Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:50:31.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Progress of Renaissance Latin Prose: The Case of Apuleianism *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

John F. D'Amico
John F. D'Amico*
Affiliation:
George Mason University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Renaissance humanists’ quest for the perfect Latin style formed the central element in their views of literature and history and contributed fundamentally to the genesis of their cultural values. In order to establish the ideal Latin, the humanists searched the treasures of Antiquity and formed the critical standards necessary to judge and use ancient writers. As a consequence Renaissance Latin prose was dynamic, although within definite limits. It changed according to the increased knowledge and sophistication of both its practitioners and their audience. This essay will describe the changes that Latin prose (Latin poetry will be discussed only in passing) experienced in Italy in the last decades of the Quattrocento and first years of the Cinquecento. It will review the major schools of Latin prose composition—the eclectic, the strict imitative, and the “archaizing“— and concentrate on the last of these in an attempt to explain why some Italian humanists followed certain ancient but uncommon Latin models in their writing and, thereby, rejected, at least implicitly, a number of basic elements in the view of the Latin language and its history that was accepted during the Quattrocento.

Type
Research Article
Information
Renaissance Quarterly , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1984 , pp. 351 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Renaissance Society of America 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Shorter versions of this paper were presented at the Central Renaissance Conference, April 19, 1980, and at a Folger Institute Colloquium, December 21, 1982. The author wishes to thank Professors Paul Grendler, Paul O. Kristeller, and an anonymous reviewer for Renaissance Quarterly for helpful suggestions. All Latin quotationshave been modernized in typography and orthography, except for proper names.

References

1 There exists no satisfactory history of Renaissance Latin. For much information see Josef IJsewijn, Companion to Neo-Latin Studies (Amsterdam, 1977). IJsewijn, however, is not solely interested in Renaissance Latin, and he does not give much consideration to archaistic writers. In general, see also Paul Van Tieghem, La littérature latine de la Renaissance: étude d'histoire littéraire européenne (Paris, 1944). Old but still useful is Eduard Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vol VI. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bis in die Zeit der Renaissance , vol. 2 (rpt.: Stuttgart, 1958), pp. 763-809. For a general overview of recent work on Neo-Latin, see Lawrence V. Ryan,“Neo-Latin Literature,” in The Present State of Scholarship in Sixteenth Century Literature ,ed. William M. Jones (Columbia, Mo., 1978), pp. 197-257. For Italy, see Eugenio Garin,“La prosa latina del Quattrocento,“ in his Medioevo e Rinascimento: studi ericerche (Bari, 1966), pp. 109-23. Unfortunately, no work such as Margareta Benner and Emin Tengström, On the Interpretation of Learned Neo-Latin: An Explorative Study based on Some Texts from Sweden (1611-1716) (Göteborg, 1977), exists for Italian Renaissance Neo-Latin.

2 For humanist ideas on Latin, see Riccardo, Fubini, “La coscienza del latino negli umanisti:‘An latina lingua Romanorum esset peculiarc idioma,’ “Studi medievali, ser. 3, 2 (1961), 505-50;Google Scholar Karl Otto, Apel, L'idea di lingua nella tradizione dell'umanesimo da Dante a Vico ,Ital. trans. Luciano, Tosti (Bologna, 1975),Google Scholar and Marc, Fumaroli, L'Age de I'éloquence: rhétorique et‘res literaria’ de la Renaissance au seuil de I'époque classique (Geneva, 1980).Google Scholar

3 See Theodore E., Mommsen, “Petrarch's Conception of the‘Dark Ages,’ “ in his Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. Eugene F., Rice, Jr. (Ithaca, N.Y., 1959), pp. 106- 29.Google Scholar

4 See Prosatori latini del Quattrocento ,ed. Eugenio Garin (Milan, 1952), pp. 596/597. For Valla's literary theories, see LawrenceJ., Johnson, “The‘Linguistic Imperialism’ of Lorenzo Valla and the Renaissance Humanists,” Interpretation ,7 (1978), 29–49,Google Scholar and David, Marsh, “Grammar, Method, and Polemic in Lorenzo Valla's ‘Elegantiae,’ “ Rinascimento, 19 (1979), 91–116.Google Scholar For a comparison between Valla and classical and medieval Latin theorists, see Henry J. Stevens, Jr.,“Lorenzo Valla's Elegantiae: A Humanistic View of the Latin Language” (Unpublished Ph.D.|Thesis: Bryn Mawr College, 1974). For the fuller implications of Valla's thought, see Salvatore I., Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla: umanesimo e teologia (Florence, 1972).Google Scholar

5 The literature on imitation in Antiquity and the Renaissance is large and need not be rehearsed here. A useful bibliography can be found in Pigman, G. W., III,“Versions of Imitation in the Renaissance,” Renaissance Quarterly, 33 (1980), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Sec also, Thomas M., Greene, The Light in Troy: Imitation and Discovery in Renaissance Poetry (New Haven, 1982).Google Scholar

6 I have used the division proposed by Piero Floriani,“La‘Questione della Lingua’ e il‘Dialogo’ di P. Valeriano,” Giornale storico della letteratura italiana (hereafter cited as GSLI) ,15s (1978), 321-345; I have not, however, followed him in all particulars. For a valuable comparison between Cinquecento Italian literary theory and the ancientbased literary principles of the humanists, see Maurizio, Vitale, “ ‘Classicità letteraria e 'fiorentinità naturale: Genesi e forme degli elementi informatori della dottrina linguistica del tradizionalismo e del purismo italiano,” in Saggi di letteratura italiana in onore di Caetano Trombatore (Milan, 1973), pp. 533–68.Google Scholar For the vernacular, see also Ettore, Bonora, “II classicismo dal Bembo al Guarini,” in Storia della letteratura italiana, eds. Cecchi, E. and Sapegno, N., vol. IV, IlCinquecento (Milan, 1966).Google Scholar

7 On the“Questione della Lingua” see in general Robert A., Hall, Jr., The Italian Questione della Lingua: An Interpretative Essay (Chapel Hill, 1942);Google Scholar Ettore, Bonora, Critica e letteratura net Cinquecento (Turin, 1964)Google Scholar;“Questione della lingua,” in Dizionario critico della letteratura italiana (hereafter cited as DCLI) ,vol. 2 (Turin, 1973), pp. 432- 41; Maurizio, Vitale, La questione della lingua, 2nd ed. (Palermo, 1978);Google Scholar see also Paul Oskar, Kristeller, “The Origin and Development of the Language of Italian Prose,” in his Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters (Rome, 1956), pp. 473-93.Google Scholar

8 I use“classical” here in general to mean the establishment of a canon of best authors worthy of imitation and specifically to refer to the writings of the Latin Golden Age. This is an arbitrary designation which seems to correspond to Renaissance ideas. Aulus Gellius first used the term“classicus” to refer to a taxpaying citizen as opposed to a proletarius ,a non-taxpaying citizen. He called pre-Golden Age writers dassici ,but that use forms the antithesis of mine. See Georg Luck,“Scriptor classicus,” Comparative Literature ,Io(1958), pp. 150-58, and Ernst Robert, Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R., Trask (New York, 1963), chap. 14, pp. 247-72.Google Scholar For a recent discussion of the use of“classical” in Latin literature, see Wolfgang, Hering, “Die römische Literatur und der Begriffdcs Klassischen: Em Diskussionsbeitrag,“ Acta classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debrecensis, 4 (1968), 59–64.Google Scholar The term was used in the Renaissance to refer to the best writers; see Konrad, Krautter, Philologische Methode und humanistische Existenz: Filippo Beroaldo und sein Kommentar zum (Jaldenen Esel des Apuleius (Munich, 1971), p. 76,Google Scholar fn. 12, who cites Beroaldo”… neque enim decet frivolis grammaticorum observationibus astringi classicos summatesque scriptores.“

9 The clearest statement on Renaissance eclecticism is in Angelo Poliziano's letter to Paolo Cortesi; see the Latin text with Italian translation in Prosatori latini del Quattrocento , pp. 902-905. For Quintilian and eclecticism, see Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla.

10 Analyses of particular eclectic writers are few; see Guido, Martellotti, “Latinità del Petrarca,” Studi petrarcheschi, 7 (1961), 219-30;Google Scholar Giulio, Puccioni, “II numerus nel Coniurationis Commentariumdel Poliziano,” Maia, 23 (1971), 338-46,Google Scholar and Thomas, D. F. S., “The Latinity of Erasmus,” in Erasmus, ed. Dorey, T. A. (Albuquerque, 1970), pp. 115-37.Google Scholar

11 Prosatori lalini del Quattrocento ,pp. 902/903.

12 See Floriani,“La‘Questione della Linqua,’ “ 334. See the general bibliographical essay, Paola Vecchi, Galli, “La poesia cortigiana tra XV e XVI secolo: rassegna di testi e studi (1969–1981),” Lettere italiane, 34 (1982), 95–141.Google Scholar

l3 See Vincenzo Colli, Calmeta, Prose e lettere edite ed inedite, ed. Cecil, Grayson (Bologna, 1959);Google Scholar Pier Vincenzo, Mengaldo, “Appunti su Vincenzo Calmeta e la teoria cortigiana,“ La rassegna delta letteratura italiana, 64 (1960), 446-69,Google Scholar and Dizionario biografico degli italiani (hereafter cited as DBI) ,vol. 27, pp. 49-52.

14 On Castiglione, see DBI ,vol. 22, pp. 53-68; Giancarlo Mazzacurati, , “Baldassar Castiglione e la teoria cortigiana: ideologia di classe e dottrina critica,” Modern Language Notes, 83 (1968), 16–66,Google Scholar and Mario, Pozzi, “II pensicro linguistico di B. Castiglione,“ GSLI, 156 (1979), 179–202.Google Scholar

15 On Colocci, see Federico, Ubaldini, Vita di Mons. Angelo Colocci, ed. Fanelli, V., Studi e Testi #256 (Vatican City, 1969);Google Scholar the collection of essays in Atti del Convegno di studisu Angelo Colocci (Jesi, 1972), and DBI ,vol. 27, pp. 105-11.

16 On Trissino, see“Gian Giorgio Trissino,” DCLI ,vol. 3, pp. 518-22, and Griffith, T. Gwynfor, “Giangiorgio Trissino and the Italian Language,” Hermathena (Dublin), 121 (1976), 169-84.Google Scholar

17 Two old studies remain fundamental, Remigio, Sabbadini, Storia del ciceronianismo e di altre questioni letterarie nell'età della rinascenza (Turin, 1885),Google Scholar and Izora, Scott, Controversies over the Imitation of Cicero as a Model for Style and Some Phases of their Influence on the Schools of the Renaissance (New York, 1910).Google Scholar On Ciceronian style, see Harold C., GotofF, Cicero's Elegant Style: An Analysis of the‘Pro Archia’ (Urbana, 111., 1979).Google Scholar

18 See Giorgio, Santangelo, IlBembo critico e il principle d'imitazione (Florence, 1950)Google Scholar; idem,“ II‘principio dell'imitazionc’ nelle polemichc dei letterati italiani durante il Rinascimento,” Terzo programma ,3 (1961), 122-31, and Luigi, Baldacci, II Petrarchismo italiano net Cinquecento (Padua, 1974), ch. 1.Google Scholar

19 Bembo, however, did indicate that a modern writer could surpass the ancients; sec the texts in Le Epistole‘De Imitatione’ di Giovanfrancesco Pico delta Mirandola e di Pietro Bembo ,ed. Giorgio Santangelo (Florence, 1954). On the controversy between Bembo and Pico, see also Giorgio, Santangelo, “La polemica fra Pietro Bembo e Gian Francesco Pico intorno al principio d'imitazione,” Rinascimento, 1 (1950), 323-39;Google Scholar Pomilico, M., “Una fonte italiana del Ciceronianus di Erasmo,” Giornale italiano di filologia (hereafter cited as GIF) ,8 (1955), 193–207,Google Scholar and Dante della, Terza, “Imitatio: Theory and Practice. The Example of Bembo the Poet,” Yearbook of Italian Studies, 1 (1971), 119-41.Google Scholar

20 A clear presentation of this view is Paolo Cortesi's letter to Poliziano, Prosatori latini del Quattrocento ,pp. 904-11.

21 Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages ,p. 274, writes of“Standard Classicism,” “By this term I designate all authors and periods which write correctly, clearly, and in accordance with the rules, without representing the highest human and artistic values. For example: Xenophon, Cicero, Quintilian, Doilcau, Pope, Wieland. Standard Classicism is imitable and teachable.“

22 On Virgilian imitation, see Mario A., Di Cesare, Vida's Christiad and Vergilian Epic (New York, 1964), and DCLI ,vol. 3, pp. 631-32.Google Scholar

23 See Angelo Gambaro's introduction to Erasmus’, IlCiceroniatw (Brescia, 1965).Google Scholar On the diffusion of the Ciceronianus ,see Pigman, G. W., III,“Imitation and the Renaissance Sense of the Past: the Reception of Erasmus’ Ciceronianus,” The Journal oj Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 9 (1979), 155-77.Google Scholar For a valuable analysis, see Harold C., GotofF, “Cicero vs. Ciceronianism in the‘Ciceronianus,’ “ Illinois Classical Studies, 5 (1980), pp. 163-73,Google Scholar and idem,“ Stylistic Criticism in Erasmus’ Ciceronianus,” ibid. ,7 (1982), 358-70.

24 See Santangelo, Il Bembo critico ,and Hamletus Tondini,“De Ciceronianae imitationis ortu et progressione ab exordio renatarum litterarum ad P. Bembum,” Latinitas , (1960), 166-81. On Bembo's letters, see Ludwig von, Pastor, History of the Popes, Engl, trans. Ralph Francis, Kerr (St. Louis, 1908), vol. 8, pp. 482–511,Google Scholar and Ernesto, Travi, “Pietro Bembo e il suo epistolario,” Lettere italiane, 24 (1972), 277–309.Google Scholar

25 On Longueil, see Domenico, Gnoli, Un giudizio di lesa romanità sotto Leone X (Rome, 1891);Google Scholar Théophile Simar, Christophe de Longueil, humaniste 1488-1522 (Louvain, 1911); and the general article in DCLI ,vol. 2, pp. 442-44.

26 See Floriani,“La‘Questione della Lingua,’ “ 324-25, where he discusses the use of words from the Trecento as a form of classicism rather than archaism. In Pietro Bembo's Prose della volgar lingua Carlo Bembo comments“… spiega che la buona lin guaè quella che s'apprende da libri, e da libri sopra tutto degli autori eccellenti di un'età aurea, che se per Roma s'identifica in Cicerone e Virgilio, per il volgare italiano ha i suoi modelli in Boccaccio e Petrarca … “ (quoted in Bonora,“II classicismo dal Bembo al Guarini,” pp. 169-70). See also Vitale,“ ‘Classicità letteraria e‘fiorentinità naturale.“

27 See in general, Giuseppe, Izzi, “Petrarchismo e commentatori petrarcheschi del Cinquecento,” DCLI, vol. 3, pp. 33–41.Google Scholar

28 For Bembo, in addition to note 24, see DBl ,vol. 8, pp. 133-51 and Giancarlo, Mazzacurati, “Pietro Bembo,” in Storia delta cultura veneta, ed. Arnaldi, G. & Stocchi, M. Pastore, 3/II (Vicenza, 1980) pp. 1–59.Google Scholar Similar to Bembo's trecentismo was Niccolò Liburnio's usage; see Luigi, Peirone, Tradizione ed irrequietezza in Nicolò Lihurnio (Genoa, 1968).Google Scholar

29 For the European diffusion of Petrarchism, see Leonard, Forster, The ley Fire: Five Studies in European Petrarchism (London, 1969),Google Scholar and idem,“ On Petrarchism in Latin and the role of anthologies,” in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Lovaniensis (Leuven/Munich, 1973), PP- 235-44.

30 This essay is greatly indebted to the work of Carlo, Dionisotti, especially his Gli umanisti e il volgarefra quattro e cinquecento (Florence, 1968).Google Scholar See also Sabbadini, Storia del ciceronianismo ,pp. 42-45. Possibly the term“mannerism” could be used for this school as a means of distinguishing it from“classicism“; see Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages ,ch. 15. I have retained the terms Apuleian and archaizing as descriptive, since archaic vocabulary was a distinctive element in Apuleius’ writings as well as in the Renaissance movement. For Apuleius as a literary influence in the Renaissance, see Elizabeth H., Haight, Apuleius and His Influence (New York, 1963);Google Scholar Claudio, Moreschini, “Sulla fama di Apuleio nel Medioevo e nel Rinascimento,” in Studi filologici, letterari e storici in memoria di Cuido Favati (Padua, 1977), vol. 2, pp. 457- 76;Google Scholar Silvana, Maniscalco, “Criteri e sensibilità di Agnolo Firenzuola, traduttore di Apuleio,“ La rassegna della letteratura italiana, 82 (1978), 88–109;Google Scholar and Scobie, A., “The Influence of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses in Renaissance Italy and Spain,” in Aspects of Apuleius’ Golden Ass, ed. Hijmans, B. L., Jr. and Paardt, R. Th. van dor (Groningen, 1978), pp. 211-30.Google Scholar

31 For Beroaldo, see DBI ,vol. 9, pp. 382-84; Sabbadini, Storia del ciceronianismo ,pp. 42-45; Eugenio, Garin, “Note suH'insegnamentodi Filippo Beroaldo il Vecchio,” in his La cultura filosofica del Rinascimento italiano, 2nd ed. (Florence, 1979), pp. 364-87;Google Scholar idem , “Note in margine all'opera di Filippo Beroaldo il Vecchio,” Tra latino e volgare per Carlo Dionisotti ,vol. 2 (Padua, 1974), pp. 437-56, which is reprinted with the title“ Filippo Beroaldo, il Vecchio: un universitario inquieto,” in his Rinascite c rivoluzioni: movimenti culturali dal XIVal XVIIsecolo (Bari, 1975), pp. 199–218;Google Scholar Ezio, Raimondi, Codro e l’umanesimo a Bologna (Bologna, 1952), pp. 90–107;Google Scholar Maria Teresa, Casella, “II nietodo dei commentatori umanistici esemplato sul Beroaldo,” Studi medievali, 16 (1975), 627– 701,Google Scholar and Paolo, Viti, “Filippo Beroaldo traduttore del Boccaccio,” Rinascimento, 15 (1975), 111-40.Google Scholar

32 See Krautter, Philologische Methode und humanistische Existenz ,and Baxandall, M. and Gombrich, E. H., ldquo;Beroaldus on Francia,“ Journal of the Warburg and (^ourtauld Institutes) (﹛hereafter cited as JWCI) ,25 (1962), 113-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 , For anti-Ciceronian tendencies in Beroaldo, see Ezio, Raimondi, “Quattrocento bolognese: università e umancsimo,” in his Politica e commedia: dal Beroaldo al Machiavelli (Bologna, 1972), pp. 15–58,Google Scholar at pp. 38-39. Raimondi describes Beroaldo's style as“espressionismo linguistico.” Beroaldo's student, Giovanni Battista Pio, referred to the Ciceronians as“idre ciceroniane“; see Raimondi, Codro e l’umanesimo a Bologna ,p. no, also Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il volgare ,p. 101. Conversely, Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa ,pp. 590-91, emphasized the anti-Apuleian character of humanist Ciceronianism. Later in the sixteenth century Apuleius and other later Latin writers with archaistic tendencies were used against the dominant Ciceronianism; see Morris W., Croll, “Attic” and Baroque Prose Style: Essays by Morris W. Croll, ed. Patrick, J. Max, Robert O., Evans, John W., Wallace (Princeton, 1966), and IJsewijn, Companion ,pp. 241-42.Google Scholar

34 See Charles G., Nauert, “Caius Plinius Secundus,” in Catalogus Translationum et Comtnentariorum: Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, (hereafter cited as CTC) ,vol. 4, ed. Cranz, F. Edward and Paul O., Kristeller (Washington, D.C., 1980), pp. 237-41, at pp. 332-35.Google Scholar

35 On Pio, see Ezio Raimondi, Codro e l’umanesimo a Bologna ,pp. 108-13; Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il volgare ,pp. 81-128; Ezio, Raimondi, “II primo commento umanistico a Lucrezio,” in Tra latino e volgare, vol. 2, pp. 641-74;Google Scholar Valerio del, Nero, “Note sulla vita di Giovan Battista Pio (con alcune lettere inedite),” Rinascimento, 21 (1981), 247-63.Google Scholar Beroaldo seems to have had some imitators north of the Alps; see Remigio, Sabbadini, ” ‘Appuleius rudens’ e il latino neoafricano,” Rivista difilologia e d'istruzione classica, 32 (1904), 60–62.Google Scholar

36 Pio also composed Cebetis Tabulae interpretatio desultoria Pii ,which was noted for its unusual vocabulary, for Isabella Gonzaga.

37 See Raimondi,“Il primo commento umanistico a Lucrczio,” p. 641.

38 See Dionisotti, , Gli umanisti e il volgare ,p. 99. In his dedicatory letter to Sidonii Apollinarispoema aureum eiusdetnque epistolae (Milan, 1498)Google Scholar (see Hain, L., Rcpertorium bibliographicum (Stuttgart/Paris, 1821-1838)Google Scholar, #1287), fol. A 3V (?), Pio writes,“Eius extant epistolae, et nonnulli versus, reverendae antiquitatis opus observantissimum et retinentissimum appuleiani fulminis aemulum, litteratoribus trivialibus ncutiquam placiturum, qui unico libello contend senes elementarii cupressum fingcre norunt, ad omnem oculariam aegritudinem uno, ut ait Hieronymus, utentes collyrio. Intemperiarum pleni et litium depectores [sic]. In trivium veluti in pristinum filum elocutile(m| detrudere nitibundi, praestigiosum scio non comptum sidonianum stilum appellabunt.“ Also in his commentary to Enarrationes allegoricae fabularum Fulgentii Placiadis [sic] (Milan, 1498) (Hain #7392), at fol. a 3, Pio writes,”… Fulgentius auctor qui maxime nitidissimus eloquentia levigatiori filo dicendi tereti, exacto, excusso, absolutissimo orsus auscultationem fabularum ex situ vetustatis erutarum cnodatoriam prolectat, illicit, errogat et penitissimo vinculo conciliat audatorum |sic; auditorum] lubentiam scribens procellis bellicis undiquovorsum detonantibus quieti.” The Enarrationes has appended to them“Fabii Fulgentii Placiadis [sic] [expositio] vocum antiquarum cum testimonio ad Calcidium,” at fols. g 1-g 5. For Fulgentius’, Expositio sermonutn antiquarum ,see Fulgentius the Mythographer, trans. Leslie George, Whitbread (Columbus, Ohio, 1971), pp. 157-75,Google Scholar and Pietro, Magno, “Su alcune citazioni di FulgenzioriguardantiEnnioePacuvio,” Rivista di studi classici, 26 (1978), 451-58.Google Scholar Pio's adherence to Fulgentius and Sidonius and their excessive artificiality was in part, according to Raimondi,“II primo commento umanistico a Lucrczio,” p. 644, a rejection of Apuleius. Yet its erudite qualities (or at least its unusualncss) and Pio's connecting Apuleius and Sidonius would seem to argue against this.

39 See del Nero,“Note sulla vita di Giovan Battista Pio,” 255.

40 Pio fought with the Ciceronian Romolo Amaseo at Bologna; see del Nero,“Note sulla vita di Giovan Battista Pio,” 256-57; for Amaseo, see DBI ,vol. 2, pp. 660-60. Pio seems to have had some influence among his own students, especially Achille, Bocchi, who defended Pio in his Apologia in Plautum (Bologna, 1508)Google Scholar and praised him in Carmina in laudem Iohannis Baptistae Pii (Bologna, 1509). See Raimondi,“Il primo commento umanistico a Lucrezio,” p. 651; for Bocchi, see DBI ,vol. 11, pp. 67-70.

41 For Barbaro, see DBI ,vol. 6, pp. 96-99. See Hermolai Barbari Castigationes Plinianae et in Pomponium Melam ,ed. Giovanni Pozzi, 4 vols. (Padua, 1973-79).

42 Raffaele, Maffei in his Commentariorum urbanorum octo et triginta libri (Rome, 1506),Google Scholar fol. 299v, writes of Barbaro,“Scripsit plinianas castigationes, ut ipse inscripsit, opus impar eius dignitati et vitae instituto, moribus alioqui castissimis. Dictionum in utraque lingua curiosissimus fuit, easque a quovis discere non dedignabatur, saepeque proximos et famihares de aliquo dubio percontabatur.” Erasmus in his Ckeronianus ,Gambaro edition, p. 216, comments on Barbaro,“Vere magnum ac divinum hominem protulisti, sed in dicendo Ciceroni dissimillimum, et ipso pene Fabio Plinioque elaboratiorem, cuius eloquentiae nonnihil offecit philosophiae studium.“ Juan Luis, Vives in his De tradendis disciplinis (in Opera Omnia [Valencia, 1785; rpt. London, 1964],Google Scholar vol. 6, p. 341) writes of Barbaro,”… Hermolaus durum stili genus quoddam affectavit submorosum ex vetustissimis et nuperrime inventis vocabulis conflatum, ut Ennium et Plautum Apuleio Capellaque [sic] videatur miscuisse… .“

43 For humanist commentaries, see the introduction to vol. 1 of Hermolai Barbari Castigationes Plinianae; Casella,“Il metodo dei commentatori,” and Grafton, A., “On the Scholarship of Politian and its Context,“ JWCI, 40 (1977), 150-88.Google Scholar For a list of ancient authors available in the Quattrocento, see Dorothy M., Robathan, “A Fifteenth- Century History of Latin Literature,” Speculum, 7 (1932), 239-48.Google Scholar

44 On Boccaccio and Apuleius, see Haight, E. H., “Apuleius and Boccaccio,” in her More Essays on Creek Romances (New York, 1945), pp. 113-41.Google Scholar I have not been able to read Laura Sanguilineti, White, Boccaccio e Apuleio: caratteri differenziali nella struttura narrativa del Decameron (Bologna, 1977).Google Scholar

45 For the Apuleius edition, see Giovanni Andrea, Bussi, Prefazioni alle edizioni di Sweynheym e Pannartz prototipografi romani, ed. Massimo, Miglio (Milan, 1978), pp. 11– 19.Google Scholar For other early editions of Apuleius, see Cesamtkatalog der Wiegetidrucke ,vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1926), #2301-2305.

46 See Bussi's preface in Prefazioni ,p. 14. Similar to Bussi's treatment of Apuleius was the commentary on Apuleius’ works by Benvenutus de Imola (Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 3384). Benvenutus did discuss aspects of Apuleius' vocabulary, but his primary interest was on the philosophical, especially Neo- Platonic, elements of Apuleius’ thought. A copy of Apuleius’ De Deo Socratis ,owned by Panormita (Vat. Lat. 3385) has occasional identifications of words from Ennius, but offers no systematic exploration of Apuleius’ style.

47 Apuleius cum commento Beroaldi et figuris noviter additis (Venice, 1516), a 3, “[Asinum aureum] quern noster Apuleius aemulatus et ipse apud latinos consimili argumento stiloque nitidissimo condidit undecim volumina de Asino Aureo sive metamorphoseon, in quibus elegans est, eruditus, emunctus. Et cum haud dubie ex racemis Luciani sibi fecerit vindemiam, eoque uno archetypo prope peculiariter sit usus, magna tamen inter graecum latinumque asinum differentia … Sunt praeterea in Lucio nostro verba non parum multa interseminata, quibus magis delecter, quam utar, plurima vero quibus perinde utar ac delecter. Et sane novator plerumque verborum est elegantissimus, tantoque cum decore et venere, ut nihil decentius, nihil venustius fieri possit. Denique hie noster Asinus, sicut verbo dicitur, ita re ipsa aureus conspicitur, tanto dicendi lepore, tanto cultu, tanta verborum minime trivialium elcgantia concinnatus compositusque, ut de eo id dici meritissimo possit, Musas Apuleiano sermone lo quuturas fuisse, si latine loqui vellent, et (ut dicam quod sentio) plurimum conferre Apulei[i] frequens lectio ad excolendam linguam potest, ct ad earn eloquentiae partem, quam sermonatricem [sic] appellant, maxime est accommodata.“

48 See Sabbadini,“ ‘Appuleius rudens,’ “ 61-62.

49 For Plautus, see Cesare, Questo, Per la storia del testo di Plauto nell'Umanesimo: I, La 'recensio’ di Poggio Bracciolini (Rome, 1968)Google Scholar. For Merula's introduction to the Venice, 1472 edition, see Beriah, Botfield, Praefationes et Epistolae editionibus principibus auctorum veterum praepositae (Cambridge, 1861), pp. 141-45.Google Scholar For an example of a humanist's knowledge of Plautus, see Sebastiano, Timpanaro, “Noterelle su Domizio Calderini e Pietro Giordani,” Tra latino e volgare, vol. 2, pp. 709-16, at pp. 709-12.Google Scholar

50 For Cato, see the article by Virginia Brown in CTC ,vol. 4, pp. 223-47. Ennius was known to humanists only in fragments; see Jessie, Poesch, “Ennius and Basinio of Parma,“ JWCI, 25 (1962), 116-18.Google Scholar

51 On Pliny, see the article by Charles Nauert, Jr., in CTC ,vol. 4, pp. 293-422; idem,“ Humanists, Scientists and Pliny: Changing Approaches to a Classical Author,“ American Historical Review ,84, (1979), 72-85; also Bussi, Prefazioni ,pp. 44-46.

52 For Beroaldo, see CTC ,vol. 4, pp. 332-35, and for Perotti, pp. 325-29.

53 Ibid. ,pp. 310-n.

54 For Beroaldo, seeKrautter, Philologische Methode und humanistische Existenz , p. 19, fn. 36. For Gellius, see also Schoeck, R.J., “More's Attic Nights: Sir Thomas More's Use of Aulus Gellius’ ‘Noctes Atticae,’ “ Renaissance News, 13 (1960), 127-29;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hans, Baron, “Aulus Gellius in the Renaissance: His Influence and a Manuscript from the School of Guarino,” in From Petrarch to Leonardo Bruni: Studies in Humanistic and Political Literature (Chicago, 1968), pp. 196–215;Google Scholar dela Mare, A. C., Marshall, P. K., Rouse, R. H., “Pietro da Montagnana and the Text of Gellius in Paris: B. N. Lat. 13038,” Scriptorium, 30 (1976), 219-25;Google Scholar and Leopoldo, Gamberale, “Note sulla tradizione di Gellio,” Rivista difilologia e d'istruzione classica, 103 (1975), 33–55.Google Scholar For Bussi's introduction, see Prefazioni , pp. 19-28.

55 See the introduction by Wallace M., Lindsay to Sexti Pompei Festi De verborum significatu quae supersunt cum Pauli Epitome, ed. Wallace M., Lindsay (Leipzig, 1913), p. xxi.Google Scholar

56 For Nonius, see Hain #11899-11909; #11903-11909 list editions with Varro; #11909 is Pio's. See also Paolo, Gatti, “Interpolazioni umanistiche in un codice di Nonio (Vat. Lat. 1554),” Studi Noniani, 6 (1980), 103-15Google Scholar (the manuscript discussed includes excerpts from Festus); Ferruccio, Bertini, “Niccolò Perotti e il‘De compendiosa doctrina’ di Nonio Marcello,” Res Publica Litterarum, 4 (1981), 27–41,Google Scholar and idem , “Tracce del libro XVI del‘De compendiosa doctrina,’ di Nonio nel‘Comucopiae’ del Perotti,” ibid. ,5 (1982), 7-12.

57 See edition cited in note 55; also Roberta, Cervani, L'epitome di Paolo del‘De verborum significatu’ di Pompeo Festo: struttura e metodo (Rome, 1978)Google Scholar, and Moscadi, A., “Verrio, Festo e Paolo,” GIF, n.s., 10 (1979), 17–36.Google Scholar

58 See the article by Virginia Brown on Varro in CTC ,vol. 4, pp. 451-500; also Josef, IJsewijn, “De fortuna Varronis apud scriptores latinos Renatarum Litterarum aetate,” in Atti del Congresso intemazionale di studi varroniani (Rieti, 1976), vol. 1, pp. 225-42;Google Scholar Aloisius dal Santo,“Fr. Petrarca Varroni Reatino quid scripserit ab urbe Roma a. domini MCCCL,” Studi su Varrone, sulla retoriat, storiografia e poesia latina: scritti in onore di Benedetto Riposati (Rieti, 1979), vol. 1, pp. 117-32. Pomponio Leto's introduction to the De lingua latina (Rome, 1471) is in Botfield, Praefationes et Epistolae ,p. 136; see also Maria Accame, Lanzillotta, “L'opera di Festo nel‘Dictatum’ varroniano di Pomponio Leto (Vat. Lat. 3415),” GIF, n.s., 11 (1980), 261-99.Google Scholar

59 See Raimondi,“II primo commento umanistico a Lucrezio,” for analysis. For Lucretius, see also W. B. Fleischmann in CTC ,vol. 2, pp. 349-65, and Michael D., Reeve, “The Italian Tradition of Lucretius,” IMU, 23 (1980), 27–48.Google Scholar

60 For inscriptions, see Roberto, Weiss, The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity (New York, 1973), ch. II.Google Scholar

61 Hain #13025 mistakenly gives Venice, 1488 for the Annotamenta; for the Praelectioin Plautum, Accium et Apuleium (Bologna, 1498), see Hain #13026; for the Praelectio in Lucretium et Suetonium (Bologna, s.a.), Hain #13027. In his dedicatory letter to Cardinal Soderini in the Annotamenta (Bologna, 1505), fol. A iv, Pio emphasizes erudition, “Eruditorum aetas prolyxa merito dicenda est: quoniam auctore Possidonio, unus dies eruditorum plus patet quam imperitorum longissima aetas.” At fol. Bi, Pio praises Aulus Gellius,“verum a non minus erudito quam nitido et emuncto scriptore Gelio, autoreillustratorequenobilitatum… .” Pio also composed a commentary on Valerius Flaccus (Bologna, 1519).

62 See Brown on Varro in CTC ,vol. 4, p. 457, for Merula.

63 See Revilo P., Oliver, “New Fragments of Latin authors in Perotti's Cornucopiae,“ Transactions of the American Philological Association, 78 (1947), 376–424 Google Scholar, and the collected articles on Perotti in Res Publica Litterarum ,4 (1981) and 5 (1982).

64 See Ottavio, Besomi, “Un nuovo autografo di Giovanni Tortelli: uno schedario di umanista,” IMU, 13 (1970), 95–137, esp. at 135-37,Google Scholar and Maria Donata, Rinaldi, “Fortuna e diffusione del‘De Orthographia’ di Giovanni Tortelli,” ibid ,16 (1973), 227-61.Google Scholar

65 See Casella, M. T. and Pozzi, G., Francesco Colonna: biografia e opere, 2 vols., (Padua, 1959);Google Scholar Giovanni, Pozzi and Giulia, Gianella, “Scienza antiquaria e letteratura. II Feliciano. II Colonna,” in Storia della cultura veneta, 3/I, pp. 459-98,Google Scholar and DBI ,vol. 27, pp.220-303.

66 Ibid. ,pp. 78-126, for details; Colonna also used Perotti's Cornucopiae ,p. 134.

67 See Lorenza, Simona, Giacomo Caviceo: uomo di chiesa, d'arme e di lettere (Bern, 1974),Google Scholar and DBI ,vol. 23, pp. 93-97.

68 See Simona, op cit. ,pp. 102-103.

69 This is discussed in John F., D'Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome: Humanists and Churchmen on the Eve of the Reformation (Baltimore, 1983), ch. 5.Google Scholar

70 See Vittore, Branca, “L'umanesimo veneziano alia fine del Quattrocento: Ermolao Barbaro e il suo circolo,” in Storia delta cultura veneta, 3/I, pp. 123-75.Google Scholar

71 On Cortesi, see Kathleen, Weil-Garris and John F., D'Amico, “The Renaissance Cardinal's Ideal Palace: A Chapter from Cortesi's De Cardinalatit,” in Studies in Italian Art and Architecture, 15th through 18th Centuries, ed. Henry A., Millon (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, vol. XXXV, Rome, 1980), pp. 45–119,Google Scholar also published separately in an expanded version (Rome, 1980); John F. D'Amico, , “Paolo Cortesi's Rehabilitation of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola,” Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 44 (1982), 37–51,Google Scholar and idem, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome ,index.

72 An exact date for these letters cannot be given. In his De hominibus doctis dialogus , (ca. 1490), Cortesi makes what seems to be a specific reference to Poliziano's letter when criticizing the failed Ciceronian imitation of Andrea Contrario:“Sed Andream Contrarium placuisse quibusdam scio, quod ilia lumina Ciceronis ingeniose admodum consectari videretur, sed aliquanto tamen abest ab optimo gcnere imitandi, et ut scite amicus noster ait: non ille quidem ut alumnus, sed ut simia effingit.” (See Paolo, Cortesi, De hominibus doctis dialogus, ed., trans, and annotated by Maria Teresa, Graziosi [Rome, 1973], pp. 62/64,Google Scholar and note 125 for comparison with Poliziano's text.) Roberto Weiss, in DCLI ,vol. I, pp. 633-36, inaccurately dated the letters 1492-93.

73 See Prosatori latini del Quattrocento ,pp. 902-905; Sabbadini, Storia del ciceronianismo , pp. 34-38, and Scott, Controversies ,pp. 17-22.

74 See Prosatori latini del Quattrocento ,pp. 906-911; Sabbadini, Storia del ciceronianismo , pp. 39-42, and Scott, Controversies ,pp. 17-22.

75 Prosatori latini del Quattrocento ,pp. 906/907.

76 In addition to the edition cited in note 72, another edition by Giacomo Ferrau (Palermo, 1981) has appeared.

77 The best discussion of the text is Giacomo Ferrau,“II‘De hominibus doctis’ di Paolo, Cortesi, ” in Umanita e storia: scritti in onore di Adelchi Attisani, vol. 2 (Naples, 1971), pp. 261-90.Google Scholar

78 Examples of Cortesi's poetry can be found in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 5170 and Urb. Lat. 729; see Giovanni, Zannoni, “Strambotti inediti del sec. XV,” Rendiconti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, ser. 5, 1 (1892), 371-87,Google Scholar and Mario, Menghini, “Poesie inedite del sec. XV,” Rassegna bibliografica della letteratura italiana, 3 (1895), 17–27.Google Scholar

79 In his De Cardinalatu (Castrum Cortesianum, 1510), fol. M 5V (and Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il volgare ,p. 66), Cortesi writes,“Proprium genus [sermonis] est quod nee altitudine nee tenuitate constat, sed quod intermedia mediocritate temperatur… . Mediocritas autem ea videri debet, in qua nihil aut defuturum aut redundaturum sit, quo sit in alterutram propensura partem: quo genere maxime est idem Johannes Boccacius [sic] in mythologica centuria usus; quod idem etiam modo Petrus Bcmbus Venetus sequi in eo maxime libello solet, in quo per antilogiam de amatoria ratione disceptatur.“

80 See Pio, Paschini, “Teologia umanistica,” Rivista di sloria delta Chiesa in Italia, II (1957), 253-55,Google Scholar and D'Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome ,ch. 6.

81 In addition to the bibliography cited in note 71, see also Delio Cantimori,“Questioncine sulle opere progettate da Paolo, Cortesi, ” in Studi di bibliografia e di storia in onore di Tammaro de Marinis, vol. I (Verona, 1964), pp. 273-80,Google Scholar and Anna Gracci,“Studio su Paolo Cortesi da San Gimignano ed il suo‘De Cardinalatu,’ “ (Thesis, University di Firenze, 1967).

82 De Cardinalatu (Castrum Cortesium, 1510), no pagination:“Materiae campos egredi vagarique interdum oportuna digressione videtur, ut lectorem fastidio levet at-querecreet, verba insuper nova ac fere Apuleiana expiscari curiosus, non tam ambitioni quam necessitati serviens in his quae lepide dici non aliter poterant, quando semel, uti narravi, ad ornatum omnia revocabat.” In a letter to Cortesi, Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Barb. Lat. 2517, fols. I I - I I V , Maffei wrote of the vocabulary in the De Cardinalatu as follows:“Verba trifariam mihi distincta sunt visa. Quaedam ante omnia satis trita… . Nonnulla recondita magis, attamen in lexicis, quorum magna est copia cognitu facilia. Tertium genus Apuleianum totum ac tuum est, quod tantum interpretem requirebat, quo sine nee oracula cuncta aut mantea [i.e., μαѵτɛíα] veteribus celebrata, non Sibyllae aut Cimeriorum antra, non magorum sapientia, non denique Babyloniorum praedictiones penetrassent.” On Maffei, see John F. D'Amico, “Papal History and Curial Reform in the Renaissance: Raffaele, Maffei 's Breuis Historia of Julius II and Leo X,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 18 (1980), 157–210,Google Scholar and idem, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome ,chs. 3, 8, 9.

83 Df Cardinalatu ,fol. Mi.

84 I have consulted the following dictionaries: Charlton T., Lewis and Charles, Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1879),Google Scholar Thesaurus linguae Latinae (Leipzig, 1900-81), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1968-82). For an interpretation of the phrase, see DBI ,vol. 5, p. 566.

85 The annotations are in De Cardinalatu ,fols. X1-X8. De Cardinalatu ,fol. X 3V, “Grammatociphon [sic] est qui capite demisso scribit in genibus, hie accipiuntur pro his scriptoribus libellorum qui Romae dicuntur copiistae [sic] supplicationum.” At fol. Xi, Lattanzio writes,“Nunc autem Senatum Pauli fratris opus consensu cruditorum exactissimum cum ad publicam utilitatem edidissem, putavique operae pretium me facturum, si annotatiunculas hasce, veluti appendices quasdam, quibus quasi glossematis illustraretur nexuissem … Neque vero omnia sum scrupulose et minutatim persecutus, sed ea tamen quae obstruere iter, aut lectorem morari viderentur, ne et in minimis tedio eruditis, et in magnis essem dispendio rudioribus.“

86 Cortesi made use of such phrases as“non dubito quin,” “cum perspicuum sit,“ “nihil causae esse debet quin,” “videri debet,” “ex hocintelligendum est” as formulas. For formulas in Beroaldo, see Krautter, Philotogische Methode und humanistischc lixistenz , pp. 44-45. Both writers, but more so Cortesi, commented on recent events and personalities.

87 De Cardinalatu ,fol. N10v , speaking of the charity a cardinal should give,“Sed cum varia propinquorum genera esse videamus, intelligendum quidem est, quomodo quisque sit minus magisve colendus, quidve debeat in virtutis collatione secerni: nee enim dubitationem habet, quin necesse fateri sit, in Pontificia dignitate adipiscenda plus esse alieno erudito quam rudi fratri a Senatore tribuendum …,” and fol. Ni iv, when advocating the more eloquent studies,“At multo magis censemus senatores in eos visum iri debere liberales quos eloquentiae maxime cernunt praestare laude: siquidem eo est huic hominum generi favendum magis, quo oratorium munus difficilius et rarius iudicari potest; nam si caeterarum artium repetantur studia, facile in prompt esse poterit, plures semper in omni scientiarum genere, quam in eloquentiae facultate praestitisse raroque dicendo floruisse multos.“

88 Beroaldo defended his style by writing,“Me scriptio non trivialis sed erudita delectat, quae neque per periodos neque per longos verborum ambitus, sed verbis significantibus et propriis cuncta exprimat ac effingat” (Krautter, Philologische Methode und humanistische Existenz ,p. 87, fn. 58, citing from“Ad magnificum et ornatissimum virum Bartholomeum Chalcum ducalem secretarium Philippi Beroaldi Bononiensis epistola,” in Orationes multifariae [Bologna, 1500]). Beroaldo valued Apuleius more as an auctor eruditus than as a storyteller; see Krautter, op cit. ,pp. 64-65. Beroaldus in the Apaleius commentary (Venice, 1516, fol. a2) praises Archbishop Peter Varadi of Kalocsa for his support of erudite men,“Et cum eruditis sit amicitia tua vel maxime concupiscenda. Tu eruditorum benivolentiam studiose expectis [sic; expetis] muneribusque concilias. Nullus in Italia litterarum litteratorumque altrice ac parente est studiorum claritate paulo celebrior, qui non tibi sit glutino amicitiae copulatus. Tu me perinde ac in studiis humanitatis neque postremum neque imi subselli professorem muneribus [es] prosequutus.“

89 See Rene, Maraché, La critique littéraire de langue latine et le développement du goût archaϊsant au He siècle de notre ère (Rennes, 1952), bk. I, ch. 3Google Scholar

90 Both Ciceronians and eclectics detected in Apuleius’ Latin an enemy which they referred to as“African style.” For examples of this attitude, see Nordcn, Die antike Kunstprosa ,pp. 590-91. See also below, note 133.

91 See Krautter, Philologische Methode und humanistische Existenz ,pp. 49, 84, 85, and idem,“ Angelo Poliziano als Kritiker von Filippo Beroaldo,” Res Puhlica Litterarum ,4 (1981), 315-30, for other types of criticism.

92 See A. Campana in DBI ,vol. 1, pp. 126-32, and Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il volgare ,p. i n .

93 For manuscripts and edition, see Remigio, Sabbadini, “Una satira contro Battista Pio,” GSLI, 27 (1895), 185-86;Google Scholar idem,“ Briciole umanistiche XLIV: Battista Pio,” ibid. , 47 (1906), 39; and Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il volgare ,p. i n .

94 See Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il volgare ,p. 112. On Equicola, see Domenico, Santoro, Delia vita e delle opere di Mario Equicola (Chieti, 1906).Google Scholar Santoro, p. 189, labels Equicola's Latin as eclectic; although he did make use of such writers as Plautus, Pliny and Festus, it was not for archaizing purposes. Rather than a true archaizer, Equicola seems to have been an eclectic using archaic words on occasion. Equicola was also significant in vernacular literature; see Marcello, Aurigemma, “Il gusto letterario di Mario Equicola nella prima parte del‘De natura de amore,’ “ in Studi di letteratura e di storia in memoria di Antonio di Pietro (Milan, 1977), pp. 86–106,Google Scholar and Mario, Pazzi, “Mario Equicola e la cultura cortigiana: appunti sulla redazione manoscritta del‘Libro de natura de Amore,’ “ Lettere ilaliane, 32 (1980), 149-71.Google Scholar Floriani,“La‘Questione della Lingua,’ “ 33, considers Equicola an“Apuleian” in the vernacular. I have not seen Camillo P. Merlino,“The Neo-Latin Studies of Mario Equicola” (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, 1928).

95 See Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il volgare ,pp. 117-21.

96 See Raimondi,“Il primo commcnto umanistico a Lucrezio,” at pp. 672-73, where he comments on Sabino's condemnation,“La condanna del Florido Sabino pii che 1’ ‘eruditio’ riguardava lo stile ed emanava da un'interpretazione diacronica della lingua latina, tradotta in un canone d'ordine moderatamente classicistico, che affermava la realtà storica di‘tempora diversa’ con le trc‘aetates’ di Plauto, di Cicerone e di Plinio, risultando poi quella‘media’ la‘perfectissima’ da cui attingere le‘locutiones', senza per altro ridursi alia sola prosa ciceroniana. Ma in verità, allorché continuando si legge, in un altro libro delle Lectiones [subcisivae of Sabino], il duro giudizio ideologico su Lucrezio, Plinio e gli altri‘eiusdem haereseos… .’ “ On Sabino, see Remigio, Sabbadini, “Vita e operedi Francesco Florido Sabino,” GSLI, 8 (1886), 333-63,Google Scholar and Edilio, Leoni, “Profilo dell'umanista sabino Francesco Florido,” in Lunario Romano IX: Rinascimento net Lazio, ed. Renato, Lefevre (Rome, 1979), pp. 241-60.Google Scholar

97 Krautter, Philologische Methode und humanistische Existenz ,p. 85, fn. 56, cites from Sabino's Lectiones subcisivae ,in J. Gruterus, Lampas ,I, p. 1121,“Philippus Beroaldus … vix tantum viva voce suis lucubrationibus gloriae comparavit, quantum sane homo ad unicum garriendi studium natus post obitum deperdidit. Quae enim ab ipso auctore ad fastidium usque ubique commendata non pauci admirabantur, ca tarn sinistre ab iis. qui omni affcctu vacui aliorum scripta et legere et diligenter excutere solent, accepta fuerunt, ut Latinam linguam non excolere, sed vcl exstinguerc vel prorsus labe factare voluisse videatur, siquidem vitiosissimum scribendi genus ox Apuleio, Martiano, Sidonio, et si qui sunt duriores, primus suis temporibus cxcitavit et in multas Europae partes, a quibus undique ad eum confluebant auditores, ita diffiidit, ut plurima adhuc supersint eius vestigia neque penitus deleri possint, nisi, aut quotque ille instituit, inter vivos esse desinant aut principum edicto, ne qua illius opera publico vcneant, caveatur.” Florido was not opposed to the study of archaic writers and he composed In Actii Plauti aliorumque latinae linguae scriptorum calumniatores (Basel, 1538).

98 See MafFei's Stromata in Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Barb. Lat. 753,fols. 113V-114.

99 In his De, ratione conscribendi epistolas,in Opera Omnia, vol. 1/2 (Amsterdam, 1971), p. 218,Google Scholar Erasmus, writes, “Et merito ridentur hoc nostro seculo quidam Apuleiani, et obsoletae antiquitatis affectatores.” Also De recta latini graecique sermonis pronuntiatione dialogus, in Opera Omnia ,vol. 1/4 (1973), p. 36,Google Scholar “Vrsus: Ridendos mihi narras, non imitandos, nisi forte placent Apuleii et Sidonii aut, ut recentiores attingam, Baptistae Pii; qui, quum suppetant probata, splendida accommodaquc vocabula, tamen confictis impudenter novis malunt suo more loqui, perinde quasi nihil possit esse praeclarum quod sit usitatum.” Erasmus developed a critical attitude toward both Apuleius and Aulus Gellius as stylists, and in this he seems to have been influenced by his reading of Lorenzo Valla; see Jacques, Chomarat;“Erasme lecteur des Elegantiae de Valla,” in Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Amstelodamensis, ed. Tuynman, P., etal. (Munich, 1979), pp. 206-43, a t PP- 241-42, fn. 107.Google Scholar

100 See Floriani,“La‘Questione delta Lingua,’ “ p. 338.

101 On Castellesi, see DBI ,vol. 21, pp. 665-71, and D'Amico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome ,chs. 1 and 7. Castellesi was also interested in vernacular literature; he composed a commentary on Burchiello; see Pio, Paschini, Tre illustri prelati del Rinascimento: Ermolao Barbaro-Adriano Castellesi-Giovanni Grimani (Rome, 1957), pp. 120-21.Google Scholar

102 Seethe examples in Bruno, Gebhardt, Adrian von Corneto: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Curie und der Renaissance (Breslau, 1886), pp. 102–109,Google Scholar and Paschini, Tre i lustri prelati ,pp. 114-16.

103 I have used the edition of the De sermone latino in De elegantiori latinitate comparanda scriptores selecti ,ed. Richard Ketel (Amsterdam, 1713), p. * i v .

104 lbid. ,p. * i v ,“Cum Bononiae viri me aliquot eruditi officii causa convenissent, commentaremurque inter nos, ut fit inter litterarum studiosos, de Latini scrmonis eleganti audiremque eorum plerosque Apuleii, Sidonii, Capellae, Fulgentii, non tarn verbis, quam foctoribus scaturire, verbaque de industria promere aliorum etiam auctorum quae aut obsoleta nimis, aut nova et omnino barbara viderentur… .“ See also Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il volgare ,p. 108.

105 De sertnone latino ,p. *2.

106 Ibid.,p. *3.

107 Ibid. ,p. *3V, “Ergo hanc primam, et praecipuam causam arbitramur cur tan turn ab eloquentia recesserimus. Imperfectionem etiam sui temporis tcstatur Plinius in cpistola naturalis historiae, cum libros suos respersos esse affirmat plurimarum rcrum, aut rusticis vocabulis, aut externis, immo barbaris, non sine honoris pracfationc ponendis.“

108 Ibid. ,p. *3V,“Et ut per gradus ad summum ascendcrat eloquentia, sic cam per gradus ad imum descendisse videamus.“

109 Ibid. ,p. *3V,“Apulieus autem, quem nostri temporis magis curiosi quam eruditi sequi et aemulari student, in principio operis sui latinas litteras ignorare fatetur… . Quis, rogo te, ferat non tam Apuleium, qui ut mali aedificii dominus se architectum non adhibuisse, ita litteras sine praeceptore coluisse gloriatur, quam aliquos esse, qui malint foetores et quisquilias eius colligere, quam verborum floribus perfectissimae Ciceronis aetatis, quam signavimus, inhaerere? Sed quid alii Apuleio similes insequcntium aetatum auctores de seipsis, et temporum suorum inscitia balbutiant videamus.“ See also Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il polgare ,p. 108.

110 Ibid. ,p. *4V, “Verbisque impropriis gaudentes, redundantibus, obscuris, ambiguis, novis, Graccanicis, quo magis eorum cxpurgandus est sermo, fugiendaque barbaria, ediscendaque dc Cicerone et Ciceronis aequalibus vera Latinitas, quae nihil aliud est, nisi incorrupta loquendi obscrvatio secundum Romanam linguam.”

111 See Marache, La critique litteraire de langue latine ,book I. Greek writers of the second century A.D. also experienced an archaizing movement, see Bowie, E. L., “Greeks and their past in the Second Sophistic,” Past and Present, 46 (1970), 3–41.Google Scholar Marache, op. cit. ,bk. 2, ch. 2, denies that the Latin archaizers were following the Greek lead, and he emphasizes the relationship between Latin archaizing and Roman principles.

112 Besides Marache, op. cit. ,see also John Francis, D'Alton Roman Literary Theory and Criticism: A Study in Tendencies (New York, 1962),Google Scholar ch. 5; Felicità , Portalupi, Trontone, Gellio, Apuleio: ricerca stilistica, parte I (Turin, 1974);Google Scholar Adriano, Pennacini, La jitnzione deU'arcaismo e del neologismo nelle teorie delta prosa da Cornificio a Frontone (Turin, 1974);Google Scholar Italo, Lana, Letteratura e civiltà in Roma tra il II ed il III secolo d.C: Lezioni e seminari (Turin, 1976);Google Scholar and Peter, Steinmetz, Untersuchungen zur römischen Literatur des zweitenjahrhunderts nach Christi Geburt (Wiesbaden, 1982).Google Scholar I have not seen Ronconi, A., “Cicerone e l'arcaismo del II. sec. d . C ,“ in his Da Omero a Dante (Urbino, 1981), pp. 273-91.Google Scholar

113 For Seneca, see Frank I., Merchant, “Seneca the Philosopher and his Theory of Style,” American Journal of Philology, 26 (1905), 44–59,Google Scholar and Guillemin, A., “Sénèque directeur d'âmes: III: les théories littéraires,” Revue des études latines, 32 (1954), 250-74.Google Scholar

114 See Pennacini, La funzione dell'arcaismo ,ch. 3.

115 See Michael, Wigodsky, Vergil and Early Latin Poetry (Wiesbaden, 1972).Google Scholar

116 See Marache, La critique littéraire de langue latine ,book I, ch. 3; sec also George, Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300 B.C.-A.D. 300 (Princeton, 1972), pp. 487–514.Google Scholar

117 See Marache, La critique littéraire de langue latine ,pp. 23-28.

118 See Pennacini, La funzione dell'arcaismo ,ch. 4.

119 See Alfred, Klotz “Klassizismus und Archaismus. Stilistisches zu Statius,” Archiv fur lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik, 15 (1908), 401-17.Google Scholar For Statius’ opposition to elements of“classical” Latin, see Crispus, C. Sallustius, Bellum Catilinac: A Commentary by McGushinV. (Leiden, 1977), pp. 13–21.Google Scholar

120 For Probus, see Marache, La critique littéraire de langue latine ,pp. 62-64; Albert, Grisart, “Valerius Probus de Beyrouth,” Helikon, 2 (1962), 379–414,Google Scholar and William S., Anderson, “Valla, Juvenal, and Probus,” Traditio, 21 (1965), 383–424.Google Scholar

121 , See Pennacini, La funzione dell'arcaismo ,ch. 2

122 For bibliographical orientation, see René, Marache, “Fronton et A. Gellius (1938- 1964),” Lustrum, 10 (1965), 213-45.Google Scholar See also Marache, La critique littéraire de langue latine; Portalupi, Frontone, Gellio, Apuleio; Pennacini, La funzione dell'arcaismo; Brock, M. Dorothy, Studies in Fronto and his Age (Cambridge, 1911);Google Scholar Felicità, Portalupi, Marco Cornelio Frontone (Turin, 1961);Google Scholar and Edward, Champlin, Fronto and Antonine Rome (Cambridge, Mass., 1980).Google Scholar For a view different from that of Marache and Portalupi, who emphasize Fronto's desire for novelty, see van den Hout, M., “On the text and language of Fronto,” Mnemosyne, ser. 4, 1 (1948), 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

123 The humanists Raffaele Maffei and Jacob Qucstenberg recorded an FJegantia latina of Fronto in the library of the Monastery of Bobbio. However, the work was inaccurately identified; it was the Exempla elocutionum ex Vergilio, Sallustio, Terentio, Cicerone… . of Arusianus Messius (4th century); see Ferrari, M., “Le scoperte a Bobbio nel 1493: vicende di codici e fortuna di testi,” IMU, 13 (1970), 139–80, at 140-41,Google Scholar and Arusianus, Messius, Exempla elocutionum, ed. Adriana della, Casa (Milan, 1977).Google Scholar Pio in his dedicatory letter to Laurentius Bistricius Pannonius in his Elegidia (Bologna, 1509), fol. A3, refers to Fronto's gravitas.

124 See Marache, La critique littéraire de langue latine ,pp. 77-78.

125 Ibid. ,pp. 149-51, and Pennacini, La junzione dell'arcaismo , ch. 5.

126 In addition to Marache, La critique littéraire de langue latine ,pp. 183-317: idem , “Fronton et A. Gellius;” Portalupi, Frontone, Gellio, Apuleio; see also, Charles, Knapp, “Archaism in Aulus Gellius,” in Classical Studies in Honour of Henry Drisler (New York, 1894), pp. 126-71;Google Scholar Walter Eugene, Foster, Studies in Archaism in Aulus Gellius (New York, 1912);Google Scholar Edward, Yoder, “A Second-Century Classical Scholar,” Classical Journal, 33/5 (1938), 280-94;Google Scholar Lawrence A., Springer, “Aulus Gellius: On historical and descriptive linguistics,” ibid., 54 (1958), 121-28;Google Scholar Barry, Baldwin, Studies in Aulus Gellius (Lawrence, Kansas, 1975);Google Scholar Whiteley, S., “Fossicking through Aulus Gellius’ Noctes Atticae,“ Acta classica (Cape Town), 21 (1978), 99–114;Google Scholar and Giorgio, Masclli, Lingua e scuola in Gellio grammatico (Lecce, 1979).Google Scholar

127 Noctes Atticae ,bk. I, ch. X, andbk. XI, ch. VII.

128 For bibliography, see Schlam, C. C., “The Scholarship on Apuleius since 1938,“ The Classical World, 64 (1971), 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

129 In addition to Marache, La critique littéraire de langue latine; Portalupi, Frontone, Gellio, Apuleio; see Perry, B. E., “Some Aspects of the Literary Art of Apuleius in the Metamorphoses,” Transactions of the American Philological Association, 54 (1923), 196–227;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Max, Bernhard, Der Stil des Apuleius von Madaura: Ein Beitrag zur Stilistik des Spätlateins (Stuttgart, 1927);Google Scholar Ettore, Paratore, “La prosa di Apuleio,” Maia, 1 (1948), 33–47;Google Scholar Louis, Callebat, “L'archa'isme dans les Métamorphoses d'Apulée,” Revue des études latines, 42 (1964), 346-61;Google Scholar Roncaioli, C., “L'arcaismo nelle opere filosofiche di Apuleio,” GIF, 19 (1966), 322-56;Google Scholar James, Tatum, Apuleius and the Golden Ass (Ithaca, N.Y., 1979);Google Scholar mdAspects of Apuleius’ Golden Ass (Groningcn, 1978). I have not seen Pierre, Médan, La latinité d’ Apulée dans les Métamorphoses (Paris, 1926).Google Scholar

130 See Alessandro, Ronconi, “Arcaismi o volgarismi?” Maia, n.s., 9 (1957), 7–35;Google Scholar louis, Callebat, “Mots vulgaires ou mots archaïques dans les Métamorphoses d'Apulée?“ Pallas, 11 (1962), 115-21,Google Scholar and idemm, Sermo cotidianus dans les Métamorphoses d'Apulée (Caen, 1968).

131 On curiositas see André, Labhardt, “Curiositas:Notes sur l'histoire d'un mot et d'une notion,” Museum helveticum, 17 (1960), 206-24;Google Scholar Serge, Lancel, “ ‘Curiositas’ et préoccupations spirituelles chcz Apulée,” Revue de l'histoire des religions, 160 (1961), 25– 46;Google Scholar and Claudio, Moreschini, “Ancora sulla curiositas in Apuleio,” in Studi classici in onore di Quintino Cataudella, vol. 3 (Catania, 1972), pp. 517-24.Google Scholar

132 John A., D'Amico, “Beatus Rhenanus, Tertullian and the Reformation: A Hu manist's Critique of Scholasticism,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 71 (1980), 37– 63, at 47-48.Google Scholar

133 This Apuleian style especially appealed to the early Christian African writers Tertullian and Cyprian. The prominence of North Africans in the archaistic movement led to the use of the term Africanitas to describe this style. The term is generally not used today. Tertullian and Cyprian had little stylistic influence in the Reformation, see D'Amico,“Beatus Rhenanus, Tertullian and the Reformation.” For Christian Latin, see Harald, Hagendahl, Von Tertullian zu Cassiodor: Die profane literarische Tradition in dem lateinischen christlichen Schrifttum (Goteborg, 1983), esp. pp. 12–24, 29-32, 55-65, 74-83.Google Scholar

134 De Cardinalatu ,f. M 6,“Ex quo iure a litteratissimo hominc Angelo Politiano de verborum latinorum utendorum ratione saepe disscnsi puer, propterea quod homo ingenii luce et doctrinae confidentia magnus, non modo de industria verborum insolentiam exquirere, sed etiam orationis tanquam vestis usum probare velle videretur, qui temporum conditione mutetur, quique quo inusitatior et recentior commentitia concinnitate sit, co gratior esse novitate soleat. Itaque non sine causa ad cum epistola nostra in publicum apologetica ratione prodit, quae non tarn videri maturitate potest, quam aetatis spe et ingenii significatione grandis.” Sec also Dionisotti, Gli umanisti e il volgare ,p. 67.

135 Krautter, Philologische Methode und humanistische Existenz ,p. 83,“So lässt auch dieser kurze Ausblick auf die Spätantike erkennen, dass Bcroaldos Begriffdcr‘latinitas' kaum zeitlich zu begrenzen ist. Er umfasst nicht nur die gesamte römische Litcratur bis zum 5.16. Jahrhundert n. Chr., sondern erhält auch seinen konkreten Inhalt gerade durch die Mannigfaltigkeit und Vielschichtigkeit der sprachlichen Erschcinungen von Livius Andronicus bis Cassiodor.‘Sermo Latinus’ ist für Beroaldo keine normative Abstraktion, sondern die Wirklichkeit der lebendigen Sprache, wie sie sich in den verschiedenartigsten Texten der ganzen römischen Antike dokumentiert.“