanctam catholicam Ecclesiam idola unquam accepisse, anathema* [*Conc. Oecum. Nicen. Secund*. *(787)* Act. 2. Syn. 7. Act. 4-7]; il che fu ancora replicato nel Concilio Constantinopolitano, sotto Adriano".

This Old Testament injunction was corroborated by several examples in the New Testament, where passages from Paul's letters were used to demonstrate the absolute convergence between the Old and the New Law on the use of images in liturgy. This was especially evident in 2 *Cor*. 5:16, which specified: "itaque nos ex hoc neminem novimus secundum carnem et si cognovimus secundum carnem Christum sed nunc iam non novimus". In this light, if the understanding of Christ was impossible through the human senses – tied irreparably to a material dimension (that is, the flesh) – images in religious contexts lost any actual function, becoming only a deceitful device fostering idolatry.<sup>13</sup>

This led to a more significant and impactful conclusion: that images were no longer considered suitable for teaching religion:

Dieweil nun dye bilder stum | vnd taub seind | konden weder sehen noch horen. weder lernen oder leren. vnd deuten | auff nichs anders dan vff lauter vnd blos fleisch | das nicht nutz ist. Volget vestiglich. das sie nicht nutz seind. Aber das wortt gottis ist geystlich | vnd allein den glaubigen nutze.

By affirming that "images are deaf and dumb, can neither see nor hear, neither learn nor teach and point to nothing other than pure and simple flesh which is of no use", and that "the Word of God is spiritual and alone is of use to the faithful",<sup>14</sup> Karlstadt targeted one of the strongest criteria for the admissibility of images in churches and cults ever developed on the Catholic side: the *Biblia pauperum* or Bible for the poor or illiterate.<sup>15</sup> Its acknowledged creator was Pope Gregory I (r. 590-604), who formulated this theory in a pastoral letter of ca. 599 to Bishop Serenus of Marseille (*PL* 77, 1128 C), stating that it is one thing to worship a painting, another thing to teach through paintings what should be worshipped. In fact, a painting presents to an illiterate person what a text transmits to a reader, since people who do not know how to read could understand and actually 'read' what should be followed.<sup>16</sup>

15 Nellhouse 1991; Corsi 1995.

16 Gregory's letter to Serenus was included in the *Decretum Gratiani* and circulated in its many editions with glosses published along the Renaissance. It was placed in book III [*De consecratione*] distinctio III canon xxvii [*De imaginibus sanctorum non violandis*]: "Perlatum ad nos fuerat, quod inconsiderate zelo succensus sanctorum imagines sub hac quasi excusatione, ne adorari debuissent, confregeris. Et quidem, quia eas adorari uetuisses, omnino laudauimus, fregisse uero reprehendimus. Dic, frater, a quo factum sacerdote aliquando auditum quod fecisti? Aliud est enim picturam adorare, aliud per picturae historiam quid sit adorandum addiscere. Nam quod legentibus

<sup>13</sup> Mangrum, Scavizzi 1991, 6-11.

<sup>14</sup> Karlstadt 1522, 24-5; Mangrum, Scavizzi 1991, 27.

To undermine this deeply rooted justification, Karlstadt focused on two main aspects of Christian doctrine extrapolated from the Scriptures.17 On the one hand, he wanted to re-establish the superiority of the word (*logos*) over the image (*eikona*), because transposing

scriptura, hoc idiotis praestat pictura cernentibus, quia in ipsa etiam ignorantes vident quid sequi debeant, in ipsa legunt qui litteras nesciunt. Unde et praecipue gentibus pro lectione pictura est". However, according to its glosses, the passage could bare a two-fold meaning. At the beginning, Gregory seems to praise the prohibition of adoration of sacred images, but at the same time he blames their destruction; see e.g., *Decret. Gratian.* 1612, 2147-8: "Casus: Severus [*sic*] episcopus sanctorum imagines vetuit adorari, et ira motus eas fregit, unde Gregorius eum commendat, quia eas vetuit adorari, sed redarguit eum, quia eas fregit. Nam quod facit scriptura legentibus, hoc faciunt imagines et picturae illiteratis. *Laudavimus*] Hic colligitur, quod intentio approbetur, reprobatur tamen impsum factum, […] Item est argumentum quod in uno facto potest reprobari quiddam, et aliud approbari". Canon xxvii is strictly connected with the following two canons xxviii [*Imagines sactorum memoria sunt et recordatio praeteritorum*] and xxix [*Non in agni sed in hominis specie Christus est figurandus*]. Canon xxviii expanded the memorial and historical function of sacred images: "Venerabiles imagines Christiani non deos appellant, neque seruiunt eis, ut diis, neque spem salutis ponunt in eis, neque ab eis expectant futurum iudicium: sed ad memoriam et recordationem primitiuorum uenerantur eas et adorant, sed non seruiunt eis cultu diuino, nec alicui creaturae", also through the glosses, which established a distinction between *latria* / λατρεία (supreme veneration of God) and *dulia* / δουλεία (veneration dedicated to the saints); see *Decret. Gratian.* 1612, 2149: "Casus: quaesitum fuit quare Christiani venerentur imagines et picturas, cum deitatem in eis esse non credant, nec spem salutis in eis ponant. Et respondetur, quod hoc faciunt in memoriam sanctorum et ad recordationem primitivorum olim factorum, id est, rerum gestarum. *Et adorant*] s. prox. c. contra. Sed aliud est adorare latria, quod ibi prohibetur, aliud dulia, quod hic permittitur. *Cultu*] scilicet latriae, in qua tria exiguntur, charitas dilectionis, et multitudo sacrificorum, et veneratio. In dulia vero unum solum, scilicet veneratio; et in hoc sensu possumus quamlibet rem sacram adorare, idest reverentiam exhibere". Canon xxix instead touches an issue of iconography, establishing that Christ should be represented only through a human figure, and not through symbols, i.e., the lamb: "Sextam sanctam sinodum recipio cum omnibus canonibus suis, in quibus dicitur: In quibus scripturis sanctarum imaginum agnus precursoris digito ostensus depingitur, qui in figuram transit gratiae, uerum nobis per legem Moysi premonstrans agnum Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum [*Ex*. 12:1-14]. Antiquis ergo figuris et umbris, ad ueritatis prefigurationem ecclesiae sanctae traditis, uale dicentes, gratiam et ueritatem preferimus, et sicut plenitudinem legis recipimus. Verum igitur agnum Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum secundum imaginem humanam amodo etiam in imaginibus pro ueteri agno depingi iubemus". This last article is particularly significant in terms of admissibility of symbols in sacred art, in that it excludes all non-human figures to depict Christ. As it emerges from the glosses, this statement attempts to overturn John Chrysostom's claim that Christ were to be portrayed as a lamb [Chrysost. *Catech*. 3.13-19]; see *Decret. Gratian.* 1612, 2149: "Casus: Quia Ioannes Chrysostomum demonstrans ait: ecce agnus Dei, ideo quidam pingebant Christum sub specie agni, verum quia umbra mortis transivit, et Christus verus homo, in forma humana debemus ipsum depingere"; on this issue, see Agustín 1587b, 73: "C. Sextam sactam synodum recipio cum omnibus canonibus suis, in quibus dicitur: in quibus scripturs sanctarum imaginum. A. Scripturis positum est pro picturis, est enim hoc caput XXCIII Trullianum, in quo est, ἔν τισι τῶν σεπτῶν εἰκόνων γραφαῖς [*Conc. Oecum. Nicen. Secund. (787)* 81.9]". Canon xxvii was also used to comment upon John of Damascus's works, especially on orthodox faith IV. 17 [*De sanctorum imaginibus*]; see Billy 1577, 323b-324b.

17 Mangrum, Scavizzi 1991, 9-12.

God's message in images would have meant converting it into a different semiotic vehicle, thereby distorting the original sense of the message. On the other hand, the use of images to teach Scripture meant that the clergy and laity were not equally placed; the former had some sort of pre-eminence over the latter, and this would break the unity of Christianity itself, creating two categories of the faithful: one that could directly access the message of salvation and another that instead was subjected to false rituals:

Bildnis seind der Leyhen bucher | alß hette er gesprochen. Die Leihen sollen kein Junger Christi sein | sollen auch nymer frey werden vons teuffels panden | sollen auch nit in gotlich vnd Christlich weßen kumen.<sup>18</sup>

Karlstadt's positions were clear: "saying that likenesses are the books of the laity is precisely the same as saying that the laity ought not to be disciples of Christ, should never be free from the bonds of the Devil and should also not enter into godly and Christian life". The influence of his words can be found mostly in reformed environments, where he had a powerful impact on the ensuing debate on images and idolatry. It gave birth to a tradition of works by both Catholics and Protestants that either aligned with or contradicted his ideas.<sup>19</sup>

The first response is perhaps one of the most meaningful. It was written in German in 1522 by the Catholic apologist Hieronymus Emser who, in his *Das man der heyligen Bilder yn den Kirken nit abthon, noch unheren soll. Und das sie in der Schriff nyndert verboten seyn*, literally explained the reasons why images should not be removed from churches and other religious buildings, should not be dishonoured, and were not forbidden in Scripture.<sup>20</sup> In Emser's view, images were allowed for three main reasons: first, because served as a reminder

18 Karlstadt 1522, 9; Mangrum, Scavizzi 1991, 27-8.

19 After *Von Abtuhung der Bylder*, the works published in sequence are the following: a short Latin treatise by Johannes Eck on the same topic (1522); Luther's eight sermons *Invocavit* (1522) and his *Widder die hymmelischenn Propheten, von den Bildern und Sacrament* (1525), in which he opposed iconoclastic positions and proposed a judicious use of images together with a reformation of iconography; Johannes Stumpf's collection of sermons (1523) and Huldrych Zwingli's *Vorschlag wegen der Bilder und der Messe* (1524) that is, literally, proposal concerning images and the Mass; up until Jean Calvin's chapter XI of the first book of his *Institutio Christianae Religionis* (1536) and Heinrich Bullinger's *De origine erroris* (1539), especially the chapter IX. *De deorum falsorum religionibus et simulachrorum cultu erroneo* [Bullinger 1539, 38a -42a ]. For further Protestant positions, it was later re-proposed in Flacius 1569, 12.863.16. For a Catholic response in the first half of the sixteenth century, see Scavizzi 1981, 130-53.

20 Mangrum, Scavizzi 1991, 41-88; Emser 1522.

and kept track of events; second, because they could teach illiterate people, according to the scheme of the *Biblia pauperum*; and, third, because they inspired faith in the observer.<sup>21</sup>

Of course, Emser had to admit that images were occasionally misused, specifically in the iconography of the Virgin Mary and the saints.<sup>22</sup> He attributed the origin of this misapplication to the Devil, who created a series of deceitful idols with the intent of being worshipped in place of the real God ("Den missbrauch dises obgenanten und and heydischen bilder | hat der teuffel im selber gotliche Her zu zuzihen | angericht").<sup>23</sup> In addition, Emser stated that "these pagan images and idols through which the Devil is invoked, and God is robbed of his divine honour, are an abomination before God and have been condemned not only by the canonical Scripture but also by wise and intelligent pagans themselves":<sup>24</sup>

Dise heidische bild und abgoet | darinnen der tauffel angeruffen | und Got seyn Goetliche her entfromdet wirt | sint ein grewel vor Got | unnd nit alleyen von der Canonischen schrifft | sonder | ouch von den clugen und weysen Heyden selber vornicht worden.

Karlstad, Emser and all their followers had precise targets in mind when they formulated their respective attacks or attempted defences of the *status quo*. They referred mostly to statues and licentious paintings, but also in more general terms to artworks and furnishings that distracted people's attention from the Word of God or endangered the administration and reception of the liturgy.<sup>25</sup>

If all these debates are considered retrospectively, they are perfectly compatible with the critique on grotesques advanced in the second half of the sixteenth century in Catholic environments: the deceitful nature of images, the impossibility of teaching or transmitting a message through them, and the veneration of infernal divinities. Given the above, one can further extrapolate that the attacks against grotesques developed during the Counter-Reformation came about as a direct consequence of the Protestant polemics against images.


#### 9.3 Counter-Reformation and Images

Even if sporadic attempts to oppose the growing iconoclastic impulses developing in Protestant regions can be seen during this time, no official Catholic response emerged prior to the decrees on invocation, veneration of the relics of Saints, and the sacred images (*de invocatione, veneratione et reliquiis sanctorum et sacris imaginibus*) promulgated by the Council of Trent in 1563.26 The Tridentine pronouncements sought to restore the honour of figurative art in Christian cults and worship, adopting the traditional arguments that sacred art promoted memory, learning, and faith. These decrees also encouraged an improvement to the iconography to help increase the effectiveness of the images and reinforce the reasons for their use – "in such wise that no images, (suggestive) of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up".<sup>27</sup>

The Tridentine decrees set the ground rules for the bishops to re-interpret images; they did not, however, discuss specific cases, thereby leaving bishops free to apply the regulations as they saw fit for their dioceses. Guidelines, however, soon followed. The first work that gave a series of concrete examples for what should and should not be depicted in sacred art was composed by the Flemish scholar and theologian Jan Vermeulen (1533-85), also known as Johannes Molanus. In 1570 he published *De Picturis et Imaginibus Sacris*, a treatise on the correct use of images that sought to give shape to the Council's more general procla-

<sup>26</sup> In the first half of the sixteenth century, Catholic polemists did not give a systematic response on the issue of veneration of images. Among the most eminent figures of the catholic side, worthy of mention are Erasmus and Alberto Pio da Carpi, Ambrosius Catharinus and Konrad Braun, and of course the discussions carried out at the Colloquy of Poissy, which were capable to deeply influence the outcome at the Council of Trent. In this regard, see Jedin 1935; Alberigo 1958, 239-98; Roggero 1969; Firpo 2010; Noyes 2013; Prodi, 2014; Pigozzi 2015; Firpo, Biferali 2016; Hecht 2016, 30-70.

<sup>27</sup> *Concilium Treidentinum*, session XXV (3-4 December 1563) [*De invocatione, veneratione et reliquiis sanctorum et de sacris imaginibus*]: "In has autem sanctas et salutares observationes si qui abusus irrepserint: eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus vehementer cupit ita ut nullae falsi dogmatis imagines et rudibus periculosi erroris occasionem praebentes statuantur. […] Quodsi aliquando historias et narrationes Sacrae Scripturae cum id indoctae plebi expediet exprimi et figurari contigerit: doceatur populus non propterea divinitatem figurari quasi corporeis oculis conspici vel coloribus aut figuris exprimi possit. Omnis porro superstitio in sanctorum invocatione reliquiarum veneratione et imaginum sacro usu tollatur omnis turpis quaestus eliminetur omnis denique lascivia vitetur ita ut procaci venustate imagines non pingantur nec ornentur; et sanctorum celebratione ac reliquiarum visitatione homines ad commessationes atque ebrietates non abutantur quasi festi dies in honorem sanctorum per luxum ac lasciviam agantur. Postremo tanta circa haec diligentia et cura ab episcopis adhibeatur ut nihil inordinatum aut praepostere et tumultuarie accommodatum nihil profanum nihil que inhonestum appareat cum domum Dei deceat sanctitudo. Haec ut fidelius observentur statuit sancta Synodus nemini licere ullo in loco vel Ecclesia etiam quomodolibet exempta ullam insolitam ponere vel ponendam curare imaginem nisi ab episcopo approbata fuerit".

mations. It also referred to the former tradition of treatises on art and iconography stemming from humanistic circles and to the strong iconoclastic tensions that had erupted in previous decades in Protestant areas.

Molanus never mentioned grotesques openly in his work, despite occasionally alluding to their ornamental figurations. He referred, for example, to those mysterious hieroglyphs of the ancient Egyptians ("aenigmata pingebant Aegyptij") that were often associated with the enigmatic print of grotesques after the fifteenth century discovery of Horapollo and Hermes Trismegistus.<sup>28</sup> Molanus stated that these depictions had never been admitted in ecclesiastical contexts ("Numquam item Ecclesia approbabit Aegyptiorum morem") because they could serve as idols of the pagan gods ("inter Aegyptios, quosdam aenigmatum artifices qui idolis serviebant"). In fact, if hieroglyphs were considered to be profane idols bearing some kind of obscure meaning, then they should be excluded from Christian temples.

In chapter 30, entitled *Prophana non esse sacris intermiscenda, nec in templis, nec in monasterijs*, Molanus connects the exclusion of profane iconography from churches or sacred buildings with the pronouncements of the Council. This openly recalls the words of the decrees stating that nothing profane or indecent should appear, because only sanctity is appropriate in the house of God. Such a statement in fact was against those who mixed the sacred with the profane in churches.<sup>29</sup> Molanus concluded this discussion by quoting Bernard of Clairvaux's famous invective against the strange figures (*curiosas depictiones*) that were ubiquitous in medieval monasteries:<sup>30</sup>

Quid [in claustris] facit illa ridiculosa monstruositas, mira quaedam deformis formositas, ac formosa deformitas? Quid ibi immundae simiae? Quid feri leones? Quid monstruosi centauri? Quid semihomines? Quid maculosae tigrides? Quid milites pugnantes? Quid venatores tubicinantes? Videas sub uno capite corpora mul-

#### 28 Molanus 1570, 3b.

<sup>29</sup> Molanus 1570, 62b-63a : "Nihil prophanum, nihiloque inhonestum appareat cum domum Dei deceat sanctitudo: contra eos, qui in Ecclesijs prophana sacris admiscent". The bibliography on Molanus's work is limited, one can rely mainly on Hecht 2016, especially 287-99 and Freedberg 1971, 229-45.

<sup>30</sup> Molanus 1570, 63b-64a . The passage of Bernard's *Apologia ad Guillelmum Abbatem*, chapter XII. *Luxum et abusum in templis et oratoriis exstruendis, ornandis, pingendis, arguit* [*PL* 182 0916A-B] cited by Molanus is anticipated by a reference to *Ps*. 25:8 ("Domine dilexi decorem domus tuae et locum habitationis gloriae tuae"), which very much recalled Karlastadt's beginning of his iconoclastic pamphlet. Even if Molanus probably used this reference to attack grotesques in churches, Bernard invective was generally evoked to attack excessive decorations of churches, as it emerges from the use that other scholars made of it, for example in the Magdeburg Centuries (Flacius 1569, 864 [XII.6. DE CEREMONIIS – *Quae contenta in templis*]), or in other treatises on sacred art and architecture (see Paleotti 1582, 237a ; Hospinianus 1603, 42; Junius 1694, 148).

ta, et rursus in uno corpore capita multa. Cernitur hinc in quadrupede cauda serpentis, illinc in pisce caput quadrupedis. Ibi bestia praefert equum, capram trahens retro dimidiam, hic cornutum animal equum gestat posterius. Tam multa denique, tamque mira diversarum formarum ubique varietas apparet, ut magis legere libeat in marmoribus, quam in codicibus: totumque diem occupare singula ista mirando, quam in lege Dei meditando.

Bernard asked himself: why is this ridiculous monstrosity represented [in cloisters], this marvellous deformed beauty or beautiful deformity? Why are foul monkeys found here? Why fierce lions? Why horrific centaurs? Why half-men? Why speckled tigers? Why soldiers in battle? Why hunters sounding their horns? You see many bodies under one head and again one body with many heads. You can see on one side a four-legged-animal with a snake as a tail, on the other side the head of a four-legged-animal on a fish. Here, a beast is half horse in the front and half goat in back; there, a horned animal gives birth to a horse. This surprising and rich variety of heterogeneous forms appears everywhere, so much so that people prefer to 'read' statues rather than books: they prefer to waste their time staring at these images rather than contemplate the Law of God's words helped Molanus give a precise shape to those 'mixed' figurations present in churches.

His detailed description reflected imagery comprised of dynamic figures. These combined vegetal, animal, and human features that, in the 1570s, inevitably evoked the usual iconographies of grotesques. However, beyond this significant coincidence, greater attention should be paid to his final statement, which suggested that these images distracted the faithful from Christian truth. Bernard's remark, though originally written in the twelfth century, echoed Karlstadt's polemic against the *Biblia pauperum* and Gregory the Great. It identified for the first time the deceitful images that were to be excluded from the canon so as to avoid confusing and ambiguous messaging.

Carlo Borromeo followed up this position by adding further details in his *Instructionum fabricae et suppellectilis ecclesiasticae libri duo*, a Counter-reformation work on images published in 1577. In chapter 17, *De sacris imaginibus picturisve*, Borromeo devoted several passages to the appropriateness of the imagery within religious environments.<sup>31</sup> In the first section on what kind sacred images should be avoided and saved (*Quae in imaginibus sacris cavenda, quae rursus servanda sunt*), he set a first parameter in order to reject figurations from the iconographic system still in use during his time.<sup>32</sup>

31 Borromeo 1577, 42-5.

<sup>32</sup> Borromeo 1577, 42: "Praeterea sacris imaginibus pingendis sculpendisve, sicut nihil falsum, nihil incertum apocryphumve, nihil superstitiosum, nihil insolitum adhiberi

Borromeo reported that in painting and sculpting sacred images, nothing false, uncertain, apocryphal or superstitious must be displayed; and that everything profane, depraved or obscene, shameless or impudent must be avoided; similarly, everything unusual, which does not educate the people at devotion or can offend the minds of faithful, again, must be forbidden. Borromeo then specifically explained what should be excluded from the canon of sacred images. In the section on side-works and marginal apparatus for ornament (*De parergis et additamentis ornatus causa*), he issues his famous sentence on marginal decorations, thereby condemning the imagery that was typical of grotesques, though he does so without mentioning them explicitly:<sup>33</sup>

*Parerga*, utpote quae ornatus causa imaginibus pictores sculptoresve addere solent, ne prophane sint, ne voluptaria, ne deliciose ne denique a sacra pictura abhorrentia, ut deformiter efficta capita humana quae *mascaroni* vulgo nominant, non aviculae, non mare, non prata virentia, non alia id generis, quae ad oblectationem deliciosumque prospectum atque ornatum effinguntur.

Borromeo thought that the *parerga* [accessories],<sup>34</sup> which painters or sculptors usually add to images as ornaments, should not depict any-

debet, ita quicquid prophanum, turpe vel obscaenum, inhonestum procacitatemve ostentans, omnino caveatur; et quicquid item curiosum, quodque non ad pietatem homines informet, aut quo fidelium mentes oculique offendi possint, prorsus vitetur item".

<sup>33</sup> Borromeo 1577, 44-5.

<sup>34</sup> The definition 'accessory' is drawn from Passignat 2017, 428. Borromeo cites the term *parerga* (from the Greek πάρεργον), attributing to it the meaning of 'marginal decoration', and adds a rather broad number of iconographies that should be excluded from its imagery. The word πάρεργον is extensively attested in Greek literature, in Latin literature instead *parergum* is extremely rare. In order to understand Borromeo's use of the term, one must consider its etymology, i.e., παρα-, implying an addition, and ἔργον meaning 'work' (also of art). Hesychius attributed to it a negative connotation, by defining it as something spurious or unnecessary (Hesyc. *Lex*. π 847: πάρεργον· νόθον, ὡς μικρόν τι τῶν ἀναγκαίων). In Latin, *parergum* is utilised as a technical term in the field of art in just one occasion, i.e., when Pliny reports that the painter Protogenes represented some ships in margin of a picture of Nausicaa (Plin. *nat.* 35.10.36: "adiecerit parvolas naves longas in iis, quae pictores parergia appellant"). Renaissance scholars were fully aware of this shift, as e.g., Vincenzio Borghini's definition of *parerga*, attested in the so called *Selva di notizie* [Kunst. ms. K 783.16] dated approximately 1564; see Carrara 2000, 266: "*Quae pictores parergha appellant* etc. chiaman così quelle cose che sono per ornamento, ma fuora della historia, come città, fiumi, campagne, monti etc". The Greek word was known during the Renaissance thanks to Guarinus Favorinus's Greek *Thesaurus*, who cited Hesychius's exact definition (Favorinus 1523, 413b ), and to Guillaume Budé's *Commentaria* on Greek language, which connected it to Pliny, hence postulating the existence of painters specialised in the realisation of these decorations (Budé 1529, 710: "παρεργογραφεῖν est πάρεργα γράφειν καί ζωγραφεῖν. Sunt autem πάρεργα, quae praeter praecipuam et destinatam imaginem ornatus gratia adduntur, ut flores, ut arbores et similia, ut apud Plinium libro XXXV").

thing related to nature (he mentions: birds, seas, green prairies, and in general anything that might seek to produce a pleasant landscape or delightful ornament) in order to be neither profane, nor voluptuous, neither luxurious nor abhorrent of sacred art, such as those human heads usually depicted that the people call *mascaroni* [big masks].<sup>35</sup>

Budé created a first list of iconographies which recurred in the *parerga*, such as flowers, trees etc., and again, by relying on Pliny, he added also ships. This input was received by Robert Estienne's *Thesaurus* of Latin language, which appears to improve Budé's definition (Estienne 1531, 611b: "PARERGVM, parergi, n.g. Quod alicui rei praeter propositum additur, ut si Pictor Iunonem pingens, ornandae tabellae gratiae, arbusculas et aviculas, sive naves mariaque, aut aliquid aliud huiusmodi addiderit"). Borromeo clearly drew his statement on *parerga* from this latter author ("non aviculae, non mare, non prata virentia"), also combining it with the monstrosities and deformities typical of grotesques. The fact that *parerga* and *grottesche* were strongly linked in Renaissance perception of art – in light of their function and their aspect – is proven by the French translation of Pliny [*nat.* 35.10.36] Pinet 1566, 649: "et neantmois fit en la \*Crotesque, de petites fustes, pour monstrer le petit commencement de son art. [\*Parergon]". The term *crotesque* recalls inevitably Michelle de Montainge's later (1580) passage of the *Essais* (1.28: "Que sont-ce icy aussi, à la verité, que crotesques et corps monstrueux, rappiecez de divers membres, sans certaine figure, n'ayants ordre, suite ny proportion que fortuite?"). No Renaissance vernacular translation of Pliny goes that far in interpreting *parerga* (e.g. Landino 1476, [766]: "egli v'arrose picciole navi lunghe tra le cose, le quali e' pittori chiamano *parerga*, perché sono per ornamento"; and Holland 1634, 542: "he devised certain borders without, wherein hee painted among those byworks [which painters call *parerga*] certaine small gallies and little barkes"), but this is due to Antoine Du Pinet's translation technique, see Tomlinson 2012. It is important to notice that πάρεργα entered the artistic vocabulary only in the last quarter of the sixteenth century, again thanks to the mediation of Budé and Estienne, and perhaps also thanks to Du Pinet's mediation; see Vigenère 1578, 272b: "Ny plus ne moins que les peintres parmy leurs ouvrages sont des perspectives, figures d'arbrisseaux, de bestions, vieilles ruines, et demolitions d'edifices, montaignes et valees; ebsemble tel autres accessoires et incidens, qui servent pour enricher, et donner grace a leur besongne, et replir ce qui sans cela demourrot inutilement desnué et vuide, en danger d'offencer la veuë. Les Grecs les appellent πάρεργα, ou adioustemens supernumeraires, outre ce qui fait besoin".

35 The word *mascaroni* (or more commonly *mascheroni*) mentioned by Borromeo in this passage refers to the technical term meaning 'a sculpture or any other artwork representing a human or animal face as an ornament'. With this sense, it was used e.g. by Benvenuto Cellini (*Vita* XIX: "Era questo vaso ornato con dua bei manichi, con molte maschere picole e grande, con molti bellissimi fogliami, di tanta bella grazia e disegno, quanto inmaginar si possa" [*GDLI*, 9: 865]) or by Giorgio Vasari (*Vite* [1550], *Intr*. I: "e fontane con teste di varie maschere intagliate con grandissima diligenzia" [*GD-LI*, 9: 865]). However, Borromeo confers to the word a negative connotation, implying that these ornamental masks were actual grotesques. This position is probably rooted in the idea that the mask as a decorative feature was an allegory of deception and falsity, e.g., the idiom 'dipingere le maschere' current in ancient Italian meant 'to lie' (see Luca Pulci's *Ciriffo Calvaneo* VII. 81.6: "Non vo' che più le maschere dipinga" [*GDLI*, 9: 868]). Parallely, if one considers that grotesques depicted dreamlike figures, which were considered false and deceiving as well (on grotesques as dreams see Zagoury 2018a; 2018b), and not founded in any real model (see Lapraik Guest 2015, 257 and 276-7), the link between mask-shaped ornaments and grotesques intended as dreamlike images emerges clearly. This becomes explicit in the famous letter addressed by Annibal Caro to Taddeo Zuccari on 11 November 1562, in which the iconographic programme of Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola is described. Here, Caro says that Morpheus, one of the gods of sleep, should be portrayed in the act of making masks, re-interpreting a pasIn Borromeo's view, *parerga* should feature only that which pertains appropriately to the sacred history represented.

If Borromeo's passages are read alongside those of Molanus, it becomes clear that Catholic apologists sought to weaken Protestant positions on imagery after the decrees of the Council of Trent. Attempting to break the Protestants' unity, they argued that not all images were deceptive or distracting – as Karlstadt and most of his followers suggested – but only those that did not conform to precise iconological patterns. In this light, images could still be included in Christian liturgy; however, Catholics needed to remove those that had been improperly used and preserve those that served their purposes (memory, education, inspiration) and safeguard them from future attacks.

#### 9.4 The Counter-Reformation and Grotesques

Even if both Molanus and Borromeo alluded to those representations that were, in their words, enigmatic and undecipherable, hybrid and monstrous, false, uncertain, apocryphal, superstitious, profane, depraved, obscene, shameless, impudent, unusual and deceitful, a definitive scapegoat for Catholic figurative art was identified only in 1582 by Gabriele Paleotti in his *Discourse on Sacred and Profane Images*. 36

36 For a general overview on Paleotti's role in Counter-Reformation art theory and his *Discorso*, see Bianchi 2008; Prodi 2014; Hecht 2016, 306-22; Morrison 2019.

sage of Ovid [*met*. 11.631-47]; see Greco 1957-61, 3: 138: "Morfeo è chiamato da Ovidio artefice, e fingitor di figure, e però lo farei in atto di figurare maschere di variati mostacci, ponendoli alcune di esse a' piedi" and Frangipani 1869, 83: "Lungi dal suo letto vedesi Morfeo, portentoso fabbricatore di maschere, di che dicesi fosse l'inventore". The word *mostaccio* utilised by Caro literally means 'face', sometimes with a negative sense. Caro's letter was certainly renowned in the last decades of the sixteenth century, in that it was published by Giorgio Vasari in his 1568 edition of the *Lives*, specifically in the one of *Taddeo Zucchero*. The same passage of Ovid mentioning Morpheus is cited by Paleotti, in the attempt to prove that, if caves (*grotte*) were an allegory of night due to their darkness, then the paintings found in caves (*grottesche*) were comparable to false dreams (see Paleotti 1582, 231b: "Al che si puotero muovere ancor per altra ragione, considerando essi che queste grotte per la loro opacità rappresentano a certo modo la notte et il luogo del sonno coi parti suoi, che sono aggiramenti in aria, chimere, fantasmi e bizzarie molto stravaganti; onde finsero quella esser figlia del Chaos e moglie d'Erebo, e questo, tra una gran schiera de figli, averne tre principali, de' quali ciascuno si mutasse in varie forme, chi d'uomini, chi di fiere, d'ucelli, di serpenti, di sassi, di tronchi, et altre loro fantasie, come lascio scritto Ovidio dicendo: At pater e populo natorum mille suorum | Excitat artificem, simulatoremque figurae | Morphea, sed solos homines imitatur, et alter | Fit fera, fit volucris, fit longo corpore serpens: Hunc Icelon superi, mortale Phobetora vulgus | Nominat; est etiam diversae tertius artis | Phantasos: ille in humum saxumque undamque trabemque | Quaeque vacant anima, fallaciter omnia transit. | Regibus hi ducibusque suos estendere vultus | Nocte solent, populos alii plebemque pererrant"). See also Giraldi 1548, 431: "Primum Morphea, artificem simulatoremque figurae, μορφή quippe formam et figuram significat". On the grotesque masks in Renaissance art and their negative reception, see Winkler 1986.

It was here that grotesques (*grottesche*) appeared to embody all the negative aspects of art that should be excluded from the canon, both in sacred and profane contexts.<sup>37</sup>

Paleotti devoted six chapters of the second book to this ornamental style (XXXVII-XLII) – the most extensive section of his treatise. This part is preceded by twelve chapters (XXV-XXXVI) in which he discussed single negative aspects of art. Here, he gradually deleted any features that required condemnation and a thorough reformation of others to not be censured. He indicated precise categories that were to be rejected and others that could be acceptable if aligned with certain fixed parameters. As indicated in his subsections, he focused on lying and false pictures [XXV], on nonverisimilar pictures [XXVI], on inept and indecorous pictures [XXVII], on disproportionate pictures [XXVIII], on imperfect pictures [XIX], on vain and otiose pictures [XXX], on ridiculous pictures [XXXI], On pictures that bring novelty and are unusual [XXXII], On pictures that are obscure and difficult to understand [XXXIII], On indifferent and uncertain pictures [XXXIV], on fierce and horrendous pictures [XXXV], on monstrous and prodigious pictures [XXXVI].<sup>38</sup> Grotesques seemed to embody all these imperfections simultaneously:

38 McCuaig 2012, viii. See Paleotti 1582, 172-221 [XXV. *Abusi communi alle pitture sacre et alle profane. E prima delle pitture bugiarde e false*]: "Questa falsità dunque potrà considerarsi in due modi, o perché l'imagine rappresenterà uno oggetto falso, o perché, essendo l'oggetto vero, ella lo figurerà falsamente"; 177-81 [XXVI. *Delle pitture non verisimili*]: "non verisimili si diranno quelle che repugnano non alla certezza, che non si sa, ma alla credenza e commune opinione che si ha delle persone o delle cose di quei luoghi"; 182-5 [XXVII. *Delle pitture inette et indecore*]: "ma intendiamo trattare di quello errore che si commette col non darsi alla condizione della persona quello che se li deve"; 185-8 [XXVIII. *Delle pitture sproporzionate*]: "sproporzionate seranno quelle [figure] che mancheranno di questa tacita intelligenzia tra loro"; 188-90 [XXIX. *Delle pitture imperfette*]: "Diciamo donque che si formano talora alcune opere che mancano o nelle parti sue integrali, o nel numero delle cose da isprimersi, o in altra circonstanza necessaria"; 191-6 [XXX.\* *Delle pitture vane et oziose*]: "chiamiamo in questo proposito vane quelle pitture che […] né mirano cosa rilevante, ma solo a pascere gli occhi senza sodo frutto"; 196-202 [XXXI. *Delle pitture ridicole*]: "A queste pitture donque, che peccano nei principii e fondamento dell'arte, talche non solo sono sconvenevoli, ma ancora causano deriso"; 202-9 [XXXII. *Delle pitture che apportano novità e sono insolite*]: "onde, quando si pecca in simili pitture, se bene il difetto e proprio della invenzione, che non figura la imagine come deve, si dimanda nondimeno errore dal tempo che si publica al popolo, perché inanzi non era conosciuto, e però si chiama peccato di novità rispetto agli occhi del popolo"; 209-13 [XXXIII. *Delle pitture oscure e difficili da intendersi*]: "Cosi nella pittura, chi possederà bene e fondatamente quello che e per ritrarre, e saperà il fine a che e ordinato quel misterio, o a che mira quella figura, non e dubbio che lo porgerà molto più chiaramente, e con maggiore espressione per le particolarità che vi inserirà, che non farà un altro poco intendente"; 213-15 [XXXIV. *Delle pittu-*

<sup>37</sup> Paleotti took active part in the Council of Trent during the years 1562-64 (Prodi 1959, 121-92 and 1967, 527-36 where the genesis of his *Discorso* is dated back to 1578); this means that he could access directly the discussion on images (1563) and bear in mind the guidelines established during these sessions, from which he then developed his *Discourse* in line with the spiritual and political needs that emerged during the Council.

Se ciascuno dei difetti discorsi in questo trattato in varij capi deprime assai la dignità di quest'arte, che avverrà in questa sorte d'opera, dove tutti insieme o la maggiore parte d'essi concorrono, non potendosi chiamare simili pitture se non bugiarde, inette, vane, imperfette, inverisimili, sproporzionate, oscure e stravaganti? Per tal causa scrive Philone, come altrove abbiamo detto, che Moisè scacciò dalla sua republica li artefici di statue e pitture che con bugie corrompessero la verità.<sup>39</sup>

Paleotti affirmed that "if each of the defects discussed in various chapters of this treatise greatly lowers the dignity of this art, what will be upshot of this kind of work [i.e. grotesques], in which all, or the greater part of them come together? What else can one call such pictures but lying, inept, vain, imperfect, nonverisimilar, disproportionate, obscure, and extravagant?".<sup>40</sup> This position is perfectly in line with Renaissance critiques on the grotesques that began almost from their re-discovery in the Domus Aurea (ca. 1479) and continued throughout the entire sixteenth century. Pomponio Gaurico (1504 and 1531), Guillaume Philandrier (1544), and Daniele Barbaro (1556 and 1567) are some of the most significant figures who questioned these decorations with the aim of rejecting any anti-naturalistic or irrational figuration from the artistic canon.<sup>41</sup>


*re indifferenti et incerte*]: "Si trovano anco pitture che per altra ragione rendono confusione a molti, e ciò nasce perché si veggono diversamente fatte in varii luochi, onde lo spettatore, trovando questa diversità, sta sospeso tra sé se sia il medemo soggetto, o se questo o quello sia falso"; 215-17 [XXXV. *Delle pitture fiere et orrende*]: "in quelle che chiamiamo orrende, perché esprimono senza alcun fine virtuoso certi atti che la natura degli uomini aborrisce"; 217-21 [XXXVI. *Delle pitture monstruose e prodigiose*]: "Questi mostri dalla natura diciamo che si possono dipingere, pero con occasione quando ricerchi cosi il soggetto che s'ha per le mani; et allora non solo non averanno deformità, ma più tosto commendazione, per rappresentare la verità di quello che è stato".

<sup>41</sup> Pomponio Gaurico never mentioned the word *grottesche* in his works, but apparently refers to the imagery proper of grotesques in Gaurico 1504, [13] (see also Chastel, Klein 1969, 16, 60-3, 246) and in Gaurico 1541, [3]. See Philandrier 1544, 228 (and the French edition Lemerle 2000), Barbaro 1556, 187-8 and Barbaro 1567, 242-4 (the former is the Italian edition, the latter the Latin one), and Gilio 1564, 75a -77a (also published in Barocchi 1961, 1: 305-7). For a general overview on the Renaissance literature about grotesques, see Barocchi 1977, 3: 2621-98.

Paleotti's originality can be found, however, in his final statement where he attempted to overturn the very strict Mosaic condemnation of images (*Ex*. 20:4-5)<sup>42</sup> – he said: "this was the reason, as Philo

42 Paleotti had the chance to discuss this passage of the Old Testament in bk. I ch. XIII [*Che cosa siano idoli, simulacri, sculptili et altri simili nomi*], see Paleotti 1582, 42b-45a . His intent was to mitigate the restrictions that could be drawn by the Scripture in terms of images and idolatry by enlarging its interpretation. This entire passage is founded on Origenes's homilies (Origen. *Hom. Ex*. 6.217-23) and annotations on Exodus (*PG* 17.16-17), in which it was stated that not all images had the same value, establishing a duality between εἴδωλον (idol) and ὁμοίωμα (likeness) – Paleotti had in mind its Latin translation carried out by Jerome and published during the Renaissance in several editions, included Origenes 1503, 41a [VIII]: "Non facies tibi idolum, neque omnem similitudinem eorum, quae sunt in coelo et quae subtus terram. Longe aliud sunt idola, et aliud dii, sicut ipse Apostulus docet. Nam de diis dixit: sicut sunt dii multi et domini multi [1 *Cor*. 8:5]. De idolis autem dicit, quia nihil est idolum in mundo. Unde mihi videtur non transitorie haec legisse quae lex dixit. Vidit enim differentiae deorum et idolorum et rursum differentiam idolorum et similitudinum. Nam qui de idolis dixit quia non sunt, non addidit quia et similitudines non sunt. Hic autem dicit non facies tibi ipsi idolorum, neque similitudinem omnium. Aliud est ergo facere idolum, aliud similitudinem. Et siquidem Dominus nos ad ea, quae dicenda sunt, inluminare dignetur. Ego sic arbitror accipiendum quod (verbi causa) siquis in quolibet metallo auri, vel argenti, vel ligni, vel lapidis faciat speciem quadrupedis alicuius, vel serpentis, vela vis, et statuat illam adorandam, non idolum, sed similitudinem fecit. Vel etiam si picturam ad hoc ipsum statuat, nihilhominum similitudinem fecisse dicendus est. Idolum vero facit ille, qui secundum Apostolum dicentem, quia idolum nihil est [1 *Cor*. 8:4], facit quod non est. Quid est autem quod non est? Species quam non vidit oculis, sed ipse sibi animus fingit. Verbi gratia, ut si quis humanis membris caput canis, aut arietis formet, vel rursum in uno hominis habitu duas facies fingat, aut humano pectori postremas partes equi, aut piscis adiungat: haec et iis similia qui facit, non similitudinem, sed idolum facit. Facit enim quod non est, nec habet aliquem similem sui, et idcirco haec sciens Apostolus dicit: quia idolum nihil est in mundo [1 *Cor*. 8:4]. Non enim aliqua ex rebus extantibus adsumitur aspecies, sed quod ipsa sibi ociosa mens et curiosa repererit. Similitudo vero est, cum aliquid ex his quae sunt vel in coelo, vel in terra, vel in aquis formatur, sicut supius diximus. Veruntamen non sicut de iis, qui in terra sunt, vel mari similitudinibus in promptu est pronuntiare, ita etiam de coelestibus, nisi siquis dicat de Sole et Luna et stellis hoc posse sentiri. Et horum namque formas exprimere gentilitas solet. Sed quia Moyses eruditus erat in omni sapientia Aegyptorum, etiam ea quae apud illos erant in occultis et reconditis prohibere cupiebat, […] vel etiam ad vitanda mala, quae nunc sermo Dei universa complectens simul abiurat et abiicit, et non solum idolum fieri vetat, sed et similitudinem omnium, quae in terra sunt, et in aquis, et in coelo". The clue aspect of Origines's thought lay in the fact that, while ὁμοίωμα (*similitudo*) found a model in the natural world, εἴδωλον (*idolum*) instead was completely detached from reality. Despite Origenes affirmed that Moses condemned both idols and likenesses – also because the latter could recall hieroglyphics – this duality allowed Paleotti to differentiate images that were idols and images that were not. The features of idols in fact, consisting of hybrid figurations, could easily overlap grotesque imagery, and could be condemned in consideration of their nature and their aim (veneration of false gods); the latter instead were condemned in a Jewish context, but could be vice versa accepted in a Christian one, given the renovated perception of the Word – in fact, these images were admitted as long as they were not venerated; see Paleotti 1582, 43b-44a : "Ma il nome di idolo et simulacro et sculptile et conflatile ordinariamente si piglia in cattiva parte, come di cosa reprovata dalle leggi; et questo in due modi: overo perché rappresenta cosa che non è né mai è stata, overo perché la rappresenta con altra ragione da quello che è stata. Nel primo modo si figura una sfinge o tritone, o uomini con la faccia di cane, o altre cose che mai non si sono vedute. Onde s. Paolo disse, quod idolum nihil est in mundo [1 *Cor*. 8:4]. E Teodoreto lo dichiarò dicendo: Idolum nullam habet writes and as we have already mentioned, that Moses drove out of his republic makers of statues and pictures who corrupted the truth with their lies". By relying on Philo of Alexandria's allegorical reading of the book of Genesis (*De gigantibus*), Paleotti argued that Moses drove away artists from his community because they depicted "useless and fabulous" things and "because they vitiate truth with falsehoods, visually deluding easy and credulous souls".<sup>43</sup> According

subsistentiam; et quoniam gentiles ea, quae nusquam forent, effingebant, ut Sphinges, Tritones et Centauros, Aegyptii vero homines sub effigie canina et bovina, ea Sacrae Literae idola solent appellare [Theodoret. *Quest. in Oct*. 127.9]; dalla voce εἶδος, come dice Tertulliano [*PL* 1.0665A (*De idololotria* III)], che vuole dire forma, et il diminutivo εἶδωλον, *idest formula*, che significa la forma di una cosa apparente, ma che manca di subsistenza et verità, ancor che altri dicano Idolum, idest εἰδοδύνη, che vuoi dire species doloris, per la ragione che da essi è scritta [Fulgent. *Myth*. 1.1 (*Unde idolum*)]. Nel secondo modo si figura la effigie di qualche uomo, o di alcun animale, o del sole, o delle stelle, perché abbiano da essere adorate, et però cadono sotto nome d'idolo; perché, se bene esse quanto alla sostanza et forma loro sono state vere, il fine però a che ora si formano è molto diverso dalla condizione di esse. Onde s. Agostino disse: Pagani ea colunt quae sunt, sed pro Diis colenda non sunt [*PL* 42 0371 (*Contra Faustum Manichaeum* XX. V)]. E queste tali cose Teodoreto le comprende sotto il vocabolo di similitudine, qual nome anticamente la legge proibiva, dicendo: Non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem; il che si intendeva ad effetto di adorarle, perché dice: ut adores ea [*Lv*. 26:1], si come dai dottori santi e stato dichiarato [Thomas Aquinas *ST* I. II. q. 100. a. 4 (37871)]". In discussing about idols, Paleotti makes reference also to Sonnius 1557, 71a [I. XVII. *De usu legitimo imaginum*], Alexander Halensis 1575, 388a-b [II q. CLVIII. *De idololatria* m. I. *Quid sit idolatria?*] and probably kept into consideration also Thomas Aquinas *ST* II. II. q. 94. *De idololatria* a. 1-4 (43008-44). The Greek word εἰδοδύνη is not attested in Greek literature; it is a transliteration from the Latin form *idodinin* attested in Renaissance editions of Fulgentius (e.g., Fulgentius 1535, 136 or Fulgentius 1543, 17). Among these, only Fulgentius 1521, [I. *Unde Idolum dicatur*] offers an interpretation of the term according to its Greek origins: "Idodinin: lege idodynin, εἶδος species dicitur, ὀδύνη dolor, ab ὀδυνάω dolore affligor; quails dolor etiam feminis parturientibus ascribere potest". Modern critical editions instead read *idos dolu*.

43 McCuaig 2012, 237; Paleotti 1582, 194: "sì come parimente non vietamo al pittore o scultore qualunque disegno, benché non sia di istoria sacra, anzi molte ne accettiamo delle etniche, molte delle moderne, che non si contengono nei libri sacri, purché da quelle ne possa uscire probabilmente giovamento, come più chiaramente altrove si è esplicato. Altrimenti come vane meglio seria il tralasciarle, peroché qual utile renderà a chi mirerà una facciata piena di grottesche? che utile la trasfigurazione di Dafne? che utile Acteone convertito in cervo? che utile una danza? che utile quei mascheroni et animali contrafatti? E di qui scrisse Philone che, per solere i pittori dipingere spesso cose inutili e favolose, *ideo Moyses laudatus elegantesque artes, picturam atque statuariam, e sua republica eicit, quod veritatem mendaciis vicient, illudentes per oculos animabus facilibus et credulis*". The Latin translation of Philo of Alexandria's original Greek text [Philon. Jud. *Gigant*. 59-60: παρὸ καὶ εὐδοκίμους καὶ γλαφυρὰς τέχνας, ζωγραφίαν καὶ ἀνδριαντοποιίαν, ἐκ τῆς καθ' αὑτὸν πολιτείας | ἐξήλασεν, ὅτι τὴν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ψευδόμεναι φύσιν ἀπάτας καὶ σοφίσματα δι' ὀφθαλμῶν ψυχαῖς εὐπαραγώγοις τεχνι τεύουσι] quoted by Paleotti comes from the version carried out by the Czech humanist Gelen 1552, 192: "Ideo ludatas elegantesque artes picturam atque statuariam e sua republica reiecit, quod veritatem mendacijs vitient, illudentes per oculos animabus facilibus et credulis". One must notice that the Latin word *picturam* rendered the Greek ζωγραφίαν, which literally means 'painting after nature' or 'live painting', given the etymology ζωός (alive) or ζωή (living) + γράφος (painter / writer). The word ζωγραφία was directly linked to the debate on grotesques, as Ulisse Aldrovandi, in to this interpretation, the function of images prevailed over the images themselves. It is not by chance that Paleotti accompanies these words with an attack on grotesques, affirming "how could it possibly benefit anyone to look at a façade full of grotesques? […] Where is the utility […] in all those masks [*mascheroni*] and counterfeit animals?".

By linking a typically profane art (grotesques) with the reception of sacred art during the Reformation (idolatry), Paleotti brought the profane dimension of grotesques directly into the debate on idolatry. In so doing, he succeeded in mitigating the inflexibility of the Mosaic precepts by orienting his focus toward the Protestant interpretation of the Old Testament, while at the same time identifying a category of profane painting on which to centre the iconoclastic fears that had emerged in the previous decades. Thus, not all sacred art was to be excluded from the liturgy, but only art that appeared deceitful – that is to say, the grotesques.

Then Paleotti went even further and addressed a question that implicitly pervaded his entire treatise; if images could be realised according to incorrect parameters that ended up deceiving the observer, which were the correct ones to follow? The answer was straightforward: those imitating nature as accurately as possible.44 His position, rooted both in Aristotelian precepts and scriptural passages, emerged after a long epistolary exchange with Ulisse Aldrovandi.<sup>45</sup>

44 Prodi 1967, 527-9.

45 Acciarino 2018, 83-107; for a general overview of Aldrovandi's method, including his vision of figurative art, see Olmi 1992.

a letter to Paleotti dated 20 January 1581, explained that 'painting after nature' was opposed to the hybrid and dreamlike imaginations typical of grotesques, which had no model in nature; see Acciarino 2018, 92-3: "Laonde la pittura si chiama γραφή, (che ancor significa scrittura); et non solamente con questo nome vien detta la pittura ζωγραφία, dal verbo Greco ζῶ, che vuol dire vivere, et da γραφέω over γράφω, che significa dipingere, come dicessimo pittura fatta al vivo. Da qui si chiama ζωγράφος il pittore, et quivi si vede che le grotesche immeritamente sono chiamate pitture, percioché non sono fatte dal vivo, ma secondo il vario capriccio del pittore, né hanno alcuna correspondenza con le cose naturali, né furono né sono né saranno mai in natura, come ben disse il prencipe de gli architettori Vitruvio. Platone chiama la pittura, cioè quello che è dipinto al vivo et secondo il naturale, ζωγράφημα". Paleotti, by quoting Philo of Alexandria's Latin translation, which had *pictura*, argued that Moses banished from society all those artists that depicted and portrayed unnatural or antinaturalistic figurations, while Philo, by using the term ζωγραφία in the original, intended that Moses banished from society all the artists, including those who imitated nature, for covering the truth (ψευδόμεναι) and illuding (ἀπάτας) the spectators. In this light, it is clear that Paleotti filtered Philo's words through Aldrovandi's reading of the term ζωγραφία, which was opposed to grotesques also in reason of Plato's *Cratylus*, where the term ζωγράφημα signified a painting having a concrete object (πραγμάτων τινῶν) as a model [Plat. *Cratyl*. 430b.3: Οὐκοῦν καὶ τὰ ζωγραφήματα τρόπον τινὰ ἄλλον λέγεις μιμήματα εἶναι πραγμάτων τινῶν;]. Paleotti's interpretation was possible only because the source was cited in its Latin translation, in that *picturam* offered a more generic connotation compared to ζωγραφίαν, which allowed Paleotti to overturn the sense of the former in order to adjust the latter to its needs.

The point of his argument gravitated around a statement found in Paul's letter to the Romans [1.20] that proclaimed that through the visible world it was possible to see and understand the idea of the invisible ("invisibilia Dei, per ea quae visibilia sunt, conspiciuntur").<sup>46</sup> In this light, Paleotti could easily affirm: "if art imitates nature, then grotesques fall outside the bounds of art".<sup>47</sup>

This was directly related to the real function of art itself. Thanks to this position, Paleotti could present the argument in favour of the *Biblia pauperum* in a new light.<sup>48</sup> The imitation of nature created an alphabet that the public could understand perfectly and it developed a language that could not transmit fraudulent or dishonest messages. In this regard, Paleotti's exchange with Aldrovandi is essential for our understanding of the development of Paleotti's positions. This is because it points to Aldrovandi as the person who provided the scientific knowledge that was to be applied to a visual art. Aldrovandi assembled a multiplicity of biological categories that could be drawn directly from nature and a source for iconographies, thereby showing how the immense variety of natural phenomena could offer orig-

<sup>46</sup> The passage of the Letter to the Romans cited by Aldrovandi is not literal, both Jerome's and the Sixtine and Clementine *Vulgate* read: "Invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur". Other patristic sources attest closer versions to the one mentioned by Aldrovandi, such as Gregory the Great's *Commentarii in librum I Regum* (III. iv. 20 [*PL* 34 0020]: "In ista etenim vita, cum ad contemplanda aeterna sustollimur, supernarum rerum similitudines capere de rebus istis infimis et visibilibus nitimur: ut iuxta egregii doctoris vocem, Invisibilia a creatura mundi, per ea quae visibilia facta sunt, cognoscamus"), in his *Epistulae* (IX. 52 *ad Secundinum* [*PL* 77 0991A-B]: "Imagines quas tibi dirigendas per Dulcidum diaconum rogasti misimus. Unde valde nobis tua postulatio placuit, quia illum toto corde, tota intentione quaeris, cuius imaginem prae oculis habere desideras, ut te visio corporalis quotidiana reddat exercitatum, ut dum picturam illius vides, ad illum animo inardescas, cuius imaginem videre desideras. Ab re non facimus, si per visibilia invisibilia demonstramus"), and in Augustine of Hippo's *De docrina Christiana* (I. iv. 33 [*PL* 79 0194C]: "ut invisibilia Dei, per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciantur, hoc est, ut de corporalibus temporalibusque rebus aeterna et spiritualia capiamus"). The references to Gregory's and Augustine's works were clear to Paleotti, which he cited in his *Discorso* (respectively Paleotti 1582, 75a and 128a ). This verse of Paul's letter to the Romans was thoroughly discussed in all the commentaries of the New Testament (e.g., *Gloss. Ord.* 1617, 24-6; Erasmus 1516, 420; Martin Luther in Buzzi 1991, 209-12; Beza 1559, 434; 1565, 137; 1589, 137-8).

<sup>47</sup> McCuaig 2012, 274; Paleotti 1582, 235a : "Se l'arte imita la natura, dunque le grottesche non sono secondo l'arte; se le pitture hanno da servire per libri agl'idioti, ch'altro potranno essi imparare da queste, che bugie, menzogne, inganni e cose che non sono? L'anima della pittura è il giovare, e dove non è questo fine è come un corpo morto, che diremo di queste, che non solo non giovano, ma possono intricare le menti de' semplici in mille errori?".

<sup>48</sup> Paleotti expresses his vision of the *Biblia Pauperum* at chapter XXIII [*Che le imagini cristiane servono grandemente per ammaestrare il popolo al ben vivere*] and chapter XII [*Abusi delle pitture profane, e se elle cristianamente debbono essere admesse*] respectively of the first and the second book of his *Discorso*; see Paleotti 1582, 71-3 and 126-30.

inal figurative patterns that released artists from resorting to antinaturalistic imagery.<sup>49</sup>

To support this position, Paleotti was forced to assume that drawing, and hence painting, preceded writing in human history.<sup>50</sup> This assumption was necessary to break down the hierarchy of the written word over the image. The written word was indeed considered a more complex system of communication than imagery, and hence more proper to God. However, Paleotti attempted to prove that writing had been developed by man from drawing in a subsequent phase of civilisation, even if this did not exclude the existence of the written word in some early cultures. This hypothesis entailed the idea that God's message could be conveyed beyond its vehicle, such as when God himself spoke directly to his people at a time when writing (and books) were not yet available to mankind.<sup>51</sup> To sustain this

50 This in book II chapter V [*Se la introduzzione delle imagini sia stata anteriore ai libri, e che convenienza abbia con essi*]; see Paleotti 1582, 17b-18a : "E però da questo si verria a concludere che le imagini fossero anteriori alle lettere, perché di due cose significanti un'altra cosa, quella che immediatamente significa è prima di quella che mediatamente la mostra, come sanno i dotti". Aldrovandi did not agree with Paleotti on this point. In a letter dated 20 January 1581, he argued that writing preceded painting since the origins of communication (Acciarino 2018, 92: "le lettere siano antichissime et molto più antiche che non è la pittura"). In order to support this statement, Aldrovandi relied on Pliny the Elder [Plin. *nat.* 7.56] and the Epistle of Jude [*Jd* 1: 14-15], which reported some of the earliest examples of writing, and mentioned a more extensive analysis of the subject he carried out in his so called *Bibliologia* (BUB Aldrov. 83 I [*Farrago historiae papyri ab* Ex.mo *viro Ulysse Aldrovando* dated 1580] and II, ff. 1-317 [*De Academiis et de linguis*]). However, both Aldrovandi and Paleotti were aware of the semantic interchangeability between writing and painting, which was proven by the words signifying these concepts in ancient languages such as Greek and Hebrew; see Acciarino 2018, 42-3 and 92-5, and Paleotti 1582, 16a .

51 Paleotti 1582, 18a : "Ma sopra tutto stimiamo d'importanza quello che si cava dalle Lettere Sacre, vero fondamento delle cose, perché, essendo commune consenso de' dottori santi, che il primo autore de' libri ch'oggi si trovano al mondo sia stato il profeta Moisè, superiore a tutti gli altri scrittori gentili di gran spazio di tempo, chiaro è che molto inanzi a lui si trova essere stato l'uso delle imagini, sì come di sotto a' suoi luoghi si mostrerà […] Al che serve molto a proposito quel che scrisse S. Giovanni Crisostomo [*PG* 49.105-6], ricercando la cagione perché la sacra Scrittura fosse publicata così tardi, come fu doppo la creazione del mondo almeno 2370 anni; ove egli risponde che ne' primi tempi volse Iddio ammaestrare gli uomini per l'istesse opere sue e cose create, che potessero essere universalmente apprese da tutti, allegando il detto del salmo [*Psal*. 18:2]: Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei et opera manuum eius annunciat firmamentum. […] E si serve a questo proposito del versicolo del salmo detto di sopra: Non sunt loquelae neque sermones quorum non audiantur voces eorum, intendendo egli che voglia dire: Non ci è gente o lingua o condizione di persone, che non possa intendere bene quelle voci tacite [*PG* 49.106.12-15: καὶ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς βαδίζων ταύτης ἀκούσεται τῆς φωνῆς· οὐ γὰρ δι' ὤτων, ἀλλὰ καὶ δι' ὄψεως εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν ἐμπίπτει τὴν ἡμετέραν] ch'escono dall'opere create d'Iddio, le quali rappresentano la grandezza e maestà sua, come scrisse ancora il Nazianzeno [*PG* 36.612.2-11]; la quale ragione ciascun

<sup>49</sup> This is clear in a letter dated 3 November 1581, where Aldrovandi explicitly mentions all the categories of the natural world from which artists could gain inspiration; see Acciarino 2018, 103-7 [*Enarratione di tutti i generi principali delle cose naturali et artificiali che ponno cadere sotto la pittura*] and Barocchi 1961, 1: 923-9.

strong declaration – which overturned Protestant beliefs regarding the pre-eminence of the written word over images – Paleotti relied on John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus. They both defended the view that images were far more intelligible than writing as a means of communication because they were closer to the original that they represented. Thus, Paleotti could easily affirm: "there is no people or language or class of persons that cannot easily understand the unspoken words uttered by God's created works, which […] represent his grandeur and majesty. Anyone can see how well this line of reasoning applies to images, which represent God's very creatures in their form, and consequently make themselves known to and understood by all, which books certainly cannot do".<sup>52</sup>

This argument helped to consolidate his critique on grotesques: if the Word of God could be understood through his creation (i.e., the natural world), then whatever images fell outside of this category should be excluded from the list of admissible images. In other words, if nature could transmit God's message, then all images that closely imitated nature were suitable for this task.

Yet, one additional problem connected to this theory had to be solved to protect the entire figurative system of sacred art in Catholic environments from future attacks. It was proposed by one of the apologists of grotesque paintings, Pirro Ligorio, in a letter he sent to

52 McCuaig 2012, 68.

vede quanto ben faccia al proposito delle imagini che rappresentano l'istesse creature di Dio nella loro forma [*PG* 36.612.6-11: αἷς καταμερίζεται τὰ γινόμενα, λόγοις ἀ᾿ρ῾ρήτοις τασσόμενα, καὶ οὐκ ἀθρόως ἀναδιδόμενα τῷ πάντα δυνατῷ Λόγῳ, καὶ ᾧ τὸ νοῆσαι μόνον, ἢ εἰπεῖν, ἔργον ἐστὶ παριστάμενον. Εἰ δὲ τελευταῖος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀνεδείχθη, καὶ ταῦτα χειρὶ Θεοῦ καὶ εἰκόνι τετιμημένος, θαυμαστὸν οὐδέν], e conseguentemente si fanno conoscere et intendere da tutti: il che così non possono fare i libri". Here Paleotti refers to the Latin translations of these two Greek Chruch Fathers: for John Chrysostomus, see Brixianus 1521, 45 [*Homilia* IX]: "Quod et Propheta demonstrans dicebat: Coeli enarrant gloriam dei. Quomodo igitur narrant? Dic mihi. Vocem non habent, os non possident, ipsis non est lingua, quomodo igitur narrant? Per ipsum aspectum. […] Tacet coelum, sed ipsius aspectus vecem tuba clariorem emittit, per oculos, non per aures nos docens : hic enim sensus a natura est illo certior et manifestior. Si enim per libros docuisset et literas, literarum quidem peritus scripta didicisset, nesciens vero nihil inde adiutus abijsset, siquis alius non induxisset. […] Visibilium autem participatio eadem, neque differens sicut linguarum. In hunc pariter librum et idiota et sapiens intueri poterunt, et pauper et dives, et quocunque quis venerit, in coelum respiciens, sufficientem capiet doctrinam ex aspectu, quod quidem et ipse Propheta, innuens et demonstrans quod vocem creatura Barbaris emittit, et Graecis et omnibus universaliter hominibus sic intelligi facilem, dicebat: Non sunt loquela neque sermones, quorum non audiantur voces eorum. Quod autem dicit, tale est: Non est gens neque lingua, quae hance vocem intelligere non possit"; for Gregory of Nazianzus, see Billy 1569, 536 [*Oratio in novam Dominicam*]: "quae creata sunt dividuntur et distinguntur, arcanis rationibus ordinata atque constituta, nec confertim in rerum naturam ab omnipotenti illo Verbo producta, cuius sola cogitatio vel solus sermo confectum opus repraesentat".

Paleotti while his *Discourse* was still in progress.<sup>53</sup> Ligorio was one of the theorists of the symbolic and hieroglyphic dimensions of grotesques, actually made for symbolic display ("nondimeno, non si può, se non per consideratione de tutte le cose, che non siano fatte et accettate in essa pittura per symbolica ostentatione"),54 which represented a cryptic alphabet that could be decoded by initiates and which transmitted the secrets of nature. As Ligorio points out, although grotesques appear supernatural, they reflect nature, and they were tools utilised by the ancient poets to cover the secrets of physics:<sup>55</sup>

Quantunque parano come false fuori di natura, sono pure cose che dichiarano le cose della riflessa natura, per la vaghezza sono agli occhi grate, per la acutezza dell'ingegno delle figure delle favole, muoveno l'animo, dan materia di parlare […] et havemo da credere che non siano altro che cose coperte dell'antichi poeti in le cose della physica.

Furthermore, the fact that grotesques represented a sort of 'language' allowed Ligorio to establish a meaningful parallel between their iconographic apparatus and libraries, as if they were a type of book to be read by the spectator:<sup>56</sup>

ma furono fatte et ornate de tale pittura per cosa morale da edificare gli ingegni et l'animi di tutti coloro che vi dimoravano, percioché nelle ville non mancavano le librarie et le cose necessarie alle bisogne delle eruditione che edificano questa vita de' mortali.

56 Acciarino 2018, 115.

<sup>53</sup> Acciarino 2018, 108-28. Ligorio sent three letters at the beginning of year 1581 to Giulio Masetti and Alessandro Manzoli to discuss the issue of grotesques: the first one to Masetti, dated 9 January 1581; the *terminus ante quem* for the second and the third, addressed to Manzoli, is 22 February 1581. The first and the second letter are actually taken from the extensive section on grotesques Ligorio already composed for his *Libri di Antichità*, in the book on ancient painting entitled *Trattato di alcune cose appartenente alla nobiltà dell'antiche arti, e massimamente de la pittura, de la scoltura e dell'architettura* (ASTo ms. a, II, 16 [vol. 29]), which was published in Barocchi 1977, 3: 2666-91. The third letter instead features many original elements. This because it was written in response to another letter written to Alessandro Manzoli by the scholar Giovanni Battista Bombelli, who attacked Ligorio's positions on grotesque painting in general and especially on his beliefs on the cryptoporticus; see Acciarino 2018, 129-34.

<sup>54</sup> Acciarino 2018, 117; Garton 2019, 546.

<sup>55</sup> Acciarino 2018, 117; Garton 2019, 547. On the issue, see also Hansen 2018, 219-40 who very cleverly connects grotesques with the philosophical notion of "nature as a creator of images and the artist as a person who accomplishes nature's latent imagery" (222). In this light, grotesques represent the link between "nature and culture", where forms combined themselves in a "semiabstract" (226) dimension in an interplay between the idea and its final realisation.

This passage gave strength to concerns that grotesques were a potential target for Protestant polemists, especially since they incorporated a parallel medium for reading creation, one which required knowledge of a mystic and oneiric language from which it was impossible to deduce a clear message. Paleotti strongly rejected these positions by stating that ancient authors themselves did not recognises allegorical meaning in these extravagant paintings. However, he also conceded that, even if they had, it would have been so impenetrable that they would have been deceptive rather than didactic:<sup>57</sup>

Ma noi, lasciando per ora scrittori grandi, che simili favole hanno giudicato non dovere essere tolerate sotto pretesto d'alcuna allegoria, et altri c'hanno scritto chiaramente che questo è stato un modo di colore o di velame imaginato da alcuni per coprire in qualche modo la bruttezza o sciochezza di quelle favole, e che i Romani non volsero mai admettere simili allegorie; noi, quanto al

<sup>57</sup> Paleotti 1582, 241a ; here Paleotti makes reference to Plato and to Theodoret of Cyrus. For the former, Paleotti alludes to the second book of the *Republic*, in which it was stated that Greek mythology had to be censured in order to represent a useful tool for schooling the youth with wisdom; this because the youth was not able to clearly distinguish reality from allegory (ὑπόνοια) – argument that fitted very well within the critique against grotesques [Plat. *Resp*. II. 378 d: Ἥρας δὲ δεσμοὺς ὑπὸ ὑέος καὶ Ἡφαίστου ῾ρίψεις ὑπὸ πατρός, μέλλοντος τῇ μητρὶ τυπτομένῃ ἀμυνεῖν, καὶ θεομαχίας ὅσας Ὅμηρος πεποίηκεν οὐ παραδεκτέον εἰς τὴν πόλιν, οὔτ' ἐν ὑπονοίαις πεποιημένας οὔτε ἄνευ ὑπονοιῶν. ὁ γὰρ νέος οὐχ οἷός τε κρίνειν ὅτι τε ὑπόνοια καὶ ὃ μή, ἀλλ' ἃ ἂν τηλικοῦτος ὢν λάβῃ ἐν ταῖς δόξαις δυσέκνιπτά τε καὶ ἀμετάστατα φιλεῖ γίγνεσθαι]. For the latter, he refers to Zenobi Acciaiuoli's Latin translation of Theodoret's *De graecarum affectionum curatione*, in which Theodoret compared two different positions held by Plato on the use of ancient myths to educate people, [*Tim*. 40 d-e, here myths were considered as a fundamental aspect of the imagery of a community, and *Resp*. II. 378 d]. Theodoret noted that Plato contradicted himself; see Acciaiuoli 1519, 28b-29b: "Puto autem ego haec quae modo attuli, Platonis verba, vel ab iis etiam qui literarum prorsus ignari sunt, manifeste cognosci quam sint penitus illis contraria quae idem Plato in Timaeo conscripsit. Ibi enim pracepit sine ulla disceptatione et controversia Poetis credendum esse, quamquam nec signis nec demonstrationibus necessariis ad faciendam fidem uterentur. Hoc autem loco impudenter eos accusat, ut qui falsa figmenta et probrosa quaedam commenti sint". Theodoret carried out this digression while talking about Paul the Apostle's *Rom*. 20: after having commented upon the statement for which the creation (i.e., the natural world) reflected its creator (i.e., God) [Acciaiuoli 1519, 27b: "Sapienter igitur quidam nostrorum atque argute inquit, e creaturarum magnitudine ac specie, proportione quadam, generationis authorem spectari. Neque enim qualia sunt opera, talis continuo ipse est opifex, nec quanta haec sunt, tantus et ille est […] Per ea enim quae videntur, factorem insivibilem cogitamus"], Theoderet warned the readers to avoid the risk of making idols from those elements of the natural world, through which the faithful intended representing God [Acciaiuoli 1519, 28a : "Quique devm incorruptibilem nominabant, imaginem sibi corruptibilium corporum extruxerunt. Neque vero cum immortalis animae ideam scirent, divinos honores animae tribuerunt, suam've ad impietatem satis haec illis fuit insania, quod humana corpora, non animas, adorabant, sed ut idem inquit Apostolus, et volucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium simulachra sibi components, haec etiam deos esse dixerunt"]. On the cultural background in which Zenobi Acciaiuoli's translation of Theodoret took place, deeply penetrated by Girolamo Savonarola's thought, see Assonitis 2006, 55.

proposito delle grottesche, diciamo che esse ordinariamente, come ognuno sa, non hanno ascoso alcuno senso giovevole, ma sono fatte a salti et a capriccij; e quando pure ve ne fosse alcuno, viene ad essere tanto recondito et abstruso, che serve per pochissimi et inganna moltissimi, e però si ha da tralasciare.

As a result, Paleotti admitted that, even if the pagans sometimes needed these paintings as a means to approach wisdom, Christians should follow a completely different path, because for them truth was manifested through Revelation.<sup>58</sup>

### 9.5 Symbols and Grotesques

With these words, constituting an actual *pars destruens*, Paleotti provided the elements to replace grotesque imagery, with all its cryptic suggestions, and establish a *pars construens*. In the following section of his *Discourse*, he devoted a chapter entitled *On pictures of symbols* to describing the correct method for portraying enigmatic imagery. Here, the guidelines for arranging symbolic figurations were set according to a specific (and regulated) iconographic repertoire based on a realistic naturalism.<sup>59</sup> A symbol, properly defined, consisted of "several different images joined together to make a certain corpus

<sup>58</sup> Paleotti 1582, 241b: "Sì che concludiamo che, se bene gli antichi, involti nelle tenebre, ebbero qualche probabile ragione di figurare in quei luoghi sotterranei queste grottesche, a noi però, ai quali è apparso il sole della verità, più non convengono simili invenzioni; le quali maggiormente disdicevole sarà di fare nei luoghi publici et aperti, per le ragioni già dette, perché, quanto alle chiese, pensiamo che non sarà alcuno così privo di ragione che non confessi che, adorando noi in esse quella suprema maestà, per participazione della quale tutte le cose hanno l'essere e sono vere, nissuna cosa più le è repugnante che rappresentare in esse cose de sogni e de falsità".

<sup>59</sup> Paleotti 1582, 249a -252a [XXXXV. *Delle pitture dei simboli*]: "col rappresentare alcune cose naturali et artificiali come arbori, piante, fiumi, metalli, stelle, uomini, animali edificii, torri, machine et altre simili cose, nelle quali riluce qualche vestigio del sommo creatore e sianovi riposti non piccioli semi per essercizio della virtu" (249). The reformation of symbols fostered by Paleotti is particularly meaningful also because it was formulated in Bologna. Bologna was the city of Achille Bocchi (1488-1562), founder of the Academia Hermathena and author of the *Symbolicae Quaestiones* (1555), one of the most influent scholars in theory of symbolism. Bocchi postulated that symbols represented an alphabet, constituted by a varied imagery including at once naturalistic and non-naturalistic figurations capable of interpreting the physical and the metaphysical world, and expressing both sacred and prophane mysteries. Members of this circle included many scholars and artists of the city, among the others Ulisse Aldrovandi, Prospero Fontana, Alessandro Manzoli, and Gabriele Paleotti himself. One could indeed assume that, twenty years after Bocchi's death, Paleotti tried to rethink and overturn the ideas of symbolism developed in the Academia Hermathena by preserving those symbols created according to the natural world and by removing those that drifted away from this purpose. See Bocchi 1555, *ad. lect.* [*Symbolum Symbolorum*] and Angelini 2003, 27-37.

of figures, whether they be humans or animals or plants, […] which represent some acts, true or verisimilar as it may be, or even feigned, from which there inwardly results another good and moral sense".<sup>60</sup>

If one compares the elements normally used to arrange symbols, it becomes clear that they could be easily overlapped with those constituting grotesques.61 The substantial difference lay in the way these figures were formed. In other words, whether they carried some kind of 'reality' or 'verisimilitude', and accurately reproduced nature by avoiding any kind of supernatural hybridity. Paleotti, in fact, postulated that

a symbol should not, however, be so obscure and difficult that it always requires a subtle interpreter, […] so, for the greater ease of whoever wishes to make use of them, we see fit to warn the reader that, as well as avoiding a few well-known abuses like depicting lasciviousness or monstrosity or false gods or anything else we have mentioned above.<sup>62</sup>

The aim of this decision was to equate the symbolic dimension of art with the symbolic discourse used by Jesus Christ in the Gospels: the parable, which always conveyed a moral message. In fact, this was the sole rhetorical expedient that avoided sophistry and obscure language in forming symbols. In Paleotti's view, this must be the model to follow when adopting allegorical patterns, in that "the symbol should convey instruction and utility for living well":<sup>63</sup>

63 McCuaig 2012, 289; Paleotti 1582, 251a .

<sup>60</sup> McCuaig 2012, 287; Paleotti 1582, 250a : "questo ch'oggi chiamiamo simbolo consiste ordinariamente di piu e varie imagini unite insieme, che fanno un certo corpo di figure, siano d'uomini o d'animali, di piante o d'altre cose dette di sopra, le quali rappresentano alcun atto vero, o verisimile che sia stato, o altro che sia finto, dal quale ne risulta interiormente un altro senso buono e morale".

<sup>61</sup> Paleotti 1582, 222a-b: "per levare ogni equivocazione che potesse nascere, diciamo che sotto questo nome di grottesche non intendiamo quei lavori de fogliami, tronchi, festoni o altre varietà di cose che talora si pingono e possono essere secondo la natura; ne quelle invenzioni degli artefici, che nei fregi, nei tavolati, nelle opere dette arabesche, nei recami et altri ornamenti proporzionati alla ragione sogliono con vaghezza rappresentarsi; né manco intendiamo di quei mostri, o marini, o terrestri, o altri che siano, che dalla natura talora, se bene fuori dell'ordine suo, sono stati prodotti. Ma solo comprendiamo sotto questa voce quelle forme d'uomini o d'animali o d'altre cose, che mai non sono state, né possono essere in quella maniera che vengono rappresentate, et sono capricci puri de' pittori et fantasmi vani et loro irragionevoli imaginationi".

<sup>62</sup> McCuaig 2012, 288-9; Paleotti 1582, 251a : "Il che però non fosse tanto oscuro e difficile, che avesse bisogno sempre di sottile interprete, ne manco tanto triviale e volgare, che non apportasse ne meraviglia, né novità, né trattenimento alcuno all'intelletto; il quale tanto più suole eccitarsi et apprendere le cose, quanto più sono state da lui apprezzate per la loro dignità. Laonde, per qualche maggior agevolezza di chi vorrà servirsene, ci pare di ammonire il lettore che, oltre il fuggire alcuni abusi assai noti, come il dipingere cose lascive, o montruose, o di falsi dei, o di altro da noi di sopra notato".

Ma quello che principalmente si avrà da avertire è che il simbolo porti seco instruzzione et utilità al ben vivere; onde, per assicurarsi da questi scogli e caminare senza intoppo, lodiamo noi grandemente quei che sogliono valersi delle parabole evangeliche riferite dal Salvatore nostro.

In this light, a further assumption can be made. The *Hieroglyphica* published in 1556 by Giovanni Pierio Valeriano served as a sort of encyclopaedia of sacred and profane symbols inherited from ancient cultures and intertwined with the creative tension of the Renaissance – from which many artists and iconographers often benefitted. In the same way, the renewed Catholic policy on images required analogous tools capable of providing similar iconographic solutions based on Counter-Reformation guidelines.<sup>64</sup>

64 Valeriano 1556; Pellegrini 2002; Perale 2008; Giehlow 2015, 208-35. Paleotti himself touched briefly upon hieroglyphs during his discussion on symbols, creating an actual semiotic bond between the two forms of significance; however, he decided not to examine in depth the issue, because of the elevated complexity of the issue, which would divert the mind of the readers; see Paleotti 1582, 249b: "I simboli dunque vogliono alcuni che abbiano avuta origine dalle note ieroglifice degli Egizzii, dei quali è stato scritto ampiamente da' Greci et da' Latini. Altri dicono che le ieroglifice erano di due sorti, l'una detta simplicemente ieroglifica, l'altra simbolica; et che della simbolica vi erano parimente tre specie tra sé diverse, una, come dice Clemente Alessandrino, *per imitationem, altera per tropos, tertia per aenigmata* [Clem. Alex. *Strom*. 5.4.20- 1: ὑστάτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν τὴν ἱερογλυφικήν, ἧς ἣ μέν ἐστι διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων κυριολογική, ἣ δὲ συμβολική. τῆς δὲ συμβολικῆς ἣ μὲν κυριολογεῖται κατὰ μίμησιν, ἣ δ' ὥσπερ τροπικῶς γράφεται, ἣ δὲ ἄντικρυς ἀλληγορεῖται κατά τινας αἰνιγμούς […] Τροπικῶς δὲ κατ' οἰκειότητα μετάγοντες καὶ μετατιθέντες, τὰ δ' ἐξαλλάττοντες, τὰ δὲ πολλαχῶς μετασχηματίζοντες χαράττουσιν. […] Τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αἰνιγμοὺς τρίτου εἴδους δεῖγμα ἔστω τόδε]. Ma a noi non importa di fermarci in questo […]". The reference to Clement of Alexandria was probably drawn from the Latin translation carried out by Hervet 1551, 153: "Ultimam autem ἱερογλυφικήν, id est, sacramque insculpitur scripturam, cuius unam quidem est per prima elementa κυριολογική, id est, proprie loquens, altera vero symbolica, id est, per signa significans. Symbolicae autem una quidem proprie loquitur per imitationem, alia vero scribitur veluti tropice, alia vero aperte sumitur allegorice per quaedam aenigmata". Also Erasmus attempted to understand origin and nature of hieroglyphs, defining them as an enigmatic language aimed at expressing the secrets of natural world; see Giehlow 2015, 197-201 and Erasmus 1538, 348: "Sic enim vocantur aenigmaticae sculpturae, quarum priscis seculis multus fuit usus, potissimum apud Aegyptios vates, ac theologos, qui nefas esse ducebant, sapientiae mysteria literis communibus vulgo prophano prodere, quemadmodum nos facimus, sed si quid cognitu dignum iudicassent, id animantium rerumque variorum expressis figuris ita repraesentabant, ut non cuivis statim promptum esset conijcere, verum si cui singularum rerum proprietates, si peculiaris cuiusque animantis vis ac natura cognita, penitusque perspecta fuisse, is demum collatis eorum symbolorum coniecturis, aenigma sententiae deprehendebat […] Porro hoc scripturae genus non solum Dignitatis plurimum habet, verum etiam voluptatis non parum, si quis modo rerum, ut dixi, proprietates penitus perspectas habuerit; id quod partim contingit solerti contemplatione rerum causarumque naturalium, partim liberalium cognitione disciplinarum". Echoes of this last statement (i.e., hieroglyphs represent a symbolic means to contemplate nature) could be perceived in Pirro Ligorio's reference to grotesques as a symbolic language displaying the truth of physics. The contamination between hieroglyphs and grotesques appeared to be delicate at the end of the fifteenth century also because hieroglyphs (or

Valeriano added a plethora of meanings to traditional and innovative symbolic patterns drawn from a raft of ancient literary and material sources (statues, coins, epigraphs). He moved from the statement that hieroglyphs were used in ancient times to record all the mysteries of nature ("omnem naturae obscuritatem"); and, to do so, the elements used for this kind of description were constituted by figures of animals and other things ("descriptionem huiusmodi, animalium ceterarumque rerum figuris constitisse") in which philosophers, poets and historians saw hidden theological messages ("divinarum etiam disciplinarum sententias delitescere viderunt").65 It comes as no surprise, then, that his work became one of the points of reference in conferring significance to mysterious and cryptic images and grotesques.<sup>66</sup> However, Valeriano then added that this legacy served to

grotesques) were thought to be discovered in catacombs or cemeteries of early Christianity, as pointed out not only by Ligorio (Acciarino 2018, 118: "Erano da' gentili nelle grotte dipinte, che, se esse sono state simili a quelle de' christiani, di grottesche l'ornarono, al contrario che fecero dipoi i nostri christiani, come veggiamo nel coimeterio di San Callysto papa, secondo egli havendo occupate le gentili cathatymbe, ch'hora si dicono catacombe, gli tolse ogni pittura gentile et le smaltò simplicemente, l'usò per dormitorio delli santi martyri, le quali sono nella via Appia nella chiesa di San Sebastiano. Così similmente fu fatto nelle grotte di via Salaria nel coimeterio della Diva Prisca et anchora nella via Tiburtina nelle grotte di San Lorenzo estramuraneo"), but also by another anonymous correspondent of Paleotti, who recognised these ornaments in the hypogeum of Priscilla in Rome (Acciarino 2018, 139: "Quanto al quarto, le grotte [di S. Sebastiano] et S. Lorenzo si crede che fussero fabricate da' christiani per fugir le persecutioni et ivi habitavano e celebravano le sinasi, e sepelivano i morti. Et io ho veduto in questo cimiterio scoperto alcuni giorni sono, che vogliano sij di Priscilla, in un loco dipinto un huomo con alcuni leoni che pareno a modo di grottesche, ancorché alcuni vogliano che sia S. Ignatio"). Was it Antonio Bosio to solve this conflict, potentially dangerous for the cavernous (or grotesque) implications on sacred art, in his book on the underground Rome, when he established that those paintings found in early Christian cemeteries, which resembled hieroglyphs and grotesques, were nothing but Pagan symbols loaded with Christian messages; see Bosio 1632, 599 [IV. III. *Delle figure indifferenti sospette di gentilità*]: "Altra difficoltà pareva che fosse circa alle figure indifferenti, sospette di gentilità, che si vedono in alcuni cimiterii. Questa però può essere superata da quello, che si disse nel primo libro, cioè che nella primitiva Chiesa, essendo li Christiani piante novelle traspiantate dal Gentilesmo o Hebraismo nel terreno della medesimo Chiesa, conservavano ancora qualche proprietà dell'antico solo, e per ciò permessero gli Apostoli stessi, e successivamente li Sommi Pontefici, che ritenessero alcune cose usate nella gentilità, le quali non ripugnavano alla nostra religione, convertendole in usi ecclesiastici, con più misteriosi sensi. […] Così parimente volendo esprimere li concetti loro, si servivano di varii simboli e ieroglyphici, ancorché delli medesimi si fossero serviti i Gentili". Bosio devoted the following chapters of his book to explaining the Christian meanings of all the Pagan symbols adopted by early Christians (Bosio 1632, 599-656), which included animals, plants, and various objects.

65 Valeriano 1556.

66 Morel 1985; Morel 1997, 115-37. A convergence between hieroglyphs and grotesques was clear to Renaissance scholars and artists; see Pirro Ligorio's letters of 1581, in Acciarino 2018, 112 and 118: "onde ad uso di lettere hierogliphiche fatte", and Paleotti 1582, 227a : "Altri le derivano dalle guglie egittiace ripiene di figure hieroglifice, ch'haveano sensi alti nella loro lingua". However, the changing perception throughout the sixteenth century towards symbolic and cryptic languages also impacted on the interpret and understand the Bible and other sacred texts, merging the profane dimension of the symbols he collected with the truth of Christian wisdom. Valeriano expounded on this idea: by comparing the reading of hieroglyphs with the parables in the Gospels he created a very dangerous contamination between two extremely delicate areas:<sup>67</sup>

relationship between the two. A clear example of this could be found in the description of the Castello San Martino in Soverzano, near Bologna, by the scholar Giovanni Battista Bombelli. In this treatise, dated 1585, Bombelli said that the symbolic decoration of the castle could be interpreted "hieroglyphically". This allowed Bombelli to separate grotesques from hieroglyphs, avoiding any potential overlapping; see BUB ms. 2059, f. 70*v*: "di più emblemi, e simboli, apologi e imprese abbellirono il luogo, e con molte pitture l'ornarono, ma però tutte morali et giuditiose, nelle quali, sopra tutta, et la noia et il concento del perduto e ricuperato San Martino si conoscono hieroglificamente". Bombelli was one of the correspondents of Paleotti on grotesques in 1581 and contrasted Ligorio's positions; see Acciarino 2018, 53-61 and 129-34.

67 Valeriano 1556, *Nuncup*.; Giehlow 2015, 229. In this passage, Valeriano quotes *Psalm* 78. However, Jerome's Vulgate features a different reading ["Aperiam in parabolis os meum; loquar propositiones ab initio"], opting for the term *propositiones* rather than *aenigmata*. A similar choice was apparently made by the Greek version of the Old Testament carried out by the Seventies, who adopted προβλήματα (instead e.g., of αἴνιγμα), which inferred, from an etymological point of view, a question unresolved: ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου, φθέγξομαι προβλήματα ἀπ' ἀρχῆς. The Hebrew version of the Bible, from which both Jerome and the Seventies translated, has ותֹ֗ידִ֝ח, which literally means riddle – in this light αἴνιγμα / *aenigma* appears to be more proper than προβλήματα / *propositiones* (also considering that ותֹ֗ידִ֝ח was translated with αἴνιγμα / *aenigma* in other cases both by the Seventies [e.g., *Nm*. 12:8] and Jerome [e.g., *Ez*. 17:2] – even if Jerome used *problema* more often [e.g., *Jd*. 14:12]). Why Jerome in *Ps*. 78:2 opted for *propositiones* rather than *problemata* or *aenigmata* is still uncertain. One can assume that Jerome considered *propositio* as an equivalent of *aenigma*, as it emerges from his treatise on the *Psalms* (*PL* 592): "eloquar propositiones ab initio. Pro propositionibus in hebraico habet 'aenigmata'. Ergo omne, quod dicitur, aenigma est. Aenigma non est hoc quod dicitur, sed aliud quod significatur aenigmate". The equivalence of *propositio* and *aenigma* is later confirmed by Gerhoh of Reichersberg (*PL* 193 1588C-D), in his commentary of *Ps*. 78:2: "Propositio est aenigma, quod proponitur ad solvendum". This semantic variability, perceivable in the Hebrew word ותֹ֗ידִ֝ח, was already clear in the Renaissance, as it emerges in Pagnini 1529, 563-4: "חוד est aenigmatice loqui, seu aenigma, aut problema proponere, obscure loqui. Iudicum 14 versu 13: ה ָודּ֥ח ֖ךְָת ָידִח Aenigmatice loquere aenigma tuum. Hierony. *propone problema tuum*; et versus 16: ָּ֙ת ְדַ֙ח ה֥ ָידִחֽ ַה i. aenigma aenigmatice locutus es filijs populi mei, et mihi non indicasti. Iechez 17 versu 2: Fili hominis ה֖ ָידִח ודּ֥ח i. aenigmatice loquere aenigma. Hierony. *propone aenigma*. Iudicum 14 versu 12: ה֖ ָידִח ם֖ ֶכָל א֥ ָּ נ ה־ ָודּֽחָא id est, aenigmatice loquar nunc (vel quaeso) vobis aenigma. Hierony. *proponam vobis problema*, et Nomen ותֹ ֣ידִח ut habes in Verbo, et cum Pronomine. Iudicum 14 versu 18: Non invenissetis יֽ ִת ָידִח id est, aenigma meum; et plurale Chabba 2 versus 6: Et interpretationem ותֹ ֣ידִח id est, aenigmatum; Psalmum 78 versu 2: Eructabo (loquar) ותֹ֗ידִ֝ח aenigmata; Numeri 12 versu 7: Et non ות�ֹ֔ידִחְב i. per aenigmata; Prover. 1 versu 6: םֽ ָתֹידִחְו i. et aenigmata eorum". In quoting *Ps*. 78:2, Valeriano very likely relied on the only source accessible at his times which attested *aenigma* in contrast with *propositio*, i.e., the polyglot edition of the Psalms (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Arabic) completed by Agostino Giustiniani, in which the translation attests: "Aperiam in parabola os meum, loquar enigmata, quae fuerunt ab antiquo" (Giustiniani 1516).

In nova vero lege novoque instrument, cum Assertor noster ait, Aperiam in parabolis os meum, et in aenigmate antiqua loquar [*Ps*. 78:2], quid aliud sibi voluit, quam, hieroglyphice sermonem faciam, et allegorice vetusta rerum proferam monumenta?

This obscurity could no longer be tolerated in Counter-Reformation times, especially since it was too convergent with the imagery of grotesques, to the extent that it could be misread and confused with it. Therefore, a thorough rethinking of the concept of a symbol and its crafting was required. This was the case for Antonio Ricciardi's *Commentaria Symbolica* (1591) and Cesare Ripa's *Iconologia* (1593).<sup>68</sup> Despite both moving from different premises, they provided a first detailed alphabetical list of iconographies compatible with the figurative reorganisation imposed by the Council of Trent.

According to the Flemish scholar Jan van Gorp van der Beke, also known as Johannes Goropius, hieroglyphs were nothing but symbols; and, if symbols were analogous to words, they must refer to a precise, clear and defined object to serve their purposes: they therefore needed to conform to visible images, and express the name signified by the figure.69 This assertion led to a new way to perceive hieroglyphs: all symbols had to respect the object to which they referred, adapting their features to their original model. Ricciardi, for example, stated that symbols should have some kind of likeness with what

<sup>68</sup> Ricciardi 1591; Ripa 1593. For the relations between Ripa and Valeriano, see the introduction of Maffei 2012, LXXXVIII-XC.

<sup>69</sup> Two works, both posthumous, expressed this opinion, see Goropius 1580 [*Hermathena*], 21: "nomina symbola esse, non solum secundum nudam pactionem, sed iuxta rerum etiam convenientiam et cognationem. Neque vero nota quaevis symboli nomen meretur, sed ea dumtaxtat, quae apte convenienterque rei cuipiam significandae applicatur. At quae hic est convenientia spectanda, si non illa quae de naturae quadam affinitate apta est, ita ut signum congruens et appositum rei denotandae, symbolum vocetur, at notae solo arbitratu nostro nulla naturae cognatione positae, in symbolorum albo minime censeantur. Num quisquam est, qui Aegyptios putet temere, citra omnem delectum, quasvis notas quibusvis rebus dedisse? Non equidem opinor, sed contra diligenter rerum inter se similitudine animadversa, scalpturas sacras, sive hieroglyphicas, notas excogitasse. Iam quae aetatis nostrae homines emblematum nomine litteris mandarunt, ea nihil aliud sunt, quam symbola sententiis quibusdam notandis accommodate"; and Goropius 1580 [*Hieroglyphica*], 13: "Et haec quidem vera est norma ad quam sacra veterum simulacra sive hieroglyphicae notae sunt examinandae: et rursus ea vera est nominum interpretation, quae vetustissis sacrorum respondet figuris. Si enim nomina symbola sint, necesse est ut cum ipsis adspectabilibus imaginibus consentiant, et illud exprimat nomen quod figura demonstrat. Hoc igitur sit nobis omnium hieroglyphicum principium et solidum fundamentum, cui omnia nostra quae de id genus imaginibus trademus, innitentur". Curiously enough, Johannes Molanus was the censor who approved the publication of Goropius' works on 21 June 1574 – as it emerges from a note at the end of the *Hermathena*.

they attempt to express, in order to allow an internal understanding through an external perception.<sup>70</sup>

A similar approach can be found in Ripa. In his preface, he details the methodological approach that should be followed in arranging symbolic images. Beyond the principle of similarity, which implied a relationship with the object evoked ("vedendosi che questa sorte d'imagini si reduce facilmente alla similitudine della definitione"),<sup>71</sup> Ripa established four criteria for crafting any type of figuration, clearly referencing Aristotle's *Physics* (2.3) and *Metaphysics* (5.2): a material cause, an efficient cause, a formal cause, and a final cause.<sup>72</sup> Respecting these norms would ensure a clear understanding of the symbol, without creating confusion for the spectator:<sup>73</sup>

con tutto ciò, dovendosi haver riguardo principalmente ad insegnare cosa occolta con modo non ordinario, per dilettare con l'ingengosa inventione, e lodevole, farlo con una sola, per non generare oscurità, et fastidio in ordinare, spiegare et mandare a memoria le molte.

This new rational approach to symbolic iconography, which can ideally be opposed to the 'chaos of the mind' of grotesques,<sup>74</sup> created a multifarious alternative to those irrational and imaginary figurations. It also set a newly re-established tolerance threshold for sacred art in Catholic environments through rationality and naturalism. This was still a shifting phase, which would lead to a completely renovated style in the application of ornamental art for the following centuries; nevertheless, it guaranteed the survival of a 'language' with an age-old tradition that had been questioned by renewed spiritual tensions and religious needs.

<sup>70</sup> Ricciardi 1591, *ad lect*.: "Symbolum est nota cuiuspiam aricanioris mysterii significativa, ut cum Ciconiam dicimus esse symbolum pietatis, et papaver fertilitatis. Et symbolum ea est natura ut similitudine quadam ad alia quaedam intelligenda, quam quae sensui exterior offerunt, animum nostrum deducunt".

<sup>71</sup> Ripa 1593, *ad lect*.; for Ripa's method of making symbols, see Maffei 2009.

<sup>72</sup> Ripa 1593, *ad lect*.: "quattro sono i capi, o le cagioni principali, dale queli si può pigliare l'ordine di formarle, et si dimandano con nomi usitati nelle scole, di Materia, Efficiente, Forma, et Fine, dalla diversità de' quali capi nasce la diversità, che tengono gli Auttori molte volte in definire una medesima cosa, et la diversità medesimamente di molte imagini fatte per signicare una cosa sola".

<sup>73</sup> Ripa 1593, *ad lect*.

<sup>74</sup> Scholl 2004, 95-6. A wonderful example of the symbolic interpretation and use of grotesques during the Renaissance is found in Conticelli 2018.

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# Bibliography


*Eiusdem De ponderibus & mensuris liber, D. Andrea Alciato interprete. Adiecimus breuem upographēn, in qua cuique quantum quaelibet mensura capiat, clarè patebi*t. Basileae: ex officina Andreae Cratandri.


*Noui Testamenti complectitur: secundus res & sententias quae in Annotationibus explicantur: tertius uerba & phrases Graecas*. Tiguri: Andreas Gesner.


Billanovich, G. (1974). "Il Petrarca e gli storici latini". Bernardoni Trezzini, G. (a cura di), *Tra latino e volgare. Per Carlo Dionisotti*. Padova: Antenore, 67-145.

Billanovich, G. (1981). *La tradizione del testo di Livio e le origini dell'Umanesimo*. Padova: Antenore.

Billanovich, G. (1986). "La biblioteca dei papi, la biblioteca di Pomposa e i libri di Lovato Lovati e del Petrarca". *La civiltà comacchiese e pomposiana dalle origini preistoriche al tardo medioevo = Atti del convegno nazionale di studi storici* (Comacchio 17-19 maggio 1984). Bologna: Nuova Alfa, 619-23.


*nitu necessaria miro ordine collecta comprehenduntur*. Impressum Brixiae: per Angelum Britannicum.


*putati per suo testamento. Con la tauola delle cose piu notabili*. In Fiorenza: nella stamperia di Filippo, e Iacopo Giunti, e fratelli.


*quam Graecorum loci, uel deprauati hactenus restituuntur, uel multo quam antea à quo quam est factum rectius explicantur. Accessit rerum & uerborum memorabilium copiosus index*. Basileae: per Ioannem Oporinum.


*et altre cose appartenenti alla religione de gli antichi*. In Venetia: appresso Giordano Ziletti.


Cornarius, J. (1548). *Iani Cornarii De Conuiuiorum ueterum Graecorum, & hoc tempore Germanorum ritibus, moribus ac sermonibus: item de Amoris praestantia, & de Platonis ac Xenophontis diffensione, Libellus*. Basileae: ex officina Ioannis Oporini.

Corsi, S. (1995). *Biblia Pauperum*. Rimini: Guaraldi.


Cotton, J. (1957). "Materia medica nel Poliziano". *Il Poliziano e il suo tempo = Atti del IV Convegno internazionale di studi sul Rinascimento* (Firenze, 23-26 settembre 1954). Firenze: Sansoni, 237-45.


Cristofani, M. (1983-84). "Vasari e le antichità". *Prospettiva*, 33-36, 367-9.

Cristofari, D. (1997). *Andrea Fulvio da Palestrina umanista ed antiquario del primo Cinquecento*. Palestrina: ITL.


*& suorum contra sacram Missam, catholica & historica propugnatio. Antonio Monchiaceno Demochare Ressonaeo, auctore*. Parisiis: apud Claudium Fremy, sub insigni D. Martini, in via Iacobaea.


Degrassi, A. (1947). *Inscriptiones Italiae. Academiae italicae consociatae ediderunt. Volumen XIII. Fasti et elogia. Fasciculus I. Fasti consulares et triumphales. Fasciculus II. Fasti consulares et triumphales. Tabulae et indices*. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato; Libreria dello Stato.


*gessit G.A.L. Henschel; sequuntur Glossarium gallicum, tabulae, indices auctorum et rerum, dissertationes*. Niort: Favre.


*postea nactus est auctario neutique poenitendo locupletatae Apud inclytam Rauracorum*. Basileae: apud Ioannem Frob.


Flaten, A.R. (2017). "Renaissance Medals". *Renaissance Quarterly*, 71(2), 645-56.


Forcellini, E. (1805). *Totius Latinitatis lexicon consilio et cura Jacobi Facciolati opera et studio Aegidii Forcellini alumni Seminarii Patavini, lucubratum. Editio altera locupletior*. Patavii: Typis Seminarii: apud Thomam Bettinelli.

Fortini Brown, P. (1992). "The Antiquarianism of Jacopo Bellini". *Artibus et historiae*, 13, 65-84.

Foucault, M. (1969). *L'archéologie du savoir*. Paris: Gallimard.


*Discorsi cottidiani non uolgari De l'instinto naturale De la probita. De i tre peregrini*. Stampata in Vinegia: per Nicolo Zoppino di Aristotile di Ferrara.

Frey, K. (1885). *Die Loggia dei Lanzi zu Florenz. Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung*. Berlin: Hertz.

Frey, K. (1934). *Der literarische Nachlass Giorgio Vasaris*. München: Müller.

Frommel, C.L. (a cura di) (2003). *La villa Farnesina a Roma*. Modena: F.C. Panini.


*in eosdem notae clariss. v. Dionysii Gothofredi i.c. Cum indice copiosissimo*. Parisiis: ex typographia Petri Cheuillot, in vico s. Ioannis Lateranensis, sub Rosa rubra.


*in Literature in Honour of Monique Mund-Dopchie and Gilbert Tournoy*. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 19-32.


Hansen, M.F. (2018). *The Art of Transformation. Grotesques in Sixteenth-Century Italy*. Rome: Quasar. Analecta romana Instituti danici. Supplementum. Hart, H. (1984-87). *Lettere a Niccolò Niccoli*. Firenze: Olschki.


*tolae tum etiam eius orationes legationes. T. 2,* [*P. 1*]*, 1551-1558: praemittitur de Hosii cardinalis familia disputatio, accedunt autem epistolae et acta, quae vitam et res gestas Hosii illustrant / ed. curaverunt Franciscus Hipler & Vincentius Zakrzewski*. Cracoviae: Academia Litterarum Cracoviensis.


*tum per mag. Mauritium de Gregorio Ord. Praedicatorum Siculum Camaratensem. Quae omnia hac postrema editione accuratissime recognita, emendatiora, & vberiora prodeunt*. Venetiis: apud Antonium Iulianum.


Loisel, C. (a cura di) (2000). *Gli affreschi dei Carracci. Studi e disegni preparatori, Bologna, Palazzo Magnani, 24 maggio-2 luglio 2000*. Bologna: Rolo Banca.

Lolordo, A. (2007). *Pierre Gassendi and the Birth of Early Modern Philosophy*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


*torum libris excerpta. P. Ovidij Nasonis Fastorum lib. VI. Tristium lib. V. De Ponto lib. IV. In Ibin. ad Liuiam*. Venetijs: in aedibus Aldi, et Andreae soceri.


Mercati, S.G. (1970). *Collectanea Byzantina*, vol. 1. Bari: Dedalo Libri.


*la congrégation de s. Maur*. A Paris: de l'imprimerie de Florentin Delaune libraire-imprimeur.


Moreri, M.L. (1749). *Nouveau supplément au grand dictionnaire historique, généalogique, géographique, & c. de M. Louis Moreri, pour servir à la dernière édition de 1732 & aux précédentes*. A Paris: chez Jacques Vincent, rue & visa-vis l'Église Saint Séverin, à l'Ange. J.B. Coignard & A. Boudet, rue Saint Jacques, a la Bible d'or. P.G. Le Mercier, rue Saint Jacques, au Livre d'or. J. Desaint & Ch. Saillant, rue Saint Jean de Beauvais, vis-a-vis le Collège. Jean-Thomas Hérissant, rue S. Jacques, a S. Paul & a S. Hilaire.


Nardi, M.G. (1957). "Niccolò Leoniceno e A. Poliziano". *Il Poliziano e il suo tempo = Atti del IV Convegno Internazionale di Studi sul Rinascimento* (Firenze, 23-26 settembre 1954). Firenze: Sansoni, 247-51.


*The Social History of Books, circa 1450-1520*. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press, 292-321.


Newton, S.M. (1975). *Renaissance Theatre Costume*. London: Rapp & Whiting.


*in Numeros homiliæ XXVIII; eiusdem in Iesum Naue homiliæ 26; eiusdem in Librum Iudicum homiliæ VIII. Diuo Hieronymo interprete*. Ven.: in aedib. Aldi Ro.


Padilla, F. (1605). *Historia ecclesiastica de España primera [- segunda] parte que contiene cinco centurias en que se trata del principio y progressos que tuuo la religion christiana en España, y de los santos martires, confessores, obispos, y concilios que vuo enella hasta el año de. 500. del nacimiento de Christo. Por el doctor D. Francisco de Padilla*. En Malaga: por Claudio Bolan.


*do patre Sancte Pagnino Lucensi, idiomatum eruditionum & parente & antistites*. Lugduni: Sebastianus Gryphius Germanus excudebat.


*lermus Brito Guillermus de Nangis & anonymi alij. Extrema stirpis Carolinae et Capetiorum regum res gestas explicantes*. Francofurti: apud Andreae Wecheli heredes Claudium Marnium & Ioannem Aubrium.


Serafin Petrillo, P. (2013). *Pirro Ligorio*. Vol. 21, *Libri delle medaglie da Cesare a Marco Aurelio Commodo, codice Ja.II.8*. Roma: De Luca Editori d'Arte.

Serlio, S. (1537). *Regole generali di architetura sopra le cinque maniere de gli edifici, cioe, thoscano, dorico, ionico, corinthio, et composito, con gli essempi dell'antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruuio*. In Venetia: per Francesco Marcolini da Forli, il mese di setembre.

Serlio, S. (1544). *Regole generali di architettura di Sabastiano Serlio bolognse*  [*sic*] *sopra le cinque maniere degli edifici, cioe, thoscano, dorico, ionico, corinthio, e composito, con gli essempi de l'antiquita, che per la maggior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruuio. Con nuoue additioni*. In Venetia: impresso per Francesco Marcolini in Venetia al segno de la verita.

Serrai, A. (2007). *La biblioteca di Aldo Manuzio il Giovane*. Milano: Sylvestre Bonnard.

Settis, S. (a cura di) (1984-86). *Memoria dell'antico nell'arte italiana*. Torino: Einaudi.

Settis, S.; Cupperi, W. (2007). *Il Palazzo Schifanoia a Ferrara*. Modena: Panini.

Sexton, K.S. (1998). *A History of Renaissance Civic Loggias in Italy from the Loggia Dei Lanzi to Sansovino's Loggetta*. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press.


Signorini, R.; Rebonato, V.; Tammaccaro, S. (a cura di) (2010). *Andrea Mantegna impronta del genio = Atti del convegno internazionale di studi* (Padova; Verona; Mantova, 8-10 novembre 2006). Firenze: Olschki.


*nes propediem edentur. Qui liber erit tanquam totius Romanae historiae commentarius*. Mutinae: excudebat Antonius Gadaldin.


Sigonio, C. (1574). *Caroli Sigonij De antiquo iure populi romani libri vndecim, ad illustriss. atq. excellentiss. D. Iacobum Boncompagnum. Quorum alij renouati, alij prorsus noui eduntur, vt auersa pagella declarat. In eosdem rerum, & verborum index copiosus*. Bononiae: apud Societatem typographiae Bononien.


Simpson, J. (2002). *Reform and Cultural Revolution*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


*mente ressero la chiesa dell'antichissima, & regal città di Pauia, de' fatti notabili occorsi à tempi loro, non solo in queste parti, mà in tutto l'vniuerso. Con vn discorso latino del sig. Herrico Farnesi sopra l'ingresso di monsignor Sauli. Et vno sopplimento nel fine*. In Pauia: per gli heredi di Girolamo Bartoli.


Stecher, J. (1891-92). *Œuvres de Jean Lemaire de Belges*. Louvain: Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique.


ter: Manchester University Press, 121-41. https://doi.org/10.7765/9 781526131027.00013.


*ex antiquissimis probatissimisque auctoribus depromta, & nunc primùm luci commissa a Io. Guilielmo Stuckio Tigurino. Accesserunt his non pauca; et ea quidem non parvi momenti, quae eiusdem auctoris Antiquitatum conuiuialium libris, recens editis, quasi quaedam appendix, non incommodé videntur addi posse: cum indice rerum & verborum copiosissimo*. Tiguri: apud Iohannem Wolphium, typis Frosch.


*tika eis tas autas diatagas. Tauta nyn proton etypothe. Constitutiones sanctorum apostolorum doctrina catholica a Clemente Romano episcopo, & ciue scripta libris octo. Francisci Turriani prolegomena, & explanationes apologeticae in easdem Constitutiones. Haec nunc primum impressa sunt*. Venetiis: ex officina Iordani Zileti.


Ullman, B.L. (1963). *The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati*. Padua: Antenore.

*VAC* (1612). *Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca, con tre indici delle voci, locuzioni, e prouerbi latini, e greci, posti per entro l'opera. Con priuilegio del sommo pontefice, del re cattolico, della serenissima Repubblica di Venezia, e degli altri principi, e potentati d'Italia, e fuor d'Italia, della maestà cesarea, del re cristianissimo, e del sereniss. arciduca Alberto*. In Venezia: appresso Giouanni Alberti.


*inventoribus, libri II, ni maxime, quorum nulla mentio est apud Polydorum. In quibus omnibus omnium scientiarum.* Lugduni: apud. Anton. Gryphium.


Wandel, L.P. (1995). *Voracious Idols and Violent Hands. Iconoclasm in Reformation Zurich, Strasbourg, and Basel*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warburg, A. (1999). *The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity. Contributions to the Cultural History of the European Renaissance*. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities.


*Xylandro Augustano interprete. Accesserunt his indices locupletissimi*. Basileae: per Thomam Guarinum.


Zorzi, G. (1958). *I disegni delle antichità di Andrea Palladio*. Venezia: Neri Pozza.


#### **Sitography**

Accademia Vitruviana http://www.accademia-vitruviana.net.

Emblematica Online http://emblematica.grainger.illinois.edu.

Fondazione Memofonte https://www.memofonte.it.

Glasgow University Emblem Site https://www.emblems.arts.gla.ac.uk.

Jacopo Stradas Magnum ac Novum Opus https://www.uni-erfurt.de/forschung/forschen/forschungsprojekte/jacopo-stradas-magnum-ac-novum-opus.

Repertorium Blondianum http://www.repertoriumblondianum.org.

Repertorium Pomponianum https://www.repertoriumpomponianum.it.

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# List of Figures

**Figure 1** Antonio Agustín, *M. Verrii Flacci Quae extant et Sex. Pompei Festi De verborum significatione, lib. XX. In eundem Festum annotationes. Index rerum obiter dictarum*, Venetiis, apud Ioannem Mariam Bonellum, 1559, p. 201

**Figure 2** Piero Vettori, *Petri Victorii Variarum lectionum XIII. noui libri*, Florentiæ, excudebant filii Laurentii Torrentini, & Carolus Pettinarius ipsorum socius, 1568, p. 448

**Figure 3** Fulvio Orsini, *Sex. Pompei Festi De verborum significatione fragmentum ex vetustissimo exemplari Bibliothecae Farnesianae descriptum*, Florentiae, apud Iunctas, 1582, p. 14

**Figure 4** Carlo Sigonio, *Regum, consulum, dictatorum, ac censorum Romanorum Fasti, vna cum actis triumphorum. A Romulo rege vsque ad Tiberium Caesarem. Carolo Sigonio auctore. Eiusdem In fastos, et acta triumphorum explicationes propediem edentur. Qui liber erit tanquam totius Romanae historiae commentarius*, Mutinae, excudebat Antonius Gadaldinus, 1550

**Figure 5** Carlo Sigonio, *Regum, consulum, dictatorum, ac censorum Romanorum Fasti, vna cum Triumphis actis, a Romulo rege, vsque ad Ti. Caesarem, Carolo Sigonio auctore. Eiusdem De nominibus Romanorum liber. Kalendarium uetus Romanum, è marmore descriptum: & Pauli Manutij De ueterum dierum ordine opinio, eiusdemque interpretatio literarum, quae in kalendario non ita faciles ad intelligendum uidebantur*, Venetiis, apud Paulum Manutium Aldi f., 1555

**Figure 6** Arnault Sittart, *M. Verrii Flacci Quæ extant. Et Sex. Pompei Festi De verborum significatione, libri XX. Cum vetusto Bibliothece Farnesianæ exemplari Romæ nuper edito, collati: ex quo lacunæ pene omnes sunt suppletæ. In eos libros Ant. Augustini annotationes, ex editione Veneta, Ios. Scaligeri Castigationes recognitæ, ex Parisiensi, Ful. Vrsini notæ, ex Romana. Accesserunt nunc denique doctissimorum virorum notæ ex eorum scriptis hinc inde collectæ*, Parisiis, apud Arnoldum Sittart, sub scuto Coloniensis monte diui Hilarij, 1584, p. 121

**Figure 7** Denis Godefroy, *Auctores Latinae linguae in vnum redacti corpus. M. Terentius Varro De lingua Latina. M. Verrii Flacci fragmenta. Festi fragmenta a Fuluio Vrsino edita. Schedae Festi a Pomp. Laeto relictae. Sext. Pomp. Festus, Paulo diacono coniunctus. Nonius Marcellus. Fulgentiuis Plantiades. Isidori Originum libri XX. Notae Dionysii Gothofredi J.C. ad Varronem, Festum & Nonium. Variae lectiones in Fulgentium et Isidorum. Index generalis in omnes superiores authores*, Geneva, apud Guillielmum Leimarium, 1585, coll. 127-128

**Figure 8a** Jacopo Zucchi, *Diana*. Palazzo Ruspoli Memmo (Gallery), Rome. Fresco painting. 1592

**Figure 8b** Jacopo Zucchi, *Diana*, detail. Palazzo Ruspoli Memmo (Gallery), Rome. Fresco painting. 1592

**Figure 9a** Jacopo Zucchi, *Melpomene-Sun Thalia-Moon*. Villa Medici (Hall of Muses), Rome. Hardboard. 1584-86

**Figure 9b** Jacopo Zucchi, *Melpomene-Sun Thalia-Moon*, detail. Villa Medici (Hall of Muses), Rome. Hardboard. 1584-86

**Figure 10a** Jacopo Zucchi, *Diana and her Nymphs*. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence. Hardboard. Palazzo Firenze, Rome, 1572

**Figure 10b** Jacopo Zucchi, *Diana and her Nymphs*, detail. Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence. Hardboard. Palazzo Firenze, Rome, 1572

**Figure 11a** Michel Ange de la Chausse, *Hekate Triformis,* in *Romanum museum sive Thesaurus eruditae antiquitatis: in quo gemmae, idola, insignia sacerdotalia, ... centum & septuaginta tabulis aeneis incisa referuntur, ac dilucidantur: cura, studio, & sumptibus Michaelis Angeli Causei de La Chausse*, Romae, ex typographia Joannis Jacobi Komarek Boëmi, 1690, pl. 13

**Figure 11b** Michel Ange de la Chausse, *Hekate Triformis,* in *Romanum museum sive Thesaurus eruditae antiquitatis: in quo gemmae, idola, insignia sacerdotalia, ... centum & septuaginta tabulis aeneis incisa referuntur, ac dilucidantur: cura, studio, & sumptibus Michaelis Angeli Causei de La Chausse*, Romae, ex typographia Joannis Jacobi Komarek Boëmi, 1690, pl. 14

**Figure 11c** Michel Ange de la Chausse, *Hekate Triformis,* in *Romanum museum sive Thesaurus eruditae antiquitatis: in quo gemmae, idola, insignia sacerdotalia, ... centum & septuaginta tabulis aeneis incisa referuntur, ac dilucidantur: cura, studio, & sumptibus Michaelis Angeli Causei de La Chausse*, Romae, ex typographia Joannis Jacobi Komarek Boëmi, 1690, pl. 15

**Figure 12** Anonymous, *Egeria with Key*, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe 2795F, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence. Ink on paper. c. 1565

**Figure 13a** Giulio Bonasone, *Giunone Lucina*, in *Amori sdegni et gelosie di Giunone. Iulio Bonasone InVentore*, after 1560

**Figure 13b** Giulio Bonasone, *Giunone Lucina*, detail. In *Amori sdegni et gelosie di Giunone. Iulio Bonasone InVentore*, after 1560, pl. 3

**Figure 14** Giovanni Antonio Rusconi, *Birth of Hercules*, in *Le trasformationi di M. Lodouico Dolce*, In Venetia, appresso Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari e fratel., 1553

**Figure 15a** Giulio Romano and Giovanni da Udine (after Raphael), *Venus, Ceres and Juno*. Fresco painting. Loggia di Amore e Psiche, Villa Farnesina, Rome. c. 1518

**Figure 15b** Giulio Romano and Giovanni da Udine (after Raphael), *Venus, Ceres and Juno*, detail. Fresco painting. Loggia di Amore e Psiche, Villa Farnesina, Rome. c. 1518

**Figure 16a** Lorenzo Lotto, *Portrait of Lucina Brembati*. Oil on panel. Accademia Carrara, Bergamo. c. 1518

**Figure 16b** Lorenzo Lotto, *Portrait of Lucina Brembati*, detail. Oil on panel. Accademia Carrara, Bergamo. c. 1518

**Figure 17** Vincenzo Cartari, *Diana*. Engraving, in *Le imagini de i dei de gli antichi nelle quali si contengono gl'idoli, riti, ceremonie, & altre cose appartenenti alla religione de gli antichi, raccolte dal sig. Vincenzo Cartari con la loro espositione, & con bellissime & accomodate figure nuouamente stampate*. In Venetia, appresso Vincentio Valgrisi, 1571

**Figure 18** *RIC* III Marcus Aurelius 779. Aureus. Rome. A.D. 164 - A.D. 180. L1: LVCILLA AVGVSTA: Bust of Lucilla, bare-headed, hair waved and fastened in a bun on back of head, draped, right. L2: PVDICITIA: Pudicitia, with the features of Lucilla, veiled, draped, standing left

**Figure 19** *Pudor*. Engraving. In *Hieroglyphica siue de sacris Aegyptiorum literis commentarii, Ioannis Pie rii Valeriani Bolzanii ... Habes in hisce commentariis non solum variarum historiarum, numismatum, veterumque inscriptionum explicationem, verumetiam praeter Aegyptiaca et alia pleraque mystica, tum locorum communium ingentem magna cum oblectatione syluam*. Basel, Michael Isengrin, 1556, 360ᵇ

**Figure 20** Jacopo Zucchi, *Janus*, detail. Fresco painting. Palazzo Ruspoli Memmo (Gallery), Rome. 1592

**Figure 21** Annibale Carracci, *Allegory of security*. Fresco painting, monochrome. Palazzo Farnese, Rome. c. 1599.

**Figure 22** Enea Vico, *Colonial coin*. Engraving. In *Le imagini con tutti i riuersi trouati et le vite de gli imperatori tratte dalle medaglie et dalle historie de gli antichi*. Libro primo. Venetia, Enea Vico, 1548, 34

**Figure 23** Enea Vico, *Colonial coin*. Engraving. In *Ex libris XXIII. commentariorum in vetera Imperatorum Romanorum numismata Aeneae Vici Liber primus*. Venetiis, 1560 [Venezia, Paolo Manuzio], pl. 7

**Figure 24a** *Colonial coin*. Engraving. In *Discorso di M. Sebastiano Erizzo, sopra le medaglie antiche, con la particolar dichiaratione di molti riuersi, nuouamente mandato in luce*. In Venetia, nella bottega Valgrisiana, 1559, 126

**Figure 24b** *BMC* 53. c. 100 A.D.-150 A.D. L2: Founder plowing r.; COL. IVL. [AVG. FEL.] BER.

**Figure 25** *RRC* 378/1c. Denarius Serratus. Rome. 81 B.C. L1: C·MARI·C·F·CAPIT VI: Bust of Ceres right, draped; around, inscription and control mark. Border of dots. L2: VI: Ploughman with yoke of oxen left; above, control mark. Border of dots

**Figure 26** *RIC* I² Vespasian 944. Denarius. Rome. A.D. 77-78. L2: COS VIII: Pair of oxen under yoke, left

**Figure 27** Hubert Goltzius, *Colonial Coins*. Engraving. In *Caesar Augustus siue Historiae imperatorum Caesarumque Romanorum ex antiquis numismatibus restitutae liber secundus. Accessit Caesaris Augusti vita et res gestae. Huberto Goltzio Herbipolita Venloniano ciue Romano auctore et sculptore*. Brugis Flandrorum, excudebat Hubertus Goltzius, 1574, pl. XLIX

**Figure 28** *Colonial coin*. Engraving. In *Familiae Romanae quae reperiuntur in antiquis numismatibus ab Vrbe condita ad tempora diui Augusti ex bibliotheca Fului Vrsini. Adiunctis familiis 30 ex libro Antoni Augustini ep. Ilerdensis*. Romae, impensis haeredum Francisci Tramezini, apud Iosephum de Angelis, 1577, 67

**Figure 29** Hubert Goltzius, *Colonial Coins*. Engraving. In *Fastos magistratuum et triumphorum Romanorum ab vrbe condita ad Augusti obitum ex antiquis tam numismatum quam marmorum monumentis restitutos S.P.Q.R. Hubertus Goltzius Herbipolita Venlonianus dedicauit*. Brugis Flandorum, excudebat Hubertus Goltzius, 1566. Mense Martio, 194

**Figure 30** *RRC* 525/3. Denarius. Rome. 40 B.C. L1: Laureate head of Julius Caesar right. Border of dots. L2: TI·SEMPRONIVS GRACCVS Q·DESIG S·C: Vexillum, aquila, plough and decempeda; in field, inscripiton. Border of dots

**Figure 31a** *Colonial coin*. Engraving. *Romanarum antiquitatum libri decem ex variis scriptoribus summa fide singularìque diligentia collecti à Ioanne Rosino Bartholomaei F. Isennacensi Thuringo. Cum indicibus locupletissimis*. Basileae, ex officina haeredum Petri Pernae, 1583, 312

**Figure 31b** *Colonial coin*. Engraving. *Romanarum antiquitatum libri decem ex variis scriptoribus summa fide singularìque diligentia collecti à Ioanne Rosino Bartholomaei F. Isennacensi Thuringo. Cum indicibus locupletissimis*. Basileae, ex officina haeredum Petri Pernae, 1583, 312

**Figure 32a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 95ʳ ᵇ

**Figure 32b** *RPC* I, 371. Caesaraugusta. 37 A.D.-41 A.D. L2: C C A LICINIANO ET GERMANO II VIR; priest ploughing with yoke of oxen, r.

**Figure 33a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 337ʳ ᵉ

**Figure 33b** *RIC* III Commodus 560. Sestertius. Rome. A.D. 190. L2: COL L AN COM P M TR P XV IMP VIII COS VI S C: Commodus, veiled, togate, ploughing right with two oxen

**Figure 34a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 337ʳ ᵉ

**Figure 34b** *RPC* IX, 490. Aerius. Troas. 251 A.D.-253 A.D. L2: COL AVG, TROAD (with L retrograde); temple with six columns enclosing statue of Apollo Smintheus standing on short column, l., with quiver on shoulder, holding patera over lighted tripod and bow

**Figure 35a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 337ʳ ᵉ

**Figure 35b** *RPC* IV.2, 165. Aerius. Troas. 180 A.D.-183 A.D. COL AVG TROA(D); eagle flying, r., holding bucranium in claws

**Figure 36a** Pirro Ligorio, *Colonial coin*. Drawing. In ASTo Ja. II. 8 / Libri XXVII-XXX (Volume 21), f. 87ʳ ᵉ

**Figure 36b** *RPC* I, 1635. Aerius. Amphipolis. First century A.D. L2: ΑΜΦΙΠΟΛΙΤWΝ; Artemis Tauropolos on bull, r.

**Figure 37** RPC III, 3958. Aerius. Samaria. 117 A.D. -138 A.D. L1: IMP TRA HADRIANO

CAES AVG; laureate and draped (seen from rear) bust of Hadrian, r. L2: COL I FL AVG CAESARENS; veiled figure ploughing r. with two oxen; above, small Victory, flying l

**Figure 38** Vincenzio Borghini. *Colonial coin*. BMLF Antinori 143, f. 22ʳ

**Figure 39** *SNG* Copenhagen 729. Drachma. 300 B.C.-270 B.C. L2: MAΣΣA Lion

**Figure 40** *SNG* ASN 1367. Velia, Lucania. c. 300-280 B.C. L2: Lion walking right; above, I-Φ flanking star; below, YEΛHTΩN

**Figure 41a** Giorgio Vasari, *The Foundation of Florence*. Cartoon. Harvard Art Museum, no. 1932.157 B. I

**Figure 41b** Giorgio Vasari, *The Foundation of Florence*, detail. Cartoon. Harvard Art Museum, no. 1932.157 B. I

**Figure 42a** Giorgio Vasari, *The Foundation of Florence*. Oil on board. Salone dei Cinquencento. Palazzo Vecchio. Florence. c. 1563

**Figure 42b** Giorgio Vasari, *The Foundation of Florence*, detail. Oil on board. Salone dei Cinquencento. Palazzo Vecchio. Florence. c. 1563

**Figure 43** *RPC* I, 261. Aerius. Lepida Celsa. 44-36 B.C. L1: C(OL) V(IC) I(VL) L(EP); head of Victory, r., palm over l. shoulder. L2: M FVL C OTAC PR QVIN; colonist ploughing with yoke of oxen, r.

**Figure 44a** Simon de Myle, *Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat*. Oil on panel. Private collection. 1570.

**Figure 44b** Simon de Myle, *Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat*, detail. Oil on panel. Private collection. 1570.

**Figure 45a** *Ox*. Engraving. In *Conradi Gesneri medici Tiguri Historiae animalium. Lib. 1. de quadrupedibus uiuiparis. Opus philosophis, medicis, grammaticis, philologis ... utilissimum simul iucundissimumque futurum*. Tuguri, apud Christ. Froschouerum, 1551, 24

**Figure 45b** *Cow*. Engraving. In *Conradi Gesneri medici Tiguri Historiae animalium. Lib. 1. de quadrupedibus uiuiparis. Opus philosophis, medicis, grammaticis, philologis ... utilissimum simul iucundissimumque futurum*. Tuguri, apud Christ. Froschouerum, 1551, 25

**Figure 46a** *Vives* 162-4. Aerius. Caesaragusta. After 19 B.C. L2: CAESAR – AVGVSTA Sacerdos, holding whip, ploughing with yoke of oxen to r.; in exergue, II VIR / Q LVTATIO M FABIO

**Figure 46b** *Colonial coin*. Engraving. In *Dialoghi di don Antonio Agostini arciuescouo di Tarracona intorno alle medaglie inscrittioni et altre antichita tradotti di lingua spagnuola in italiana da Dionigi Ottauiano Sada & dal medesimo accresciuti con diuerse annotationi, & illustrati con disegni di molte medaglie & d'altre figure*. In Roma, appresso Guglielmo Faciotto, 1592, 208

**Figure 47a** Annibale Carracci, *Foundation of Rome*. Fresco painting. Palazzo Magnani, Bologna. c. 1589-92

**Figure 47b** Annibale Carracci, *Foundation of Rome*, detail. Fresco painting. Palazzo Magnani, Bologna. c. 1589-92

**Figure 48** *Woman with stola*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De* 

*captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium, 1537

**Figure 49** *Man with toga*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium, 1537

**Figure 50a** *Faustina Lucilla*. Engraving. In *Discours de la religion des anciens Romains, escript par noble seigneur Guillaume du Choul ... et illustré d'un grand nombre de medailles & de plusieurs belles figures retirées des marbres antiques, qui se treuuent à Rome et par nostre Gaule*. A Lyon, de l'imprimerie de Guillaume Rouille, 1556, 217

**Figure 50b** Johnson/Martin 1729. Italy. Medal (Gold, 34.5mm, 36.73 g 7), in honor of Faustina II, an original struck example, by Giovanni da Cavino (1500-1570), Padua, c. mid 1550s. L1: FAVSTINA.AVG.ANTONINI.AVG.PII.FIL. Draped bust of the youthful Faustina II to right, her hair bound with pearls and rolled up into a bun at the top of her head. L2: Six Vestal Virgins, draped and standing three to either side of a round temple of Vesta with a statue visible within, sacrificing over a burning altar; to the right, togate child standing left, next to one of the Virgins; in exergue, S C

**Figure 51** Pirro Ligorio. *Man with Laticlavium*. Drawing. In BNN ms. XIII B 3 [*Di alcune varietà di vestimenti di re e di magistrati romani, di privati e dell'altre usanze di diversi popoli*], f. 6

**Figure 52** Cesare Vecellio, *Ancient Roman soldier*. Engraving. In *De gli habiti antichi, et moderni di diuerse parti del mondo libri due, fatti da Cesare Vecellio, & con discorsi da lui dichiarati*. In Venetia, presso Damian Zenaro, 1590

**Figure 53** Hendrik Bary, *Solae*. Engraving. *In B. Balduini Calceus antiquus et mysticus, et Jul. Nigronus de Caliga veterum. Accesserunt ex. Cl. Salmasii notis ad librum Tertulliani de Pallio & Alb. Rubenii libris de re vestiaria excerpta ejusdem argumenti. Omnia figuris aucta & illustrata obseruationibus Joh. Frederici Nilant*. Lugduni Batavorum, apud Theodorum Haak, 1711, 86

**Figure 54** *Fides*. Engravins. In *Octauij Ferrarij De re vestiaria libri tres*. Patauij, typis Pauli Frambotti bibl., 1642, 5

**Figure 55** Peter Paul Rubens, *Mappa*. Engraving. In *Philippi RubenI Electorum libri 2. In quibus antiqui ritus, emendationes, censurae. Eiusdem ad Iustum Lipsium poëmatia*. Antuerpiae, ex Officina Plantiniana, apud Ioannem Moretum, 1608, 46

**Figure 56** Giovanni Battista Maganza, *Edipo Tyrranno*. Fresco painting. Teatro Olimpico, Vicenza. 1585

**Figure 57** Cesare Vecellio, *Turkish Archer*. Engraving. In *De gli habiti antichi, et moderni di diuerse parti del mondo libri due, fatti da Cesare Vecellio, & con discorsi da lui dichiarati*. In Venetia, presso Damian Zenaro, 1590

**Figure 58** *Titus Andronicus* (?). Peacham Drawing or Longleat Manuscript. Library of the Marquess of Bath. Longleat. c. 1595

**Figure 59a** Rosso Fiorentino. *The Unity of the State*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 59b** Rosso Fiorentino. *The Unity of the State*, detail. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 60** *Roman soldier*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium, 1537

**Figure 61** Rosso Fiorentino. *The Elephant*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 62** Rosso Fiorentino. *Bath of Pallas*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 63** Rosso Fiorentino. *Cleobis and Biton*, detail. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 64** Rosso Fiorentino. *The loss of eternal Youth*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 65** Rosso Fiorentino. *The Sacrifice*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 66** *Roman vases*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium. 1537

**Figure 67** Rosso Fiorentino. *Nauplius's Revenge*. Fresco painting. Gallery of Francis Ist. Fontainebleau. 1534-38

**Figure 68** *Roman ship*. Engraving. In *Lazari Bayfii Annotationes in legem 2. De captiuis & postliminio reuersis, in quibus tractatur de re nauali, per autorem recognitae. Eiusdem Annotationes in tractatum de auro & argento legato, quibus vestimentorum & vasculorum genera explicantur. His omnibus imagines ab antiquissimis monumentis desumptas ad argumenti declarationem subiunximus. Item Antonii Thylesii De coloribus libellus, à coloribus uestium non alienus*. Basileae, apud Hier. Frobenium et Nic. Episcopium. 1537

#### **Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism**

Damiano Acciarino

# Index of Names

# **A**

Academia Hermathena 323, 328 Academia Olimpica 277 Academia Romana 32, 81, 273-4 Acciaiuoli, Zenobi 322 Accursius, Franciscus 134 Aelian 301 Aelius Gallus 80, 83 Africa 200, 243, 267 Agricola, Georg 37, 47 Agustín, Antonio 36, 38, 56, 62, 70-3, 78, 84-5, 94, 98, 138-42, 147, 149, 158, 162-5, 169, 171-2, 185, 208, 216 Alamanni, Luigi 284 Alberti, Leon Battista 17, 28, 37 Albertini, Francesco 178, 190 Albertus Magnus 164, 301 Alciati, Andrea 34, 37, 42, 134 Aldrovandi, Ulisse 37, 46-7, 170, 172, 246, 299, 316-19, 323 Alexandria 202 Allori, Alessandro 112, 129 Alsatia 198 Alsted, Johann 248-9

Amandus (bishop) 198 Amaseo, Romolo 103 Amasius (saint) 202 Americas 243 Amsterdam 240 Andrea del Sarto 122 Angelio, Pietro 108 Annius of Viterbo 32, 183, 191, 194 Antioch 202 Apianus, Petrus 35, 43, 138, 179, 188, 190 Apicius 228, 233 Apuleius 118 Arciszewska, Barbara 45 Arezzo 24, 204 Casa Vasari 111 Aristoteles 233, 249, 301 Athenaeus 44, 226, 229, 234, 249, 294 Athens 180-1 Augustus (emperor) 36, 43, 140, 146, 175 Aurispa, Giovanni 30 Austria 40, 201 Avicenna 229

#### **B**

Bacon, Francis 47 Bagatta, Raffaello 203, 208 Baïf, Lazare de 42, 44, 257-60, 262, 272, 280, 284-7, 294-5 Baldini, Baccio 104, 112, 114, 130 Bale, John 201, 213 Bamberg 199 Barbaro, Daniele 38, 41, 314 Barbaro, Ermolao 31, 40, 178, 226 Barbaro, Francesco 54 Barkan, Leonard 19 Barland, Adrian 203 Baronio, Cesare 46, 218, 220, 238 Barozzi, Jacopo 38 Bascapè, Carlo 206, 212 Basel 233, 239, 258 Basil of Caesarea 29 Bauduyn, Benoît 268-9 Bauer, Stefan 21 Beatus Rhenanus 218 Beda the Venerable 129 Belgium 205 Bellini, Jacopo 40 Bellori, Giovanni Pietro 169 Bembo, Pietro 33, 41, 284 Bernard of Clairvaux 299, 308-9 Bernardino da Siena 300 Berne 239 Berosus 32 Bessarion, Johannes 30, 40 Bethmann, Ludwig 89-91 Beza, Theodore 216 Bible 47, 134, 215, 221-2, 238, 303, 327 Old Testament 214-15, 239, 303, 315, 317, 327 New Testament 34, 214-15, 237, 269, 303, 318 Bibliander, Theodore 33 Biccius, Gregor 249 Billanovich, Giuseppe 26

Biondo, Flavio 19, 27-9, 31, 132-3, 135, 170, 231-2, 255-6, 272 Blois 274 Boccaccio, Giovanni 30 Bocchi, Achille 323 Boethius (agronomist) 152 Bohemia 205 Boissard, Jean Jacques 43 Bologna 29, 117, 131, 140, 162, 170, 172, 204, 230, 246, 262, 265, 323 Castello di San Martino in Soverzano 327 Palazzo Magnani 168, 172 Palazzo Bonfiglioli Rossi 170 Bombelli, Giovanni Battista 321, 327 Bonasone, Giulio 117 Borghini, Vincenzio 39-40, 42, 111, 138, 154, 157-60, 172, 204, 209-10, 212, 310 Borromeo, Carlo 309-12 Bosio, Antonio 46, 269, 326 Botticelli, Sandro 122 Boulenger, Jules-César 249 Bovio, Giovanni 216-17 Bracciolini, Poggio 27 Brassicanus, Joannes Alexander 180-1 Braun, Konrad 307 Bray, Hendrik 269 Brembati, Lucina 122, 124 Brescia 203 Brodeau, Jean 228 Brunelleschi, Filippo 28, 37 Bruni, Leonardo 29 Brusch, Kaspar 199, 207, 212 Bruyn, Abraham 280 Budé, Guillaume 34, 37, 44, 137, 310-11 Bullinger, Heinrich 183, 239, 245, 305 Buonarroti, Michelangelo 35, 174 Burke, Peter 17-18 Buzzacarini, Francesco 55, 60 Byzantium 202

### **C**

Callimachus 102, 226 Calvin, Jean 201, 215-16, 221, 305 Cambierius, Andrea 240 Camden, William 45 Canterbury 202

Caprarola 64 Palazzo Farnese 42, 311 Carbonell, Joan 21 Carisius 86 Carlo Emanuele I of Savoy (duke) 38 Caro, Annibal 311-12 Carracci (family) 168-70, 172 Carracci, Annibale 130 Carrara, Eliana 159 Carrion, Louis 97 Cartari, Vincenzo 104, 114-15, 129-30. 169 Casaubon, Isaac 44 Cassiano dal Pozzo 47 Castiglione, Baldassarre 31, 33 Catharinus, Ambrosius 307 Cato 32, 126, 185, 233 Catullus 71-2, 103, 125 Cavalieri, Giovanni Battista de' 43 Ceccarelli, Alfonso 32 Ceci, Giuliano 55, 83, 85, 88 Cellini, Benvenuto 311 Celsus 229 Centanni, Monica 20 Cesariano, Cesare 38 Chacón, Alfonso 37, 165 Chacón, Pedro 245, 249 Chalcidius Grammaticus 86 Charlemagne (emeperor) 89-92, 95-7 Charles V (emperor) 195, 230 Charlet, Jean Loius 30 Chenu, Jean 206, 212 Chigi (family) 38 China 46-7 Christian, Kathleen 20 Christopherson, John 220

Chrysippus 233 Chrysolaras, Manuel 30 Cicero 101, 133-5, 139, 147, 149, 163, 180-1, 185, 187-8, 200, 233, 258, 260, 285, 294 Cini, Giovanni Battista 111 Claudian 33 Claudius (emperor) 205 Clement I (pope) 196, 216-17 Clement of Alexandria 217-18, 325 Clüver, Philipp 45 Cola di Rienzo 26 Colloquy of Poissy 239, 307 Colocci, Angelo 33, 35 Colonna, Giovanni 26 Columella 134, 233 Conagus 56, 83 Constantinople 30, 202 Conti, Natale 115, 125 Corinth 154, 235 Cornarius, Janus 233-6, 249 Council of Trent 201, 211, 223, 249, 307, 312, 313, 328 Crescentius (saint) 199 Crescenzi, Marcello 300 Crinito, Pietro 82-3, 227 Cunnally, John 20 Cuspinianus, Johannes 35, 184 Cyriacus of Ancona 27, 43-4 Cyrillus (saint) 199

### **D**

D'Alessandro, Alessandro 31, 100, 135, 227 Dacer, André 87 Dalmatia 54 Dante 32 De Divitiis, Bianca 20 De Girolami Cheney, Liana 111 De Matociis, Giovanni 25 De Nonno, Mario 80-1 De Rubeis, Martino 232 *Decretum Desiderii* 32 Dekesel, Christian 20 de Jonge, Krista 45 Del Nero, Niccolò 204 Delfini, Gentile 174 Democritus 233 Dempster, Thomas 149, 151, 247 Descartes, René 47

Di Marco, Alessia 54, 82 Dietrich, Johann 222-3 Diocletian (emperor) 139 Diodorus Siculus 102, 287 Diomedes 86 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 35, 101, 147, 149, 184, 195 Dionysius (pope) 204 Dolce, Ludovico 117-18, 273 Donadio, Isabella 159 Donation of Constantine 32 Donatus 100 Doni, Anton Francesco 42 Du Choul, Guillaume 44, 149, 228, 260 Dupuy, Claude 41, 72 Dürer, Albrecht 43-4

#### **E**

Eck, Johannes 305 Emser, Hieronymus 305-6 England 44-5, 202, 205, 211, 220-2 Ennius 96 Ens, Caspar 248 Epicurus 233 Erasmus, Desiderius 34, 43, 46, 96, 216, 237, 258, 284, 307, 325 Erfurt 44

Erizzo, Sebastiano 36-7, 41, 141-2, 149, 153, 172 Este (family) 38 Este, Ippolito II (cardinal) 39-40 Estienne, Charles 259-60, 272, 285-8, 294-5 Estienne, Robert 191, 195, 311 Euripides 274, 280 Eusebius of Caesarea 196, 217-20 Eutropius 95, 139 Evaristus (pope) 233

### **F**

Faber, Petrus 228, 249 Fabius Pictor 32, 125-6 Faedo, Lucia 44 Faerno, Gabriel 84 Faietti, Marzia 44 Fanelli, Vittorio 33 Fantuzzi, Antonio 286 Farnese (family) 38, 40, 149, 151 Farnese Cesarini, Clelia 108 Farnese, Alessandro (cardinal) 38-9, 63, 147 *Fasti Consulares* 35-6, 65, 173-4, 176, 185, 195 Favorino, Guarino 310 Fenestella 33, 132 Fera, Vincenzo 26 Ferdinand I (emperor) 111 Ferrara 38, 135, 151, 246, 261 Biblioteca Ariostea 246 Palazzo Schifanoia 108 Ferrari, Ottavio 269, 272 Ferrario, Giorgio 63, 69 Festus 32-3, 39, 53-6, 60-6, 69-77, 79-98, 101, 104, 112, 114, 119, 130, 136, 139, 163, 174, 185, 287 Fezzi, Donato 203, 209 Ficino, Marsilio 105, 107 Fiesole 111, 160 Figueiredo, João 45

Filelfo, Francesco 232 Fiocchi, Andrea 33 Flacius, Mathias 46, 217, 238 Florence 26-7, 30, 38-40, 42, 63, 65, 154, 157, 159-60, 170, 204, 246 Casa Vasari 111 Loggia dei Lanzi 27 Palazzo Vecchio 42, 111, 159 172 Santa Maria del Fiore 28 Uffizi Gallery 107 Fontainebleau (Gallery of Francis I) 42, 251-2, 284-5, 295 Fracastoro, Girolamo 41 France 44-5, 92, 132, 139, 200-2, 205-7, 212, 239, 284 Frankfurt 240 Fredrik II (emperor) 24 Fregoso, Antonio Fileremo 115, 125 Freud, Sigmund 13-16 Froben (printer) 96, 258 Frontinus 137-8, 151-2, 157, 172 Frontinus (saint) 204 Fronto 138, 152 Fubini, Riccardo 28 Fugger (family) 43 Fulgentius 86-8, 316 Fulvio, Andrea 37, 149 Fumaroli, Marc 284

#### **G**

Gabrieli, Andrea 277 Galen 229 Garin, Eugenio 17-18 Gassendi, Pierre 47 Gaudentius (saint) 206 Gaurico, Pomponio 314 Gelli, Giovanni Battista 157 Gellius 86, 119, 180-1, 271, 285 Gemona del Friuli 54 Geneva 76, 221 Gerhoh of Reichersberg 327 Germany 43-5, 132, 198-9, 201, 205, 212, 235, 257 Gesner, Conrad 46, 164, 245 Gherardini, Jacopo 66 Giffen, Huber van 44-5 Gilio, Giovanni Andrea 140 Giocondo, Giovanni 34-5, 37-8, 176-9, 186, 190 Giovanni da Udine 118 Giovio, Paolo 33, 229

Giraldi, Lilio Gregorio 39, 104, 108, 115, 125, 179, 300-1 Giuliano, Antonio 44 Giulio Romano 118 Giunti (printers) 63-6, 69 Giustiniani, Orsatto 277-8 Glareanus, Heinrich 35, 184 Godefroy, Denis 76-7 Goltzius, Hubert 36, 44, 145-7, 149, 151, 182 Gonzaga (family) 38 González de Ávila, Gil 206, 211 González Germain, Gerard 21 Goropius, Johannes 328 Grafton, Anthony 19, 194 Greece 102, 200, 277 Gregory I (pope) 303-4 Gregory of Nazianzus 194, 319-20 Grimani (family) 38 Grotius, Hugo 45 Gryner, Johann Jakob 46, 220-2 Gryphe, Sebastien 71 Guercino 122

#### **H**

Hackius, Iacobus 240 Haloander, Gregorius 35, 184 Hedio, Kaspar 199, 201, 213 Heenes, Volker 44 Heraclitus 233 Herklotz, Ingo 20-1 Hermes Trismegistus 308 Herodotus 29, 134 Herwagen, Kaspar 220-1 Hesychius 101, 310 Heusenstein, Sebastian von (bishop) 199 Hildebert of Lavardin 23 Hildegard (empress) 90 Hippocrates 229, 261 Hollanda, Francisco de 42 Homer 44-5, 102, 234, 236, 251, 285, 287 Horapollo 308 Hugh of Saint Victor 22 Humphrey, Lawrence 213 Hungary 205 Huss, Jan 300 *Hypnerotomachia Poliphili* 43

### **I**

Illyria 71, 76, 135, 200 Ingegneri, Angelo 277-8, 280 Iohannes Nydenna da Coblenza 55 Italy 22, 24-6, 28-30, 34, 43-6, 55, 129, 132, 149, 157, 176, 184, 195, 200, 203, 205, 207, 212, 248, 259, 268, 273, 278, 284, 300 *Itinerarium Antonini* 137, 172

#### **J**

Jaconello, Battista Alessandro 169 James (apostle) 206, 211 James VI (king) 222 Jansen, Dirk Jacob 44 Jerome (saint) 214-15, 222, 315, 318, 327 Jerusalem 202 Joanna of Austria 111 Jobst, Wolfgang 195

John (apostle) 217-18, 236 John Chrysostom 238, 304, 320 John of Damascus 304 Joseph of Arimathea 202 Julius II (pope) 273 Julius Caesar 36, 40 Julius Pollux 279

#### **K**

Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von 297-8, 301-6, 309, 312

Käsenbrot, Augustin 198-9 Kulawik, Bernd 37

#### **L**

Lactantius 299 Lafréry, Antoine 43 Landi, Costanzo 149 Landulfus Sagax 97 Lascaris, Janus 34, 37, 284 Łasicki, Jan 45 Lausanne 239 Lavater, Ludwig 239, 245 Lazius, Wolfgang 40, 135, 140, 149, 200, 228, 259, 272 Le Pois, Antoine 147, 149 Lemaire de Belges, Jean 45 Leo X (pope) 31, 274 Leontius Pilatus 30 Leptis Magna 162 Léry, Jean de 243

Leto, Giulio Pomponio 32-3, 55, 60, 81, 88, 93, 176-9, 190, 233, 273-4 Ligorio, Pirro 40, 42, 100, 151-4, 162, 171, 246, 261-2, 272, 298, 320-1, 325-7 Lindsay, Wallace 61, 79, 81 Lipsius, Justus 45, 235-6, 247-9 Livy 35-6, 134, 184-5, 188 Lollards 300 Loredan, Andrea 20 Lotto, Lorenzo 104, 122 Lovati, Lovato 25 Low Countries 44-5 Lucan 26 Lucian of Samosata 29 Lucretius 33, 44-5, 233 Lyon 71, 147, 149

#### **M**

Machiavelli, Niccolò 134-5 Macrobius 79-80, 85-6, 126, 129, 136, 185 Madrid 38, 245 Maffei, Achille 187 Maffei, Agostino 55 Maffei, Raffaele 31, 95, 227, 256, 272, 274 Maganza, Giovanni Battista 277 Magna Graecia 146 Magnani, Lorenzo 169

Mainz 199, 212 Malvasia, Carlo Cesare 169 Manilio, Sebastiano 32-3, 81, 88, 93 Månsson, Johan 45 Mantegna, Andrea 40, 44 Mantova (Basilica of Sant'Andrea) 28 Manuzio, Aldo the Elder 40, 43, 56, 84-5, 93, 179, 190 Manuzio, Aldo the Younger 41, 228, 265, 272

Manuzio, Paolo 41, 96, 185, 190, 262, 265 Manzoli, Alessandro 321, 323 Marcanova, Giovanni 27 Marcellino, Giuseppe 28 Marco Polo 41 Margaret of Antioch (saint) 122 Marías, Fernando 45 Marliani, Bartolomeo 35, 182-4, 188-90 Marnef, Jerome de 73 Marullo, Michele 61, 71-2 Masetti, Giulio 321 Massari, Lucio 170 Matal, Jean 39 Matthew (apostle) 196, 298 Mattioli, Pietro Andrea 47 Maximian (emperor) 139 Mazocchi, Jacopo 35, 138, 178-9, 188, 190 Mazzocco, Angelo 19, 28 Medici (family) 38, 246 Medici, Alessandro de' (cardinal) 204 Medici, Bernardino de' 66 Medici, Cosimo I de' (duke) 43, 159 Medici, Ferdinando I de' (duke) 105, 107 Medici, Francesco I de' 108, 111, 126, 130 Medici, Giuliano de' 274 Medici, Lorenzo de' 274 Medici, Marie de' (queen) 103, 230 Mei, Girolamo 42, 138, 159

Memling, Hans 36 Menachem (rabbi) 239 Mercuriale, Girolamo 47 Messisbugo, Cristoforo 230 Meyer, Konrad 240 Middle East 200, 205 Milan 56, 206, 246-7 Biblioteca Ambrosiana 277 Miller, Peter 20 Mini, Paolo 246 Missere Fontana, Federica 20 Molanus, Johannes 307-9, 312, 328 Momigliano, Arnaldo 17, 20-1 Mommsen, Theodor 90-1, 175-6 Morel, Philippe 108 Morelli, Giuseppe 80 Morillon, Antoine 44 Mosca, Gaspare 205, 212-13 Moscadi, Alessandro 79-80, 82 Moses 302, 315-17 Mosti, Agostino 39 Mouchy, Antoine de 201-2, 206, 212 Muecke, Frances 28 Müller, Karl Otfried 79 Mulsow, Martin 44 Muret, Marc Antoine 44, 71-2, 229 Mussato, Albertino 25 Myle, Simon de 163

#### **N**

Narbonne 137, 139 Naples 40 Castel Capuano 176 Neff, Karl 90-2, 94 Negroni, Giulio 269 Nero (emperor) 42, 114, 204 Netherlands 45, 132 New World 46

Niccoli, Niccolò 27 Nicholas I (pope) 199 Nikephoros of Constantinople 202 Nîmes 139 Nipsus 152 Nolhac, Pierre de 58, 70 Nonius 255, 288 Novara 206

### **O**

Occo, Adolph 149 Olaus Magnus 300 Olds, Katrina 45 Olomuc 198 Ongoys, Jean de 200 Opmeer, Pieter van 205 Origenes 315 Orosius 26 Orsini, Fulvio 36, 39, 42, 53, 55, 60-6, 69-73, 76-8, 83, 86, 94, 147, 149, 157-8, 245, 262 Ostuni 217 Ottenheym, Konrad 45

Otto of Freising 23 Ovid 33, 101, 104, 117-19, 154, 179, 185, 271, 287-8, 312

#### **P**

Padilla, Francisco 45, 205-6, 211 Padua 25, 41, 239, 269 Tomb of Antenor 25 Paleotti, Gabriele 42, 246, 312-27 Palladio, Andrea 37-8, 277 Palliolo, Paolo 274-5 Panciroli, Guido 239 Pandects 34, 39, 134, 258 Panofsky, Dora 284, 286 Panofsky, Erwin 18, 284, 286 Panoramita 53 Pantagato, Ottavio 84-5, 158, 201, 208 Panvinio, Onofrio 21, 35, 39, 42, 65, 84, 136-8, 140, 157-9, 171, 182, 185-90, 200-1, 204, 208, 216, 262, 265 Paris 63, 70, 73, 195, 239 Parker, Matthew 46, 202, 211 Parmenides 233 Pasqualini, Lelio 47, 69, 172 Paul (apostle) 199, 214, 221, 224, 303, 318, 322 Paul the Deacon 53-6, 60, 77, 79-81, 83-4, 86, 88-92, 94-8, 174, 199 Paulinus (saint) 204 Pausanias 102-3, 115, 119, 126, 226, 243-4 Peiresc, Nicholas Fabri de 20, 47 Périon, Joachim 33 Perotti, Niccolò 29, 32, 133, 226-7 Peter (apostle) 196-8, 201-2, 205-6, 211-12, 214 Petit, Jean 56, 93 Petrarch, Francis 18-19, 26-7, 225-6 Peutinger, Konrad 34, 300-1 Pezzè, Stefano 115 Philandrier, Guillaume 38, 314 Philo of Alexandria 316-17 Pico della Mirandola, Gianfrancesco 40, 300

Pieters, Sjoerd 203 Pigafetta, Filippo 277-8 Pigge, Stephen Winand 35 Pignoria, Lorenzo 41 Pindar 102 Pinelli, Giovanni Vincenzo 41-2, 277, 279 Pinet, Antoine du 311 Pio, Alberto 41, 307 Pio, Giovanni Battista 56, 83, 87, 93 Pisa 39 Pithou, Pierre 45, 72, 96-8, 202, 212, 235 Pius V (pope) 230 Platina, Bartolomeo 21, 32-3, 197-9, 201, 213, 223, 232-3 Plato 226, 233-5, 249, 317, 322 Plautus 96-7, 163-4, 229, 235-6, 274, 285 Pliny the Elder 28, 37, 42, 86, 101, 119, 129, 141, 163-5, 233, 260, 286-7, 310-11, 319 Plutarch 101, 129, 136, 149, 169, 226, 228, 249, 271, 285, 286-7 Poland 45, 205 Poldo d'Albenas, Jean 139 Poliziano, Angelo 19, 30-1, 51, 55, 60-1, 63, 71-2, 77, 81-3, 88, 93, 176-9, 190, 226, 255, 272 Pomponius Porphyrio 262 Pontano, Giovanni 226, 249 Pontanus, Johannes Isacius 45 Possevino, Antonio 194 Primaticcio 284 Priscianus 86 Propertius 271, 287 Provence 47 Pulci, Luca 311 Puteanus, Henricus 246-8 Pythagoras 233

#### **Q**

Quintilian 33, 54, 251

#### **R**

Rabier, Junien 258 Raffarin, Anne 28 Ramusio, Giovanni Battista 41 Rapenberger, Michael 220-1 Raphael 31, 104, 118, 301 Reggio Emilia Biblioteca Panizzi Santo Spirito dei Minori Osservanti 245 Reims 202, 212 Rhallus, Manilius 32-3, 93 Riccoboni, Antonio 277, 279 Ringgius, Diethoegus 240 Ripa, Cesare 328-9 Ristoro d'Arezzo 23 Rizzo, Silvia 18 Robert, Claude 207, 212 Rodigino, Celio 31, 227, 256, 272 Rome 20-1, 26-8, 33-5, 38, 42, 45-6, 54, 63-4, 65-6, 69, 71, 132-3, 135, 137, 139, 147, 153-4, 157, 159-60, 168-70, 172, 177-8, 186, 197, 202, 204, 207, 211-15, 217, 223, 230-1, 233, 245-6, 251-2, 255, 257, 261-2, 267, 269, 274-5, 300, 326 Belvedere Garden 300-1 Biblioteca Vallicelliana 53 Catacomb of Priscilla 326 Capitolium 35

Domus Aurea 42, 314 Horti Sallustiani 33 Palazzo dei Conservatori 173 Palazzo Farnese 42, 130 Palazzo Firenze 107 Palazzo Rucellai 104, 108, 129-30 Pantheon 28 Roman Forum 35, 173, 176, 184, 188, 190 Santa Maria Liberatrice 173 Santa Maria Maggiore 169 San Lorenzo fuori le Mura 326 San Lorenzo in Lucina 104 San Sebastiano 326 Temple of Dioscuri 173 Vatican Loggias 301 Villa Farnesina 118 Villa Medici 105 Rosinus, Joannes 43, 149, 151, 247, 267, 272 Rosso Fiorentino 42, 284, 286 Rubens, Albert 45, 269, 271-2 Rubens, Peter Paul 45, 103, 271-2 Rubens, Philip 45, 271 Rucellai, Orazio 104 Rufinus of Aquileia 218, 220 Ruscelli, Girolamo 43 Rusconi, Giovanni Antonio 117-18 Russia 46

#### **S**

Sabbadini, Remigio 29 Sabellico, Marco Antonio 95-6 Sada, Dionigi Ottaviano 37, 164-5, 169, 172 Sadoleto, Jacopo 33 Salamanca 206 Salerno 205 Sallust 26, 88 Salutati, Coluccio 27 Sambucus, Johannes 43, 149 Santacroce, Andrea 176 Sanit André, Pierre de 63 Sardi, Alessandro 135-6, 228, 261, 272 Saumaise, Claude 269 Savonarola, Girolamo 300, 322 Savoy (family) 40

Scaliger, Joseph Juste 19, 44, 56, 61, 63, 70-3, 76-7, 85-7, 94-8, 163, 235, 247, 248, 288 Scaligero, Giulio Cesare 44 Scandinavia 46, 205 Scappi, Bartolomeo 230 Schedel, Hartmann 43-4 Schott, Andreas 165 Schultz, Jeanna 45 Schwab, Maren 20 Scorza, Rik 159 Scotland 205 Seneca 25, 105, 228 Serenus of Marseille (bishop) 303-4 Serlio, Sebastiano 37-8, 285 Sermoneta, Girolamo 103 Servius 100, 112, 136, 141, 163, 162, 294

Settis, Salvatore 19 Shakespeare, William 280 Sicily 146 Sigonio, Carlo 35-6, 65, 94, 138-40, 142, 146, 151, 170-2, 182, 184-6, 190, 204, 262, 265 Simler, Josias 239 Simon (apostle) 202-3, 211 Sinisius (saint) 202 Sittart, Arnault 73, 76-8, 86-8, 97 Sixtus (saint) 202 Sixtus IV (pope) 197 Smetius, Martin 35, 182, 184

Southern, Richard 22 Spain 40, 45, 131-2, 162, 200, 205-6, 211 Speroni, Sperone 277-9 Stanislaw Iłowski 191, 195 Stenhouse, William 19-20, 35, 45, 132 Strabo 29, 137, 158, 287 Strada, Jacopo 43-4, 65, 149, 182, 200, 208 Strasbourg 198, 239, 249 Stucki, Johan Wilhelm 46, 225, 239-50 Stumpf, Johannes 305 Suidas 129, 287 Symeoni, Gabriele 149

#### **T**


## **U**

Ughelli, Ferdinando 46, 207, 210-11 Ulpian 235, 257-8, 285

Uppsala 300 Utrecht 203

# **V**

Valeriano, Giovanni Pierio 33, 104, 125-6, 142, 172, 260-1, 325-8 Valerianus (emperor) 175 Valerius Maximus 26 Valerius Flaccus 170 Valerius Probus 138 Valla, Giorgio 31 Valla, Lorenzo 28-9, 31-2, 34, 46, 54, 232, 237 van Eyck, Jan 122 Varro 33, 61, 81, 100-1, 112, 119, 126, 134, 136, 139, 147, 152, 171, 185, 187, 189, 226, 233, 235, 271, 286-8, 294 Vasari, Giorgio 42-3, 111, 159-60, 172, 311-12, 336 Vecellio, Cesare 267, 272, 280 Velius Longus 86 Veneto 25, 30, 40 Venice 38, 40, 44, 56, 71, 139, 200, 257, 284, 287 Biblioteca Marciana 30 Vermigli, Peter Martyr 239 Verona 25, 203, 209 Biblioteca Capitolare 176 Veronese, Guarino 29-30, 40 Verrius Flaccus 53, 56, 79, 81, 85-67, 89, 97-8

Vettori, Piero 39, 60-3, 65-6, 70, 82-3, 158, 229, 242, 246 Vicenza 251-2, 278-9 Teatro Olimpico 277 Vico, Enea 36-7, 137, 140-2, 149, 151, 171 Vienna 38, 44, 140 Villa, Claudia 53

Villalpando, Juan Baptista 37 Villani, Giovanni 26 Villeharduin, Goeffroy de 41 Virgil 26, 33, 101, 112, 231, 255, 262, 285, 294 Virgili, Polidoro 141, 256, 272 Vitruvius 28, 37-8, 138, 301, 317 Vittorino da Feltre 29

#### **W**

Waitz, Georg 90-1, 94 Warburg, Aby 18, 20, 99 Watt, Joachim von 198 Weiss, Roberto 17-18 Whittingham, William 221 William of Malmesbury 23 Williams, Kelsey 20 Wimfeling, Jakob 198

Wind, Edgar 17-18 Witzel, Georg 201 Wolf, Johannes 239 Worm, Ole 45 Wotton, Edward 164 Wouk, Edward 45 Wycliff, John 300

#### **X**

Xenophon 233-5, 249, 288

Zama (saint) 204 Zanobi da Strada 26 Zeno of Elea 233 Zenodotus of Mallo 102 Zuccari, Federico 42

# **Z**

Zuccari, Taddeo 311-12 Zucchi, Jacopo 42, 104-11, 114, 129-30 Zurich 239-40, 245, 250 Zurita, Jerónimo 40, 45, 138, 141 Zwingli, Huldrych 240, 305

# Lexis Supplementi | Supplements


Renaissance antiquarianism can be defined as a cultural phenomenon that aims to interpret the past by cross-referencing heterogeneous sources accumulated and collected over time. This entailed the use of new investigative techniques which involved combining literary sources and material findings to provide a reliable foundation for the idea of history. The purpose of this Atlas of Renaissance Antiquarianism is to demonstrate how the antiquarian approach represented a methodological perspective capable to influence the way the past was viewed through a critical analysis of sources.

**ANTIQUARIANISM**

**ATLAS OF REINASSANCE** 

ACCIARINO

**6**

**Damiano Acciarino** is a lecturer of Italian Literature at Università Ca' Foscari Venezia. He works on Renaissance Antiquarianism, on which he has published many articles on international academic journals, one edited volume, and two monographs. Former Marie Curie fellow at the University of Toronto, he is a member of the research group "Levant Antiquariansm in European History and Literature (1500-1850)" coordinated by the Haifa Center for Mediterranean History in the University of Haifa, and part of the advisory board of the Association for Textual Scholarship in Art History.

Università Ca'Foscari Venezia