Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 November 2018
‘A great age of literature’ remarked Ezra Pound in Make it New 'is perhaps always a great age of translation.’ In this article we will be examining a Latin translation of the twelfth Dialogue of the Dead of Lucian by the Italian humanist Giovanni Aurispa, and the influence that this translation, known generally as the Comparatio, had in Italy and in other countries of Europe, in France, in Germany, in England, in Spain, and in Bohemia. Such a translation was naturally important. Few educated people in Europe at the time we are concerned with, the fifteenth century, could, or would, read Greek. If they knew anything of a recently discovered writer like Lucian, it was precisely through Latin versions of his work produced by scholars like Aurispa.
1 The most important account of the transmission of Greek texts is to be found in the essay by Kristeller, P. O., ‘The European Diffusion of Italian Humanism,’ Italica, 39 (1962), 1–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in Renaissance Thought, n (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1966), 69-88.
2 Aurispa visited Constantinople first in 1421 and brought back some, but not many, manuscripts; for a list of those he then had, reproduced from Leyden, Bibl. Publ. gr. 48, fol. 233, see Omont, H., ‘Catalogue des manuscrits grecs des bibliothèques publiques des Pays-Bas,’ Zentral-blatt für Bibliothekwesen, 4 (1887), 186 Google Scholar. It was on the second of his journeys to the East, a journey undertaken with the sponsorship of Gian Francesco Gonzaga, that Aurispa obtained this large collection of manuscripts; an account of his life, with a full bibliography, is to be found in E. Bigi, s.v. ‘Giovanni Aurispa,’ in Dizionario biografico degli italiani, IV (Rome, 1962), 593-595.
It should be mentioned that a codex in Wolfenbuttel, containing a text of Lucian, has been identified as the one owned by Aurispa; for this see Goldschmidt, E. P., ‘Lucian's “Calumnia”,’ in Fritz Saxl: A Volume of Memorial Essays, ed. Gordon, D.J. (London, 1957) p. 229 Google Scholar. It is now clear from the work of Diller, A., ‘The Greek Codices of Palla Strozzi and Guarino Veronese,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 24 (1961), 319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, that this particular codex belonged not to Aurispa but to Guarino da Verona.
3 The titles under which this dialogue is found in manuscripts and printed texts include ‘collatio,’ ‘contentio,’ ‘disceptatio,’ ‘disputatio,’ and ‘Scipio Romanus.’ Attributions are found, in both printed books and manuscripts, giving it to Guarino da Verona (Haiti 12027) and Leonardo Bruni (Naples, Bibl. Naz. v c 39, fol. 278v, and the edition of de’ Bussi mentioned in note 20).
4 The Latin text of Aurispa's version is to be found below in the Appendix; the Greek text to be consulted is still that oiLuciani Samosatensis Opera, ed. C. Jacobitz (Leipzig: Teubner, 1864), 1, 156-160.
5 For the text of this see below, note 17.
6 This aspect of Libanius’ work is discussed by Förster, R., ‘Zur Schrifstellerei des Libanius,’ Jahrbücherfür dassische Philologie, 22 (1876), 225 Google Scholar.
7 It is interesting that another Renaissance fabrication was also associated with Libanius, for some time after 1473, Francesco Zambeccari put out an edition of the letters of Libanius in which the majority were, it appears, composed by him; for this see Breen, Q., ‘Francesco Zambeccari: His Translations and Fabricated Translation of Libanius’ Letters,’ Studies in the Renaissance, 11 (1964), 46–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Valerius Maximus, Defactis et dictis memorabilibus, VII, v. 2, seems purposely to have combined all the Scipios into one great patriotic example; Petrarch's confusion is surely less deliberate. In his Rerum Memorandum libri, IV, 3, he confused the first and second Scipio Nasica and in the Africa he gave the famous dream of the grandson of Scipio Africanus Major to Scipio Africanus himself. Some attempt to put all this together was made by Salutati in his De Tyranno, ed. F. Ercole, IV I3f., but he too failed and confused Scipio Nasica, consul in 191, with Scipio Nasica, consul in 165.
9 A general account of the attitude of Petrarch toward Scipio is to be found in Bernardo, A. S., Scipio and the ‘Africa’ (Baltimore, 1962)Google Scholar.
10 For Petrarch's comparison of Caesar and Scipio see Trionfo della Fama, 1,1. 22f. The comparison, in the hands of its later proponents, was in effect one between the ideals of the ‘respublica romana’ (i.e., Scipio) and the ‘imperium romanum’ (i.e., Caesar), that is to say by another token, a comparison between the city-state of Florence and the princedoms of Italy; for this see Baron, H., The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance, rev. ed. (Princeton, 1966)Google Scholar, 64f. As late as the 1550's the debate still raged; we have record of a rhetorical contest taking place in the house of the physician Bassianus Landus in which Caesar and Scipio were confronted; for this see Sabbadini, R., Storia del Ciceronianismo e di altre questioni letterarie nell’ età dellaRinascenza (Turin, 1885), p. 116 Google Scholar. It is, I think, unlikely that any foreshadowings of this dispute are to be detected in Aurispa's text, for in that he was opposing Scipio not to Caesar but to Alexander and the contrast was less one of politics than of nationality.
11 The character of Alexander, is described by Petrarch as follows: ‘quod in malis suis pessimum dixerim, instabilitas fuit et sui ipsius imparitas; nunc supra hominem mitis, nunc immanis ut belua, nunc pudicissimus, nunc profusus in Veverem.…, ‘ De viris illustribus, ed. G. Martellotti, Edizione nazionale delle opere di Francesco Petrarca, II (Florence, 1964)Google Scholar, p. 65. The legend of his Italian project is outlined a few lines later: ‘Et nimirum in hoc ambitu Occidentis, sed praesertim si Italiam attigisset, quod sine romano bello esse vix poterat, quid futurum fuerit dubitari potest; et veritatem Deus solus novit, apud quern sunt cuncta presentia. Quantum tamen ad verum humane se erigunt coniecture, Titus Livius princeps historicorum, hoc ambiguum operosa disputatione discutiens, et ducum et mUitum et morum et virium et armorum et peritie militaris facta collatione, elicit hauddubie victores futures fuisse Romanos… .'
12 Livy, xxx, 31. It should be noted that at Livy, xxxv, 14, there is an account of a meeting between Scipio and Hannibal long after these hostilities in which they discussed this very subject; Hannibal gave the order of the generals as Alexander, Pyrrhus, and himself. ‘Quidnam tu diceres,’ replied Scipio, ‘si me vicisses? Turn vero me, inquit, et ante omnes imperatores esse, at ante Alexandrum et ante Pyrrhum.’ A similar discussion, with somewhat different conclusions, is found in Appian, Syr., 10, and Plutarch, Vit. Flam.,xn, but it was the passage in Livy, with its compliment to Scipio, that was known to most Renaissance readers and formed the basis for similar comparationes that have been attributed to Boccaccio and Petrarch; for these see, respectively, G. Boccaccio, , Rime, Caccia di Diana, ed. V. Branca (Padua, 1958) pp. 234–236 Google Scholar, and Martellotti, G., ‘Collatio inter Scipionem Alexandrum Hanibalem et Pyrrum,’ in Classical, Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies in Honour ofBerthold Louis Ullman, ed. C. Henderson, Jr., Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 93-94 (Rome, 1964)Google Scholar, II, 145-155; and, for a further exercise on the same passage, Burdach, K., AusPetrarcas ältestem deutschen Schülerkreise (Berlin, 1929) pp. 176–183 Google Scholar.
13 ‘At Deus ille, Deus quern vos contemnitis, equas / Exegit penas meritis, bellique prioris / Exitus ille fuit, quern vos sensistis, et idem / Huius erit, nisi iusta Deum vindicta fatigat,’ Africa, rx, 395f. The notion of Hannibal as a crafty and brutal barbarian is common (e.g., Pontanus, De Sermone, Book n, 4). On a dish, now in the Danske Kunstindustrimuseet Copenhagen, done before 1535 for Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan, Hannibal is shown burning the wife and children of Dasius Altinius (Livy, xxiv, 45); for this see de Tervarent, G.,'Enquête sur le sujet des majoliques,'Kunstmuseets Arsskrift, 37 (1950), p. 27 Google Scholar, fig. 28, and p. 31.
14 For this see Appendix, 11. 6-14.
15 In a letter of 1436 to the Venetian nobleman Jacopo Foscari, Guarino provided a list of both actual and literary comparationes that could serve as precedents: ‘sic Thelamon et Aiax, sic Peleus et Achilles, sic Aeneas et Ascanius, sic Caesar et Octavianus inter se certamen de praestantia suscepere,’ R. Sabbadini, Epistolario di Guarino Veronese, Miscellanea di storia veneta, ser. 3, VIII, XI, XIV (Venice, 1915-19), II, 292-293. 16 Such medieval comparationes, and the work of Fortunatus in particular, are discussed by Curtius, E. R., European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, tr. W. R. Trask (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963)Google Scholar, p. I54f. The comment of Remigio Sabbadini on this question is particularly apposite: ‘il confronto tra capitani antichi era tutt'altro che nuovo: ne aveano parlato Livio, Plutarco nella vita di Cesare e Luciano nei Dialoghi dei Morti: ma non si può negare che gli scritti del Petrarca abiano contribuito a risuscitare la questione’ (p. 113).
17 The dedication, as found in Venice, Bibl. Marciana, Cod. lat. XIV, 128, fol. 103v, reads: ‘Io. Aurispa ad Baptistam Capodiferro Romanum civem ordinis militaris virum praetorem Bononiae praef. ad translationem ex Graeco in Latinum dialogi Luciani a Libanio emendati de comparatione Alexandri Hannibalis et Scipionis … ego vero ut patrum tuorum incredibili virtute gaudeas eosque ut facis imiteris, ex graeco in latinum tibi transtuli comparationem quandam Alexandri, Hannibalis et Scipionis primum a Luciano scriptam, turn a Libanio emendatam. Adiunxit quidem nonnulla huic comparationi non inepta Libanius. Brevissime ergo cognosces quae tres praestantissimi duces fecerint. Qua in re gratum meo iudicio tibi erit duobus clarissimis dicibus Hannibali atque Alexandre praelatum a Minoe fuisse Scipionem, coram hoc enim iudice apud inferos de praestantia certant'; Libanii Opera, ed. R. Förster (Leipzig: Teubner, 1921), XI, 671.
18 The text of this translation is preserved in Venice, Bibl. Marciana, Cod. Lat. XIV, 214 (4674), fols. 8-11; the conclusion is that of Lucian: ‘per Iovem verissime loqueris, o Scipio, itaque primus Alexander iudicatus sit quoque tu secundus. Postmodum nobis si videbitur Hannibal tertius haud est spernendus.’ Both Landus and Cendratus are associated with Guarino da Verona; Landus studied with him in Ferrara (Sabbadini, III 426); Cendratus was his brother-in-law, as we know from a poem Guarino wrote to him, praising the institution of marriage and his own wife, the sister of Cendratus; for this see de Rosmini, C., Vita e disciplina di Guarino Veronese (Brescia, 1836)Google Scholar, II, 151, no. xxi.
19 These vernacular translations of the Comparatio are to be found, for example, in the following manuscripts: Florence, Bibl. Riccard. 2278 (s III 46), fols. 190V-199; Florence, Bibl. Riccard. 2313 (s ra 45), fols.81-91v; Florence, Bibl. Laur. Redi 113, fols. 16v-24; Lucca, Bibl. Gov. MS. 1284; Pistoia, Arch. Cap.del Duomo MS. 58; Vatican, Barb. Lat. 3941 (XLV, 35); this is by no means an exhaustive list.
20 The following is a list of editions of Lucian in which I have been able to determine that Aurispa's translation was included: Luciani Dialogi VI, ed. de’ Bussi, Rome, 1472 (Hain 10269); Opusculum de presidencia allexandri hanibalis scipionis traductutn in latinum per aurispam, L. Achates, Venice, 1482 (Hain 10276); Scipio sive disceptatio super presidentia inter Alexandrum, Hanibakm et Scipionem, P. Brun and J. Gentil, Seville, 1492 (Haeblerno. 372); De veris narrationibus … , S. Bevilacqua, Venice, 1494 (Hain 10261); De veris narrationibus… , U. Scinzeler, Milan, 1497 (Hain 10262), and Milan, 1504 (B.M.); Dialogi; Palinurus; Scipio Romanus; Heroica in amorem … , ed. G. B. Marmitta, Avignon, 1497 (Hain 10268); De praecedentia Alexandri, Annibalis et Scipionis interpr. Guarino Veronese, s.l.s.d. (Hain 10275); Opera … de veris narrationibus, G. B. Sessa, Venice, 1500 (Hain 10263); Opera . . . , A. Lippus, Bologna, 1502 (Panzer, XI, 387; XXI, 14); Dialogi; Scipio Romanus; Heroica in amorem … , G. Phillipe, Paris, 1505 (B.N.).
21 I dilettevoli dialogi, le vere narrationi, lefacete epistole di Luciano philosopho di greco in volgare tradotteper M. Nicolo da Lonigo, N. Zoppino da Ferrara (Venice, 1525). This volume, which contains a selection of works taken from the edition of S. Bevilacqua plus theDialogi Meretricum, Laus Muscae, de Somno, and the Philalthes of MafFeo Vegio was reprinted by various publishers in 1527,1529,1535,1536,1537,1541,1545, and 1551; for an account of it see Argellati, F., Biblioteca degli volgarizzatori (Venice, 1767)Google Scholar, n, 343, and for Lonigo, who was an important writer also on medical matters, see Bietenholz, P., ‘Der italienische Humamsmus und die Bliitezeit des Buchdrucks in Basel,’ Basler Beitrage zur Geschichtswissenschaft, 73 (1959)Google Scholar, 145. See also note 40 below.
22 In the dedication of his translation, Marot describes what follows as ‘un traite de la valeur des armes’ which will, he hopes, seduce the young prince; for this translation see note 36 below.
23 An interesting early example of the diffusion of this version throughout Europe is to be found in a manuscript, now in the library of Balliol College, Oxford, where we have part of this transcribed in a collection of humanist texts assembled for William Grey; for this see R. Mynors, A. B., A Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Balliol College, Oxford (Oxford, 1963)Google Scholar, pp. xxvii and 332. The date of this compilation is 1442.
24 The text of this translation is preserved in Madrid, Bibl. Nacional 9522, fols. 113v-122v, under the title ‘un comparacion entre Alexandre et Anibal et Scipion.’ The conclusion reads: ‘Yojuro porJouys, o Scipion! Que tuhasfablado muy derechamente… et yo assi lo juzgo: que tu eres el mejor, et sea Alixandre el segundo, et el tercero, si te parece, Anjbal, que tanpoco este non es de desechar.’ The full text of this is published by A. J. Darnet, ‘Un dialogo de Luciano romanceado en el siglio xv,’ Facultad defilosofia y letras de la universidad de Buenos Aires, Cuademos, 1 (Buenos Aires, 1925), 143-159. For an earlier vernacular translation, that of Plutarch's Lives, see Luttrell, A., ‘Coluccio Salutati's letter to Juan Fernández de Heredia,’ Italia medioevale e umanistica, 13 (1970)Google Scholar, 236-243.
25 The version of the Controversie de Noblesse by Miélot was very popular and was finally printed in Bruges about 1478; an English version by John Tiptoft, entitled The Declamacion of Noblesse,was printed by Caxton in 1481; for this see Baron, pp. 423 and 558, m. 25. Interestingly enough, Aurispa had written a vernacular translation of the piece by Buonaccorso in 1425; for this see Sabbadini, R., Carteggio di Giovanni Aurispa, Fonti per la storia d'ltalia, 70 (Rome, 1931)Google Scholar, p. 174.
26 The text of Miélot's translation, taken from Cod. Palat.Vindob.3392, fols. 108-115, is printed in Becker, P. A., ‘Clement Marot und Lucian,’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 23 (1923)Google Scholar, 67-84. Miélot's role, at the court of Philip, was ‘de translater, escrirer et historier les livres de Monseigneur'; among his other works were translations of Cicero, Boccaccio, and of the Romuleon of Benvenuto da Imola (London, B.M. Royal MSS. 19 E V) and theDirectorium ad faciendum passagium transmarinum of Gulielmus Adam, Archbishop of Antivari (London, B.M. Royal MSS. 19 D 7); for this and other information about his work see Bossuat, R., ‘ Jean Miélot, traducteur de Ciceron,’ Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, 99 (1938), 82–124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 This translation is to be found in Mantua, Bibl. Com. Cod. A IV 30, fols. 46-52v; for this see d'Ancona, A., Origini del teatro italiano (Turin, 1891)Google Scholar, II, 359. For an account of Lapaccini himself see d'Ancona, A., ‘Il teatro mantovano del secolo xvi,’ Giomale storico delta letteratura italiana, 5 (1885)Google Scholar, 11f ; it is in this article that d'Ancona quotes a letter from Lapaccini, dated May 31, 1491, in which Lapaccini refers to festivities he had arranged for Isabella d'Este; this translation, it is suggested, was prepared as part of this ‘magna fantasia.'
28 The text of this speech, together with some letters of Cipriano, is preserved in Saint- Dié, Bibl. Municipale, MS. 37, fols. 14V-17V; it is unpublished, but a summary of its contents is printed by Count de Quatrebarbes, T., Oeuvres completes du Roi Rene (Angers, 1845)Google Scholar, p. box, where we find also printed the following transcription of the preface to this speech: ‘Anno domini 1441, die ultimo decembris, facti fuerunt ludi coram Serenissimo rege Renato in civitate Neapolis in Castro Novo ipsius civitatis. Inter quos ludos fuit celebratum spectaculum representans Scipionem, Alexandrum et Annibalem coram Minoe, disceptantes praesidentiae.’ Cipriano de’ Mari is an elusive figure. He was born in Genoa and his activities, both political and scholarly, are recorded and reported from a number of cities from about 1435 to 1455; die most recent account of his life is to be found in Balbi, G., L'epistolario di Iacopo Bracelli, Collana storica di fonti e studi, 2 (Genoa, 1969) p. 62 Google Scholar, n. 1.1 would like to thank Professor Alberto M. Ghisalberti for his help on this matter.
29 The text of this Contencio Alexandra Hanibalis Scipionis et Regis Henrici Quinti de presidentia coram Minoe is preserved in Dublin, Trinity College MS. 438 (D 4 24). It has been published in part, with a guess as to its author, by O'Sullivan, W., ‘John Manyngham: An early Oxford Humanist,’ Bodleian Library Record, 7 (1962), 28–39 Google Scholar. The verdict of Minos, as printed there, reads: ‘Per Jovem, Henrice, recte uti fortem et prudentem principem decet, perorasti. Quare cum in re militaris hiis aut equalem aut praestanciorem te esse scaim, prudentia vero equitate et iusticia ceterisque animi virtutibus longe hos superasse, te praeferendum esse censeo. Ac Scipio secundus erit, tercius vero Alexander et quartus si libet Hannibal, nee hie quidem spernendus est.'
30 The full title of this piece, as printed by J. Secerius in 1529, is Arminius. Dialogus Huttenicus.Quo modo patriae amantissimus Germanorum laudem celebravit.The speakers are Minos, Alexander, Mercury, Arminius, Scipio, Hannibal, and Tacitus. After the final speech of Arminius, Minos’ verdict is clear: ‘necesse est vero qui norunt Arminium, praeclaram ob indolem valde ament. Proinde auctum honore decet esse te, Germane, neque nos tuarum virtutum fas est unquam fieri immemores.’ For the text of this dialogue see Ulrichi Hutteni equitis germani opera quae reperiri potuerant omnia, ed. E. Böcking (Leipzig, 1859-1869), iv (1860), 409-418, and for an account of the nature of the myth of Arminius see Kuehnemund, R., Arminius or the rise of a National Symbol from Hutten to Grabbe, University of North Carolina Studies in German languages and literature, 8 (Chapel Hill, 1953)Google Scholar, esp. p. 15f.
31 For this see T. Distel, ‘Die erste Verdeutschung des zwolften Lukianischen Totengesprächs,’ Zeitschrift für vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte, N.F., 7 (1895), 4l4f. The final verdict reads: ‘Alexandrem fur den ersten, nach demselben dich, zuletzst wil es euch gefallen, so sei Hannibal der dritte, den er ist auch nicht zu verachten.’ Undoubtedly dependent on this is the dialogue by Ringman Philesius, Julius der erst Römische Keiser von seinem kriegen erst mals vsz dem Latin im Tütsch bracht und niiw getruckt (1507); in this the old argument about the relative merits of Scipio and Caesar is introduced into the traditional body of the Comparatio.
32
.,Florence, 1496 (Hain 10258); owing to the troubled political state of Florence not many copies of this edition were sold and the 1503 and 1522 editions of Manutius (Brunet, m, 1206) were more widely dispersed; it was, for example, a copy of the 1503 edition that Erasmus owned;
Hüsner, F., ‘Die Bibliothek des Erasmus,’
Gedenkschrift zum 400 Todestage des Erasmus von Rotterdam (Basel, 1936), p- 239
Google Scholar.
33 Deorum dialogi; dialogi marini; inferni dialogi, G. de Gourmont (Paris, 1512): ‘qua propter primus quidem Alexander, post ipsum vero tu, deinde (si visum fuerit) tertius Annibal sit, neque ille spernendus existens.’ The version by da Ponte is printed in Luciani omnes dialogi (The Hague, 1529), that includes also translations by Erasmus. Molsheym'sedition, Luciani... opera… a Graeco sermone in latinum, partim diversis autoribus, partim … per J. Mkyllutn translata (Strassburg, 1538), was reprinted in Frankfurt in 1543, in Paris in 1546, and in Lyons in 1549.
34 Part of Lucian made English from the Originall in the Yeare 1638 by Jaspar Mayne … (Oxford, 1663) p. 64.
35 O naybiednieysim stavu velikych Panuov. Lucyan (Prague, 1507), rpt. Monumenta Bohemiae Typographica 5 (Prague, 1928); it included also the Charon and the Palinurus; for Konáč, and this edition, see Dubrowsky, J., Geschichte der Böhmischen Sprache (Prague, 1818) p. 316 Google Scholar.
36 The text of Marot's version, first published in 1531, is most easily read in G.Guirfrey, Les Oeuvres de Clément Marot (Paris, 1875-1931), II, 29-44. This particular composition, and the work of Marot in general, has been most recently studied by Smith, P. M., Clement Marot: Poet of the French Renaissance (London, 1970)Google Scholar esp. p. 6f. Most of Marot's mistakes are geographical and derive, no doubt, from the fact that he had no idea about the identity of the places and names mentioned. He places Saragossa in Sicily (1. 48), locates Libya in Asia (1.185), confuses the river Tarsus with the river Issus (1.189), and describes Alexander not as the victor of Porus, but as the victor of Pyrrhus (1. 215). It seems from these and other mistakes in the text that Marot used the version by Mielot, for several of the confusions he has were first introduced into the tradition by Mielot, although others he added by himself.
37 For two such cassone panels, dating from the third quarter of the fifteenth century, one showing the defeat of Hannibal by Scipio, the other the triumph of Scipio, see A Catalogue of the European Paintings from the Minneapolis Institute of Arts (New York, 1971), nos. 201 (a) and 201 (b), p. 380. For cassoni in general, see Gombrich, E. H., ‘Apollonio di Giovanni: a Florentine cassone workshop seen through the eyes of a humanist poet,’ in Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance (London, 1966) pp. 11–28 Google Scholar.
38 Among such engravings of the subject of the allocutio of Scipio and Hannibal, as it is called, we may note in particular one by Antonio Salamanca (Bartsch, xv, 31. 5), after a design by Giulio Romano (Vasari-Milanesi, VI, 105) which was one of a series of designs for tapestries intended for Francis I; for this, and a French sixteenth-century drawing after this design, see A. E. Popham and Wilde, J., The Italian Drawings of the XVth and XVIth Centuries in the Collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle (London, 1949)Google Scholar, no. 1106, p. 361.
39 This illustrated copy, now in the library at Vienna (Inc. iv G 27) is described by H. J. Hermann, Illuminierte Handschriften und Inkunabeln der National-Bibliothek in Wien (Leipzig- Berlin, 1923-38) vi, 220-225, pis. Ixix-lxxii. The work of Bordone has been most recently considered by d'Ancona, M. Levi, ‘Benedetto Padovano e Benedetto Bordone,’ Commentari, 18 (1967), 21–42 Google Scholar.
40 For this edition, see above, note 21. I have been able to examine only copies of the editions of 1525,1527, 1535, 1536, and 1541, but it is clear from these that there are two distinct sets of illustrations, one found in the editions of 1527,1535, 1536, the other, containing somewhat finer woodcuts, in the editions of 1525 and 1541. A reproduction of the relevant woodcut, from the edition of 1525, is found in Rackham, B., ‘A Lucian subject by Nicola Pellipario,’ Bollettino del Museo Internazionale delle Ceramiche in Faenza, 22 (1934), 176–178 Google Scholar.
41 For this dish see Rackham, B., The Catalogue of Italian Majolica in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (London, 1940)Google Scholar 1, 185, no. 550.
