Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T11:00:14.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Observationes in M. T. Ciceronem of Marius Nizolius

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2019

Quirinus Breen*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Get access

Extract

Nizolius' Observationes is a lexicon of Latin based exclusively on the writings of Cicero. It was one of the best-known dictionaries from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. Pagani has counted nearly seventy printings of various editions between 1535 to 1630. An edition was printed in England as late as 1820. Leibnitz wrote that the lexicon would last as long as Cicero. The historian Arnold Toynbee has remarked that he was brought up on Nizolius in the Latin school.

This work has today been all but forgotten. The light of recognition is now begining to fall upon Nizolius' De veris principiis… philosophandi (Parma, 1553); the notice given to it is deserved, but the continuing almost total neglect of the lexicon is not justified. The De veris principiis has substance to contribute to our understanding of Renaissance philosophy; the Observationes offers a thread for a history of Ciceronianism in modern times.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Renaissance Society of America 1954

Access options

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

References

1 Marii Nizolii Brixellensis Ohservationes in M.T. Ciceronem, Pars prima, Pars secunda, ex Prato Albuini, anno ab ortu Christi MDXXXV.

2 Pagani, Giuseppe, “Appendix,” Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, 5th Ser., II (1893), 914-16.Google Scholar This concludes a series of five articles on Nizolius in the same year of Rendiconti: “Mario Nizzoli ed il suo lessico ciceroniano,” 554-75; “Le polemiche letterarie di Mario Nizzoli,” 630-60; “Mario Nizzoli filosofo,” 716-41; “Operosità letteraria di Mario Nizzoli,” 819-26; and “Gli ultimi anni di Mario Nizzoli,” 897-913.

3 “De stilo philosophico Nizolii,” G.G. Leibnitii Opera Philosophica, ed. J. E. Erdmann, Part I (Berlin, 1840), 57.

4 For the house of Gambara see Pagani (Rendiconti, II, 557-59), who tells of the praises of Giovanni Francesco's uncle by historians of Brescian affairs. The uncle was favored by the Emperor Maximilian, who was frequently entertained in the Gambara castle. The former could not speak German or Latin, and the Emperor told him an Italian knight should at least know Latin. The result was that he learned not only Latin but also Greek and Hebrew, and installed a press in the castle. From such stimulus derived the nephew's love of learning. We know almost nothing of Nizolius prior to 1522. It is possible that he had had no occupation till then. For not only is he completely silent about his first thirty-four years, but in the Letter Dedicatory his gratitude to Gambara is uncommonly fervent: “Tu enim primum hospitio me accepisti, quo iam tertium et decimum annum honestissimo utor: tu tenuitatem meam liberalitate tua semper sustentasti: … nisi tu fuisses, ego plane nihil essem. Quare non solum mea omnia, sed me ipsum prorsus me debere tibi fateor.”

5 See Letter Dedicatory. Matthew and his son are said to have helped in other ways: “qui me antea sibi multis et magnis de causis maxime obligatum.” This is not specific, but the context suggests that they were among the many (“possum multos commemorare”) who helped with the lexicon. No others are named. However, it is possible that Basilio Zanchi helped, for we know of his interest in Nizolius' lexicon and above all of his friendship with the Gambara. See below, n. 28.

6 This edition makes no mention of Stephanus on the title page. It is called Nizolius sive linguae latinae thesaurus, Ven. 1551. See note on p. 42 of my forthcoming critical edition of Nizolius' De veris principiis … philosophandi for fuller discussion of its preface.

7 Tiraboschi, (Storia della letteratura italiana [Florence, 1812], VII, 1510-13)Google Scholar names as his main source the Preface to Ricci's Opera (Padua, 1748), which I have not seen. Some particulars on the Apparatus are given on p. 1513. See also Lazzari, A., “Un umanista romagnolo alla corte di Ercole II d'Este,” estratto Atti e Memorie delta deputazione ferrarese di St. Patria (Ferrara, 1914).Google Scholar

8 Published at Lyons by Gryphius, 1536—38, it was one of the weightiest of sixteenth-century scholarly works. J. E. Sandys says the Commentaries are more scientific and critical than R. Stephanus' Thesaurus in their method, follow the sequence of meaning rather than alphabetical order and are mainly concerned with Ciceronian usage. Dolet followed this work with a collection of Formulae or Ciceronian phrases (1539), later added as an appendix to Nizolius. Sandys notes that this was done in editions of 1606, 1734, 1820, and also in several epitomes (History of Classical Scholarship [Cambridge, 1908], II, 179).

9 Cf. De veris princ, 248-49 and 250-51 and 254.

10 Perotti, Niccolo (1430-1480), Cornucopiae sive latinae linguae commentariorum opus (Venice, 1489).Google Scholar This is a commentary on the Spectacula and the first book of Martial, which fills a thousand folio pages; the other four hundred pages contain his commentary on Pliny's preface. In later editions (1513-26) Perotti's commentaries on Varro, Sextus Pompeius, and Nonius Marcellus are added. See Sandys, , op. cit., II, 71.Google Scholar An elaborate alphabetical word list with references to the text constitutes this as a dictionary.

11 Ambrogio Calepino (ca. 1435-1511). Tiraboschi (op., cit., VII, 1552-53) says that Giuniano Maggi in 1475 and Nestore Dionigi in 1483 had published similar works, but that only Calepino's was remembered and became famous. His name became a synonym for lexicon. The first edition appeared ca. 1505. I have a 1522 edition which has benefited from Perotti. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (14th ed., IV, 583) says that Calepino compiled a “polyglot dictionary.” I have sampled the 1522 edition, but find only occasional use of Greek. Its polyglot reputation perhaps derives from Facciolati's Septem linguarum Calepinus … Padua, MDCCLII. “Calepinus” here is only a synonym for lexicon. The work is very useful. I have found the list of six thousand “Verba Barbara” at the end a help in translating sixteenth-century terms not found in classical dictionaries, e.g., “bibliopegus” (bookbinder). On Calepino see Prezzolini, G., Repertorio bibliografico (Rome, 1936).Google Scholar

12 Hartfelder, Karl, Melanchthon als Praeceptor Germaniae (Berlin, 1889), 346.Google Scholar On extreme Ciceronianism see Simar, Théophile, Christophe de Longueil, humanisle (1488-1522) (Louvain, 1911), 97104.Google Scholar

13 Scott, I., Controversies over the Imitation of Cicero (New York, 1910), 117.Google Scholar

14 Pagani, , op. cit., 557-58.Google Scholar

15 “Atque hoc modo isti octo Aristotelis Topicorum libri ita recepti fuerunt et approbati ab omnibus usque ad aetatem nostram, ut nemo quod quidem ego sciam, de eorum doctrina quin vera, utilis necessariaque esset, dubitarit, aut contra earn aliquid dicere in dubiumque revocare tentarit. Sed nobis pueris nescio quomodo in ultima Germania extitit Rodulphus Agricola vir natione Phrisius et in primis doctus, qui qua ingenii perspicacitate multa alia vidit, hoc etiam animadvertit, et intellexit: hanc Aristotelicam Topicorum doctrinam non ita esse veram et utilem, ut superiores omnes existimaverunt”; De veris princ, 284 (italics mine).

16 Importance may be attached to this because Nizolius helped direct the Count's studies.

17 The subject matter in the lexicon has been illustrated above, e.g., the idea of “ars,” etc. Turning to the Index utilissimus, one may question whether Nizolius means to eliminate from usage not only barbarisms and words not approved by Cicero generally, but also and especially words current in the vocabulary of the scholastics. His inclusion in the Index of “ens,” “essentia,” and “universaliter” is not decisive but is suggestive. In the De verts principiis, e.g., he attacks with vigor the term “universalia realia.” He already does so in Defensiones aliquot locorum Ciceronis in libro De Officiis, contra Disquisitiones Coelii Calcagnini Ferrartensis (1548), a copy of which is in Ciceronis De oficiis libri III, cum P. Marsi, F. Maturantii, Omniboni … Commentariis. M. Nizolius … Defensiones aliquot (Venice, 1584), 246, col. 2. In the same connection he says that in another place (“alio loco”) he has said many things about this. He intimates that his opinions were well known. The point is important, for the potential power of a dictionary is great. It is a kind of blue book of language. In the De veris principiis (Lib. I, c. 2, p. 17) he says that Lorenzo Valla cut out of scholastic discourse only some branches and foliage but left the trunk standing. It may be that he was not as clear on the matter in 1535 as he was in 1553. One may bear in mind, however, that in 1535 he was already forty-seven years old.

18 Nizolius expects his lexicon to be attacked, “malevolentissimis invidorum obtrectationibus,” then adds: “Nam sunt plurimi hoc tempore, qui non solum nobis, laboribusque nostris, sed etiam ipsi (si diis placet) Ciceroni graviter obtrectent, editis nescio quibus Ciceronianis, et Ciceronibus relegatis. Quibus omnibus equidem hic respondere, et eorum ridicula obiecta refutare decreveram: sed aliis occupationibus districtus, rem hanc in aliud tempus differre coactus sum” (italics mine). Erasmus’ Ciceronianus appeared in 1528. In 1534 was published Lando's Cicero relegatus et Cicero revocatus. Dialogi festivissimi, apud Seb. Gryphium, at Lyons.

19 Paradossi, cioè sentenze fuore del comun parere (Lyons, Pulloni, 1543), 100-106. The subject of Paradox 30 is, “Che M. Tullio sia non sol ignorante di Filosofia, ma di Retorica, di Cosmografia, e dell'Istoria.“

20 Op. cit., 105.

21 Op. cit., 117-19.

22 “Life of Julius Caesar Scaliger,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Ser., Vol. XL, pt. 2 (1950), 96-97.

23 This may be in part the meaning of “nobis, laboribusque nostris,” in n. 18 above.

24 See Simar, , op. cit., 117-28Google Scholar; Hall, , op. cit., 99104, 110-14.Google Scholar

25 In Epistola ad Majoragium (1546) Nizolius writes: “Non enim impune feres, sed idem accidet, quod Erasmo, qui dum Ciceronem et Ciceronianos iniuste insectatur, ipse a Ciceronianis iuste et optimo iure confossus fuit.” This Epistola, says Pagani (op. cit., 638) was first published by Burmannus, P., Marquardi, Gudii, et doctorum virorum ad eum epistolae … (Utrecht, 1697), 132.Google Scholar I have used a reprinting of it in Kohl, J. P., Deliciae epistolicae (Lipsia, 1731), 297309.Google Scholar The Epistola censured Majoragius for his Antiparadoxon: libri sex in quibus M.T. Ciceronis paradoxa refellentur (Lyons, 1546). Nizolius later wrote in a different vein. In Antapologia … contra Maioragium (1547 or 1548), 22, he quotes from the Apophthegmata of “doctissimus vir Erasmus Rhoterodamus.” In the preface to the 1551 Venetian edition of Stephanus' Thesaurus linguae latinae he names Erasmus among his authorities for “interpretationes dictionum.” In the De veris principiis, 175, he cites him with approval. On the other hand he assails somewhat violently a censure of grammarians in Scaliger's De causis linguae latinae (Lyons, 1540). On Scaliger see De veris princ, 279, on Scaliger's book, Hall, , op. cit., 124.Google Scholar

26 Simar, (op. cit., 134-35Google Scholar) says that one of the effects of the Ciceronianus was that some Ciceronians began to stress substance as well as elegance, and illustrates it by the case of Paolo Manuzio. In the De veris principiis Nizolius often speaks of “eloquentia” but never of “elegantia“; as to Cicero, he does not disdain to differ from him (De veris princ, 334, 354). Cicero's doctrine of the union of philosophy with rhetoric is the rock on which he builds this work

27 Pagani's list (see above, n. 1) may not be complete or fully accurate. As to dates one must allow for possible errors, for some are taken from secondary sources, such as Teuffel, Wilhelm S., Geschichte der romischen Litteratur (Leipzig, 1882)Google Scholar, for a Basel edition of 1559. However, about fifty seem based on inspections made by himself and Spinelli.

Pratalboino (editio princeps) 1535

Basel 1536 (should be 1538), 1541, 1544, 1548, 1553, 1559, 1563, 1572, 1576, 1583, 1613

Venice 1538, 1541, 1548, 1551, 1555, 1558, 1561, 1563, 1566, 1570, 1576, 1576, 1580, 1581, 1584, 1584, 1588, 1588, 1588, 1588, 1591, 1596, 1601, 1606, 1606, 1607, 1610, 1611, 1617, 1620, 1624, 1630

Lyons 1552, 1552, 1552, 1562, 1580, 1581, 1582, 1584, 1588, 1607, 1607, 1608, 1608, 1613, 1627

Geneva 1612, 1613, 1621

Aachen 1613

Frankfurt 1613, 1613

Paris 1622.

Where dates are repeated—e.g., Venice 1588, 1588, 1588, 1588—there were as many printers, or even in part the same printer with differing editions; the latter is so for Frankfurt 1613, 1613, in which case one printer, Tampachius, brought out a Cellarius edition and a Lucius edition “ad instar Nizolii“; see below, n. 31, n. 36.

28 In his Greeting to the Reader (Venice, 1551) Nizolius says: “After I saw the first edition of our Observationes through the press at Pratalboino, more than thirteen years ago, the printers at Basel put out another some three years later. This Basel edition was so enlarged and enriched that it seemed impossible to add more… . To this present edition I add the word list of Zanchi which had been added to previous editions, and also a new list of my own collected over the past thirteen years, partly from Cicero and from writers most like Cicero.” Since this edition (Venice, 1551) is identical with the editio princeps save for Zanchi's and his own lists, we may conclude that the words “so enlarged and enriched” mean only augmentation by Zanchi in the previous editions mentioned. One may also query whether the original type was carried to Basel and to Venice, or whether new copies were struck off on Gambara's press at Pratalboino and shipped to Basel and Venice for augmentation. Zanchi had added about nineteen hundred items.

On Zanchi see Tiraboschi, , op. cit., VII, 1372-74Google Scholar; Pierre Bayle, Dictionnaire historique et critique, English version, 1734+, under Zanchi (Basilio). Zanchi published a Latinorum verborum ex variis auctoribus epitome. He was a canon regular, and got some fame as a poet. It is likely that he died in prison under the strict Paul IV. The reason for his prosecution is not clear. It may mean nothing that he was a brother of Girolamo Zanchi, the famous Calvinist theologian, but the relationship certainly would not have helped him. That Basilio and Girolamo were brothers is affirmed by Schmidt, D., “Girolamo Zanchi,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken (Gotha, 1859), 626.Google Scholar In Bayle (op. cit., under “Gambara [Laur.]”) Basilio is described as the bosom friend of Lorenzo Gambara of Brescia, certainly one of the Gambara family with which Nizolius resided; see above, n.4.

29 In his Prooemium, Curione is almost extravagant in his praise of Nizolius. He says he has Nizolius’ permission to enlarge and publish the lexicon. This presupposes letters, unless the two had met. Curione was a prominent Protestant refugee. See Church, F. C., Italian Reformers, 1534-1564 (New York, 1932), 6170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cantimori, D., Eretici italiani del Cinquecento (Florence, 1939), 103119, 184-201, 261-74Google Scholar; Bainton, R. H., Concerning Heretics … attributed to Sebastian Castellio (New York, 1925), 8386 Google Scholar; and Tiraboschi, , op. cit., VII, 1554-56.Google Scholar

30 It is curious that Nizolius should have permitted his name to dominate the title page of the 1551 Venetian edition of Stephanus’ Thesaurus (see above, n. 5). If it was a merchandising device—and I suppose it was—it would show Nizolius’ fame. He says in the preface that Stephanus published it through him (“edidit nobis”), a somewhat enigmatic statement. It presupposes correspondence. It is interesting to know that Robert Stephanus’ famous son Henri attacked Nizolius’ Observationes (1535 edition) in two works: Pseudo-Cicero (1567) and Nizoliodidascalus (1587). I suspect that the lack of Robert's name on the title page of the 1551 Venetian edition had a bearing on these attacks. Incidentally, 1551 is the very year in which Robert transferred his press to Geneva; in Paris he had been printer for the Sorbonne but had run into trouble with that institution on account of his comments on the New Testament.

31 A second edition was printed at Frankfurt in 1613, see below. Cellarius also published Adjuncta sive epitheta Ciceroniana (Basel, 1589). He was the great-grandfather of Christopher Cellarius; see Pokel, W., Philologisches Schriftstellerlexicon (Leipzig, 1882), 44 Google Scholar. I have no information about an edition by Squarcialupus.

32 According to Sandys, printed in Basel, (op. cit., II, 146).Google Scholar

33 In Gilbert, Allan H., ed., Literary Criticism, Plato to Dryden (New York, 1940), 454.Google Scholar

34 Sandys, , op. cit., II, 150-51.Google Scholar

35 Ibid., II, 146. By 1534 Forcellini had already been some fifteen years at work on his Totius Latinitatis lexicon (published posthumously, Padua, 1771); ibid., II, 374-77.

36 Also in 1613 Tampachius struck off a new printing of Cellarius’ edition of 1583, see p. 57 and n. 31. Lucius’ work was to be supplementary to Cellarius'. He had wanted to put Cellarius’ and his own work in one binding. The printer explains in the Greeting to the Reader that this is impractical, also that many who already possess a Nizolius would be paying too much, so it was put in a separate binding. All this accounts for the fact that Lucius’ work begins with page 1921, for Cellarius’ had ended with page 1920.

37 Op. cit., II, 146.