1 ‘A Humanist's Image of Humanism: the Inaugural Orations of Bartolommeo della Fonte', Studies in the Renaissance VII (1960), 90-125; appendix 1, ‘The Works of Bartolommeo della Fonte from Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, Cod. Palatino Capponi 77', pp. 126-127; appendix II, ‘Manuscripts and Editions of Located Works of Bartolommeo della Fonte', pp. 127-132. Hereafter cited as ‘Fontius 1960'.

2 Purchased with the aid of, and with thanks to, the Columbia University Council for Research in the Social Sciences.

3 I am grateful to all three scholars for this small act of international and intercollegiate coöperation. I only hope not to justify Professor Gombrich's fears that it ‘would hardly warrant publication in full since, like Shakespeare's Hamlet, “it consists almost entirely of quotations” ‘. I am indebted also to Professor James Hutton for supplying many references that I could not locate and for other suggestions.

4 In 1961 a long-awaited major work appeared: Professor Bernard Weinberg of the University of Chicago's A History of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renaissance (Chicago, 1961)Google Scholar. Although it deals with ‘literature’ only as poetry and covers only the Cinquecento and the very end of the Quattrocento, this work is an indispensable manual because of the thoroughness of its coverage. This work is monumental in its scope but monolithic in maintaining its author's point of view, which is that of the so-called ‘Chicago school’ of Aristotelianism, fully and effectively expounded in its application to literature in Critics and Criticism, Ancient and Modern, ed. Crane, R. S. (Chicago, 1952).Google Scholar Another notable work appeared the very next year, Professor Baxter Hathaway of Cornell University's The Age of Criticism: the Late Renaissance in Italy (Ithaca, 1962).Google Scholar More accurately titled, Professor Hathaway's book explores in depth a number of critical issues in sixteenth-century criticism and is particularly generous in acknowledging the validity and importance of the contributions of that age even when they do not coincide with modern or ancient critical canons. Hard on its heels came Professor O. B. Hardison, Jr., of the University of North Carolina's The Enduring Monument, a Study of the Idea of Praise in Renaissance Literary Theory and Practice (Chapel Hill, 1962).Google Scholar Professor Hardison contributes a valuable survey of the types of literary theory prevailing in the Renaissance, including the Trecento and Quattrocento, but perhaps more importantly, analyzes the interplay of epideictic literary theory and poetic composition in sixteenth-century European literature.

5 The following are standard and well-known: Spingarn, Joel E., A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance (New York, 1899; enlarged Italian ed., Bari, 1905)Google Scholar; Vossler, Karl, Poetische Theorien in der italienischen Frührenaissance (Berlin, 1900 Google Scholar, Litterarhistorische Forschungen, Heft XII); Orazio Bacci, La critica letter aria (dall'antichita classica al rinascimento) (Milano, 1910, Storia dei generi letterari italiani 8); Ciro Trabalza, La critica letteraria nel rinascimento (secoli XV-XVI-XVII) (Milano, 1915, Storia dei generi letterari italiani 9); Giuseppe Toffanin, La fine dell'umanesimo (Torino, 1920); Clark, Donald L., Rhetoric and Poetry in the Renaissance, a Study of Rhetorical Terms in English Renaissance Literary Criticism (New York, 1922)Google Scholar; Baldwin, Charles S., Renaissance Literary Theory and Practice, ed. Clark, Donald L. (New York, 1939).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Of exceptional value in this study are: Marvin T. Herrick, The Fusion ofHoratian and Aristotelian Criticism, 1531-1555 (Urbana, 111., 1946, Illinois Stud, in Language & Literature XXXII: I) and August Buck, Italienische Dichtungslehren vom Mittelalter bis zum Ausgang der Renaissance (Tubingen, 1952, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, Heft 94). Francesco Tateo, ‘Retorica’ e ‘poetica’ fra medioevo e rinascimento (Bari, i960) considers chiefly the Trecento and the Cinquecento.

6 Cristoforo Landino presented his general ideas on poetry in at least three publications which repeat each other with minor variations: the introductory pages to book III of his Disputationes Camaldulenses, Cod. Laur. 53,28, ff. 90^r-98^r (I also use Ham 9851, Florence, ca. 1480, sigg. fiii^r-fvi^v); his introduction to his commentary on the Divine Comedy, first published in Florence, 1481 (I use Dante con Fespositioni di Cristoforo Landino, Venice, 1578, 'Discorso del Landino che cosa sia poesia et poeta, et della origine sua divina et antichissima', unnumbered), his most extensive statement; his commentary on Horace, first published in 1482, Florence, A. Miscomini (I use Harvard Inc. 4917 B, Horatii opera cum commentariis Acronis …, Venice, 1490, ff. 145-161).

7 His most important statement is in his Sylva, ‘Nutricia', in Angelo Poliziano, Le selve e La Strega, prolusioni nello Studio Fiorentino (1482-1492) per cura di Isidoro del Lungo (Florence, 1925), pp. 113-181,'Absoluta est in Faesulano VIII idusoctobris MCCCCLXXXVI.'

8 Ioannis Ioviani Pontani Dialogus qui Actius inscribitur (Giovanni Pontano, I dialoghi a cura di Carmelo Previtera, Florence, 1943, pp. 127-239).

9 F. 2^r of the text edited below. References to the text will simply give the folio numbers of the original manuscript with no other indication.

10 Fontius, of course, is speaking of ancient Latin authors, but he does not seem to know of certain medieval treatises published or discussed by Edmond Faral, Les Arts poitiques du XIIe et du XIII” siecle (Paris, 1924, Bibl. de l'£cole des hautes etudes, fasc. 238; reprinted, 1958). These include Matthieu de Vendome, Ars versificatoria; Geoffroi de Vinsauf, Poetria nova; Gervais of Melkley, Ars versificatoria; John of Garland, Poetria. In C. S. Baldwin's judgement (Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic, New York, 1928, p . 195), ‘their aim was not to organize the study of poetic, but to cover its elements by as many exercises as possible. Imitative writing of Latin verse, long part of the study ofgrammatka, has been combined with the theory of rhetorica through exercises in figures, and with its practice through exercises in dictamen. Doubtless the resulting aggregation was called poetria both because the exercises were still connected with the traditional praelectio and were oftenest in verse, and because, whether in verse or dictamen, they were focused on that heightening by ornament and by dilation which was conventionally regarded as poetic.'

11 As my discussion below will bring out, I believe this is the first Renaissance poetics in content as well as title. Previous humanist writing on poetry dealt with it in the fragmentary form of commentaries, or defended its dignity and distinguished it from other arts, or sketched its past. However inadequately, Fontius seems to have given the first general discussion of poetry as an art (in book II, cf. below).

12 ‘Paulus Ghiaccetus Tertius', i.e., Paolo Cattani da Ghiacceto (or Diacceto as it is spelled today), a grandson of the Florentine statesman of the same name whose life Fontius wrote. (Cf. Wolfenbiittel Cod. 43 Aug. Fol., ff. 131^r-139^r .) The Cattani family had a villa in the village of Pelago near by but took its name from Ghiacceto, where Fontius was living in the summer of 1490. Paolo da Ghiacetto in was an interlocutor in Fontius' dialogue Pelago or Ragionamento sopra alchuni luoghi de’ Triumphi del Petrarcha (Pontius 1960, p. 135). The first Paolo da Ghiacceto was an ancestor of the statesman.

13 Cf. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae (Paris, 1744), IV, 409.Google Scholar Its provenance is indicated as the DuFresne collection. Leopold Deslisle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque imperiale (Paris, 1868-1881), 1,269-270, discusses the collection of Raphael Trichet du Fresne, purchased by Colbert.

14 Cf. Catalogus codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis (Munich, 1878)Google Scholar, torn. n, pars III, p. 200; f. 1, Macrobii Theodosii Saturnaliorum libri VII; f. 157, Macrobii Ambrosii in somnium Scipionis libri II; f. 233^v, at end, ‘Barptolemaeus Fontius exscripsit Florentiae'. Cf. p. 42 above. Cf. also Guglielmo Fraknoi, Giuseppe Fögel, Paolo Galyas, Edit Hoffmann, Biblioteca Corvina, la biblioteca di Mattia Corvino re d'Ungheria, tr. Luigi Zambra (Budapest, 1927), p. 105, n. 169.

15 Bartholomaeus Fontius, Epistolarum libri III, ed. Ladislaus Juhasz (Budapest, 1931), lib. n, ep. 8, p. 33.

16 For these two lost works see Fontius 1960, p. 127, no. 38 (Phocyhdes) and p. 126, no. 2 (Valerius Flaccus).

17 Marchesi, Concetto, Bartolomeo della Fonte (Catania, 1900) pp. 136–141 Google Scholar, vi, ‘Valerio Flacco'.

18 Fontius i960, p. 94 and n. 12.

19 Text, f. 40^r.

20 Lib. 11, ep. 11 (ed. Juhasz, p. 36): ‘quern non longo post tempore subsequently maiora nostra in Valerium Flaccum nomini tuo dedicata volumina et tua celsitudine digniora'.

21 Lib. 11, ep. 12.

22 On 30 May he was in Pelago, presumably staying at the Ghiacceto family villa, as his translation of Demosthenes’ oration De mala legatione states at the end (Florence, Bib. Naz. Cod. Palatino Capponi 77, f. 71^r , ‘Pelagi iii Cal. Junia 1490 Copiato dallo originale di mano delfontio adi 10 digennaio 1513 per me Francesco baroncini et finito detto di’). Lib. 11, ep. 16 (ed. Juhasz, p. 39) is inscribed Giacetti, ‘XII Cal. Augusti 1490'.

23 This villa was the setting for his dialogue commentary on Petrarch's Trionfi; cf. text edited in Fontius 1960, pp. 134-147, f. 3^V, ‘con Pagolo da Ghiacceto nella sua villa di Pelago'.

24 Fontius i960, pp. 94-95.

25 Ibid., pp. 131-132, ‘Additional Works of Fontius (E)'. Cf. now P. O. Kristeller, Iter Italicum, 1 (London and Leiden, 1963), 184-208, partial descriptions of Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana codices 62, 151, 152, 153, 154, 421, 646, 673, 837, 851, 904, 907. Cf. Marchesi, op. cit., parte 2a, 1, ‘Gli excerpta', pp. 101-107. These descriptions supplement and overlap each other but are still not complete.

26 Riccardiana, Cod. 646, if. 61^r-84^v. F. 61^r , ‘Collecta sub Christophoro Landino publice legend Florentie anno MCCCC0 supra quartum et sexagesimum. Multa sunt quae ipse non dixit; sed ego ex Tortellio vero collegi.'

27 Giovanni Tortelli of Arezzo (1400-1466), Vatican librarian under Nicholas v; his Commentaria grammatica de orthographia dictionum e Graecis tractarum, first editions, Rome and Venice, 1471, was generally known as Orthographia. Fontius used a manuscript in 1464. Citations will be from the Venice, 1495 edition. Among other things, this book contains an alphabetical biographical dictionary of Greek authors with excerpts from classical, mostly Latin, authors.

28 Op. cit. in n. 6.

29 E.g. f. 147^v of edition cited (Venice, 1490).

30 Riccardiana, Cod. 152, reported by Marchesi, op. cit., p. i03.Kristeller, op. cit., p. 188, does not include this item in his description of the manuscript but supplies the dates given for other material. I have not examined this item.

31 Riccardiana, Cod. 628. It is listed by Kristeller, op. cit., p. 178, among his ‘Excerpts' from the inventory as ‘Horace. Owned by Barth. Fontius.’ It turned out to be Porphyrion. I have not seen Ric. 700, also listed in ‘Excerpts’ as Horace owned by Fontius (Kristeller, p. 179). Cod. 628 has a humanist Italic hand, not of Fontius, but very close to that of Cennini in Cod. Laur. 53, 28. Comparison was based on microfilms and on B. L. Ullman, The Origin and Development of Humanistic Script (Rome, 1960), plate 70. I reserve judgement on the identification as in this particular style of writing extraordinary uniformity can be achieved by different scribes. There are sufficient differences from the characteristic letter formations of Fontius to make it certainly not his, although the marginalia, in his cursive, definitely are his. The commentary on the Ars poetica runs from f. 105^r to f. n 6^r.

32 F. 109^v.

33 F. 105^r. I use the Loeb Classical Library edition of Horace.

34 C O . Brink, Horace on Poetry: Prolegomena to the Literary Epistles (Cambridge, 1963). Cf. part 11, ‘The Tradition of Literary Criticism and the “Ars Poetica” ‘, pp. 43-150.

35 Ibid., pp. 103-108.

36 Cod. Ric. 646, f. 81^r. Cicero, De officiis, 1, 52 is not it but close.

37 Op. tit., f. 151^v.

38 Cod. Ric. 646, f. 82^r

39 Ibid., f. 64^r.

40 Ambrosii Theodosii Macrohii Saturnalia, Apparatu critico instruxit … Jacobus Willis (Leipzig, 1963, Teubner), v, 2, 9-11.

41 Vide supra, n. 14.

42 Ff. 22^v-23^r. See below p. 72.

43 Op. cit., f. I47^r.

44 Pp. 83-84.

45 Cf. Marchesi, op. cit., pp. 101-106. These ‘excerpta’ have not yet been systematicallystudied. His own interests ranged from the naturalistic in his first edition of Celsus and in Cod. Riccardianus 151 and 154, the archaeological in his collection of inscriptions ﹛Fortius i960, p. 131, B [the Ashmole MS. is now Oxford, Bodleian Lat. Misc. d 85]), his letter on ancient weights and measures (lib. in, ep. 7), to his lexicographic studies (cf. Marchesi, pp. 107-112).

46 Cf. the list of authors selected by Kristeller in his description of Fontius’ excerpts, above n. 25.

47 Manuscripts and editions listed Fontius 1960, p. 120, appendix II, (1).

48 Wolfenbiittel Cod. 43 Aug. FoL, ff. 15^v-17^v , Prohemium on satire. The commentary opens with an analysis of the appropriateness of iambic metre for invective and satire (ff. I9r seq.). Cf. Marchesi, op. cit., pp. 113-121.

49 Cod. Riccardianus 1172, ff. II^r-35^r. Cf. Eva Sandford's discussion of this commentary in her article on the Juvenal tradition, Catalogus translationum et commentariorum. Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, ed. P. O. Kristeller, 1 (Washington, i960), 227-229. Miss Sandford also refers to Fontius’ independent selections and comments on Juvenal in Cod. Ric. 153, ff. 135-139, ‘Ad Juvenalem quaedam adnotationes'.

50 See n. 48; below, p. 94; text, ff. 47^v-49^v.

51 Details in Marchesi, pp. 49-63, corrected by Fontius 1960, pp. 91-94 and n. 12.

52 Above p. 45 and nn. 16-21.

53 Above, p. 44 and n. 15.

54 Cod. Rice. 539, 170 folios; cf. Marchesi, pp. 166-167; described by Kristeller, Iter, 1, 193.

55 Ff. I^r-3^r.

56 Cf. Brink's trenchant remarks, op. cit., pp. 153-154.

57 Fontius 1960, pp. 127, 129-130.

58 Carmina, ed. Jos. Fógel and Lad. Juhasz (Leipzig, 1932).

59 P. O. Kristeller, Studies in Renaissance Thought and Letters (Rome, 1956), pp. 381-382.

60 Ibid.

61 Fontius 1960, p. 127.

62 Ibid., p. 130.

63 Below and Fontius 1960, pp. 107-108.

64 Fontius 1960, appendix iv, pp. 134-147.

65 Cited above. Cf. especially his fine discussion of the interplay of theory and practice in chapter vi, ‘Varieties of Elegy', pp. 123-162, where he shows how the frequently de spised epideictic theory of poetry is manifested in some of the most beautiful poems of the Renaissance.

66 These orations are all discussed in Fontius 1960, pp. 105-108,112-113,120. Although these orations first appeared in an earlier incunabulum, Hain 7227, the best text is Wolfenbiittel, 43 Aug. Fol., which in i960 I suggested was his autographic presentation copy for Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary. There is no longer any question in my mind that it is an autograph, as comparison with Clm. 15738 (cf. n. 14 above) makes clear. This is also the view of Edit Hoffmann in Fraknoi et al., op. cit., p. 106, n. 170. The discussion De poetice in his Oratio in bonas artis appears on ff. 154^v-156^r of this manuscript.

67 Wolfenbiittel, 43 Aug. Fol., ff. 160^r-165^r ; quotation f. 160.

68 Ibid., ff. 169^r-172^r.

69 Fontius 1960, oratory, pp. 95-99; history, pp. 99-105; moral philosophy in the oration on wisdom, pp. 108-111; grammar, as one of the liberal arts, p. 112. Further indication of how his, and similar humanist, attempts to define and distinguish the humanities led to the development of autonomous notions of them is found in his letter to Bernardo Rucellai of 1 March 1513, lib. III, ep. 11 (ed. Juhasz, pp. 60-64).

70 See above, n. 7. Other orations of Poliziano in Tomus tertius operum Angeli Politiani (Lyons, 1537).

71 The sertnones of Antonio Urceo ('Codrus’) are inaugural lectures published without title at Bologna, 1502. Some of Filippo Beroaldo the elder's Orationes were printed at Bologna, 1492. His Orationes et opuscula (Basel, 1513) has an ‘oratio habita in enarratione epistolarum Ciceronis … continens laudem poetices’ (ff. VII^v-IX^v).

72 ‘Orazione facta per Cristoforo Landino da Pratovecchio quando comincio a leggere in Studio i sonetti di Petrarca, M. Francesco', in Miscellanea di cose inedite et rare, ed. Corazzini, F. (Florence, 1853), p. 131.Google Scholar

73 See note 67.

74 Op. cit., pp. 143-144.

75 Cf.Landino's declaration of the applicability of rhetorical principles to poetry at the beginning of his commentary on Horace, Ars poetica, f. 145. Quoted below p. 83 and n. 180.

76 Pontano's Actius is definitely not a poetics, but it engages in the kind of discussion of the stylistic differences and similarities of poetry, oratory, and historical writing that was bound to lead to more precise definitions of each, and autonomous concepts. Cf. Felix Gilbert, , Machiavelli and Guicciardini, Politics and History in the Sixteenth Century (Princeton, 1964)Google Scholar, chapter 5, ‘The Theory and Practice of History in the Fifteenth Century’ for a discussion of the growing clarity about the nature of history that emerged from humanistic discussions. Gilbert points to the lack of a classical model of historical theory such as Aristotle's Poetics to guide the historical speculation of the humanists (p. 105) and therefore stresses historical experience itself as leading to a new, autonomous conception of history (Guicciardini's) in the sixteenth century. He gives credit to humanist thought, however, in contributing to the new view (pp. 297-300). Gilbert stresses the practice rather than the theory of historical writing. There are, however, classical models of historical theory which acquired influence and authority in the sixteenth century, just as the Poetics did. These were the comments of Polybius in book xil of his Histories; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Letter to Pompey, and the Pseudo-Dionysian Art of Rhetoric; Lucian of Samosata, How to Write History.The interest in and imitation of these works in the midand late-sixteenth century are discussed by Beatrice Reynolds, ‘Shifting Currents in Historical Criticism', Jour, of the History of Ideas xiv (1953), 471-492, and pointedly, in a more recent study, by George H. Nadel, ‘Philosophy of History before Historicism', History and Theory III (1964), 291-315, esp. pp. 292-309. The statements of Livy, Cicero, and Quintilian were of more influence on fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century humanism, and perhaps have some analogy to the currency of Horace's Ars poetica at the same time. At any rate greater refinement of differentiation between rhetoric, history, and poetry seems to have been a development of the late fifteenth century out of humanism.

77 Lib. 1, ff. 4^r-22^r ; lib. n, ff. 22^r-37^r ; lib. ni, ff. 37^v-50^r.

78 F. 4.

79 Ion, 533d-535a and 535e-536d; Phaedrus, 245a.

80 Fontius i960, pp. 105-106 and esp. nn. 52 and 53.

81 Tr. Willard Trask (New York, 1953). Cf. pp. 214-227, ‘Poetry and Theology', pp. 474-475, Excursus VIII, ‘The Poet's Divine Frenzy'.

82 Quoted in Fontius 1960, n. 52 and n. 53 (Epistola de divino furore).

83 Landino cites Ion and Phaedrus here as well as in his similar statements in introducing book in of the Disputationes Camaldulenses and his commentary on Horace's Ars poetica. See above, n. 6.

84 For Mussato see Curtius, op. tit., pp. 215-221; for Petrarch, Invective contra medicum, a cura di Pier Giorgio Ricci (Roma, 1950), Liber tertius, esp. p. 71, lines 448-462, and Epistolae familiares, lib. x, ep. 4; Boccaccio, De genealogia deorum, book XIV, chap, VIII, bk. xv, ch. vin (Eng. tr. of books xrv and xv by Charles G. Osgood, Boccaccio on Poetry, Princeton, 1930); Coluccio Salutati, De iaboribus Herculis, ed. B. L. Ullman (Zurich, 1951), lib. 1, caps, ii, ix.

85 Op. tit., pp. 40-41, and pp. 446-462, Excursus vi, ‘Early Christian and Medieval Literary Studies'.

86 F. 4. The combination of the concept of ‘Biblical poetics’ with the notion of the legendary pre-Homeric Greek poets who were divinely inspired and founded the worship of the gods has certain analogies to the Renaissance Neoplatonic notion of prisci theologi put forth by Ficino and Pico. Neoplatonism undoubtedly gave an impetus to the spread of these ideas, but actually the notion goes back to Augustine, De civitate Dei, lib. xvn, cap. xiv, xxxvii. It is not unlikely that Augustine's statements contributed to Ficino's adaptation ofprisci poetae to prisci theologi. The subject needs investigation. Cf. Poliziano's Nutricia, lines 218-345, f°r a v e ry extensive development of the list of prisci poetae, drawn from Pseudo-Plutarch, De musica and Pausanias, as well as commoner sources. For the probability that Fontius also used these writers, see below p. 92 and nn. 218-222. Landino refers to the De musica in his introduction to his commentary on Dante.

87 F. 5.

88 Ff. 5^V-6^v.

89 Ff. 6^v-7^v.

90 Op. cit., pp. 226-227.

91 Op. cit., esp. lib. III.

92 Op. cit., book XIV, ch. IV.

93 Op. cit., esp. bks. 1 and II.

94 Epistolario di Coluccio Salutati, ed. F. Novati (Rome, 1891-1911), iv, 205 ff. Cf. Ullman, B. L., The Humanism of Coluccio Salutati (Rome, 1963), pp. 63–70.Google Scholar

95 De nobilitate legum et medicinae, ed. E. Garin (Florence, 1947).

96 Florence, 1947.

97 Cf. “Weinberg, op. cit., ch. 1, ‘The Classification of Poetics among the Sciences'. Hardison, op. cit., also considers this question in his first chapter, ‘The Classification of Systems of Criticism’ covering poetry as philosophy, poetry as theology, as grammar, as part of logic, as a branch of moral philosophy.

98 Cf. Curtius, op. cit., pp. 215-221.

99 De laboribus Herculis, lib. 1, cap. iii, ‘Quod poetica sit ars et que sit eius materia, et quod ex omnibus artibus sit composita, et quod ab ipsa natura profecta sit’ (ed. Ullman, I, 17); cap. iv, ‘Quod poetica ex trivio atque quadruvio perficiatur et ipsam solam posse quicquid efficit trivium explicare’ (1, 21); passages quoted: ‘delectationem commutationis et carminis (1, 22); ‘poetica simul omnia perficit et imaginativam thesaurumque perceptarum rerum, memoriam, movet et reducit in actum … addendo super hoc dulcedinem admirabilis armonie’ (1, 22-23). On the poet as vir optimus, caps, xii, xiii.

100 Curtius, op. tit., pp. 221-225 discusses scholastic classifications of poetry where poetry is ‘infima inter omnes doctrinas'. Poetry in the humanist defenses is elevated above the liberal arts to a position analogous to theology among the scholastics. In fact, they argue that poetry contains theology hidden within its figures.

101 Cod. Laur. 53, 28, f. 90^v: ‘non esse illam unam ex iis artibus quas nostri maiores, quoniam reliquis excellentiores sunt, liberales appellarunt, in quarum una altera ve siqui floruerunt in maximo sunt semper pretio habiti. Sed est res quaedam divinior, quae universas illas complectens certis quibusdam numeris astricta, certis quibusdam pedibus progrediens, variisque luminibus ac floribus distincta.'

102 Fontius 1960, pp. 111-120 and n. 77.

103 p 7^v.

104 pf 7^v-8^r.

105 Ff. 8^V-9^r.

106 F.9.

107 Fontius seems to anticipate, in historical soundness, the views of such classical scholars as Werner Jaeger, Paideia (2d ed., New York, 1943), and Bruno Snell, The Discovery of the Mind (New York, 1960).

108 pf. 9^v-10^r

109 Ff. 10^r-II^r.

110 Both works cited above.

111 Boccaccio, op. cit., bk. XIV, chs. IX, X, XII, echoed by Fontius; Salutati, De laboribus Herculis, lib. II, cap. ii.

112 Ff. II^r-12^r.

113 Ff. 12^r-13^r; cf. Jaeger, op. cit., I, chs. I, 2, on Homer as paradigm.

114 F. 13^V.

115 Ff. 13^v-14^v.

l16 Ff. 14^v-16^r.

117 Ff. 16^r-17^r , then f. 17 for passage quoted.

118 Cf. Marchesi, op. cit., parte 11a, xi, Studi sacri.

119 Ff. 17^V-18^V.

120 Ff. 18^v-20^r.

121 De vita solitaria, pp. 286-591 (with Italian translation) in Francesco Petrarca, Prose, a cura di G. Martellotti, P. G. Ricci, E. Carrara, E. Bianchi (Milano-Napoli, 1955).

122 Op. cit.

123 Op. cit.

124 Cf. the treatises of Poggio, Fazio, Platina, and Filelfo analyzed in my Adversity's Noblemen (2d ed., New York, 1965)Google Scholar, esp. in chs. III and iv. For another statement of Fontius see his letter to Pietro Cennini of 26 August 1472, lib. I, ep. 18 (ed. Juhasz), pp. 15-18. Neoplatonists favored contemplation.

125 Eugenio Garin, L'umanesimo italiano, filosqfia e vita civile nel Rinascimento (Bari, 1952); Hans Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance (Princeton, 1955).

126 Landino basically favored contemplation, perhaps because of its central importance to the Ficinian Neoplatonic circle.

127 Ff. 20^r-21^r.

128 Lorenzo Valla at the end of his dialogue De verofahoque bono, libri tres (Bibl. Vat., Cod. Ottobon. lat. 2075, f. 236““) has Guarinus compare the Epicurean views of Vegius and the Christian Epicureanism of Raudensis in terms of this topos of the ‘civic’ orator and the ‘sylvan’ poet: ‘Sed ut proprie utriusque difFerentiam signem afferam genus similitudinis humile quidem, sed tamen non absurdum, et ut reor novum et inusitatum. Maphaeus et Antonius de laudibus voluptatis uterque pro se suavissime quasi cantare visi sunt. Sed Maphaeus hirundini Antonius Philomenae magis comparandus. Cur hos viros potissimum istis avibus compare? Scitis poetas finxisse has aves sorores fuisse Pandionis regis filias; credo quod videbantur in cantandae pene germanae; et in his significasse oratoriam atque poeticam, quae prope sorores sunt, atque ut hanc similitudinem ita illam discrepantiam notasse, quod in altera inest mira libido tecta et urbes incolendi, in altera vero arbusta et silvas; voluisseque hirundinem similem esse urbanae eloquentiae quae intra parietes in curia in subselliis exercetur; Philomenam quam lusciniam dicimus eloquentiae ne morali sed poetarum qui silvas et solitudines consectantur et loca non ab hominibus celebrata sed a musis amant. Ita quantum luscinia in cantando hirundini praestat vocalitate, vi, suavitate, varietate, tantum poetae vocem ipsorum oratoribus caeterisque praestare voluerunt.’ Valla, however, used this comparison to state the superiority of one oration to another, and not that of a poet to an orator.

129 Wolfenbiittel Cod. 43 Aug. Fol., f. 19^V. Fontius follows the authority of Herodotus and Strabo which he considers superior to that of Servius, Tortelli's source.

130 Although I have stressed this point before, above, p. 46, and Fontius 1960, p. 95,1 do not minimize the value of his sound scholarship as a basis for originality.

131 See below p. 83 and n. 180 for Landino's application of these categories to poetry in his commentary on Horace's Ars poetica.

132 Brink, op. tit., pp. 11-12, differs with Norden's view that lines 1-38 deal with invention. Brink (p. 12) states: ‘Matter, arrangement, and style are the subjects of this introductory section, but only inasmuch as they are affected by the principles of unity and wholeness… . Unity and wholeness, or the appropriateness of each part of a poem to each other part, are among the principles underlying the technical disquisition that is to follow; so most appositely, Horace places them at the beginning.'

133 F. 22^V.

134 ‘Ordinis haec virtus erit et venus, aut ego fallor, | ut iam nunc dicat iam nunc debentia dici, | pleraque differat et praesens in tempus omittat, | hoc amet, hoc spernat promissi carminis auctor’ (A.P., 42-45). I use the text in the Loeb Classical Library, edited with an English translation by H. Rushton Fairclough, Horace, Satires, Epistles and Ars Poetica (London and New York, 1929). The English translations are Fairclough's with my own corrections whenever he seems unduly free in rendering Horace's meaning.

135 Brink (pp. 228-229) argues that decorum, or appropriateness, is the second most important element of the poem, following the division into style (and arrangement) and content, and that it ‘serves to join the two once again'. ‘Decorum, or appropriateness, is the common term of reference between style and content, style and emotion, and style and character.’ Etaaipia is a term translated by Cicero, De qfficiis, lib. I, 40, as ‘occasio', another sense of'appropriateness'. Brink does not agree that decorum, rbvpkvov, in Horace derives from Panaetius via Cicero. Referring (p. 30, no. 4) to G. C. Fiske and Mary A. Grant, Cicero's De oratore and Horace's Ars poetica (Madison, 1929, Univ. of Wisconsin Stud.xxva,) Brink says, ‘There are many undoubted likenesses between the writings of Horace and Cicero… . But so far as the structure of the Ars is concerned the likenesses are insignificant. The two scholars were careful not to define too closely Horace's assumed degree of reliance on Cicero…. They also tend to ignore the marked differences between rhetorical theory on the one hand and rhetoric applied to poetic criticism on the other. Since rhetoric is concerned in both instances the basic similarity may deceive the unwary.' On the untenability of the argument for Panaetius’ influence, he states (p. 136) that scholars have asserted ‘the pervasive presence of Panaetius and his theory of “appropriateness”, or TO -n-piwov; but other men than Panaetius, above all Aristotle, had debated this topic.Specific resemblances with Panaetius’ theories are lacking. What resemblances can be claimed are of a general kind: talk of the obligations that are laid on a citizen or a member of a profession.’ Brink's position only partially rests on the validity of his proof of Neoptolemus' peripateticism, which, of course, antedates Panaetius.

136 F. 23^r.

137 A.P., 148-153: ‘semper ad eventum festinat et in medias res | non secus ac notas auditorem rapit, … | atque ita mentitur, sic veris falsa remiscet, I primo ne medium, medio ne discrepet imum.'

138 See above p. 50 and n. 40; f. 23^v.

139 Cf. Brink, op. tit., pp. 10-11, 13, 253.

140 A.P., 102-103.

141 Ff. 23^v-24^v.

142 A.P., 408, ‘Natura fieret laudabile carmen an arte'.

143 ‘Si paulum summo decessit, vergit ad imum.'

144 F. 25^v; ff. 25^v-26^r; for Horace's emphasis on craftsmanship, cf. Brink, op. cit., pp. 255-256.

145 Ff. 26^v-27^r.

146 Cf. Brink, op. cit., pp. 254-255 and passim. Fontius’ own language, ‘Considerabunt totius summam poematis’ (f. 27^r), suggests Aristotle's synola. Cf. n. 186.

147 F. 27.

148 A.P., 153-284. Cf. Herrick, op. cit., chap, vi, ‘Epic Poetry vs. Tragedy'.

449 Ff. 28^r-29^v.

150 ‘Si quid inexpertum scaenae committis et audes | personam formare novam, servetur ad imum, | qualis ab incepto processerit, et sibi constet.'

151 Servii Grammatici quiferuntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii, ed. Georg Thilo and Hermann Hagen (Hildesheim, 1961), 1, 4, ‘intentio Vergilii haec est, Homerum imitari et Augustum laudare a parentibus; namque est filius Atiae, quae nata est de Iulia, sorore Caesaris, Iulius autem Caesar ab Iulo Aeneae originem ducit, ut confirmat ipse Vergilius a magno demissum nomen Iulo'; I, 573-574; 11, 106-107.

152 A.P., 333, 343: ‘Aut prodesse volunt aut delectare poetae … omne tulit punctum qui miscuit utile dulci'.

153 Ff. 29^v-30^r.

154 Fontius, f. 30^v, after Ad Herennium IV, viii-ix (i 1-14). Harry Caplan in his notes on this passage (Cambridge, 1954, Loeb Classical Libr., pp. 252-253) gives the ancient references and suggests Theophrastus as a possible source. Cf. Poetics 1448b-1449a for Aristotle's differentiation of styles, not yet three.

155 Horace's discussion is A.P., 73-98 (lines quoted, 93-94). Fontius, f. ^30v, following Ad Herennium, iv, x-xi (15-16).

156 Institutio oratorio, XII, X, 63-65.

157 Ff. 30^v-31^r.

158 Saturnalia, op. cit., v, 2, 4-5.

159 Ff. 31^r-32^v.

160 A.P., 309-311, ‘scribendi recte sapere est et principium et fons. | rem tibi Socraticae poterunt ostendere chartae, | verbaque provisam rem non invita sequentur.'

161 A.P., 312.

162 pf. 32^v-33^r.

163 A.P., 317-318, ‘respicere exemplar vitae morumque iubebo | doctum imitatorem et vivas bine ducere voces.'

164 Brink, op. tit., pp. 103-109.

165 See above, pp. 48-49 and notes 32, 33, 36, 37.

166 See n. 159.

167 Cf. Baxter Hathaway, The Age of Criticism, part 1, ‘Poetry as Imitation'. Richard McKeon, ‘Literary Criticism and the Concept of Imitation in Antiquity', Critics and Criticism, Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1952), pp. 176-231, is very disparaging of post- Aristotelian doctrines of imitation.

168 August Buck, op. cit., p p . 54-67, discusses humanist rhetorical theories of imitation from Petrarch to Poliziano—imitation of literary models, n o t mimesis. I have n o t been able to use H. Gmelin, Das Prinzip der Imitatio in den romanischen Literaturen der Renaissance (Erlangen, 1932). Fontius in the letter to Bernardo Rucellai cited above, n. 69, moves from a concern lest too close adherence to the rules of an art stifle originality to an advocacy of imitation of the greatest representatives of poetry, rhetoric, and history: Vergil, Cicero, and Livy.

169 Erwin Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Uppsala, 1960), pp. 29-30.

170 Weinberg, op. cit., 1,71. Similar statements are easy to locate in Spingarn, Baldwin, and Clark, all cited above. Only Hardison, though emphasizing a rhetorical conception of Renaissance poetics, is free from the expressionist prejudice and capable of recognizing the ‘aesthetic’ values of'didactic art'. His closing words (p. 194) are: ‘At heart all poetry is praise and celebration. This is the truth asserted by the theory of praise. Although we need not subscribe to it, it is neither perverse nor simple-minded. Certainly it must be kept continually in mind by those who would read and understand the literature of the European Renaissance.'

171 Brink, op. cit., p. 225, says, to my mind with more balance, as his considered judgement: 'Four articles of Horace's poetic faith are now seen to be present not only in the smaller writings but in the Ars as well: the conviction that artistry is at the root of the art of poetry; the conviction that poetry aims at the “whole man”, not only at “aesthetic man”, and therefore has a function in society; the conviction that some kinds of verse can fulfil this function better than others; and finally the conviction that the Greek temperament, or else their sense of values, was more apt to generate that kind of poetry than the Roman.'

172 Op. cit, pp. 71-72. Weinberg does add, however, that ‘If Horace's thesis is a rhetorical one, it is incomplete rhetoric …', because it leaves out the element of the character of the orator or poet. Yet A.P., 102-103, ‘si vis me flere dolendum est primum ipsi tibi', imply at least an element of emotional projection on the part of the poet. And this does not type poetry as rhetoric but would seem to be a necessary ingredient of all art, even abstract and especially expressionist.

173 Brink (pp. 123-126) is dubious of the arguments of Norden and Rostagni that there is carry-over of catharsis into the moral goals of the poet in Horace.

174 Ibid., pp. 79-84, 99-102, and passim.

175 The six elements listed at 1450a, spectacle, character, fable, diction, melody, and thought as parts of a tragedy, partially correspond to diction, arrangement, and content. Diction and melody come very close to Aristotle's own treatment of diction in Rhetoric, III, chapters 1-12; character, fable, and thought are parts of content or invention; arrangement is treated by Aristotle in close connection with fable or plot in the Poetics, rather than separately, as in Rhetoric, in, chapters 13-19. As for epic, Aristotle discusses content or plot in chapter 23 and the beginning of chapter 24; arrangement again is subordinate but part of plot; diction is discussed in the middle of chapter 24 and the last part of chapter 25. If, as Brink has argued, Horace reflects Aristotle's Rhetoric, Poetics, and De poetis filtered through Neoptolemus, the playing down of arrangement in both writers is more than an interesting coincidence.

176 Perhaps a more significant issue in antiquity and the Renaissance than the extent to which poetry could be analyzed into the same elements as rhetoric and still remain distinct was the relative merit of the large poem, epic and drama, and the more intimate lyric, elegy, iambic. Both Aristotle and Horace favored the large work, and drama over the epic. The humanists tended to admire Virgil, and had the example of Dante before them, but they themselves wrote, for the most part, small poems. There is, perhaps, more of a temptation to make an elegy approach a short oration in technique, since the content might be similar. A long poem could become a verse treatise, but why does Lucretius escape the charge?

177 Weinberg, op. cit., i, 154-155, writes, ‘These same modes and habits were responsible for the fact that, throughout all this extensive comparison and equation of the Poetics and the Ars Poetica, there was no slightest intimation of the true state of affairs with respect to these two texts: the fact that they address themselves to essentially different problems, that they use widely different methods, and that they produce statements of a completely different nature about poetry. For theorists of this period, only the accidental— and sometimes the forced—resemblances between the two were discovered; their real opposition was not even suspected. So it was that Horace could be said to be an imitator of Aristotle, that many lines of his text could be identified with Aristotle, and at the same time the whole of the text could be read much as it had been before Aristotle had been brought into the discussion.'

178 Cited above, n. 5.

179 F. 33.

180 Op. cit., f. 145, ‘Humano capite cervkem pictor equinam. Quoniam in poemate scribendo inventio dispositioque atque elocutio in primis investiganda est, statim a principio quae ad inventionem dispositionemque spectant exequitur. Nam haec tempore priora quam elocutio sunt. Praeterea elocutionis praecepta communia pene cum oratore habet poeta, et a rhetoribus facile ilia mutuari potest. Est enim, ut Ciceroni quoque placere video, finitimus oratori poeta numeris astrictior paulo, verborum autem licentia liberior, multis vero ornandi generibus socius, ac pene par.’ The last sentence is a direct quotation of Cicero, De oratore, 1, xvr (70).

181 Pro Archia poeta, viii, 18-19.

182 F £ 3 3v_3 5 r.

183 Cf. Brink, op. tit., part n, ‘The Tradition of Literary Criticism and the “Ars Poetica” ‘, chapters 2, 3, passim.

184 Ibid., pp. 228-230.

185 Ibid., p. 235. The need for a principle of harmonization found expression in the ideals both of unity and of decorum, and the need would persist so long as a poem was viewed objectively as analyzable into elements. Decorum does not seem to have attracted much interest among historians of Renaissance criticism, who favor the Aristotelian concepts of universality, imitation, and purgation. But the persistence of Horatian influence within the Aristotelian criticism suggests the need for some attention to this quality as a virtue rather than a vice.

186 R. S. Crane in his ‘Introduction’ to Critics and Criticism, Ancient and Modern, p. 17, finds this quality in Aristotle but considers it central to the viewpoint of what he calls ‘the Chicago School'. ‘It is the merit of Aristotle, uniquely among systematic critics, that he grasped the distinctive nature of literary works as synola, or concrete artistic wholes… . The Aristotle they have reconstructed is not, it will easily be seen, the Aristotle of the Renaissance and neoclassical commentators or any of the more recent Aristotles of such interpreters as Butcher, Bywater, Murray, Lane Cooper, or Francis Fergusson. It may not, indeed, except in a general way, be Aristotle at all! They think it is …'

187 Cf. Weinberg, op. cit., chapters 9-13, on ‘The Tradition of Aristotle's Poetics', where decorum constantly comes up. There are forty-five index entries to decorum in this section and only eighteen to ‘unity'.

188 Brink more than matches his scholarly reconstructions and analysis of rules and principles with his concern for Horace's qualities as a poet and their influence on his literary criticism. See especially his last chapter, ‘Poetic Patterns in the “Ars Poetica'“: 'The poem shows that Horace did not want to give prominence to the headings of a textbook’ (p. 245).

189 It is clear in Landino's case, as the quotation on p. 83 indicates. Poliziano was a besuperb critic and philologist, but his best statement on poetry is his poem about poetry which says nothing about its nature except to repeat the commonplaces of numinous inspiration and the prisci poetae, however uncommon the manner.

190 Cf. Gilbert's discussion in his Machiavelli and Guicciardini, cited above, n. 75, and his references to Fontius’ oration on history, pp. 207-208.

191 Cf. Curtius, op. tit., chap. 14, ‘Classicism, 1. Genres and Catalogues of Authors', pp. 246-251.

192 Institutio oratoria, lib. x, cap. 1, 46-72, 85-100.

193 Heinrich Keil, Grammatici Latini, vol. I (Leipzig, 1857). Diomedes’ text is pp. 297- 529; ‘De poematibus', pp. 482-492; on Diomedes’ sources see p. LIV. Both Suetonius’ and Varro's works on the poets are lost.

194 Keil, p. XXXII.

195 R. Sabbadini, Le scoperte dei codici latini egreci net secoli XIVe XV, I (Florence, 1905), 127 and n. 27; Keil, p. XXXII.

196 Ibid., p . XXXIII.

197 Sabbadini, he. cit. The Florence MS. is Cod. Laur. Aedilium 168, fols. 126-159^v; cf. A. M. Bandini, Bibliotheca Leopoldina Laurentiana; seu catalogus manuscriptorum 1 (Florence, 1791), cols. 477-480.

198 Eusebii Pamphilii Chronici canones, Latine vertit, adauxit, ad sua tempora produxit S. Eusebius Hieronymus, ed. John Knight Fotheringham (London, 1923).

199 See below, p. 92 and nn. 217, 218, 220, 221.

200 Op. cit., p. 181, 8 October 1486.

201 Lines 720-727, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio; lines 728-775, Lorenzo de’ Medici; lines 776-790, Piero.

202 Curtius, op. cit., p. 248, on difference of ancient and modern classifications.

203 However, the order is different. Diomedes, op. cit., p. 482: ‘Poematos genera sunt tria. aut enim activum est vel imitativum, quod Graeci dramaticon vel mimeticon, aut enarrativum vel enuntiativum, quod Graeci exegeticon vel apangelticon dicunt, aut commune vel mixtum, quod Graeci KOIVOV vel IUKTOV appellant.'

204 Fontius, f. 37^v.

205 pf. 37^v-38^r.

206 F. 38.

207 See above p. 59 and n. 86. Fontius’ sources for the prisci are multiple. He could have drawn on Tortelli, op. cit., for instance, Amphion, sig. em'; Linus, sig. oviv; Musaeus, sig. qI^r; Orpheus, sig. qVII^v. But Fontius also has additional or different comments.

208 Fontius, ff. 38^v-40^v. Quintilian names Homer, Hesiod, Antimachus, Panyasis, Apollonius, Aratus, Theocritus but would exclude Pisandros, Nicander, Euphorion, and Tyrtaeus (the latter included by Horace). Fontius is identical, except for Tyrtaeus, whom he includes on Horace's authority. See Quintilian, x, 1, 46-56, for the Greeks; his Latins (85-90) are Vergil, Macer, Lucretius, Varro Atacinus, Ennius, Ovid, Cornelius Severus, Serranus, Valerius Flaccus, Saleius Bassus, Rabirius, Pedo, and Lucan. Fontius includes all but Serranus and adds Manilius, Silius, Statius, and, after Quintilian, Claudianus. Quintilian orders his list according to importance as well as chronology; Fontius sticks to historical order in so far as he knows it.

209 Quintilian, 61-63, lists only Pindar, Stesichorus, Alcaeus, and Simonides, but alludes to the ‘nine', again in order of value. Of Latin lyric poets, he names only Horace and Caesius Bassius. Catullus is mentioned for his iambics (96). Quintilian mentions as elegists only Callimachus and Philetas (59-60), Fontius adding Mimnermus and Euphorion. They agree on the Latins (93). Quintilian recommends only Archilochus ‘of the three writers of iambics approved by the judgment of Aristarchus'. Fontius adds Hipponax. Neither mentions Semonides of Amorgos (59). They agree on the Latins (96). The order of treatment is different as well as the emphasis. In Diomedes’ case lyric poets are not mentioned; only elegy, iambus, and satire correspond to Fontius. Diomedes adds epodes and bucolics, which Fontius omits. Diomedes in general names very few examples, being more interested in defining genres.

210 Wherever he can he supplies a terse characterization of each name. To this he adds from Eusebius-Jerome the Olympiad, contemporary rulers, or events, and most importantly tries to use this source to establish chronological order. He includes five lyric poets (see note 215) solely from the Chronicon (pp. 194, 203).

211 Fontius, f. 39^r: ‘Quern Horatius mares animos in Mania bella versibus exacuisse commemorat' (A.P., 403-404, in italics).

212 Ff. 40'p-41^r.

213 Sig. gII^r.

214 F. 41^r.

215 Ff. 41^v-43^r. He seems to know Bacchylides, Telesilla, Praxilla, Cleobulina, and Erinna only from Eusebius-Jerome, although Bacchylides was one of the ‘nine', and Porphyrion in his commentary on Horace, owned by Fontius, had compared an ode of Horace to one of Bacchylides (ad Hor. Carm. 1, 15). Phocylides, whom he claimed to have translated (i.e., pseudo-Phocylides), survives only in fragments in readily accessible sources such as Clement of Alexandria, Plutarch's Moralia, Aristotle's Ethics and Politics. (Cf. Edmonds, J. M., ed. Elegy and Iambus, Cambridge and London, 1944 Google Scholar, Loeb Classical Libr., 1, 168-181.) Comparison with Poliziano's Nutricia shows the latter citing the ‘nine' lyric poets beginning with Pindar and ending with Sappho, with no attempt at historical order (w. 558-630), then adding nine more names of women lyric poets derived from the Greek Anthology, I, lxvii, 8 (w. 631-636), making Sappho the tenth woman poet (vv. 637-639). But one of the nine is a misreading of the Greek adverb as a proper name. (Cf. Del Lungo's notes, p. 167.) The remaining eight are Praxilla, Nossis, Myrtis, Anite, Myro, Erinna, Telesilla, and Corinna. For his seventeen names, Fontius has sixteen —adding Terpander, Phocylides, and Cleobulina, omitting Mossis, Myrtis, Anite, and Myro (and, of course, Agaclea). The contrast between a poetic and an historical approach is evident in these two contemporary scholars, whose temperamental incompatibility and hostility is consistent.

216 Suidae lexicon Graece et Latine, ed. Gottfried Bernhardy (Halle & Braunschweig, 1852-1853), torn, n, pars prior, p. 344.

217 F. 42^v. Cf. D. L. Page, Corinna (London, 1953, Supplementary Paper no. 6 of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies), pp. 72-73; Lyra Graeca, ed. and tr. J. M. Edmonds (London and New York, 1927, Loeb Classical Library), III, 6-9. Cf. Pausanias, Description of Greece, ed. and tr. W. H. S.Jones (London and Cambridge, 1918-1935, Loeb Classical Library), iv, 264-267, ix, xxii, 3. Only Pausanias mentions her use of Aeolic and her beauty.

218 A. M. Bandini, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Medicae Laurentianae varia continens opera Graecorum patrum (Florence, 1768; repr. Leipzig, 1961), 11, col. 306. Bandini judges both MSS. as xv saec.

219 Lyra Graeca, III, 10-11.

220 Fontius, if. 43^r-44^r; Pausanias, II, xxiii, 8, 9; iv, xxviii, 7; vi, xiv, 9, 10; ix, xxx, 2; x, vii, 4, 5.

221 Francois Lasserre, Plutarche de la musique, texte, traduction, commentaire, précédés d'une Aristoph étude sur Education musicale dans la Grece antique (Olten and Lausanne, 1954), pp. 114-116, 136-137-

222 Landino, introductory discourses to his commentary on Dante (see n. 6), ‘Che l'origine de’ poeti sia antica’ (pages un-numbered, 2d col. of his 2d page): ‘Né m'affaticherò al presente investigare, quello che veggiamo da Plutarco con diligentia esser cerco, nel suo libro de Musica: Chi primo fusse, appresso de’ Greci inventore di v e r s i … ‘

223 However, Pausanias is a major source for Poliziano. Cf. Le selve e La strega, pp. 130-139, Del Lungo's notes, passim.

224 Suidae lexicon, s.v. ‘elegos'; Etymologicon magnum seu verius lexicon, ed. Thomas Gaisford (Oxford, 1848; reprinted Amsterdam, 1962), p. 327, s.v. ‘Elegainein'.

225 Ff. 43^v-44^v.

226 Ff. 44^v-45^r . Cf. Diomedes, p. 482, line 26; p. 487, line 11.

227 Diomedes, p. 448, lines 13-16; Eusebius-Jerome, p. 193, 26, 81st Olympiad, ‘Cratinus et Plato comoediarum'; p. 194, 14, 82d Olympiad, ‘Crates comicus'; p. 196, 3, 85th Olympiad, ‘Aristofanes clarus habetur'; p. 197, 5-6, 88th Olympiad, ‘Eupolis et Aristofanes scriptores comoediarum agnoscuntur'. A Plato and a Crates did write comedies.

228 Fontius, ff. 45^r-46^r.

229 Ff. 46^r-48^r. Fontius quotes Diomedes without acknowledgement as follows: p. 489, line 23 through p. 490, line 7; p. 490, lines 10-20; for Diomedes, line 20, where Keil reads ‘In Atellana Oscae personae’ Fontius has ‘In Atellana oscenae personae'. There are other variations.

230 Ff. 48^r-49^r; Dante, f. 49^r; he loosely quotes Diomedes, p. 485, lines 32-36.

231 His peroration, ff. 49^v-50^r.

1 Cf. introduction, p. 44 and n. 13.

2 Cf. p. 44 and n. 14.

3 Since the entire introduction is concerned with Fontius’ sources and how he used them, it should be of greater value than the mere indication of references in these notes.

4 Cf. pp. 46-56.

5 Horace, De arte poetica (hereafter cited as A.P.). But cf. n. 10 above.

6 Cf. Boccaccio, Degenealogia deorum, XIV, 7, 8 (hereafter cited as Bocc, CD.).

7 Quintilian, Inst, orat., x, i, 46. 8 Cf. Bocc, G.D., xiv, 5.

9 Cf. Bocc, CD., xiv, 6, 9.

10 Pherecydes: Cicero, De orat., n, 53; Corax and Tisias: Cicero, Brutus, 46.

11 Boca, CD., XIV, 4; Petrarch, Invective, in.

12 MS.: est.

13 Cf. Bocc, CD., xiv, 9, 10.

14 Livy, Ab urbe cond., 1, 19, II, 32.

15 Sic.

16 Cf. Boca, CD., XIV, 15.

17 Cf. Boca, G.D., XIV, 20, 6.

18 Cf. Bocc, G.D., XIV, 6, 9.

19 Plutarch, Vita Solonis, 8.

20 Suidae lexicon, s.v.\ Pausanias, IV, xv, 6.

21 Bocc, CD., XIV, 4.

22 A.P., 357; Curtius, VIII, v, 8; Fontius’ marginalia to Porphyrin's Comm. in Hor. (cited in introduction, n. 31), f. 113^v ad A.P. 357: ‘Cherilus poeta pessimus. De eo Curtius ubi de Polipercante scribit …'

23 Sic. Possibly locuti.

24 On Archilochus: Valerius Maximus, VI, iii, 1; Dio Chrysostom, Orat. XXXVIII, p. 397M. On Ovid: Tristia, ii, 207-210; Suetonius, Augustus, 65. 1.

25 Cf. Boca, CD., XIV, n ; Petrarch, Invective, IV, De vita solitaria, passim.

26 Cf. Boca, G.D., XIV, 18; Paul: Actsix. 15; 2 Cor. xii. 2,4; Menander, 1 Cor. xv.33; Epimenides, Titus i. 12. Cf. Jerome, Epistolae, LXX, 2.

27 Basilius, Horn, XXII, ‘Ad adolescentes, de legendis libris Gentilium'.

28 Expositio in Lucam, 1, 2.

29 Inst, div., 1, 5.

30 Epist. LXX, ‘On the reading of pagan books'.

31 Cf. De civ. Dei, I, 3; II, 6, 7; V, 12; X, 1, 27; XXI, 6.

32 Iliad, II, 557; Plutarch, Vita Solonis, 10.

32a MS.: excitarit.

33 A.P., 36-41.

34 A.P., 42-45, 148-153.

35 Macrobius, Saturn, v, 2; see above, p. 50 and p. 72 and n. 40.

36 A.P., 114-118.

37 AP., 46-118.

38 Ad Herennium, 1, ii, 3, ‘arte, itnitatione, exercitione'. Cf. Harry Caplan's note to this passage in his edition, p. 7, on the origin of the triad ‘natura, ars, exercitio’ (Protagoras, Plato, Isocrates). Imitatio was substituted for natura under Pergamene-Stoic influence.

39 A.P., 408-452.

40 Cf. A.P., 377-378.

41 Ovid, Atnores, 1, xv, 13-14.

42 Donatus, Vita Vergilii, 22.

43 Quintilian, Inst, orat., x, i, 88, 98.

44 Horace, Sat., 1, iv, 6-10.

45 Catullus, xcv, 1-2.

45 Martial, Epigr., IV, xxix, 7-8.

47 A.P., 385-390, 438-452.

48 A.P., 145.

49 A.P., 1-37.

50 Aeneid, 1, 411-414, n, 771-778, ix, 107-122.

51 A.P., 19-21.

52 MS.: faeminam.

53 Cf. A.P., 125-127; but compare the entire paragraph to Bocc, G.D., xiv, 13, Servius, In Verg. Aen. lib. comm. (cited in n. 151 above), 1, 4, 573-574, 11, 106-107.

54 A.P., 333-346.

55 Ad Herennium, iv, viii-ix (11-14); cf. A.P. 73-98.

56 Ad Herennium, TV, x-xi (15-16); cf. A.P., 25-26.

57 Quintilian, Inst, orat, XII, x, 63-65.

58 A.P., 136-142; Aeneid, 1, 1.

59 Aeneid, I, 286-296; VI, 789-795, VIII, 675 ff., 714 ff. Accia bella=Actii.

60 Possibly Antonio di Cristoforo Orsini (d. before 1491), active in Ferrara at the court of the Este where Fontius could have seen him at work. Or perhaps his son Girolamo who also worked in Ferrara. Both, however, were known as painters. Cf. Thieme- Becker, Allgemeines Lexicon der bildenden Kiinstler, xxvi

61 Macrobius, Saturn., v, 2, 4-5; A.P., 128 ff.

62 A.P., 128, 359; Quintilian, Inst, orat., x, i, 24-26.

63 A.P., 99-118.

64 A.P., 309-332.

65 A. P., 333-346.

66 Democritus: Diogenes Laertius, ix, 7; Plato: Phaedrus 245a, Ion 533d-536d; Aristotle: Metaph. 982b19.

67 Cicero, Pro Archia poeta, 18-19.

68 A.P., 394-396.

69 Plutarch, Vita Solonis.

70 Cicero, De oratore, 1, 6-19.

71 Diomedes, De artegrammatka, ‘De poematibus’ (482-492, Keil, Gram, hat., I), 482.

72 Pausanias, x, v, 7.

73 Aeneid, vi, 667.

74 Eusebius-Jerome, Chron. (ed. Fotheringham), p. 131.

75 Quintilian, Inst, orat., x, i, 46.

76 Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., pp. 144-145.

77 Ibid., p. 169 does not mention Tyrtaeus. Suidae Lex. s.v., fl. 35th Olymp. A.P., 402.

78 Quintilian, Inst, orat., x, i, 53.

79 Ibid., x, i, 54.

80 Ibid., x, i, 54.

81 Ibid., x, i, 55.

82 Ibid., x, i, 55.

83 Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., p. 215; Quintilian, x, i, 988.

84 Quintilian, x, i, 85-87.

85 Quintilian, x, i, 88-90, for all these save Manilius, Silius, Statius, and Claudianus.

86 Pseudo-Plutarch, De musica, 3.

87 Horace, Carmina, III, xi, 1-2.

88 Ps.-Plut., De mus., 3.

89 Ibid., and Tortelli, Orthographia (Venice, 1495), sig. gu^r. Tortelli lists several ancient sources including Iliad, II, 595-600, which Fontius doubtless also knew directly.

90 Ibid., sig. qVII^v.

91 Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., p. 165; Suidae lexicon, s.v.

92 Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., p. 169.

93 Ibid., p. 175.

94 Quintilian, Inst, orat., 1, i, 63.

95 Suidae lexicon, s.v.; Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., p. 181.

96 Ibid., p. 181; Quintilian, Inst, orat, x, i, 64; Ps.-Plut., De musica, 17-19.

97 Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., p. 183. The extensive characterization must be based on his lost translation of Pseudo-Phocylides.

98 Ibid., p. 183.

99 Herodotus, Historiae, in, 121; Valerius Maximus, ix, 8.

100 Quintilian, Inst, orat., x, i, 61.

101 Pausanias, ix, xxii, 3.

102 All four, Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., p. 194.

103 Ibid., p. 203.

104 Archilochus and Hipponax alluded to by Horace, Epodes, vi, 13 & Sch. ad loc. Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., p. 163, places Hipponax in the 26th not the sixtieth Olympiad.

105 Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., p. 230.

106 Ibid., pp. 232-233.

107 Suidae lexicon, s.v. elegos.

108 Etymologkon magnum, ed. Thomas Gaisford, p. 327, lines 6-10, s.v. elegainein. Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, v, 2, col. 2260, s.v. Elegie.

109 Pausanias, 11, xxii, 8; Pseudo-Plutarch, De musica, 8.

110 A.P., 75-78.

111 Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., pp. 244-255, 246.

112 Ibid., p. 253.

113 Neither Tibullus nor Propertius is in Eusebius-Jerome; Quintilian, x, i, 93.

114 Platonic Minos 321 A.

115 Diomedes, 482.

116 Eusebius-Jerome, Chron., pp. 193-194.

117 Diomedes, 488.

118 Tortelli, sig. ivnr.

119 Diomedes, 489-490.

120 Eusebius-Jerome, p. 232.

121 Quintilian, Inst, orat., x, i, 93.

122 Eusebius-Jerome, p. 230.

123 Quintilian, Inst, orat., x, i, 94.

124 MS.: huiuscae.

125 Diomedes, 485-486.