cose di platone fatte toscane' - language and ideology in two vernacular translations of plato...

7/27/2019 'Cose Di Platone Fatte Toscane' - Language and Ideology in Two Vernacular Translations of Plato Printed by France

1/46

1

Cose di Platone fatte Toscane:

Language and ideology in two vernacular translations of Plato printed by Francesco

Priscianese*

Abstract

In 1544, two vernacular versions of Plato appeared in Rome from the press of the Florentine

humanist Francesco Priscianese: a translation of Platos Symposium by Ercole Barbarasa and a

version of Platos Phaedrus by Felice Figliucci. This article explores the circumstances

surrounding the production of these texts and their reception in Florence and Rome. It shows that

the revival of Plato in Rome was the result of the attempt by thefuoriuscitito develop a cultural

model independently of the Medici regime, at a time when Cosimo I was launching a vast

enterprise of vernacularisation through theAccademia Fiorentina.

[add Ficino as keyword]

1. Introduction

In 1544, two vernacular versions of Platos works appeared in Rome from the press of the

Florentine humanist Francesco Priscianese: the first was a vernacular translation of Platos


2/46

2

Symposium made by Ercole Barbarasa da Terni; the second, a version of PlatosPhaedrus by the

Sienese man of letters Felice Figliucci. Each Platonic dialogue was accompanied by Marsilio

Ficinos interpretations. Modern scholars have so far focussed on Priscianeses activity as a

grammarian and promoter of the vernacular, and on the role he played in the debate on language. 1

*An earlier version of this article was presented at the RSA Annual Meeting, Venice, 2010, as part

of a series of panels on vernacular translations organised by David Lines, whom I wish to thank

for encouraging me to explore this theme in relation to Platonic texts. I would like to express my

gratitude to Richard Gale, Paul Gehl, Simon Gilson, Martin McLaughlin, Eugenio Refini and

Elisabetta Tarantino for their useful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts. I would also like

to thank Maiko Favaro, Gigliola Fragnito and Ann Moyer for their responses to detailed queries.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of two anonymous reviewers of the article.

1 On Francesco Priscianese, see Deoclecio Redig de Campos, Francesco Priscianese stampatore e

umanista fiorentino del sec. XVI, La bibliofila, 40 (1938), 161-183; Roberto Ridolfi, Note sul

Priscianese stampatore e umanista fiorentino, La bibliofila, 43 (1941), 291-295; idem,

Unedizione del Priscianese sconosciuta ai bibliografi, La bibliofila, 49, (1947), 71-75; Luigi

Vignali, Nuove testimonianze sulla vita e lopera di Francesco Priscianese, Studi e problemi di

critica testuale, 18 (1979), 121-134; idem, Postilla per la vita e le opere di F. Priscianese, Studi e

problemi di critica testuale, 19 (1979), 125-126; idem, Un grammatico latino del Cinquecento e il


3/46

3

However, the reasons that led him to print these two important Platonic texts have attracted little

attention. Similarly, although Michel Plaisance, Brian Richardson and others have magisterially

demonstrated the importance of print in the history of vernacular culture, many aspects of this

history, especially outside Florence, still remain to be studied. In particular, there is a need to

reassess the way in which the political exiles in Rome, many of whom were prominent artists and

scholars, produced and transmitted their works during the first years of the Mediciprincipato, at a

time when Duke Cosimo I was launching a vast enterprise of vernacularisation that would serve

the political ideology of his regime. The purpose of this article is to fill this gap by examining the

circumstances surrounding the publication of Platos works by one such exile: Francesco

Priscianese. It will show that Priscianeses press played an important role in the fuoriuscitis

attempt to promote vernacular culture independently of Medici Florence. To be sure, thePhaedrus

and the Symposium were immensely popular, especially following Marsilio Ficinos fifteenth-

volgare: studi su Francesco Priscianese (I-III), Lingua nostra, 41 (1980), 21-24, 42-55 and 116-

120; Giorgio Padoan, A Casa di Tiziano, una sera dagosto, in Tiziano e Venezia. Convegno

internazionale di studi (Verona: Neri Pozza, 1980), pp. 357-367. See also Giorgio Costa,

Michelangelo alle corti di Niccol Ridolfi e Cosimo I (Rome: Bulzoni, 2009), pp. 72-93, who

analyses Priscianeses role in the context of the counter-culture of the Florentine exiles, but does

not study in any detail the texts under consideration in this article.


4/46

4

century Latin translation and interpretation of the entire Platonic corpus. But the reason

underlining Priscianeses reproduction of texts that had long been assimilated into Italian culture

was also political. Since the writings of Leonardo Bruni, Marsilio Ficino, Cristoforo Landino, and

others, Plato had become closely associated with the cultural politics of the Medici, which the

newly appointed Duke of Florence, Cosimo I, was now invoking to justify his own political

agenda. Thus by printing Plato in Rome, Priscianese and his associates were appropriating an

important symbol of Medici FlorencePlato and, to some extent, Ficinoindependently of the

cultural model promoted by Cosimo I de Medici and the Accademia Fiorentina. As we will see,

this prompted the Academicians to react by printing Ficinos own vernacular commentary on

Platos Symposium. This is one of the first instances in which the Florentine Academy tried to

establish and maintain its cultural monopoly on vernacular culture: a few decades later, under the

pressure of the Academy, Cosimo and Francesco de Medici would prevent Paolo Manuzio from

publishing the censured version of BoccacciosDecameron in Venice and obtain permission from

the Vatican for the text to be published in Florence.2

2 Paolo Manuzio was granted permission to print the text in 1566; following the intervention of

Cosimo and Francesco de Medici, this permission was withdrawn and the text was finally printed

by the Giunti in Florence in 1573. On this episode, see Peter Melville Brown,Lionardo Salviati. A

Critical Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 106 and 160-182; Claudia


5/46

5

2. Context

Priscianese ran his printing press at a time of intense political crisis. The fall of the Republican

regime in Florence, the return of the Medici in 1530, the assassination of Alessandro de Medici

and the accession of Cosimo I led many intellectuals to flee Florence for Venice and Rome. As

noted by Richardson, the flight of intellectuals caused a sharp decline in the Florentine printing

industry in favour of Venice and to some extent Rome.3 The Florentine exiles often sought the

protection of wealthy patrons who, despite their Medici roots, supported the Florentine Republican

and anti-Medicean faction. One of these patrons was Cardinal NiccolRidolfi, who contributed tothe development of one of the foremost centres of Renaissance culture in Rome, in direct

Tapella and Mario Pozzi, Ledizione del Decameron del 1573: Lettere e documenti sulla

rassettatura, Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, 165 (1988), 54-84; 196-226; 366-398 and

511-544; Michel Plaisance,LAccademia e il suo principe. Cultura e politica a Firenze al tempo

di Cosimo I e di Francesco de Medici. LAcadmie et le prince. Culture et politique Florence

au temps de Cme Ier et de Franois de Mdicis (Rome: Vecchiarelli, 2004), pp. 23-24.

3 See Brian Richardson, Print Culture in Renaissance Italy. The Editor and the Vernacular Text

1470-1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 127-139.


6/46

6

opposition to the Medici.4 Ridolfi was appointed the Master of the Sacred Palace, a Vatican office

that allowed him to control the printing of every book in Rome; he also owned one of the richest

libraries of Europe, which was acquired in 1588 by Catherine de Medici and now forms one of

the chief collections of the Bibliothque nationale de France in Paris. To strengthen his power,

Ridolfi gathered prominent intellectuals, politicians and artists in his court. Among these

intellectuals was Francesco Priscianese, a humanist born in 1494 in Pieve a Presciano. Priscianese

taught grammar in Arezzo and Figline, near Florence, before fleeing Tuscany in 1530 for having

openly supported the Republican regime against the Medici. In 1540 he was in Venice, where he

published two important vernacular works dedicated to Francis I: a Latin grammar entitled Della

4 The most recent account of Ridolfis anti-Medicean activity is in Costa, pp. 13-60. See also

Roberto Ridolfi, La biblioteca del cardinale Niccol Ridolfi (1501-1550), La bibliofila, 31

(1929), 173-193; John F. dAmico, Renaissance Humanism in Papal Rome. Humanists and

Churchmen on the Eve of the Reformation (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University

Press, 1983); Gigliola Fragnito, Le corti cardinalizie nella prima met del Cinquecento: da Paolo

Cortesi a Francesco Priscianese, Miscellanea storica della Valdelsa, 108 (2002), 49-62; and

Davide Muratore, La biblioteca del cardinale Niccol Ridolfi. Testo greco e latino, 2 vols.

(Alessandria: Edizioni dellOrso, 2009).


7/46

7

lingua romana and a treatise entitledDe primi principii della lingua romana.5 Between 1542 and

1544, Francesco Priscianese was in Rome, where he ran his own printing press, which was

initially financed by Cardinal Marcello Cervini (the future pope Marcellus II), who was a keen

book collector and the chief librarian of the Vatican Library.6 Under Cervinis aegis Priscianese

5 In Vinegia: per Bartolomeo Zanetti da Brescia, 1540. On Priscianeses grammar, see Paul F.

Grendler, Schooling in Renaissance Italy: Literacy and Learning (1300-1600) (Baltimore and

London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991), pp. 186-187. It was not uncommon for Italians to

dedicate their work to Francis I: see E. Picot, Les Italiens en France au XVIe sicle (Rome:

Viecchiarelli, 1995 [1918]), pp. 148-154.

6 See Redig de Campos, pp. 173-175. Cervini particularly encouraged the edition and printing of

Greek patristic texts, but was also interested in pagan authors like Plato, Aristotle and Cicero. On

Cervini, see Lon Dorez, Le Cardinal M. Cervini et limprimerie Rome, Mlanges de lcole

Franaise de Rome. Archologie et Histoire, 12 (1892), 289-313 (pp. 306-308); Stanley Morison,

Marcello Cervini Pope Marcellus II Bibliographys Patron Saint,Italia medioevale e umanistica,

5 (1962), 301-318; P. Piacentini, La biblioteca di Marcello II Cervini: una ricostruzione dalle

carte di Jeanne Bignami Odier: i libri a stampa (Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana,

2001); Raphale Mouren, La lecture assidue des classiques: Marcello Cervini et Piero Vettori, in


8/46

8

printed a number of Latin sacred texts devoted to the defence of Christianity against the pagans

(Arnobius Adversus Gentes), the Turks (Bessarions Oration) and Luther (Henry VIIIs anti-

Lutherian Defence of the Seven Sacraments).7 He also published Cola da Beneventos treatise

entitledDel governo della corte dun signore in Roma, which describes the structure and working

of an ideal court, probably with reference to Ridolfis court.8 Very quickly, however, Priscianeses

printing press was undermined by serious financial difficulties, aggravated by Cervinis

progressive loss of interest in the enterprise.9 This is the moment Priscianese decided to publish at

Humanisme et glise entre France et Italie du dbut du XVe sicle au milieu du XVIe sicle, ed. by

Patrick Gilli (Rome: cole franaise de Rome, 2004), pp. 433-463.

7 On these editions, see Mouren, pp. 449-450.

8 Modern scholars and library catalogues wrongly identify the author as Priscianese, on the basis

of Regio de Campos, p. 172. The book was initially printed in 1542 (Roma: per Valerio e Luigi

Dorico, 1542), and reprinted in the 1550s (Roma: per Vincenzo Lucrino, s.d.). It was reprinted in

the nineteenth century by Lorenzo Bartolucci (Lapi: Citt di Castello, 1883).

9 See Priscianeses letter to Vettori (1544), in Regio de Campos, p. 180: [] il Cardinale, che si

soleva mostrare ardente in queste sue stamperie papali, diventato pi freddo duna tramontana, et

hora pi che mai, talch possiamo dire: Frigescimus in aestivis. At that time Cervini was


9/46

9

his own expense three non-religious texts in the vernacular, all printed in 1544: Boccaccios

Trattatello in laude di Dante, referred to as the Vita di Dante,10 and the Tuscan translations of

Platos Symposium and Phaedrus, together with Marsilio Ficinos interpretations of both

dialogues. In a letter dated 5 July 1544 to his friend Pier Vettori, who was then professor at the

Studio in Florence after having also spent a few years in exile, Priscianese wrote as follows:

I am about to publish some things for myself, things of Plato turned into Tuscan, so to speak,

including the Symposium and thePhaedrus, and finally theLife of Dante composed by Boccaccio,

having the works of several Greek Church Fathers (Theophylactus, Gregorius Nazianzenus,

Theodoretus) printed by the Roman printer Antonio Blado, see Mouren, pp. 446-448.

10Vita di Dante Alighieri poeta Fiorentino, composta per Messer Giovanni Boccaccio (Roma: per

Francesco Priscianese, 1544). The text was dedicated to Giovan Giovanni Lodovico Pio, a relative

of the famous Cardinal Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, who owned a rich library of ancient texts and lent

his manuscripts to humanists and translators. Priscianeses edition reproduces the first and longer

version of Boccaccios Vita di Dante independently of the editio princeps printed in 1477 by

Vindelino da Spira. See K. Witte, Essays on Dante, p. 265-267. I have consulted the copy

available in Balliol College Library in Oxford (LG1 003 a 19). I have not found sufficient

evidence that would indicate that Priscianese was printing this text for ideological or political

reasons. This contrasts with his printing of Platos texts, as shown in this article.


10/46

10

which I find most beautiful, and I would therefore be glad to send it to you if I thought that you

had not read it.11

Due to illness and lack of financial support, Priscianese was soon forced to close down and sell his

press.12 It was purchased sometime between 1546 and 1547 by Lorenzo Torrentino, Cosimos

future stampatore ducale, who probably used it to set up his own printing press in Florence.13

Priscianese still managed to finance the publication of Paolo del Rossos vernacular translation of

Suetoniuss Lives of the Twelve Caesars, printed in 1544 in Rome by Antonio Blado, and

dedicated to Averardo Serristori, Cosimo Is ambassador to Pope Paul III in Rome.14 Priscianeses

11 See Regio de Campos, p. 180: Io attendo a stampare alcune cose per me, come dire cose di

Platone fatte Toscane, come il Convito el Fedro et ultimamente la vita di Dante composta per il

Boccaccio, la quale, perch mi pare bellissima, io vi manderei volentieri, se io pensassi che voi

non lhavessi letta.

12 The press was effectively closed in 1544, as shown by Ridolfi, Unedizione del Priscianese

sconosciuta ai bibliografi, p. 73.

13 On Torrentinos purchase of Priscianeses press, see Costa, pp. 79-81.

14Le vite de dodici cesari di Gaio Suetonio Tranquillo, tradotte in lingua toscana per m. Paolo del

Rosso cittadino fiorentino (Roma: per Antonio Blado Asulano, ad instanza et a spese di m.

Francesco Priscianese fiorentino, 1544).


11/46

11

last work, which dates from 1549, is a Latin classification of CicerosLetters, published in Venice

by Aldo Manuzios sons.15

15 Francisci Priscianensis argumentorum observationes in omneis [sic] Ciceronis epistolas

(Venetiis: apud Aldi filios, 1549 mense Septembri). The edition is preceded by two prefaces: the

first is dedicated to Niccol Ridolfi (ff. [2r-4v]); the second to Romolo Amaseo (ff. [5v]-[7r]).

Amaseo was an ardent defender of the Latin language, who published a Latin translation of

Xenophons Anabasis (Bologna: Io. Baptista Phaellus Bononiensis, formulis suis impressos, ex

officina sua edendos curauit, 1533) and of Pausanias Graeciae descriptio (Florentiae: L.

Torrentinus ducalis typographus excudebat, 1551). In the preface to Amaseo, Priscianese justifies

his decision to introduce a Latin work with prefaces written in Tuscan by stating that all languages

were one day vernacular (f. [5r] dico che io sono stato sempre di questo parere, ne mi credo

inganare, che tutte le lingue del mondo siano, siano state uolgari, et che tutti gli scrittori (fuor

che pochissimi) habbiano sempre scritto in uolgare loro, ma che sempre sia stato lecito ad

ogniuno, ne mai sene sia fatto decreto incontrario, di potere scriuere in quella lingua che piu piace,

et pura, et mescolata, et in uerso, en prosa); mixing up vernacular with Latin is nothing else than

mixing up one vernacular language with another (f. [5v]: mescolare il uolgare col latino non

altro che mescolare un uolgare con unaltro uolgare).


12/46

12

Like many Florentine exiles, Priscianese soon realised that having a successful career outside

Florence would prove difficult, and tried to win the grace of the Duke in the hope of being invited

to return to Florence. In 1543 one of Cosimos closest associates, Lelio Torelli, was looking for

someone to print the Pandects, i.e. theDigest, part of Justinians Corpus iuris civilis, the first code

of Roman law. This was a monumental and highly symbolic project, intended to link the Medici

regime with Romes ancient past. Priscianese seized the opportunity: in May 1543, he sent a letter

to Vettori, stating that he was ready to return to Florence, if the Duke agreed to finance the

publication of the Pandects.16 Priscianese never had the opportunity to achieve this projectafter

16 See Redig de Campos, p. 177: Di qui nacque adunque che io dissi a M. Cosimo, et cos replico

ancora a voi, che io verrei a Fiorenza quando il Duca facesse stampare le Pandette, come qua si

ragiona, et io fossi sopra ci eletto, intendendo per che egli le facesse stampare di suo, comio

penso voglia fare, et me pagasse del mio lavoro etmanifattura quello che fussimo daccordo, come

fanno questi ministri papali, perci che altrimenti non potrei n ardirei metter le mani in cos fatta

impresa, ch, avvenga che il libro sia bellissimo, come egli , et famosissimo, et fosse pi che ogni

altro disiderato, et per questo da poterne sperare utilit grande et honore a chi senimpaccer, pure

ella impresa pi tosto da un Principe che da un Priscianese. We know that Vettori transmitted

Priscianeses letter to Francesco Campana, first secretary of the Duke, as shown by Lelio Torellis


13/46

13

a vain attempt to gain Cosimos approval, Lelio Torelli gave the commission for the publication of

the text to thestampatore ducale Lorenzo Torrentino, the very printer who acquired Priscianeses

equipment after the closing down of the Roman press.17 Priscianese was well aware of this: in a

letter dated 30 August 1545 and addressed to Benedetto Varchi, another Republican who returned

to Florence after spending several years in exile, Priscianese enquired whether Lorenzo Torrentino

letter to Piero Vettori (15 August 1543) in Ms Add. 10278, f. 121, in the British Library

mentioned by Mouren, p, 449, n. 82.17 Digestorum seu Pandectarum libri quinquaginta, ex Florentinis pandectis repraesentati

(Florentiae: in officina Laurentii Torrentini, 1553). See Giovanni Gualandi, Per la storia della

editio princeps delle Pandette Fiorentine di Lelio Torelli, Le Pandette di Giustiniano, storia e

fortuna di un codice illustre. Due giornate di studio, Firenze 23-24 giugno 1983 (Florence:

Olchki, 1986), pp. 143-198 (pp. 163-180). See also Claudia di Filippo Bareggi, Giunta, Doni,

Torrentino: tre tipografie fiorentine fra Reppublica e Principato, Nuova Rivista Storica, 58

(1974), 318-348 (pp. 329-333); Antonio Ricci, Lorenzo Torrentino and the Cultural Programme

of Cosimo I de Medici, in The Cultural Politics of Cosimo I de Medici, ed. by Konrad

Eisenbichler (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), pp. 103-119 (pp. 21-23); Richardson, Print Culture, pp.

130-136; Plaisance,LAccademia e il suo principe, pp. 240-254;Domenico Zanr, Cultural Non-

Conformity in Early Modern Florence (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), pp. 21-24.


14/46

14

would accomplish his project of printing the Pandects.18 In this context, Priscianeses decision to

dedicate, in 1544, the publication of Paolo del Rossos translation of Suetoniuss Lives of the

Twelve Caesars to Cosimo Is ambassador in Rome might be seen as a last and vain attempt to

obtain the favour of the Dukedespite the fact that del Rosso was at that time one of the most

virulent opponents of the Medici regime.19

3. Priscianese and Claudio Tolomei

18 See Priscianeses letter to Benedetto Varchi (30 August 1545) in Giovanni Gaetano Bottari and

others, Prose fiorentine, Parte Quarta, Volume Secondo, contenente Lettere (Florence: nella

stampa della sua Altezza Reale, 1734), pp. 217-218: se quello stampatore Tedesco [i.e. probably

Torrentino, who was in fact Dutch] il quale si diceva condursi per istampare lePandette, arrivato

ancora, o se sia per essere condotto egli, o altri per tale effetto, che qu tra gli stampatori si dice,

che l Reverendo Campano [i.e. Francesco Campana, first secretary of the Accademia] ha questa

cura da sua Eccellenza, e che si far mirabilia.

19 On Paolo del Rosso, see Paolo Simoncelli,Il cavaliere dimezzato: Paolo Del Rosso fiorentino e

letterato (Milan: F. Angeli, 1990). In 1553 he was kidnapped in Rome by the Medici and

incarcerated in Florence. On his liberation in 1566, he joined the Florentine Academy.


15/46

15

Before turning to the translations themselves, it is necessary to determine the context in which

Priscianese became involved in the publication of works in the vernacular. As Luigi Vignali has

shown, Priscianese was initially inclined to promote the superiority of the Latin language over the

vernacular; he later modified this position and started to defend the vernacular as a language

capable of transmitting intellectual knowledge. This change of heart occurred during his exile in

Rome, when he established close contact with Claudio Tolomei.20 Tolomei was a philologist from

Siena who had been banished from his native city in 1518 for having supported Clement VII

against the pro-Florentine Sienese party, and had fled to Rome at the service of Ippolito de

Medici.21 Tolomei was instrumental in developing the notion, defended by the majority of

Cinquecento vernacular philologists, that Italian was not a corrupt form of Latin, but a newly

generated language, which ultimately derived from Latin. Tolomei fully developed his theory inIl

20 See Vignali, Un grammatico latino del Cinquecento e il volgare: studi su Francesco Priscianese

(1), pp. 22-23. On Claudio Tolomei, see Luigi Sbaragli, Claudio Tolomei, umanista senese del

Cinquecento, la vita e le opere (Siena : Accademia per le Arti e per le Lettere, 1939).

21 On Tolomei and Ippolito, see Guido Rebecchini, Un altro Lorenzo. Ippolito de Medici tra

Firenze e Roma 1511-1535 (Venice: Marsilio, 2010), pp. 82-86, 191-194, 216-217 and 275-277.


16/46

16

Cesano della lingua Toscana (written in 1525, published in 1555).22 Similarly, in another work

entitledIl Polito (written in 1528) he propounded a new orthography better adapted to the needs of

the vernacular, in response to Giovanni Giorgio Trissinos orthographical reform developed in the

Epistola de le letterenuovamente aggiunte.23 During his exile in Rome Claudio Tolomei oversaw

22 See Claudio Tolomei, Il Cesano de la lingua toscana, ed. by Ornella Castellani Pollidori

(Florence: Accademia della Crusca, 1996), p. 47. See also Robert A. Hall, Jr., Linguistic Theory

in the Italian Renaissance,Language, 12 (1936), 96-107; Robert Glynn Faithfull, The Concept

of Living Language in Cinquecento vernacular philology, Modern Language Review, 48

(1953), 278-292 (p. 285); Maria Rosa Franco Subri, Gli scritti grammaticali inediti di C.

Tolomei: Le Quattro Lingue di Toscana, Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, 157

(1980), 403-415.

23 On the controversy around the reform of the orthography, see Sbaragli, pp. 27-39; Piero Fiorelli,

Pierfrancesco Giambullari e la riforma dellalfabeto, Studi di filologia italiana, 14 (1956), 177-

210; Richardson, Trattati sullOrtografia del Volgare 1524-1526 (Exeter: University of Exeter

Press, 1986), pp. XLIII-XLIV; Castellani Pollidori, pp. LXVIII-LXXXIV; Ann Moyer, Distinguishing

Florentines, Defining Italians: the Language Question and Cultural Identities in Sixteenth-Century

Florence, in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History: Nation, Ethnicity, and Identity in

Medieval and Renaissance Europe, ed. by Philip M. Soergel, III s., 3 (2006), pp. 131-58.


17/46

17

the foundation of one of the most influential academies of the time, the Accademia della Virt,

initially supported by Ippolito de Medici. The first purpose of this Academy was to study poetry,

and more specifically to adapt classical meter and verse to vernacular poetry, in accordance with

the theories elaborated by Tolomei in his Versi et regole de la nuova poesiaToscana. The second

purpose of the Academy was to investigate Vitruvius architectural treatise and provide an

annotated edition of the text, together with a translation into the beautiful Tuscan language (in

bella lingua Toscana).24 We do not know whether Priscianese was actually a member of the

Accademia della Virt, but it is clear that Tolomei and Priscianese knew each other well. Modern

24 The project was never completed, but the French humanist Guillaume Philandrier, a friend of

Cervini and Tolomei, published independently his Annotationes in M. Vitruvium De architectura

annotationes (Roma: per Giovanni Andrea Dossena, 1544), which were partly influenced by

discussions held at theAccademia della Virt. See Frdrique Lemerle, Philandrier et le texte de

Vitruve, Mlanges de l'Ecole franaise de Rome. Italie et Mditerrane, 106 (1994), 517-529.

See also Vassili Pavovlitch Zoubov, Vitruve et ses commentateurs du XVIe sicle, inLa science

au seizime sicle. Colloque international de Royaumont, 1-4 juillet 1957(Paris: Hermann, 1960),

pp. 67-90; and Hanno-Walter Kruft, Vitruvian Traditions in the Renaissance, in hisA History of

Architectural Theory: from Vitruvius to the Present (New York: Princeton Architectural Press

1994), pp. 66-72 (pp. 69-70).


18/46

18

scholars have for instance identified a poem that Claudio Tolomei addresses to Priscianese;25 in

addition, Priscianese said of Tolomei: my desire to be agreeable to him is equal, I would say, to

my desire to live (non desidero meno di fare cosa che gli sia grata che (sono stato per dire) di

vivere).26 Priscianeses patron, Marcello Cervini, was himself a close friend of Tolomei: he was

a member of the Accademia della Virt and possessed his own autograph copy of Tolomeis Il

Cesano, which is now preserved in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence.27

A number of documents suggest that Tolomei also helped Priscianese find patrons to finance the

printing of Platos translations. The translator of Platos Symposium, Ercole Barbarasa, dedicated

his work to a close associate of Tolomei, the Genoese book collector Giovanni Battista Grimaldi.28

25 On the verses Tolomei addresses to Priscianese in his Versi et regole della nuova poesia

toscana, see Ridolfi, Unedizione del Priscianese sconosciuta, pp. 74-75.

26 See letter to Pier Vettori (11 November 1543), in Redig de Campos, p. 179.

27 See Castellani Pollidori, pp. XIII-XIV and LVIII-LXVI.

28 Barbarasa dedicated to the same Grimaldi his translation of Bartolomeo Marliani's Urbis Romae

topographia entitled Lantichit di Roma (Roma: per Antonio Blado, 1548), probably in the

context of theAccademia della Virts promotion of Vitruvius.


19/46

19

From a series of letters between Tolomei and Grimaldi, dating from 1543 to 1547,29 we know that

Grimaldi came to Rome sometime in 1543 and asked Tolomei to select books for his private

library, which was to comprise works in both Latin and Tuscan. In a letter dated 15 December

1544, Tolomei states:

I will make every effort to ensure that the books are good and of the best quality, and I will select

for you some books in Latin and some in Tuscan, by means of which you will be able to improve

your soul with beautiful and new treasures, besides those that already shine in you, whether by

nature or thanks to your studies.30

29 On Grimaldi, see Anthony Hobson, Apollo and Pegasus: An Enquiry into the Formation and

Dispersal of a Renaissance Library (Amsterdam: Van Heusden, 1975), pp. 49-64; all 13 letters

between Grimaldi and Tolomei (1543-1547) are reproduced pp. 197-204.

30Delle lettere di m. Claudio Tolomei libro primo [-settimo]. Con nuova aggiunta ristampate, &

con somma diligenza ricorrette (Vinegia: per Iacomo Cornetti, 1585) [hereafterLettere], IV, f.

127r: ne libri usar ogni diligenza che sian buoni, e delle migliori stampe, e li pigliaro parte

Latini, e parte Toscani, co quali potrete adornare lanimo di belle e nuove ricchezze, oltre quelle

che insino ad hora per natura, o per istudio rilucono in voi. In an earlier letter (25 September

1543) addressed to Giovanfrancesco Bini (Lettere, III, f. 114r) Tolomei asks his friend to find

some printed books for him in Venice: poi che vi trovate in Venetia, la dove gran copia di tutte


20/46

20

A few months earlier (19 April 1544) Tolomei had sent him a letter referring to the publication of

Ercole Barbarasas translation of Platos Symposium:

You will probably be sent there Platos Symposium translated into Tuscan and dedicated to you.

Do not find it tedious to read samples of it, because the work is most beautiful, coming from such

a noble source as Plato, and, if it pleases you, you will stir up nicely these clever minds so that

they undertake such a beautiful challenge.31 It is clear, therefore, that Grimaldi commissioned the

vernacularSymposium, which in turn Tolomei requested Priscianese to print.

le mercantie, e a prezzo assai ragionevole, vi prego che per amor mio vediate quel che costaranno

certi libri parte Grechi, e parte Latini; di che io vi mando la lista; e solo haver caro intendere il

prezzo de libri, ma de la portatura ancora; stimo saranno una cassabienpiena: li vorrei delle

migliori stampe, che si trovano o di Francia, o dAlamagna, o pur di Venetia e sopra tutto

avvertite, che non sia lettera minuta infoscata, perche ella mi cava gli occhi.

31Lettere, III, ff. 113v-114r: vi sar forse presentato costi il Convivio di Platone tradotto in lingua

Toscana, e intitolato a voi. Non vi sia grave leggerne qualche parte, percioche lopera bellissima,

venendo da cosi nobil fonte, come fu quel di Platone, e piacendovi infiammerete con bei modi

questi ingegni, che saffatichino in cosi belle imprese. The text was printed shortly after 5 July

1544; see n. 11 above.


21/46

21

It is more difficult to establish whether Tolomei played a direct role in the publication of the

vernacular version of the Phaedrus by Felice Figliucci.32 However, there are some clear

connections between the two Sienese scholars. At the time he published the Phaedrus, Figliucci

was, like Tolomei, in Rome, where he was serving at the court of Cardinal Giovanni Maria del

Monte (the future Pope Julius III). In addition, a number of documents indicate that by 1547

Figliucci and Tolomei knew each other very well. In a letter sent from Piacenza in April 1547,

Tolomei starts by asking rhetorically:

Did you actually think that I had forgotten you? [] But perhaps you were right, because I was

trying to remember Felice the courtier, whilst you are Felice the scholar []. I am extremely

32 Figliucci is better known for his later translation of FicinosLetters dedicated to Cosimo I de

Medici (Vinegia: per Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari, 1546-1548). He also published a vernacular

version of Aristotles Rhetoric (Padua: per Giacomo Fabriano, 1548) and a vernacular

commentary on Aristotles Ethics (Roma: per Vincenzo Valgrisi, 1551), both dedicated to

Cardinal Giovanni Maria del Monte/Julius III; a vernacular translation of DemosthenesPhilippics

(Roma: per Vincenzo Valgrisi, 1550), dedicated to Cardinal Innocenzo del Monte; a translation of

the Catechism of the Council of Trent commissioned by Pope Pius V (Vinegia: per Giorgio

Angelieri, s.d. [after 1564]); and a vernacular commentary on Aristotles Politics, dedicated to

Mario Bevilacqua (Vinegia: perGiovanni Battista Somascho, 1583).


22/46

22

pleased to hear that you are carefully studying Aristotle by means of the Greeks [i.e. Greek

commentators].33

This letter was sent shortly before Figliucci published his translation of Aristotles Rhetoric

(1548), at a time when the recent transfer of the council of Trent to Bologna, where he was

accompanying del Monte, allowed him to spend some time in Padua.34 The tone of Tolomeis

letter implies that he had known Figliucci for some time. The second letter, probably written the

same year, shows that Tolomei and Figliucci were discussing matters related to the use of Tuscan

as a philosophical and literary language. Thus Tolomei advocates the need to establish a proper

grammar defining the rules of Tuscan:

I am very pleased that you invite me to write in our language matters pertaining to the realm of

knowledge rather than grammatical rules. Please consider, however, that, firstly, I am not up to the

task, because I do not possess the knowledge that is required to undertake such an important and

33LettereVII, f. 274 r-v [30 April 1547]: credevate adunque chio mi scordassi di voi? [] Ma

forse non era mal giudicio perche io doveva ricordarmi di M. Felice cortegiano, e voi sete M.

Felice scolare [] che voi attendiate con diligenza le cose dAristotile per la via de Greci m

sommo piacere.

34 Tradottione antica de la Rettorica dAristotile, nuovamente trovata (Padoua: per Giacomo

Fabriano, 1548). Figliucci presents his translation as a revision of an earlier, anonymous version.


23/46

23

noble enterprise. Secondly, the realm of knowledge has been discussed and debated in many

different languages, and treated by excellent experts, so that there is no real need to have anyone

teach them anew; by contrast, our language is still in its infancy and needs some rules, direction

and guidance, so that I do not believe my effort to explain, define, formulate and expound it to be

fruitless.35

35LettereVII, f. 277r-v: che minvitate a scrivere in questa nostra lingua piu tosto le scienze, che

le propriet della gramatica, molto mi piace. Ma considerate (vi prego) come primamente io non

son tale, che lo possi far, come si converrebbe, non essendo ripieno di quelle dottrine, di cui deve

essere adornato colui, che si vuol porre a cosi grande impresa e cosi onorata. Dipoi le cose delle

scienze sono in varie lingue disputate, discorse e da eccellentissimi maestri trattate, in tal guisa,

che non han cosi bisogno, chelle ci siano di nuovo da veruno insegnate, ma la nostra lingua

ancora quasi nella sua fianciullezza, e ha bisogno di chi la regga, lindrizzi e la governi. Onde non

istimo che debbia esser senza frutto la fatica chio prendo di chiarirla, distinguerla, formularla,

illustrarla.


24/46

24

A few years later, Figliucci gives Tolomei a prominent role in his commentary on Aristotles

Ethics, published in 1551: the commentary is a fictionalized account of a conversation between

Claudio Tolomei and his nephew in Padua, in the presence of several Venetian scholars.36

4. Transmitting Plato into the vernacular: ideological significance

It remains to discuss the ideological context in which Plato was translated into the vernacular.

Following a tradition initiated by Ficino, the Symposium and the Phaedrus were seen as

36 Felice Figliucci, De la filosofia morale libri dieci. Sopra li dieci libri de L'Ethica d'Aristotile,

Proemio, f. 10v: Per uenire adunque hormai alla dichiaratione dAristotile, necessario dirui

prima in che modo, et doue furono questi ragionamenti fatti, ne quali tutta questa scienza morale

dichiarata. Douete adunque sapere, che ritrouandosi pochi anni passati, il degno huomo, M.

Claudio Tolomei in Padoua, citt nobile, et magnifica, quanto ognuno sa, et confessa, doue io

parimente per dar qual che opera gli studii di filosofia; mera per alquanto tempo ridutto, egli era

spesso uisitato, et honorato da ogni sorte, et qualit di persone, et massime da una moltitudine di

scolari ingegnosissimi. Tolomei went to Padua after the assassination of his patron Pier Luigi

Farnese in 1547: see Sbaragli, p. 91 and Tolomeis letter to Giovanfrancesco Manfredo inLetters

VI, f. 256v.


25/46

25

complementary, the former being on Love and the latter on Beauty.37 Both dialogues were central,

therefore, to the philosophical and literary circles of the time, particularly for the trattati

damore.38 In addition, Priscianese, who had been in relatively close contact with Michelangelo

and Titian,39 might well have responded to the artists fascination for the Platonic doctrines

revived by Ficino and Diacceto.40 Indeed, since Marsilio Ficinos 1484 translation of Platos

37 On Ficinos interpretation of the Phaedrus and Symposium as two complementary dialogues,

see Marsilio Ficinos Commentaries on Plato (Cambridge, Mass.-London: Harvard University

Press, 2008-), I: Phaedrus and Ion, ed. & transl. by Michael J. B. Allen (2008), pp. 38-39: The

Symposium principally treats of love and of beauty as a consequence; but thePhaedrus talks about

love for beautys sake (Symposium de amore quidem praecipue tractat, consequenter vero de

pulchritudine. AtPhaedrus gratia pulchritudinis disputat de amore).

38 On Ficinos love doctrine in the Symposium and Phaedrus and its reception, see Sabrina

Ebbersmeyer, Sinnlichkeit und Vernunft. Studien zur Rezeption und Transformation der

Liebestheorie Platons in der Renaissance (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag), 2002.

39 On Priscianeses links with the two artists, see Padoan, pp. 361-362 and Costa, pp. 61-110.

40 On the transmission of Platonism in sixteenth-century Italy through Diaccetos vernacular

treatises on love, see Paul Oskar Kristeller, Francesco Diacceto and Florentine Platonism in the

sixteenth century in his Studies in Renaissance Thought and LettersI (Rome: Storia e letteratura,


26/46

26

complete works, the philosophers writings were always read, consciously or not, through the

filter of Ficinos Neoplatonic exegesis, a process that would continue well into the nineteenth

century.41 It is not surprising, therefore, if Priscianese published the translations of Platos

Phaedrus and Symposium together with Ficinos interpretations. Figliucci appended to the

1956), pp. 287-336 (pp. 321-327) and Ebbersmeyer, pp. 136-146. For additional bibliography on

Diacceto, see Stphane Toussaint, Opera Omnia Francisci Catanei Diacetii. Fac-simil de

ldition Basileae, Per Henricum Petri et Petrum Pernam, 1563 (Enghien: Editions du Miraval,

2009), pp. VII-IX.

41 See Kristeller, Marsilio Ficino as a Beginning of Plato, Scriptorium, 20 (1956), 41-54 (pp. 41-

42); Eugne Napolon Tigerstedt, The Decline and Fall of the Neoplatonic Interpretation of Plato.

An Outline and some Observations (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1974), pp. 49-70;Jean-Louis Vieillard-Baron, Platonisme et interprtation de Platon lpoque moderne, (Paris:

Vrin, 1988); Rdiger Bubner, La dcouverte de Platon par Schelling, in Images de Platon et

lectures de ses oeuvres. Les interprtations de Plato travers les sicles, ed. Ada Babette

Neschke-Hentschke (Paris and Louvain: Peeters, 1997), pp. 257-280; Werner Beierwaltes, The

Legacy of Neoplatonism in F. W. J. Schellings Thought,International Journal of Philosophical

Studies, 10/4 (2002), 393-428, and Giovanna Varani, Pensiero alato e modernit. Il

neoplatonismo nella storiografia filosofica in Germania (1559-1807) (Padua: CLEUP, 2008).


27/46

27

Phaedrus a vernacular version of Ficinos introduction (argumentum) to the dialogue, which was

first published in his 1484 translation of Platos works.42 Similarly, Barbarasas translation is

preceded by a vernacular version of Ficinos commentary on the Symposium. Ficino himself had

translated his Symposium commentary from Latin into Tuscan around 1469.43 However, a

42 For the text, seeMarsilio Ficinos Commentaries on Plato (Cambridge, Mass.-London: Harvard

University Press, 2008-), I:Phaedrus and Ion, ed. & transl. by Michael J. B. Allen (2008), pp. 38-

49 and 223.43 For the Latin text [1469], see Marsile Ficin. Commentaire sur le Banquet de Platon, ed. &

transl. by Pierre Laurens (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2002); for the Italian version [s.d., probably

1469], seeMarsilio Ficino. El libro dellamore, ed. by Sandra Niccoli (Florence: Olschki, 1987).

On Ficinos volgarizzamenti, see Cesare Vasoli, Note sul volgarizzamento ficiniano della

Monarchia, inMiscellanea di studi in onore di Vittore Branca, 5 vols (Florence: Olchski, 1983),

III, pp. 451-474; P. O. Kristeller, Marsilio Ficino as a Man of Letters and the Glosses Attributed

to Him in the Caetani Codex of Dante,Renaissance Quarterly, 36 (1983), 1-47; Giuliani Tanturli,

Marsilio Ficino e il volgare, in Marsilio Ficino. Fonti, testi, fortuna. Atti del convegno

internazionale, ed. by Sebastiano Gentile and Stphane Toussaint (Rome: Edizione di Storia e

Letteratura, 2006), pp. 184-213; idem, Osservazioni lessicali su opere volgari e bilingui di

Marsilio Ficino in Il Volgare come lingua di cultura dal Trecento al Cinquecento. Atti del


28/46

28

comparison between Ficinos and Barbarasas texts shows that Barbarasa based his own

translation on Ficinos Latin rather than on the vernacular version. This is further confirmed by the

fact that Barbarasa translates a number of astrological passages, which are only present in the

Latin tradition of Ficinos text.44

convegno internazionale, ed. by Arturo Calzona and others (Florence: Olschki, 2003), pp. 155-

186; Stphane Toussaint, Il Pimandro di Mercurio Trismegisto. Traduction du latin en langue

toscane par Tommaso Benci, manuscript de 1463 et edition de 1549, Cahiers Accademia, 8-9

(2010), 7-17.

44 See Sebastiano Gentile, Per la storia del testo del Commentarium in Convivium di Marsilio

Ficino, Rinascimento, II s., 21 (1981), 3-27; Niccoli, p. XLII-XLIII. All the passages that are

omitted in the vernacular tradition (II, 8, 38; III, 2, 11; V, 8, 7; V, 12, 7; VI, 6, 14; VII, 9, 4) are

present in Barbarasas version, and were thus translated from the Latin version; by contrast, the

1544 Florentine edition of Ficinos vernacular version (see n. 50 below) only inserts five of the

missing passages (it omits V, 12, 7, as well as one sentence in the passage in V, 8, 7). Barbarasa

also translates the Lucretius passage (VII, 6, 3) missing in both the vernacular manuscripts and the

Florentine edition. Because of this, as well as for reasons of chronology, we can infer that the

Florentine editor did not use Barbarasas translation.


29/46

29

Unlike some of his contemporaries such as Cristoforo Landino and Lorenzo de Medici, Ficino

did not consider the role of the vernacular worthy of any other consideration than to make a text

accessible and easy to understand for more people (a pi persone [] commune e facile), as

made clear in the preface to the Italian version of the De Amore.45 By contrast, the translations

printed in the following century by Priscianese are characterized by a conscious and deliberate

intention to use Tuscan as a medium for education and culture, in line with Claudio Tolomeis

defence of the vernacular. In both prefaces the translators clearly explain why they have chosen to

use Tuscan as the vehicle to transmit Platos ideas, but they express a sort of reverence towards

the texts they translate, still underlining the superiority of the Greek idiom over the vernacular.

Thus in the preface dedicated to Grimaldi, Ercole Barbarasa explains that he has translated with

more eagerness than knowledge a text that many would have shied away from, for one cannot

equal the majesty, the loftiness and the divinity of Platos words (cosi mi rendo certo che la

maest, lalteza de concetti, la divinit de le parole di Platone, non si possa tanto levare che

45 Marsilio Ficino, El libro dellamore, ed. Niccoli, p. 4, also cited by Kristeller, Supplementum

Ficinianum: Marsilii Ficini florentini philosophi platonici opuscula inedita et dispersa [...],

(Florence: Olschki, 1938), I, p. CXXV;Tanturli, Marsilio Ficino e il volgare, p. 199.


30/46

30

rivolgasi rompasi).46 What is striking here is that in the preface Barbarasa refers solely to Plato,

and not to Ficino, especially when he is alluding to his intention to translate Platos other

dialogues (...io sono entrato di tradurre glaltri libri del divin Platone sotto il vostro virtuoso et

felice nome).47 This can be explained by the fact that Priscianeses publication has a profound

ideological significance, which goes well beyond the confines of Tolomeis Accademia or

Grimaldis private library. Since 1542 Cosimo de Medici had launched a vast enterprise of

vernacularisation and used theAccademia Fiorentina to promote a cultural model that was centred

upon the superiority of the Tuscan language. In this context, the purpose of the Academy was to

46Il comento di Marsilio Ficino sopra il Convito di Platone, et esso Convito, tradotti in lingua

toscana per Hercole Barbarasa da Terni (Roma: Francesco Priscianese, 1544). Ercole Barbarasas

preface is reproduced in Kristeller, Supplementum ficinianum,I, pp. 92-93. I follow the spelling of

the 1544 edition (apart from the distinction u/v), which I have consulted in the British Library

(C.142.a.38). Barbarasas preface is at ff. [1v]-[2r], followed by a list of capitoli (ff. [2v]-[4r]),

Ficinos commentary (ff. 1r-109v), and the Symposium (ff.[110r]-159v). The book ends with a list

of errata ([f. 163r-v]), preceded by an apologetic note written by Battista Brussa (f. [160r-v]),

probably one of Priscianeses associates, who left out Chapter 4 of Discourse I and added it at the

end of the volume (ff. [161r]-[162v]).

47 Ibid., f. [2r].


31/46

31

translate all knowledge, whether literary, philosophical or scientific, into the vernacular. So the

fact that the first vernacular printing of Platos Symposium occurred in Rome rather than in

Florence can only have been perceived by the Florentines as a provocation on the part of the

fuoriusciti. It is no coincidence, therefore, if the very same year the Florentines decided to publish

Ficinos own vernacular version of the Symposium commentary, which had been completed

around 1469 and had had a limited circulation in manuscript. This publication, which probably

follows that of Priscianese by a few months,48 was produced by a mysterious printer under the

pseudonym Neri Dortelata da Firenze. It is preceded by a dedication to Cosimo I de Medici by

Cosimo Bartoli, a known member of the Florentine Academy.49 The printer is generally identified

48 The Florentine edition bears the date of November 1544. We do not know precisely when the

Roman edition was published, but it is likely to have been printed shortly after July and thus

before November, as indicated by the letter addressed to Vettori on 5July 1544 mentioned in n. 11

above.

49 Marsilio Ficino sopra lo amore o ver Convito di Platone (In Firnze: per Nri Dortelta con

privilgio di N. S., di Novmbre 1544). I have consulted the copy preserved in the British Library,

232.a.29. Bartolis introduction (ff. [2r]-[3r]) is followed by Neri Dortelatas orthographical

treatise (ff. [3v-]-[19v]), Marsilio Ficinos preface to Bernardo del Nero and Antonio Manetti (ff.

1-3), Ficinos commentary on Platos Symposium (ff. 4-251) and an index. The text of Bartolis


32/46

32

in library catalogues as Cosimo Bartoli, but modern scholars are now inclined to identify Dortelata

with Carlo Lenzoni or Giambullari.50 The same Neri Dortelata appended to Ficinos commentary

an introductory essay entitled Observations on the Florentine pronunciation (Osservazioni per

la pronnzia Fiorentna), which was dedicated to the lovers of Florentine language (a gli

amatori della lingua Fiorentina), and defended the use of a new script that would better reflect the

Florentine pronunciation.51 Ficinos commentary is written in this new orthography, with

introduction is reproduced in Kristeller, Supplementum Ficinianum, I, pp. 91-92. In all the

passages quoted below I follow the spelling and accentuation of the 1544 edition rather than

Kristellers.

50 The other known work printed by Dortelata Neri is Giambullaris treatise on the dimensions of

DantesInferno (Del sito, frma, & misre, dllo Infrno di Dnte (Firenze: per Neri Dortelata,

1544)), which features the same orthography and accentuation. Against the identification of

Dortelata as Bartoli, see Judith Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli (1503-1572): The Career of a Florentine

Polymath (Geneva: Droz, 1983), pp. 215-219 and Fiorelli, p. 190; Moyer, pp. 145-147, attributes

the text to Lenzoni, or as the result of a collaboration between Lenzoni and Giambullari.

51 The passage is at ff. [7r]-[8v]: dco adnque primieramnte, che avndo ni nlla nstra

pronnzia piu suni, che nel alfabto lttere assegnte lla espressine di qulli: et na infinit di

parle in ttto smili di lttere et di suno, ma divrse di accnti: la scrittra nstra stta


33/46

33

prominent accent marks and characteristic spellings. Dortelatas essay is one of several

Cinquecento attempts to create a new alphabet that is adapted to the needs of the vernacular

independently of Latin, the most famous ones being, as we have mentioned above, those by

Trissino and Tolomei.52 Modern scholars have shown that Dortelatas treatise is remarkably

similar in content to Tolomeis own orthographical reform, to such an extent that Tolomei himself

wondered in a letter to Carlo Lenzoni if he had not been plagiarised.53 At the same time, however,

necessitta insno ad ggi con so diftto, et confusine de lettri, servrsi mlte vlte dna sla,

et medsima lttera, et non slo a dui notabilmnte variti suni; ma a dui significti mlto

divrsi (Therefore, I say that, firstly, given that there are more sounds in our pronunciation than

there are letters in the alphabet, and that there is an infinite number of words which are very

similar in spelling and sound, but have different accents, our orthography had so far (in a way that

is both detrimental and confusing for the readers) to use one single letter in different contexts, not

only to express two completely different sounds, but to convey two very different meanings).

52 See Richardson, Trattati sullOrtografia del Volgare,pp. XLIII-XLIV.

53 See Fiorelli, p. 186, n. 51, and Castellani Pollidori, pp. CII-CIV. The text is inLettere III, f. 103r-

v: Me stata molto cara lopera di Marsiglio [i.e. the Florentine edition of Marsilio Ficinos

Dellamore], che mhavete mandata, ma molto pi il vedere che vi ricordate di me, e mi tenete in

quel grado di buono amico, chio vi sono. Non ho havuto tempo di leggerla ancora, perche pur


34/46

34

Dortelata appears to distance himself from the reforms propounded by Tolomei and Trissino. For

instance, he rejects the creation of new characters (f. [6r]: consciosa che o non ci msso

cartteri nuvi (cme e dcono) o non conosciti universalmnte per qulla stssa lttera, che

rappresntato in ttti gli scritti), which is precisely what Trissino had proposed; he attacks what

he sees as Tolomeis inconsistency regarding the redoubling of the letter z, which Tolomei

advocated but failed to apply in his own writings (f.[13r]: si ancra perch no scrittre intra gli

ltri mlto considerto se bne l [sc. il raddioppamento della zeta] appruva per tilcsa, non

hiersera la ricevei. De lOsservationi [sc. Dortelatas treatise], che vi son dinanzi per una altra vi

scriver piu a longo. Basta chio non so segli stato furto, o imitationi, o simiglianza di spirito.

Queste sono cose state trattate disputate e risolte in una nostra Academia, e cominciate con molti .

Benche il vostro scrittore, per quel chio vedo, non habbia cosi appreso bene ogni cosa (I was

very pleased to receive Marsilios work from you, but even more pleased to see that you

remember me and consider me such a good friend (which I am). I have not had time to read it yet,

because I have only received it yesterday evening. Regarding the Osservationi, which you have in

front of you, I will write to you more in detail in another letter. Suffices to say that I do not know

whether it has been plagiarised, is an imitation, or is [simply] similar in spirit. These matters have

been treated, discussed and solved in our Academy by many people. However, from what I can

see, your writer has not understood these things all that well).


35/46

35

per l gli volto prdppio nlle pere se). Given the ideological context in which this text

was produced, we may infer that Dortelatas treatise was seeking to compete with, or at least

respond to, Tolomeis orthographical project. As suggested by Fiorelli, Dortelatas attack might

well be what prompted Tolomei to subsequently publish his Letters in his own new alphabet, in

order to respond to Dortelatas accusation that he had failed to apply his new orthography to his

works.54

Similarly, we may infer that the publication of Ficinos vernacular translation of Platos

Symposium was a response to Ercole Barbarasas new translation, in order to establish the

Accademia Fiorentinas monopoly over vernacular culture. In the preface dedicated to Cosimo de

Medici, Cosimo Bartoli underlines the connection between the Duke and his predecessors, Cosimo

the Elder and Lorenzo the Magnificent. Thus he explains that Ficino, the assuredly worthy pupil

of the great Cosimo (f. [2r]: allivo dgno certamnte di qul grn Cosimo) not only gave Plato

to the Latin-speaking people, together with his own commentaries, but wished to please those who

spoke Tuscan and, at the insistence of Lorenzo de Medici, translated his Symposium commentary

into the vernacular (f. [2r]: Pi che non contnto di avr dto Platne a Latni, illustrto et

dichiarto con mlti dotssimi scrtti sui; desiderndo non mno di giovre a ttti colro che di

qusta nstra lngua solamnte avssero notzia, che gli savsse desiderto prma di satisfre lle

54 See Fiorelli, pp. 185-186 and Castellani Pollidori, pp. CII-CIV.


36/46

36

onorte, et tili persuasini del vstro Magnifico Lorenzo, il Comnto che gli spra lo Amre di

Platne avva compsto Latino, si degn nlla nstra Matrna lngua tradrre). He notes, rightly,

that Ficinos translation was never printed (f. [2v]: Intenzine veramnte bengna et snta, ma

non perventa ancra a qulsgno dve gli stsso lavva dirtta, essndo stto qusto so

Tesro qusi che ascso insno a tmpi nstri; o veramnte godto da pchi). This led him to

print Ficinos work on the basis of a text copied from the original version, and to dedicate it to

Cosimo de Medici in celebration of the Medicis heritage, and in testimony of Bartolis gratitude

(f. [2v]: avndo avto commodit dn Tsto copito da lo originle stsso, volto frne prte a

ttti gli intellignti la nstra lngua, ma stto lo onoratss. nme dlla Ecc. V. cme di qulla a chi

o dbbo non slo rndere qullo che cme csa Ereditria se le appartine, ma ttto qullo ancra

che o sno o ssere potssi gia mi).55 There is no need, Bartoli adds, to read the Symposium in

the original, since Ficino has provided the best interpretation of the dialogue, which is in strict

conformity with Christian dogmas (ff. [2v]-[3r]: Et non si maravgli se innnzi a qusto Comnto,

non truva il Tsto di Platne: per ci che o piu tsto volto seguitre il giudzio di Marslio,

con qulche crico di avre fuggto la fatca di tradrlo; che dre occasine lle persne indtte, le

55 On the stemmatic position of the Florentine edition, see Niccoli, pp. XLII-LVIII. Given the

presence of some of the astrological passages (see n. 45 above), we may infer that Bartoli also

collated the text with the Latin version.


37/46

37

quli sgliono appna considerre la scrza dlle cse, di accndere per il so figurto et grve

mdo di dre, nlle Mnti lro, di qulli afftti che vi si trttano; et frse piu largamnte, che a na

comne lngua qunto la nstra non si convine. Cagine veramnte che Marslio lo traducsse

et lo comentsse a Latni; et a sui non volsse dre ltro che il Comnto slo, cme csa in ttto

Divna et veramnte Cristina). The contrast between this preface and that of Barbarasa is rather

striking. Whilst Barbarasa expressed a form of reverence towards the text he translated, Bartoli

establishes here a clear distinction between i Latini and i suoi; whilst Barbarasa transmitted

Platos text together with Ficinos interpretation, Bartoli underlines that there is no need to read

Platos dialogue, since Ficinos interpretation provides the perfect guide for a Christian audience.

Bartolis insistence that the Florentine edition reproduces Ficinos original version can also be

seen as a criticism of Barbarasas decision to provide a new translation of the text.

A similar difference between Priscianeses publications and Medici-commissioned translations

can be observed with regards to the second translation. The Phaedrus translation is dedicated to

the truly noble and virtuous women (alle donne veramente nobili, et virtuose), indicating the

role of the vernacular in promoting culture to women.56 In the preface, Figliucci explains that the

56 See Conor Fahy, Three Early Renaissance Treatises on Women,Italian Studies, 11 (1956), 30-

55; Maria Ludovica Lenzi, Donne e madonne. Leducazione femminile nel primo Rinascimento

italiano (Turin: Loescher, 1982); Romeo De Maio, Donna e Rinascimento. Linizio della


38/46

38

Phaedrus is a dialogue on Beauty (Dialogo del Bello) and can therefore teach women how to

distinguish between good and bad lovers (dove apertissimamente palesa quali siano quelli amanti,

che odiar si debbano, et quali quelli, che da ogni savia et gentil donna meritano essere honorati et

tenuti cari). This statement not only echoes a well-established Neoplatonic tradition, as we have

seen above,57 but it is also very similar to the arguments formulated by the treatises in lode delle

donne celebrating female virtues and beauty, which flourished especially in the mid-1540s in the

Accademia degli Intronati in Siena.58

In this context, the translator adopts a modest attitude towards the text he translates, underlining

the superiority of Greek over the vernacular, which recalls Barbarasas preface mentioned above.

Thus he states:

Knowing, therefore, how useful the knowledge [of matters pertaining to love] would be for you,

and wishing also to please you, I started to translate into Tuscan this most divine dialogue, not

rivoluzione (Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1995); Gaia Servadio, Renaissance Woman

(London: I. B. Tauris, 2004); and Virginia Cox, Womens Writing in Italian, 1400-1650

(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008).

57 See n. 38.

58 See Marie-Franoise Pijus, Visages et paroles de femmes dans la littrature italienne de la

Renaissance (Paris: Universit Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2009), pp. 51-139.


39/46

39

because I thought that Platos elevated concepts could be expressed in our language with the

beauty and elegance that they display in Greek, but only because I wished to give you a testimony

of my devotion.59

The contrast with the tone Figliucci uses, four years later, in his preface to the Medici-

commissioned translation of Ficinos Letters could not be more striking. In this preface, which

was dedicated to Cosimo de Medici, Figliucci states that he has translated the Letters to transmit

grace and wisdom to more people, in a way that is not dissimilar to Ficinos view in El libro

59Il Fedro, o vero il Dialogo del Bello di Platone, tradotto in lingua toscana per F. Figliucci,

(Roma: per Francesco Priscianese, 1544), f. [2v]: Conoscendo adunque di quanta utilit dovesse

esservi questa cognitione, desideroso oltra modo di giovarvi, mi son messo tradurre in lingua

Toscana questo divinissimo Dialogo, non per che io pensassi gli alti concetti di Platone nella

nostra lingua mostrare con quella maest, et elegantia, che nella greca si veggono, ma solo per

darvi un saggio della divotion mia verso di voi. I have consulted the copy preserved in the British

Library (8460.b.7). The dedication (f. [2 r-v]) is followed by Ficinos argumentum (ff. [3r]-7r) and

PlatosPhaedrus (ff. [8r]-79v); it ends with a list oferrori di stampa (f. [80r]).


40/46

40

dellamore; however, in contrast to Ficino, he also underlines that Tuscan has little to envy Latin

for.60

The translators and editors thus oscillate between the promotion of the vernacular as a

philosophical language considered as worthy as Latin in the context of the Medicis political

strategy, and a more modest attitude, where the original, whether Greek or Latin, is seen as

superior in elegance and style. The way in which the authors are presented is also very much

60 Tomo primo delle divine lettere del gran Marsilio Ficino, tradotte in lingua toscana per M.

Felice Figliucci Senese (Vinegia: per Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari, 1546), ff. [2v]-[3r]: [...] accioche

la leggiadria e la grande scienza che in esse si ritruova potesse a piu persone dilettare e giovare. E

perche ancora io non penso, che essendo in questa lingua, la quale non ha troppo da invidiare a la

latina, e che Vostra Eccellentia ha sempre difesa e favorita perdano punto di reputatione o di

maest. I have consulted the copy preserved in the British Library (1084.f.1). The preface is

followed by a table of contents (ff. [4r]-[8r]), the first five books of Ficinos Letters (ff. 1r-320v)

and an index of subjects (ff. [321r]-[324v]). On Figliuccis translation of Ficinos Letters, seeLe

divine lettere el gran Marsilio Ficino, tradotte in lingua toscana per M. Felice Figliucci Senese ,

ed. by Sebastiano Gentile (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2011), p. XXV, where Gentile

notes that Figliucci renders Ficinos text mantenendo una grande fedelt nei confronti

delloriginale latino.


41/46

41

conditioned by the context in which they are read. Both the Medici-printed books underline the

importance of Ficino, evidently to emphasize the link between Cosimo il Vecchio, Ficinos patron

and enlightened ruler, and the Duke. By contrast, the Platonic texts printed by Priscianese

underline the importance of Plato, and present Ficino as an interpreter of Plato, rather than as a

symbol of Florentine supremacy.

5. Ficinos legacy in the vernacular

Despite invoking Platos text, Barbarasalike many vernacular translatorsbased his translation

on Ficinos Latin version rather than on the Greek original. A comparison between the original

text and the translations indicates that Barbarasa follows Ficinos omissions and translation

techniques, such as the technique ofreduplicatio, which consists of rendering one Greek term by

two Latin words.61 The same is true regarding Figliuccis translation of the Phaedrus: it is based

61 Barbarasa follows Ficinos omission of a passage (203 c 6-7: Quoniam vero Pori ac Peniae

amor est filius sortem huiusmodi nactus est: principio aridus est et squalidus. Nudis pedibus,

semper humi volans, sine domicilio, sine stramentis et tegmine ullo Ficino: oltre di ci essendo

amore figliuolo di Poro, et Penia, ci della abbondanza, et della carestia, della medesima

natura de suoi genitori. Egli primamente et magro, et pallido: va discalzo, volando sempre per

terra: senza habitatione, senza letto, et senza copertura alcuna Barbarasa (f. 140v-r)). Barbarasa


42/46

42

on Ficinos rather than Platos text.62 However, in this process of translation, the religious content

of Ficinos interpretation is progressively lost. Ficino had revived pagan texts with a view to

also follows Ficino in instances ofreduplicatio: e.g. 179b1 vim furoremque Ficino:forza et

furore Barbarasa (f. 116v); 180b2 tutatur et diligit Ficino: difende et ama Barbarasa

(f.117v); 181c7 sincere perfecteque Ficino: sinceramente, et perfettamente Barbarasa

(f. 119r); 203d1 aridus et squalidus Ficino: et magro, et pallido Barbarasa (f. 140r). On

Ficinos translation, see Chr. Brockmann, Die Handschriftliche berlieferung von Platons

Symposion (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1992), pp. 220-229 (pp. 222-223), to which I am indebted for

the selection of Ficinos passages on which my analysis is based.

62 See e.g. 227 c3-4 tuis auribus congrua Ficino: degna delle tue orecchie

Figliucci (f. [8r]); 227 c6-7 scripserat enim

Lysias elaboratam et luculentam orationem Ficino:per ci che Lisia haveva scritto una oratione

dottissima, et elegantissima Figliucci (f. [8r]); 245 b5 prudentem et sanum Ficino:

prudente et sano Figliucci (f. 32r); 245c1 hominibus add. Ficino: gli huomini Figliucci (f. 32r);

268b3 , , , : scio

() vomitum quoque rursusque deiectionem et expurgationes alias provocare, ceteraque

huiusmodi multa Ficino: io so provocare il vomito, so fare levacuatione, so ordinare le

purgationi et intendo molte altre cose simili Figliucci (f. 32r).


43/46

43

renewing the spirituality of his time. He had established some bold equivalence between paganism

and Christianity, going as far as to compare the Neoplatonic and Christian rituals (theurgy, fasting,

prayer and abstinence) and to equate Neoplatonic demons, generally considered as evil spirits,

with Christian angels.63 Allusions to ancient mythology or religion were highly significant,

therefore, to Ficinos revival of Platonism. The vernacular versions of the texts printed by

Priscianese no longer take this important aspect of Ficinos thought into account. In Figliuccis

translation of the Phaedrus argumentum, for instance, references to mythological figures and

Neoplatonic intermediary spirits are often omitted: the Latin expression de animorum

63 Gentile, In margine allepistola De divino furore di Marsilio Ficino, Rinascimento, II s., 23,

(1983), 33-77; Paola Megna, Lo Ione platonico nella Firenze Medicea (Messina: Centro

interdipartimentale di studi umanistici, 1999), pp. 57-142; Michael J. B. Allen, The Soul as

Rhapsode: Marsilio Ficinos Interpretation of Platos Ion in Humanity and Divinity in

Renaissance and Reformation: Essays in Honor of Charles Trinkaus, ed. by John W. O Malley,

Thomas M. Izbicki and Gerald Christianson (Leiden-New York-Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1993), pp.

125-148 (repr. inPlatos Third Eye,no. XV); idem, Poets Outside the City, in his Synoptic Art:

Marsilio Ficino on the History of the Platonic Interpretation (Florence: Olschki, 1998), pp. 93-

123 and, more recently, Marsilio Ficino.Commentaries on Plato. Volume I: Phaedrus and Ion,

pp. IX-LIX.


44/46

44

numinumque pulchritudine, which refers to the beauty of the souls and other divinities, is simply

rendered by belleza de gli animi (f. [3r]); an allusion to Platos Apollinian nature is omitted (immo

ab apollinea genitura Ficino: anzi dal suo nascimento Figliucci (f. [3r])) whilst the term daemon,

when referring to pagan good spirits, is translated by the Christian terms spirito orangelo.64 By

contrast, in his version of Ficinos Symposium commentary, Ercole Barbarasa consistently renders

daemon by demone.65 In other cases, however, Barbarasas translation differs from the Latin (and

Tuscan) original. For instance, the Neoplatonic One (Latin ipsum unum, or, in Ficinos vernacular

version, uno or unit divina), which is the first principle of the Universe, identified as the

Christian God, is often (though not always)66 rendered by the termsIddio orDio (VII, 13: ipsum

64 daemon quidem aereus Ficino: uno spirito che in noi aereo Figliucci (f. [4r]); ordines

daemonum Ficino: delli spiriti celesti Figliucci (f. [4v]); daemonum Ficino: la

caduta de gli angeli Figliucci (f. 5r);serpentem daemonicum Ficino: il serpente angelico (f. 5r); a

daemone quodam heute Ficino: da un certo iddio detto Theuthe Figliucci (f. 7r)

65 See, e.g. Or. VI, 2: amorem daemonem appellavitFicino: chiam amore demone Barbarasa (f.

54v).

66 See, for instance, Or. VII, 14: redire quippe ad unum animus nequit nisi ipse unum efficiatur

Ficino: et certo lanimo non puo ritornare ad uno, se listesso uno non diventa Barbarasa (ff. 105

r-v).


45/46

45

unum/unit divina, ab ipso uno/da uno, ad ipsum unum/con quella unit Ficino:Dio, da esso Dio,

ad esso Dio Barbarasa f. 104v). Allusions to pagan religious rituals lose their initial meaning: for

instance, the Dionysiac rituals (VII, 14: expiationibus sacrisque/per sacrifici e purificazioni),

which were central to Ficinos revival of paganism, are rendered by the more neutral expression

cose pie et sacre (f. 105v). In these passages, therefore, Barbarasas translation obliterates the

Neoplatonic or pagan undertones of Ficinos text.

Thus the passage into the vernacular seems to attenuate, at least in some part, Ficinos

Neoplatonic heritage, and to erase the ambiguous and allusive nature of the original text. It is

certainly not the case that the language itself lacks the nuances that can express sophistication of

thought. Nevertheless, there seems to be a simplification of Ficinos doctrines, due to the

translation process itself, and to the nature of the audience targeted by these translations. This

process of simplification goes hand in hand with the 16th-century presentation of Ficino as a truly

Christian interpreter of Platonism, which will last until the 19th century and still determines, at

least in some part, modern views on Renaissance Platonism.

6. Conclusion

Priscianeses editions of Plato tell the story of the Florentine exiles in Rome and of their attempt

to transmit vernacular culture independently of the Medici regime. These texts carry the ideology

of the time, adding a new layer to several centuries of interpretation of Plato and inspiring artists,

intellectuals, politicians, and women. As this article has shown, the choice of texts reflects the

cultural and political aspirations of the humanists of the time; it documents the ideological

significance of the multi-facetted phenomenon of vernacularisation in the sixteenth-century. Thus,


46/46

46

whilst Florence was keen to promote the vernacular as a way to link the newly reinstated Medici

to their ancestors, the Florentine exiles in Rome tended to erase the Medicean aspect of the

process of vernacularization; whilst Florence celebrated Ficino, Rome heralded Plato. This

process of ideological re-appropriation was sufficiently significant to prompt the Florentines who

remained in their home city to reaffirm the centrality of Ficino as the best and sole interpreter of

Plato and the promoter of the Medici ideology, by printing his vernacular version of Plato in

response to Barbarasas translation. The success of the Roman fuoriusciti was short-lived: as

private courts failed to provide sufficient financial support to their entourage, prominent

intellectuals decided to return to Florence and continue their projects at the service of the Medici

regime, leading to a vast programme of cultural celebration of the volgare through the Florentine

Academy and Torrentinos press.

Affiliation: University of Warwick, Departments of Classics and Italian

Name: Maude Vanhaelen

Address: Department of Italian, University of Warwick, CV4 7AL Coventry

[email protected]

cose di platone fatte toscane' - language and ideology in two vernacular translations of plato...

Documents